Social management plan and stakeholder engagement plan (condensed)

UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT

Promoter: Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine Funder: European Investment Bank

SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN (Condensed)

base

This project is funded by the European Union

2016

EXPERT SUPPORT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union in the frame of the project “Expert support to the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project of the European Investment Bank: Development of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement Plans” (the Grant Contract ENPI #2015/362-383). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the International Renaissance Foundation and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

This publication has been produced for the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine, and subprojects implementers of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project of the European Investment Bank.

CONTENTS List of acronyms 1. Executive summary 2. Introduction 2.1. Local Infrastructure Needs 2.1.1. Health Care 2.1.2. Education 2.1.3. Housing 3. Social impact management 3.1. Social Impact Management Approach and Measures 3.2. Conflict Sensitive Approach of the UERP 3.3. EIB Social Standards 3.3.1. Labour Standards 3.3.2. Involuntary Resettlement 3.3.3. Cultural Heritage 3.3.4. Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups 3.3.5. Stakeholder Engagement 3.3.6. Protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP 3.4. Anticipated Positive Social Impacts 4. Monitoring and evaluation program 4.1. Scope of monitoring and evaluation of social impacts

LIST OF ACRONYMS 3 4 5 7 8 8 8 14

ATO

– anti-terrorist operation

CBP

– capacity-building program

ERP

– Early Recovery Project

EIB

– European Investment Bank

EU

– European Union

ESMS

– Environment and Social Monitoring System

GoU

– Government of Ukraine

14 15 16 16 17 17

IDP

– Internally Displaced Person

ILO

– International Labor Organization

IRF

– International Renaissance Foundation

M&E

– Monitoring and Evaluation

MES

– Ministry of Education and Science

MH

– Ministry of Healthcare

18 18

MSP

– Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine

MRD

– Ministry for Regional Development, Construction and Communal revises of Ukraine

18 19 20

NGO

– Nongovernmental organization

OECD

– Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation

PIU

– Project Implementation Unit

RMCA

– Regional and Military Civilian Administration

RPA

– Recovery and Peace-building assessment

22 25 26 27 30 31 31

RSA

– Regional State administration

SEP

– Stakeholder Engagement Plan

SMP

–Social Management Plan

SMS

– Social Monitoring System

UN

– United Nations

32 33 35 35 36 37 39

UERP

20

4.2. Participatory monitoring 21 4.3. SMP – SEP implementation monitoring matrix 5. Capacity building program 5.1. Capacity Building Modules at a Glance 6. Social management summary 7. Stakeholder engagement plan 7.1. SEP: Scope 7.2. Definition of Stakeholders 7.2.1. Roles and Participation of the Stakeholders 7.3. Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism 7.3.1 Information Disclosure 7.4. Stakeholder Consultations 8. Grievance redress mechanism 8.1. Grievance Redress Management Process 9. Stakeholder engagement timetable 2 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization – Ukraine Early Recovery Project

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 3

UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT: SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAKEHOLDERЯENGAGEMENT PLAN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Social Management Plan (SMP) outlines the principles, approaches and sets out measures required to maximise the benefits of the UERP, and avoid, minimize, mitigate or remedy any adverse social impacts. The SMP (and the integrated Stakeholder Engagement Plan - SEP) has been designed as a tool for building local government capacity, enabling the institutionalization of participative processes that ensure project implementer accountability, build trust in the target communities, and ensure that the project interventions are conflict sensitive.

To mitigate any adverse social impacts of the Ukraine ERP projects that cannot be duly avoided or prevented, this SMP identifies a number of measures that involve instituting procedures for: a) ensuring compliance with labour standards, b) avoidance or management of involuntary resettlement, c) protecting and preserving cultural heritage; d) protection of rights and interests of vulnerable groups; e) promoting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program seeks to measure achievement of the UERP’s social management and stakeholder engagement objectives. The methodology for M&E has been developed for a) social outputs and outcomes of individual sub-projects or a group of sub-projects implemented in the same municipality, b) social effects for the regions that host UERP sub-projects funded with the EIB loan funds, c) UERP’s contribution to introducing social management and stakeholder engagement practices to early recovery work in Ukraine as a whole.

The SEP includes a process description according to which key stakeholders are to be defined and engaged in subproject consultations and monitoring through a Sub-project Coordination Unit. A non-judicial grievance mechanism that is to be instituted by local authorities is also described.

2. INTRODUCTION This Social Management Plan (SMP) has been designed for the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction, Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine by the International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) and funded with a grant provided to IRF by the European Union.

The overall objective of this SMP is to enhance the EIB Early Recovery Project contribution to strengthening of social cohesion and inclusion in Ukraine, and to mitigate any social risks related to the execution of the EIB loan in the target regions.

The specific objectives are: •• to mitigate any social risks related to the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project; •• to establish a meaningful stakeholder engagement mechanism to accompany the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project.

The purpose of the SMP is: •• to maximize positive impacts of project interventions for the end beneficiaries; •• to prevent and/or mitigate any negative impacts; and •• to remedy any negative social impacts and risks that could neither be avoided nor reduced.

The purpose of the SEP is: •• to outline a project’s stakeholder engagement strategy which sets out the actions required to develop a meaningful engagement throughout the planning, implementation, monitoring and decommissioning phases of the project.

The adoption and implementation of the SMP and SEP at the national and sub-project levels are designed to strengthen the MRD’s, relevant regional actors’ and local implementers’ capacity to plan and implement social management and stakeholder engagement in early recovery projects in the Donbas and neighbouring other regions that host the largest numbers of IDPs, ensuring the compliance with relevant social standards and good practices.

The SMP and SEP roll-out will include: •• Pilot of the SMP and SEP in the 3-4 sub-projects of UERP; •• A targeted Capacity Building Program designed to provide the implementers with necessary skills of applying social management and stakeholder engagement to early recovery projects; •• Design and roll out an effective and accessible Grievance Redress Mechanism for UERP; •• A Monitoring Program focusing on the SMP and SEP implementation and enabling participatory monitoring to be integrated into the overall monitoring and

4 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 5

evaluation of UERP; •• A communication model that identifies key stakeholders relevant to the project, and institutes processes of information disclosure, consultations, and accountability; •• Collection and analysis of lessons learned from the UERP implementation to be used as recommendations for further early recovery work in Ukraine.

The Social Management Plan will be implemented in conjunction with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan as part of the integrated Social Management System (SMS), which feeds into the overall UERP management system. The SMS outlines required institutional, monitoring, reporting and accountability arrangements and processes that are expected to ensure compliance with the EIB social standards and good international practices.

System (SMS), based on awareness and repetitive processes supported, practiced and improved on an ongoing basis internally at MRD and in cooperation with the key partners and stakeholders. This SMS will encompass actions designed to identify in a timely way, and address social impacts and ensure their management and improvements throughout the whole SMS chain: policy, identification of risks and social impacts, management inputs, capacity and competence development, conflict sensitivity, emergency response and resilience plans, stakeholder engagement, communication and information disclosure, grievance redress mechanisms, accountability to stakeholders and affected communities, monitoring and evaluation.

Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement Process

Social Management System (SMS)

2.1. Local infrastructure needs

The overall outcome of the SMP implementation is expected to be the introduction of a new participatory approach to early recovery projects that will go beyond reconstructing specific infrastructure objects to empowering stakeholders and creating conditions for their inclusion in project planning, stakeholder participation in monitoring and evaluation, and social management as an integral part of the overall development process resulting in building a culture of confidence and accountability. This approach will contribute to development of a comprehensive Social Management

6 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

The ERP identifies infrastructure reconstruction as the main goal of the EIB loan. Throughout the target regions – the government-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhya regions infrastructure (including housing, educational and health care facilities, roads, bridges, heating) is in poor condition or damaged due to the armed conflict. The local government capacity to cope with strains resulting from an influx of internally displaced persons (IDPs) into their communities leaves room for significant improvement. A key role in this endeavor is to be played by external donors, and the relevance of external financial support is particularly high given the national authorities’ decentralization plans. Emphasis should be placed on improving infrastructure that will benefit both IDPs and local communities, and high priority given to projects that create re-qualification opportunities and non-

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 7

specialized jobs as part of their realization (e.g. construction of housing, schools, nurseries).

At the stage of preparation of this SMP, the local infrastructure needs assessment was performed by the IRF team. The sources for the local infrastructure needs assessment included the findings of the Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment (RPA), official data received from the regional state administrations and local authorities of the UERP target regions, as well as in-depth interviews and focus groups with the stakeholders.

2.1.1. Health Care Oblast level statistics show that number of beds in hospitals and numbers of doctors in policlinics and outpatient clinics has not experienced major change as a result of the conflict, with the exception of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast where the military conflict has had a direct effect and therefore investment into healthcare infrastructure must be considered a priority throughout the government-controlled districts.

However, when examined at a local (rayon) level, stress caused by the influx of IDPs on healthcare infrastructure becomes obvious.

In Kharkiv oblast, Pechenihy, Vovchansk, Derhachi rayons are highest priority for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

In Zaporizhzhia oblast, Rozhivskyi, Berdyansk and Primorsk rayons are highest priority for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

In Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Vasylkivskyi and Mezhivskyi rayons are high priority in comparison with others for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

2.1.2. Education At the end of August 2015 the IDP registry included 184.9 thousand children - 12.7% of the total number of registered IDPs. However, significant inter regional differences are apparent. The data show that school infrastructure is more stressed in Kharkiv and Zaporizhia regions than in Dnipropetrovsk region, but stress on school and nursery infrastructure caused by the influx of IDPs is in evidence in all three oblasts bordering on the conflict zone (in varying degrees).

at some time in the future, but most lack resources to buy or build a new dwelling, while accommodation in hostels is often seen as optimal. However hostels account for only a small portion of available housing (2%) in the target regions, and their capacity and quality (energy efficiency, regular access to utilities – water, heat, sewage) are often limited.

Decision-making as to infrastructure needs must take into account district-level data because significant variance exists among communities.

In Dnipropetrovsk oblast the largest infrastructure priorities are in Vasylkivskyi, Mezhivskyi, Yuriivskyi, Piatykhatskyi districts.

In Kharkiv oblast the greatest infrastructure needs are in Barvinkivskyi, Izumskyi, Dlyuzniukivskyi, Kolomatskyiy, and Sakhnovshynskyi districts.

In Zaporizhzhia oblast the highest priority districts are Rozivskyi, Kuibyshevskyi, Chernihivskyi, Novomykolaivskyi, and Velykobilozerskyi.

Electronic petitions The Social Impact Assessment carried out for UERP (including Risk Analysis, Baseline IDP Situation Assessment and identification of local infrastructure priorities outlined above) establishes the background conditions for the integration of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement planning into the EIB-funded, and MRD managed, project preparation, selection, and implementation procedures. The process diagram and links are displayed below (SMP shown in yellow – top boxes; SEP shown in orange – bottom boxes; UERP project cycle shown in blue – middle boxes):

Integration of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement planning into the UERP subproject cycle

In Dnipropetrovsk region the priority for education infrastructure is in the Verkhnyodniprovsky and Pokrovsky rayons.

In Kharkiv region the significantly increase pressure on the education infrastructure is in Izyum, Kupiansk, Chuhuiv, Derhachi, and Pervomaisk.

In Zaporizhya region, education infrastructure should be a priority in the Berdyansk, Melitopol and Energodar rayons.

2.1.3. Housing The research undertaken for the development of SMP and SEP shows that a large portion of IDPs plan to return home

8 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 9

Based on the baseline research conducted prior to preparing this SMP (including population surveys, semi-structured interviews with IDPs, and focus groups with local government and local NGO stakeholders), risk analysis has been performed at the inception stage of UERP to assess probability and impact of various factors, and to recommend measures to be taken to address them or mitigate their impact. The risk analysis methodology involved assessing the likelihood (L) and impact (I) of the key risks using a 1-to-5 scale with 1 being the lowest risk and 5 the highest. The value of the risk was calculated as the result of multiplying likelihood by impact. Accordingly, the risks are differentiated into Low (green), Moderate (yellow) and High (red) Risks with the value of 9 – 11 are considered medium, and risks of 12 and above are considered high and require risk management measures to mitigate their impact on the project. The risks assessed included: •• Security risks (related to the situation on the ground, the conflict and the likelihood of further damage to the infrastructure) •• Political and administrative risks (related to changing responsibilities as a result of the decentralization reform and the devolution of powers) •• Institutional risks (related to limited absorption / implementation / participation capacity of the governmental and non-governmental stakeholders) •• Corruption risks (related to establishing transparency and accountability mechanisms) •• Risks related to IDPs’ grievances and conflicts between the host communities and IDPs

The sub-projects were selected in accordance with the early recovery needs identified in the RPA and in line with the participatory needs assessment conducted for this SMP in September – October 2015. However, the identified local infrastructure needs were reflected in the selection of Tranche 1 sub-projects, which include recovery and improvement of education facilities (37.5% of selected projects), health care facilities (41.47%), buildings that provide housing and shelter (9.72%), administrative buildings (8.33%), and energy efficiency sub-projects (2.78%).

In order to introduce the social management and stakeholder engagement practices for these sub-projects, MRD, PIU and the social management and stakeholder consultant, IRF, will pilot this SMP/SEP in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Bakhmut (formerly Artemivsk) of the Donetsk region, and Severodonetsk (Lugansk region). The pilots will include implementation of monitoring procedures, capacity building and grievance redress mechanism assessment. To expand the benefits of the SMP – SEP pilot roll-out, sub-projects from geographically close municipalities will be invited to participate in relevant capacity-building, communication and networking activities.

Tranche 2 sub-projects are expected to be prepared and selected according to the Sub-Project preparation, selection, and implementation procedure described above (linked to SMP and SEP).

At the Project Documentation Stage, local authorities are required to hold public consultations, and to conduct Social Screening in accordance with the EIB Environmental and Social Practices.1

•• Risks related to insufficient stakeholder engagement (including relations between communities and sub-project implementers due to insufficient communication) •• Management risks (including communication, monitoring, and grievance management capacity needs) This risk assessment methodology will be recommended for use by local project applicantsat all levels during the subproject preparation for the second and subsequent tranches.

Results of local Infrastructure Needs assessment and Risk Analysis are used for identifying the focus of Calls for Proposals with results taken into account in the MRD subproject criteria. Local authorities planning to submit local social infrastructure recovery sub-projects under the MRD Call for Proposals are required to inform their local communities according to the SEP recommendations for engagement (see SEP below).

Due to the need to launch the implementation of the UERP social infrastructure sub-projects before the end of 2015, and prior to the completion of the SMP and SEP, 72 fast-track infrastructure projects addressing needs of IDPs were preselected in 2015 with limited prior stakeholder consultations.

