Annex 4: Additional information Our analysis in the main text of this report of 11 original Stakeholder Engagement Plans (SEPs) for COVID-19 emergency project was meant to be a broader assessment of patterns and common themes regarding if and how the Bank and Borrowers met ESF requirements related to stakeholder engagement for these projects. This annex provides more detailed information and examples of the patterns addressed in the main text about the information that was or was not included in the 11 SEPs. In some cases, we explain additional patterns of information that was or was not included, but which the Bank and Borrowers do not have a legal requirement to include. Since this annex is only meant to supplement the main text and is not intended to assess whether SEPs met requirements of the ESF, we do not provide a summary of relevant ESF requirements for each topic nor an analysis of the implications of the patterns presented. See Annex 3 for links to the SEPs and other project documents referenced in this Annex, as well as information about the projects. See “References” for complete citations of the SEPs. A. Stakeholder Identification and Marginalized Groups are divided into, says vulnerable status may stem from: “an individual’s or group’s race, national, ethnic or social origin, color, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, property, age, culture, literacy, sickness, physical or mental disability, poverty or economic disadvantage, and dependence on unique natural resources.” a. SEPs that provide this list: Liberia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Cambodia, Nepal2 3. An explanation of from where vulnerability can stem that is included directly under the header “Disadvantaged / vulnerable individuals or groups” (or a variant of that header), that also includes bulleted lists of “vulnerable” groups specific to the projects: “vulnerability may stem from person’s origin, gender, age, health condition, economic deficiency and financial insecurity, disadvantaged status in the community (e.g. minorities or fringe groups), dependence on other individuals or natural resources, etc.” a. SEPs that provide this list: Liberia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Nepal3 1. Definitions of “vulnerability” in the examined SEPs 2. Groups identified as “disadvantaged and vulnerable”4 The three definitions of “vulnerability or “vulnerable status” in the analyzed SEPs are: Each SEP lists bullet points of stakeholders it includes (but are not limited to) within each of the three stakeholder categories: affected parties, other interested parties, disadvantaged / vulnerable 1. Under “Inclusiveness and sensitivity,” one of the principles for stakeholder engagement that the documents describe in the “Methodology” section, a list of groups who need “special attention” to ensure there is “sensitivity” to their needs: “women, youth, elderly and the cultural sensitivities of diverse ethnic groups.” a. SEPs that provide this list: Liberia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Cambodia, Nepal1 2. A footnote to “vulnerable status,” a term used to explain “vulnerable groups” as one of the core categories that stakeholders 1 Chisaka, “SEP - Liberia COVID-19 Project,” 6; Mohammed-Roberts, “SEP - Bangladesh COVID-19 Project,” 3; Demombynes, “SEP - Philippines COVID-19 Project,” 4; Kak, “SEP - Sri Lanka COVID-19 Project,” 3; Besarabic Bennett, “SEP- Burkina Faso COVID-19 Project,” 8; Borrowing Agency, “SEP - Uganda COVID-19 Project,” 2; Hyder, “SEP - Cambodia COVID-19 Project,” 3; Bhattarai, “SEP - Nepal COVID-19 Project,” 3. BANK INFORMATION CENTER | MAR 2021 2 Chisaka, “SEP - Liberia COVID-19 Project,” 6; Mohammed-Roberts, “SEP - Bangladesh COVID-19 Project,” 4; Demombynes, “SEP - Philippines COVID-19 Project,” 5; Cavagnero, “SEP - Guatemala COVID-19 Project,” 4; Kak, “SEP - Sri Lanka COVID-19 Project,” 4; Besarabic Bennett, “SEP- Burkina Faso COVID-19 Project,” 8; Borrowing Agency, “SEP - Uganda COVID-19 Project,” 2; Hyder, “SEP - Cambodia COVID-19 Project,” 3; Bhattarai, “SEP - Nepal COVID-19 Project,” 4. 3 Chisaka, “SEP - Liberia COVID-19 Project,” 8; Mohammed-Roberts, “SEP - Bangladesh COVID-19 Project,” 4; Demombynes, “SEP - Philippines COVID-19 Project,” 5; Cavagnero, “SEP - Guatemala COVID-19 Project,” 5; Gordillo-Tobar, “SEP - El Salvador COVID-19 Project,” 4; Kak, “SEP - Sri Lanka COVID-19 Project,” 5; Besarabic Bennett, “SEP- Burkina Faso COVID-19 Project,” 9; Hyder, “SEP - Cambodia COVID-19 Project,” 4; Bhattarai, “SEP - Nepal COVID-19 Project,” 4. 4 For each mention of project SEPs in this section, see the following page numbers: Chisaka, “SEP - Liberia COVID-19 Project,” 6; Mohammed-Roberts, “SEP - Bangladesh COVID-19 Project,” 5; Mills, “SEP - The Gambia COVID-19 Project,” 3; Demombynes, “SEP - Philippines COVID-19 Project,” 6; Cavagnero, “SEP - Guatemala COVID-19 Project,” 6; Gordillo-Tobar, “SEP - El Salvador COVID-19 Project,” 4; Kak, “SEP - Sri Lanka COVID-19 Project,” 5; Besarabic Bennett, “SEPBurkina Faso COVID-19 Project,” 9; Borrowing Agency, “SEP - Uganda COVID-19 Project,” 3; Hyder, “SEP - Cambodia COVID-19 Project,” 4; Bhattarai, “SEP - Nepal COVID-19 Project,” 5. 35