Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
I. Project Overview
Identification | 9408 |
Project Title | Preventing COSTS of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in Barbados and the OECS Countries |
Managing Division | Ecosystem Division |
Type/Location | Regional |
Region | Latin America and the Caribbean |
List Countries | Antigua And Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts And Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines |
Project Description | Management of IAS: focus on preventing future IAS invasions by focusing on the high risk pathways while managing IAS in key ecosystems that are threatening native biodiversity. |
Estimated duration of project: | 36 Months |
Estimated cost of the project : | GEF Grant: 3,747,945 Co-finance: 6,656,477 |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 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: Naitram Ramnanan | Date: July 24 2017 |
| Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: Yunae Yi | Date: |
| Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: Arne Witt | Date: |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
I agree that the project is likely to be in the moderate safeguard risk category since it is dealing with sensitive biodiversity dynamics in the ecosystem and economic uncertainty related to it. Science-based approach using the latest understanding and local traditional knowledge should be applied.
The project stated that “UN Environment´s Social and Environmental safeguards tool will be used to assess the possible impacts of the project on the participating countries, their communities, and environment.” As the project manager already identified the safeguard risks, assessment should have been done during the project development phase. I would encourage the safeguard impact assessment is carried out for SS 1 and SS 9, among others, as early as possible.
The para 217 stated that the project has no negative impacts through the project intervention. While the intention is to bring environmental and social benefits, the project approach may involve inconvenient preconditions or bring unintended and indirect negative consequences. That is why we need precautionary approach throughout. I would suggest that the paragraph is modified.
Biodiversity aspect (SS1) : The project identified some challenges such as “large border to land mass; difficult topography; large numbers of tourist arrivals; relatively high volume of trade; insufficient technical capacity and poor coordination among stakeholders”. Such issues within the rich bio-diverse environment are likely to bring some concerns over the SS1.
Pesticides (SS2): The project stated that integrated pest management programmes are likely to be applied to control the PHMB and agricultural pest and diseases. Control of invasive plants in Barbados requires use of chemical pesticides. Training on how to handle pesticides should be included in the activities of the project.
Gender (SS 8):
• Statements like “taking a gender perspective on invasive species can improve understanding of the impacts, increase the effectiveness of invasive species prevention and management and contribute to social equality”; “reducing invasive species would more immediately impact women”; “tourism will be negatively affected by IAS and one gender more than the others” are not well substantiated. Such statements look vague and should be re-written in a more concrete and solid manner if they are to be taken seriously.
• The project plans “to collect and disaggregate the gender in its reporting and ensure where possible that project implementation is gender sensitive.” General understanding on gender needs, perspectives, and engagements and so on should be analysed before collecting data. Such initial background research will help you gather meaningful and useful sex disaggregated data. Data can only be useful as long as one knows clearly on what, why and how to collect and use them.
Economic Sustainability (SS 9): IAS are likely to affect important economic sectors, such as agriculture (both crops and livestock); fisheries; forestry; and tourism. There is lack of information on the impact of IAS on biodiversity and the economies of these countries. The project also mentioned that the Green Vervet Monkey is considered to be tourist attraction. IAS are often and continuously introduced by some who consider them profitable. IAS related penalties haven’t been effective to curve the IAS introduction. As it may be for profits for minority number of people while majority of community may suffer, economic justice and equity should be factored in the project approach for the long-term sustainability of the project outcomes.
Also, it is not clear if tourism would be negatively affected if biodiversity is lost. Prices, vicinity to North America, resort facilities, kind of activities and services provided may also affect tourism. Without any data, this point will be difficult to argue. Therefore, the project may confront some resistance based on economic winners and losers. Careful analysis of diverse stakeholders and their needs and roles need to be mapped out for effective project execution