1

Handbook

Section B.1.6., Screening for Social Issues of the EIB Environmental and Social Practices http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/environmental_and_social_practices_

handbook_en.pdf

10 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 11

In order to identify the extent and complexity of the potential social impacts and risks, the following checklist shall be used by sub-project implementers at the earliest possible stage:

Social issues Does the sub-project investment promote social inclusion in the interests of enhancing equity and equitable access to public services?.

Is the sub-project consistent with the relevant EU/ national/international environmental and social legal frameworks (including conventions on human rights)?

Is the sub-project / operation likely to be consistent with EIB E&S principles and standards?

Has a social impact assessment been conducted prior to the sub-project implementation start?

Have the public information disclosure and consultations been carried out?

Will the project adversely impact cultural heritage (e.g. archaeological, historical or religious sites), sites with unique natural values or social practices?

Will the sub-project have any involuntary resettlement, either or both physical or economic?

Will the sub-project result in livelihood changes that can increase the pressure on available natural resources?

Does the sub-project ensure that the adverse social impacts are mitigated and the positive social impacts are encouraged?

Will the project have adverse impacts on vulnerable groups (including IDPs)?

Have vulnerable groups amongst impacted stakeholders been identified and included in sub-project planning and consultation and engagement activities?

Are there risks of forced or child labour? Is there any indication of child or forced labour in the supply chain?

Will the project have an impact (direct /indirect) on occupational and public health and safety?

Has the project engaged adequately with project-affected stakeholders?

Will a project grievance mechanism be established?

Yes

No or Not Sure

Initial risk (High, Medium, or Low)

At the Project Selection Stage: the MRD/PIU takes note of the composition of the proposed coordination and consultative units (Sub-Project Coordination Units (SCUs)) for the subproject. The purpose of SCUs will be to facilitate subproject implementation with the engagement of relevant stakeholders and broader communities. During the SMP / SEP roll-out phase the SCUs will be established by subproject implemeters with the engagement of relevants local stakeholders within each of the 3-4 pilot communities. The establishment and functions of SCUs ar discussed in detail in the SEP chapter.

At the Project Approval Stage: For sub-projects selected for financing, MRD will issue implementers with monitoring standards and procedures (including EIB Social Standards and Social Impact Management Procedures – see below), and inform them of their contractual obligations to comply. A component of sub-project approval communication should be the appointment and public announcement of the SCU and its role in project monitoring.

At the Implementation Stage: It is anticipated that the local governments, representatives of implementing organizations, and members of the consultative board will lack capacity for project monitoring according to EIB standards. It is therefore envisaged that capacity building activities will be required, and appropriate requests for funding for such activities will be issued by the MRD. An important aspect of project implementation will also be the institution of a transparent and effective grievance redress mechanism (see SEP) according to instructions provided to implementers by MRD/PIU. Participatory monitoring will be established at the sub-project level will be conducted in accordance with social standards, legislative provisions, and balanced representation of key stakeholders and relevant vulnerable population groups. The monitoring capacity, including the third party monitoring (TPM) and principles of building independent accountability mechanisms (IAM) will be included in capacity-building modules for SCUs, community-based NGOs and other stakeholders during the SMP – SEP roll-out.

Is an adequate accountability reporting in place?

Will the sub-project involve third-party monitoring?

Specifically, local authorities should identify anticipated adverse and/or positive social impacts from the proposed sub-project (with special attention to conflict (de-)escalation due to increased/decreased competition for resources, identity based tensions and risk of “ghettoization” of IDPs), and conduct a rapid risk analysis with respect to local conflict potential.

12 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 13

3. SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT The UERP is designed to address the impacts of the conflict aftermath in the East of Ukraine by bringing significant material benefits to the affected communities, supporting the early recovery efforts in the affected regions, contributing to reducing the conflict potential and creating an added value through stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

While expected positive social impacts on the target communities are significant and potential adverse social impacts are relatively small, the common social issues that accompany early recovery work may be present, and need to be duly addressed.

The social issues covered by the EIB Social Standards and referred to by this SMP include: •• Labour and employment conditions; •• Occupational and labour safety and hygiene; •• Protection of rights and empowerment of the vulnerable groups and minorities; •• Material and immaterial cultural heritage; •• Public health, public safety and security; •• Involuntary resettlement and/or loss of a stable economic status and livelihood; •• Civic participation and stakeholder engagement.

3.1. Social Impact Management Approach and Measures The hierarchy of social impact management measures used by this SMP is as follows: •• Where possible, avoiding the impact altogether by not taking steps that are likely to create adverse impact; •• When, unavoidable, minimizing impact by limiting the magnitude of actions that cause it; •• Repairing and restoring the affected environment; •• Reducing adverse social impact over time by changing behavior and introducing practices that reduce social risks (e.g., legal and physical protection of workers, waste management, public health measures); •• Compensating for the adverse social impacts (e.g., by having a robust environmental and social management program at the level of local implementers; introducing and maintaining grievance redress mechanisms); •• Adding value by maximising positive social impacts resulting from increased transparency, participation and accountability.

The social impact management chain, therefore, is as follows:

14 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

3.2. Conflict Sensitive Approach of the UERP The MRD operations within the UERP are based on the approach specified in the EIB Conflict Sensitive Investment Framework, which specifies the three simultaneously pursued goals: •• Conflict Risk: Awareness and Prevention (Risk-based); •• Conflict Risk: Mitigation (Do no harm); •• Conflict Opportunities: Recovery and Reconstruction (Do good).

These principles will be implemented through the following actions:

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 15

Risk-based: a thorough analysis of security, political, institutional, social and reputational risks was performed at the early stage of the UERP in the target regions and selected municipalities in order to realistically assess the conflict potential in the affected communities and among affected stakeholders.

•• right to collective bargaining and freedom of association;

Do no harm: the MRD has taken the approach of avoiding or preventing, to the extent possible, any adverse social impacts and any risks of increasing tensions that may lead to the deterioration of the conflict or the emergence of new conflict lines when operating in conflict-prone and affected environments within the UERP.

The information about the standards outlined in this SMP will be made available to prospective bidders and contractors in order to ensure that adequate social and environmental mitigation costs are factored into construction costs.

Do good: whenever possible and depending on context, the UERP will seek to contribute to building communication, confidence, participation and accountability in the affected communities in order to amplify positive social impacts of the early recovery work funded by the EIB. The conflict sensitive approach will be applied to reduce and mitigate the conflict-related risks and maximize positive impacts for the stakeholders at every stage of the project.

Projects implemented with EIB funding contribute to sustainable development by ensuring that: •• only projects that meet the EIB’s social standards are approved; •• quality of documents provided implementers is duly reviewed;

by

potential

•• projects are not approved if they were not subject to a social screening; •• social and developmental impacts of each subproject are evaluated after its completion through a participatory evaluation process to be established by MRD with support of PIU and regional administrations at the national and regional levels.

This approach has been taken on as condition and good practice by MRD and local implementers. The SMP and its timetable will be scaled down to the local sub-project level and will be subject to annual assessment and review that will be led by PIU (national level) and regional administrations (regional level).

3.3. EIB Social Standards 3.3.1. Labour Standards The labour standards to be maintained throughout the UERP will include: •• formal employment in line with the Ukrainian labor law;

•• a documented human resources management policy disclosing information about employees’ rights, working conditions, entitlements and compensation, disciplinary procedures, access to capacity-building, and a workers’ grievance resolution mechanism.

