Compilationofsubmissions:
DraftGreenClimateFund
EnvironmentalandSocial
ManagementSystem
Pageb
TableofContents
I.
Introduction
1
II.
NationalCouncilforClimateChangeSustainableDevelopmentforPublicLeadership(NCCSD)2
III.
AfricaFinanceCorporation(AFC),AccreditedEntity
3
IV.
CRISPSocialVentures,India
4
V.
CorporaciónNacionalForestaldeChile(CONAF)
6
VI.
TIANQINGPOWERGreenClimateConsultingCo.,Ltd.
13
VII.
SuahasilNazara,NationalDesignatedAuthorityforIndonesia
15
VIII.
CorporaciónAndinadeFomento(CAF),AccreditedEntity
17
IX.
WorldFoodProgramme(WFP),AccreditedEntity
25
X.
DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)GmbH,AccreditedEntity
26
XI.
PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP
30
XII.
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),AccreditedEntity
31
XIII.
InstituteforEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment
37
XIV.
CompañíaEspañoladeFinanciacióndelDesarrollo(COFIDES)
38
XV.
AndreaLedwardandKateHughes,BoardmemberandAlternateBoardmemberforthe
UnitedKingdom
39
XVI.
SallyTruong,AlternateBoardmemberfortheconstituencyofAustralia,theCzechRepublic
andNewZealand
41
XVII.
ConservationInternational(CI),AccreditedEntity
43
XVIII.
JointResponsefromU.S.Faith‐BasedOrganizations
47
XIX.
NetherlandsCommissionforEnvironmentalAssessment(NCEA)
51
XX.
AgenceFrançaisedeDéveloppement(AFD),AccreditedEntity
53
XXI.
CarolineLeclerc,BoardmemberforCanada
55
XXII.
EuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB),AccreditedEntity
57
XXIII.
JointResponsefromaNumberofCivilSocietyOrganizations
62
Page1
I.
Introduction
On15December2016,theGreenClimateFund(GCF)publishedacallforpublicinputs
thatinvitedorganizationsandallentitiesinvolvedandinterestedinclimatemitigationand
adaptation,environmentalandsocialsafeguardsandrelatedtopics,toprovideinputsonthe
draftenvironmentalandsocialmanagementsystem(ESMS).Thecallfollowedamandatefrom
theGCFBoardindecisionB.07/02,paragraph(n)requestingtheSecretariat,inconsultation
withtheAccreditationCommitteeandAccreditationPanel,todevelopanESMS.
2.
Thedeadlineforsubmissionswason24February2017andtheGCFSecretariathas
subsequentlycollectedandcompiledallinputsreceived.Thisdocumentisthecompilationof
inputsreceivedandispublishedforpublicinformationasindicatedinthecallforinputs
document.22submissionsandcommentswerereceivedandthesearepresentedinthis
documentwithouteditingorformatting.
1.
Page2
II.
NationalCouncilforClimateChangeSustainableDevelopment
forPublicLeadership(NCCSD)
Thank for consultation on very important policy framework. NCCSD‘s comments are on over policy framework: NCCSD is of view that UNFCCC Paris document emphasis need of Food security and
Food productivity. It further details need of “Capacity Building” and “Technology
Transfer”. In the entire framework “Food Security and “Food Productivity” need to be specifically
brought out as because of Climate they are already affected and further vulnerable.
Therefore need to focus on that because world needs to produce food enough to
growing demands of growing population and migration to urban centres. Otherwise
there will be enhanced social and economic turmoil. Hence we need to prioritise that
in conceptual framework and need to highlight what is the policy to meet this most
important challenge. Further there is too much emphasis in Mitigation. There is need to bring on “role of
adaptation” for Agriculture sector which is the key to met challenge of food
productivity and food security to hungry Millions. Page3
III.
AfricaFinanceCorporation(AFC),AccreditedEntity
SUBJECT AFC COMMENT DETAILS RESPONSE BY Response from Africa Finance Corporation (AFC) to the Call for Public Inputs to the Green Climate Fund Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) 1. Page 1 Clause 14 – ‘Environmental and Social Management System’ 2. Comment/suggestion ‐ One key element that appears not to have been addressed in this ESMS is Training & Awareness. Some issues to consider: How will stakeholders be identified? How will elements of the ESMS be communicated to stakeholders? 3. Page 3 Clause 1.1(g)(a) – ‘Elements of an Environmental Management System’ 4. Comment/suggestion ‐ A fourth key interacting group might be GCF‐funded project/programme companies, who, as fund recipients, directly implement/achieve GCF's intended objectives 5. Page 26 Clause 81 – ‘Effective Date and Review’ 6. Comment/suggestion ‐ The process by which the ESMS will be reviewed should be described in more detail e.g. what will the structure/nature of the review be? Who will conduct the review? Omawumi Kola‐Lawal (PhD.), Environmental and Social Risk Manager, AFC Page4
IV.
CRISPSocialVentures,India
We appreciate the aim of GCF ESMS: As a broader operational framework, the ESMS provides an opportunity for the GCF to incorporate environmental and social considerations into its decision‐making and operations in ways that not only avoid and minimize adverse risks and impacts but also identify opportunities to improve environmental and social outcomes in a systematic, coherent and transparent manner. Following suggestion may please be noted : 1. On Page 12 ‐ Gender equality and inclusiveness A mechanism to ensure this aspect need to be established to standardized. Project implementers will then submit the details of the steps taken for ‘gender equality and inclusiveness’, in standard format, to ensure its implementation. For eg. Equal wages/ salary for male and female employees (of same level), equal number of women in decision making body etc 2. Labour and working conditions and Human rights SA 8000 standard can be followed by the ‘mitigation project’ implementers. Mitigation projects are generally implemented in industry etc where child labour, status of women labour need to be assessed. Thus mention of SA8000 standard to ensure ‘labour and working conditions and human rights’ can be helpful to strengthen the framework. 3. Page 13: Biodiversity A standardized approach regarding bio‐diversity can be mentioned in framework. It is understood that local law, if any, will be implemented but it is also noted that ‘bio‐diversity’ don’t have any standard guideline to follow in many nations. If GCF ESMS can outline measures to protect bio‐diversity; create guidelines for compensatory bio‐diversity OR mandate few measures/ options to conserve or enhance bio‐diversity, then it would contribute to benefit the GCF project implementing agency/ nation. 4. REVERSE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECTS FOCUSSING MITIGATION Its an innovative concept specially required to implement in current scenario when climate change adaptation/ mitigation are leading to accelerated technological innovation and fund flow is being diverted to implement the most efficient technology. Technology implementers buy and implement efficient technologies. But there is no set norm to accomplish the implementation of new & assure the proper disposal of old. As a result, improper disposal lead to land pollution etc. GCF Project implementers should also be asked to reply for questions like: What is the disposal mechanism for old machines? For eg. in case of LEDs, the disposal mechanism of old bulbs /CFLs etc. Such questions will assure the reduced pollution as well the project implementers Page5
will have advance contracts to sell the scraps which in turn will organize the unorganized market of recycling & reuse. Another face of today’s fast pace technological development to reduce emissions is ‘more use of natural resources’ to produce new technologies. There is no provision of monitoring of natural resources that are being consumed for advance technology production though SDGs mentioned about a goa ‘sustainable production & consumption’. ESMS may guide the project implementer on the above stated aspects. For eg. there may be guidelines like @a fix % of recycled material to be used OR conduct project Life cycle analysis (and represent big data into a one page figure) OR mandatory GHG accounting of the project i.e. baseline and after implementation. This will help understand the –Positive and negative impact of GCF project on environment & society at the project implementation site. I worked for such a standard in India and I can send a copy of the same if required. 5. SOCIAL PRODUCTIVITY An effective way to assess the impact on society after implementation of GCF project will be to assess the ‘baseline status of social productivity’ and ‘social productivity status after GCF project implementation’. Moreover a triple bottomline if can be assessed, will provide a holistic picture of impact of GCF project on environment & society. This approach if useful, can be mentioned in ESMS. Page6
V.
CorporaciónNacionalForestaldeChile(CONAF)
Inputs requested: A) Ámbito de aplicación y principios ‐ Adecuación de la cobertura y los principios rectores de la política; 2.2 Alcance de aplicación: En todos los niveles de alcance se debe realizar un análisis de aquellas brechas, fortalezas, vinculación e integración entre las políticas del ESS y los tres niveles contemplados, es decir, las políticas del Estado, las salvaguardas de las entidades intermediarias y a nivel de proyecto. Con este análisis, se puede tener como resultado el resguardo de las ESS sin menoscabo de la normativa nacional y demás acuerdos internacionales. III. Principios rectores En relación a los principios rectores planteados, se propone lo siguiente: A) Integración de la sostenibilidad ambiental y social. Se propone agregar que dentro de los parámetros del ESMS, los medios de monitoreo cumplan con los criterios del involucramiento temprano de las partes interesadas, principalmente comunidades locales, pueblos indígenas y mujeres, mediante procesos participativos que incluyan la perspectiva social, ambiental y cultural. Además, que los mecanismos de información que se utilicen, entreguen de forma oportuna y en lenguaje pertinente (no técnico) la información a la ciudadanía interesada, con la posibilidad de retroalimentación para consideraciones futuras que puedan prevenir posibles riesgos de la implementación de las actividades. D) Jerarquía de mitigación. El GCF plantea para este principio una serie de objetivos como evitar, mitigar, minimizar y/o compensar los riesgos e impactos negativos. En este sentido se sugiere establecer qué las acciones de abordaje de los riegos e impactos adversos contarán con un sistema de monitoreo y seguimiento para asegurar el cumplimiento – a través del tiempo – de los objetivos. También se sugiere que se establezca la necesidad de adopción de medidas para reducir los riesgos de reversión y desplazamiento de las emisiones. h) Género: El GCF cuenta con una “política de género” para mejorar los enfoques con perspectivas de género y reconoce su importancia en términos de impacto y acceso al financiamiento. Sin embargo, a nivel de proyectos financiados, no hay exigencias que aseguren la incorporación de la componente de género que midan resultados y/o impactos positivos o negativos de estos proyectos sobre este sector vulnerable de la sociedad; por ejemplo, que se establezca la obligatoriedad de incorporación de las mujeres en los procesos de participación de actores interesados en todos los niveles y etapas de los proyectos, asegurando que participen representantes y grupos de mujeres y que las acciones que se desarrollen en cada proyecto efectivamente consideren a las mujeres. En “Punto III Principios rectores”, Letra H), se propone que después de: “reducir las disparidades de género En las acciones climáticas se establezcan y apliquen” (reduce gender disparities in climate Page7
actions are established and implemented) agregar, “velando, en todo momento, impedir que las acciones desarrolladas por las políticas, programas o proyectos, profundicen las discriminaciones que sufren las mujeres, creen nuevas formas de discriminación y/o constituyan acciones que aumenten sus tiempos de trabajo.” En relación a la “Mejora de Resultados” y en materia de Género se sugiere que el GCF solicite una propuesta particular a cada ejecutor de proyecto, sobre la realización de una auditoría de género temprana a fin de corregir errores, mejorar las acciones en la materia, y por ende, mejorar los resultados e impactos de los proyectos, dado que la transversalización del enfoque de género en los proyectos aún no es algo masivo, y por tanto los países y en particular las entidades acreditadas o intermediarios, suelen no tener toda el experiencia necesaria. Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Locales: Entre los beneficios que se podrían generar durante la implementación de los proyectos y programas financiados por el GCF se debería considerar el desarrollo de una ventana para mejorar el acceso directo para las iniciativas de Pueblos Indígenas y comunidades locales como una prioridad entre las políticas de ESS, velando porque no se vulneren los derechos y conocimientos ancestrales de los pueblos indígenas. Es por ello, que además de la United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, se debería promover el cumplimiento de la normativa nacional y los acuerdos internacionales sobre los Pueblos Indígenas, entre otros, los derechos establecidos en el Convenio 169 de la OIT, incluyendo los derechos a participación y consulta cuando los proyectos se emplacen en territorios indígenas. Adicionalmente, el GCF debiera centrarse en dar prioridad a los proyectos destinados para la mitigación y muy especialmente a la adaptación al cambio climático que emanen de los propios Pueblos Indígenas y comunidades locales, e intentar potenciar y aumentar la escala de estos proyectos. Para ello, se sugiere agregar en el párrafo 12, letra b lo siguiente: “Sin menoscabo de las legislaciones nacionales y demás acuerdos internacionales pertinentes en la materia, como lo es, entre otros, el Convenio 169 de la OIT”. En el literal “c” del párrafo 12, se debe indicar y enfatizar el cumplimiento de las legislaciones nacionales e internacionales en materia de respeto de los derechos humanos. Para el párrafo 15, literal “a”, se considera un punto clave por lo que se requiere que sea claramente abordado y alineado con los demás puntos de este documento, donde i) la participación, entendida bajo los principios de la participación plena y efectiva o consultiva, resulta fundamental para las actividades que se ejecuten; donde insumos que recojan de los procesos participativos tienen que ser acordes a los aspectos socioculturales y territoriales, los que además, deben contar con el consentimientos de las propias comunidades; ii) que existan mecanismos o sistemas de retroalimentación que prevén los riesgos de cada etapa de ejecución de los proyectos. En relación a la transparencia: En los principios rectores de las políticas de ESS, se sugiere agregar la transparencia en el resguardo de las salvaguardas, así como en los tres niveles de alcance de aplicación. Igualmente, se sugiere que para realizar las publicaciones y convocatorias públicas para proporcionar comentarios que se realizan a través de la página web del GCF, sean amigables y en idiomas de los Pueblos Indígenas afectados, Page8
promoviendo que los actores claves – especialmente de Pueblos Indígenas – se encuentren debidamente informados sobre los reportes en materia de ESS. Protección del patrimonio cultural tangible e intangible: Dado que se considera como un principio rector la protección de la diversidad biológica (párrafo 12, letra d). Se propone agregar como principio la protección del patrimonio cultural tangible e intangible del país. Indicando que las actividades financiadas por GCF tanto en su diseño como implementación, velarán por no dañar de ninguna forma o poner en riesgo dicho patrimonio en términos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Entre otros de los elementos importantes a considerar en los principios y alcances de las políticas en ESS en el punto 1.4, literal “f”, se considera que es necesario que quede expresado la articulación de los distintos elementos solicitados por las agencias y que cada mecanismo que se implemente tiene que ser complementario para que haya coherencia en la implementación. En cuanto al punto 2.1 referente a los Objetivos Políticos de las políticas de salvaguardas sociales y ambientales, se propone incluir: i) la complementariedad y compatibilidad de las medidas con los objetivos de acuerdo a las convenciones y acuerdos tanto internacionales como nacionales sobre esta materia; ii) respetar el conocimiento y los derechos fundamentales, principalmente de los pueblos indígenas, comunidades locales tomando las consideraciones nacionales e internacionales; iii) que las medidas sean compatibles con la conservación de los recursos naturales y la diversidad biológica, lo anterior para incentivar la protección y la conservación de los ecosistemas y potenciar los beneficios socio‐ambientales derivados de ellos. B) Requisitos y funciones y responsabilidades claridad de los requisitos de la política, las funciones y responsabilidades de GCF y las entidades, y sugerencias para mejorar su aplicación, en el contexto de las propuestas ESMS; Para la acreditación de las entidades por parte del GCF se deberá no sólo determinar las capacidades de las entidades para el manejo de los riesgos e impactos sociales y ambientales, sino también las capacidades de las entidades para mitigar, evitar y/o compensar los riesgos e impactos a través de medidas concretas. Por parte de las entidades acreditadas, la identificación de riesgos y beneficios de los proyectos y programas se deben realizar basados en procesos participativos en donde los actores claves sean involucrados desde etapas tempranas de la formulación, bajo esta perspectiva, las entidades acreditadas deberán promover una evaluación ambiental y social iterativa y retroalimentada con los actores claves previo la implementación de los programas y proyectos. En relación al sistema ambiental y social, en el punto 1.1 Elementos de un sistema de gestión ambiental y social Letra E, donde dice “y tenga en cuenta los puntos de vista de las diversas partes interesadas y las comunidades afectadas, incluidas las mujeres vulnerables y los pueblos indígenas.” (and takes into account the views of the various stakeholders and affected communities, including vulnerable women and indigenous peoples), se sugiere eliminar la palabra “vulnerables”, ya que se entiende que lo que se desea es que se considere la opinión de “las mujeres” y no solo la de aquellas que el evaluador considera “vulnerables”, además se sugiere agregar incluidas las mujeres de “todos los sectores de la sociedad y pueblos indígenas” Page9
En el punto 4.2, literal “b”, numeral “iv”, se considera importante destacar que; permite tener la retroalimentación temprana de cómo se están ejecutando los proyectos en línea con los requerimientos y legislación nacional como internacional, donde las partes interesadas también son parte de la construcción de las medidas a implementación. En el párrafo 26, se propone contemplar las medidas apropiadas para que las capacidades vayan quedando instaladas en las propias instituciones nacionales, donde las agencias actúen como herramientas para generar capacidades internas de las propias instituciones y de los países, evitando en todo lo que sea posible, que las capacidades se pierda con las personas de agencias internacionales. En el párrafo 48, es importante que la construcción de estos planes y marcos, consideren aspectos fundamentales respectos a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, información socioeconómica, demográfica, pero por sobre todo, que el formato de estos documentos contenga el enfoque intercultural para que cuando se implementen en conjunto con los pueblos indígenas, tenga la validación por ellos. C) Las brechas ‐ La identificación de otras áreas que pueden haber pasado por alto y proponer formas de llenar estos vacíos, dibujo de las experiencias en la aplicación de las políticas de las instituciones similares; Entre las brechas identificadas, se encuentra que el Mecanismo de Quejas (grievance redress) está acorde con los principios de eficiencia y efectividad, sin embargo, se debe dejar establecido que este debe ser acorde a las normativas, la institucionalidad y las realidades nacionales, ya que hay países que tienen mecanismos de quejas por normativa legal y para tales casos, el GCF debiera considerar un análisis de las brechas para cumplir con lo exigido ara los proyectos que se ejecuten con su financiamiento, pero finalmente recibir reportes de estos mecanismos ya en funcionamiento. Además, estos Mecanismos de Quejas ya son utilizados por los actores claves con información que manejan de programas y proyectos y con un conocimiento de cómo realizar las respectivas quejas, reclamos y sugerencias. Particularmente para Chile, y en México podría ser otro caso, una entidad implementadora no podría tener un mecanismo de quejas propio porque representaría una incompatibilidad con la normativa nacional, ya que Chile cuenta – por definición legal – con un Sistema d las Oficinas de Información Reclamos y Sugerencias (OIRS), al que se acogen todas las instituciones del país para tramitar toda la información sobre aquellos reclamos y sugerencias realizados por las personas e interesados en todo el territorio nacional. En este sentido, en el párrafo 72; Referente al mecanismo de reparación de quejas, se indica que este deberá ser independiente, sin embargo, no se especifica a que refiere, o cuál es el alcance de “independiente”. Lo mismo se vuelve a indicar en el párrafo 77. Para clarificar este concepto se propone agregar el siguiente párrafo para ambos casos: “un mecanismo independiente refiere a que se cuente con las atribuciones institucionales que permitan que las respuestas y soluciones que se entreguen, sean decisiones basadas en argumentos técnicos y concordadas con los afectados. Esta independencia no impide que el mecanismo pueda ser parte de otros mecanismos similares existentes en el país, o que pueda depender administrativamente a la misma institución implementadora del proyecto”. Otra de las brechas identificadas, es la vinculación entre el mecanismo de monitoreo para el cumplimiento de las salvaguardas y el Sistema de Información de Salvaguardas de la UNFCCC consensuado por las Partes en diversas decisiones de la Conferencia de las Partes. Aunque este sistema está dirigido para el reporte del resguardo de las salvaguardas sociales y ambientales en actividades REDD+, también podría representar una instancia para el monitoreo de los proyectos y Page10
programas del GCF. Se sugiere integrar el SIS con el mecanismo de reporte y monitoreo del GCF para evitar duplicidad de reportes por parte de los ejecutores de proyectos. Otra brecha identificada, se encuentra en el punto 1.2, literal “h”, en que es importante la articulación de los distintos elementos que considerarán los proyectos financiados por el GCF para que los mecanismos que se creen, se mejoren bajo la premisa de la retroalimentación de forma sistemática entre los involucrados (potenciales beneficiarios) y las entidades responsables de la implementación. D) El aumento de los resultados ‐ Identificar oportunidades para mejorar los resultados ambientales y sociales a través de la política y ESMS; Y A fin de mejorar los resultados a través de los programas y proyectos financiados por el GCF, se propone establecer dentro de las políticas de salvaguardas que se generen instancias participativas de diálogo en donde los actores claves manifiesten las necesidades de las comunidades como en una etapa previa y temprana de la formulación de programas y proyectos, además que propongan medidas y actividades para la implementación, así como la evaluación de riesgos y beneficios sean identificados por los actores claves. Bajo este fundamento, se evitará la oposición por parte de los actores involucrados así como la vulneración de las salvaguardas sociales y ambientales en las diferentes fases de los proyectos. Igualmente, como experiencia nacional, se comparte el enfoque de que los procesos participativos sean representativos, mediante la aplicación de los criterios multi sector (todos los sectores de la sociedad relacionados con los proyectos que financiará el GCF), multi nivel (participen representantes de los niveles local, comunal, subnacional, nacional) y multi actor (diferentes actores claves de cada sector y cada nivel). E) Compromiso ‐ La identificación de margen para una mayor participación de múltiples partes interesadas para mejorar continuamente la política y ESMS. Chile para su Estrategia Nacional de Cambio Climático y Recursos Vegetacionales, cuenta con el Plan para la Implementación de las Salvaguardas Sociales y Ambientales para la Consulta Pública e Indígena y Autoevaluación1 cuyo objetivo se basa en “diseñar e implementar un proceso participativo para el resguardo de las salvaguardas sociales y ambientales aplicables a la ENCCRV y su consiguiente fase de consulta y autoevaluación”. Este plan cuenta con los siguientes principios que podrían se insumo a ser considerada dentro de las políticas del GCF y el ESMS para una mayor participación: Procesos participativos de amplio alcance y generados en instancias formales: La participación se ejerce mediante un proceso de alcance nacional y formal que permite dar sostenibilidad social y ambiental a la Estrategia mediante la búsqueda de consensos entre la institucionalidad y los actores claves que se relacionan con los bosques y formaciones xerofíticas del país. El participación deberá realizarse de acuerdo a la normativa nacional y en concordancia con los estándares internacionales: La participación en el proceso de formulación y consulta de la ENCCRV se lleva a cabo en los términos establecidos en la Ley N°20.500 sobre Asociaciones y Participación Ciudadana en la Gestión Pública y, el artículo 7 del Convenio 169 de la OIT y la OP 4.10 del Banco Mundial para el caso de los Pueblos Indígenas, entre otros pilares normativos de orden legal que sustenta la participación plena, efectiva y trasparente de la sociedad civil. 1 Disponible en: http://www.enccrv‐chile.cl/index.php/capacitate/publicaciones‐enccrv/item/352‐plan‐sis Page11
Transparencia de los procesos participativos: El proceso de formulación y consulta de la ENCCRV es transparente e incorpora a todos los sectores de la sociedad que están directamente relacionados con los bosques, formaciones xerofíticas y recursos vegetacionales. Los actores claves que participan del proceso tienen un rol activo, informado, libre, oportuno y calendarizado. La coordinación intersectorial e interinstitucional es transparente a través de mecanismos establecidos para tales fines. Inclusión de los derechos y conocimientos ancestrales: Los derechos, visiones, propuestas, reclamos y sugerencias de los Pueblos Indígenas y de las comunidades locales dependientes de los bosques, formaciones xerofíticas y otras formaciones vegetacionales, junto con ser analizados, se incorporan en la ENCCRV en tanto sean pertinentes. Fortalecimiento de capacidades: El proceso de formulación, consulta pública e indígena y autoevaluación de la ENCCRV busca la creación y el fortalecimiento de capacidades tanto en los potenciales beneficiarios y/o afectados con esta iniciativa, como de la institución responsable de su implementación para asegurar un adecuado manejo de los riesgos e impactos socio‐ambientales que pueda generar. Bajo estos principios expresados se sugiere tomarlos en consideración en la elaboración de las ESS del GCF. Igualmente, en punto VI del documento, párrafo 61, se propone considerar, más allá que la información esté a disposición en sitios web o papelería, es importante incorporar ya sea oficinas físicas de atención, canales telefónicos, preparación de funcionarios en terreno para poder entregar de forma responsable la información, entendiendo los distintos contextos territoriales, pero además considerar a la población vulnerable con escaso acceso tecnológico de comunicación (ejemplo, considerar que aún existen el analfabetismo, que principalmente corresponde a personas mayores y que habitan en la ruralidades). Para el párrafo 64, numeral iii, se propone tomar en consideración que los procesos de participación sean de manera plena y efectiva y que se consideren medios de difusión para la entrega de información a las partes interesadas. Para el párrafo 67, se considera que si bien no existen un concepto universal, es necesario agregar para aclarar y no se preste para ambigüedad la “buena fe” de los procedimiento que se realicen para el respeto de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, que corresponde a un acto ético que se encuentra mencionado en los distintos acuerdos nacionales e internacionales sobre pueblos indígenas. En relación al párrafo 70, se sugiere contemplar que los participantes tienen que ser representativos de las distintas organizaciones que provengan, y validados por sus propias comunidades u organizaciones. Entendidos como actores claves relevantes tanto a nivel territorial como a nivel de sus propias organizaciones. A lo largo del documento, se sugiere contemplar la medición y monitoreo para el cumpliendo con las salvaguardas sociales y ambientales, ya que sólo se enfatiza la medición de los riesgos, pero es necesario tener un marco que permita monitorear los compromisos que se están estableciendo, de modo de ir verificando el cumplimiento y no cumplimiento, de tener una retroalimentación de los proyectos que se gesten, además de una evaluación. Page12
Igualmente, el fortalecimiento de capacidades de los propios funcionarios de las instituciones es fundamental, y en el documento se debe enfatizar este fortalecimiento ya que va dando autonomía a los países. Otro punto a contemplar en el documento, es la importancia de que los distintos mecanismos que se implemente tengan la compatibilidad y la complementariedad tanto de lo que ya existen o lo que se pretende implementar con las instancias nacionales. Además, se debe mencionar acerca de los arreglos institucionales para la implementación de las medidas implementadoras, y los arreglos institucionales que son claves para el cumplimiento de los objetivos. Page13
VI.
TIANQINGPOWERGreenClimateConsultingCo.,Ltd. This submission is in response to the Call for Public Inputs: Green Climate Fund Environment and Social Management System (ESMS) based on the outline for the GCF’s ESMS adopted in decision B07/02. 1. The current ESMS proposed by the GCF only refers to Environment and Social policies, while the other areas of the ESMS system, such as risk identification and classification and management and planning, etc., have not been elaborated on in depth and listed clearly. 2. It is highly imperative that the ESMS not be sheerly focused on the GCF itself and AEs. This is seen throughout many GCF documents and policies. As the most important project/programme stakeholders, the EEs must be fully taken into account and involved in the ESMS, including but not limited to clearly expounding on their roles and responsibilities. This is indeed advantageous in terms of GCF project implementation. 3. It is necessary to establish a grace period for the implementation of the ESMS, especially for those AE that have full mature ESMS, as they will need time to learn the GCF’s ESMS and improve their own systems accordingly. 4. The implementation of ESMS shall not only be completed in a risk‐based manner, but also in a flexible manner in light of the national situations of the host country, which means that when evaluating a project, the GCF and IE could use quantitive indicators, such as scoring methods, with the project meeting the GCF’s ESMS requirements when reaching a certain score. The bottom line of score can be adjusted in accordance with the category of host country. 5. The existing environment and social risk categories (“High risk Category A”, “Medium Category B”, and “Low/no Category C”) defined by the GCF are too general, and will not be easy to classify in practical application, which may cause misclassification. As a result, a classification method explained in more detail needs to be developed so that the projects proposed for financing can be classified to correct risk categories. In addition, the host country’s classification method (if applicable) can also be consulted. Furthermore, in project environment and social risk classification, for projects with high risk levels, the contributions of the project in mitigation and adaptation also need to be taken into account. For example, projects with high risk, but with great contributions in mitigation Page14
and adaptation, and related to national interests and people’s livelihood, need to be on the GCF’s priority funding list, and the environment and social risk could also be lowered to speed up the proposal approval process. 6. Experts of Technical Advisory Panel need to be very familiar with the national conditions, policies, and baseline, etc. of the host country of the proposed project, as well as the technologies used and the environmental and social risks of the proposed project to be financed. Questions asked and suggestions provided need to be professional and targeted to avoid more unrelated questions being raised, and thereby causing the delay of the proposal approval process. 7. There should be a deadline for the assessment period on compliance with the requirements of the ESMS, on the premise that the funding proposal meets the standards of the ESMS, in order to avoid a cumbersome process due to the assessment of compliance with requirements of ESMS, and thereby cause the delay of the proposal approval process. 8. It is suggested that the assessment of compliance with requirements of ESMS should not only be conducted in the project preparation stage to assess whether the proposed project meet the requirements on procedure and schedule of the ESMS. Attention should also be paid to the supervision and reporting on the compliance with requirements of the ESMS in project implementation. 9. Whenever the Fund conducts site visits, a due diligence procedure needs to be developed on aspects such as how early beforehand should the AE be notified, the audit time schedule, audit plan, and people participating, etc. to ensure fairness and transparency. 10. In the GCF and AE performance assessment, results of the implementation of the ESMS, namely the environmental and social performance, should be incorporated as an important assessment indicator. 11. May it be noted that there is a small error on page 9 (2.1 Policy Objectives) in the listing of 7. (It begins with (h) rather than (a)). Page15
VII.
SuahasilNazara,NationalDesignatedAuthorityforIndonesia
Background This submission responds to call for public inputs on GCF’s Environmental and Social
