Guidance On Environmental and Social Screening 20 December 2012

Environmental and social screening of
UNDP supported
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects
Draft guidance document

20 December 2012
This draft guidance note is in effect until further notice.
Please send comments to Nancy Bennet at nancy.bennet@undp.org.

A final version of this guidance note will be issued in 2013 based on feedback received and changes
that may be made to relevant UNDP procedures and policies.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................3
2. Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies ..................................................................................5
2.1 Overview of the GEF safeguards policy................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Overview of UNDP’s project level environmental and social screening procedure (UNDP ESSP) ......... 7
2.3 Indigenous peoples and FPIC policies ..................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Compliance and grievance systems: accountability for safeguard policies and systems .................... 11
3. WHO is responsible for the environmental and social screening and WHEN should the screening be
done? ......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Pre-screening to be undertaken by the UNDP-GEF technical adviser .................................................. 14
3.2 Screening to be undertaken by the project developer ......................................................................... 18
3.3 Managing and monitoring environmental and social risks during project implementation ................ 19
Annex 1: Further information on UNDP ESSP .................................................................................... 21
Annex 2: Examples of screening projects using the UNDP ESSP .......................................................... 30
1. POPs Pesticides ................................................................................................................................... 30
2. Adaptation to the Effects of Drought and Climate Change in Agro ecological Regions I and II in
Zambia ................................................................................................................................. 36
3. Adapting Water Resource Management in the Comoros to Expected Climate Change .................... 37
4. Promoting Energy Efficient Room Air Conditioners in China (PEERAC) .............................................. 39
5. Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the Wetland Protected Area system in Hainan ... 40
Annex 3: Selection of technical materials .......................................................................................... 45
Acronyms
Term Definition
Environment and Social Screening Template Combination of Annex A.1 and Annex A.2 of the UNDP ESSP
FPIC Free prior informed consent
FSP Full-sized Project
GEF Global Environment Facility
GEF SGP GEF Small Grants Programme
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund
MSP Medium-sized Project
NPIF Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund
PAC Project Appraisal Committee
PIF Project Identification Form
POPP Programme Operations Policies and Procedures
Screening Checklist Annex A.1 of the UNDP ESSP
Screening Summary Annex A.2 of the UNDP ESSP
SCCF Special Climate Change Fund
UNDP ESSP Environmental and Social Screening Procedure
Environmental and Social Screening of UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects Page 2
1. Introduction
Environmental and social screening and assessment processes for projects have become standard
business practice in development cooperation and are usually required by national regulatory
frameworks, multilateral and bilateral donors, vertical funds (i.e. the Global Environment Facility (GEF))
and other donors. Emerging financial mechanisms, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), are also
expected to require their implementing partners to have environmental and social safeguard systems in
place.
UNDP and many other organisations have developed environmental and social screening and
assessment processes for projects and the corresponding accountability mechanisms to ensure their
implementation. This safeguard approach aims to minimize, mitigate or offset as appropriate
potentially adverse environmental and social impacts of UNDP’s development work. UNDP’s mandatory
project-level environmental and social screening procedure (called UNDP ESSP), adopted in 2011 and
incorporated into UNDP’s Programming and Operations Policies and Procedures (POPP), is a vital
component of UNDP’s project-level quality assurance process. Applying the UNDP ESSP will help not
only to protect against environmental and/or social damage or harm but will also assist in the clever
design of projects so that opportunities are maximized. UNDP is therefore providing a service to
countries in undertaking an environmental and social screening of a project as it helps countries to
develop projects that respond to increasingly complex and interconnected development challenges. It
also strengthens UNDP’s reputation for providing high quality programming and maintains our ‘license
to operate’ in communities and countries around the world.
The UNDP ESSP also consolidates and harmonizes various ad hoc safeguard standards that were
proliferating across UNDP trust funds and at the project level and should therefore reduce the
programming burden of UNDP Country Offices and minimize transaction costs. The UNDP ESSP meets
international best practice and must be applied to all UNDP supported projects whether they are
developed in countries with or without national environmental and social safeguard systems, or
whether the project is to be financed by donors that have their own environmental and social safeguard
policies (e.g. the GEF safeguards policy or the safeguard policies of bilateral donors). Clearly, UNDP
supported projects are required to adhere to UNDP policies and procedures and these internal policies
and procedures may be supplemented with additional requirements if necessary in order to comply with
donor requirements. For example, a UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF1 financed project must be
screened for environmental and social opportunities and risks using the UNDP ESSP as the minimum
UNDP requirement. A limited number of additional requirements are also required for
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects in order for UNDP to comply with the GEF safeguards policy.
These additional requirements are outlined in this guidance document.
In addition, if a project is to be undertaken in a country that has national level safeguard systems this
does not mean that the UNDP ESSP is no longer necessary. If the national level system has been fully
1
GEF = Global Environment Facility Trust Fund; LDCF = Least Developed Countries Fund; SCCF = Special Climate Change Fund; NPIF = Nagoya
Protocol Implementation Fund
applied to the project in question and UNDP concludes that a rigorous environmental and social
screening has been conducted and the UNDP ESSP would have reached an equivalent conclusion it may
no longer be useful to apply the UNDP ESSP. In these cases, the report or outcome document of the
national environmental and social screening of the project must be available for consultation during the
UNDP project appraisal committee meeting, and the identified environmental and social risks and
opportunities that resulted from this review must be incorporated into the project document. In many
cases, UNDP may decide that an additional review is necessary and will undertake the environmental
and social screening of the project using the UNDP ESSP.
Screening a UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed project for environmental and social
opportunities and risks may seem an unnecessary and time consuming exercise given the core purpose
of these projects is to realise global and national environmental benefits. However, doing so may raise
some important issues that were not addressed during the design of the project. For example, the
screening may highlight some social opportunities that could be harnessed to realise multiple
development benefits, or identify risks that should be avoided or managed, or highlight whether the
expected benefits in one area could lead to adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts in other
areas. For example, the siting process for solar and wind energy generation facilities must often
consider how to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential impacts on both human settlements, natural
habitats, and other adverse impacts on biodiversity. Protected area projects must consider both
positive and negative effects on the livelihoods of local peoples, including indigenous peoples. Applying
a safeguards approach is also essential to maintaining UNDP’s reputation as a reliable partner for the
GEF. Recently, a GEF Evaluation Office report suggested that UNDP may not have dealt with a
resettlement issue properly and that this may have posed a risk to GEF’s reputation. Fortunately, this
proved to be factually incorrect and UNDP was able to demonstrate that only national funds (i.e. not
part of the UNDP-GEF project document) were used in the relocation of productive aquaculture
activities conducted by national authorities and that this relocation of activities was done in accordance
with national safeguard policies.
Screening projects for environmental and social opportunities and risks is now a mandatory requirement
for all UNDP projects with a budget of USD 500,000. UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed
projects must comply with this UNDP policy and, as the GEF safeguards policy does not include a
financial threshold, all expedited Enabling Activities (EAs) with a budget under USD 500,000 and all
medium-sized projects (MSPs) and full-sized projects (FSPs) must be pre-screened by the UNDP-GEF
team for environmental and social opportunities and risks using the UNDP ESSP. Therefore, as of 01
January 2013, UNDP-GEF Technical Advisers must undertake a pre-screening of all GEF project concepts
(i.e. PIFs or PFDs) using the UNDP ESSP before the first submission of the GEF PIF/PFD to the GEF
Secretariat. See Section 3.1 for further details on what is expected from this pre-screening process.
Please note that PIFs/PFDs that were submitted to the GEF before 31 December 2012 do not need to be
pre-screened for environmental and social opportunities and risks. However, once the project
document of these previously submitted PIFs/PFDs is developed, and the project budget is USD 500,000
or more, the project document will need to be screened by the project developer (i.e. typically in the
UNDP Country Office) before the project is appraised during the UNDP project appraisal committee
(UNDP PAC) meeting. The completed UNDP ESSP summary note is to be included as an Annex in the
UNDP-GEF project document. Ideally project should be appraised at the UNDP PAC meeting before the
project document is submitted to the GEF for final approval (i.e. CEO endorsement), however in some
cases this may not be feasible and the UNDP PAC meeting may need to be held after CEO endorsement
(see Section 3 for further details).
Please note that all components of a UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed project to be
financed with GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF grant funds and cash GEF co-financing2 that will be channelled
through UNDP accounts must be screened for environmental and social opportunities and risks. Other
GEF co-financing or baseline financing components that may be outlined in the UNDP project document
as baseline activities, not activities to be managed by UNDP, and where the funds are not channelled
through UNDP accounts are not considered part of the UNDP managed project, and therefore the UNDP
POPP – and hence the requirement to screen the project using the UNDP ESSP - do not apply.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the GEF safeguards policy and the UNDP
ESSP, and to provide guidance on WHO should screen a UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed
project and WHEN this screening should take place. Further details on two key safeguard policy issues:
indigenous peoples and compliance and grievance systems are also provided. Annex 1 includes the
UNDP ESSP screening template which is comprised of a checklist and a summary note. Annex 2 provides
examples of applying the UNDP ESSP, and Annex 3 provides links to additional information including
guidance posted on the UNDP ESSP Teamworks space. This draft document will be updated late 2013
based on feedback received and changes that may be made to the UNDP ESSP and the UNDP POPP.
2. Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies
2.1 Overview of the GEF safeguards policy

The November 2011 GEF policy on Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguards
requires the 10 GEF Agencies, as well as newly accredited GEF Project Agencies, to have policies and
systems in place to meet the safeguard standards outlined in the GEF safeguards policy. The GEF will
assess the policies and systems of each GEF Agency in 2013 to ensure compliance with the GEF
safeguards policy, and with the GEF Policy on Gender Mainstreaming. GEF Agencies have until the end
of 2014 to come into full compliance with the GEF safeguards policy.
The GEF Secretariat will not conduct a review of each project submitted to the GEF for compliance with
the GEF safeguards policy. However, the GEF Evaluation Office is expected to continue to undertake
annual reviews for the GEF Council that assess the quality at entry of project documents. The quality at
entry criteria includes compliance with GEF monitoring and evaluation policies and other GEF policies
including the GEF safeguards policy.
2
For further details on GEF co-financing and cost-sharing see December 2012 UNDP-GEF Advisory Note on Accepting GEF Cost-sharing
The GEF safeguards policy applies to GEF-financed projects. These are defined in the GEF policy as any
project or operation financed with resources from any GEF-managed trust fund, including the GEF Trust
Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the
Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPIF). This does not include non-GEF co-financing or baseline
financing resources. The GEF safeguards policy also does not set a financial threshold for the
application of the policy.
The GEF safeguards policy states that in general, GEF does not finance large, complex infrastructure
projects that pose significant environmental and social issues, and that overall, there is little evidence
that GEF financing has led or will lead to adverse environmental or social impacts. The GEF policy also
states that there are some trade-offs that GEF financed projects face in terms of supporting
environmental objectives while also balancing other environmental and socioeconomic concerns.
Therefore, GEF-financed operations seeking to achieve benefits in one area should avoid adverse
environmental or socioeconomic impacts in other areas. If avoidance is not feasible, then all efforts
should be made to minimize, mitigate, or offset, as appropriate, potentially adverse impacts.
The GEF safeguards policy includes five overarching principles which apply to the use of GEF resources3
in GEF-financed projects:
1. The GEF shall not finance activities that degrade or convert critical natural habitats (see note below
for definition).
2. The GEF shall not finance the construction or rehabilitation of large or complex dams4.
3. The GEF shall not finance the introduction or use of potentially invasive, non-indigenous species.
4. GEF projects shall seek to avoid involuntary resettlement5. Where it is not feasible to avoid
resettlement, all efforts will be made to minimize involuntary resettlement and all viable
alternatives will be explored. In this context, GEF will not finance the cost of the physical relocation
or displacement of people.
5. GEF-financed projects shall not use or promote the use of any substances listed under the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Note: The GEF safeguards policy defines critical natural habitats as: (i) existing protected areas and areas
officially proposed by governments as protected areas (e.g., reserves that meet the criteria of the World
Conservation Union [IUCN] classifications6, areas protected by Indigenous Peoples and traditional local
3
GEF resources from any GEF-managed trust fund
4
Large dams are defined as those of 15 meters or more in height. Complex dams are those of a height between 10 and 15 meters that present
special design complexities, including an unusually large flood-handling requirement, location in a zone of high seismicity, foundations that are
complex and difficult to prepare, or retention of toxic materials.
5
The physical relocation and displacement of people includes the involuntary acquisition of land. It does not include the involuntary restriction
of access to legally designated parks and protected areas (which does not include the acquisition of land) that may result in adverse impacts on
the livelihoods of local people or communities.
6
IUCN categories are as follows: I (a) Strict Nature Reserve/ (b) Wilderness Area: protected area managed for science or wilderness protection;
II--National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation; III--Natural Monument or feature: protected area
managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features; IV--Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for
conservation through management intervention; V--Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape
conservation and recreation; and VI—Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: protected area managed mainly for the
sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Further information on IUCN’s management goal categories and classification of governance types
maybe be found in Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Glad, Switzerland: IUCN.
communities, and sites that maintain conditions vital for the viability of these protected areas (as
determined by the environmental assessment process); or (ii) sites identified on supplementary lists
prepared by authoritative sources. Such sites may include areas recognized by Indigenous Peoples and
traditional local communities; areas with known high suitability for biodiversity conservation; and sites
that are critical for rare, vulnerable, or endangered species7. Listings should be based on systematic
evaluations of such factors as species richness; the degree of endemism, rarity, vulnerability of
component species; representativeness; and integrity of ecosystem processes. It further states that
biodiversity outside of natural habitats (such as within agricultural landscapes) is not covered under this
policy. It is good practice to take such biodiversity into consideration in project design and
implementation.
The GEF policy sets minimum environmental and social safeguard standards in eight areas:
1. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
2. Natural Habitats8
3. Involuntary Resettlement
4. Indigenous Peoples (see section 2.3 below for further information)
5. Pest Management
6. Physical Cultural Resources
7. Safety of Dams; and
8. Accountability and Grievance Systems (see section 2.4 below for further information)
2.2 Overview of UNDP’s project level environmental and social