To ensure compliance with the EIB labour standards, the MRD may initiate a periodical or ad hoc labour audit, to be conducted by an independent assessment entity, e.g., local NGOs or other relevant stakeholders. Such an audit will be mandatory if requested by the consultative board of a subproject. The labour audit may focus on the level of compliance with requirements for the minimum labour standards to identify necessary improvement areas and corrective actions.

3.3.2. Involuntary Resettlement The sub-projects supported within UERP do not envisage new construction that would involve resettlement, land acquisitions etc. To the extent possible, the MRD will seek to avoid involuntary resettlement that might be caused by UERP – related land acquisition and/or restrictions on land use. In cases of unavoidable land acquisition and/or restrictions on land use, resulting in the temporary or permanent resettlement of people from their original places of residence or their economic activities or subsistence practices, the MRD will act in accordance with the EIB Social Standard 6 on Involuntary Resettlement and will ensure full involvement of all relevant stakeholders, in particular the affected individuals, in designing and taking measures to minimise and mitigate its adverse impacts from an early stage, with due respect for the rights of those affected and their access to effective remedies. Special attention will be given to enabling the participation of women and vulnerable groups, including the IDPs, in the consultations.

3.3.3. Cultural Heritage The UERP project operations will, to the extent possible, seek to avoid and/or mitigate any adverse impacts on cultural heritage. Pursuant to the EIB standard on cultural heritage, the MRD commits to ensuring respect for both “tangible heritage”, including sites and objects of archeological, historical, cultural, or religious value to the local communities, as well as “intangible heritage”, including the local language, religious and customary practices2.

2

The principles to be applied to the management of impacts of cultural heritage will

•• prohibition of any forced or compulsory labour;

be based on the applicable international conventions and other legal instruments, primarily those

•• prohibition of child labour;

Convention, 1972; Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Archeological Heritage

•• prohibition of discrimination on any grounds;

of UCESCO and the Council of Europe, of which Ukraine is a part, including UNESCO World Heritage of Europe, 1992; Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 2005; the Laws of Ukraine “On Protection of Cultural Heritage” (2000) and “On Protection of Archaeological Heritage” (2004) .

16 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 17

3.3.4. Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups In accordance with the EIB Social Standard 7, the MRD will seek to prevent all forms of discrimination and avoid actions that may disadvantage women, minorities, senior persons, children and people living with disabilities.

While women comprise the largest proportion of the registered IDPs, they are particularly exposed to risks of unemployment, with fewer temporary jobs available for them.

They are also more likely to be affected by the shortage of access to housing and social services, primarily to healthcare, childcare and education.

Opportunities for engagement of women, pensioners, representatives of minority groups and people living with disabilities in the communities in general, and among IDPs in particular, will be created by local implementers, and information about formats of engagement, including consultations and grievance management, will be made available at the sub-project information points and other appropriate channels.

Gender-relevant indicators will be included in the Monitoring Program and will be collected regularly in the sub-projects’ communities by local implementers in collaboration with NGOs.

3.3.5. Stakeholder Engagement

•• ensure proper information provision, awareness building, safety training, and implementation of safe and healthy practices in the operations within subprojects; •• ensure public consultations to receive feedback on public health and safety measures undertaken within UERP sub-projects; •• report and record any accidents, incidents and/or breach of relevant legislation and standards; •• ensure effective access to grievance mechanism and recourse to remedy for all stakeholders and broader communities.

3.4. Anticipated Positive Social Impacts The EIB-funded sub-projects are expected to generate improvements in the local communities by contributing to the restoration of decaying social infrastructure facilities. This will benefit the local population as well as help respond to the additional pressure on the local social infrastructure created by the arrival of significant numbers of IDPs. The construction works envisaged by the sub-projects will contribute to creating local jobs (mostly temporary and unskilled). They will also indirectly contribute to local economic growth by benefitting the local SMEs and other contractors, which will have a positive effect on the local budget.

In accordance with the EIB Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement, MRD will implement a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) to ensure a meaningful participatory process aiming at efficient implementation of UERP through effective identification, assessment, and management of any social risks, impacts, and opportunities. The SEP, designed to build a constructive relationship between MRD with relevant stakeholders at all levels is part of the integrated Social Management System and is detailed further in this document.

3.3.6. Protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP In line with the EIB Social Standard 9, the MRD undertakes to abide by the following principles throughout the UERP project life cycle: •• duly anticipate, avoid or minimise, and effectively mitigate risks and adverse impacts to the health and safety of host communities of the sub-projects; •• ensure safe, healthy, hygienic and secure working conditions that are consistent with international human rights standards and principles3;

3

systems:

As specified in the Guidelines on occupational safety and health management http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/

publication/wcms_publ_9221116344_en.pdf

18 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 19

4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program seeks to measure achievement of the UERP’s social management and stakeholder engagement objectives, and fits into the overall UERP monitoring and reporting system. The monitored indicators are designed to identify equal access to the project benefits for the project-affected population, including IDPs, based on the principles of non-discrimination, participation and transparency.

Specific M&E plans will be designed by PIU or external consultants engaged by the MRD for local sub-project implementers to help them achieve the following objectives: •• ensure due compliance with social standards; •• encourage inclusion of civil society representatives in the implementation of sub-projects, inter alia their monitoring and evaluation; •• consider and measure social effects of a project for different stakeholder and beneficiary groups, including forcedly displaced persons; •• identify and systematize new social practices and tools; •• evaluate quality of stakeholders’ and community members’ participation in sub-project implementation; •• create conditions for accumulation and transfer of new knowledge to other sub-projects and communities in across Ukraine.

4.1. Scope of monitoring and evaluation of social impacts At the sub-project level, specific social effects of sub-projects to be monitored and evaluated include changes in: •• number of jobs created or sustained for IDPs as a result of the subproject; •• number of jobs created or sustained for local citizens as a result of the subproject; •• number of inputs in capacity of local implementers to manage social impacts and engage stakeholders; •• availability of information about the sub-project and its effects for stakeholders and the broader community (e.g., publications in local print media, at public information points, websites and social media); •• number of stakeholder consultations; number and attendance of other participatory events; •• availability of an accessible and fair grievance redress mechanism; •• any specific benefits to the vulnerable groups, including IDPs;

20 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

•• availability of mechanisms.

transparency

and

accountability

At the level of a cluster of sub-projects within the same community or region, social effects of sub-projects to be monitored and evaluated will include: •• the number of local residents benefitting from the subprojects (disaggregated by gender); •• the number of IDPs benefitting from the sub-projects (disaggregated by gender); •• the number of improved social infrastructure objects; •• changes in the level of consumer satisfaction with social services; •• evidence of interaction between communities and stakeholder groups; •• new stakeholder engagement practices in place and used; At the national level, the social impacts monitoring and evaluation will focus on: •• overall implementation of SMP and SEP approaches and plans within UERP •• MRD’s and sub-project implementers’ compliance with the EIB social standards; •• relevance of the sub-projects outcomes for meeting the identified early recovery needs; •• changes in capacity to design, implement and account for sub-projects at the local level; •• number of grievances and their redress records.

•• Most common types of grievances

4.2. Participatory monitoring To ensure participatory M&E at the local level, sub-project implementers will be recommended to set up local participatory monitoring working groups (WGs) consisting of representatives of stakeholders and beneficiaries of one or more UERP sub-projects implemented in a given municipality.

