Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability? Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approach Human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, are not infringed by the project. The project
interventions would on the longer-term help sustain the livelihood of local communities that would result in poverty alleviation, improvement of living conditions and
sustainable development of natural resources, by reducing the threat of IAS on native biodiversity, agricultural productivity and food security, health and trade. In this
way it will safeguard the economic and social rights of the local communities will also took care of cultural and biological values of the local communities. Staff recruited
for outreach efforts on the four-islands will comprise of a mix of iTaukei (native Fijians) and Fijian of Indian descent ancestries so that different communities, including
poor and marginalized segments of these populations can be engaged in the language with which they are most comfortable. The project impacts would expedite right
to environmental protection. The project will promote greater participation and inclusion of local communities, sectors and other important stakeholders in biosecurity
and IAS management through delivery of training for communities and sector stakeholders, communications campaigns and inclusion of IAS themes into education
curricula, to promote strengthened awareness of IAS issues and public participation in prevention and management of IAS. Oversight and accountability for project
activities at the four islands would rests with the Four-Island IAS Taskforce that would include representatives of the iTaukei Affairs from the district (or sub-district)
level who are mandated to ensure the protection, and economic and social development of native Fijian communities. This mechanism will facilitate resolution of specific
grievances or concerns that may arise during project implementation.
Briefly describe in the space below how the Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment
P a g e
The project incorporates several measures to enhance the role of women. Special mechanisms are envisaged under the project to promote the role of women in various
activities, such as:
Capacity building and training activities related to biosecurity (including frontline staff) would ensure that these include specifically women (at least 40%
women will participate in training events);
Efforts will be made to encourage women’s participation in outreach activities (at least 40% of population targeted by outreach program would be women)
and actively attend outreach events and participating in various project initiatives;
Outreach teams at Taveuni will include local women mobilizers who would be involved in the outreach promotion to encourage greater participation of
women from local communities in biosecurity activities;
Outreach and communication strategy will include a specific gender focus;
Use of gender-sensitive indicators and collection of sex-disaggregated data for monitoring project outcomes and impacts;
Encouragement of qualified women applicants for positions within BAF, under government rules and regulations; and
Promotion of adequate representation and active participation of women in project specific committees, technical workshops, strategic planning events,
Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams environmental sustainability The objective of the project is to enhance the chances of the long-term survival of terrestrial endemic and threatened species on Taveuni Island and surrounding islets
by building national and local capacity to prevent, detect, control and manage Invasive Alien Species. IAS of high risk to biodiversity, food security, livelihoods, health
and trade would be prevented from entering Fiji resulting in reduced threats to endemic and threatened species within Fiji. This would be achieved through:
Increasing awareness of travelling public, tourism operators, importers and shipping agents of the risks posed by IAS and the need for biosecurity
measures that would reduce the risks of new introductions of IAS, resulting in reduced threats to endemic and threatened species, as well as reduced
threats to food security, livelihoods, health and trade.
Building improved recognition on importance of biosecurity and control of IAS, including improved funding in Fiji that would help further reduce risk of
invasive species introductions.
Strengthened measures for prevention, detection, control of entry of IAS of high risk to biodiversity and economic sectors into Taveuni and surrounding
islets would also be put in place.
Increased capacity of Biosecurity Officers within the country as well as enhanced measures for detection, surveillance, monitoring and control of IAS in
the country, all of which would enhance environmental security and sustainability.
Compilation of a “black list” of IAS species that pose a high risk to native biodiversity, livelihoods, food security and health in Fiji that will be used to
support cost-effective measures for improved prevention of these IAS from entering Fiji.
P a g e
Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks QUESTION 2: What are the Potential Social and Environmental Risks? Note: Describe briefly potential social and environmental risks identified in Attachment 1 – Risk Screening Checklist (based on any “Yes” responses). QUESTION 3: What is the level of significance of the potential social and environmental risks? Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before proceeding to Question 6 QUESTION 6: What social and environmental assessment and management measures have been conducted and/or are required to address potential risks (for Risks with Moderate and High Significance)? Risk Description Impact and Probability (1-5) Significance (Low, Moderate, High) Comments Description of assessment and management measures as reflected in the Project design. If ESIA or SESA is required note that the assessment should consider all potential impacts and risks. Risk 1: Conflicts of interest and different
priorities of stakeholders may constrain
implementation of activities
I = 3
P = 2
Low Resistance of local
killing/eradication of GII
that has been to some
extent exacerbated by
animal rights groups
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 1, Questions 5 Management Measures: Interest will be fostered among stakeholders by
making the economic case for prevention and control IAS. This would be
supported by the outreach efforts to create awareness to the impacts of GII
(as evidenced from other countries in the Caribbean where GII has not be
controlled, and the impact of other IAS in Fiji itself) on local agriculture,
biodiversity and economy, if nothing is done to eradicate it from the four
islands site and prevent its spread elsewhere in Fiji. Through the knowledge
management component and by outreach to the communities on the four
islands site under components 3 and 4, the project will build strong
awareness of the impacts of GII on food security, livelihoods, human health
and native biodiversity and of the costs of these impacts to local people, if
nothing is done to eradicate GIIs. The project will also target the outreach to
NGOs and animal rights groups to create awareness of the potential larger
impacts to native wildlife and local economy if GIIs are not removed from the
Risk 2: Government officials and
community organizations do not have
the capacity to meet their full
obligations related to the project
I = 3
P = 2
Moderate Project preparation
reveals that state
government entities and
local communities may
not have the capacity to
ensure the twin benefits
of conservation and IAS
Management Measures: A needs assessment for capacity building of
government, district and local community organizations would be
undertaken, following which a comprehensive training strategy and plan for
frontline staff and local communities would be designed and developed early
during project implementation. International experts will be hired to facilitate
the conduct of the training programs, as well as staff will be able to
participate in regional training programs. Training programs would be
regularly evaluated for their effectiveness and adjusted to meet the needs. In
addition, BAF will recruit additional front line staff who would be sufficiently
trained and posted to improve its capacity on the four islands site for
P a g e
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 1, Question 6 reducing the potential for unwanted non-native species to enter and establish
within the country or portions of the country for those IAS which are already
established but not wide spread. A comprehensive strategy for GII eradication
would be developed and implemented, along with specialized training to
improve staff skills at survey and detection of GIIs and in improved
Risk 3: Implementation of project
initiatives within or near critical habitats
in the landscapes; e.g. protected forests
and national parks may threaten
I = 2
P = 2
Low Project interventions in
terms of eradication of
IAS are likely to occur
within and adjacent to
protected areas and
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3, Standard 1, Question 1.2 Management Measures: The primary objective of GII eradication is to
conserve natural species and biodiversity within the four islands and hence is
likely to improve conservation outcomes. The project is designed to
strengthen prevention, detection, control and management of IAS in the
demonstration areas, which include critical habitats, and environmentally
sensitive areas that are a priority to protect from IAS, therefore the project’s
activities should enhance protection for these areas from IAS compared to
business as usual. Because these areas are environmentally sensitive, any
control measures implemented under the project will be assessed to ensure
they do not have any negative impacts on these areas.