screening procedure (UNDP ESSP)
Many development agencies have developed environmental screening and assessment procedures that
focus on predicting, evaluating, and managing negative impacts associated with infrastructure projects.
UNDP supports some projects like this, but the majority of its projects relate to strategic planning, policy
reform, institution strengthening, and capacity building. As a consequence, UNDP has designed a
procedure to screen all kinds of projects that enables environmental and social issues to be carefully
mainstreamed into project design and project document development. The outcome is an approach
that allows us to both analyze risk and maximize environmental and social opportunities.
Those responsible for applying the UNDP ESSP must complete a standard environmental and social
screening template. This screening template, copied in Annex 1, is made up of two parts: a checklist
and a summary note. The checklist includes four main questions which allow the reviewer to determine
a screening category or categories for the project. Note that Categories 2 and 3 are not mutually
7
Rare, vulnerable, endangered, or similarly threatened, as indicated in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals, BirdLife World List of
Threatened Birds, IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, or other credible international or national lists.
8
Defined in the GEF safeguards policy as: land and water areas where (i) the ecosystems' biological communities are formed largely by native
plant and animal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially modified the area's primary ecological functions. All natural habitats have
important biological, social, economic, and existence value. Important natural habitats may occur in tropical humid, dry, and cloud forests;
temperate and boreal forests; Mediterranean-type shrub lands; natural arid and semi-arid lands; mangrove swamps, coastal marshes, and
other wetlands; estuaries; sea grass beds; coral reefs; freshwater lakes and rivers; alpine and sub alpine environments, including herb fields,
grasslands, and paramos; and tropical and temperate grasslands.
exclusive and combinations of both may result from the screening. This categorization is important to
determine what kind of follow up action may be required if any. The summary note template provides a
brief summary of the results of the screening, including follow up actions. For updates to the UNDP
ESSP screening checklist and supporting guidance, including an on-line version of the checklist, please
visit the UNDP ESSP Teamworks space regularly.
The screening will result in the determination of one or more of the following three categories:
Category 1. No further action is needed, either because no significant environmental and social
impacts and risks were identified, or because sufficient environmental and social review has already
been conducted and environmental and social management recommendations have been incorporated
into the project; for example, in cases where national systems for environmental and social safeguards
have been applied as they have been determined to be equivalent to UNDP’s ESSP. See Section 6 and
Annex B of the UNDP ESSP guidance for further information.
Category 2. Environmental and social sustainability elements need to be integrated into project
design because there are possible environmental and social benefits, impacts, and/or risks associated
with the project (or a project component) but these are predominantly indirect or very long-term and
so extremely difficult or impossible to directly identify and assess. Category 2 projects usually support
upstream planning processes that potentially pose environmental and social impacts. For example,
when UNDP is supporting the elaboration of a development strategy, policy or plan. In these cases,
UNDP will often have an important role to play in supporting and developing capacities for taking an
integrated approach to development. See Section 7 of the UNDP ESSP guidance for further information.
Category 3. Further environmental and social review and management is needed because potential
environmental and social impacts or risks are associated with the project (or a project component) and
it is possible to identify these with a reasonable degree of certainty. Category 3 projects usually
include the implementation of downstream activities that could pose an environmental or social risk.
See Section 8 of the UNDP ESSP guidance, Annex 2 in this document, and the UNDP ESSP Teamworks
space for further information.
Two sub-categories can be selected:

Category 3a: Impacts and risks are limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable
degree of certainty and can often be handled through application of standard best practice, but
require some minimal or targeted further review and assessment.
Category 3b: Impacts and risks may be significant and a full environmental and social
assessment is required. In these cases, a scoping exercise will be needed to identify the level
and approach of assessment that is most appropriate.
2.3 Indigenous peoples and FPIC policies

Both the GEF safeguards policy and UNDP policies with regard to indigenous peoples aim to ensure that
projects are designed and implemented in such a way that fosters full respect for indigenous peoples’
and their members’ dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness so that they (a) receive culturally
appropriate social and economic benefits; and (b) do not suffer adverse effects during the development
process.
UNDP’s policies with regard to indigenous peoples are outlined in UNDP’s Programming and Operations
Policies and Procedures (POPP) that includes links to two additional guidance documents: the 2009
UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples Issues and the 2001 UNDP and Indigenous Peoples: A Policy of
Engagement. Other UNDP policies address engaging with civil society9, vulnerable groups and other
partners.
The 2001 UNDP policy of engagement paper suggests that the following four criteria are used to
distinguish indigenous peoples:
 indigenous peoples usually live within (or maintain attachments to) geographically distinct
ancestral territories;
 they tend to maintain distinct social, economic, and political institutions within their territories;
 they typically aspire to remain distinct culturally, geographically and institutionally rather than
assimilate fully into national society; and
 they self-identify as indigenous or tribal.
The GEF minimum standard on indigenous peoples includes specific requirements for addressing and
mainstreaming indigenous peoples’ issues when designing and implementing projects. While many of
these requirements are addressed in the general project management sections of the UNDP POPP, they
are copied here for easy reference:
1. Screen early for the presence of Indigenous Peoples in the project area, who are identified
through criteria that reflect their social and cultural distinctiveness. Such criteria may include:
self-identification and identification by others as Indigenous Peoples, collective attachment to
land, presence of customary institutions, indigenous language, and primarily subsistence-
oriented production.
2. Provide socioeconomic benefits in ways that are culturally appropriate, and gender and
generationally inclusive. Full consideration should be given to options preferred by the affected
Indigenous Peoples for provision of benefits and mitigation measures.
3. Make provisions in plans, where appropriate, to support activities to establish legal recognition
of customary or traditional land tenure and management systems and collective rights used by
project affected Indigenous Peoples.
4. Where restriction of access of Indigenous Peoples to parks and protected areas is not avoidable,
ensure that affected Indigenous Peoples fully and effectively participate in the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of management plans for such parks, protected
areas, and species and share equitably in benefits from the parks and protected areas.
5. Refrain from utilizing the cultural resources or knowledge of Indigenous Peoples without
obtaining their prior agreement to such use.
9
See 2012 UNDP Corporate Strategy on Civil Society and Civic Engagement
6. For those projects where the environmental and social impact assessment identifies adverse
effects on Indigenous Peoples, Agency policies require that the project develop an Indigenous
Peoples plan or a framework that:
a. Specifies measures to ensure that affected Indigenous Peoples receive culturally
appropriate benefits;
b. Identifies measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate for any adverse effects;
c. Includes measures for continued consultation during project implementation, grievance
procedures, and monitoring and evaluation arrangements;
d. Specifies a budget and financing plan for implementing the planned measures. Such
plans should draw on indigenous knowledge and be developed in with the full and
effective participation of affected Indigenous Peoples.
7. Disclose documentation of the consultation process and the required Indigenous Peoples plan
or framework, in a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in a place accessible to key
stakeholders, including project affected groups and CSOs, in a form and language
understandable to them.
8. Monitor, by experienced social scientists, the implementation of the project (and any required
Indigenous Peoples plan or framework) and its benefits as well as challenging or negative
impacts on Indigenous Peoples and address possible mitigation measures in a participatory
manner.
The UNDP POPP also supports the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Therefore, for
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects where indigenous peoples are present in or have collective
attachment to the project area the principle of free, prior and informed consent applies during project
design, preparation and implementation. The principle of free, prior and informed consent is explained
in the UNDP Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples as follows. Further clarification for UNDP supported
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects is noted below10.
Free: should imply no coercion, intimidation or manipulation;
Prior: should imply consent has been sought sufficiently in advance of any authorization or
commencement of activities and respect time requirements of indigenous
consultation/consensus processes;
 NOTE for UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects: ‘sufficiently in
advance’ is understood to mean before the project document has been signed by all
parties.
Informed: should imply that information is provided that covers (at least) the following aspects:
 The nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity;
 The reason/s or purpose of the project and/or activity;
 The duration of the above;
 The locality of areas that will be affected;
10
For further information on the GEF Council position on FPIC please see the GEF environmental and social safeguards policy
 A preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental
impact, including potential risks and fair and equitable benefit sharing in a context
that respects the precautionary principle;
 Personnel likely to be involved in the execution of the proposed project (including
indigenous peoples, private sector staff, research institutions, government
employees and others)
 Procedures that the project may entail.
Consent: has the following elements:

 Consultation and participation are crucial components of a consent process.
Consultation should be undertaken in good faith. The parties should establish a
dialogue allowing them to find appropriate solutions in an atmosphere of mutual
respect in good faith, and full and equitable participation.
 Consultation requires time and an effective system for communicating among
interest holders.
 Indigenous peoples should be able to participate through their own freely chosen
representatives and customary or other institutions.
 The inclusion of a gender perspective and the participation of indigenous women is
essential, as well as participation of children and youth as appropriate.
 This process may include the option of withholding consent. Consent to any
agreement should be interpreted as indigenous peoples have reasonably
understood it.
 NOTE for UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects: this is
understood to mean that a) the mutually accepted consultation process between
the project proponent and affected indigenous communities will be documented
and made available to UNDP b) evidence of agreement between the parties as the
outcome of the consultations will be documented and made available to UNDP.
2.4 Compliance and grievance systems: accountability for safeguard

policies and systems
The GEF safeguards policy includes a minimum standard on accountability and grievance systems
requiring GEF Agencies to have accountability systems or measures that ensure the enforcement of its
environmental and social safeguard policies and related systems. The GEF policy also requires GEF
Agencies to have systems or measures for the receipt of and timely response to complaints from parties
affected by the implementation of the project and which seek resolution of such complaints. Such
systems are not intended to substitute for country-level dispute resolution and redress mechanisms.
The preamble in the GEF safeguards policy also states that all GEF Agencies are required to report
annually, as part of their submissions for the Annual Monitoring Review (AMR), on cases that have been
reported to their respective accountability and grievance systems and how they have been addressed.
The GEF Secretariat will report to the GEF Council on these issues through the GEF Secretariat Annual
Monitoring Report.
UNDP is developing an environmental and social compliance review and grievance process. This process
will be used to address any compliance or grievance issue specific to UNDP supported
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects. Full guidance on how this process will work for UNDP
supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects will be developed in 2013. Further details on the
proposed UNDP environmental and social compliance review and grievance process can be found on the
UNDP Environmental and Social Compliance Review and Grievance Process Teamworks space.
The proposed environmental and social compliance and review and dispute resolution process in
UNDP would establish the following:
1. A compliance review process to respond to claims that UNDP is not in compliance with applicable
environmental and social policies, including its environmental and social screening procedure. This
process will:
 Investigate alleged violations of UNDP‘s environmental and social commitments in a project
financed, or to be financed, by UNDP or any other project where UNDP policies apply.
 Be managed through a self-contained unit within UNDP‘s Office of Audit and Investigation
(OAI) that reports to the UNDP Administrator.
 Allow any person or group of persons who are potentially affected by a UNDP-supported
project to file a complaint. Investigations would also be triggered on the Compliance
Officer‘s own initiative or at the request of the UNDP Administrator.
 Lead to a compliance report, including findings and recommendations, submitted by the
Director of OAI to the UNDP Administrator with a copy to the requesters and a copy
released to the public.
 Result in findings of non-compliance and recommendations about how to bring the Project
back into compliance and, where appropriate, mitigate any harm resulting from UNDP‘s
failure to follow its policies or procedures. The UNDP Administrator would make the final
decision regarding responses and remedies though no decision is legally required. The
Administrator can take a variety of steps at her discretion, including to agree that
modifications should be made to UNDP’s approach to the project; withholding additional
support to the project pending specific steps necessary for compliance with UNDP policies;
or stopping disbursements in cases where a project is harming affected people and cannot
be brought into compliance; or if the Administrator decides, and resources allow, to
compensate the people for harm caused by UNDP’s failure to ensure compliance with its
policies. With the understanding that non-compliance can be beyond UNDP’s control, the
mechanism is not meant to single out staff for criticism because of a finding of non-
compliance.
2. A dispute resolution process that ensures individuals, peoples and communities affected by UNDP
projects have access to appropriate dispute resolutions procedures for hearing and addressing
project-related disputes. This process will:
 Receive complaints from people or communities affected by UNDP operations, track those
complaints and support efforts at all levels to resolve the disputes through a variety of
dispute resolution methodologies. The ultimate focus is to improve the environmental and
social outcomes for local communities affected by UNDP-supported activities.
 Establish the primary window for receiving grievances at the country level. Some
complaints would also be received at the corporate level though most of these would be
referred to the Country Office Designee for receiving and handling grievances. Complaints
filed by affected people to the compliance review process, which do not raise compliance-
related issues, may also be transferred to the appropriate Country Office Designee.
 Assign responsibility for overseeing the grievance process to the Resident Representatives.
 Assign responsibility to the Country Office Designee to receive complaints, review their
eligibility and assess the complaints in light of potential opportunities for dispute resolution.
The goal is to ensure that affected people have access to an effective, fair and independent
grievance process, where their concerns can be heard. Such a grievance process may be
operated at the project or programmatic level by the host government or project sponsor.
In such a case, UNDP‘s primary role will be to refer complaints to those processes, provide
support and resources, if warranted, for the effective handling of those grievances by the
existing mechanisms, and monitor the processes to ensure they meet basic standards of
independence, fairness and effectiveness. Where no adequate grievance process exists,
UNDP‘s Country Office Designee may choose to conduct the dispute resolution process
according to procedures developed in accordance with corporate guidance to be developed.
 Result in a final report submitted by the Country Office Designee to the Resident
Representative, the UNDP Administrator, relevant stakeholders and the public.
Neither the proposed compliance review nor dispute resolution processes are courts of law nor should
any finding change any underlying legal responsibility, immunity or liability of the UNDP. Nothing in the
proposed compliance review or dispute resolution processes should be construed as a waiver, express
or implied, of the privileges and immunities of UNDP. The process is internal and does not create any
expectations of a specific recourse or cause of action against the organization.
3. WHO is responsible for the environmental and social

