Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
I. Project Overview
Identification | 9409 |
Project Title | Healthy Landscapes: Managing Agricultural Landscapes in Socio-ecologically Sensitive Areas to Promote Food Security, Well-being and Ecosystem Health |
Managing Division | Ecosystem Mnagement |
Type/Location | National |
Region | Asia Pacific |
List Countries | Sri Lanka |
Project Description | The Healthy Landscapes project will strengthen restoration and sustainable management of village tank cascade landscapes for the provision of |
Estimated duration of project: | 2018‐2021 |
Estimated cost of the project : | GEF Grant: 2,000,000 Co-finance: 9,047,865 |
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 | 2 | M |
SS 2: Resource Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Management of Chemicals and Wastes | 3 | 3 | M |
SS 3: Safety of Dams | 3 | 2 | M |
SS 4: Involuntary resettlement | 1 | 2 | L |
SS 5: Indigenous peoples | 2 | 1 | L |
SS 6: Labor and working conditions | 2 | 1 | L |
SS 7: Cultural Heritage | 3 | 1 | L |
SS 8: Gender equity | 3 | 1 | L |
SS 9: Economic Sustainability | 3 | 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: Marieta Sakalian | Date: 27 January 2018 |
Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: Yunae Yi | Date: 13 February 2018 |
Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: Danny Hunter | Date: 19 February 2018 |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
I agree that this project is likely to be in the moderate safeguard risk category. It is good to see that the project team carried out the environment and health assessment already in the process of developing the project document.
Specifically, safeguard concerns are:
SS1. The project stated that “ecological approaches to linking environmental health and human health are relatively new in Sri Lanka and relevant government sectors …” This will bring challenges to the project’s plan for a landscape or ecological planning approach. Despite the efforts by many actors, loss of biodiversity and the land degradation has continued due to the lack of proper technical guidance for planning and management of water resource in
the tank cascade systems. There are challenges generated from the push of modern engineering (against the traditional VTCS approaches), economic development, population movement, change of agricultural practices and others. Precautionary and science‐based management of natural ecosystems should be applied to avoid or reduce any potential harms in this area.
SS 2: Planning and management of water resources in the tank cascade systems was mentioned as one of the reasons for failure of past or existing projects in the area. Water quality has affected human health. Causes of alarming level of kidney problems are not clearly identified. The project aims to identify the causes and propose the ways to improve the health of the communities concerned. Precautionary approach is expected. Pesticides and IPM approach, if
adopted, should be introduced according to the safeguard guidelines.
SS 3: Apply safety caution with all the structural measures mentioned for tank renovation.
SS 9: “The current rate of economic development, urbanization and increasingly climate change impacts may limit the desired outcomes of an ecological approach to environmental health and human health”. Carry out the socio‐economic mapping, including gender, to identify roles and responsibilities of diverse ethnic, regional, religious, occupational, economical groups in the contexts and take the project approach based on such analysis/ knowledge. Ensure that project
benefits are shared equitably and fairly across the diverse socio‐economic groups, including marginalized and vulnerable population.
Based on the above analysis, Safeguards Advisor would like to recommend that output 1.1 (an intensive baseline assessment of the current socio‐ecological and biophysical context in both project cascade landscape areas) also includes socio‐economic analysis and addresses above comments in the project approach and develop a safeguard (+operational) risk management plan.