While, it might be necessary to remove IAS from existing protected areas and
forest reserves, these actions are aimed at exclusively removing the
introduced GII and protect native species. Non-chemical methods (e.g.
trapping, shooting etc.) would be used to selectively remove the GII, so as to
protect native species and habitats and minimize any risk to non-target
species. The GII eradication plan would be assessed for its impact on critical
habitats and biodiversity and management action instituted to manage any
potential environmental and social impacts.
P a g e
Risk 4: Eradication activities of GII under
the project may pose a risk to native
endangered species (Fiji banded iguana;
Brachylophus bulabula) if not conducted
I = 2
P = 1
Low Because juveniles of the
native and invasive
Iguana species are similar
in appearance, there is
potential for inadvertent
removal of native Iguanas
during the eradication
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3, Standard 1, Question 1.4 Management Measures: the project will ensure that all personnel involved in
eradication are properly trained in identification and distinction of the two
species (there are differences in morphology and behavior). The project will
also support awareness campaigns to increase public understanding of the
differences between the native and invasive iguana and the risks posed by the
invasive. A risk assessment of the eradication plan developed by the project
will be conducted, and corresponding management and mitigation measures
incorporated into the eradication plan. Risk 5: Natural disasters and climate
change may affect implementation and
results of project initiatives.
I = 1
P = 1
Low While, this is very
unlikely, climate change
may raise the threat of
IAS by increasing the
fires, floods, and other
natural events and
ecosystem resilience and
creating conditions where
invasive species can more
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3, Standard 2, Question 2.2 Management Measures: The project is designed to increase resilience of
natural ecosystems to climate impacts by reducing the threat of invasive alien
species that could exacerbate the threat of climate change on native
biodiversity and ecosystems. Climatic parameters will be considered during
the undertaking of IAS risk assessments as well as during the preparation of
QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization? Select one (see SESP
for guidance) Comments
P a g e
Low Risk ☐ Moderate Risk X A risk assessment of the GII eradication plan would also be undertaken to
assess potential eradication risk and its management. Part of the risk
management would include assessment of social and environmental risks. If
potential environmental and social impacts are identified during the
assessment, specific measures would be instituted to address such concerns.
High Risk ☐ QUESTION 5: Based on the identified risks and risk categorization, what requirements of the SES are relevant? N/A
Check all that apply
Principles 1: Human Rights
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 1. Question 5 and 6.
Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability:
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3. Standard 1,
Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3. Standard 1,
Question 1.2 and 1.4
Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Referred to SESP Attachment 1: Principle 3: Standard 2,
Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions
Standard 4: Cultural Heritage
Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement
Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples
Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency
P a g e
P a g e
SESP Attachment 1: Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist
Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks
Principles 1: Human Rights Answer (Yes/No) 1.
Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political,
economic, social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups?
Is there likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on
affected populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals
Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic
services, in particular to marginalized individuals or groups?
Is there likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in
particular marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them?
Are there measures or mechanisms in place to respond to local community grievances?
Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the Project?
Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights?
Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns
regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process?
Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to
project-affected communities and individuals?
Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment 1.
Is there likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality
and/or the situation of women and girls?
Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender,
especially regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and
Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during the
stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and
in the risk assessment?
Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural resources,
taking into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental
goods and services?
For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in communities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being No
Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screeningquestions regarding environmental risks are
encompassed by the specific Standard-related questions below
Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous
person or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to include women and men,
boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as transgender people and
P a g e
Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management 1.1
Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural, and
For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological changes No
Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or environmentally
sensitive areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park), areas
proposed for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous
peoples or local communities?
Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse impacts
on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to
lands would apply, refer to Standard 5)
Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species?
Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species?
Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or reforestation?
Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic
Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground
For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction No
Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting,
1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse trans-boundary or global environmental concerns? No
1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities, which could lead
to adverse social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts with other
known existing or planned activities in the area?
For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and social impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar developments in the same-forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered. No