screening and WHEN should the screening be done?
All UNDP supported GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects with a budget of USD 500,000 or more must
be screened twice for environmental and social risks and opportunities: at the project concept phase
(i.e. PIF/PFD) and, once the project document has been developed, before the UNDP project appraisal
committee meeting. Expedited Enabling Activities (EAs) with a budget under USD 500,000 will be pre-
screened by the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser during the project concept phase and do not need to be
screened a second time before the UNDP project appraisal committee meeting.
1. A pre-screening of the project concept (i.e. GEF PIF/PFD) will be undertaken by the UNDP-GEF
Technical Adviser.
 As of 01 January 2013, UNDP-GEF Technical Advisers are required to complete the
environmental and social screening using the UNDP ESSP for all UNDP supported
GEF/LCDF/SCCF/NPIF financed projects before they are submitted to the GEF for review.
 This includes expedited Enabling Activity (EA) projects with a budget under USD 500,000 and
all mediums-sized projects (MSPs) and full-sized projects (FSPs) with a budget over USD
500,000.
 The reference document to use in this pre-screening is the GEF Project Identification Form
(GEF PIF)
2. A screening of the project document will be undertaken by the project developer :

 The project developer can be a UNDP staff member or another person as agreed by the
UNDP Resident Representative. The Resident Representative is accountable for ensuring
the UNDP ESSP is applied in accordance with the UNDP POPP.
 GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF regional projects11 must be screened by the lead country project
developer before the project is appraised at the PAC (project appraisal committee) meeting
convened by the lead country.
 GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF global projects must be screened by the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser
who is also responsible for convening the BDP PAC meeting.
 Ideally the screening should be included in the UNDP-GEF project document as an Annex
and be submitted to the UNDP PAC meeting before the project document is submitted to
the GEF for final approval (i.e. CEO endorsement). However, in some cases, due to the strict
milestones set by the GEF, the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser may decide this is not feasible
and the UNDP PAC meeting may need to be held after CEO endorsement.
 The reference document to use in this screening is the UNDP-GEF Project Document that is
sent with the GEF CEO endorsement template to the GEF for CEO endorsement.
These two entry points for the screening are highlighted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. If a project undergoes
a substantive revision it should be re-screened and re-appraised at a UNDP PAC meeting. See UNDP
POPP for further details on substantive revisions. If the project is a global or regional programme that
includes sub-projects also financed by GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF resources the sub-projects do not need to
undergo a second screening unless the first screening of the global or regional programme/project
highlighted that further assessment of the sub-projects is needed.
3.1 Pre-screening to be undertaken by the UNDP-GEF technical adviser

The purpose of the pre-screening is to identify environmental and social opportunities and risks that
should be incorporated into the project strategy and/or that require further study during the project
document development stage12 or during the first phase of project implementation. As there are
limitations in how significantly the strategy of a GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financed project can be changed
after the GEF PIF has been approved by the GEF or the GEF Council, an early pre-screening will help to
11
These are typically projects undertaken in multiple countries in the same region.
12
i.e. PPG phase funded through PPG grant (project preparation grant)
ensure that environmental and social opportunities and risks are integrated into the project strategy
before the GEF PIF is submitted to the GEF for review.
The UNDP-GEF RTA is responsible for the following outcomes of the pre-screening:
a. UNDP ESSP summary note of the pre-screening is uploaded to UNDP-GEF PIMS: The summary
should include:
 Anticipated environmental and social screening category or categories of the project.
Should the pre-screening result in an anticipated category 3b where a full and
comprehensive environmental and social impact assessment may be required, the UNDP-
GEF RTA should discuss the project strategy with the UNDP-GEF PTA to decide how to
proceed.
 Comprehensive recommendations of studies to be undertaken as necessary during project
document development phase or during the first phase of project implementation.
b. Revised GEF PIF: Integration of any identified environmental and social opportunities and risks into
the project strategy and reflected in the revised GEF PIF.
c. Documentation addressing consultations with Indigenous Peoples (IPs) is uploaded to UNDP-GEF
PIMS. If IPs are present in, or have collective attachment to the project area, any consultations that
may be undertaken with IPs during the project concept phase (i.e. development of the PIF) must be
undertaken according to the principles of free prior and informed consent (see section 2.3 above).
These consultations (when undertaken) and evidence of the agreement of IPs to the project design
must be documented. This documentation can be a summary of a workshop, a meeting report, an
e-mail sent/received or any other documentation that outlines: (i) the mutually accepted
consultation process between the project proponent and affected indigenous communities and (ii)
evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of the consultations.
3.2 Screening to be undertaken by the project developer
The project developer should first review the pre-screening UNDP ESSP checklist and summary template
of the same project, and update this based on the findings from any studies that may have been
undertaken during the project document preparation phase. The screening should particularly focus on
the measures to manage the environmental and social risks.
The project developer is responsible for the following outcomes of the screening:
a. UNDP ESSP summary note of the screening is presented to the UNDP PAC meeting: This can be
included as an Annex in the UNDP-GEF project document. The summary should include:
 Final environmental and social screening category or categories of the project.
 Short summary of any studies undertaken during the project document development phase
(i.e. identified during the pre-screening) and how the findings of these studies have been
incorporated into the project strategy.
 If the pre-screening studies have not been undertaken, the project developer will confirm
that these studies are included in the project document and the project budget, and are
planned to take place in the first phase of project implementation.
 Confirmation that the project document outlines how the identified environmental and
social risks will be managed during project implementation.
 Confirmation that the role of indigenous peoples groups in project implementation,
monitoring and evaluation is clearly explained and planned for in the project document.
This can include specific project activities to build the capacity of the indigenous peoples
groups to support their effective participation in the implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the project. This can also include a formal role for indigenous peoples groups
in the project’s management arrangements.
b. Documentation addressing consultations with Indigenous Peoples (IPs) is shared with the UNDP-GEF
unit in the region for uploading to UNDP-GEF PIMS. If IPs are present in, or have collective
attachment to the project area, consultations with IPs that were undertaken during the project
document development phase must have been undertaken according to the principles of free prior
and informed consent (see section 2.3 above). These consultations and evidence of the agreement
of IPs to the project must be documented. This documentation can be a summary of a workshop, a
meeting report, an e-mail sent/received or any other documentation that outlines: (i) the mutually
accepted consultation process between the project proponent and affected indigenous
communities and (ii) evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of the
consultations.
c. The County Office must send the final report of the UNDP PAC meeting to the UNDP-GEF unit in the
region for uploading to the UNDP-GEF PIMS.
3.3 Managing and monitoring environmental and social risks during
project implementation
Existing UNDP and UNDP-GEF monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools and guidance can be used to
manage, monitor and report on environmental and social risks during project implementation. These
include:
1. Inception phase: The Inception phase provides the opportunity to clarify how the environmental
and social risks will be managed and how indigenous peoples (if relevant) will be involved in the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. This must be captured in the final
Inception Report, and the final Inception Report uploaded to UNDP-GEF PIMS.
2. Risk management: The ATLAS risk log is an existing and mandatory UNDP project management tool.
Environmental and social risks identified through the screening process and adaptive management
actions undertaken to manage these risks are entered into the risk log on a regular basis. Risks can
be classified as critical when the risk is assessed to have a medium to high impact and/or the
probability of occurrence is above 50% and when the project involves innovative financial
instruments. The ATLAS risk log is updated by the UNDP Country Office. UNDP-GEF RTA provides
quality assurance of risk management during the annual APR/PIR process (see below for further
details).
The risk log allows the user to classify each risk into one of eight types:
i. Environmental: natural disasters: storms, flooding, earthquakes. Pollution incidents, side
effects from one GEF focal area in another GEF focal area, etc…
ii. Financial: External economic factors: interest rates, exchange rate fluctuations, inflation.
Internal: co-financing difficulties, use of financing mechanisms (microfinance, ESCOs,
guaranteed funds, etc…)
iii. Operational: complex project design, project management, human error, infrastructure
failure, safety being compromised, poor monitoring & evaluation, low delivery etc..
iv. Organizational: institutional arrangements, capacity issues etc…
v. Political: government commitment, political will, political instability, change in government,
armed conflict and instability, adverse public opinion/media intervention etc…
vi. Regulatory: unexpected regulations and/or policies, critical policies or legislation fail to pass
or progress in the legislative process etc…
vii. Strategic: partnerships fail to deliver, stakeholder concerns etc…
viii. Other: other risks that do not fit into any of the above categories.
ix. Efforts are being made to add a ninth category: social. Until this is operational, please
classify all social risks as ‘other’.
3. APR/PIR: An existing and mandatory UNDP-GEF annual monitoring and reporting tool required for
all GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF funded projects.
a. Critical risks and the adaptive management response are monitored and reported in the
Adjustments section.
b. Environmental and social disputes/grievances and complaints are monitored and reported in the
UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF RTA section.
c. Partnerships with indigenous peoples and other stakeholders are monitored and reported in the
Partnerships section.
d. Gender issues are monitored and reported in the gender section/tab.
4. Mid-term review (MTR): An existing and mandatory UNDP-GEF monitoring tool required for full-
size GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF funded projects and recommended for medium-sized projects. The MTR
process provides the opportunity to: review the project design; address implementation issues;
review risks and adaptive management; review progress made in involving indigenous peoples in
project implementation, monitoring and evaluation (where relevant); and ,identify emerging
environmental and social risks that need to be accounted for in the remaining duration of the
project. The evaluator will review the pre-screening and screening documentation and assess how
well the environmental and social opportunities and risks were integrated into the project strategy,
and how well these are being managed during project implementation.
5. Terminal evaluation: An existing and mandatory UNDP-GEF monitoring tool required for all
GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF funded projects. The TE guidance includes criteria to rate the achievements of
the project. These criteria include environmental and social sustainability, poverty and environment
issues, sustainable livelihoods and gender. The evaluator will review the pre-screening and
screening documentation and assess how well the opportunities and risks were integrated into the
project strategy, and how well these were managed during project implementation.
Annex 1: Further information on UNDP ESSP
NOTE:
1. Use the on-line version of the UNDP environmental and social screening template.
2. Please consult the UNDP EEEP Teamworks page frequently to access updated versions of the UNDP
ESSP screening template and other guidance.
The UNDP ESSP dated December 2012 is copied below.
QUESTION 1:
Has a combined environmental and social assessment/review that covers the proposed project already been completed by
implementing partners or donor(s)?
Select answer below and follow instructions:
 NO  Continue to Question 2 (do not fill out Table 1.1)
 YES  No further environmental and social review is required if the existing documentation meets UNDP’s quality
assurance standards, and environmental and social management recommendations are integrated into the project.
Therefore, you should undertake the following steps to complete the screening process:
1. Use Table 1.1 below to assess existing documentation. (It is recommended that this assessment be
undertaken jointly by the Project Developer and other relevant Focal Points in the office or Bureau).
2. Ensure that the Project Document incorporates the recommendations made in the implementing partner’s
environmental and social review.
3. Summarize the relevant information contained in the implementing partner’s environmental and social
review in Annex A.2 of this Screening Template, selecting Category 1.
4. Submit Annex A to the PAC, along with other relevant documentation.
Note: Further guidance on the use of national systems for environmental and social assessment can be found in Annex B.
TABLE 1.1: CHECKLIST FOR APPRAISING QUALITY ASSURANCE OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND
Yes/No
SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
1. Does the assessment/review meet its terms of reference, both procedurally and substantively?
2. Does the assessment/review provide a satisfactory assessment of the proposed project?
3. Does the assessment/review contain the information required for decision-making?
4. Does the assessment/review describe specific environmental and social management measures (e.g.
mitigation, monitoring, advocacy, and capacity development measures)?
5. Does the assessment/review identify capacity needs of the institutions responsible for implementing
environmental and social management issues?
6. Was the assessment/review developed through a consultative process with strong stakeholder engagement,
including the view of men and women?
7. Does the assessment/review assess the adequacy of the cost of and financing arrangements for
Table 1.1 (continued) For any “no” answers, describe below how the issue has been or will be resolved (e.g. amendments
made or supplemental review conducted).
QUESTION 2:
Do all outputs and activities described in the Project Document fall within the following categories?
 Procurement (in which case UNDP’s Procurement Ethics and Environmental Procurement Guide need to be complied
with)
 Report preparation
 Training
 Event/workshop/meeting/conference (refer to Green Meeting Guide)
 Communication and dissemination of results
 NO  Continue to Question 3
 YES  No further environmental and social review required. Complete Annex A.2, selecting Category 1, and submit
the completed template (Annex A) to the PAC.
QUESTION 3:
Does the proposed project include activities and outputs that support upstream planning processes that potentially pose
environmental and social impacts or are vulnerable to environmental and social change (refer to Table 3.1 for examples)?
(Note that upstream planning processes can occur at global, regional, national, local and sectoral levels)
Select the appropriate answer and follow instructions:
 NO  Continue to Question 4.
 YES Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:

