Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
I. Project Overview
Identification | |
Project Title | Support Program for Watershed Management through Strengthening Sustainable Value Chains in the Department of the South, Haiti |
Managing Division | Ecosystems Division |
Type/Location | National |
Region | Latin America Caribbean |
List Countries | Haiti |
Project Description | This project will target value chains such as cacao and vetiver, which are currently linked to unsustainable practices, such as land erosion, but offer economic benefits in an impoverished area of the country. Improved cacao cultivation, which is often associated with cultivation of other agroforestry, and vetiver, which is highly degrading to the land, are crucial chains to address for economic development and ecosystem preservation. An approach combining the promotion of sustainable agronomic practices, and valorization of products cultivated from such practices, by producers and consumers will help orient producers towards sustainable agriculture and environmental rehabilitation.
The project has three specific objectives: (1) to develop viable agricultural value chains for agroforestry products, particularly cacao, to promote their development in water catchment areas as a means to enhance environmental rehabilitation and generate sustainable income for producers (2) to render the vetiver sector sustainable to combat the degradation of watersheds upstream of Marine Protected Areas, thus reducing the rate of sedimentation and contributing to the increase and diversification of producers' incomes; (3) to strengthen the capacities of stakeholders in watershed management through the use of agro-ecological practices and techniques for the protection of soils and gullies |
Estimated duration of project: | 4 years |
Estimated cost of the project : | 3,500,000 Euros |
| 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 | 2 | M |
SS 3: Safety of Dams | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 4: Involuntary resettlement | 3 | 2 | M |
SS 5: Indigenous peoples | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 6: Labor and working conditions | 3 | 2 | M |
SS 7: Cultural Heritage | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 8: Gender equity | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 9: Economic Sustainability | 3 | 2 | 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: | Date: |
| Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: Yunae Yi | Date: 20 July 2017 |
| Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: | Date: |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
The project document identified some safeguard risks such as production and livelihood; safety and health; land dispute; private sector’s compliance on the code of conduct; introduction of invasive alien species; loss of biodiversity.
In addition, there may be i) resource efficiency concerns (esp. on converting biowaste to biogas), which requires good design and implementation for safety, consumption of water, efficiency in energy generation and distribution; ii) from human rights perspective, there may be possible neglect of marginalized and vulnerable people (e.g., women, children, the poorest, elderly, disabled and others) from labor force and other benefits from the projects. It will be good to see the project humane and pro-poor. iii) I inserted some comments in the checklist below. I hope it helps for your assessment.
|
Considering the above safeguard concerns, I would suggest that impact assessment is carried out early at the implementation phase.
species; loss of biodiversity.
In addition, there may be i) resource efficiency concerns (esp. on converting biowaste to biogas), which requires good design and implementation for safety, consumption of water, efficiency in energy generation and distribution; ii) from human rights perspective, there may be possible neglect of marginalized and vulnerable people (e.g., women, children, the poorest, elderly, disabled and others) from labor force and other benefits from the projects. It will be good to see the project humane and pro-poor. iii) I inserted some comments in the checklist below. I hope it helps for your assessment.
|
Considering the above safeguard concerns, I would suggest that impact assessment is carried out early at the implementation phase.