Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)



I. Project Overview

Identification

9730

Project Title

Generating economic and environmental benefits from sustainable land management for vulnerable rural communities of Georgia

Managing Division

Ecosystems Division

Type/Location

National

Region

Europe

List Countries

Georgia

Project Description

The project objective is to develop and strengthen SLM practices and build capacity for their application for the protection of natural capital in Georgia.

The project will develop new sustainable land management systems at both the commune and farmer plot level that integrate climate smart agricultural
production, food security and resilience and thereby contribute to Georgia’s objectives for Land Degradation Neutrality.

The introduced management systems should lead to increasing levels of production and productivity while also maintaining the ecological integrity of the land; respect land and resource carrying capacities and also improve land and resource conditions; and be both integrated (encompassing
agriculture, forestry, water and livestock management) and adaptive (structured to adapt to evolving challenges, including climate change).

The above-mentioned factors underline the critical importance of promoting better coordination of sustainable land management across different sectors
on the basis of solid data, of improving the country’s existing policy and financing framework related to the management of land resources, and of strengthening the capacity and skills of national and local government institutions and other stakeholders to undertake SLM approaches, in order to overcome existing barriers to mainstreaming Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) activities.

Estimated duration of project:

2017-2020

Estimated cost of the project :

GEF Grant:              1,452,968

Co-finance:              4,760,000

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

3

1

L

SS 2: Resource Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Management of Chemicals and Wastes

2

2

L

SS 3: Safety of Dams

1

1

L

SS 4: Involuntary resettlement

3

3

M

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

3

3

M

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

  • Low risk
  • Moderate risk
  • High risk
  • Additional information required


Development of ESE Review Note and Screening Decision


 ESERN Prepared by:Name: Ersin EsenDate: 12 December 2017
Conforms to ESES FrameworkName: Yunae Yi
Date: 22 January 2018
Accepted by Project Manager: Name: Date:


 Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor

The project is likely to be in the moderate safeguard risk category. But these risks seem manageable through good practices--sensitivity of the local needs, close communication with the relevant stakeholders and vigilant monitoring of the project implementation, as already demonstrated in the project document.

Local individuals’ buy-in, uptakes, replication and empowerment will be critical for long-term and meaningful restoration of the ecosystem and the soil quality. Stakeholder interests may differ and potential conflict can rise on resource sharing and land-related conflicts. Please engage relevant stakeholders and communicate with them throughout the project implementation and report regularly on the challenges and related management approaches taken.

SS 4: The project document stated that land tenure issues may limit the farmers’ interest in long-term solutions. The project needs buy-in from all concerned local communities and stakeholders. Understanding and respecting the national laws on land (constitutional or customary) and seek solutions that are win-win for people concerned. Temporary loss of livelihood derived from the project, during the project if applicable, should be addressed carefully and transparently.

SS 9: Unsustainable logging, unsustainable grazing and other harmful use of forest resources. Local community relied on these illegal and unsustainable use of forest as the only means of livelihood. Engage diverse local community groups, including landless, vulnerable communities and women, on the issue of wealth sharing and distribution of economic gains derived from the project as early as possible.