1. Adjust the project design as needed to incorporate UNDP support to the country(ies), to ensure that
environmental and social issues are appropriately considered during the upstream planning process. Refer
to Section 7 of this Guidance for elaboration of environmental and social mainstreaming services, tools,
guidance and approaches that may be used.
2. Summarize environmental and social mainstreaming support in Annex A.2, Section C of the Screening
Template and select ”Category 2”.
3. If the proposed project ONLY includes upstream planning processes then screening is complete, and you
should submit the completed Environmental and Social Screening Template (Annex A) to the PAC. If
downstream implementation activities are also included in the project then continue to Question 4.
TABLE 3. 1 EXAMPLES OF UPSTREAM PLANNING PROCESSES WITH POTENTIAL Check appropriate

DOWNSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS box(es) below
1. Support for the elaboration or revision of global- level strategies, policies, plans, and
programmes.
For example, capacity development and support related to international negotiations and
agreements. Other examples might include a global water governance project or a global MDG
project.
2. Support for the elaboration or revision of regional-level strategies, policies and plans, and
programmes.
For example, capacity development and support related to transboundary programmes and
planning (river basin management, migration, international waters, energy development and
access, climate change adaptation etc.).
3. Support for the elaboration or revision of national-level strategies, policies, plans and
programmes.
For example, capacity development and support related to national development policies, plans,
strategies and budgets, MDG-based plans and strategies (e.g. PRS/PRSPs, NAMAs), sector plans.
4. Support for the elaboration or revision of sub-national/local-level strategies, polices, plans and
programmes.
For example, capacity development and support for district and local level development plans
and regulatory frameworks, urban plans, land use development plans, sector plans, provincial
development plans, provision of services, investment funds, technical guidelines and
methods, stakeholder engagement.
QUESTION 4:
Does the proposed project include the implementation of downstream activities that potentially pose environmental and
social impacts or are vulnerable to environmental and social change?
To answer this question, you should first complete Table 4.1 by selecting appropriate answers. If you answer “No” or “Not
Applicable” to all questions in Table 4.1 then the answer to Question 4 is “NO.” If you answer “Yes” to any questions in Table
4.1 (even one “Yes” can indicated a significant issue that needs to be addressed through further review and management) then
the answer to Question 4 is “YES”:
 NO  No further environmental and social review and management required for downstream activities. Complete
Annex A.2 by selecting “Category 1”, and submit the Environmental and Social Screening Template to the PAC.
 YES  Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:

1. Consult Section 8 of this Guidance, to determine the extent of further environmental and social review and
management that might be required for the project.
2. Revise the Project Document to incorporate environmental and social management measures. Where
further environmental and social review and management activity cannot be undertaken prior to the PAC, a
plan for undertaking such review and management activity within an acceptable period of time, post-PAC
approval (e.g. as the first phase of the project) should be outlined in Annex A.2.
3. Select “Category 3” in Annex A.2, and submit the completed Environmental and Social Screening Template
(Annex A) and relevant documentation to the PAC.
TABLE 4.1: ADDITIONAL SCREENING QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE THE NEED AND POSSIBLE EXTENT OF FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT
Answer
1. Biodiversity and Natural Resources
(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
1.1 Would the proposed project result in the conversion or degradation of modified habitat,
natural habitat or critical habitat?
1.2 Are any development activities proposed within a legally protected area (e.g. natural
reserve, national park) for the protection or conservation of biodiversity?
1.3 Would the proposed project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species?
1.4 Does the project involve natural forest harvesting or plantation development without an
independent forest certification system for sustainable forest management (e.g. PEFC,
the Forest Stewardship Council certification systems, or processes established or accepted
by the relevant National Environmental Authority)?
1.5 Does the project involve the production and harvesting of fish populations or other
aquatic species without an accepted system of independent certification to ensure
sustainability (e.g. the Marine Stewardship Council certification system, or certifications,
standards, or processes established or accepted by the relevant National Environmental
Authority)?
1.6 Does the project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or
ground water?
For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater
extraction.
1.7 Does the project pose a risk of degrading soils?
Answer
2. Pollution
(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
2.1 Would the proposed project result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to
routine or non-routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and
transboundary impacts?
2.2 Would the proposed project result in the generation of waste that cannot be recovered,
reused, or disposed of in an environmentally and socially sound manner?
2.3 Will the propose project involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of chemicals
and hazardous materials subject to international action bans or phase-outs?
For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as
the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or the Montreal Protocol.
2.4 Is there a potential for the release, in the environment, of hazardous materials resulting
from their production, transportation, handling, storage and use for project activities?
2.5 Will the proposed project involve the application of pesticides that have a known
negative effect on the environment or human health?
3. Climate Change
13
3.1 Will the proposed project result in significant greenhouse gas emissions?
Annex E provides additional guidance for answering this question.
3.2 Is the proposed project likely to directly or indirectly increase environmental and social
vulnerability to climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive
practices)? You can refer to the additional guidance in Annex C to help you answer this
question.
For example, a project that would involve indirectly removing mangroves from coastal
zones or encouraging land use plans that would suggest building houses on floodplains
could increase the surrounding population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically
flooding.
4. Social Equity and Equality Answer

(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
4.1 Would the proposed project have environmental and social impacts that could affect
indigenous people or other vulnerable groups?
14
4.2 Is the project likely to significantly impact gender equality and women’s empowerment ?
13
Significant corresponds to CO2 emissions greater than 100,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). Annex E
provides additional guidance on calculating potential amounts of CO2 emissions.
4.3 Is the proposed project likely to directly or indirectly increase social inequalities now or in
the future?
4.4 Will the proposed project have variable impacts on women and men, different ethnic
groups, social classes?
4.5 Have there been challenges in engaging women and other certain key groups of
stakeholders in the project design process?
4.6 Will the project have specific human rights implications for vulnerable groups?
5. Demographics
5.1 Is the project likely to result in a substantial influx of people into the affected
community(ies)?
5.2 Would the proposed project result in substantial voluntary or involuntary resettlement of
populations?
For example, projects with environmental and social benefits (e.g. protected areas,
climate change adaptation) that impact human settlements, and certain disadvantaged
groups within these settlements in particular.
5.3 Would the proposed project lead to significant population density increase which could
affect the environmental and social sustainability of the project?
For example, a project aiming at financing tourism infrastructure in a specific area (e.g.
coastal zone, mountain) could lead to significant population density increase which could
have serious environmental and social impacts (e.g. destruction of the area’s ecology,
noise pollution, waste management problems, greater work burden on women).
1. Culture
6.1 Is the project likely to significantly affect the cultural traditions of affected communities,
including gender-based roles?
6.2 Will the proposed project result in physical interventions (during construction or
implementation) that would affect areas that have known physical or cultural significance
to indigenous groups and other communities with settled recognized cultural claims?
6.3 Would the proposed project produce a physical “splintering” of a community?
For example, through the construction of a road, powerline, or dam that divides a
community.
2. Health and Safety
7.1 Would the proposed project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to
earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions?
For example, development projects located within a floodplain or landslide prone area.
7.2 Will the project result in increased health risks as a result of a change in living and working
conditions? In particular, will it have the potential to lead to an increase in HIV/AIDS
infection?
7.3 Will the proposed project require additional health services including testing?
3. Socio-Economics
14
Women are often more vulnerable than men to environmental degradation and resource scarcity. They typically have weaker
and insecure rights to the resources they manage (especially land), and spend longer hours on collection of water, firewood, etc.
(OECD, 2006). Women are also more often excluded from other social, economic, and political development processes.
8.1 Is the proposed project likely to have impacts that could affect women’s and men’s
ability to use, develop and protect natural resources and other natural capital assets?
For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in
communities who depend on these resources for their development, livelihoods, and well-
being?
8.2 Is the proposed project likely to significantly affect land tenure arrangements and/or
traditional cultural ownership patterns?
8.3 Is the proposed project likely to negatively affect the income levels or employment
opportunities of vulnerable groups?
9. Cumulative and/or Secondary Impacts Answer

