From an environmental and social point of view, and taking into account the design of the programme and the management of social risks, the PRSF should have positive impacts on agropastoral systems and members of rural communities. Impacts on agro-pastoral systems will result from improved sustainable management of agro-pastoral resources (land, water, grazing areas). Positive impacts on rural communities will result from strengthening their capacity to manage natural resources, encouraging greater benefit sharing from different types of activities, supporting the development of more sustainable landscape-based livelihoods, addressing gender gaps and improving social inclusion. The approach of the programme is participatory and inclusive, and in particular the activities of sub-component 2.2 will be initiated by the beneficiaries. Users and producers of agricultural resources (including pastoralists, women and young people) will benefit directly from a variety of investments aimed at rehabilitating their natural resources, creating new economic and growth opportunities, and strengthening their technical and management capacities. Small and medium-scale physical investments (including local public services) are expected to have a limited negative impact on project-affected people in terms of physical displacement, land acquisition or economic displacement (i.e. on their income, livelihoods or businesses). Forms of physical displacement are unlikely, but some forms of economic displacement cannot be ruled out, with the loss of land, assets, or more or less temporary access to such assets, which would include loss of income or other means of livelihood. The programme will seek to integrate users’ traditional knowledge and local land management to enhance sustainability, inclusion and reduce the risk of conflict.

The overall GBV/SEA/SH risk for this programme is assessed as Substantial. Risk factors include context-specific risks such as high rates of child marriage and female circumcision, general social acceptability of GBV, conflict, high risk of human trafficking, and lack of legislation on domestic violence and sexual harassment in public places in the countries. The number of women farmers in the region increases the risk that programme staff, who are often predominantly male, will come into contact with beneficiaries in a power dynamic that increases the risk of SEA/HIV. In line with the requirements outlined in the SEA/SH Good Practice Note, ESF requirements and a survivor-centred approach, the programme will further assess GBV/SEA/SH risks as part of the social assessment and reflect the findings in key safeguarding instruments, contractual obligations, the PIM and other key documents related to programme implementation.