Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
I. Project Overview
Identification | 01545 |
Project Title | Piloting Innovative Investments for Sustainable Landscapes |
Managing Division | Ecosystems Division |
Type/Location | Global |
Region | Latin America Caribbean, Africa, Asia Pacific |
List Countries | Brazil, Liberia, Indonesia |
Project Description | This proposed GEF project is designed to maintain, restore or increase forest cover (on and off concession) while intensifying agricultural production and improving the livelihoods of smallholders through piloting the de-risking of private finance in sustainable landscapes in seven target landscapes in Brazil, Indonesia, and Liberia. |
Estimated duration of project: | 2018 - 2021 |
Estimated cost of the project : | GEF Grant: 2,000,000 Co-finance: 52,000,000 |
| 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 | 2 | M |
SS 2: Resource Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Management of Chemicals and Wastes | 3 | 1 | L |
SS 3: Safety of Dams | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 4: Involuntary resettlement | 3 | 2 | M |
SS 5: Indigenous peoples | 3 | 2 | M |
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
|
|
|
|
Development of ESE Review Note and Screening Decision
| ESERN Prepared by: | Name: Ersin Esen | Date: 06 September 2017 |
| Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: Yunae Yi | Date: 16 November 2017 |
| Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: | Date: |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
The project manager carefully went through the checklist before generating this report. However, this is likely to be in the moderate risk category considering the potential financial and socio-economic impacts this project may face in lending (as mentioned in the project document) and bring unintended harm. The project stated that such risks would be assessed carefully using IFC and fiduciary standards. Application of safeguard standards for the loan applications will be critical. Human right perspective seems to be critical in lending approach and guiding the project operations. There are potential conflicts of interest among stakeholders at various levels.
SS1: Project stated that farmers might expand their operation and encroach into forest. In addition, project approach unintentionally creates loss of biodiversity. Precautionary approach and application of best traditional and latest scientific knowledge are important.
SS2: Resource efficiency of the projects with loans should be ensured.
|
SS4: the project can cause restrictions on access to land or use of resources for livelihood. Communities must be involved and kept informed of the potential risk and offered alternative solutions especially in the case of land.
SS5: They will be involved in the project communication and capacity building. Prior Consent and continuous engagement in decision making and knowledge sharing processes are important.
SS 6: Those who borrow funding from this project ensure no illegal labor and working conditions for their project implementation.
SS8: Women and men may engage in agriculture and forest resource management differently and good effort to include women in collaborative management methods. There should be solid understanding of roles and needs of men and women in different socio-economic context and take such knowledge in project implementation.
|
SS9: It is recommended that there is no discrimination of lending for local and small holders in getting access to the green funding. Government policies and market conditions can adversely affect the stakeholders despite the positive intension of the project. It should ensure that vulnerable and marginalized groups are protected and get fair share of the benefit from the project.