Management System (ESMS) issued by the secretariat on December 15 2016 based on GCF
Board Decision B.07/02. The input below is provided on behalf Indonesian NDA for GCF. This
input are in relation on elements (1) Scope and Principles; (2) Gaps; and (3) Engagement.
Principles for GCF new ESMS  Functionally, an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) should include
procedures and processes to identify, assess and manage environmental and social risks;
concretely describe the roles, responsibilities and capabilities of all stakeholders involved;
and provide clear guidelines on monitoring and reporting activities.
 The ESMS should not be understood as a narrow set of policies, principles and standards
focusing only on environmental and social safeguards, but as a comprehensive system
of interlocking and mutually reinforcing operational policies and procedures, due diligence
and compliance systems. This includes GCF operational policies and procedures
addressed elsewhere but which have crucial interlinkages, such as the Gender Policy,
Information Disclosure Policy, Accountability Mechanisms, especially the Independent
Redress Mechanism, Initial Monitoring and Accountability Framework, Communication
Strategy and still-to-be-developed guidelines for stakeholder engagement and
participation.
 The ESMS should define clear objectives and mandatory implementation measures,
which includes providing a robust structure for managing the operational risks of the GCF;
ensuring the environmental and social soundness and gender-responsiveness of GCF
operations; giving solutions for addressing environmental and social issues, including
gender, in GCF operations; identifying environmental and social risks and preventing
environmental and social impacts under a “do no harm” approach, taking into account
different impacts on men and women; establishing mandatory requirements for
stakeholder engagement which is gender-responsive and disclosure of information; and
improving the effectiveness of results on the ground.
 Additionally, as a body within the UN system, the GCF should adopt a “rights-based
approach,” similar to other UN agencies and funds (such as the Adaptation Fund). It must
not be limited to standards adopted by other international financial institutions. Similarly,
Page16
the GCF is an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, and as such,
its policies and procedures must be in line with UNFCCC decisions. As many GCF policies
and procedures are yet to be developed, or are in the process of development,
sequencing is key. The ESMS should be carefully coordinated with the development of
the GCF’s own to-be-developed environmental and social safeguards.
Inputs from Indonesian Perspectives The ESMS is workable but it needs gradual application in line with the level of understanding
and capacity of the project/program. The GCF should propose to implement the ESMS along
with enhanced direct and indirect measures to support a more effective implementation by
project/program. GCF should provide advisory service/technical assistant program (or set
aside resources) to build capacity, particularly at the regulatory, sector, and institutional level
where value can be added beyond the individual project level.
The GCF should recognize and anticipate the possibility of different interpretations of certain
terminology or procedure at the national level in the application of ESMS. There should,
therefore, be a room for modification/adjustment/revision to reflect experience from the ESMS
application to individual operation/country. Emphasis will be placed on dynamic learning from
both design and implementation of operations in the diverse countries where GCF programs
are being implemented. GCF should also establish room for dialogue with stakeholders,
clients, Board, CSOs on experience and learning to better identify environmental and social
(E&S) risks and to help programs/member countries mitigate risks to achieve better
development outcomes.
The GCF should raise awareness on environmental and social safeguards for project/program
and establish a program of information sharing, education and strengthen capacity through
training for the stakeholders on the ESMS. GCF will also take action to establish effective
knowledge management to facilitate learning and knowledge sharing between stakeholders.
The implementation of ESMS will have resource implications. Cost effectiveness for project
proponent is an important consideration in finding the right balance when establishing the
ESMS’ requirements. Implementation of EMS will entail recurrent and incremental costs both
at project level and institutional level during monitoring/supervision process, such as additional
capacity for project proponent, resource efficiency analyses, social analysis and disclosure.
GCF should carefully consider this resource implication and if necessary, to conduct a survey
to assess implications of costs as part of review process mentioned.
Page17
VIII. CorporaciónAndinadeFomento(CAF),AccreditedEntity
Párrafo i. f. Título Texto Links with existing Gender policy and action plan. The gender policy and policies and action plan details the commitment of the GCF to frameworks efficiently contribute to gender equality and ultimately bring about greater and more sustainable climate change results, outcomes and impacts.14 The GCF gender policy and action plan complements the requirements of the GCF interim ESS standards, particularly in enhancing social access to development benefits and addressing potential social risks and impacts related to gender responsiveness and inclusiveness Environmental and social policy 1.4 Description of the contents of an environmental and social policy Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress mechanism. The requirements for ensuring transparent, consistent and meaningful participation of stakeholders are discussed in this section. These requirements are linked to the GCF information disclosure policy, as well as the options and best practices for multi‐stakeholder engagement and the independent Redress Mechanism; Comentario No queda clara la relación existente entre la política y plan de acción de género y los resultados e impactos mayores y más sostenibles del cambio climático The relationship between the gender policy and action plan and the major and more sustainable impacts and impacts of climate change is unclear Se debe definir el concepto de “redress”, pues puede interpretarse como “compensación” (Redress: Compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Access to the courts to gain Reparation for a wrong. ‐ http://legal‐
dictionary.thefreedictio
nary.com/redress), es importante contextualizar para evitar que se interprete como la obligación de resarcimiento económico. The concept of "redress" must be defined, since it can be interpreted as Page18
9. 2.2 Scope of application 11. (h) Guiding principles 14. y 17. 4.1 Overview of the roles and responsibilities of the GCF Y 4.2 Overview of roles and responsibilities of the accredited entities Where activities are co‐financed by other institutions, the GCF will encourage accredited entities and the co‐financing institutions to explore a common approach for the assessment and management of the environmental and social risks and impacts. The GCF can agree to a common approach, provided that such a common approach is consistent with this policy and the ESS standards of the GCF and will achieve the same level of environmental and social protection as this policy. Gender‐sensitive approach. The GCF will contribute to gender equality and inclusiveness by ensuring that the methods and tools to promote gender equality and reduce gender disparities in climate actions are established and implemented. The gender policy adopted by the GCF complements the intent for social inclusion of the environmental and social policy and the ESS standards; (b) Requiring an appropriate screening and categorization process within the ESMS; (ii) Ensuring that activities proposed for GCF financing are properly screened and assigned to appropriate environmental and social risk categories; "compensation" (Redress: Compensation for injuries sustained, recovery or restitution for harm or injury, damages or equitable relief. Http://legal‐
dictionary.thefreedictio
nary.com/redress), it is important to contextualize to avoid being interpreted as the obligation of economic compensation. Si las partes (GCF y Entidad Acreditada) tienen responsabilidades de requiring y ensuring ¿quién implementa? Debería decirse claramente que quien implementa es la entidad ejecutora. If the parties (GCF and Accredited Entity) have responsibilities of requiring and ensuring Page19
19. 4.2 Overview of roles and responsibilities of the accredited entities 20. 4.2 Overview of roles and responsibilities of (d) Requiring that environmental and social risks and impacts assessments for an accredited entity’s activities are adequate and provide sufficient information to (i) assess whether the GCF should consider funding the project or programme, or not finance it because of the potential risks and impacts and (ii) determine suitable avoidance, mitigation or compensation measures, in those cases where proceeding with funding consideration is appropriate. Where gaps or weaknesses exist, the GCF will require that they be addressed. The assessments will also provide the basis (iv) Ensuring that the environmental and social risks and impacts of activities proposed for GCF financing are assessed; (e) Confirming with accredited entities the environmental and social management plans (ESMPs) to address the identified risks and impacts and any other safeguards, instruments and tools that may be required, and reviewing their adequacy. Where there are gaps or weaknesses, the GCF will require that they be addressed. The GCF will also require that accredited entities implement (which may include the role of an executing entity), or monitor and supervise (as an intermediary) the project’s implementation and compliance with the environmental and social obligations and conditions, and require that any gaps or weaknesses be addressed; (v) Ensuring that measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and offset adverse impacts are planned for activities proposed for GCF financing; and The accredited entities are responsible for compliance with all applicable laws, including the laws, regulations and standards of the country in which the projects are located, and obligations of the country directly applicable to the project under relevant international treaties and agreements Entities that are functioning as financial intermediaries are exposed to environmental and social risk through the activities of their borrower who implements? It should be clearly stated that the implementer is the implementing entity. Mismo comentario anterior Mismo comentario anterior Page20
the accredited entities 21. 23. and investees. Intermediaries are responsible for managing the environmental and social risks associated with the supported activities. The intermediaries will review the activities to identify where the entities and the GCF could be exposed to potential risks and take necessary action, including the development and operation of an ESMS to oversee and manage these risks. 4.2 Overview The accredited entities will be responsible for of roles and ensuring that the project‐affected communities and responsibilities of vulnerable populations are properly consulted on the the accredited risks and anticipated impacts and the expected entities benefits that can be derived from the projects. In order to ensure meaningful and effective consultation and participation of the affected communities and vulnerable populations, the accredited entities will disclose and make publicly available relevant information on the project in accordance with the requirements of the information disclosure policy of the GCF and subsection 6.1 of this policy. The accedited entities will ensure that an effective V. General requirements for ESMS is in place to allow a better understanding of the environmental and social risks and impacts environmental associated with the projects and the means to and social risk subsequently manage these. The ESMS will be management appropriate to the role of an implementing entity (which may include a project execution role), an 5.2 Environmental intermediary entity, or both. The accredied entity will and social maintain or improve on the ESMS on which its management accreditation was approved. The level of detail and system complexity of the management system and the staff and financial resources allocated to it will be adequate to manage the expected level of risks and impacts of the projects to be financed. If the accredited entity has been accredited to have an intermediary function, its ESMS will include the policies, procedures and resources to conduct due diligence and oversight over executing entities and ensure that the executing entities fulfil the GCF project‐level requirements discussed in sections IV, V and VI of this policy and in line with the ESS standards of the GCF. The staff of the accredited entity, including those who may be part‐time or externally acquired (e.g. consultants) will have the necessary expertise in all areas covered by the ESS standards to carry out their responsibilities. The ESMS forms one of the important criteria for the accreditation of the entities and also the basis for project screening and due diligence process to En todos los casos (IV. y VI., además del V.) deberían establecer lo dicho en el texto subrayado. In all cases (IV and VI., In addition to V.) should establish what was said in the underlined text. Page21
28. 31. 31. 31. 31. confirm how the ESS are translated to specific measures at the project level 5.3 Screening If a programme (not a single project) is being and categorization submitted for consideration for GCF funding, the accredited entity will assign the risk categorization of the highest risk project in the programme. 5.3 Screening (a) High level of intermediation, I1. An and categorization intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include, financial exposure to activities with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented; 5.3 Screening (b) Medium level of intermediation, I2. An and categorization intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include, substantial financial exposure to activities with potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and impacts that are few, generally site‐specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation measures; and includes no activities with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented; Debería tomarse en cuenta impactos acumulativos y sinérgicos en caso de programas. Cumulative and synergistic impacts should be taken into account in case of programs. Se debe definir “exposición financiera sustancial”. Habrá otros instrumentos técnicos referenciales en los que se defina umbrales para estas y otras “calificaciones”? "Substantial financial exposure" should be defined. Will there be other technical reference tools that define thresholds for these and other "qualifications"? 5.3 Screening (c) Low level of intermediation, I3. An Exposición financiera and categorization intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes total…….? financial exposure to activities that predominantly have minimal or negligible adverse environmental and social impacts. 5.3 Screening The three previous Cómo se clasifica una and categorization operación en la que la exposición financiera es sustancial para proyectos con mínimos Page22
34. 35. 46. 51. riesgos e impactos ambientales y sociales, pero que en un 5‐10% involucra actividades con altos riesgos e impactos? How to classify an operation in which financial exposure is substantial for projects with minimal risks and environmental and social impacts, but which in 5‐10% involve activities with high risks and impacts? 5.3 Screening The entities will ensure that all GCF‐financed and categorization activities meet applicable laws related to managing environmental and social risks and impacts, including national laws, regulations and standards, and obligations of the country directly applicable to the project under relevant international treaties and agreements. The compliance with applicable laws will be reflected in the screening process indicating these national requirements and how these will be met through the management programmes and plans. 5.3 Screening The GCF will require the entities to ensure that and categorization associated facilities meet the requirements of the ESS standards of the GCF to the extent that the entities have the control and influence over these associated facilities. Where the associated facilities are financed by other funding agencies, the GCF and its entities may rely on the environmental and social requirements of these funding agencies provided that these are aligned with the ESS standards of the GCF. 5.6 Environmental The ESMP will be integrated into the overall planning, and social design, resourcing and execution of the GCF‐ management plan financed activities as well as being reflected in the ESMS. Where gaps in the capacity of entities to implement the mitigation measures exist, the GCF will work with the entities to explore how the institutional capacity can be built or enhanced, and how the gap‐filling measures may be integrated into the project. 5.7 Operational The accredited entities will notify the GCF when changes there are material changes in the project design and execution, policy and regulatory setting, receiving Page23
52. 5.7 Operational changes 58. 5.8 Monitoring and reporting 62. VI. Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress 6.1 Information disclosure 6.1 Information disclosure 63. environment and community, unanticipated environmental risks and impacts, or other circumstances that elevate the risk levels of the project and required associated mitigation measures. The GCF will require the accredited entities to undertake a due diligence process appropriate to the new risk level of the project and revise the ESMP or ESMS to meet the requirements of the ESS standards. The accredited entities will also notify the GCF of any changes in their ESMS that may adversely affect the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of GCF‐financed activities. Where the changes render the project’s ESMP or the entity’s ESMS inconsistent with the ESS standards of the GCF, the GCF will require the accredited entities to make appropriate revisions of the project’s ESMP; adjust the accredited entity’s ESMS; or undertake other necessary actions to meet the ESS standards requirements. In monitoring a project’s environmental and social performance, the accredited entities will obtain the involvement of communities, local stakeholders and civil society organizations in all the stages of the project cycle. This participatory monitoring approach will also encourage the national designated authorities or focal points to organize country portfolio reviews participated in by project‐affected people and other local stakeholders. The information disclosure policy of the GCF requires the accredited entities to disclose to the public and, via the Secretariat, to the Board and active observers, the necessary documentation relevant to the environmental and social safeguards of the activities, and meet the required disclosure period. The required disclosure periods apply to category A and category B sub‐projects of GCF‐funded programmes. The GCF requires, where relevant, that additional environmental and social safeguards documents be disclosed. These documents include a suite of assessment and management instruments, such as resettlement action plans and policy frameworks, indigenous peoples plans and planning frameworks and due diligence and audit reports. These documents complement the core safeguards instruments required in all cases – ESIA, ESMP and/or ESMS – and will be disclosed in the same manner and time frame as the core instruments. Se sugiere separar en un punto adicional, para que este importante concepto no se pierda. It is suggested to separate in an additional point, so that this important concept is not lost. Siendo que los documentos listados también corresponden a salvaguardas, tal como establece el texto en cursiva, en el párrafo anterior, debería establecerse que los documentos a los que hace referencia son “the core safeguards” Page24
67. 6.2 Stakeholder engagement 72. 6.3 Grievance redress mechanism Since the documents listed also correspond to safeguards, as stated in the italicized text in the previous paragraph, it should be established that the documents to which it refers are "the core safeguards" The GCF will describe the process and set guidance to Dado que no existe una assist the accredited entities to put in place a process definición for meaningful consultation with project‐affected universalmente people, guided by the principles of transparency, aceptada, es inclusiveness, non‐discrimination and accountability. importante que el This meaningful consultation will be culturally documento establezca appropriate, undertaken throughout the project claramente qué entiende el GCF por cycle, with information provided and disclosed in a libre, previa e timely manner and in an understandable format, informada, a fin de gender inclusive and responsive, free from coercion evitar interpretaciones and incorporate the views of stakeholders in the por país, o peor aún, decision‐making process. The process will pay por entidad acreditada particular attention to including vulnerable groups o entidad ejecutora. and to conducting consultations in a manner that does not put vulnerable individuals and groups at Since there is no risk. For activities affecting indigenous peoples, this engagement will be supported by the objectives and universally accepted definition, it is requirements of the ESS standard on indigenous important that the peoples, including with respect to free, prior and informed consent. There is no universally accepted document clearly establish what the GCF definition of free, prior and informed consent. understands by default, prior and informed, in order to avoid interpretations by country, or worse, by accredited entity or executing entity. The accredited entity’s own grievance redress mechanism should be the forum first accessed by projected‐affected people, and it is the responsibility of the accredited entity to ensure that its grievance mechanisms and those of the projects are functioning effectively, efficiently and independently Page25
IX.
WorldFoodProgramme(WFP),AccreditedEntity
Chapter 1.1
Chapter 1.1 lists the different components of an environmental and social management system
including that “Stakeholder engagement delivering meaningful and active participation of GCF
stakeholders, including national designated authorities and focal points and civil society organizations.”
Principles and requirements on stakeholders engagement and consultation are mentioned several
times in the document but it is not very clear if the E&S policy requires this engagement to take place
only on ESS impacts related-matters or if it more general. We suggest that the E&S policy clarifies that
stakeholders, and in particular communities affected by the project, need to also be consulted and
engaged in the design of the project/activity.
Sections 5.6 and 5.8
Sections 5.6 and 5.8 refer to the Environmental and social management plan that will be requested for
Category B (medium risks) and A (high risks) projects and to the monitoring and reporting needed.
While we appreciate the importance and need to properly identify and address environmental and social
risks, the scope of documentation and corrective actions that an accredited entity might have to do will
have significant budget implications for AEs. It could also be translated in very restrictive compulsory
requirements. As a result, it would be great to better understand this risk from the GCF part, and what
this would mean in terms of budget implications for AEs. It would also be beneficial also to understand
what type of actions/corrective activities will apply to each category. Or if it is a one size fits all type of
approach.
Section 6
Because of our UN status, we cannot adhere to the principle of “compliance with applicable laws” We
suggest changing that principle into something a bit less binding: “Global requirements. In designing
its activities and operations, AEs will take into account the local regulatory context as well as relevant
international treaties, global standards and the requirements of United Nations governing bodies.”
Page26
X.
DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)
GmbH,AccreditedEntity
In response to the GCF’s Call for Public Inputs: Green Climate Fund Environmental and Social Management System, and on behalf of the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, we would like to convey the following thoughts, observations and recommendations for your consideration: (1) GIZ appreciates and congratulates the Secretariat on the substantial work that stands behind the draft Annex 1: ESMS and draft Annex 1: Environmental and Social Policy. (2) We as an organization share the values that transcend the two drafts in every respect. (3) We recognize the objectives, scope and guiding principles of the draft E&S Policy. (4) GIZ appreciates the GCF’s transparent and participatory approach in shaping future policies. GIZ is open‐minded to engage in further multi‐stakeholder exchange on Environmental and Social Management Systems with the GCF, AEs and other interested groups for the benefit of continuously improving the ESMS of all participating organizations. We would encourage the GCF Secretariat to initiate and drive such exchange. GIZ would be willing to contribute actively, cooperate closely with the GCF Secretariat, and bring in participating organizations from our global network of partners. (5) We would have the following general recommendations on the two drafts: a) Consider providing a summary of anticipated key changes in AEs’ responsibilities that would result from a Board approval of this draft GCF ESMS and E&S Policy when compared to the AEs’ responsibilities under the Interim ESS Policy and criteria applied by the Accreditation Panel. b) We noticed some terminological ambiguities or inconsistencies (ESMS, E&S policy, ESS, ESS Safeguards), for example:  Sometimes the term “ESMS” refers to the GCF’s ESMS and sometimes to the AE’s ESMS. Is the term ESMS meant to refer to the GCF and/or AEs only or to both?  Sometimes the term “ESS Standards” refers to the GCF’s ESS standards and sometimes to the AE’s. Is the term “ESS Standards” meant to refer to AEs only or to both?  Are the terms “ESS” and “ESS Standards” equivalent to ESMS or E&S policy?  According to the diagram on page 4 of the draft Annex 1 ESMS and page 9 of draft Annex 1 E&S policy, an AE has ESS Standards. According to the GCF’s accreditation framework, an AE needs to have an ESMS including an E&S policy.  A Glossary might be useful. c) The requirements for AEs resulting from the GCF E&S Policy concerning consultations, participation, and stakeholder engagement appear to be comprehensive, but are still rather vague at the same time (“properly”, “meaningful” etc.). It is therefore difficult to anticipate the time and cost implications for AEs in implementing the GCF E&S Policy. Additional guidance would be much appreciated in order to efficiently balance project preparation costs and sound E&S risk management. Page27
d) The differentiation between GCF‐level, AE‐level, project‐level, intermediation‐level, and EE‐
level is helpful and could be used more systematically throughout. e) The occasional differentiation between project preparation phase and project implementation/execution phase is helpful and could be used more systematically throughout. f) Operational, very practical guidelines and manuals for AEs would help to further clarify the actual on‐the‐ground requirements for AEs across the spectrum of different accreditation categories, but may not be possible to produce until more GCF‐activities are on the ground. g) We understand the downloadable PDF includes an Annex 1: Environmental and social management system and an Annex 1: Environmental and social policy. We also understand the GCF’s rationale in separating the ESMS and E&S Policy as indicated in the diagram. But when reading both Annexes, the distinguishing features of the draft Annex 1: ESMS in contrast to the Policy are not evident, yet. The diagram and most sections of the draft ESMS are also included in the draft Policy or could be included. Our humble recommendation would be to sharpen the overall profile and added value of the draft Annex 1: ESMS. Comments on Draft Annex 1: Environmental and social policy: How are the IFC performance standards and the GCF Interim ESS Policy (still) relevant for the Policy? III. Guiding principles Page 11 (f) Continuous improvements: While we fully acknowledge the need for updating and gradual adjustments in the GCF’s ESMS, changes in the GCF’s ESMS should also be viewed under the consideration of efficiency. It requires time and creates costs for AEs to implement changes at GCF ESMS level at the operational level. Hence changes ideally should occur only when highly necessary. How are the IFC performance standards related to the guiding principles? IV. Overview of roles and responsibilities Page 13 (c): Kindly clarify the GCF’s role here in E&S due diligence in project/programme preparation. To our understanding, E&S due diligence falls within the role and responsibility of the AE when preparing a funding proposal (compare AMA templates). If this is to change, how would the Secretariat exercise its due diligence role, potentially in cooperation with the AE’s E&S due diligence procedures? [update: the GCF’s role is specified later on page 18, consider including a reference.] Page 14 (f): unclear [update: specified later on page 21, consider including a reference.] Page 14 16.: Kindly clarify the terminology: Are “project safeguards plans and frameworks” equivalent to a project’s Environmental and Social Management Plan? Page 15 (a) (ii) and (iv): Aren’t the two steps closely linked? Consider merging (ii) and (iv). Page28
Page 15 (b) (iii): What kind of information would the GCF expect to be disclosed by the AE? Is this sufficiently specified in the GCF Disclosure Policy? If yes, consider referring to the Disclosure Policy here. Page 15 21.: The language is rather vague (“properly consulted”, “meaningful and effective consultation and participation”). Would it be possible to provide an operational definition or reference best international practices? The language currently lacks guidance as to what exactly an AE would have to do differently under the new GCF E&S Policy compared to its existing standards and procedures as they were approved through the accreditation process. V. General requirements for environmental and social risk management We noticed a number of redundancies between section IV. Overview of roles and responsibilities and section V. General requirements for environmental and social risk management. Page 16 22. & 23.: Consider including exemplary elaborations on the guiding questions and the assessment methodology of the Accreditation Panel. This may help to better illustrate how the GCF assesses the E&S capacities of AE candidates (documented policies & guidelines, senior management ownership, track record, staff capacity etc.). Consider referencing Annex 1: ESMS, page 2‐3, 1.1 Elements of an environmental and social management system (a) to (g). Page 16 24.: Consider referencing Annex 1: ESMS, page 2‐3, 1.1 Elements of an environmental and social management system (a) to (g). Page 16 25.: We assume the term “categorization” refers to ESS risk categories (for example high, medium, low)? Page 16 26.: Note, there may be a potential for ambiguity in the term “screening”. In some organizations the term “screening” is used for just one step in the ESS procedure, which would be pre‐assessment with the aim to determine the need for in‐depth assessments (for example an EIA) as a consecutive step. Page 18 36.: Mind the term “environmental and social due diligence” is used in the AMA template in the sense of the AE’s responsibility. So in our case, when reading the draft, we were momentarily confused about the terminology and the resulting roles for the GCF and AE. For improved clarity, consider including the role of AEs in the text. For example: “The GCF will conduct its environmental and social due diligence for activities submitted by AEs to the GCF for funding consideration as part of the Secretariat’s obligatory assessment of funding proposals before they are forwarded to the ITAP and Board. The purpose of the GCF’s due diligence is for the GCF to understand and evaluate how an AE screened, assesse […] environmental and social risks …” Page 19 38. (b): Kindly clarify the term “safeguards instruments”. Page 21 5.7 Operational changes: Consider differentiating between operational changes at project level (ESMP etc.) and organizational/policy level (ESMS/ESS Standards). Page 21 51.: Two questions here: Page29
1) How would the GCF deal with the following situation? A GCF‐funded project is being implemented by an AE. The AE is accredited for category C only. An unanticipated change of circumstances occurs and the project would have to be moved up to category B. 2) Would the AE have to initiate new consultations and again disclose the revised ESS reports and ESMP The terminology in this paragraph seems to be incoherent with the diagram (the AE is to change which ESMS to meet which ESS Standard?). Page 21 52.: Is this paragraph limited to material changes only or would even minor changes require the AE to notify the GCS? Page 22 59.: Kindly consider reducing vagueness as far as possible (“…among other issues.”). VI. Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress Page 23 63.: Kindly clarify the terminology. Is the draft referring to environmental and social due diligence or audit reports specifically or to due diligence or audit reports generally (including financial dd or audit reports)? GIZ would face problems with disclosing due diligence or audit reports containing sensitive information about GIZ’s partners (e. g. financial or other information that is not related to partners’ E&S capacities). Page30
XI.
PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP
Scope and principles





