INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET
CONCEPT STAGE
Report No.: AC6046
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 02/25/2011
I. BASIC INFORMATION
A. Basic Project Data
Country: Peru
Project ID: P122194
Project Name: Higher Education Quality Assurance
Task Team Leader: Marcelo Becerra
Estimated Appraisal Date: September 30,
Estimated Board Date: December 8, 2011
2011
Managing Unit: LCSHE
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment
Loan
Sector: Tertiary education (100%)
Theme: Education for the knowledge economy (100%)
IBRD Amount (US$m.):
30.00
IDA Amount (US$m.):
0.00
GEF Amount (US$m.):
0.00
PCF Amount (US$m.):
0.00
Other financing amounts by source:
Borrower
20.00
20.00
B. Project Objectives [from section 2 of PCN]
The overall Project Development Objective would be to strengthen Peru's quality assurance
system for higher education by increasing the number of accredited programs and institutions
undertaking self and external institutional evaluations.
Progress towards meeting these development objectives would be measured by a number of
process, output and impact indicators, which will be further identified during project preparation.
Impact indicators for the Project are expected to be: (i) percentage of institutions with accredited
programs; (ii) percentage of HEIs that have completed self-evaluation and external institutional
evaluation; (iii) the development of a functioning comprehensive higher education information
system.
C. Project Description [from section 3 of PCN]
Component 1. Strengthening the implementation of the quality assurance system (estimated total
cost: US$10 million; Bank: US$6 million). This component would strengthen the capacity of
SINEACE and HEI's to handle their responsibilities within the quality assurance system. This
component would include three subcomponents: (i) the first subcomponent would enhance
SINEACE's management, planning and evaluation capacities. It would support the development
of standards, norms and procedures for evaluation and accreditation; (ii) the second
subcomponent would develop self-evaluation and external evaluation capacities within HEIs. It
would enhance the capacity of HEIs to carry out self-evaluation and to deal with evaluation
processes. This would include activities such as teams' training at HEIs, creating coaching
capacity within SINEACE, encouraging inter-institutional collaboration, synergies and technical
assistance between HEIs through regional workshops, training, etc. It would also focus on the
training and certification of peers and the promotion of EEFAs; (iii) the third subcomponent
would support SINEACE in the execution of the Project.
Component 2. Building an effective information system (estimated total cost: US$3 million;
Bank: US$1.8 million). This component would develop and consolidate a comprehensive higher
education-labor market information system. This system would be composed of two main parts:
the first would consist in the establishment of an information system comprising statistical data
on students, professors, institutions, careers and a Board of Command, including the main
system output and outcome indicators. The second would support the development of a labor
market observatory that would gather information on relative performance of graduates for each
institution and type of careers and training in terms of job search and salary and disseminate it to
students, parents and civil society. This part of the system would also include the publication of
information on accreditation decisions. The development of this comprehensive information
system, which would increase access to systemic information is expected to yield the following
benefits: (i) enhance SINEACE's management and supervision capacity; (ii) improve decision
making by HEIs in terms of management and investment, thus increasing the relevance and
quality of programs offered; and (iii) improve decision making by parents and prospective
students in terms of career decisions, leading to an improvement in employment opportunities
and in the external efficiency of the higher education system.
Component 3. Establishing an Incentive Fund to improve Quality and Relevance of Higher
Education (estimated total cost: US$37 million; Bank: US$22.2 million). This component would
promote accreditation and external evaluation by supporting the establishment of a Fund for
Quality Improvement (FEC), designed to improve the quality and relevance of academic
programs in higher education institutions.
The FEC would create financial incentives to support quality improvement through two main
windows:
Window 1 would finance the process of external evaluation both at program and
institutional levels. To access this fund, the programs/institutions would first need to complete a
self-evaluation process. The financial support would be provided through a pre-defined standard
subsidy, which may vary by program and size of institution.
Window 2 would finance strategic improvement plans, both at the institutional level (Part
A) and at the program level (Part B). Only institutions or programs that have completed an
external evaluation process would be eligible to access FEC funding under Window 2. Part A
#Institutional Improvement Plans# would be supported on a first come, first served basis. These
plans must have established objectives, activities and indicators for medium term improvements,
addressing at the same time the weaknesses identified in self-evaluation and external evaluation.
Part B would operate as a competitive fund that would select subprojects (based on "Program
Improvement Plans") prepared and presented by public and private HEIs. Supported subprojects
would focus on strengthening or reforming existing programs or establishing new programs.