Participants of such WGs may include representatives of local self-governance bodies and their executive bodies, contractors, NGOs and community-based organizations, local activists, and representatives of IDPs currently staying in the community and potential final beneficiaries of the social infrastructure objects and services. Participation of representatives of contractor organizations is mandatory, while the involvement of invited external experts is desirable.

The WGs will develop their procedures, elect their leadership and document their meetings, decisions and M&E findings. the working groups’ documents will subsequently feed into the sub-project evaluation.

There will be no restrictions on the size of the participatory monitoring working group. Its participants will be expected

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 21

to have analytical skills, general competence, diligence and responsibility, communication and reporting experience.

If required, the working group will have access to external expertise and consultations with PIU. Relevant training inputs will be made available to participants of the monitoring WGs at the roll-out stage of this SMP. The monitoring WGs will determine an adequate level of engagement of stakeholders and beneficiary representatives in the work depending on the sub-project scope, nature of its objectives to be achieved, and resources available. The monitoring WGs will identify, document and analyze any obstacles for interaction with stakeholders and beneficiaries and recommend measures to be taken by sub-project implementers to enhance stakeholder engagement.

The key task of the local monitoring WG will be to collect and maintain data and feedback relevant to the implementation of the sub-project(s), focusing specifically on the nontechnical transparency, social management and stakeholder engagement.

In line with good practice, summaries of participatory monitoring and evaluation reports will be published at relevant implementers’ (municipalities’) websites.

Number of individuals who received access to new or improved social services (disaggregated by gender and by local residents / IDPs)

Reduced competition for access to social services

Register of access to services; survey results

Monitoring WG members; Direct beneficiaries

At sub sub-project end; then at UERP end

Amount of social services provided; identified deficits as presented in sub-project proposals

Number of temporary and permanent jobs created (disaggregated by gender)

Improved wellbeing; levels of poverty reduced

Implementers’ reports;

Contractors

Quarterly, then at sub-project end, then at UERP end

Number of jobs to be created within sub-projects (planned).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable

Number of stakeholders engaged in consultations

Improved communication and cooperation in the community; early prevention of grievances; voices of vulnerable groups and other stakeholder heard

Consultation participants lists; records of consultations

Local implementers; NGOs, other stakeholders; monitoring WG

At the scoping stage, at sub-project launch, then as needed

No consultations or information unavailable

Number of community residents and stakeholders participating in the project implementation, including monitoring

Better engagement, improved collaboration and trust, developing ownership of sub-project outputs

Lists of participants, reports, questionnaires, informal feedback

Local implementers; NGOs and community activists

Quarterly, then at subproject end

Information unavailable

Grievance redress mechanisms created and operational at the UERP and sub-project levels

Improved access to grievance redress; reduced conflict potential

Procedures of the grievance redress mechanism in place; information available on the grievance redress mechanism; users’ feedback

Local authorities, implementers, NGOs, Ombudsman

Semiannually, then at sub-project end, then at UERP end

Court mechanism exists; grievance management practices vary significantly and are applied discretionary; general stakeholder awareness low or absent

By project end

4.3. SMP – SEP implementation monitoring matrix Participating Frequency stakeholders of Collecting

Number of local residents who benefit from the sub-project (disaggregated by gender)

Improved local social infrastructure and access to social services

Survey; observation reports; user records

Monitoring WG members; Direct beneficiaries

At subproject end; then at UERP end

Total

population using the social infrastructure object(s).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable

Number of IDPs who benefit from the sub-project (disaggregated by gender)

Improved local social infrastructure and access to social services

Survey; observation reports; user records

Monitoring WG members; Direct beneficiaries

At subproject end; then at UERP end

Total registered IDPs in subproject areas.

Number of IDPs to benefit from sub-project (planned).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable

Indicator

22 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

After 12 months

Method of Collecting

Baseline

Anticipated Outcome

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 23

Multystakeholder monitoring WGs created and operational

Information about UERP and sub-projects produced and accessible to stakeholders and general public

Interaction between stakeholders and participation is improved; participatory monitoring in place; transparency and accountability improved

WGs’ protocols, meeting minutes

Better informed stakeholders; and beneficiaries

Publications, websites and social media presence

Monitoring WG members: local authorities, NGOs, social service providers

Local implementers, NGOs; media

Semiannually, then at subproject end

Quarterly, then at the end of project

New instrument

5. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM The CBP includes a detailed roll-out plan, goals and benchmarks, and estimated resources, based on the analysis of capacity-building needs within the 3-4 pre-selected subprojects. The CBP roll-out in the pilot sub-project areas will be used for forecasting the costs of running the capacity building inputs for the entire UERP beyond the pilot phase.

Information

about UERP, EIB and MRD presentations in place; Tranche 1 sub-project announcement

At an early stage of the Tranche 1 sub-projects, six training workshops to be delivered by IRF, with the participation of the MRD and PIU, to regional implementers and the selected sub-project communities. The focus of the trainings will be on social management and stakeholder engagement principles and tools that can be employed by sub-project implementers and key stakeholders for maximising positive social impacts and mitigating possible adverse effects of the sub-projects. The CBP will also contribute to social resilience by building the stakeholders’ capacity to address other recovery and development issues facing their communities and, in particular, the vulnerable groups.

The mutually enhancing capacity-building elements and topics included in the training modules are as follows: •• Understanding and Using the Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan •• Understanding and Meeting EIB Social Standards •• Human rights, Non-discrimination, Gender awareness and Inclusion •• Participation, instruments

Accountability

•• Strategic Planning Management

and

and

Transparency

Results-based

Project

•• Risk Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity Assessment •• Conflict Management •• Community Development tools •• Understanding and Using a Grievance Mechanism •• Effective Communication •• Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation The list of topics will be further refined in the course of UERP implementation in cooperation between MRD / PIU, and adjusted to meet the identified capacity-building needs of MRD, local sub-project implementers, and participating communities. After the roll-out, the workshops and seminars may be followed up with a one- or two-day consultations provided by capacity-building contractors. In addition, each of the pilot sub-projects will be able to request specific consultations, based on their social management work plans and needs.

The key concepts to be presented and discussed during capacity-building events are arranged in three thematic pillars:

24 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 25

6. SOCIAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Good Governance •• Values and principles •• Transparency, access to information, accountability •• Leadership and management •• Good practice •• Communication, teamwork, participation •• Sustainability Strategic Social Management •• Situation analysis and needs assessment •• Social cohesion and diversity •• Risk analysis and mitigation •• Rights, principles and social standards •• Goal setting and results-based management •• Monitoring and evaluation Stakeholder Engagement •• Stakeholder analysis •• Levels and mechanisms of participation and necessary resources •• Effective communication •• Grievance redress •• Conflict management

5.1. Capacity Building Modules at a Glance

Resources Indicators of needed / Responsibility implementation Development of a Social Management System (as part of UERP’s ESMS) Assign Clear responsibilities MRD Designated officer responsible officer for SMP tasked with to coordinate implementation overseeing SMP performance on identified and implementation SMP assigned throughout UERP Social management practices in sub-projects Raise contractors’ Compliance with MRD, local Number and records awareness of social standards implementers of awareness social standards improved actions; compliance capacity verification Provide Capacity of local PIU / Number of information implementers to contractors workshops and materials and understand and consultations training to local manage social delivered; implementers impacts number of local in social impact implementers’ management staff and relevant stakeholders involved; local staff has improved social impact management skills Develop and Social impact PIU, local Indicators introduce social indicators are implementers available; baseline impact indicators traced throughout data identified; in sub-projects sub-projects and monitoring focused monitoring and inform general on the indicators evaluation plans implementation of UERP Social Standards Compliance Inform subRaise awareness MRD, contractor Materials about EIB project of social standards social standards implementers among stakeholders produced and and other available to local stakeholders implementers, of EIB Social contractors and Standards other stakeholders Include Compliance with MRD / PIU Expected social requirement best practice; effects included complete social improved attention in sub-project screening of local applicants applications and checklist in the to social effects taken into account sub-project of proposed subduring appraisal applications and projects process reports Stakeholder Engagement: Participation, Transparency and Accountability Action