PwC welcomes the broad scope of the proposed ESMS which applies to all prospective and
approved GCF-financed activities and to both public and private sector entities.
PwC also welcomes the inclusion of human rights as a guiding principle for the GCF ESMS.
The proposed policy states that the “GCF will require entities to ensure that the supported
activities do not cause, promote, contribute to, perpetuate or exacerbate human rights
violations.” The GCF may also wish to consider entities’ capacity to remediate human right
breached in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
The GCF may also wish to consider including the precautionary principle as an additional
guiding principle within its policy.
The GCF may wish to clarify its willingness to fund specific project types and industry sectors,
for example clean coal, hydropower and biofuels, and whether any exclusion list exists.
As compliance with applicable laws and human rights are both suggested as guiding principles
of the policy, the GCF may wish to clarify the approach that will be taken when national laws
are in contradiction with international good practice, such as regarding human rights.
Requirements and roles and responsibilities


The policy clearly delineates responsibilities of the GCF, accredited entities including financial
intermediaries and executing entities. However, there is no clear description of the internal
governance system and reporting lines within GCF for the management of E&S risks. For
example, it may be useful to explain how higher risk projects are escalated and to whom.
The GCF may wish to expand further on how it will use a differentiated approach depending
on entities’ and projects’ risk categories. For example, it could provide further detail on how
projects’ category of risk will influence the frequency and depth of monitoring.
Engagement

The guidance for accredited entities will be crucial in helping focal points within organisations
socialise messaging and buy-in more broadly within their institutions. Guidance through
various channels and in different languages will support the successful implementation of the
GCF policy.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional
advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No
representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this
publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its members, employees and agents do not
accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to
act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.
© 2017 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity.
Page31
XII.
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),Accredited
Entity
UNDP welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) proposed Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS, consultation draft 15 December 2016). We have sought to organize our comments according to the topics and issues outlined in GCF’s call for public input. Where possible and appropriate, we have proposed revised language to ESMS provisions, principally in section 2 below. 1. Scope and Principles The draft ESMS provides a comprehensive, integrated framework for managing all aspects of potential environmental and social risks and impacts in GCF‐financed projects. We welcome the dual emphasis on “do no harm” provisions as well as those focused on enhancing environmental and social benefits of proposed projects, and the recognition of the diversity among accredited entities according to the scope and nature of their activities and capacities for managing potential environmental and social risks and impacts (‘fit‐for‐
purpose’ approach). The draft Environmental and Social Policy (ESP) outlines a set of forward‐looking “Guiding Principles.” The Principles provide important commitments and explication of how GCF will seek to achieve the ESP’s objectives. The scope of the Principles is relatively comprehensive; however, we do note that the principles of equality and non‐discrimination deserve heightened attention to help ensure that adverse risks do not fall disproportionately on disadvantaged, marginalized, and/or vulnerable individuals and groups, and to avoid any prejudice and discrimination in providing access to development resources and project benefits. In addition, we note a few potential areas of potential tension between the proposed Guiding Principles and GCF’s interim Environmental and Social Standards (ESS), which are based on the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (PSs). We include several comments on this issue in section 3 below. 2. Requirements and Roles and Responsibilities We have noted two areas of concern regarding how the draft ESMS addresses key roles and responsibilities of and between the GCF and accredited entities: A. Provisions implying direct application of GCF interim ESS by accredited entities The draft ESMS appears to utilize the abbreviation “ESS” in two distinct contexts: (a) as a specific reference to the GCF interim ESS, and (b) more generically as “environmental and social safeguards.” This double usage leads to the impression in a number of instances that accredited entities are called on to directly apply the GCF interim ESS rather than their own environmental and social safeguards. Accredited entities apply their own institutionally mandated environmental and social safeguard policies, which were reviewed for consistency with the GCF interim ESS during the GCF accreditation process. The draft ESMS outlines this approach to achieving “consistency with the GCF interim ESS” in numerous places, namely in the following paragraphs: 8(b), 13, 14(c), 16, 22, 36, 37, 47, 48, 57. For example, paragraph 8(b) states: “At the entities and intermediaries level, the policy sets out the requirements for accredited entities working with the GCF to establish and maintain robust, systematic, accountable, participatory and transparent systems to manage risks and impacts arising from GCF‐financed activities in a manner consistent with the policy and the ESS standards adopted by the GCF” (emphasis added). However, problematic formulations that seem to call for direct application of the GCF interim ESS by accredited entities occurs in numerous sections. These have been identified below, and proposed revisions are offered (in italics). We propose that the abbreviation “ESS” only be applied when directly referencing the GCF’s interim ESS. Background Section Page32