Special incentives would be established to favor those programs in high demand among
employers. The eligible activities to be financed under Window 2 are expected to be: (i)
technical assistance to improve programs, curricula, institutional strengthening, capacity
building, development of learning materials etc; (ii) scholarships for professors to carry out postgraduates, PhD. and post-doc studies; (iii) internships; (iv) visiting professors; (v) laboratory and
learning equipment and (vi) minor upgrading of infrastructure to accommodate equipment.
Specific and detailed criteria and procedures for both windows would be further defined during
project preparation, including through the preparation of FEC Operational Manual. The goal
would be to address in a differentiated manner, the needs of the different HEIs and to focus on
the academic programs in priority areas that would increase the supply of professionals and
technicians in strategic sectors of the Peruvian economy. In addition, the financing would
discriminate between public institutions, which would be able to access up to 100 percent of the
costs of their plans, and private institutions, which would be able to access a maximum of 65
percent or 35 percent for non-profit and profit institutions respectively.
D. Project location (if known)
The implementing agency, SINEACE, is located in Lima. Project activities would be
implemented throughout Peru's entire territory, since benefited higher education institutions are
spread in urban areas all around the country.
E. Borrower’s Institutional Capacity for Safeguard Policies [from PCN]
The implementing agency, SINEACE, does not have any experience on safeguards issues since it
is a new institution, created in 2006 and administratively functioning since 2010.
F. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists
II. SAFEGUARD POLICIES THAT MIGHT APPLY
Safeguard Policies Triggered
Yes
No
TBD
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)
X
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01): The Project is expected to have a minor
environmental impact since it will not be supporting any civil works. Therefore, the Project's
environmental rating is a Category C. However, under subprojects in the framework of
Component 3 (FEC), some minor upgrading of infrastructure to accommodate laboratory
equipment may be necessary and supported by the Project. In these cases, appropriate national
and Bank standards will be applied under all contracts pertaining to this Component and it will
described in the FEC Operational Manual.
Safeguard Policies Triggered
Yes
No
TBD
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
X
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
X
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
X
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
X
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10)
X
Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10): The Project's overall approach to strengthening the quality
assurance system for higher education in Peru involves action at the level of systems,
institutions, and accreditation and evaluation processes. At the same time, the strategy for
ensuring that a wide range of social groups, including indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities,
have a chance to benefit from the improved quality assurance system will need to be more
formalized. Therefore OP 4.10 is triggered given that indigenous peoples are present in the
project area (since the coverage of the project is nationwide), and that linguistic, cultural, and
socio-economic differences have historically acted as barriers of access to higher education
institutions and programs on the part of the indigenous.
In order to ensure that indigenous interests and concerns are reflected in the programs,
curricula, and didactic materials that are targeted for improvement under Window 2 of the FEC,
a social assessment will be conducted to look at potential benefits, risks, and opportunities for
participation of indigenous peoples in relation to this process. In addition, the assessment will
also analyze the concerns of other vulnerable groups such as Afro-Peruvians and women. An
Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) based on the results of this assessment will be prepared and
disclosed prior to appraisal. The IPP will provide for the continuation of the free, prior, and
informed consultations with indigenous peoples initiated during the social assessment process,
and document that broad support on the part of indigenous leaders and representative indigenous
organizations for the proposed activities exists.
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
X
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
X
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
X
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)
X
Environmental Category: C - Not Required
III. SAFEGUARD PREPARATION PLAN
A. Target date for the Quality Enhancement Review (QER), at which time the PAD-stage ISDS
would be prepared: 05/16/2011
B. For projects that will not require a QER, the target date for preparing the PAD-stage ISDS:
N/A
C. Time frame for launching and completing the safeguard-related studies that may be needed.
The specific studies and their timing1 should be specified in the PAD-stage ISDS.
The specific studies and their timing will be specified in the PAD-stage ISDS.
IV. APPROVALS
Signed and submitted by:
Task Team Leader:
Approved by:
Regional Safeguards Coordinator:
Comments:
Sector Manager:
Comments:
1
Mr Marcelo Becerra
02/24/2011
Mr Francis V. Fragano
02/24/2011
Ms Janet K. Entwistle
02/25/2011
Reminder: The Bank's Disclosure Policy requires that safeguard-related documents be disclosed before appraisal (i) at the
InfoShop and (ii) in-country, at publicly accessible locations and in a form and language that are accessible to potentially affected
persons.