(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
9.1 Is the proposed project location subject to currently approved land use plans (e.g. roads,
settlements) which could affect the environmental and social sustainability of the
project?
For example, future plans for urban growth, industrial development, transportation
infrastructure, etc.
9.2 Would the proposed project result in secondary or consequential development which
could lead to environmental and social effects, or would it have potential to generate
cumulative impacts with other known existing or planned activities in the area?
For example, a new road through forested land will generate direct environmental and
social impacts through the cutting of forest and earthworks associated with construction
and potential relocation of inhabitants. These are direct impacts. In addition, however,
the new road would likely also bring new commercial and domestic development (houses,
shops, businesses). In turn, these will generate indirect impacts. (Sometimes these are
termed “secondary” or “consequential” impacts). Or if there are similar developments
planned in the same forested area then cumulative impacts need to be considered.
ANNEX A.2: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING SUMMARY
(to be filled in after Annex A.1 has been completed)
Name of Proposed Project:
A. Environmental and Social Screening Outcome
Select from the following:
 Category 1. No further action is needed
 Category 2. Further review and management is needed. There are possible environmental and social benefits, impacts,
and/or risks associated with the project (or specific project component), but these are predominantly indirect or very long-
term and so extremely difficult or impossible to directly identify and assess.
 Category 3. Further review and management is needed, and it is possible to identify these with a reasonable degree of
certainty. If Category 3, select one or more of the following sub-categories:
 Category 3a: Impacts and risks are limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty and can
often be handled through application of standard best practice, but require some minimal or targeted further review
and assessment to identify and evaluate whether there is a need for a full environmental and social assessment (in
which case the project would move to Category 3b).
 Category 3b: Impacts and risks may well be significant, and so full environmental and social assessment is required. In
these cases, a scoping exercise will need to be conducted to identify the level and approach of assessment that is most
appropriate.
B. Environmental and Social Issues (for projects requiring further environmental and social review and management)
In this section, you should list the key potential environmental and social issues raised by this project. This might include both
environmental and social opportunities that could be seized on to strengthen the project, as well as risks that need to be
managed. You should use the answers you provided in Table 4.1 as the basis for this summary, as well as any further review
and management that is conducted.
C. Next Steps (for projects requiring further environmental and social review and management):
In this section, you should summarize actions that will be taken to deal with the above-listed issues. If your project has Category
2 or 3 components, then appropriate next steps will likely involve further environmental and social review and management,
and the outcomes of this work should also be summarized here. Relevant guidance should be obtained from Section 7 for
Category 2, and Section 8 for Category 3.
D. Sign Off
Project Manager Date
PAC Date
Programme Manager Date
Annex 2: Examples of screening projects using the UNDP ESSP
This section includes case studies of pre-screening and screening a project. Please read these case
studies as illustrative examples only.
1. POPs Pesticides
The Box below briefly summarizes the project objective and outcomes. This is a medium-sized project,
with a total budget of $3,000,000 and will be implemented under the national implementing modality
(NIM) by the Ministry of Sustainability and Long-term Development.
Disposal of POPs Pesticides and Initial Steps for Containment of Dumped POPs Pesticides in Nirvana
The objective of the project is to “minimize releases of POPs from obsolete pesticide stockpiles in Nirvana
and create capacity in management of the POPs pesticide stockpiles”. The project objective will directly
contribute to the broader goal “support to sustainable development through elimination of POPs from the
environment”.
Three principal outcomes will be used as indicators for achieving the project objective. Outcome 1 (“legal
and administrative capacity strengthened”) will assure that pre-conditions, such as training and
improvement of the legal basis necessary for project implementation and further POPs related hazardous
waste management issues, are met. A key outcome of the project is Outcome 2 (“minimization of releases
from obsolete pesticide dumps”). This outcome will ensure that the biggest POPs pesticide stockpile is
partly eliminated in an environmentally sound manner, and further releases to the environment are
minimized. The second outcome will also contribute significantly to creating a local capacity in
environmentally sound disposal of POPs-containing wastes. The third and last projected Outcome is to
establish project monitoring, accumulation and dissemination of lessons learned.
Pre-screening using the UNDP ESSP Checklist:
UNDP ESSP Checklist
Question 1: Has a combined environmental and social assessment/review that covers the proposed project already been completed by
implementing partners or donor(s)?
X NO  Continue to Question 2 (do not fill out Table 1.1)
 YES  No further environmental and social review is required if the existing documentation meets UNDP’s quality assurance
standards, and environmental and social management recommendations are integrated into the project. Therefore, you should
undertake the following steps to complete the screening process:
1. Use Table 1.1 below to assess existing documentation. (It is recommended that this assessment be undertaken jointly by the
Project Developer and other relevant Focal Points in the office or Bureau).
2. Ensure that the Project Document incorporates the recommendations made in the implementing partner’s environmental and
social review.
3. Summarize the relevant information contained in the implementing partner’s environmental and social review in Annex A.2 of
this Screening Template, selecting Category 1.
4. Submit Annex A to the PAC, along with other relevant documentation.
TABLE 1.1: CHECKLIST FOR APPRAISING QUALITY ASSURANCE OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND
Yes/No
SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
1. Does the assessment/review meet its terms of reference, both procedurally and substantively? n/a
2. Does the assessment/review provide a satisfactory assessment of the proposed project? n/a
3. Does the assessment/review contain the information required for decision-making? n/a
4. Does the assessment/review describe specific environmental and social management measures (e.g. n/a
mitigation, monitoring, advocacy, and capacity development measures)?
5. Does the assessment/review identify capacity needs of the institutions responsible for implementing n/a
6. Was the assessment/review developed through a consultative process with strong stakeholder engagement, n/a
including the view of men and women?
7. Does the assessment/review assess the adequacy of the cost of and financing arrangements for n/a
Table 1.1 (continued) For any “no” answers, describe below how the issue has been or will be resolved (e.g. amendments made or
supplemental review conducted).
Question 2: Do all outputs and activities described in the PIF or Project Document fall within the following categories?
 Procurement (in which case UNDP’s Procurement Ethics and Environmental Procurement Guide need to be complied with)
 Report preparation
 Training
 Event/workshop/meeting/conference (refer to Green Meeting Guide)
 Communication and dissemination of results
X NO  Continue to Question 3
 YES  No further environmental and social review required. Complete Annex A.2, selecting Category 1, and submit the completed
template (Annex A) to the PAC.
Question 3: Does the proposed project include activities and outputs that support upstream planning processes that potentially pose
environmental and social impacts or are vulnerable to environmental and social change (refer to Table 3.1 for examples)? (Note that
upstream planning processes can occur at global, regional, national, local and sectoral levels)
Select the appropriate answer and follow instructions:
NO  Continue to Question 4.
√YES Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:
1. Adjust the project design as needed to incorporate UNDP support to the country(ies), to ensure that environmental and social
issues are appropriately considered during the upstream planning process. Refer to Section 7 of this Guidance for elaboration
of environmental and social mainstreaming services, tools, guidance and approaches that may be used.
2. Summarize environmental and social mainstreaming support in Annex A.2, Section C of the Screening Template and select
”Category 2”.
3. If the proposed project ONLY includes upstream planning processes then screening is complete, and you should submit the
completed Environmental and Social Screening Template (Annex A) to the PAC. If downstream implementation activities are
also included in the project then continue to Question 4.
Check
TABLE 3. 1 EXAMPLES OF UPSTREAM PLANNING PROCESSES WITH POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM appropriate
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS box(es)
below
3. Support for the elaboration or revision of global- level strategies, policies, plans, and programmes. For example,
capacity development and support related to international negotiations and agreements. Other examples might
include a global water governance project or a global MDG project.
4. Support for the elaboration or revision of regional-level strategies, policies and plans, and programmes. For example,
capacity development and support related to transboundary programmes and planning (river basin management,
migration, international waters, energy development and access, climate change adaptation etc.).
3. Support for the elaboration or revision of national-level strategies, policies, plans and programmes. For example, X
capacity development and support related to national development policies, plans, strategies and budgets, MDG-
based plans and strategies (e.g. PRS/PRSPs, NAMAs), sector plans.
4. Support for the elaboration or revision of sub-national/local-level strategies, polices, plans and programmes. For X
example, capacity development and support for district and local level development plans and regulatory frameworks,
urban plans, land use development plans, sector plans, provincial development plans, provision of services,
investment funds, technical guidelines and methods, stakeholder engagement.
Question 4: Does the proposed project include the implementation of downstream activities that potentially pose environmental and
social impacts or are vulnerable to environmental and social change?
To answer this question, you should first complete Table 4.1 by selecting appropriate answers. If you answer “No” or “Not Applicable” to all
questions in Table 4.1 then the answer to Question 4 is “NO”. If you answer “Yes” to any questions in Table 4.1 (even one “Yes” can
indicated a significant issue that needs to be addressed through further review and management) then the answer to Question 4 is “YES”. If
you are “unable to answer” more than a few of the questions in Table 4.1 then conduct further studies, consultation, or revision before
selecting the appropriate answer:
 NO  No further environmental and social review and management required for downstream activities. Complete Annex A.2 by
selecting “Category 1”, and submit the Environmental and Social Screening Template to the PAC.
X YES  Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:
1. Consult Section 8 of this Guidance, to determine the extent of further environmental and social review and management that
might be required for the project.
2. Revise the Project Document to incorporate environmental and social management measures. Where further environmental
and social review and management activity cannot be undertaken prior to the PAC, a plan for undertaking such review and
management activity within an acceptable period of time, post-PAC approval (e.g. as the first phase of the project) should be
outlined in Annex A.2.
3. Select “Category 3” in Annex A.2, and submit the completed Environmental and Social Screening Template (Annex A) and
relevant documentation to the PAC.
1. Biodiversity and Natural Resources Answer(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
1.1 Would the proposed project result in the conversion or degradation of modified habitat, natural habitat or No
critical habitat?
1.2 Are any development activities proposed within a legally protected area (e.g. natural reserve, national No
park) for the protection or conservation of biodiversity?
1.3 Would the proposed project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No
1.4 Does the project involve natural forest harvesting or plantation development without an independent No
forest certification system for sustainable forest management (e.g. PEFC, the Forest Stewardship Council
certification systems, or processes established or accepted by the relevant National Environmental
Authority)?
1.5 Does the project involve the production and harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic species No
without an accepted system of independent certification to ensure sustainability (e.g. the Marine
Stewardship Council certification system, or certifications, standards, or processes established or accepted
by the relevant National Environmental Authority)?
1.6 Does the project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water? For No
example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction.
1.7 Does the project pose a risk of degrading soils? No
2. Pollution Answer(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
2.1 Would the proposed project result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to routine or non- No
routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and transboundary impacts?
2.2 Would the proposed project result in the generation of waste that cannot be recovered, reused, or No
disposed of in an environmentally and socially sound manner?
2.3 Will the propose project involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of chemicals and hazardous No
materials subject to international action bans or phase-outs? For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals
listed in international conventions such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or
the Montreal Protocol.
2.4 Is there a potential for the release, in the environment, of hazardous materials resulting from their YES
production, transportation, handling, storage and use for project activities?
2.5 Will the proposed project involve the application of pesticides that have a known negative effect on the No
environment or human health?
3. Climate Change Answer(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
15
3.1 Will the proposed project result in significant greenhouse gas emissions? Annex E provides additional No
guidance for answering this question.
3.2 Is the proposed project likely to directly or indirectly increase environmental and social vulnerability to No
climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)? You can refer to the
additional guidance in Annex C to help you answer this question. For example, a project that would
involve indirectly removing mangroves from coastal zones or encouraging land use plans that would
suggest building houses on floodplains could increase the surrounding population’s vulnerability to climate
change, specifically flooding.
4. Social Equity and Equality Answer(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
4.1 Would the proposed project have environmental and social impacts that could affect indigenous people or No
other vulnerable groups?
16
4.2 Is the project likely to significantly impact gender equality and women’s empowerment ? No
4.3 Is the proposed project likely to directly or indirectly increase social inequalities now or in the future? No
4.4 Will the proposed project have variable impacts on women and men, different ethnic groups, social No
classes?
4.5 Have there been challenges in engaging women and other certain key groups of stakeholders in the project No
design process?
4.6 Will the project have specific human rights implications for vulnerable groups? No
5. Demographics
5.1 Is the project likely to result in a substantial influx of people into the affected community(ies)? No
5.2 Would the proposed project result in substantial voluntary or involuntary resettlement of populations? No
For example, projects with environmental and social benefits (e.g. protected areas, climate change
adaptation) that impact human settlements, and certain disadvantaged groups within these settlements
in particular.
5.3 Would the proposed project lead to significant population density increase which could affect the No
15
Significant corresponds to CO2 emissions greater than 100,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). Annex E provides
additional guidance on calculating potential amounts of CO2 emissions.
16
Women are often more vulnerable than men to environmental degradation and resource scarcity. They typically have weaker and insecure
rights to the resources they manage (especially land), and spend longer hours on collection of water, firewood, etc. (OECD, 2006). Women are
also more often excluded from other social, economic, and political development processes.
environmental and social sustainability of the project? For example, a project aiming at financing tourism
infrastructure in a specific area (e.g. coastal zone, mountain) could lead to significant population density
increase which could have serious environmental and social impacts (e.g. destruction of the area’s ecology,
noise pollution, waste management problems, greater work burden on women).
4. Culture
6.1 Is the project likely to significantly affect the cultural traditions of affected communities, including gender- No
based roles?
6.2 Will the proposed project result in physical interventions (during construction or implementation) that No
would affect areas that have known physical or cultural significance to indigenous groups and other
communities with settled recognized cultural claims?
6.3 Would the proposed project produce a physical “splintering” of a community? For example, through the No
construction of a road, powerline, or dam that divides a community.
5. Health and Safety
7.1 Would the proposed project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to earthquakes, No
subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions? For example, development
projects located within a floodplain or landslide prone area.
7.2 Will the project result in increased health risks as a result of a change in living and working conditions? In No
particular, will it have the potential to lead to an increase in HIV/AIDS infection?
7.3 Will the proposed project require additional health services including testing? No
6. Socio-Economics
8.1 Is the proposed project likely to have impacts that could affect women’s and men’s ability to use, develop No
and protect natural resources and other natural capital assets? For example, activities that could lead to
natural resources degradation or depletion in communities who depend on these resources for their
development, livelihoods, and well-being?
8.2 Is the proposed project likely to significantly affect land tenure arrangements and/or traditional cultural No
ownership patterns?
8.3 Is the proposed project likely to negatively affect the income levels or employment opportunities of No
vulnerable groups?
9. Cumulative and/or Secondary Impacts Answer(Yes/No/
Not Applicable)
9.1 Is the proposed project location subject to currently approved land use plans (e.g. roads, settlements) No
which could affect the environmental and social sustainability of the project? For example, future plans
for urban growth, industrial development, transportation infrastructure, etc.
9.2 Would the proposed project result in secondary or consequential development which could lead to No
environmental and social effects, or would it have potential to generate cumulative impacts with other
known existing or planned activities in the area? For example, a new road through forested land will
generate direct environmental and social impacts through the cutting of forest and earthworks associated
with construction and potential relocation of inhabitants. These are direct impacts. In addition, however,
the new road would likely also bring new commercial and domestic development (houses, shops,
businesses). In turn, these will generate indirect impacts. (Sometimes these are termed “secondary” or
“consequential” impacts). Or if there are similar developments planned in the same forested area then
cumulative impacts need to be considered.
Findings:
1. Question 4/2.4 would be YES because the project intends to transport POPs, partially eliminate
them, or excavate and safely store them. All such activities would result in some risk to the
environment and the local population.
2. Anticipated project screening categorization:
a. The response to Question 3 in UNDP ESSP would be YES as the project plans to support
upstream planning processes that are not likely to pose direct environmental and social
impacts. The project would therefore be classified as Category 2.
b. The response to Question 4/2.4 in UNDP ESSP would be YES as the potential risk from
leakage and accidents thorough handling of obsolete POPs pesticides in downstream
activities is possible. As these risks are limited in scale and can be identified with a
reasonable degree of certainty the project is classified at Category 3 a.
3. Recommended studies and research: If necessary, identify best practices related to the
management of hazardous waste and mitigation measures.
4. The project strategy should be revised to take into account best practice related to management
of hazardous waste, and that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. For example,
internationally accepted, standard engineering protocols that can be put in place to manage the
handling of the pesticides. The potential risks should also be incorporated into the risk table.
The UNDP ESSP could be completed as follows:
Example of a Completed UNDP ESSP Screening Summary for the Nirvana POPs Case Study
Name of Proposed Project: Disposal of POPs Pesticides and Initial Steps for Containment of Dumped POPs
Pesticides in Nirvana

