Ecosystem services Supply chain Climate change ESCP Stakeholder engagement and information disclosure ESS2: Labor and Working Conditions Explicit reference to international treaties and agreements of coverage of labor (contractors, subcontractors, supply chain workers, informal workers, etc.) Migrant workers Civil servants Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining Forced and child labor Grievance Mechanism Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Non-discrimination and equal opportunities Consultation with workers Documentation for terms and conditions of employment ESS3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention and Management Climate change Quantification of GHG emissions Water use Energy and raw material use Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes (recycling, municipal waste, e-waste, etc.) Chemical fertilizer Monitoring and compliance ESS4: Community Health and Safety Universal Access Vulnerable groups (children, gender, etc.) Climate change adaptation and resilience and disaster risk reduction Product and services safety Ecosystem services Community exposure to health issues Emergency preparedness and response Security personnel ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure (VGGT’s) Resettlement as a development opportunity Land acquisition only for public interest Downstream livelihood impacts Voluntary land transaction Land titling Land use planning “Related” activities Gender Possible use of installment payments Livelihood restoration before displacement Costs of resettlement Resettlement planning before appraisal Informal occupants of land (“squatter”) Resettlement planning provisions
ESS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources Ecosystem services Definitions of habitat Biodiversity offset No dilution from the current Bank Policies Legally protected and internationally recognized areas Community participation of coverage of living natural resources Landscape approach Animal welfare Supply chain ESS7: Indigenous Peoples “Alternative approach” Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Inconsistency with national law Definition of Indigenous Peoples Land rights Other vulnerable or marginalized groups Reference to international treaties and agreements ESS8: Cultural Heritage Need for clearer definition of cultural heritage Expansion of scope to intangible cultural heritage Weak capacity of Borrower Stakeholder consultation Recognition of special status of legally protected sites ESS9: Financial Intermediaries Limited scope of application (High Risk FI subprojects) Monitoring Capacity of FIs Stakeholder engagement and disclosure Harmonization with IFC ESS10: Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure Deletion of “as appropriate” and “where applicable” FPIC for all stakeholders Stakeholder engagement Vulnerable groups Stakeholder identification Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) Consultation Engagement during project implementation Grievance mechanism
preparation and disclosure requirements should also be explicit for financial intermediary (FI) and framework project and subproject documents, including ESIAs and Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMFs). For any documents that are proposed for preparation after Board review of a project, the Board should be provided with advance information in the Project Appraisal Document on the nature and content of the documents, the rationale for post-Board preparation, and the timeframe for such preparation and disclosure. Standards that support predictable requirements will benefit the Bank, its borrowers, and affected people. In a key departure from current requirements, which require key safeguard documents to be created before project approval, the Draft Framework states that the Bank will require the Borrower to structure projects so that they meet safeguard requirements “in a manner and a timeframe acceptable to the Bank.” This means, presumably, that projects can be approved by the Board before all safeguard assessments have been completed and plans formulated. Our research suggests though that the primary method to deal with this imbalance [frontloading] should be to increase engagement in the latter stages in the process, without reducing effort spent on clear upfront assessments and implementation plans, particularly for high-impact projects. This is particularly true for projects with higher risks. For these projects it is important for parties to understand up front what they are agreeing to do and how much these actions will cost. Lack of such clarity creates a high risk of conflict between the Bank, Borrower and affected communities during project implementation.