Adopt and implement Stakeholder Engagement Plan

26 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Risks to offset / benefits to gain

Effective engagement with stakeholders; legal requirements for consultation and information disclosure are met

PIU / MRD / local implementers

Records of implementation; stakeholder engagement events; grievance resolution

Timeframe

Early stage of UERP implementation

At sub-project implementation start As needed

At sub-project implementation start

At early stages of sub-project implementation

With every call for applications

Prior to implementation start; then ongoing

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 27

Organize stakeholder consultation process

Feedback from stakeholders received; best practices of stakeholder engagement implemented

PIU / MRD / local implementers

Develop and implement a communication strategy and plan

Stakeholders and broader communities informed; risk of resistance due to lack of awareness offset Conflicts over impacts of project implementation are timely addressed; compliance with the law Transparency and accountability improved; corruption risks reduced; best practice followed

PIU / consultants / local implementers

Develop and PIU / introduce consultants effective and / MRD, local accessible authorities grievance redress mechanism Develop, adopt MRD, local and publicize authorities policies and procedures for preventing conflict of interest Gender rights and vulnerable groups protection Introduce gender- Availability disaggregated of currently data collection missing genderand analysis in disaggregated data government on early recovery practice needs and assistance to IDPs Assign promotion Improved Local of gender communication implementers, rights and nonand monitoring on local discrimination gender and donCommunity among tasks discrimination; Liaison Officers of Community prevent harassment Liaison Officers and other malpractices on site Site-specific Social Impact Mitigation Ensure Assign an external Local supervision and non-technical implementers external control supervision with focus on possible social concerns; promote compliance with social standards and good practices Communicate early and clearly about any likely impacts

Public notices of changes in public transport routes or possible delays; danger warning signs

Local implementers, contractors

28 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Stakeholder consultation plan in place; Public Liaison Offices assigned and trained; documentation of consultation organized Information dissemination tools are in place and used

Conflict of interest policy adopted; staff, contractors and stakeholder aware of conflict of interest procedures

Stage 1 of sub-project implementation; then as needed

Early stage of project implementation

Early stage of project implementation

Community Liaison Officers keep gender rights and non-discrimination on

Early in sub-project implementation stage, then ongoing

Supervisor and supervision process in place; monitoring reports

Early stage of sub-project implementation; then ongoing

Public Liaison Officer ensures timely communication

Ongoing during construction phase

Occupational Health and Safety Verify that Trainings in Local contractors safety, information implementers, allocate resources about danger, contractors for providing personal protection safety facilities equipment, toilets, prohibition of alcohol and drugs in working sites Ensure site access Restricted/guarded Local control and safety access to sites; traffic authorities, safety measures; implementers, speed limits contractors if necessary; warnings of heavy construction vehicles, site lighting Develop and Ensure awareness of Contractors disseminate the emergency plan emergency plan and capacity to act on it Monitoring and Evaluation of SMS Actions Adopt Monitoring and Evaluation Program and make local implementers and contractors aware of it Facilitate thirdparty monitoring and independent evaluation of subprojects

Develop and use checklist; monitor availability of safety facilities; documentation of monitoring findings

During bids appraisal; then during construction phase

Supervisor to monitor

During construction phase

Supervisor to monitor

During construction phase

Ensure inclusion of M&E in project operation documents and practices

MRD / PIU

M&E Plan; records of Q1 - 2016 presentation of M&E Plan to stakeholders

Objective assessment and recommendations

MRD / local implementers

Reports available; recommendations acted upon

According to M&E Plan

Risk assessment report and recommendations for mitigation measures in place and regularly updated; participatory monitoring on key social standards in place Regular meetings; information materials exchange

Prior to implementation start; then ongoing monitoring and reviews as needed or semiannually

Number of community events; number of participants; number of new collaborative community-based initiatives

Ongoing

Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessment Plan and conduct regular conflict sensitivity risk assessments /

Awareness of Consultants / existing problems, PIU / MRD possible conflicts and impacts on/of other activities in the area

Ensure coordination with other early recovery aid providers

Informed and coordinated decision-making and complementarity in implementation of aid projects Foster cohesion in communities; promote trust

Encourage community participation in planning and implementing recovery work as a method of building social cohesion, trust and peace

MRD / PIU

Local implementers; NGOs

Quarterly

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 29

7. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) is part of the Social Management System (SMS) of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project. Its purpose is to enhance the UERP’s contribution to strengthening of social cohesion and inclusion in Ukraine, and to ensure community participation, transparency and accountability by means of building stakeholder engagement and communication models, developing capacity of local civil society and the authorities to work together on social recovery projects; and mitigating social risks in the project’s host communities.

7.1. SEP: Scope The ongoing process of stakeholder engagement is integrated in every stage of UERP: participatory risk assessment, planning, sub-project proposal appraisal, project management, monitoring and evaluation (as shown in the chart of SMP and SEP links to the UERP cycle).

The SEP Process: Ongoing Engagement

This SEP builds on the principles established by the Ukrainian regulatory requirements for consultation and disclosure and by the EIB Standard 7 of Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups and Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement.

The EIB’s requirements for consultation, participation and disclosure, reflected in the EIB Public Disclosure Policy (PDP), include the compliance with the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decisionmaking and access to justice in environmental matters; and specifies public consultation as a general environmental and social safeguards.

All policies, practices, programmes and activities developed and implemented by the promoter should pay special attention to the rights of vulnerable groups. Such groups include minorities, IDPs, women, migrants, the very young and the very old. The livelihoods of vulnerable groups are especially sensitive to changes in the socio-economic context and are dependent on access to essential services and participation in decision-making.

Stakeholder engagement, as seen in this SEP, is not a one-off exercise at the project appraisal or project design stage. It is an iterative process that envisages awareness of changes in the context and the stakeholders themselves, and continued engagement to ensure that all relevant processes within the sub-projects are planned, designed and executed with the awareness of the key stakeholders’ positions.

The approach adopted by this SEP based on the above principles is as follows:

This SEP approaches stakeholder engagement as a reiterative process involving:

•• Starting the engagement as early as possible without waiting for a problem or tension to develop in order to engage;

•• Public disclosure of information in order to build awareness of the goals, objectives and progress of the sub-projects and the ERP as a whole;

•• Understanding stakeholders and the dynamic context in which they operate;

•• Identifying stakeholders and engaging them in structured consultations and dialogue;

•• Designing targeted stakeholder engagement techniques to reflect the different project scopes and stakeholder profiles;

•• Developing mechanisms of accountability through communication and information disclosure;

•• Reaching out proactively to stakeholders and building relationships; •• Planning for a long-term stakeholder engagement; •• Preparing the management and resources for stakeholder engagement in advance and providing for them early in the sub-project cycle; •• Taking stakeholders’ complaints and grievances seriously and designing clear and practical mechanisms for addressing them.