√Category 2. Further review and management is needed. There are possible environmental and social benefits,
impacts, and/or risks associated with the project (or specific project component), but these are predominantly
indirect or very long-term and so extremely difficult or impossible to directly identify and assess. See Section 7 of
the UNDP ESSP.
√Category 3. Further review and management is needed, and it is possible to identify these with a reasonable
degree of certainty. If Category 3, select one or more of the following sub-categories:
 Category 3a: Impacts and risks are limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable degree of
certainty and can often be handled through application of standard best practice, but require some minimal
or targeted further review and assessment to identify and evaluate whether there is a need for a full
environmental and social assessment (in which case the project would move to Category 3b). See Section 8
of the UNDP ESSP.
 Category 3b: Impacts and risks may well be significant, and so full environmental and social assessment is
required. In these cases, a scoping exercise will need to be conducted to identify the level and approach of
assessment that is most appropriate. See Section 8 of the UNDP ESSP.
B. Environmental and Social Issues (for projects requiring further environmental and social review and
management)
In this section, you should list the key potential environmental and social issues raised by this project. This might
include both environmental and social opportunities that could be seized on to strengthen the project, as well as
risks that need to be managed. You should use the answers you provided in Table 4.1 as the basis for this
summary, as well as any further review and management that is conducted.
Component 2 of the project proposes to excavate, re-package, store 400 tonnes of POPs pesticides, and to export
200 tonnes to a safe containment facility in another country. This component of the project also intends to
undertake test incineration of small quantities of POPs pesticides in a local cement kiln. While the project’s
intentions are entirely positive, in that it focuses on confronting the problem of poorly stored POP pesticides, it does
have the potential to result in the following negative environmental impacts and social impacts:
* pollution of groundwater and soil at the new storage site;
* air pollution associated with the experimental cement kiln incineration testing;
* pollution and health risks associated with accidental release during transportation for export.
In this section, you should summarize actions that will be taken to deal with the above-listed issues. If your project
has Category 2 or 3 components, then appropriate next steps will likely involve further environmental and social
review and management, and the outcomes of this work should also be summarized here. Relevant guidance
should be obtained from Section 7 for Category 2, and Section 8 and/or Appendix D for Category 3, of the UNDP
ESSP.
There is significant international experience with the management and destruction of discrete stockpiles of POP
pesticides. It is believed that the identified environmental risks will be limited in scale and can be handled through
application of standard best practice as provided in guidance issued by Basel and Stockholm Convention and
UNECE.
D. Sign Off UNDP-GEF RTA
2. Adaptation to the Effects of Drought and Climate Change in Agro

ecological Regions I and II in Zambia
This project is focused on developing the adaptive capacity of subsistence farmers and rural
communities facing climate change challenges in two agro-ecological zones in Zambia. The box below
briefly summarizes the project objective. This is a full-sized project, with a total budget of $13,599,000,
implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Adaptation to the Effects of Drought and Climate Change in Agro-ecological Regions I and II in Zambia
This project takes a two-pronged approach to dealing with the effects of drought and climate change in
Agro-ecological Zone I and II in Zambia: i) improve the mainstreaming of adaptation into agricultural
planning and national, district and community levels and ii) test and evaluate for adaptation value,
interventions that will protect and improve agricultural incomes from the effects of climate change.
Capacity and systems to anticipate, assess, and prepare for climate change risks will be developed at
community, regional and national levels. The project is supporting climate-resilient water management and
agricultural practices. Pilot projects involving 1,000 subsistence farmers will test water harvesting and
irrigation systems, improved land and water management practices, and crop diversification options in
relation to financial sustainability and ability to reduce vulnerability to climate change. The project’s basic
starting point has been the application of good quality climate risk assessments, to inform the water and
agricultural pilots. The project also seeks to improve the capacity to supply and use climate risk information
for seasonal climate risk management. 250 government planners and extension staff will be trained to
routinely include climate risk information in their decision processes.
Findings from pre-screening of the PIF:
1. Question 1 of the UNDP ESSP: NO because an environmental/social assessment has not already
been produced by the implementing partner.
2. Question 2 of the UNDP ESSP: NO because all outputs do not fall within the five categories
listed in the question
3. Question 3 of the UNDP ESSP: YES because Outcome 3 of the project focuses on upstream
polices. Note that substantial policy revision could result in long-term environmental and social
impact. Hopefully, such impact would be positive, because the project is focused on improving
adaptation to climate change. However, the screening would help to ensure that opportunities
to consider social issues in particular, are not missed which may only require a small revision to
the project (e.g. strengthening gender and equity issues in agricultural planning).
4. Question 4 of the UNDP ESSP: In all likelihood Question 1.6 would be YES: Does the project
involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water? For
example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction.
Question 1.7 would also be YES: Does the project pose a risk of degrading soils? Some of the
Questions under Social Equity and Equality, and Socio-Economic may also be YES and require
further study/assessments.
b. The response to Question 4/1.6 and 1.7 in UNDP ESSP would be YES. As these risks are
limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty the project is
classified at Category 3 a.
6. Recommended studies and research:
a. There may be a need to further investigate the potential environmental and social
implications of significant policy revision.
b. Socio-Economic issues and impacts may require further study/assessments.
3. Adapting Water Resource Management in the Comoros to Expected

Climate Change
Introduction to the case study: This project is focused on adaptation in the water supply sector in the
Union of Comoros. The box briefly summarizes the project. This is a full-sized project, with a total cost
of $13,056,318, and will be implemented by the National Directorate of Environment and Forestry as
Executing Agency. The only outcome that is likely to result in noticeable environmental impact is the
one that proposes to increase water supply at five selected pilot sites.
Adapting Water Resource Management in the Comoros to Expected Climate Change
The project will help Comorian communities adapt to climate change by: i) increasing the supply of safe
water resources by constructing and rehabilitating water storage facilities in selected pilot sites, in
accordance with international standards to equip the infrastructure to withstand the expected impacts of
climate change; ii) training personnel and strengthening institutional capacity in order to promote
sustainable management of this infrastructure and to use climate risk information for water sector
planning; iii) promoting policy and budgetary adjustments so that successful pilots are up-scaled and
catalyzed throughout the Comoros, including through the development of national standards for adaptation
measures; and iv) improving institutional capacity to implement, monitor and report on climate change
adaptation. Capacity and systems to analyse, protect and harness valuable water sources will be developed
at community, district (canton), autonomous island and national levels. In so doing, the project will increase
knowledge and awareness on good adaptation practices in the water sector. Adaptation learning generated
from the pilot interventions will be used to guide mainstreaming of adaptation in national fiscal, regulatory
and development policy, in order to support adaptive practices on a wider scale.

1. Question 1 of UNDP ESSP: NO because an environmental/social assessment has not already
been produced by the implementing partner
2. Question 2 of UNDP ESSP: NO because all outputs do not fall within the five categories listed in
the question.
3. Question 3 of UNDP ESSP: YES because the proposed project has an upstream component since
it is looking at national standards for adaptation measures, and use of climate risk information in
water sector planning and upscaling pilots to inform regulatory and development policy.
4. Question 4 in UNDP ESSP: In all likelihood, the answers to Question 1.1 would be YES: Would
the proposed project result in the conversion or degradation of modified habitat, natural habitat
or critical habitat. Question 1.6 would also be YES: Does the project involve significant
extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water? For example, construction of
dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction. This is because the
interventions planned for the pilot sites include rehabilitation of existing water supply
infrastructure; construction of drinking water storage facilities; rehabilitation of simple irrigation
systems to ensure adequate water provision to crops; and, reforestation. However, as the
project is trying to ensure that water planning and storage integrates climate risk information
and to ensure that appropriate information is used during decision making so that these water
storage structures are resilient to climate change, a significant redesign of the project would not
be required. The PIF could be amended to note “During the more detailed design of the pilots,
stakeholders will be actively engaged to help ensure potential environmental and social issues
are addressed. Prior to implementation a screening will be conducted to identify if further
environmental and social review and management is required for the pilots.” In addition, some
of the Questions under Social Equity and Equality, and Socio-Economic may require further
studies/assessments, and integration into the project results framework.
b. The response to Question 4/1.1 and 1.6 in UNDP ESSP would be YES. As these risks are
limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty the project is
classified at Category 3 a.
6. Recommended studies and research:
a. A climate risk assessment should be undertaken and should include environmental and
social risks.
b. Socio-Economic issues and impacts may require further study/assessments.
c. Pilot activities that have yet to be fully designed may require further screening.
4. Promoting Energy Efficient Room Air Conditioners in China

(PEERAC)
This project focuses on improving market mechanisms to allow for the take-up of energy efficient
technologies in the air conditioner manufacturing sector in China. The box briefly summarizes the
project’s objectives and components. This is a full-sized project, with a total budget of $27,613,300 and
will be implemented by the Ministry of Environmental Protection.
Promoting Energy Efficient Room Air Conditioners in China (PEERAC)

This project contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the transformation of the Chinese
air conditioning market towards more energy-efficient room air conditioners used in residential and commercial
buildings. It is comprised of activities aimed at improving energy efficiency through the facilitation of the
widespread utilization of energy-efficient air conditioning units/systems in the residential and commercial building
markets. It focuses on removing a number of key barriers in the room air conditioner industry which affect the
manufacture and sale of more energy efficient RAC. The project approach consists of a combination of
“technology push” and “market pull” activities. On the "technology push" side, the project will increase the
efficiency of room air conditioners manufactured in China by promoting use of new and existing energy efficiency
technologies.
The proposed PEERAC project includes various interventions grouped into three (3) substantive components:
Component 1: Air conditioning compressor efficiency upgrades
Component 2: Room air conditioner upgrades; and,
Component 3: Energy efficient room air conditioner promotion

1. Question 1 of UNDP ESSP: NO because an environmental/social assessment has not already
been produced by the implementing partner
2. Question 2 of UNDP ESSP: NO because all outputs do not fall within the five categories listed
in the question
3. Question 3 of UNDP ESSP: NO because the proposed projects does not include activities and
outputs that support upstream planning processes that potentially pose environmental and
social impacts.
4. Question 4 of UNDP ESSP: In all likelihood, the answers would be NO to all of the questions.
As a consequence, no further environmental and social review and management would be
required for downstream activities.
5. Anticipated project screening categorization: Category 1.
5. Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the Wetland
Protected Area system in Hainan
This section is copied directly from the UNDP-GEF project document PIMS #4597
Project description:
Hainan Island has the largest area of tropical rainforest, mature mangrove and coral reef resources in
China, constituting one of the country’s most valuable areas for biodiversity conservation. However, the
globally significant ecosystems of Hainan Island are fragile and under increasing threat from a number of
factors, notably deforestation due to encroachment for agriculture, plantations and urban development.
The main wetland areas in Hainan are coastal where pressure is most severe. Mangroves are impacted
by aquaculture and coastal development, infrastructure projects and tourism facilities, significant
pollution concerns, as well as intense utilization of wetland resources, alien invasive species and impacts
of climate change. The long-term solution that this project proposes is to strengthen the PA network in
the Province through enhanced management effectiveness and improved financial sustainability.
Forming part of the UNDP/GEF CBPF-MSL programmatic framework, the project goal is: to contribute to
the conservation and sustainable use of globally significant biodiversity in Hainan Province, China. The
project objective is: to strengthen the management effectiveness of the wetland protected area system
in Hainan in response to existing and emerging threats to the globally significant biodiversity and
essential ecosystem services. The focus of the project is to strengthen Hainan’s PA system to ensure the
protection of a representative sample of its exceptionally rich and unique biodiversity and to more
effectively manage the wetland PA subsystem. There are three inter-connected components.
Component 1 addresses the spatial, regulatory and institutional deficiencies of the provincial PA system,
to enable the provincial government to conserve biodiversity more effectively through the PA system,
and to support individual PAs as well as the mangrove PA network under Component 2. It will result in
the expansion, consolidation and strengthening of the provincial PA system. Component 2 aims to bring
about significant and fast improvement to the management of Hainan’s mangrove PAs (which also
include other coastal habitats) by jointly tackling the common issues and threats to these PAs as a group
and individually. It will result in the development of a Mangrove PA Network with collectively
strengthened management effectiveness. Component 3 tackles the underlying causes of the external
threats to the mangrove PAs and PA system, through mainstreaming of wetland PAs in development and
sector planning. In turn, mainstreaming and strengthened capacity at provincial level under components
1 and 3 will be applied at site level under component 2. This aims to achieve a strengthened PA system
management framework, including improved inter-sectoral coordination, related capacity building,
embedding of coastal wetland conservation concerns into cross-sectoral plans, and economic valuation
and mainstreaming of wetland ecosystem services including eco-compensation schemes. The
achievement of these outcomes would contribute to remove or mitigate the three principal barriers:
1: Insufficient PA coverage and systemic and institutional capacity at provincial level;
2: Limited tools and capacities for wetland PA site management; and
3: Disconnect between wetland PA sub-system management and development planning and sectoral
planning.
GEF funding will secure global environmental benefits including: increased resilience and coverage of
Hainan’s terrestrial PA system from the current 285,600 ha by at least 40,000ha, with improved
coverage of under-represented areas and increased connectivity between PAs; strengthened
management effectiveness of at least 6 PAs in the Hainan Mangrove PA Network; a reduction in the
annual operational funding gap for national and provincial level PAs; a 1,000 ha increase in PA system
coverage of mangroves and increased representation of natural wetland types; and improved ecosystem
health of Hainan Mangrove PA sites, indicated using MSL’s Ecosystem Health Index (EHI). These will
benefit a range of globally endangered and Hainan endemic species, as well as ecosystems represented
in the Hainan portion of the Indo-Burma global biodiversity hotspot.
UNDP ESSP summary template included as an Annex in UNDP-GEF project document:
Name of Proposed Project: CBPF-MSL: Strengthening the Management Effectiveness of the Wetland Protected
Area System in Hainan for Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity

 Category 2. Further review and management is needed. There are possible environmental and social
benefits, impacts, and/or risks associated with the project (or specific project component), but these are
predominantly indirect or very long-term and so extremely difficult or impossible to directly identify and
assess.
X Category 3. Further review and management is needed, and it is possible to identify these with a
reasonable degree of certainty. If Category 3, select one or more of the following sub-categories:
X Category 3a: Impacts and risks are limited in scale and can be identified with a reasonable degree
of certainty and can often be handled through application of standard best practice, but require some
minimal or targeted further review and assessment to identify and evaluate whether there is a need for a full
environmental and social assessment (in which case the project would move to Category 3b).
 Category 3b: Impacts and risks may well be significant, and so full environmental and social assessment is
required. In these cases, a scoping exercise will need to be conducted to identify the level and approach of
assessment that is most appropriate.
B. Environmental and Social Issues (for projects requiring further environmental and social review and
management)
1.1 Would the proposed project result in the conversion or degradation of modified habitat, natural habitat or
critical habitat?
Yes, the project supports the restoration of at least 1,000 ha of mangrove habitats within and adjacent to PAs
through replanting activities using native species only. The restoration areas and planting plans for each site will be
defined during project implementation, but in general these will be located in abandoned or unproductive
aquaculture ponds, agricultural land or in cleared or degraded forest areas. Habitat restoration will increase the
greatly reduced and fragmented area of existing mangrove forest by at least 1,000 ha, improve the provision of
mangrove ecosystem services and benefit mangrove PAs by strengthening model buffer zones.
1.2 Are any development activities proposed within a legally protected area (e.g. natural reserve, national park)
for the protection or conservation of biodiversity?
Yes, the project supports a range of activities within the boundaries of existing protected areas, designed to
improve management effectiveness, stakeholder participation and co-management, habitat restoration and
sustainable livelihoods.
1.3 Would the proposed project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species?
No, although mangrove reforestation conducted by Hainan Forestry Department at a number of reserves has
made use of alien species including Sonneratia apetala and Languncularia racemosa as well as native species.
These species grow fast but have not exerted significant negative impact, so they are not considered as invasive
species. The project will specifically exclude the use of mangrove species that are not native to Hainan Island,
which will require vigilance and some capacity building during the planning and implementation of mangrove
restoration activities.
4.1 Would the proposed project have environmental and social impacts that could affect indigenous people or
other vulnerable groups?
The project will support the establishment of new protected areas and upgrading of other PAs. The new protected
areas under consideration are reportedly existing state forest farms which therefore should not involve any
changes in land use rights or other new restrictions on indigenous people or other vulnerable groups. However,
this should be checked during detailed planning for the new PAs and PA upgrading, as mentioned in the project
document, narrative text for Outputs 1.1 and 2.5.
8.1 Is the proposed project likely to have impacts that could affect women’s and men’s ability to use, develop
and protect natural resources and other natural capital assets?
Possibly. See the response to point 4.1.
8.2 Is the proposed project likely to significantly affect land tenure arrangements and/or traditional cultural
ownership patterns?
Possibly. See the response to point 4.1. In addition, the potential implications of mangrove forest restoration in
developed aquacultural and agricultural lands on land tenure and ownership require further examination during
the feasibility assessment stage of these project activities, as mentioned in the project document.
In this section, you should summarize actions that will be taken to deal with the above-listed issues. If your project
has Category 2 or 3 components, then appropriate next steps will likely involve further environmental and social
review and management, and the outcomes of this work should also be summarized here. Relevant guidance
should be obtained from Section 7 for Category 2, and Section 8 for Category 3.
Environmental Impacts:
The project explicitly aims to achieve overall positive environmental improvements with respect to environmental
quality, ecosystem integrity and biodiversity conservation in order to achieve global environmental benefits. Owing
to the ongoing local practice of using exotic tree species for coastal protection belts and mangrove reforestation
(including inside PAs), the project will need to proactively ensure that such practices are avoided for project-
related activities and that understanding of the potential ecological impacts of IAS is improved among agency staff.
Social Impacts:
There is potential for social impacts in project activities that involve the creation of new PAs, increasing legal
protection for existing PAs, and mangrove replanting (habitat restoration) on occupied lands. Hainan’s indigenous
peoples are mainly distributed in the mountains, away from the main focus of this project on coastal wetlands,
therefore they are unlikely to be affected. In order to avoid or mitigate social impacts, the project document has
indicated that planning for these situations needs to identify existing land tenure and land uses and potential social
impacts, and to negotiate fair and equitable settlements where applicable, with due regard for individual and
community rights. It should be noted that the project promulgates a participatory approach to conservation and
will seek to build local capacity for community co-management and stakeholder involvement. It includes resources
to support the development of alternative livelihoods and improvements to the sustainability of existing land uses,
with potential to offset negative social impacts.
Further details are as follows:

1.1 The restoration of 1,000 ha of mangrove habitats will greatly increase the reduced and highly fragmented are
of existing mangrove forest, improve the provision of mangrove ecosystem services and related biodiversity, and
benefit mangrove PAs by strengthening model buffer zones. This will provide a significant improvement on the
ecological condition of existing habitats to be replanted, which are of lower conservation value.
1.2: No further action needed – the project’s activities within nature reserves are designed to improve
management effectiveness towards biodiversity conservation goals, as monitored using an ecosystem health index
and other indicators.
1.3: The planning and implementation of mangrove restoration work supported by the project will explicitly
exclude the use of mangrove species that are not native to Hainan Island. This requirement is included in the
project document.
4.1, 8.1, 8.2: The creation and upgrading of protected areas within the scope of the project is unlikely to involve
changes in land use rights, as the areas identified for new PAs are existing forest farms, and the areas identified for
upgrading are existing provincial NRs and a provincial wetland park. However it has been identified as a risk in the
project document. In general, the project is providing significant assistance in the development of alternative
livelihoods for communities within or adjacent to PAs, as well as the development of community co-management
arrangements at demonstration sites (e.g. see output 2.6). The provincial government also operates a
compensation system for cases involving transfer of land use rights, although this needs to be handled in a fair and
equitable manner with due regard for individual and community rights.
8.2: The potential implications of mangrove reforestation on developed aquacultural and agricultural lands on land
use rights require further examination during the feasibility assessment stage of these project activities. This
requirement has been included in the project document.
D. Sign Off
Project Manager Date
PAC Date
Programme Manager Date
Annex 3: Selection of technical materials
NOTE: The below provides a preliminary list of resources that can be utilized until further guidance is
developed by UNDP. Additional resources can be found on Teamworks.
A. Indigenous Peoples
1. Indigenous Traditional Knowledge, 2011, Orissa Review, Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK)is an
integral part of the culture and history of a local community. It is evolved through many years of regular
experimentation on the day to day life and available resources surrounded by the community. This short
paper presents an overview of indigenous traditional knowledge, key definitions, concepts and other
aspects of its use. http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2011/Jan/engpdf/66-71.pdf
2. Marginalized Minorities in Development Programming: A UNDP Resource Guide and Toolkit, 2010.
Developed in partnership with the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues and the OHCHR, this UNDP
Resource Guide and Toolkit clarifies the conceptual issues and fundamental principles on the promotion
and protection of minorities; the standards to engage them and increase their opportunities for
participation and representation in development processes.
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-
governance/human_rights/marginalised-minorities-in-development-programming-a-resource-guide-and-
toolkit/
3. Poverty in Focus: Indigenising Development, 2009. Series of articles that seek to raise awareness in the
development community about problems and issues faced by indigenous peoples
http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus17.pdf
4. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ratified on 13 September 2007 by the UN
General Assembly; UNDP already had longstanding engagement with indigenous peoples but this received
a renewed impetus with the adoption of the declaration.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
5. UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2009. These guidelines were published after the
adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They aim to assist the United Nations
system to mainstream and
integrate indigenous peoples’ issues in processes for operational activities and programmes
at the country level.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/UNDG_training_16EN.pdf
6. UNDP and Indigenous Peoples: A Policy of Engagement, 2001 –The document provides an overall
direction for engagement with indigenous people. Indigenous peoples organisations were consulted in
the making of the policy. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-
energy/local_development/undp-and-indigenous-peoples-a-policy-of-engagement/
7. Respecting Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Knowledge: International Best Practice Principles.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Special Publication Series, April 2012. These Best
Practices Principles aim to promote a meaningful integration of
traditional knowledge as well as the respectful incorporation of Indigenous Peoples in impact assessment.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/SP9%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20and%20Traditional%20Knowledge_web.pdf
8. Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues ,
http://www.undg.org/docs/10162/resource_kit_indigenous_2008.pdf
9. “GEF Principles and Guidelines for Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, GEF/C.42/Inf.03/Rev.1
September 10, 2012”, prepared by the GEF Secretariat with input from many stakeholders, provides
further guidance on implementing the GEF minimum safeguards standard on indigenous peoples.
B. Gender
1. Empowered and Equal: Gender Equality Strategy 2008-2013, Designed to complement and reinforce
UNDP's Strategic Plan by defining how attention to gender equality and women's empowerment will
strengthen action in all our areas of UNDP’s work.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/womens-empowerment/gender-
equality-strategy-2008-2011/0601.pdf
2. Gender, Climate Change and Community-Based Adaptation, July 2010, A guidebook for designing and
implementing gender-sensitive Community-based adaptation programmes and projects.
http://www.unv.org/en/current-highlight/un-volunteers-working-for-the-empowerment-of-
women/doc/gender-climate-change-and.html
3. Gender Checklist: Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2006. - This checklist will guide users through all
stages of the project/program cycle in identifying the main gender issues in the agriculture sector and in
designing appropriate gender-sensitive strategies, components, and indicators to respond to gender
issues.
http://beta.adb.org/publications/gender-checklist-agriculture
4. Gender Checklist: Resettlement. 2003. This checklist will guide users in identifying and addressing gender
issues in resettlement planning, implementation, and monitoring, and in designing gender-inclusive
resettlement plans. http://beta.adb.org/publications/gender-checklist-resettlement
5. Gender Dimensions of Intellectual Property and Traditional Medicinal Knowledge, 2007. This paper
outlines the debates on intellectual property (IP) protection vis-à-vis other systems for protecting the
communal nature of traditional medicinal plant knowledge. The paper uses a gender lens to understand
how IP and trade policies affect disempowered peoples, particularly women and men whose livelihoods
depend on the collection and harvesting of traditional medicines.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-energy/www-ee-
library/biodiversity/gender-dimensions-of-intellectual-property-and-traditional-medicinal-
knowledge/Gender_IP_and_TKM_Final_27_Apr07.pdf
6. Gender and Desertification: Expanding Roles for Women to Restore Dryland Areas, IFAD. This review
examines the impact of desertification on women, their role in the management of natural resources and
drylands, and the constraints they face. http://www.ifad.org/pub/gender/desert/gender_desert.pdf
7. Gender and Land Rights Database - - Disparity on land access is one of the major causes for social and
gender inequalities in rural areas, and it jeopardizes, as a consequence, rural food security as well as the
wellbeing of individuals and families. The Gender and Land Rights Database offers up-to-date information
on how men and women in 78 countries differ in their legal rights and access to land.
http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights
8. Gender Mainstreaming: A Key Driver of Environment and Energy, November 2007, A training manual for
UNDP staff and UNDP partners concerning the essential gender dimensions involved in ensuring
environmental and energy sustainability.
http://www.undp.org/energyandenvironment/library/Gender_Mainstreaming_Training_Manual_2007.pd
f (full document, pdf)
9. Gender Mainstreaming Guidance Series Chemical Management: Chemicals and Gender, 2011, Sound
management of chemicals; gender-differentiated approach in sound chemicals management.
library/chemicals-management/chemicals-and-gender/2011%20Chemical&Gender.pdf
10. Training Manual on Gender and Climate Change, 2007, UNDP, A training manual to increase the capacity
of policy and decision makers so that efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are gender-sensitive.
http://uicn.org/what/tpas/climate/resources/publications/?uPubsID=3592
11. A User's Guide to Measuring Gender-Sensitive Basic Service Delivery, 2009. This document provides a
guide and is a tool for making institutional change in the delivery of basic services.
governance/women_s_empowerment/a-users-guide-to-measuring-gender-sensitive-basic-service-
delivery-.html
C. Biodiversity and Natural Resources

