Specific aspects of the principle in complex social and political contexts, including where recognition of certain groups is not in accordance with national law economically vulnerable by the project in terms of land acquisition, loss of assets ... e.g: the Mikea community (Southern Madagascar) is not considered by national law as an indigenous group. However, during the Environment Program 3 (supported by the Bank), it was considered as an indigenous group. Use of Borrower’s Environmental and Social Framework Role of Borrower frameworks in the management and assessment of environmental and social (E&S) and impacts where these will allow projects to achieve objectives materially consistent with Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs) Approach for making decision on the use of Borrower frameworks, including the methodology for assessing where frameworks will allow projects to achieve objectives materially consistent with the ESSs, and the exercise of Bank discretion Role of Borrower frameworks in high and substantial risk projects Co-financing/ common approach Arrangements on E&S standards in co-financing situations where the standards are Q: What do we do if the Safeguards are different among different technical and financial partners (TFP) of the project? In such case, the most stringent policy will prevail or, all other things being equal, the most advantageous setting for the affected persons will be adopted. discrimination
Definition and application of net gains for biodiversity Q: What standards should apply to the problem of big industrial plantations that can destroy adjacent fields (for instance case of big pine trees plantations that are acid and hence can contaminate adjacent rice fields)? Hasn’t been discussed ESS7 Indigenous Peoples Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples standard in complex political and cultural contexts Implementation of ESS7 in countries where the constitution does not acknowledge Indigenous Peoples or only recognizes certain groups as indigenous Possible approaches to reflect alternative terminologies used in different countries to describe Indigenous Peoples Circumstances (e.g. criteria and timing) in which a waiver may be considered and the information to be provided to the Board to inform its decision Criteria for establishing and implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Comparison of proposed FPIC with existing requirements on consultation Application of FPIC to impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage C: In general – this does not really to Madagascar, because Madagascar does not have indigenous people (even the national law does not specify about indigenous people). See above (Mikea people) C: ESS7 – Paragraph 5 clearly says that there is no universal definition of indigenous peoples. Isn’t that misleading as then it can mean any group of people is indigenous? C: In general, more explanation of the term “Indigenous Peoples” is needed. C: Proposal to use different terminology to describe Indigenous People than in the ESS7 for now (examples of Mikea people in Madagascar). C: How can we protect other vulnerable people that are not designated as Indigenous Peoples? Q: Can the WB give a clearer explanation of “Free, and Informed Consent” (FPIC)? What are the criteria and conditions for FPIC and what does this consent really consist of? Q: How to make sure that the consent is really FPIC? ESS8 Cultural Heritage Treatment of intangible cultural heritage Q: Does ESS8 cover the displacement of cultural artifacts (trees, tombs etc.)?
implementation support Approach to implementing the ESF in situations with capacity constraints, e.g., FCS, small states and emergency situations stakeholder agents and to help them understand and implement the new safeguards framework. Disclosure Timing of the preparation and disclosure of specific environmental and social impact assessment documents (related to ESS1 and ESS10) Q: The participants asked many times about the validation process of the new safeguards standards, including more details on the standards, how the new policies will be validated, what the process of validation would be, and what the timeline is for these policies to be implemented. Implementation of the ESF Bank internal capacity building, resourcing, and behavioral change in order to successfully implement the ESF Ways of reaching mutual understanding between Borrower and Bank on issues of difficult interpretation Other issues C: Participants thought the ESF to be generally good and an improvement of previous measures. Q: The validation process of these new safeguards policies was not clear to the participants. On number of occasions they were asking for more details on the standards, an explanation of how the new policies will be validated, what the process of validation would be, and what the timeline is for these policies to be implemented. Q: If a project is prepared or approved before the new standards become valid, should the safeguards measures be redone according to the ESF (basically if the new safeguards policies will be retroactive)? No C: World Bank was asked many times to provide: (i) financial support; (ii) training; and (iii) general help and assistance to strengthen capacities of local stakeholders and to help them better understand and implement the new safeguards framework. C: Can projects receive IDA funds to prepare the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment before the launch of the project?