Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
I. Project Overview
Identification | 9126 |
Project Title | Delivering sustainable environmental, social and economic benefits in West Africa through good governance, correct incentives and innovation |
Managing Division | Ecosystem Division |
Type/Location | Regional |
Region | Africa |
List Countries | Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal |
Project Description | Project Objective: Strengthen fisheries governance, management and value chains, through the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, of relevant international instruments and of innovative governance partnerships in three countries in West Africa (Cabo Verde, Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal) |
Estimated duration of project: | 60 Months |
Estimated cost of the project : | GEF Grant: 6,433,027 Co-finance: 45,551,500 |
| Funding Source: | GEF |
II. Environmental Social and Economic Screening Determination
Summary of the Safeguard Risks Triggered
Safeguard Standard Triggered by the Project | Impact of Risk (1-5) | Probability of Risk (1-5) | Significance of Risk (L, M, H)* |
SS 1: Biodiversity, natural habitat and Sustainable Management of Living Resources | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 2: Resource Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Management of Chemicals and Wastes | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 3: Safety of Dams | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 4: Involuntary resettlement | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 5: Indigenous peoples | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 6: Labor and working conditions | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 7: Cultural Heritage | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 8: Gender equity | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 9: Economic Sustainability | 1 | 1 | L |
Additional Safeguard questions for projects seeking GCF-funding (Section IV) | NA | NA | NA |
*Refer to the UNEP ESES Framework (Chapter 2) and the UNEP’s ESES Guidelines
ESE Screening Decision
|
|
|
|
Development of ESE Review Note and Screening Decision
| ESERN Prepared by: | Name: Isabelle Vander beck | Date: |
| Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: | Date: |
| Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: | Date: |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
Two global civil society groups raised concerns and since then we are working with FAO’s CSO Liaison Group who have helped to reach an agreement that the two CSO groups will observe the development of the activities but will no longer be publically critical since the project design has changed since they first criticized it. Note that in regional meetings in West Africa that included regional CSO groups, these regional groups distanced their organizations from these two global CSOs and were very specific in stating that they did not agree with the statements made.