Page 3, para. (b): “Accredited entities, applying [environmental and social safeguard policies in a manner consistent with] the GCF interim ESS standards in GCF‐financed activities.”  Pg. 5, para. (a) “… accreditation considers the capacity, competency and track record of entities in applying [environmental and social safeguard policies in a manner consistent with] the GCF interim ESS standards as reflected in their ESMS.” Annex I Environmental and Social Policy 













Para. 26: “Pursuant to [Consistent with] the ESS standard on assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts, accredited entities assign risk categories ….” Para. 29: “The GCF reviews the projects and programmes proposed for GCF financing, including the accompanying ESS [environmental and social safeguard] documents ….” Also: “In reviewing the ESS [environmental and social] risk categorization, the GCF verifies ….” Para. 30: “The environmental and social risk categories as defined in the ESS standards of the GCF apply to activities financed by the GCF as follows… .” Suggest rewording: “Accredited entities will apply environmental and social risk categories to activities financed by the GCF in a manner consistent with those defined in the interim ESS standards of the GCF, as follows… .” Para. 33: “In screening activities, the entities determine the applicability of specific ESS [environmental and social safeguard] standards and identify actions sufficient to meet the requirements of each applicable ESS [environmental and social safeguard] standard.” In both cases, ESS should be spelled out, lower case. Para. 35: “The GCF will require the entities to ensure that associated facilities meet the requirements of [their environmental and social safeguard standards, consistent with] the ESS standards of the GCF to the extent …” Para. 39: “Where information on activities is limited, the risks and impacts inherent to the type of activity … the capacity of the entities to implement the activity following [in a manner consistent with] the requirements of the ESS will be assessed.” Para. 40: “The ESS Standard on the assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts requires accredited entities to ensure that each of the activities proposed for GCF financing is designed to meet the requirements of the ESS standards.” This sentence should be reformulated along the following lines: “Accredited entities are required to undertake assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts to ensure that each of the activities proposed for GCF financing is designed to meet their environmental and social safeguards, in a manner consistent with the GCF interim ESS.” Para. 42: “The scope and depth of environmental and social assessment will be proportional to the level of risks and impacts and address the specific requirements of applicable ESS [environmental and social safeguard] standards. Para. 43: “… as may be required under specific ESS [environmental and social safeguard] standards.” Para. 51: “The GCF will require accredited entities to undertake a due diligence process appropriate to the new risk level of the project and revise the ESMP or ESMS to meet the requirements of the ESS [applicable environmental and social safeguard] standards.” Para. 52, end of last sentence: “… to meet the ESS [applicable environmental and social safeguard] standards requirements.” Para. 59: “The GCF will monitor the compliance of accredited entities with the ESS [applicable environmental and social safeguard] standards requirements, [in a manner consistent with the GCF interim ESS.] On an annual basis, the accredited entities will provide the GCF with a self‐assessment of their compliance with the ESS [applicable environmental and social safeguard] standards, among other issues.” Para. 66: “The GCF will require accredited entities, including intermediaries, to ensure the effective engagement of communities …. as required in [in a manner consistent with] the ESS standards.” Para. 74: The ESS standards require [A]ccredited entities [are required] to ensure that all environmental and social issues arising ….” Page33

Para. 77: “At the GCF‐level, the independent Resource Mechanism will address the grievances and complaints by people and communities who may or have been affected by the adverse impacts through the failure of the GCF‐financed activities funded by the GCF to implement its operational policies and procedures, including the ESMS and Environmental and Social Policy the ESS standards of the GCF.” Note: while this is a somewhat different issue than the above, it should be noted that the GCF does not directly implement the ESS standards as this is the responsibility of accredited entities. B. Relationship between GCF independent Recourse Mechanism and accredited entities The draft ESMS emphasizes the requirement for GCF‐financed projects to ensure that stakeholders have access to appropriate project‐level and accredited entity‐level grievance redress mechanisms. The ESMS also notes that stakeholders of GCF‐financed projects also have access to the GCF’s independent Recourse Mechanism. We welcome these provisions. However, we are concerned with the formulation of several provisions regarding the relationship between the accredited entity and the GCF independent Resource Mechanism in terms of (a) first instance of recourse and (b) implementing remedial actions. At para. 72, the ESMS notes that the “accredited entity’s own grievance redress mechanism should be the forum first accessed by the project‐affected people.” We note that in effect the project‐level grievance mechanism should be the first instance of recourse, and that there should always be an option for stakeholders to approach the accredited entity’s mechanism if they are not satisfied with the project‐level mechanism or have deep concern about using it. We also note for clarification that a “project‐level grievance mechanism” may be a mechanism specifically designed for a particular project; a pre‐existing mechanism within a national implementing agency or in an independent national body (for example a national ombudsman or human rights office); or UNDP’s corporate Stakeholder Response Mechanism. UNDP will determine the appropriate grievance mechanism for GCF‐funded projects using its SES and associated procedures and guidance. More significantly, we note that the draft ESMS should further emphasize that the GCF’s independent Recourse Mechanism is “complementary and supplementary” to the accredited entity’s own mechanism, and that “any grievances and complaints should first and foremost be addressed to, and dealt with by, the grievance mechanism of the Accredited Entity and the Accredited Entity agrees that its grievance mechanism will be the primary mechanism to handle such grievances and complaints,” as is stated in the GCF Accreditation Master Agreement (AMA) between the Green Climate Fund and the United Nations Development Programme at para. 13.04.2 We request that this provision be incorporated into and emphasized in the draft ESMS. Regarding remedies, the draft ESMS mandates accredited entities to implement remedial actions stipulated by the GCF Board on the recommendation of the independent Redress Mechanism in response to complaints from project stakeholders, as noted in the following paragraphs: 
Para. 15 (b): “Ensuring that accredited entities agree to fully implement remedial actions stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the independent Redress Mechanism in response to complaints it has received and in accordance with the terms of reference, guidelines and procedures of the independent Redress Mechanism.” 2 Para. 13.04 of the AMA states: “The Redress Mechanism is to address grievances and complaints by communities and people who have been directly affected by the adverse impacts through the failure of the Funded Activity to implement the Fund’s operational policies and procedures, including environmental and social safeguards. However, the Redress Mechanism is to be complementary to other supervision, audit, quality control and evaluation systems of the Fund, which include such systems of the Accredited Entity. Therefore, any grievances and complaints should first and foremost be addressed to, and dealt with by, the grievance mechanism of the Accredited Entity and the Accredited Entity agrees that its grievance mechanism will be the primary mechanism to handle such grievances and complaints. The Accredited Entity shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with and provide reasonable assistance to the Redress Mechanism in respect of any grievances and complaints filed with the Redress Mechanism, including promoting cooperation between the Redress Mechanism and the corresponding body or unit of the Accredited Entity.” Page34

Para. 17(a)(vi): “Ensuring that remedial actions stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the independent Redress Mechanism in response to a complaint from project‐affected people are respected and promptly implemented.”  Para. 77: “… the accredited entity will … promptly implement remedial measures stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the mechanism in keeping with its guidelines and procedures.” Such a requirement would in effect transfer authority for determining actions to be taken by the accredited entity to the GCF. The standard applied in the AMA is one of ‘cooperation to the fullest extent’ between the accredited entity and the GCF, not a transfer of decision‐making authority. We request that these provisions in the draft ESMS be revised to align with the ‘cooperation to the fullest extent’ standard reflected in the AMA at paras 13.042 and 16.053. Absent revising these provisions, we request that a footnote be incorporated in the paragraphs noted above in the draft ESMS that states “unless otherwise stipulated in the Accreditation Master Agreement between GCF and the accredited entity.” We request that the above adjustments also be reflected in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the independent Recourse Mechanism. An additional round of consultation and/or comments, in particular with accredited entities, should be undertaken on the proposed revised ToR (noting the recent call for public input) to ensure consistency and alignment with the AMA and ESMS. C. Other comments/suggested revisions Below are additional comments and/or suggested revisions regarding other provisions of the ESMS: 





Section II of the draft Environmental and Social Policy is titled “Environmental and Social Policy.” This is a bit confusing as it appears all sections are part of the draft Environmental and Social Policy. Para. 12(b) Indigenous Peoples: the first sentence focuses primarily on respect for indigenous peoples’ culture but does not mention respect for rights or lands and territories (although it does reference the need for full and effective participation of indigenous peoples). The second sentence refers to rights and commitments set forth in UNDRIP, including free prior informed consent. This is welcome. However, the rights framework for indigenous peoples includes a broader range of international treaties beyond UNDRIP. Para. 12(d) Biodiversity: the objectives could be broadened. Standard 6 of the interim ESS states that the objectives are “to protect and conserve” biodiversity and “to maintain the benefits from ecosystem services.” (emphasis added to show broader scope than that listed in the draft Environmental and Social Policy). In addition, the conditions for use of offsets should apply to both natural and critical habitats, not solely to critical habits (consistent with para. 49 of the draft Environmental and Social Policy). Para. 30(b): “Category B. Activities with potential mild [limited] adverse environmental and social risks and impacts ….” Consistent with the IFC Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability, the term should be “limited” rather than “mild.” Para. 34: “The compliance with applicable laws will be reflected in the screening [and assessment] process ….” Full analysis of national requirements is typically undertaken as part of assessment process, not just during screening. Para. 47: Regarding involuntary resettlement, the paragraph only refers to preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan/Framework to address adverse impacts. However, the interim ESS also refers to preparation of a Livelihood Restoration Plan to address adverse impacts related to economic displacement (IFC PS5, paras. 12‐16, 25). Both instruments are important in addressing physical and economic displacement. 3. Gaps 3 Para. 16.05 states: “The Accredited Entity shall co‐operate with the Secretariat and the Accountability Units and provide them with reasonable assistance in carrying out their functions including promoting cooperation between the Accountability Units and the corresponding body or unit of the Accredited Entity.” Page35
The proposed ESMS is a comprehensive, integrated framework for addressing potential social and environmental risks and impacts in GCF‐supported projects and programmes. Below we briefly note a few areas that may deserve further attention, although we recognize that perhaps several of these points are best addressed when GCF updates its interim ESS. 
Principles of Equality and Non‐discrimination: As noted in section 1, the ESMS’s Guiding Principles may not draw enough needed attention to the principles of equality and non‐discrimination. It is incumbent on all GCF entities to ensure that adverse risks do not fall disproportionately on disadvantaged, marginalized, and/or vulnerable individuals and groups, and prejudice and discrimination is avoided in the access to development resources and project benefits. 
Climate and Disaster Risks: While the IFC Performance Standards (PSs) seek to integrate identification and management of risks and impacts related to the effects of climate change and natural disasters, these considerations could be further emphasized and mainstreamed across the environmental and social standards. 
Organizational footprint: Corporate environmental and social policy statements typically include commitments to manage internal operations and the organization’s footprint in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. 
Alignment between ESMS Guiding Principles and interim‐ESSs: As noted above, the ESMS Guiding Principles provide a critical level of commitment and guidance in fulfilling the objectives of the proposed Environment and Social Policy. In considering future revisions of the interim ESS, the GCF may wish to consider reviewing alignment and consistency of the interim‐ESSs with the Guiding Principles and best practice standards. A couple illustrative examples of potential consistency issues are highlighted below. o
Indigenous peoples: The Guiding Principles note that inter alia “[t]he design and implementation of activities will be consistent with the rights and commitments set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP], including the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Currently a range of inconsistencies may exist between this principle and the interim ESS7, including provisions related to identification of indigenous peoples and the scope of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) requirements. We note that in this regard UNDP’s Social and Environmental Standards (SES), Standard 6 Indigenous Peoples offers what we believe to be language and requirements aligned with UNDRIP and other sources of international regarding the rights of indigenous peoples (for example at paras. 5, 9). o
Human rights and international law: The Guiding Principles note that “[a]ll activities supported by the GCF will be designed and implemented in a manner that will promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights for all. Actions to support human rights will be consistent with the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The GCF will require entities to ensure that the supported activities do not cause, promote, contribute to, perpetuate or exacerbate human rights violations…” (para. 12c). The revision process of the interim‐ESSs should carefully review alignment with this fundamental commitment. The interim‐ESSs tend to focus on compliance with “applicable national law, including those laws implementing host country obligations under international law.” Potential gaps may arise regarding respect for international human rights that have not been fully recognized or ratified by the host country. The “bright line” of ensuring no perpetuation or exacerbation of human rights violations contained in the GCF Guiding Principle may be absent across various existing standards. We note that UNDP’s SES emphasizes support to States for protection and fulfillment of human rights, application of the UN human‐rights based approach, and a firm commitment to “refrain from providing support for activities that may contribute to violations of a State’s human rights obligations and the core international human rights treaties” (UNDP SES, paras. 20, and 18‐22) (emphasis added). 4. Enhancing outcomes Page36
The draft ESMS articulates requirements for accredited entities to report on consistency of project implementation with applicable environmental and social standards and requirements, including environmental and social provisions included in the legal agreement. Such information is also to be reported in interim and final evaluation reports. We believe this will help drive consistent attention to achieving the objectives of applicable environmental and social standards and commitments. A key element to achieving sustainable development outcomes and equitable sharing of benefits and opportunities is through ensuring meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the project cycle. Effective stakeholder engagement promotes project ownership and sustainability of outcomes. We note that this is emphasized in the ESMS. However, safeguard standards, including the interim‐ESS, often link the scale and frequency of stakeholder engagement to the magnitude of a project’s adverse social and environmental risks. While the logic of this approach is clear, it may leave the impression that stakeholder engagement is less relevant for projects with relatively low social and environmental risks. This is of course not the case, and a careful balancing between a “risk‐based” application of the ESS and the need for stakeholder involvement is required. 5. Engagement GCF may wish to consider conducting briefing sessions on experiences with implementation of the ESMS and interim‐ESS at future GCF stakeholder meetings. Relevant ‘lessons learned’ briefs could be published. In addition, reviews of a sample of the GCF portfolio, including assessment of key environmental and social risks arising in the portfolio and measures to address them, could be undertaken and shared with stakeholders. Page37
XIII. InstituteforEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment
Section1.1:Elementsofanenvironmentalandsocialmanagementsystem
1.1(e):Needtoensurethatthecivilsocietydoesparticipateinmonitoringandevaluation
oftheprojecttoensuretheESMSistrulyadheredto.
Section1.2:Coherencewithbestpractices
1.2CoherencewiththerelatedbodydecisionsandguidancefromtheUNFCCCdecisions.
Section1.3:Overviewofanenvironmentalandsocialpolicy
1.3 (e): Provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the recipient entities in
ensuringintegrationoftheESMSinprogramingofactivities.
1.4Descriptionofthecontentsofanenvironmentalandsocialpolicy
Betweenfandg
ProvisionofclarityonhowrecipiententitieswillintegrateESMSinprogrammingofthe
activitiesthroughouttheprogram/projectlifecircle
Section12(c)
TheissueofhumanrighthasitsownprocessundertheUNsowedonotthinktohaveit
hereasoneoftheguidingprinciplesundersection12.
Section14(b)
Requiring the accredited entities to involve accredited observer organisations in
implementingtheESMSthroughouttheprojectcycle
Section4.3:
Overviewoftherolesandresponsibilitiesoftheaccreditedobserverorganisations;this
sectiontobeaddedsoastoprovidetheparticipationoftheobserverorganisations
TheseinputsareonbehalfofInstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopmentSustainability,
Tanzania.
Page38
XIV. CompañíaEspañoladeFinanciacióndelDesarrollo(COFIDES) On behalf of COFIDES I am pleased to send our feedback and recommendations to improve
the proposed environmental and social policy of GCF. Based on the E&S policy’s index, we
would propose the following suggestions for your consideration:
I. Introduction and context:
o
o
2) Consider adding reference to the Sustainable Development Goals. In particular,
SDG 13 “Climate Action”.
4) Consider IFC EHS Industry Sector Guidelines within GCF interim environmental
and social safeguards.
II. Environmental and Social Policy:
o
2.1.7. Starts with h). a) to g) missed.
III. Guiding principles:
o
o
o
11.d) The word “social” is missing.
12.a) Consider adding ILO’s C001 - Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919
(No. 1) and C030 - Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No.
30).
12. b) Consider adding ILO’s C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention,
1989 (No. 169)
IV. Overview of roles and responsibilities
o
4.1.e) We would recommend elaborating more on “project’s implementation and
compliance with the environmental and social obligations and conditions”
V. General requirements for environmental and social risk management.
o
5.3. paragraph 29. In the screening process consider adding “GCF may require
additional information: reporting or audits on specific environmental and social
issues, which may also include site visits and consultations with communities and
national designated authorities”.
Page39
XV.
AndreaLedwardandKateHughes,BoardmemberandAlternate
BoardmemberfortheUnitedKingdom
Comments on GCF’s draft Environmental and Social Management System
(ESMS), on behalf of the UK Board Member – Feb 2017
The UK is grateful for the opportunity to comment. We would welcome the chance to
further discuss our comments below.
1. We welcome the proposed framework as a good and needed step forward. In
our view overall the framework is comprehensive and robust.
2. We welcome the establishment of a clear policy and stress the importance of
building on existing best-practice safeguard approaches (in particular the
recent World Bank safeguards review). It is important that we don’t build a
system that requires parallel safeguarding processes when interventions are
implemented by organisations with recognised adequate frameworks (for
example where accredited agencies apply safeguards different from IFC’s but
appropriate for that organisation and meet GCF’s required standards).
3. We believe there are a number of issues for further development or
consideration:

In section 2.1 (Policy objectives) para 6 we think the framework should not
“seek to”1, but firmly “commit to” [avoid and mitigate the adverse impacts
on people and the environment…]

Clear guidance is needed on how the GCF will recognise ESS from other
(multilateral) organisations, as well as how to recognise “recipient/country
systems” (equivalent to the WB “borrower’s framework”) where these are
materially consistent with GCF’s standards (good practice for building
country ownership)

Need to clearly articulate the GCF’s capacity to implement this framework.
Para 78 states that the “GCF will have staff with appropriate expertise and
will … allocate adequate resources” to implement the policy. This is
essential – as recognised by the WB in their recent review of their ESS.

Need to ensure the framework addresses environmental risks and impacts
in a way appropriate/relevant to the kind of programmes and activities
being implemented with GCF funds.

A scaled risk-based approach is sensible. Need to ensure clarity on how
this will be implemented and be clear on accountability.
1 “Through this policy, the GCF will ensure that all its activities and the projects that it supports will seek to” Page40

Need to ensure the “mitigation hierarchy” is suitable for all instances of
GCF-financed climate-related activity. This includes clarity that it does not
establish supremacy of climate interventions over other potential
environmental impacts, as this may not always be desirable or suitable
(eg. on biodiversity). The principle on biodiversity (para 12d) should
include that “in certain specified situations offsetting could not be
considered as an option” (in line with WB safeguards).