increased risks of sexual exploitation, rather than address all groups deemed “vulnerable” as a single entity. More emphasis should be placed on gender issues as related to community health and safety, and the general development agenda in general. Climate change adaptation and resilience and disaster risk reduction the Draft Framework improves upon current safeguard policies (which barely mention climate change), it does not show the level of concern for climate risks called for in the Bank’s own documents. For example, despite the fact that Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 4 on Community Health and Safety recognizes in its introduction that “communities that are already subjected to impacts from climate change may also experience an acceleration or intensification of impacts due to project activities,” the standard contains no requirements explicitly related to climate change. ESS1 on the Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts presents a similar picture. We recommend that the Bank create much more detailed and robust requirements for understanding the effect that climate change will have on the project’s success and on the people and ecosystems that the project will impact. The second draft ESS4 has clarified that extreme weather conditions or slow onset of events exacerbated by climate change need to be addressed in infrastructure and equipment design and safety (ESS4, para 6). Preparedness and response to extreme weather conditions have also been included under the requirements for emergency preparedness and response (ESS4, para 19). It is important to have safeguards for disaster risk reduction and mitigation. Product and services safety The paragraph on services safety seems vague and perhaps impossible. Introducing almost any service will have direct or indirect impact on community health and safety (be they positive or negative). A better standard could be something like “minimize risks and impacts” or “avoid risk and impacts within the Borrower’s immediate control.” The provision on product safety has been deleted and that of services safety has been revised to clarify the boundary of the requirement (ESS4, para 9). The scope of ESS4 is generally clear, with the exception of product and services safety. It is our opinion that this section should be deleted as it does not logically fit the scope and focus of the ESF. The Bank’s ESF is a risk management framework that is applied to lending activities within
the same definition. The Bank will provide more information in a guidance note on best practices for undertaking screening on the basis of the four criteria for the identification of Indigenous Peoples. Self-identification is captured in ESS7 paragraph 6 (a). Some participants wanted more specificity in definition, but others preferred to keep the term broader, in order to make it relevant to the largest country context possible. The Bank should recognize that self-identification is the key characteristic for Indigenous Peoples. Land rights The required “plan for the legal recognition of their perpetual or long-term renewable custodial or use rights”, must be developed in partnership with Indigenous Peoples themselves, time-bound, in accordance with clear indicators and with sufficient funds. In the second draft ESS7, the text is strengthened to promote the legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights (para 21). This is the same approach taken in the current policy (OP4.10). Regarding the cases where Indigenous Peoples individually hold legal titles or where the relevant national law recognizes customary rights for individuals, the text is revised to clarify that the relevant requirements of ESS5 will apply, in addition to the requirements under ESS7. Where individual land titles exist within indigenous territories, such legal ownership must be recognized, but the requirements of paragraph 23 of ESS7 (FPIC for the relocation of Indigenous Peoples) must be retained. FPIC must be obtained from the whole project affected community irrespective of tenure arrangements. The mention of ESS5 in FN14 must be deleted.
Issues Key Comments from Stakeholders Bank Management Responses Need for clearer definition of cultural heritage The current definition is confusing and I fear it will put at risk the application of the safeguard by many borrowers. A more explicit definition aligned with other IFIs is recommended. The definition of cultural heritage in the second draft ESS8 has been clarified and improved (ESS8, para 4). Expansion of scope to intangible cultural heritage The Bank’s existing OP/BP4.11 as well as IFC PS8 have more comprehensive and professionally credible definitions. They would form a useful starting point, but both require expansion to capture intangible heritage more adequately, with reference to the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage, as per global best practice. The of the second draft ESS8 has been broadened to explicitly include intangible cultural heritage insofar as it relates to a physical component of a project (ESS8, para 4). Weak capacity of Borrower The weak capacity of Borrower to be taken into account and capacity strengthening should be part of mitigation measures. A footnote has been to clarify that mitigation measures include strengthening the capacity of national and subnational institutions responsible for managing cultural heritage affected by the project (ESS8, footnote 2). Stakeholder consultation The title of section B needs to be changed to “Stakeholders Consultation and identification of Cultural Heritage” in order to convey the idea that the stakeholders are critical to the identification of cultural heritage in project affected areas. comments have been incorporated in the second draft ESS8 (Section B, para 13). The Borrower needs to carry out “meaningful consultation” in order to identify cultural heritage that may be affected by the project. The first draft ESS8 refers to meaningful consultation only for commercialization of cultural heritage. Recognition of special status of legally protected The Bank should determine the presence of all listed legally protected cultural heritage areas affected by the project, such as world heritage sites and nationally and sub-nationally protected areas. The second draft ESS8 has introduced the concept of legally protected cultural heritage areas (ESS8, Section C).
includes persons with disabilities and gender aspects (ESS10, paragraphs 11 and 20, footnote 2). Implementation details, including specific information needs (such as disability, literacy, gender, mobility, differences in language or accessibility), will be provided in guidance notes. ESS10 should be clear about how different affected groups, and in particular different vulnerable groups, will be identified and included in the engagement process and how the Borrower will reflect their views and concerns in the project design, monitoring and implementation. It should be clarified how the Bank will ensure meaningful participation of illiterate stakeholders who may not understand project implications. Stakeholder identification Borrowers should not alone be in charge of identifying stakeholders, including impacted communities if there is no means of verification that their engagement is truly inclusive. The second ESS10 has added a paragraph to clarify that, depending on the potential significance of environmental and social risks and impacts, the Borrower may be required to retain independent third party specialists to assist in the stakeholder identification and analysis to support a comprehensive analysis and the design of an inclusive engagement process (ESS10, para 12). The Bank supports the Borrower to carry out stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation (ES Policy, para 3 (b)). Clear criteria should be set for identifying stakeholders and the World Bank should be involved in identifying members for advisory groups to help with stakeholder identification and the consultation process.