30 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

•• Building an effective, accessible and non-discriminatory grievance mechanism.

7.2. Definition of Stakeholders This SEP defines stakeholders as persons or groups who are (or may be) affected – directly or indirectly – by a project, who may have interests in the project and are able to influence the project and/ or its outcomes in a positive or negative way. Stakeholders are identified at the national, regional and local levels. The main focus of this SEP is on the stakeholders relevant for the specific sub-projects in the target communities. However, these approaches and

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 31

techniques can be adjusted and applied to managing stakeholder engagement at any level.

7.2.1. Roles and Participation of the Stakeholders To facilitate inclusive and participative early recovery efforts MRD / PIU and local implementers need to engage at different levels and in targeted ways (information disclosure, consultations, solicitation of feedback, and complaint / grievance management) with a variety of stakeholders, which can be conditionally organized into Group A, Group B and Group C, based on their role in the UERP, levels and sources of influence, interest in and relevance for the UERP, and modes of engagement. An adequate and sufficient level of engagement needs to be developed for each group of stakeholders.

Group A – stakeholders directly involved in the ERP implementation: EU Delegation, EIB, Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Communal Services (MRD); Project Implementation Unit (PIU), regional state administrations and military-civilian administrations; local councils in the UERP’s host communities.

Each Stakegolder Group must be engaged at the level, scope, frequency, and with tools that ensure its most effective engagement and added value to the UERP.

7.3. Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism In the Ukrainian context, the notions of “stakeholders” and “stakeholder engagement” are still rather new. Public entities at all levels have departments or units for interaction with the media and “hromadskist” (i.e., members of the society), which usually perform the functions of information dissemination and liaising with members of the community.

This SEP, together with the SMP, is aimed at becoming a tool for these units (in the first place) to integrate their activities into a Social Management System, which includes: •• Assigning management functions and resources for performing stakeholder engagement •• Planning and targeting stakeholder engagement •• Information disclosure

Group B – community-based stakeholders affected by the UERP and essential for an inclusive and effective ERP implementation: local private sector, civil society organizations, NGOs and initiatives of IDPs, the media, community leaders, ordinary citizens, including IDPs.

•• Stakeholder consultations

Group C – governmental stakeholders that influence Ukraine’s progress towards addressing the early recovery needs: Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of Social Policy; the Ministry of Healthcare; the Ministry of Education; Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Inter-ethnic Relations; Committee on Social Policy, Employment and Pension, the Budget Committee; Committee on State-building, Regional Policy and Local Self-Governance, Ombudsman.

•• Reporting to stakeholders accountability mechanisms

•• Building functional partnerships with stakeholders •• Grievance management •• Stakeholder participation in monitoring and evaluation and

independent

These components of the Stakeholder Management Plan are discussed in detail below.

Assigning management functions and resources for performing stakeholder engagement To facilitate sub-project implementation with the engagement of relevant stakeholders and broader communities, during the SMP / SEP roll-out phase a collaborative entity, referred to as “Sub-Project Coordination Unit” (SCU), will be established within each of the sub-project communities by sub-project implementers. At the SMP – SEP roll-out stage, resources for pilot SCUs will be made available within the “Expert Support to the UERP” project by IRF funded by the European Union. Subsequently, local sub-project implementers will be expected to designate resources for such units within their sub-projects. SCUs will consist of representatives of: •• Municipal council: a designated member of the Council; •• Mayor’s office; •• Local state administration; •• Department of Education, Healthcare or other relevant unit (local implementer); •• Contractor(s);

32 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 33

•• Community Liaison Officer, designated jointly by the local implementer and key non-governmental stakeholders •• NGOs and community-based initiatives, members of the local councils, the business community.

We expect that SCUs will organize and implement communitybased scoping, participatory needs assessment, risk reviews, external communication, stakeholder consultations and other stakeholder engagement events, grievance management and participatory monitoring and reporting back to the community, to the regional authorities and MRD. The SCU will select a Community Liaison Officer (CLO), who will play a key role in ensuring the ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, early identification, prevention and mitigation or potential conflicts and grievances.

Sub-Project Coordination Unit

accountability and build trust in the local and national authorities during the sub-project implementation.

7.3.1 Information Disclosure The arrangements for the information disclosure outlined in this SEP are based on the EIB’s public disclosure policy (Standard 10) and Ukraine’s legislation on access to public information. The information disclosure within the UERP and sub-projects follows the good practice principles: •• Early disclosure, aiming at providing stakeholders with relevant information before the decision-making process is over; •• Objective information, including factual information to an extent possible; •• Disclosure prior to consultation, to allow informed inputs from the consultation participants and reach out to more stakeholders who would be interested to take part in the consultation; •• Informing stakeholders about any major changes in the project; •• Information provision in a format and language that is understandable for groups of stakeholders.

7.4. Stakeholder Consultations This SEP uses EIB’s definition of a public consultation: “Consultation is defined as a tool for managing culturally appropriate two-way communications between project sponsors and the public. Its goal is to improve decisionmaking and build understanding, by actively involving individuals, groups, and organizations with a stake in the project.”4

The purpose of the SCU will be to organize and implement community-based scoping, participatory needs assessment, risk reviews, external communication, stakeholder consultations and other stakeholder engagement events, grievance management and participatory monitoring and reporting back to the community, the regional authorities and MRD. The SCU will select a Community Liaison Officer, who will play a key role in ensuring the ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, early identification, prevention and mitigation or potential conflicts and grievances. The membership of SCUs will reflect relevant local stakeholders that could affect project implementation success. SCUs will facilitate broader stakeholder participation and community-based monitoring. SCUs are expected to provide

34 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Multiple possible formats include public discussions, public expertise (which is possible in accordance with the Cabinet Resolution “On Approving the Order of Enabling the Conduct of Public Expert Assessment of Performance of Bodies of the Executive Power” (2008)5 but not used in full by both the authorities and the civil society), local initiatives, general community meetings, public hearings, local elections, individual and group appeals and grievances submitted to local governments.

4

EIB Environmental and Social Practices Handbook (2007), Social Assessment

Guidelines–Guidance Note 5

5

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/976-2008-%D0%BF

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 35

8. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM An objective of this SEP is to propose an effective, realistic, predictable, participatory and transparent grievance mechanism that conforms with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”6 as well as the EIB Standard 10 and affords all stakeholders, in particular impacted individuals and communities, the ability to provide feedback, channel their concerns and, thereby, access information and, where relevant, seek recourse and remedy.

All grievances, submitted orally or in writing, must contain the full name and address of the complainer and description of the matter of grievance. Anonymous grievances shall be rejected. Grievances that meet these requirements and are submitted to relevant bodies are mandatory for assessment and response. The law explicitly prohibits the rejection of grievances based on political views and affiliation, gender, age, nationality, language or religious beliefs of the complainer.

If the matter of the grievance is beyond the sphere of authority of the body to which the grievance was addressed, the recipient of the grievance must re-send the grievance to the authorized entity or official within 5 days, in which case the acknowledgement of the receipt and referral of the grievance shall be sent to the complainer.

If the grievance does not contain the information necessary for taking a justified decision by the relevant entity or official, the grievance shall be returned to the complainer within 5 days with detailed explanation of the reason why the grievance submission is returned.

The law prohibits forwarding grievances to the entities or officials whose actions or decisions have caused the grievance. Confidentiality of the complainer is protected by the law.