Generally need to ensure the guiding principles are not a step back from
what was achieved during the revision of the WB safeguards –and need to
be articulated in a way that corresponds to operational needs. Need to
consider whether a safeguard that “aims to avoid” is strong enough.
4. The UK would also like to emphasise the importance of GCF following an
open consultative process when it develops its own ESS standards, building
on evolving best practices and with inclusive multi-stakeholder participation.
Page41
XVI. SallyTruong,AlternateBoardmemberfortheconstituencyof
Australia,theCzechRepublicandNewZealand
Submission from Australia Green Climate Fund Environmental and Social Management System Australia welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed environmental and social policy of the Green Climate Fund’s Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS). Australia also takes the opportunity to thank the Secretariat, the Accreditation Committee and the Accreditation Panel for its work to develop an ESMS in accordance with decision B.07/02. Below are comments against the input headings requested by the GCF. a) Scope and Principles Australia considers that, in general, the approach and structure outlined in the Draft for Consultation should be effective for managing environmental and social safeguard (ESS) risks of GCF projects. Additional details on the policies, management and practices will be needed to ensure that the GCF ESMS is adequate and workable. It would be useful for the ESMS to show how environmental and social considerations will, in practice, be incorporated into the decision‐making practices and processes of the GCF, such as through the environmental and social policy and the associated ESMS Manual. These documents should provide clarification on, for example, how approved entities should screen projects to ensure compliance; and how and when GCF will review and consider ESS documents, among other inputs, in its decision‐making processes. b) Requirements and roles and responsibilities The ESMS or subsidiary documents should map ESMS processes against GCF project development and approval processes to ensure that there is time and scope to adequately prepare, review and approve environment and social impact assessment (ESIA) documentation. ESIAs, particularly for Category A activities, can be costly and affect project development timelines. The role of any independent evaluation unit could be included. The ESMS requires accredited entities, including implementing entities, to screen and categorise projects. The GCF is to review the ESS documents and verify that the risk level is appropriate. To ensure independence of review, the GCF will need the resources and time to be able to consider potentially complex technical environment and social impact screening, categorisation, assessments and management plans and implementation. c) Gaps Page42
The ESMS indicates that a common approach or harmonised approach consistent with the IFC standards can be agreed with accredited entities. Some entities (for example other members of the World Bank Group and the ADB) have rigorous frameworks that are not, strictly, ‘consistent’ with the IFC standards. Australia considers that it may be efficient for GCF acceptance/accreditation of systems that are ‘substantially equivalent’ to the IFC standards. Assessment and management plans (5.5 and 5.6) could inclue how health and safety will be addressed, given the GCF board has adopted the WB’s Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. Monitoring and reporting (5.8) should provide for emerging, high‐level risks to be reported to the GCF outside the regular reporting system. d) Enhancing outcomes Australia considers that people with a disability and children should be among the vulnerable groups considered and consulted under the environmental and social policy. This is relevant for the GCFs performance standards which are being developed and will build on evolving best practice. Australia notes that the IFC safeguard standards do not include specific safeguards relating to climate standards. As such, it may be helpful when developing the GCF environmental and social safeguards to consider climate‐related safeguard standards (noting that REDD+ safeguards are being adopted), such as those adopted by other MDBs, for example, the European Investment Bank. Finally, Australia recommends that, in formulating its own ESMS, the GCF should consider the approach of the new World Bank Environment and Social Framework. Page43
XVII. ConservationInternational(CI),AccreditedEntity
Inputs to the Green Climate Fund regarding the development of the Environmental and Social Management System 24 February 2017 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conservation International1 (CI) values the opportunity to provide inputs regarding the Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF is uniquely positioned and empowered to enhance and shift investment patterns to promote the necessary paradigm change toward low‐emission and climate‐resilient development pathways, and do so while ensuring the well‐being of people and ecosystems through strong environmental and social policies. This submission is a response to the call for public inputs on the proposed environmental and social policy of the GCF in response to Board Decision B.07/02, paragraph (n).2 The proposed environmental and social policy presents a strong initial draft. CI proposes the following recommendations to further improve the environmental and social policy of the GCF and guidance for its implementation: Ensure strong environmental and social safeguards within its scope and principles  Require consistency with the Cancun Safeguards for REDD+ in order to maintain coherence with REDD+ requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and to further streamline monitoring and reporting processes.  Clearly define free, prior and informed consent, with reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Conduct a transparent and inclusive process in the development of the forthcoming indigenous peoples’ policy that complements and strengthens the ESS, including provisions on free, prior and informed consent. Clearly define requirements, roles and responsibilities for safeguards implementation  Provide a timeline for the expected release of key guidance documents, which are essential for effective implementation of the policy.  Clearly define the roles of the GCF, Accredited Entities, and stakeholders.  Separate and clearly define accreditation‐level requirements and project‐level requirements.  Clearly define how the GCF would enter into a “common approach” on safeguards and how this approach would ensure adherence to the highest international standards.  Clearly name and define each of the reports referenced and clarify the responsible party.  Clearly define how revisions to the policy will affect active projects and ongoing activities. 1
Conservation International was approved as an Accredited Entity to the Green Climate Fund in July 2015 for medium‐sized, grant‐
based projects. 2
Green Climate Fund. (2014). GCF/B.07/11 Decisions of the Board – Seventh Meeting of the Board, 18‐21 May 2014. http://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24943/GCF_B.07_11_‐_Decisions_of_the_Board_‐
_Seventh_Meeting_of_the_Board__18‐21_May_2014.pdf/73c63432‐2cb1‐4210‐9bdd‐454b52b2846b Page44
ENSURE STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS SCOPE AND PRINCIPLES REDD+ Annex I: Section III Guiding Principles, paragraph 11 (l) Strong safeguards are essential to ensure that the Fund’s investments and activities avoid negative impacts, while also providing environmental and social benefits. CI strongly supports the alignment and coherence between the environmental and social safeguard requirements of the GCF related to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and the guidance and safeguards adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) for REDD+, including the Cancun Safeguards.3 To minimize duplication and burden of reporting, the GCF should develop specific guidance on how both sets of requirements can be implemented in a way that is rigorous and practical. Unlike for other sectors, countries have agreed to a framework under the UNFCCC for addressing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Implementing the Cancun Safeguards means fulfilling all UNFCCC provisions on REDD+ safeguards, including those related to providing information on how the Cancun Safeguards have been addressed and respected throughout the implementation of activities. To this end, countries must have a system in place to transparently provide information on how the Cancun Safeguards were addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities, while respecting sovereignty. Good practices, such as REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards, 4 can help guide the implementation of safeguard requirements in line with national circumstances. As an institution seeking transformational change, the GCF should consistently apply its social and environmental standards across all approved projects and programs; therefore, all activities, including REDD+ results‐based payments proposals, should also demonstrate compliance with the Fund’s safeguards. To minimize duplication of reporting efforts and administrative burden, the GCF should provide guidance indicating how both the Cancun Safeguards for REDD+ and the GCF’s safeguards can be applied together though an efficient monitoring and reporting process. Recommendations: 
Require consistency with the Cancun Safeguards for REDD+ in order to maintain coherence with REDD+ requirements under the UNFCCC and to further streamline monitoring and reporting processes. Indigenous Peoples Annex I: Section III Guiding Principles, paragraph 12 (b); Annex I: Section 6.2 Stakeholder engagement, paragraph 67 The GCF’s current, interim safeguards, the IFC Performance Standards, call for the Fund’s activities to fully respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; avoid and minimize adverse impacts on communities; and apply Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in certain circumstances. While the IFC Performance Standards serve as an important foundation for social safeguards, the GCF should build upon these standards when developing the Fund’s ESMS and further strengthen the engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities. CI supports the language in the draft ESS supporting the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples: 3
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2010). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf 4
Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance. (2016). REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. http://www.redd‐standards.org/. Page45
GCF‐financed activities will aim to avoid adverse impacts on indigenous peoples, promote benefits and opportunities, foster respect for the culture and the people, and preserve the indigenous culture, knowledge and practices, and will support the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples. The design and implementation of activities will be consistent with the rights and commitments set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent. However, there is a contradiction within the draft ESS policy with this statement and paragraph 67, which states, “There is no universally accepted definition of free, prior and informed consent.” As the GCF is an operating entity of the UNFCCC Financial Mechanism, the Fund should seek coherence with international best practice and adhere to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples5 (UNDRIP) principles related to “free, prior and informed consent.” FPIC should be applied at all stages of relevant GCF project or program development and implementation processes. The GCF’s programs and projects must follow a human rights‐based approach and comply with applicable international human rights standards, such as UNDRIP and the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169.6 The collective nature of indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands and resources should also be addressed in the development and implementation of relevant safeguards. CI also supports the inclusion of FPIC in the forthcoming fund‐wide indigenous peoples’ policy, under development, as agreed by the GCF Board at its fifteenth meeting. It is important to have a separate, complementary indigenous peoples’ policy, as a policy should go beyond provisions included in the ESS to minimize the potential harm to indigenous peoples and local communities. The policy should also support activities that empower indigenous peoples and local communities to engage in and benefit from the Green Climate Fund. By utilizing the knowledge of indigenous peoples in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change and building their capacity to participate in the Fund’s activities, the GCF will enhance the effectiveness, equity, sustainability and transformational potential of its outcomes. Recommendations: 

Clearly define free, prior and informed consent, with reference to the UNDRIP. Conduct a transparent and inclusive process in the development of the forthcoming indigenous peoples’ policy that complements and strengthens the ESS, including provisions on free, prior and informed consent. CLEARLY DEFINE REQUIREMENTS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SAFEGUARDS IMPLEMENTATION Section 1.1 Elements of an environmental and social management system, paragraph (c); Annex I: Section I Introduction and context, Figure: Elements of the Green Climate Fund environmental and social management system; Annex I: Section IV Overview of roles and responsibilities; Annex I: Section V General requirements for environmental and social risk management; Annex 1: Section 2.2 Scope of application, paragraph 9; Annex I: Section VIII Effective date and review, paragraph 80 5
United Nations. (2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/ DRIPS_en.pdf. 6
International Labour Organization. (2016). C169 ‐ Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/ en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169. Page46
The draft environmental and social policy presents a framework for managing environmental and social risks and impacts. The document states in Section 1.1, paragraph (c) that the ESMS and the safeguard frameworks are structured with “an environmental and social management system manual consisting of management processes, procedures and guidance, which assists an organization in implementing the environmental and social policy and the application of the [Environmental and Social Safeguards or] ESS.” However, it does not state when such a manual will be released by the GCF. The Fund should include a timeline for when this manual and other related guidance documents will become available, as these documents are essential for the successful implementation of the policy. The policy applies to three key actors: the GCF, Accredited Entities (AEs), and stakeholders. However, the draft policy is insufficient in explaining the roles of each of these actors. For example, under paragraph 5 of the policy named “Elements of the Green Climate Fund Environmental and Social Management System,” the figure appears to include contradictions. Stakeholder engagement is listed separately from the ESS Standards, and the responsibility for stakeholder engagement is designated to stakeholders, NDAs and civil society. Stakeholder engagement should be included as part of the ESS Standards and the responsibility for stakeholder engagement should lie with the GCF, NDAs and Accredited Entities and not solely with the stakeholders themselves. Additionally, the policy outlines the roles and responsibilities of the GCF and AEs, but the current format intermixes accreditation‐level and project‐level requirements. For example, within Sections IV and V, each subsection contains both accreditation‐level requirements (paragraphs 13, 17(a), 24, 59) and project‐level requirements (paragraphs 14, 15, 25‐31, 57). This complicates the proper understanding of the requirements, especially considering that between the sections the same logical order (accreditation‐
level information followed by project‐level information) is not maintained. The policy should separate and clearly define accreditation‐level and project‐level requirements within each subsection of the policy. Furthermore, the proposed common approach referred to in Section 2.2, paragraph 9 of the policy can potentially facilitate new possibilities for cooperation with development partners when the GCF jointly finances projects. The ESMS should more clearly define how the GCF would enter into a “common approach” on safeguards and how this approach would ensure adherence to the highest international standards. The Board should disclose an explanation of any decisions to use common approach agreements. The ESMS should provide clear guidelines for how an environmental and social policy will be implemented, including monitoring and reporting requirements. The reports referenced in the Accreditation Master Agreement (AMA) and in the Monitoring and Accountability Framework (MAF) each have specific names that clearly define and differentiate each report. The environmental and social policy should refer to each report by a single name in alignment with other GCF documents, including the AMA and MAF, and similarly name each subsequent report to ensure consistency across all GCF policies and guidelines. For each report, the responsible party should be clearly identified. Furthermore, the policy states in Section VIII, paragraph 80, that “appropriate amendments to the policy and the ESS standards will be considered, based on the results of such review and evaluation and changes to the policy and ESS standards will follow the normal decision‐making process of the GCF.” The Fund should clarify how revisions to the policy will affect active projects and ongoing activities. Recommendations: 