1. A Handbook for the Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas Registry, 2010. Indigenous and
Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) are natural sites, resources and species’ habitats conserved in a
voluntary and self-directed way through community values, practices, rules and institutions. The
handbook provides an overview of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, examples of what they
are, a brief state of knowledge, and an introduction to the Registry (a database) of ICCAs
http://www.unep-
wcmc.org/medialibrary/2010/09/13/f2ef7b9b/ICCA%20Handbook%201.2%20English.pdf
2. Community Action to Preserve Biodiversity: Linking Biodiversity Conservation with Poverty Reduction,
2006. The report presents thirty case studies from the GEF SGP and the Equator Initiative's portfolio to
document and draw preliminary lessons from the successes of community-based biodiversity
enterprises.http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-
energy/www-ee-library/biodiversity/community-action-to-conserve-
biodiversity/biodiversity_case_studies_englishsgp2006.pdf
3. Gender and Desertification: Expanding Roles for Women to Restore Dryland Areas, IFAD, This review
examines the impact of desertification on women, their role in the management of natural resources and
drylands, and the constraints they face. http://www.ifad.org/pub/gender/desert/gender_desert.pdf
4. Natural Solutions: Protected Areas Helping People Cope with Climate Change, 2010. The report focuses on
the essential role played by protected areas in reducing global climate change impacts and how to build
and strengthen protected area systems. It introduces key policy and management developments which
are needed for protected areas to function more effectively as a climate change response mechanism.
library/biodiversity/natural-solutions-protected-areas-helping-people-cope-with-climate-
change/Natural_Solutions.pdf
5. Biodiversity in Impact Assessment. IAIA Special Publication Series, July 2005. This note explains what
biodiversity is and why it is important, outlines guiding principles that apply to all stages and types of
impact assessments (IAs) as well as operating principles on how biodiversity concerns are best addressed
in the main stages of the IA process.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP3.pdf
6. OECD DAC Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Ecosystem Services Advisory Note. November
2010. This Advisory Note, developed in collaboration with UNDP, discusses how to integrate the
consideration of ecosystem services into SEAs of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs) at various levels.
http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/publication/?version=live&id=1769813
7. Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment 2006. These voluntary guidelines provide
detailed guidance on whether, when and how to consider biodiversity in both project-and strategic- level
impact assessments. They were endorsed by the eight meeting of the COP to the CBD in Curitiba, Brazil
(20-31 March 2006).
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/imp-bio-eia-and-sea.pdf
D. Pollution
1. Integrating the Sound Management of Chemicals into MDG-Based Development Planning, 2010. This
Guide is one of the tools that UNDP’s Environment and Energy Group, Bureau for Development Policy, has
developed to enhance assistance to partner countries through a comprehensive approach to
mainstreaming environmental sustainability. It provides guidance on chemicals management and informs
understanding of effective processes to integrate a wide range of environmental issues into national
development polices and plans.
http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/2010_Revised_Mainstreaming_Technical_Guidance-final.pdf
2. UNDP Guide for Integrating the Sound Management of Chemicals into Development Planning. 2012. This
Guide provides a systematic approach to countries to help assess their capacity for sound management of
chemicals, identify needs, and ultimately “mainstream” or incorporate identified priorities into national
development planning. Following a step-by-step approach the Guide describes in detail the
mainstreaming methodology and provides “how-to” information associated with each step.
library/chemicals-management/integrating-sound-management-of-chemicals-into-mdg-based-
development-planning/Integrating%20Sound%20Management%20in%20Chemicals%20Final%20r2.pdf
3. Protecting the Ozone Layer and safeguarding the global climate. UNDP Fast Facts Document. 2012. This
short document explains, inter alia, what is the Montreal Protocol, what are the benefits of phasing out
the HCFCs and how UNDP can assist countries on these matters.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/fast-facts/english/FF-Ozone-and_climate-
change.pdf
4. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines,
http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainabilit
y/sustainability+framework/environmental%2C+health%2C+and+safety+guidelines/ehsguidelines
E. Climate Change
1. Gender, Climate Change and Community-Based Adaptation, July 2010, A guidebook for designing and
implementing gender-sensitive Community-based adaptation programmes and projects
http://www.unv.org/en/current-highlight/un-volunteers-working-for-the-empowerment-of-
women/doc/gender-climate-change-and.html
2. Natural Solutions: Protected Areas Helping People Cope with Climate Change, 2010, The report focuses on
the essential role played by protected areas in reducing global climate change impacts and how to build
and strengthen protected area systems. It introduces key policy and management developments which
are needed for protected areas to function more effectively as a climate change response mechanism.
library/biodiversity/natural-solutions-protected-areas-helping-people-cope-with-climate-
change/Natural_Solutions.pdf
3. Training Manual on Gender and Climate Change, 2007, UNDP, A training manual to increase the capacity
of policy and decision makers so that efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are gender-sensitive.
http://uicn.org/what/tpas/climate/resources/publications/?uPubsID=3592
4. UNDP Climate Risk Management, 2010. This document explains what climate risks management is and
provides an approach for assessing climate risk including steps to determine institutional, policy and
programmatic responses.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/3Disaster%20Risk%20Red
uction%20-%20Climate%20Risk%20Management.pdf
Climate Change in Impact Assessment: International Best Practice Principles. IAIA Special Publication
Series, April 2012. These Best Practice Principles aim to lead to better consideration of climate change in
decisions. They are intended to help practitioners integrate climate change considerations into both
project-level and strategic-level impact assessments (IA).http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/SP8%20Climate%20Change_web.pdf
5. OECD DAC Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Climate Change Adaptation Advisory Note,
October 2010. This Advisory Note, developed in collaboration with UNDP, aims to show how SEA
approaches can help mainstream adaptation to climate change into strategic planning and how SEA can
be used to assess how policies, plans and programmes might mediate climate change risks.
http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/publication/?version=live&id=1769217
6. Screening Tools and Guidelines to Support the Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation into
Development Assistance: A Stocktaking Report, 2010. This UNDP study examines the climate risk
screening tools, mainstreaming guidelines, and portfolio screening experience from the donor
community. It also provides a summary of major climate screening tools and guidelines.
library/climate-change/stocktaking-of-tools-and-guidelines-to-mainstream-climate-change-
adaptation/UNDP%20Stocktaking%20Report%20CC%20mainstreaming%20tools.pdf
7. OECD Policy Guidance on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation, 2009.
This guidance aims, inter alia, at identifying: appropriate approaches for integrating climate adaptation
into development policies at national, sectoral and project levels and in urban and rural contexts;
practical ways for donors to support developing country partners in their efforts to reduce their
vulnerability to climate variability and climate change.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentanddevelopment/oecdpolicyguidanceonintegratingclimatechange
adaptationintodevelopmentco-operation.htm
F. Social Equity and Equality
1. Mainstreaming Human Rights in Development Policies and Programming: UNDP Experiences, 2012. The
brief provides information on analyzing human rights issues, mainstreaming human rights into
development programs, and a guide to using human rights to achieve the MDG target on water and
sanitation. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-
governance/human_rights/mainstreaming-human-rights/
2. Marginalised Minorities in Development Programming: A Resource Guide and Toolkit, 2011. Developed in
partnership with the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues and the OHCHR, this UNDP Resource
Guide and Toolkit clarifies the conceptual issues and fundamental principles on the promotion and
protection of minorities; the standards to engage them and increase their opportunities for participation
and representation in development processes.
governance/human_rights/marginalised-minorities-in-development-programming-a-resource-guide-and-
toolkit/
3. Public Participation International Best Practice Principles. IAIA Special Publication Series, August 2006.
This document defines the prerequisites for an effective and appropriate public involvement in impact
assessment. It also identifies the conditions required to make the participation process credible and to
maximize interest and commitment from the stakeholders. This includes the principle of inclusiveness and
equitability.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP4%20web.pdf
4. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. IAIA Special Publications Series, March 2003
(also appeared in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 1, March 2003).This
document, prepared based on consultations with several hundred people, aims to, inter alia, provide
standards for Social Impoct Aassessment (SIA) practice in international contexts and establish
minimum standards for SIA practice.http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/sections/sia/IAIA-SIA-
International-Principles.pdf
G. Demographics
1. Gender Checklist: Resettlement - This checklist, designed by the Asian Development Bank, guides users in
identifying and addressing gender issues in resettlement planning, implementation, and monitoring, and
in designing gender-inclusive resettlement plans. Note that the checklist may include specifics for ADB
policies that are not relevant for UNDP projects. http://beta.adb.org/publications/gender-checklist-
resettlement
2. Population Matters for Sustainable Development, 2012. UNFPA, The report provides key messages on the
relationship between population dynamics and sustainable development.
https://www.unfpa.org/public/home/publications/pid/10986
3. UNFPA Key Messages and Related Research on Population Dynamics And Climate Change. This website
explores the relationships between climate change, population dynamics and other factors (such as
urbanization and gender)http://www.unfpa.org/pds/climate/messages.html
4. World Bank Population Databank. This website provides data on population for more than 200 countries.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
H. Culture
1. Addressing the Social Impacts of Large Hydropower Dams, 2007. This paper provides a brief overview of
the key terms, context, policy decisions and challenges around large dams, including cultural challenges.
http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/012/6359.pdf
2. Respecting Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Knowledge: International Best Practice Principles.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Special Publication Series, April 2012. These Best
Practices Principles aim to promote a meaningful integration of traditional knowledge as well as the
respectful incorporation of Indigenous Peoples in impact assessment. They include references to
preservation of culture, cultural identity and cultural heritage.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/SP9%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20and%20Traditional%20Knowledge_web.pdf
3. Draft Framework on Cultural Impact Assessment, 2004. This draft framework, launched by The
International Network For Cultural Diversity (INCD) aims to assist development agencies and private
interests in fulfilling their obligations towards the affected communities of their policies and projects. It
presents principles for cultural impact assessment (CIA) as well as an approach to conduct a CIA.
http://www.ifacca.org/publications/2004/06/01/draft-framework-on-cultural-impact-assessment/
L. Health and Safety
1. Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction. This report, developed by the Capacity
Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI) highlights the importance of capacity development for Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) and outlines elements to consider in order to develop capacity for DRR.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/CADRI_brochure%20final.pdf
2. UNDP Climate Risk Management, 2010. This document explains what climate risks management is and
provides an approach for assessing climate risks including steps to determine institutional, policy and
programmatic
responseshttp://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/3Disaster%20Ri
sk%20Reduction%20-%20Climate%20Risk%20Management.pdf
3. UNDP Disaster Risk Assessment, 2010. This document defines what is risk assessment and provides a
quick guide to understanding and assessing risk of disasters.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/2Disaster%20Risk%20Red
uction%20-%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
4. Health Impact Assessment International Best Practice Principles. International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA) Special Publication Series, September 2006. This Best Practice Principles document
aims to lead to a better consideration of health implications in decisions. It provides a definition for
Health Impact Assessment, highligths guiding and operating principles as well as key methods to carry it
out.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP5.pdf
5. HIV and AIDS. UNDP Fast Facts Document 2012. This document includes information on UNDP’s response
to HIV, the synergies between action on HIV and other action on health, gender and human development,
and strengthening HIV responses through law and human
rights.http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/results/fast_facts/ff_hiv-aids/
6. HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health, 2012. The final report of the Global Commission on HIV and the
Law presents evidence base and recommendations on human rights and other issues relating to HIV.
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hiv-aids/hiv-and-the-law--risks--rights---
health/
7. HIV/AIDS and the Natural Environment. This article provides a brief overview of the issues and policy
implications of HIV/AIDS, natural resource management and environmental policy considerations.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/HIVAIDSandtheNaturalEnvironment.aspx
M. Socio-Economics
1. Gender and Land Rights Database. - Disparity on land access is one of the major causes for social and
gender inequalities in rural areas, and it jeopardizes, as a consequence, rural food security as well as the
wellbeing of individuals and families. The Gender and Land Rights Database offers up-to-date information
on how men and women in 78 countries differ in their legal rights and access to land.
http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights
2. Gender and Access to Land, 2002. These guidelines aims to: provide background information to land
administrators and other land professionals on why gender issues matter in land projects, and; provide
guidelines to assist development specialists and land administration agencies in ensuring that land
administration enhances and protects the rights of all stakeholders.
http://www.fao.org/sd/2003/IN07013_en.htm
3. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. IAIA Special Publications Series, March 2003 (also
appeared in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 1, March 2003).This document,
prepared based on consultations with several hundred people, aims to, inter alia, provide standards for
Social Impact Assessment (SIA) practice in international contexts and establish minimum standards for SIA
practice.
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/sections/sia/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf
N. Cumulative and/or Secondary Impacts
1. Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions, 1999.
These Guidelines, published by the European Commission, consider the Assessment of Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
process. They seek to provide guidance on practical methods and approaches to assess these impacts.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf
2. Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment in SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) of Plans. 2004.
These guidelines provide an approach for undertaking cumulative effects assessment (CEA) at strategic
level. They define the notion of cumulative effects and presents, inter alia, a typology of cumulative
effects (which includes indirect and secondary effects)
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/21559696.PDF

Guidance On Environmental and Social Screening 20 December 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance On Environmental and Social Screening 20 December 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental and social screening of

Draft guidance document

This draft guidance note is in effect until further notice.

Please send comments to Nancy Bennet at nancy.bennet@undp.org.

2. Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies

2.1 Overview of the GEF safeguards policy

2.2 Overview of UNDP’s project level environmental and social

Two sub-categories can be selected:

2.3 Indigenous peoples and FPIC policies

Free: should imply no coercion, intimidation or manipulation;

Consent: has the following elements:

2.4 Compliance and grievance systems: accountability for safeguard

3. WHO is responsible for the environmental and social

2. A screening of the project document will be undertaken by the project developer :

3.1 Pre-screening to be undertaken by the UNDP-GEF technical adviser

Select answer below and follow instructions:

 NO  Continue to Question 2 (do not fill out Table 1.1)

2. Does the assessment/review provide a satisfactory assessment of the proposed project?

3. Does the assessment/review contain the information required for decision-making?

Select answer below and follow instructions:

Select the appropriate answer and follow instructions:

 YES Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:

TABLE 3. 1 EXAMPLES OF UPSTREAM PLANNING PROCESSES WITH POTENTIAL Check appropriate

 YES  Conduct the following steps to complete the screening process:

4. Social Equity and Equality Answer

9. Cumulative and/or Secondary Impacts Answer

Name of Proposed Project:

A. Environmental and Social Screening Outcome

Select from the following:

 Category 1. No further action is needed

Project Manager Date

Programme Manager Date

The UNDP ESSP could be completed as follows:

 Category 1. No further action is needed

2. Adaptation to the Effects of Drought and Climate Change in Agro

Findings from pre-screening of the PIF:

3. Adapting Water Resource Management in the Comoros to Expected

Findings from pre-screening of the PIF:

4. Promoting Energy Efficient Room Air Conditioners in China

Promoting Energy Efficient Room Air Conditioners in China (PEERAC)

Findings from pre-screening of the PIF:

UNDP ESSP summary template included as an Annex in UNDP-GEF project document:

 Category 1. No further action is needed

Further details are as follows:

Project Manager Date

Programme Manager Date

C. Biodiversity and Natural Resources

F. Social Equity and Equality

L. Health and Safety

N. Cumulative and/or Secondary Impacts

You might also like