To launch the grievance mechanism, MRD and sub-projects will: •• identify a contact point to which questions, complaints and grievances should be addressed; •• provide relevant information and communicate with affected individuals and groups before an issue or complain becomes a grievance; •• provide public information to all stakeholders about the process of submitting a question, complaint or grievance and the timeframe within which the answer or other relevant action should be expected; •• ensure that questions, concerns and any actions taken in response to them are properly documented at the level where they are received (normally, at sub-project level); •• address concerns promptly and effectively, using an understandable and transparent process that is

6

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/393/96-%D0%B2%D1%80

36 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all stakeholders, at no cost and without retribution.

As required by the law, grievances will be reviewed within 30 days from the day of receipt. Grievances that do not require additional investigation will be responded to no later than 15 days after their receipt. If the resolution of the grievance is impossible within 30 days, MRD will identify the necessary term for the grievance review. In no case the term shall exceed 45 days.

The complaint and grievance resolution will be done on a sub-project basis. During the SMP – SEP roll-out phase, the Grievance Redress mechanism will be piloted by the local SCUs. The functions to implement the Grievance Redress mechanism will be on one of the following individuals: •• a designated representative of the local implementer (Community Liaison Officer); •• a member of the local elected or executive body who is well informed about the project but not directly involved in its implementation; •• a respected member of the local community (e.g., a member of the local public council, senior education or public health professional, or an NGO leader) who would serve as a mediator between the community and the sub-project; •• a representative of a local community law information and consultation center.

MRD will be responsible for exercising the control over the overall implementation of the Grievance Redress Mechanism within UERP. MRD will designate a Public Liaison Officer for receiving and addressing grievances that go beyond the scope of an individual sub-project and / or refer to the implementation of the ERP as a whole. A designated e-mail address will be available at the MRD website for filling out and submitting a grievance form - http://www.minregion.gov.ua/ gromadska-priymalnya/. A designated phone number will be provided and announced at the MRD website (Department for Appeals and Access to Public Information, (+38044) 28405-53, 284-05-29, 278-63-08); Press service: (+38044) 590-4793, 590‑47-96 (fax)).

8.1. Grievance Redress Management Process The Grievance Redress Mechanism includes several levels of addressing / redressing a grievance: Submitting a Complaint. The local implementer shall specify the postal or e-mail address, and/or fax number to which a complaint can be sent. There will also be a specific address and/ or a telephone number (hotline) at which the complaint can be made orally. The information about the office hours and, where appropriate, the name and title of the complaint management representative, shall be provided together with the contact details. A Grievance Form will be made available

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 37

9. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT TIMETABLE

to the public at the sub-projects Information Points and on the local implementers’ websites or web pages. The Grievance Procedure shall guarantee confidentiality of the complaint or grievance, non-discrimination and privacy of the Complainer.

Keeping Track Record of the Complaint. A Complaints and Grievances Register/Database (in an electronic form and a hard-copy ledger) shall be established and maintained by each sub-project in order to keep the records of grievances and redress.

Responding to a Complaint, Managing and Redressing the Grievance. The local sub-project implementer’s Community Liaison Officer or other designated grievance manager will ensure that acknowledgement of receipt of the grievance is sent to the complainer, follow through the process of assessing the grievance and preparing the grievance redress or other relevant response.

In a case when the matter cannot be resolved, despite the best efforts of the local sub-project implementers and other relevant parties involved, or when the redress of a particular grievance is beyond the power of the local implementers, the grievance manager (local Public Liaison Officer) will refer the issue to MRD. Where necessary, MRD will engage its Legal Department or refer to appropriate external bodies for the grievance settlement.

38 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Objective

Stakeholders

Information disclosure Have information ready for stakeholder consultations Create and maintain Community-based permanent stakeholders Information Points

Keep key stakeholders informed

Community-based stakeholders; Ministries; MPs; Ombudsman Office Stakeholder Consultations Select and train Local authorities local staff to – sub-project be responsible implementers for organizing stakeholder consultations

Prepare and roll out a stakeholder consultation procedure

MRD (towards national authorities); regional administrations; city councils / local implementers

Ensure consultations prior to Tranche 2 of sub-projects and subsequent tranches

Regional and local councils; local implementers; NGOs

Engagement Actions

Resources / Management Timeframe

Leaflets and explainers with key project data, goals and outcomes;

MRD / PIU

Q1 – Q2 2016

Identify and disseminate information about contact points for further information and feedback (staff, telephone number(s), e-mail addresses, links to websites) at MRD and each municipality hosting sub-projects; ensure availability of contact phone numbers and email addresses throughout the sub-project process Public information dissemination and events to provide sub-project updates

MRD / PIU; local implementers

Q2-Q3 2016

MRD / PIU; local implementers

Quarterly

Each municipality / subproject implementer will designate a stakeholder / Community Liaison Officer, whose duties will be to maintain and update a stakeholder database, organize and manage stakeholder consultations, keep records of the consultations, follow up with stakeholders Consultation will be announced publicly at least 10 working days in advance. The announcement will be displayed in writing on public message boards, in a municipal newspaper, on the local council’s / administration’s website. Additionally, the announcement can be made via the media and social networks. Civil society organizations can serve as a disseminator Call consultations in regions / municipalities where ERP sub-projects are expected to be designed for subsequent tranches of UERP funding

Local implementers

Q2 – Q32016

IRF / PIU

Q1 – Q2 2016

MRD / PIU

Q2 – Q3 2016

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 39

Capacity to do Stakeholder Engagement Build capacity MRD, regional of implementers authorities, local to plan and do implementers Stakeholder Engagement

Local implementers will receive assistance in developing their own communication channels, providing information and feedback. At least 2 trainings for MRD / PIU/ RSAs? RMCAs; 2 trainings for sub-project implementers; 2 trainings for NGOs and community monitors

IRF

As needed

Grievance Redress Mechanism Facilitate nonMRD / PIU, local judicial access to implementers grievance redress at sub-project level

Inform impacted Local communities, individuals and IDPs communities how they can channel their concerns and, where relevant, seek recourse and remedy Make the Complaint / Grievance mechanism accessible for stakeholders and broader community

Develop and pilot IRF community-based grievance redress mechanism; collect stakeholders’ and users’ feedback, finalize the Grievance Redress mechanism accordingly Produce a guide on IRF identifying potential grievances, and dealing with them; Present the draft grievance mechanism to a focus group / consultation meeting to get the feedback

Ongoing

Q2 - 2016; then ongoing

Post information about the Local Complaints / Grievances implementers procedure at the Public Information stands, project’s Information Point, local implementer’s website Create and maintain a Local Complaint / Grievance implementers Register Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, Independent Accountability Mechanisms Facilitate Sub-projects Create a transparency, Local participatory participatory monitoring and implementers, monitoring accountability mechanism NGOs at the local level; set up monitoring working groups in 3-4 selected sub-project municipalities Build local capacity Local implementers, Deliver training on M&E IRF of using M&E NGOs for 3-4 sub-projects and instruments stakeholders

Q2 2016

Promote participatory M&E

Q2 – Q3 - 2016

Local implementers, Support community-based NGOs participatory M&E projects

IRF

Q2 2016

Q2 – 2016; then quarterly

Q2 2016

Develop positive lasting relations with stakeholders Provide opportunity to share experience, network and learn, present initial results of the subprojects

Sub-project implementers from the 3-4 preselected target communities, PIU, and other relevant stakeholders (possibly, representatives of other (future) subprojects)

Project-related experiencesharing events; Final conference

40 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Local Q3 – Q4 implementers, 2016 NGOs