Provide a timeline for the expected release of key guidance documents, which are essential for effective implementation of the policy. Clearly define the roles of the GCF, Accredited Entities, and Stakeholders. Separate and clearly define accreditation‐level requirements and project‐level requirements. Clearly define how the GCF would enter into a “common approach” on safeguards and how this approach would ensure adherence to the highest international standards. Clearly name and define each of the reports referenced and clarify the responsible party. Clearly define how revisions to the policy will affect active projects and ongoing activities. Page47
XVIII. JointResponsefromU.S.Faith‐BasedOrganizations
Asfaith‐basedorganizationsfromuniquetraditions,weareunitedinoursharedcommitment
tostandinsolidaritywithpoorandat‐riskcommunitiesandtoprotectcreation.Manyofus
havepartnersorstaffonthegroundinAsia,Africa,andLatinAmericainvolvedin
accompaniment,disasterrelief,developmentprograms,andotherministries.Werecognizethe
existentialthreatofclimatechangeandthatclimatevulnerablecommunitiesandcountrieswill
behitfirstandworst.TheGreenClimateFundhasthepotentialtosupportclimatevulnerable
peoplestoadapttotheworstimpactsofclimatechangeandtobuildresiliencetoreduce
climate‐relateddisasters.
WesharethevisionoftheGCFasafundtoreducegreenhousegasemissionsindeveloping
countriesandtohelpvulnerablesocietiesadapttotheunavoidableimpactsofclimatechange.
However,wewanttoensurethattheprojectsareconductedinamannerthatisequitable,
gender‐awareandrights‐based,andthatitimprovesthequalityoflifeforbothvulnerable
peopleandcreation.ThissentimentisreflectedinthebackgrounderfortheESMSthatstatesthe
safeguardsaremeantto“donoharm”andalso“todogood.”
Buthistorytellsusthatdevelopmentprojectsfundedbyfinancialinstitutionshavenotalways
incorporatedgenderanalysis,orservedpoorandvulnerablecommunities,includingindigenous
communitiesandotherethnicminorities.Infact,someprojectshavebeenparticularly
damagingbycausingmassdisplacement,desecrationofsacredsites,humanrightsabuses,
harmfuloutcomesforwomenandgirlsandlossoflivelihoods.Wehavealsoseenthelossof
uniqueecosystems.
ForthesereasonswewishtoprovidecommentsontheGCF’sEnvironmentalandSocial
ManagementSystemthroughthelensofoursharedfaithvalues.Herearesomeofthe
valuesthatgroundourcomments:
CalltoPublicParticipationandInclusionOurfaithtraditionsteachustoensurethatallvoices
arewelcomedatthetable.Inthecontextofdevelopmentprojects,thisshouldmeanthatthereis
aninclusive,accessible,exhaustive,andresponsivestakeholderengagementprocess
throughouttheprojectcycle.
Transparency‐Peoplehavearighttoaccessinformationthatwillhaveimpactsontheirlivesand
thebroadersocietysothattheycanholdtheirgovernmentandotheractorsaccountableforany
actionsthatpromotethecommongoodorforwhenthegovernment,financialinstitutions,and
otheractorscauseharm.
Donoharm/Ahimsa‐BuddhistandHindufaithsholdthevalueofahimsa,ornonviolence
towardsalllivingbeings.Nonviolenceisapracticeheldacrossfaithtraditions.Manyofour
organizationsalsosupporttheprecautionaryprinciple,ortheideathataprojectmustshowit
willdonoharmbeforeitevenbegins.
Careforcreation‐Werecognizethatalllivingbeingshavedignityandvalue,whichcannotbe
monetized.Wehavearesponsibilitytoprotectalllifetodayandinthegenerationstocome.
Respectforhumandignityandworthofallpeople‐Everypersonhasinherentworthanddignity.
Particularattentionmustbegiventocommunitiesandpopulationswhoarehistorically
Page48
excludedandmarginalizedorwhoareextremelyvulnerablesuchasethnicandreligious
minorities,women,andchildren.
AreasintheESMSinwhichwewishtocomment
CoherenceofBestPractices
WeaffirmthattheESMSwilltakeintoaccountothercriticalpoliciesoftheGCFinthe
developmentandimplementationoftheESMS.Thiswillbecriticaltoensuringthatgenderand
indigenousrightsarevisible,thattheaccreditedentitieswillhavetodemonstratetheir
compliancewiththeESMSintheirproposals,andothercriticalpolicyareasaslistedin1.2
Principles
Weappreciatetheclearmentionofagender‐sensitiveapproach,theinclusionoftheILOlabor
standards,theaimtoavoidadverseimpactsonindigenouspeople,andtherecognitionand
inclusionofexplicitlanguageonhumanrights.Withrespecttohumanrights,therightsof
humanrightsdefendersshouldalsobeupheld.Weliftupthisconcernasweapproachtheone‐
yearanniversaryoftheassassinationofBertaCaceres,whowasmurderedinHondurasfor
defendingtheterritoriesoftheLencaindigenouspeoplesagainstahydroelectricdamproject.
Ms.Caceresisoneof123environmentalorlandrightsdefenderswhohavebeenmurderedin
Hondurassincethe2009coup.Whilethisisjustonecountry,violenceagainstlandand
environmentalrightsdefendersishappeningonaglobalscale.Thereshouldbeaclear
commitmentfromtheinstitutionsbothfinancingandmanagingtheprojectstopreventand
denouncehumanrightsviolationsassociatedwiththeproject,andperhapsevenawithdrawal
ofsupportfortheproject.
OverviewofRolesandResponsibilities
AccreditedEntities‐WithrespecttotheresponsibilitiesoftheAccreditedEntities,notonly
shouldtheyadopttheroleslistedinthedocument,buttheyshouldalsoprovideclear
explanationwhentheESMSisviolatedtoaccountforwhatwentwrong,andprovidean
explanationforwhytheprojectwentwrong.
GCFStaffandSecretariat‐ThereshouldbestandardizedquestionsthatGCFstaffisconsidering
inrelationshiptocountryconditionssuchasculturallysensitiveinformation.
Accreditation‐Theaccreditationprocessshouldtakeintoaccounttheapplicant’spastadherence
toenvironmentalandsocialsafeguardswithrespecttootherdevelopmentprojects.
MonitoringandReporting‐Werecognizeandappreciatethattherewillbereportsannuallyand
onaninterimbasiswithrespecttotheproject’sadherencetotheESSstandards.Thesereports
shouldincludespecificinformationonhowtheyareupholdinggenderandindigenouspolicies.
Asnoted,themeaningfulinvolvementofcommunities,localstakeholders,andcivilsociety
organizationswillbecriticalformonitoringandreporting.HowwilltheGCFguaranteethatthis
participationismeaningfulandrobust?
InformationDisclosure‐Aspreviouslymentioned,transparencyandaccessibleinformationis
importanttoourfaithtraditions.WewelcomethattheGCFwillbedisclosinginformationto
affectedcommunitiesandexternalstakeholders.Asismentionedinthissection,itwillbe
criticalthattheinformationconveyednotbelimitedonlytothedominantlanguage,butis
inclusiveoflanguagesunderstoodbyamajorityofpeopleintheaffectedcommunities,aswell
asinthelanguagesofminorityandindigenousgroupsaffectedbytheimplementationof
projects.Itisimportantthat,beyondpostingtheinformationonthewebsite,informationbe
Page49
disseminatedwidelysothatitisaccessibletolocalandaffectedpopulationsandtoabroad
crosssectionofcivilsocietygroupsrepresentingdiversegeographicalandsocialsectors.The
informationshouldalsobeconveyedinawaythatiseasyforpeopletounderstandratherthan
solelyatatechnicallevel.
StakeholderEngagement‐Itiscritical,asnoted,thattheGCFrequireaccreditedentities,
includingtheirintermediaries,toensureaneffectivestakeholderengagementprocessandthat
thisengagementwillbeundertakencommensuratewiththerisksoftheactivitiesandcontinue
throughouttheprojectcycle.
Consultationsineachprojectphaseshouldensurethatcommunityandenvironmentalrisks,
concerns,andneedsuniquetoeachphaseoftheprojectareheardandreceiveanappropriate
responsetopreventandaddresschallengesthatmayarise.Consultationsshouldholdthesame
weightasthedevelopmentrisks.
Notonlyshouldinformationbeprovidedinatimelymanner,butalsonoticeoftheconsultation.
Theremustbeanoutreachstrategytoensuremaximumparticipationtakingintoaccounttime
tomaketravelarrangementsandothernecessarypreparationstoattend.Thereshouldbe
specialattentiontoensurethatthereisapresenceofaffectedcommunitiesandother
vulnerablestakeholders.Affectedcommunitiesshouldalsoincludegroupsthatmaynotbe
directlyintheprojectareainordertotakeintoaccountimpactsbeyondtheprojectboundaries
suchaswaterquality.
Itisequallyimportanttoundertakecontext‐specificgenderanalysiswhenorganizing
stakeholderengagementinordertoimprovethechancesofequalparticipationofmenand
womenduringstakeholderconsultationandprojectdesign.Wherenecessary,thereshouldbe
genderspecificconsultationsifevidencesuggeststhatwomenarelesslikelytospeakfreelyin
thepresenceofmen.Careshouldalsobetakentoreachouttowomenacrossreligious,ethnic
andpoliticalboundariesandtobothestablishedwomen’sorganizationsandgrassrootsgroups.
Additionally,consultationsshouldbeheldwiththerightexpertsonhandfortheissuesthatwill
becovered.Forinstance,iftheconsultationisonenvironmentalimpacts,someonewhois
leadingoneoftheseconsultationsshouldbeanenvironmentalexpert.Likewise,ifthe
consultationtopicisontherightsofchildren,thenthereshouldberepresentativesofchildren
oryouthgroupstoarticulatetheirownconcernsaswellasexpertsonchildren’sissuesaspart
oftheconsultationteam.
GrievanceRedressMechanism‐WesincerelyhopethattheGCFprojectswill“donoharm”andin
fact“dogood.”Butwheninjusticesoccur,thegrievancemechanismwillbecritical.TheAEs
mustinformcommunitiesofthismechanismveryearlyintheprojectcycleandmakesurethat
thepopulationunderstandswhatitis,howitworks,howtoaccessit,andwhatredresswilllook
like.
IdentifiedGaps
CommunicationsandOutreachontheGCFandtheESMS‐InformationandeducationontheGCF
andthesafeguardsshouldbeavailableandaccessibletogovernmententities,abroadcross
sectionsofcivilsocietygroupsandthepublicsothatthereisabroadunderstandingastowhat
theGCFis,whatitwilldo,andwhataffectsindividualprojectswillhave.Alackofknowledge
abouttheGCFinvarioussectorsatthecountrylevelpersists.TheNationalDesignated
Authoritywouldseemcriticaltofosteringthiscommunicationbuttheyarenotmentionedin
thisdocument.
Page50
FinancialIntermediaries‐Inthecasewhereaccreditedentitiesthemselvesareusingfinancial
intermediaries,thisinformationshouldbemadepublicandtheseFIsshouldbeheldtothesame
environmentalandsocialpoliciesastheaccreditedentities.Thereareknowncasesofthe
InternationalFinanceCorporationusingfinancialintermediariesthatdidnotcomplywiththe
IFCperformancestandardsthatresultedinenvironmentalorsocialharm.TheIFCinthesecases
didnotlisttheseprojectsontheirwebsitebecausetheyhadfinancedthefundsthroughan
intermediary.WhenAEsuseadditionalfinancialintermediaries,thisinformationneedstobe
disclosedandtheGCFESMSmustbefollowed.
FreePriorandInformedConsent‐Thisprincipleshouldbeupheldforallindigenouspeoplesin
Asia,Africa,andLatinAmerica.TheESMSstatesthatthereisnoglobaldefinitionforFPIC.The
GCFshouldadoptaclearinterpretationofFPICforaccreditedentitiestofollow.
Thankyoufortheopportunitytosubmitthesecommentsandtoraiseourmoralconcernsabout
theGreenClimateFund.Climatevulnerablecountriesalreadyfacetheexistentialthreatof
climatechange.TheGCFmustensurethatitsprojectsrecognizethealreadyveryvulnerable
stateofthepeopleandecosystemsinthesecountriesastheyseektofindsolutionstoprevent
theworstimpactsofclimatechange.
Submittedby:
ChloeSchwabe(GCFpointofcontact)
FaithEconomyEcologyProgramDirector
MaryknollOfficeforGlobalConcerns
200NewYorkAveNW
WashingtonD.C.20001
202‐832‐1780
[email protected]
Additionalcommentswereprovidedby
ChurchWorldService
MennoniteCentralCommitteeU.S.WashingtonOffice
Signatories
ChurchWorldService
EcumenicalAdvocacyNetworkonthePhilippines
InternationalCoalitionforHumanRightsinthePhilippines
MaryknollOfficeforGlobalConcerns
MaryknollSisters,EasternRegion,USA
MennoniteCentralCommitteeU.S.WashingtonOffice
OfficeofU.S.Liaison,UnitedChurchofChristinthePhilippines
TheUnitedMethodistChurch‐GeneralBoardofChurchandSociety
Page51
XIX. NetherlandsCommissionforEnvironmentalAssessment(NCEA) The GCF has asked a wide group of relevant stakeholders for input to the further development of
the GCF Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS). The Dutch Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, representing The Netherlands on the board of the GCF, has asked the Netherlands
Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) to share its relevant experiences with the GCF
secretariat as such input.
The NCEA is an independent public body in The Netherlands, funded by various ministries,
including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since 1993, the NCEA has supported developing
countries to improve the quality of social and environmental assessment processes as
instruments for informed, inclusive and transparent decision-making. In addition, the NCEA
supports the Ministry in carrying out reviews of developing country and International Financial
Institutions’ systems1 for social and environmental assessment. Finally, both in The Netherlands
and abroad, the NCEA reviews the quality of environmental assessment reports and processes
(see www.eia.nl and www.dsu.eia.nl).
Based on these experiences, we would like to share lessons learned, with some suggestions that
hopefully may benefit GCF operations.
Lesson learned: strategic assessment of alternatives to proposals deserves more attention
The ESMS focus on ‘doing things right’ may, however, be inadequate to guarantee that ‘the right
things are done’. This is in particular the case when ‘doing the right thing’ implies a paradigm
shift, which the GCF is looking for. Even though large infrastructure proposals are developed in
the public interest, they often also have adverse impacts. In some instances, and particularly
when a project has been a long time in the making, the investment itself may not even have the
beneficial effects it was originally designed for. Technology advances quickly, and new insights
into the risks associated with large infrastructures, and into the opportunities for alternative
solutions, emerge all the time. Large projects that may in the past have been an optimal way to
create public value, today may have become less ideal. NCEA’s Dutch Sustainability Unit
elaborates on this point in its advice on large dams. For example, the global energy transition
has created alternative opportunities to produce power that in some situations may become more
attractive than dams.
The above leads to the following suggestions:

Consider a stronger requirement for developers to demonstrate that their proposal is the best alternative among the available options. Decision‐making during the phase before the submission of concept notes often has not benefitted from an informed and updated comparison of a wide range of options to achieve public objectives. For this reason, when infrastructure proposals arrive at the desk 1 In particular, and relevant in an international development context, is the NCEA’s recent advice at the request of MFA‐NL, dealing with the ESF of the World Bank; the AIIB; and, donor assessment strategies related to large dams. All documents are available at www.dsu.eia.nl Page52
of decision‐makers, the developers have often insufficiently defined the public value of their proposal, and nor have they analysed alternative pathways to achieve these values, including those that may not require building the proposed infrastructure at all. In such instances, there would be great benefit in GCF requiring developers to demonstrate that their proposal is the best alternative among the available options. This may include the requirement to carry out a Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SEA) to secure an informed, inclusive and transparent government decision about the need for proposed infrastructure, perhaps linked to the country programme. 


