Page History
Environmental, Social and Economic Review Note (ESERN)
| Excerpt | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Countries: Venezuela Amount: US$ 13,313,082 |
I. Project Overview
Identification | 1484 |
Project Title | Support to the Development of Legal and Institutional Framework on Access to Genetic Resources and related Benefit Sharing and Traditional Knowledge in line with the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol in Venezuela |
Managing Division | Ecosystems Division |
Type/Location | National |
Region | Latin America Caribbean |
List Countries | Venezuela |
Project Description | The project objective is to improve the local capacities for the implementation of access to genetic resources (GRs) and traditional knowledge (TK) regimes in accordance with the Nagoya Protocol The project is aimed at aligning the Access and Benefit sharing policy, legislation and capacity to the Nagoya Protocol and to develop a regional platform of information sharing and networking in Latin America and the Caribbean on ABS issues. It will do so through three inter-related components. Component 1 will develop an interinstitutional coordinated ABS framework with the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol; Component 2 will increase awareness and capacity of all relevant stakeholders in advancing ABS; and Component 3 will be managing ABS Knowledge and Experiences at a Regional Level. |
Estimated duration of project: | 2018 - 2022 |
Estimated cost of the project : | GEF Grant: 4,513,082 USD Co-finance: 8,800,000 USD |
| Funding Source: |
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 | 3 | M |
SS 2: Resource Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Management of Chemicals and Wastes | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 3: Safety of Dams | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 4: Involuntary resettlement | 1 | 1 | L |
SS 5: Indigenous peoples | 3 | 3 | M |
SS 6: Labor and working conditions | 2 | 2 | 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: Marianela Araya | Date: 13 August 2017 |
| Conforms to ESES Framework | Name: Yunae Yi | Date: 30 August 2017 |
| Accepted by Project Manager: | Name: | Date: |
Recommended further action from the Safeguard Advisor
It stated that “insufficient knowledge, capacity and practical experience among relevant stakeholders on processes for access and utilization of GR, fair benefit sharing, and ABS negotiation techniques”. Due to these and other unforeseen challenges, there is a possibility that UN Environment does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. Considering these potential indirect and unintended harms, I consider that there might be risks particularly on the SS1, SS5 and SS 9. Please see my comments in the summary table above.
The project is to bring socio-economic wellbeing for local communities and the country from the rich bbiodiversity resources. The approach should be science (including social science)-based to guard against negative impact to the biodiversity while promoting benefit sharing among concerned people. But, safeguard issues can flare up when the expectations are not met across vulnerable, marginalized, indigenous people or diverse ethnic groups. On human rights based approach, identification of socio-economic dynamics for marginalized and vulnerable groups and among gender, ethnic, religious, regional group, etc. should be analyzed and reflected throughout the project approach for equitable benefic sharing.
The project stated that the communities will part of the activities related to Outputs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, and 2.3.2. Please ensure that they are not the passive recipients of the training and information, but the active partners in consulting and working together.
I suggest that the “1.1.3 Guidelines developed for Indigenous People and Local Communities engagement in ABS.” is not only for the IPs and local communities but “WITH” them.
|
I also suggest that “1.1.7 Monitoring guidelines developed for authorities to track compliance with permits” factors in the participation of the local communities and IPs in project implementation consultation and monitoring.