Considerbuildingastrategicassessmentrequirementintoaregularreviewofaccreditedentities. For example, for an AE to continue to be accredited, the GCF could require a SESA to be undertaken every 5 years on the environmental and social consequences of its proposed GCF project portfolio. This may require explicit consideration of paradigm shifts. Consider support to country capacity building for strategic assessments of infrastructure. For example, to include this kind of capacity development in the readiness programs for NDAs, e.g. comparable to what GIZ already is doing on SEA in Mali2. Strengthen mechanisms for enforcement. If the GCF approves funding proposals under
the assumption that mitigation and compensation plans will effectively reduce or
compensate significant adverse impact, it will be important to review whether it also has
sufficient mechanisms in place to enforce implementation of these plans. Practice shows
that impact mitigation and compensation plans of developers are not always
implemented as agreed, which may easily lead to human rights concerns.
Finally, the NCEA is aware of the fact that the development and implementation of a new ESMS is
a challenging and demanding task, for which GCF of course does not have unlimited resources. If
the GCF considers it to be useful, NCEA could offer to discuss with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign
Affairs the extent to which it could play a supporting role as part of its current programs. For
example, to provide in-kind support in the development of GCF’s ‘own’ Environmental and Social
Standards (ESSs), as the consultation document reiterates a commitment made by the Board of
the GCF to develop GCF-specific ESSs within three years.
2 https://www.international‐climate‐initiative.com/en/news/article/launch_of_the_nap_process_in_mali/ Page53
XX.
AgenceFrançaisedeDéveloppement(AFD),AccreditedEntity
1. Roles and responsibilities 2. IV. Overview of roles and responsibilities AFD Comments: Leadership and Commitment of the “top management” team should be presented (ISO 14001). Exemple: As the Board members of GCF, we are determined to provide the leadership and resources to make sure that the commitments presented within this E&S policy are fully integrated throughout GCF operations (based on Nestlé E&S policy). This sentence could be added to the section 79. 3. Elements of an environmental and social management system 1.1 Elements of an environmental and social management system  D ‐ Environmental and social safeguards that identify the outcomes and operational requirements as applicable to GCF‐financed activities.1 For the GCF, this pertains to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which were adopted by the Board, as the GCF interim ESS standards.2 In paragraph (d) of the same decision, the Board also decided that the process of developing the GCF own ESS standards, which would build on evolving best practices, should be completed within three years of the GCF becoming operational, and with inclusive multi‐stakeholder participation;3 In paragraph (d) of the same decision, the Board also decided that the process of developing the GCF own ESS standards, which would build on evolving best practices, should be completed within three years of the GCF becoming operational, and with inclusive multi‐stakeholder participation;3 AFD Comments: We would recommend to refer to existing standards instead of creating new ones. Indeed, the IFC and WB standards have been elaborated based on a comprehensive consultation process with multiple stakeholders around the world. These standards are now globally recognized by the actors of the development including public and private counterparts, NGOs, E&S experts and financial institutions. It seems adequate and relevant to refer to the IFC PS dated 2012 for the projects developed in the private sector. For the public sector, the reference to the WB standards would be more appropriate. The reference could be the existing E&S Safeguards ; completed by the new E&S Framework dated August 2016, when these ones will officially take effect (early 2018). Another solution could be to suggest a range of existing recognized standards that could be used as reference; e.g. WB E&S Safeguards, IFC Performance Standards, African Development Bank E&S safeguards, Asian Development Bank E&S Safeguards… 4. Links with existing policies and frameworks f. information disclosure policy. The policy supports the commitments of the GCF to transparency and accountability in all aspects of its operations and to strengthening public trust.9 The policy promotes effective and meaningful stakeholder engagement by making available to the affected communities and the public timely, understandable, relevant and accessible information on the environmental and social risks and impacts as well as the benefits of GCF‐financed activities (e.g. information related to environmental and social reports). There are varying advance disclosure timelines depending on the project’s environmental and social risk category; for example, at least 120 days in advance of the accredited entity’s or Board’s decision, whichever is earlier, for category A/intermediation 1 activities and at least 30 days for category B/intermediation 2. The policy also stipulates that the reports be available in both English and the local language; AFD Comments: Page54
We totally understand and support the disclosure policy and need. However, the period of 120 days for the A projects seems complicated as it means that the project is ‘on hold’ during 4 months, between the E&S evaluation and the board discussion. We recommend to reduce to 60 days for A projects (as the IFC disclosure policy). Also, it would be important to describe in detail what should be disclosed ‐ “accessible information on the environmental and social risks and impacts as well as the benefits of GCF‐financed activities”. Does that mean ESIA, RAP, E&S Due‐Diligence Audit by external consultant, meaning the DD conducted for the projects; or also the E&S evaluation of the E&S risks by the Accredited Entity? 5. Due diligence The GCF will conduct its environmental and social due diligence for activities proposed for funding consideration. The purpose of the due diligence is to understand and evaluate how the environmental and social risks and impacts are screened, assessed and planned to be mitigated and managed by the entities. AFD Comments: This proposition may lead to double the Due Diligence already done by accredited entities. The GCF should verify that the accredited has conformed with the implementation of its own ESMS, accredited by the GCF, and not assess again compliance with ES standards. Work on Due diligence, already performed by the Accredited Entities, should not be duplicated. 6. On information disclosure (§ 6.1), the GCF considers disclosure of relevant information consists of “ESIA, ESMP and/or ESMS”, and any “additional environmental and social safeguards documents”. The GCF should consider that there are many cases where full documentation cannot be made available in such a time that allows disclosure before Board approval, and that additional disclosure, when more detailed information is available, should be considered after Board Approval.
Page55
XXI. CarolineLeclerc,BoardmemberforCanada
Canada is supportive of ensuring that the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) work is underpinned by a
robust Environment and Social Management System (ESMS). The ESMS is integral to identifying
environmental and social impacts of GCF-funded activities and providing effective validation and
monitoring of activities. It is also an essential tool in supporting the development of GCF funded
activities in an inclusive manner that takes account of the views of all stakeholders, including women
and girls, underserved groups and indigenous peoples.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the GCF’s proposed ESMS and have structured our
comments around the five identified elements:
1.
Scope and Principles
While the scope and principles of the proposed ESMS are clearly outlined, the document remains very
high level, which makes it challenging to see how the system will be applied to actual GCF
programming activities. We suggest providing an example of how the system would be applied to a
specific project or sector in order to better understand the scope of the ESMS.
Canada is supportive of the proposed scaled and risk based approach around the capacity of accredited
entities to identify and address environmental and social risks. However, the GCF should ensure that
this scaled approach does not erode project quality.
2.
Requirements, Roles and Responsibilities
From an inclusive and accountable governance perspective, Canada is very supportive of the
requirement for the participatory engagement of GCF stakeholders in the proposed ESMS, including
national designated authorities and civil society organizations. This inclusive approach to
environmental and social risks will help to ensure that projects are implemented in a manner that
recognizes and takes into account the views of the various stakeholders and affected communities.
Further, the GCF’s redress and grievance mechanism will help to ensure that these commitments are
taken seriously.
When GCF projects are co-financed with other entities, there may be challenges with overlapping
environmental and social management practices. Canada is supportive of the GCF pursuing a
harmonized approach in these situations, but we would caution that any harmonization effort should
not erode environmental and social standards and should align with the entity with the highest
standards in place. Similarly, GCF projects provided through financial intermediaries also present
monitoring and compliance challenges. We would encourage GCF staff to carefully assess financial
intermediary partners based on their capacity to provide effective oversight of borrower
environmental and social practices.
3.
Gaps
Canada supports the commitment in the proposed ESMS to put in place a process of continuous
improvement and learning from best practices in environmental and social risk assessment and
mitigation. However, we would recommend that the proposed ESMS further elaborate on the concrete
implementation of this process and provide a sense of timelines for activities that would support
continuous improvement.
The provision of GCF technical assistance and financial support for environmental and social capacity
building within accredited entities is welcome. The GCF Board should receive periodic updates on
technical assistance activities, as well as notification when capacity gaps at accredited entities have
been addressed prior to GCF financing being committed.
On the subject of GCF due diligence on project-level environmental and social information, we would
caution against the use of activity or sector-based assumptions or other proxy information when
information is not readily available from accredited entities. Where possible, the GCF should request
Page56
additional information from the accredited entity rather than defaulting to the use of activity or sectorbased assumptions.
Considering the recommendations outlined in the GCF’s Gender Mainstreaming report, we would
request that stronger links be made between the ESMS and the GCF’s Gender Equality Policy and
Action Plan, and explicit gender equality language should be used in the different components of the
ESMS. The GCF’s Gender Equality Policy and Action Plan already provide concrete measures and
requirements that could also be included in the ESMS. For example, there are no references in the
ESMS to gender equality assessments or gender equality institutional capacity assessments of
accredited entities.
GCF decision B.06/07 mandated the integration of gender considerations in GCF policy documents
and operational modalities, through an explicit mainstreaming approach. Gender mainstreaming is
critical to ensure the integration of gender aspects into key operational policies, such as the GCF
Accreditation Framework or Investment Framework.
4.
Enhancing Outcomes
In terms of identifying further scope for multi-stakeholder engagement, Canada would emphasize the
importance of maintaining close stakeholder engagement throughout the life cycle of projects (from
design and planning, to implementation, monitoring and evaluation of results), with a view towards
improving outcomes.
The proposed ESMS discusses the requirement that accredited entities notify the GCF if material
changes in a project occur. The ESMS should clearly define what constitutes a ‘material change’ in a
project and at what threshold entities should notify the GCF. Further, we would encourage the GCF to
provide oversight of reporting for projects delivered through financial intermediaries that experience
material changes. Finally, we are supportive of the inclusion of human rights in the GCF’s proposed
ESMS.
5.
Engagement
Canada would welcome further detail on the proposed ESMS’s cycle of monitoring and reporting for
accredited entities and GCF-financed activities, especially around the timelines for interim and final
project evaluations. An annex to the ESMS could provide further clarity on monitoring and reporting
requirements. Finally, Canada is strongly supportive of the proposed mid-term review of accredited
entity compliance with the ESMS.
Page57
XXII.EuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB),AccreditedEntity
The European Investment Bank (EIB) would like to provide comments regarding the requirements and roles and
responsibilities of GCF, Accredited Entities (AE) and the Executing Entity (EE) in the context of the proposed ESMS.
First and foremost, it is of paramount importance for the document to introduce a clear distinction between the role of
the AE and the role of the EE. The current draft of the proposed ESMS confuses the responsibilities of the different
actors. As a general rule, the AE should have an ESMS that (i) defines provisions for its due diligence through the whole
project cycle and (ii) describes the Environmental and Social (E&S) standards that the projects or programmes
sponsored by the EE have to comply with. Under this system, it is the responsibility of the EE (not the AE) to ensure that
the E&S standards are implemented at project level (e.g. carry out the ESIAs and other required E&S studies, including
a sound stakeholder engagement, creating a grievance redress mechanism at project level, disclose required
information, comply with applicable national legislation, implement the measures identified in the project ESMPs, among
others).
The EIB would like to indicate that we consider that the principle of second part of paragraph 35 should be the only
requirement to apply to MDBs that are AEs “[…] the GCF […] may rely on the environmental and social requirements of
[…] funding agencies provided that these are aligned with the ESS standards of the GCF”, as the GCF has already
assessed that the E&S requirements of MDBs are in line with the GCF’s. Hence the GCF should simply rely on our due
diligence. Otherwise there is a clear disincentive in becoming an AE for funding agencies with E&S systems in line with
the GCF’s
Regarding intermediation, the EIB understands that in general terms the role of an AE is of intermediation and only in
very limited cases would an AE act as EE. Additionally, as part of its intermediation activities, the AS may participate in
activities requiring financial intermediation such as Funds. Although some paragraphs are dedicated to these instances,
the EIB would suggest that the ESMS devotes a specific section to these types of instruments. This would be consistent
with the current trends in the MDBs were specific standards are being dedicated to financial intermediaries.
The EIB would like to further make some drafting proposals to the proposed ESMS as detailed in the subsequent
paragraphs.
§ 14 (e) Confirming with accredited entities the environmental and social management plans (ESMPs) of the project to
address the identified risks and impacts and any other safeguards, instruments and tools that may be required, and
reviewing their adequacy. Where there are gaps or weaknesses, the GCF will require that they be addressed. The GCF
will also require that accredited entities implement (which may include the role of an executing entity), or monitor and
supervise (as an intermediary) the project’s implementation and compliance with the environmental and social
obligations and conditions, and require that any gaps or weaknesses be addressed;
§15
(a) Confirming that the project-affected persons and communities are consulted through the executing entities during the
design and implementation of the activities and that effective grievance redress mechanisms to receive complaints and
feedbacks are established at project level and function in a collaborative and manner complementary to the independent
Redress Mechanism of the GCF and the equivalent mechanism of the accredited entity, and requiring that any gaps or
weaknesses be addressed;
(b) Ensuring that executing entities agree to fully implement remedial actions stipulated by the Board on the
recommendation of the independent Redress Mechanism in response to complaints it has received and in accordance
with the terms of reference, guidelines and procedures of the independent Redress Mechanism; and
Deleted: by the accredited entities or
Deleted: accredited entities
§16 The GCF will require that executing entities comply with their environmental and social obligations, including those
specified in the project safeguards plans and frameworks, applicable country laws and regulations, and the obligations
of the country directly applicable to the project under relevant international treaties and agreements. Where the executing
entities fail to comply with the safeguards requirements, the accredited entities will work with them to develop and
implement corrective actions that will bring the activities back into compliance. Where the executing entities fail to reestablish compliance within a time frame and manner that are mutually agreed upon between the executing entity and
the accredited entity, the GCF may require the executing entity to re-establish compliance in coordination with the
accredited entity. The GCF may eventually exercise its remedies under its legal agreement with the accredited entities.
§ 17 (a) (iii) Cooperating with the GCF in the due diligence of the activities proposed for GCF financing;
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: GCF
Deleted: accredited
Commented [MRA1]: The EIB would like to understand in which way is GCF expecting cooperation in the due diligence. It would be beneficial to describe in this section what would entail for AE. Page58
(a) (v) Requiring that the executing entity has planned measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and offset adverse impacts
for activities proposed for GCF financing; and
(a) (vi) Requiring that the executing entity respects and promptly implement remedial actions stipulated by the Board on
the recommendation of the independent Redress Mechanism in response to a complaint from project-affected people;
and
Deleted: Ensuring
Deleted: are planned
Deleted: Ensuring
Deleted: are respected and promptly implemented
§ 18 The accredited entities will confirm that the measures to manage environmental and social risks and impacts,
including, as relevant, information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress, are included in the
agreements with executing entities such as tendering documents and contracts. When tendering documents and/or
contracts have been concluded before the accredited entity is involved in the project, the accredited entity will have to
confirm that the existing environmental and social management measures are consistent with the accredited entity’s
ESMS and the principles of the GCF ESMS.
§ 19 The executing entities are responsible for compliance with all applicable laws, including the laws, regulations and
standards of the country in which the projects are located, and obligations of the country directly applicable to the project
under relevant international treaties and agreements. The accredited entities are responsible for assessing the
environmental and social institutional capacity of the executing entity, and the relevant national authorities and agencies,
to comply with the applicable laws, ensuring the appropriate conditionalities are included in financing agreements.
Deleted: accredited
§ 21 The accredited entities will be responsible for requesting that the executing entity has engaged with the projectaffected communities and vulnerable populations with adequate and timely public consultation and stakeholder
participation on the risks and anticipated impacts and the expected benefits that can be derived from the projects. In
order to ensure meaningful and effective consultation and participation of the affected communities and vulnerable
populations, the accredited entities will (i) disclose and make publicly available relevant information on the project in
accordance with the requirements of the information disclosure policy of the GCF and subsection 6.1 of this policy and
(ii) request the executing entity to disclose and disseminate information in a timely manner.
Deleted: ensuring
Deleted: are properly consulted
Deleted: .
§ 26 In screening projects, the entity will determine the nature and scale of risks and potential impacts, the breadth and
depth of environmental and social assessment, measures to manage these and the extent of stakeholder engagement
to be carried out by the executing entity or the relevant national authority and type of information to be disclosed by the
executing entity. The risk category of a project, aligned with the fit-for-purpose approach, is proportional to the nature,
scale and location of the project and its environmental and social risks and impacts and the sensitivity of the receiving
environments and communities. Pursuant to the ESS standard on assessment and management of environmental and
social risks and impacts, accredited entities assign risk categories to all activities with attention paid to specific
environmental and social risks, as specified in the IFC Performance Standards 1 to 8. The risks and impacts are
assessed at the pre-mitigation stage and consider the most serious potential impacts of all activities, including associated
facilities.
§ 34 The accredited entities will require that the executing entities will implement the project in compliance with applicable
laws related to managing environmental and social risks and impacts, including national laws, regulations and standards,
and obligations of the country directly applicable to the project under relevant international treaties and agreements.
§ 35 The GCF will require the executing entities to ensure that associated facilities meet the requirements of the ESS
standards of the GCF to the extent that the executing entities have the control and influence over these associated
facilities. Where the associated facilities are financed by other funding agencies (including funding agencies that are
accredited entities), the GCF and its entities may rely on the environmental and social requirements of these funding
agencies provided that these are aligned with the ESS standards of the GCF.
§ 36. The GCF will conduct its environmental and social due diligence for activities proposed for funding consideration.
The purpose of the due diligence is to understand and evaluate how the environmental and social risks and impacts are
screened, assessed and planned to be mitigated and managed by the executing entities and if the due diligence carried
out by the accredited entities ensure compliance with the GCF ESS standards. The due diligence of the GCF will verify
the consistency of the assessments and proposed management measures with the ESS standards of the GCF and
recommend to the Board for GCF financing only those proposed activities with satisfactory approaches to managing
environmental and social risks and impacts, consistent with the ESS standards.
§ 38
(b) Assessing the ESMS of the executing entities and their application to the projects, including the safeguards
instruments that describe the set of actions to assess, avoid, minimize, mitigate and offset environmental and social risks
and impacts, the effectiveness and independence of the project’s grievance redress mechanism of the executing entities,
the ability of the executing entities to conform to the information disclosure policy of the GCF, and the capacity to conduct
meaningful and timely consultations with all stakeholders;
Deleted: ensure
Deleted: all GCF-financed activities meet
Commented [MRA2]: Normally, executing entities are aware of the need to comply and comply with national legislation. The important aspect is to carry out a gap analysis with the international E&S framework and indicate how these standards will be met. Deleted: The compliance with applicable laws will be
reflected in the screening process indicating these national
requirements and how these will be met through the
management programmes and plans.¶
Deleted: by the accredited entities
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: and
Page59
(c) Providing, if needed, guidance to accredited entities to help executing entities in developing and implementing
measures to manage the risks and impacts. The responsibilities of the accredited entities include ensuring that all the
necessary assessments of risks and impacts are conducted, management plans are developed and implemented,
information is provided and necessary stakeholder engagement and communications are conducted by the executing
entity and relevant national competent authorities.
(d) Assess the due diligence carried out by the accredited entities for the project under funding proposal, the
effectiveness and independence of the grievance redress mechanism of the accredited entities and the ability of the
accredited entities to conform to the information disclosure policy of the GCF.
§ 39 The GCF will undertake due diligence based on the available information at the time the process is undertaken.
Where information on the activities is limited, the risks and impacts inherent to the type of activity, sector or industry, the
specific context with which the project will be developed and implemented, the capacity of the accredited entities to carry
out the relevant due diligence and the capacity of the executing entities to implement the activity following the
requirements of the ESS will be assessed. Where assessments have already been done and the permits obtained, the
due diligence for the activities will consist of gap analysis to understand whether there is a need for any additional studies
or measures to meet the ESS requirements. The significance of the gaps, the extent of information provided and the
potential risks these present to achieving the objectives of the ESS will be reflected in the relevant review documents.
Commented [MRA3]: Although this should have been done at accreditation stage, there should not be a need to do this at the level of funding proposals. § 43 The accredited entities may request the executing entities to use a variety of tools and studies to complement and
strengthen further the assessment of projects. These form part of commonly accepted assessment tools such as
strategic impacts assessment, regional impacts assessment, cumulative impacts assessment, and other specialized
studies as may be required under specific ESS standards. The GCF may recommend additional tools and planning
instruments as may be necessary to meet the national requirements and international commitments of countries.
§ 44 The GCF requires the executing entities to develop ESMPs that contain the measures to manage and mitigate the
identified risks and impacts. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require the executing entity
to fulfil the project-level ESMP requirements discussed in this section and will conduct the necessary due diligence and
oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled.
§ 46 The ESMP will be integrated into the overall planning, design, resourcing and execution of the GCF-financed
activities as well as being reflected in the project’s ESMS. Where gaps in the capacity of executing entities and relevant
competent authorities and agencies to implement the mitigation measures exist, the GCF will work with the executing
entities and national authorities to explore how the institutional capacity can be built or enhanced, and how the gap-filling
measures may be integrated into the project.
§ 47 The accredited entities will screen projects for potential involuntary resettlement impacts, consistent with the
objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement. Where there is
potential involuntary resettlement, the the accredited entities will require the executing entities to prepare a resettlement
action plan or, if specific activities or locations have not yet been determined, a resettlement policy framework
proportional to the extent of physical and economic displacement and the vulnerability of the people and communities.
A resettlement policy framework will include provisions for the development and implementation of site-specific
resettlement action plans. These plans or frameworks will complement the social assessment of the project and provide
guidance on specific issues related to involuntary resettlement, including land acquisition, compensation for assets,
livelihood loss and restoration, transition allowances, facilities and resettlement sites, and displacement.
§ 48 The accredited entities will screen the projects for any potential impacts on indigenous peoples, consistent with the
objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on indigenous peoples. Where there are potential impacts on
indigenous peoples, the accredited entities will require the executing entities to prepare an indigenous peoples
development plan or, if specific activities or locations have not yet been determined, an indigenous peoples planning
framework. The scope and extent of such plans or frameworks will be proportional to the vulnerability of the indigenous
peoples and the extent of the impacts on the customary rights of use and access to land and natural resources,
socioeconomic status, cultural integrity, indigenous knowledge and skills, and overall welfare. An indigenous peoples
planning framework will include provisions for the development and implementation of site-specific indigenous peoples
plans. These plans and frameworks will complement the social assessment of the project and provide guidance on
specific issues related to addressing the needs of the affected indigenous peoples.
§ 49 The accredited entities will screen the projects for any potential impacts on biodiversity, consistent with the
objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living
natural resources. The executing entities will strive to avoid impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and if
avoidance of impacts is not possible, measures to minimize impacts and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services
Deleted: GCF
Deleted: GCF
Page60
will be implemented. The mitigation hierarchy may include biodiversity offsets, which may be considered only after
appropriate avoidance, minimization and restoration measures have been applied; they are supported by sound science;
and long-term management and funding are secure. For projects that have potential impacts on critical habitats, the
accredited entities will require the executing entities to prepare a biodiversity action plan that describes the long-term
mitigation, conservation outcomes, monitoring and evaluation programme.
§ 50 For activities requiring financial intermediation (such as funds), the ESS standards of the GCF require the accredited
entity ensures that the intermediary develops and maintains an ESMS to identify and manage the risks associated with
its portfolio on an ongoing basis. The complexity of the ESMS will vary according to the risk exposure that the
intermediary is expected to manage. The ESMS will be designed and operated to meet the needs of the intermediary
and can be integrated into the intermediary’s existing risk management system.
§ 51 The accredited entities will notify the GCF when there are material changes in the project design and execution,
policy and regulatory setting, receiving environment and community, unanticipated environmental risks and impacts, or
other circumstances that elevate the risk levels of the project and required associated mitigation measures. The GCF
will require the accredited entities to undertake a due diligence process appropriate to the new risk level of the project
and to request the executing entity to revise the ESMP and/or ESMS to meet the requirements of the ESS standards.
§ 52 The accredited entities will also notify the GCF when changes to the ESMP or other management plans are required.
In the context of adaptive risk management, accredited entities will ensure that the implementation of the ESMP is
responsive to changing conditions and the results of monitoring throughout the project’s lifecycle. The GCF requires the
accredited entities to maintain effective due diligence processes and ensure that the executing entities address
unanticipated developments in the activities or reflect improved techniques and technologies for addressing
environmental and social risks and impacts, to meet the requirements of the ESS standards.
§ 53 The accredited entities will also notify the GCF of any changes in their own ESMS that may adversely affect the
capacity of the accredited entity to assess and monitor GCF-financed activities. Where the changes render the
accredited entity’s ESMS inconsistent with the ESS standards of the GCF, the GCF will require the accredited entities
to adjust the accredited entity’s ESMS; or undertake other necessary actions to ensure that the GCF-financed activities
meet the ESS standards requirements.
§ 54 The accredited entity will require the executing entity to inform it of the operational changes referred to in paragraph
51 and 52 above. . The accredited entity will collaborate with the GCF and executing entity to ensure that any further
required measures are implemented.
§ 58 In monitoring a project’s environmental and social performance, the accredited entities will request the executing
entities to obtain the involvement of communities, local stakeholders and civil society organizations in all the stages of
the project cycle. This participatory monitoring approach will also encourage the national designated authorities or focal
points to organize country portfolio reviews participated in by project-affected people and other local stakeholders.
§ 59 The GCF will monitor the compliance of accredited entities with the ESS standards requirements. On an annual
basis, the accredited entities will provide the GCF with a self-assessment of the compliance of their respective ESMS
with the ESS standards, among other issues. Half-way through the five-year accreditation, the Secretariat will undertake
a mid-term review of compliance performance of the accredited entities. The Secretariat will report annually to the Board
the consolidated results of the annual self-assessments, mid-term reviews and any ad hoc reviews that were conducted.
§ 61 This information should be made available by the executing entities and relevant national competent authorities in
accordance with the provisions of the information disclosure policy, allowing the stakeholders time to review, seek further
information and provide inputs on a proposed activity, including ways to improve the design and implementation of its
environmental and social safeguards. Additionally, the information in the form of environmental and social reports will be
provided through electronic links on the websites of the executing entity, the accredited entity (in the case of the
accredited entities website, on the basis of their internal procedures) and the GCF (in the case of the GCF website, upon
submission of the funding proposal to the Secretariat), as well as in locations convenient to affected peoples. The
information will be available in both English and the local language (if not English) to foster adequate understanding by
the affected communities, stakeholders and the general public.
§ 63 The GCF requires, where relevant, that additional environmental and social safeguards documents be disclosed.
These documents include a suite of assessment and management instruments, such as resettlement action plans and
resettlement policy frameworks, indigenous peoples development plans and development frameworks and due diligence
and audit reports. These documents complement the core safeguards instruments required in all cases as applicable –
ESIA, ESMP and/or ESMS – and will be disclosed in the same manner and time frame as the core instruments or when
available.
Deleted: GCF
Deleted: in an intermediary function
Deleted: to
Deleted: ies
Deleted: its
Deleted: operating within the intermediary
Deleted: to
Deleted: to
Deleted: planning, design, implementation
Deleted: ing
Deleted: of
Deleted: the project’s ESMP or
Deleted: make appropriate revisions of the project’s ESMP;
Deleted: If
Deleted: t
Deleted: is acting in an intermediary function, it
Deleted: discussed in this section and
Deleted: , in turn, inform the GCF
Deleted: It
Deleted: ir
Commented [MRA4]: Please clarify the object of the annual self‐assessment. In previous discussion for the negotiation of the AMA it had been understood that the AE would have to report on the compliance of its ESMS with the ESS framework, but not on the performance. Deleted: is
Deleted: T
Deleted: both
Commented [MRA5]: Please note that in many cases information will only be available in local language (eg in Latin America an ESIA will be directly drafted in Spanish). It may also be that only part of the documentation is available in local language if the documentation has been prepared in English, it is usually the case that only non‐technical summaries are translated into local languages (which may be several) . The EIB wold strongly suggest to review the language of this article to ensure its feasibility and applicability. Deleted: planning
Commented [MRA6]: Please note that as well indicated in previous sections, at the time of appraisal locations may not be final and certain plans cannot be develop and frameworks will be carried out instead. Thus not all documents can be disclosed at the same time. Page61
§ 64 Executing entities will also disclose a project/programme summary, alongside the environmental/social information,
including the following at a minimum:
§ 66 The GCF will require accredited entities, including intermediaries, to ensure that the executing entities effectively
engage with communities, vulnerable populations, groups and individuals affected or likely to be affected by the activities
proposed for GCF financing, through the development and implementation of a stakeholder engagement plan that
describes the disclosure of information, meaningful consultation and informed participation, and, in certain
circumstances, free, prior and informed consent, as required in the ESS standards. The engagement will be designed
and undertaken in a manner that is commensurate with the risks and impacts of the proposed activities, and will continue
throughout the project cycle.
Deleted: the
§ 67 The GCF will describe the process and set guidance to assist the executing entities to put in place a process for
meaningful consultation with project-affected people, guided by the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, nondiscrimination and accountability. This meaningful consultation will be culturally appropriate, undertaken throughout the
project cycle, with information provided and disclosed in a timely manner and in an understandable format, gender
inclusive and responsive, free from coercion and incorporate the views of stakeholders in the decision-making process.
The process will pay particular attention to including vulnerable groups and to conducting consultations in a manner that
does not put vulnerable individuals and groups at risk. For activities affecting indigenous peoples, this engagement will
be supported by the objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on indigenous peoples, including with respect to
free, prior and informed consent. There is no universally accepted definition of free, prior and informed consent.
Deleted: accredited
§ 68 The GCF reserves the right to observe and participate in the consultation process or request the documentation of
the process to gain a better understanding of the issues and concerns of the affected communities, groups and
individuals as well as how such concerns will be addressed by the executing entities.
§ 72 The executing ed entity’s own grievance redress mechanism should be the forum first accessed by projectedaffected people, and it is the responsibility of the executing entity to ensure that its grievance mechanisms is functioning
effectively, efficiently and independently. The accredited entity’s grievance redress mechanism can be a second forum
for filing complaints, and the accredited entity should ensure that it is functioning effectively, efficiently and independently.
§ 73 The approach of the GCF is to provide for grievance and redress at the GCF, accredited entity and project levels.
The executing entities will inform the communities affected, or likely to be affected, by the GCF-financed activities about
the grievance and redress mechanisms at all three levels, as part of the stakeholder engagement process. The details
for sending complaints containing the contact information and the appropriate modes by which these will be received will
be provided by the executing entities to the communities.
§74 The ESS standards establish the principles and requirements for setting up a grievance redress mechanism at the
project level, to receive and facilitate the resolution of concerns and grievances about the environmental and social
performance of the projects and programmes. The ESS standards require executing entities to ensure that all
environmental and social issues arising or that may potentially arise from projects are reported and addressed in a
manner that is satisfactory to the affected peoples and communities, the GCF, the accredited entities and the host
countries. To this end, the accredited entities will require executing entities to identify, where this already exists, or
establish and maintain appropriate and effective mechanisms to receive complaints and facilitate the resolution of such
complaints in connection with the projects and activities financed by the GCF.
§§ 76 The executing entity’s mechanism should be scaled to the risks and impacts of the projects and activities. The
mechanism will incorporate the criteria outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
unanimously approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The mechanism will facilitate the resolution of
grievances promptly through an accessible, fair, transparent and constructive process. It will also be culturally
appropriate and readily accessible, at no cost to the public, and without retribution to the individuals, groups or
communities that raised the issue or concern. The mechanism will not impede the access to judicial or administrative
remedies that may be available through the country systems, acknowledging that these localized systems provide more
robust information and better reflect the context of the issues on the ground.
At the level of the accredited entity, the grievance redress mechanism will address the grievances and complaints by
people and communities who may or have been affected by the adverse impacts through the failure of the GCF-financed
activities funded by the GCF to implement its operational policies and procedures, including the ESS standards of the
GCF. In the event of a complaint being filed with the accredited entity’s grievance redress mechanism, the executing
entity and the relevant national competent authorities should cooperate, provide all required information and explanations
requested by the mechanism and will promptly implement remedial measures stipulated by the Board on the
recommendation of the mechanism in keeping with its guidelines and procedures.
Deleted: ment
Deleted: of
Deleted: that
Commented [MRA7]: It is to be noted that the consultation process takes place before the submission of a funding proposal. Deleted: accredited
Deleted: accredit
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: and those of the projects are
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: GCF
Deleted: accredited
Deleted: accredited
Commented [MRA8]: Include new paragraph for the GRM of the accredited entity. Page62
§ 77 At the GCF level, the independent Redress Mechanism will address the grievances and complaints by people and
communities who may or have been affected by the adverse impacts through the failure of the GCF-financed activities
funded by the GCF to implement its operational policies and procedures, including the ESS standards of the GCF. In the
event of a complaint being filed with the independent Redress Mechanism, the accredited entity and the executing entity
will cooperate with the independent Redress Mechanism and provide all required information and explanations requested
by the mechanism. In addition, the executing entity will promptly implement remedial measures stipulated by the Board
on the recommendation of the mechanism in keeping with its guidelines and procedures.
Deleted: ,
Deleted: and
Page63
XXIII.JointResponsefromaNumberofCivilSocietyOrganizations
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Governing Instrument requires the Board to adopt environmental and
social safeguards that will apply to all of its lending.1 As such, in Decision B.07/02, the GCF Board
asked the Secretariat to create an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS). In
developing this ESMS, the GCF has the opportunity to learn lessons from decades of experience.
Having a robust ESMS can help ensure that GCF-funded projects and programmes not only do not
harm people and the environment, but also actively promote positive sustainable development through
adaptation and mitigation activities. A best practice ESMS for the GCF is necessary to support the
transformational paradigm shift in developing countries that the GCF seeks to promote.
A number of civil society organizations actively engaged in GCF proceedings2 has elaborated the
following joint response following the GCF Secretariat’s request for public inputs on the GCF ESMS,
including a draft Environmental and Social Policy (ESP). The comments try to respond to the GCF
Secretariat’s request for specific inputs as well as present overarching concerns on the ESMS.
Additionally, we have provided specific textual edits and suggestions on the draft ESP itself in the
attached Annex.
a) Scope and Principles - Adequacy of coverage and guiding principles of the policy
The draft ESP provides significant coverage on a range of aspects in terms of both application and
details on certain specific environmental and social issues. In some parts, the draft ESP is too vague
and discretionary, and this should be addressed in the final version. For example, in various places
when dealing with managing environmental and social risks the draft ESP states that issues will be
addressed, but fails to specify how and when or how to assess them, and in particular what the risks to
assess are. The following section presents a discussion on the adequacy of both the scope and the
principles.
1. Scope of Coverage
We are concerned that the current draft ESMS only contains the overarching Environmental and
Social Policy (ESP), but does not detail the GCF’s own Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs).
Currently, the GCF is using the IFC Performance Standards as the interim ESSs. However, as
mentioned in the draft policy these should be replaced by the GCF’s own ESSs. The IFC Performance
Standards, which were designed for a different institution and have themselves been long-criticized
for a plethora of shortcomings,3 are not adequate for long-term use by the GCF and should be replaced
1
Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund, doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, paras.18(e), 65 (2011),
available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf.
2
A number of civil society organizations provided inputs on this draft and additional civil society organizations
signed on in support of the draft. They are listed at the end of this submission.
3
While the IFC Performance Standards have some positive aspects, they have numerous shortcomings. We
highlight some of the shortcomings in this document, for example related to FPIC. Additionally, the IFC
Performance Standards are weak in a number of areas, including but not limited to, allowing for client selfreporting, financial intermediaries, human rights, land and resource rights, and allowing for projects and
programmes that will impact critical habitat. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but helps illuminate why
the IFC Performance Standards are inappropriate for permanent use by the GCF.
63
Page64
with the GCF’s own ESSs in a timely manner. It is difficult to fully understand and comment on the
draft ESMS without also having the ability to comment on the ESSs that the GCF is developing for
itself, as the ESSs should further elaborate the standards related to labor, biodiversity, and human
rights protections, among other things.
The ESMS should include a description of the process for creating the GCF’s own safeguards, which
were supposed to be designed within three years of the Fund becoming operational.4 However, two
years have passed since then and no process has been designed yet. We encourage the GCF to
progress speedily on developing its own ESSs to avoid the IFC Performance Standards becoming the
de facto permanent GCF ESS. The GCF’s own ESSs should be developed through a fully
participatory, gender-responsive, and comprehensive public consultation process within an adequate
timeframe that allows for several review and improvement phases. GCF safeguards must be
“harmonized upwards” with the highest protections internationally, with due consideration given to
both UN institutions and multilateral development banks. GCF safeguards must not continue to be
weaker than the most robust safeguards of other financial institutions5 and UN agencies.6 Given that
4
Decision B.07/02, paragraph (d): the Board also decided that the process of developing the GCF own ESS
standards, which would build on evolving best practices, should be completed within three years of the GCF
becoming operational, and with inclusive multi-stakeholder participation.
5
For example, the GCF must not have weaker requirements than the following ADB requirements:
* The ADB maintains responsibility for conducting due diligence, project categorization and oversight;
* The ADB supports the strengthening and use of Country Systems for ADB projects, with a mandatory,
clear and extensive review system to determine the equivalency of Country Systems with ADB safeguards,
prior to ADB agreement for their use. ADB requires public input into ADB determination of CSS equivalence,
bans the use of borrower systems for “highly complex and sensitive projects,” underscores ADB
responsibility for due diligence, and provides detailed requirements. (Note: World Bank also has detailed CSS
Equivalency Requirements – See OP 4:00, especially 6-page Table A1 describing required CSS assessment
methodology.)
* The requirement that environmental assessments be conducted for all components of all projects, regardless
of funding sources;
* The requirement that the Bank conducts due diligence and ensures client compliance with environmental and
social requirements;
* A suite of relatively detailed rules for Financial Intermediaries, necessitating ADB management approval of
category A subprojects, and full application of ADB safeguards, including information disclosure and
consultation;
* Relatively detailed gender-sensitive requirements.
* Relatively robust definition of “meaningful consultation” procedures, with materials and consultations to be
provided “in a form and language(s) understandable to affected people and other stakeholders. For illiterate
people, other suitable communication methods will be used.”.
* The ADB’s Prohibited Activities List clearly states that “The following do not qualify for Asian
Development Bank financing”, including “production of or trade in radioactive materials, including nuclear
reactors and components thereof;” and “production or activities involving harmful or exploitative forms of
forced labor or child labor.”
6
Similarly, the GCF should not have weaker standards than other institutions, including the UN agencies. For
example, UNDP’s Social and Environmental Standards (2014) have several positive aspects, including those
related to human rights and Indigenous Peoples. For example:
*UNDP will not support activities that do not comply with national law and obligations under international law,
whichever is the higher standard (para. 3 of the Overarching Policies and Principles section).
*When there are multiple partners providing resources for a project, in assessing the project “UNDP reviews
the entire Programme or Project for consistency with the requirements of the SES.” (para. 9 of the Overarching
Policies and Principles section)
* UNDP ensures both the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as inclusion and nondiscrimination. “UNDP shall both refrain from providing support for activities that may contribute to violations
64
Page65
the ESSs are not part of this draft ESMS, the ESMS should explicitly require the Environmental and
Social Policy to be revised in conjunction with the development of the GCF’s own ESSs.
The draft ESP refers to three engagement areas: strategic and institutional level; entities and
intermediaries level; and project level.
Strategic and Institutional Level
Paragraph 8 of the ESP states that the policy “will apply to all prospective and approved GCFfinanced activities,” which we believe means that it will apply to all projects, sub-projects, and
programmes that have already been approved by the GCF Board, including all future sub-projects.
This is a particular concern for GCF equity investments, where few details of future activities to be
funded are known at the time of approval. The policy should confirm this.
In regards to co-financing (paragraph 9), it is important that the highest ESS standards apply to an
entire GCF project or programme co-financed by other institutions, irrespective of whether GCF
financing is in the minority or even miniscule. It also must be assured that the “common approach”
suggested entails an upward harmonization effort for all co-financiers, including the GCF if
applicable, and does not allow for settling at a lower common denominator. Thus, it needs to be clear
how this upward harmonization is to be ensured so that the “same level” means full equivalency. As
both the Fund’s gender policy and the soon to be developed Indigenous Peoples policy are a
substantial part of the ESMS and complementary to the ESP, it has to be clarified in the ESP that the
Fund expects co-financing partners to include both in the “same level of environmental and social
protection as this policy.”
Entities and Intermediaries
As discussed later in this document, there is significant concern about how this ESP applies to
accredited entities, financial intermediaries, and executing entities. The ESP must make it explicitly
clear that the ESP and related policies in the ESMS framework must be complied with at all of these
levels and that they apply to all sub-projects, for which AEs will have full legal responsibility.
Project Level
At the project level, the document should mention that any subsequent projects that come from the
implementation of GCF funded programmes should also comply with the ESMS. Experience has
of a State’s human rights obligations and the core international human rights treaties, and seek to support the
protection and fulfillment of human rights” (para. 14 of the Overarching Policies and Principles section).
* UNDP promotes equality. “In its Programmes and Projects, UNDP will uphold the principles of accountability
and the rule of law, participation and inclusion, and equality and non-discrimination, noting that prohibited
grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an
indigenous person or as a member of a minority. UNDP will also ensure the meaningful, effective and informed
participation of stakeholders in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Programmes and
Projects” (para. 15 of the Overarching Policy and Principles section).
* UNDP ensures that there is meaningful, effective, and informed stakeholder engagement by requiring a
number of characteristics including that it is free from manipulation, culturally appropriate, tailored to language
preferences, gender and age-inclusive, initiated early, and based on disclosed information, among other things
(para. 14 of the Policy Delivery Process and Accountability section). Additionally, UNDP ensures that
engagement “will be conducted in a gender-responsive, culturally sensitive, non-discriminatory and inclusive
manner, ensuring that potentially affected vulnerable and marginalized groups are identified and provided
opportunities to participate” (para. 12 of the Policy Delivery Process and Accountability section).
65
Page66
shown that the Board may approve funding proposals where the actual concrete activities that will be
carried out with GCF money are not yet defined. For example, in the project “Sustainable energy for
the Caribbean,” approved during the 14th Board Meeting, there was no definition as to
where/how/when the geothermal facilities would be constructed. Instead, the GCF money was to be
partially used to answer those questions. To avoid, mitigate, and/or compensate for all social and
environmental risks coming from GCF funded activities, the ESMS must be applied to all sub-projects
and they must fully comply with all parts of the ESMS. This clarity has to be provided specifically in
the case of equity investments or risk insurance facilities supported with GCF funding.
2. Guiding Principles
The ESP has several positive aspects. We are pleased to see that the guiding principles include a
gender-sensitive approach and compliance with applicable law, among others. We also appreciate the
reference in paragraph 11(e) that the ESP will be both “consistent and linked with” the other relevant
policies of the GCF as this is an important aspect of creating a comprehensive ESMS. However, the
ESP should make clear that the “principles” in both paragraphs 11 and 12 are requirements that the
GCF will ensure are met by the projects, sub-projects, and programmes that it finances.
Additionally, we are pleased that GCF-financed activities will ensure that human rights are respected
and observed and that projects and programmes will “not cause, promote, contribute to, perpetuate or
exacerbate human rights violations.” However, we are concerned that the mentions of labour and
working conditions, Indigenous Peoples, human rights, and biodiversity are listed under paragraph 12
as considerations additional to the guiding principles for implementing the policy and as “underlying
principles and objectives of its ESS standards.” These must not be add-ons, but core requirements in
all GCF activities. As noted above, the GCF has not yet put forward its own ESSs, but instead relies
on the IFC Performance Standards. However, the IFC Performance Standards do not have a specific
human rights safeguard nor are human rights adequately incorporated into the ESSs.7 Instead the
policy should say that the GCF will ensure that GCF-financed activities will comply with the
standards delineated in paragraph 12 of the draft ESP. In particular, with respect to the paragraph on
Indigenous Peoples (currently para. 12 (b)), since the GCF is currently in the process of developing a
proactive Indigenous Peoples Policy, it should be listed under paragraph 11 as a clear requirement.
The Indigenous Peoples Policy is discussed in more detail later in this submission.
We have the following recommendations to improve the principles and to ensure their adequate
application:
- The principle of integration of environmental and social sustainability (para.11 (a)) should include
mention of the ESMS’s objective to actively contribute to the GCF’s guiding principle to generate
social, development, economic, and development co-benefits to the environment and the people that
depend on it. In line with the guiding principles of the GCF outlined in the Governing Instrument, the
ESMS must be broader than merely avoiding “doing harm,” but instead be a part of defining what a
transformation project/programme under the GCF must look like.
7
In Paragraph 12 of its Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability, the IFC “recognizes the
responsibility of business to respect human rights” and that “This responsibility means to avoid infringing on the
human rights of others and to address adverse human rights impacts business may cause or contribute to.”
However, it does not include any specific requirements related to human rights due diligence or tangible steps to
be taken by the private sector in Fund-supported projects or programs.
66
Page67
- The principle of mitigation hierarchy (para. 11 (d)) should provide more clarity about when and
under what conditions and circumstances it will resort to providing compensation and/or restoration.
GCF-funded activities that need to compensate or provide restoration for impacts or risks because
these cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated, should be seldom carried out and should only be
done when there is sufficient evidence to back up their use. If mitigation or compensation/restoration
of risks or impacts cannot be guaranteed, the GCF should not approve the project or programme.
Furthermore, sufficient, equitable, and adequate compensation or restoration plans should be
elaborated with people and communities that will be affected and that will require compensation or
restoration. Because of the special nature of the GCF and its objective of a paradigm shift, no tradeoffs should be necessary between environmental and social harm for some other kind of gain.
Likewise, the policy should not allow for any form of “offsetting” or “trading off” impacts at one site
against compensation or restoration efforts at another unrelated one. Any mention of “offsets” or
“offsetting” has to be eliminated from the draft policy.
- The principle of continuous improvement and best practices (para. 11(f))) should mention that the
information provided, experience and knowledge shared, and recommendations made by the
Independent Accountability Units (in particular the Independent Evaluation Office and the
Independent Redress Mechanism) will be fully taken into account in the exercise of improving and
continuously updating the ESMS in a transparent and participatory manner, in line with the GCF selfdefinition of being a “learning institution.”
- On the principle of stakeholder engagement and disclosure (para. 11 (g)), there should be explicit
mention of broad multi-stakeholder support and participation throughout the GCF project/programme
cycle, starting with conceptualization, planning, and design and throughout implementation, including
by employing participatory monitoring by beneficiaries and affected people. Additionally, it should
specify that the determination of “relevant stakeholders” of a project/programme must be based on
self-selection and that the proactive information disclosure requirement of the GCF should also cover
all meetings with stakeholders, which should be publicly announced well in advance of the meeting. It
should also mention the importance of compliance with the disclosure periods adopted in the GCF
Information Disclosure Policy. Currently, there is no enforcement method that guarantees compliance
with these disclosure periods. When these periods are not complied with, the possibility for civil
society organizations and local communities to engage with the GCF and its accredited entities and
their implementing entities becomes affected, and severe harm to people and the environment may
occur.
- On the principle of harmonized application of environmental and social requirements (para.11(j)),
there should be a clear indication that the suggested harmonization is an upward harmonization so that
best practice is used and not a downward one to the lowest acceptable common denominator
- On the principle of consistency with UNFCCC REDD-plus (REDD+) safeguards (para 11(l)), the
language as elaborated in the draft ESP does not take into due account the best practices already
developed and applied to mitigation and adaptation. The proposed language excludes from
consideration all the standards and guidance that have been piloted and applied to REDD+ on the
basis of the Cancun Safeguards, among others the REDD+ Social and Environmental standards and
the UN REDD’s, which are the most advanced in regards to Indigenous Peoples. Thus, placeholder
language is needed here to refer to the policies and guidance and further operationalization of the
Cancun Safeguards. Explicit reference and/or benchmarking to UN REDD and other upper level
standards on Indigenous Peoples rights can be made in the ESMS Manual or in the specific paper on
Results Based Finance/REDD+ currently under development. Furthermore it should be pointed out
that in regard to monitoring of compliance with REDD+ Safeguards, the Safeguards Information
67
Page68
System envisaged at the UNFCCC level refers only to Parties’ monitoring “systems” and modalities,
and not to qualitative assessments of safeguard compliance.
- On the principle of a gender-sensitive approach (para.11 (h)), we believe gender sensitivity is not
sufficiently integrated into the ESP yet, but instead is perceived to be included in the ‘social aspect’ of
the ESP.8 Gender risks and impacts should be required to be elaborated separately. The social impacts
and risks are not elaborated enough in this document, thus it is not guaranteed that aspects of gender
risks and impacts would be identified within the social impacts.
Meanwhile, the Gender Policy (and by extension the current and subsequent Gender Action Plans to
guarantee the Gender Policy’s implementation) is considered as complementary to the requirements
particularly to enhance social access to development benefits.9 But gender risks and impacts are much
broader than just issued of social inclusion and should not be reduced by the draft ESP policy as such.
Since the GCF committed to taking a gender-sensitive approach, gender impacts and risks should be a
standalone aspect of the ESP. In the whole document there is no description on gender requirements
of the ESP in the form, for example, of gender impacts and risks assessment. The ESP should require
such assessments and link them explicitly to the project/programme-specific gender action plans
required for project/programme proposal approval by the GCF Secretariat.
As noted above, the principles in paragraph 12 must also be treated as requirements with which to be
complied. Additionally, the following changes not previously mentioned should be made:
- The principle of human rights in Paragraph 12(c), should include a clear statement that the GCF will
not support projects/programmes that negatively impact human rights.
- On the principle of biodiversity (para.12 (d)), the mention of biodiversity offsets should be stricken.
The GCF should not allow biodiversity to be destroyed based on the argument that financial
compensation or protection elsewhere amounts to “no net loss.” As such there should be no allowance
for biodiversity offsets, certainly not in critical habitats.
- On the principle related to Indigenous Peoples (IP), this ESP provides further evidence for the need
to have an Indigenous Peoples Policy, that clearly spells out the international obligations, covenants,
and treaties on Indigenous Peoples rights that states, IEs, and the GCF are expected to respect, as well
as IP related standards for the private sector. We acknowledge and celebrate the recent decision made
by the Board to create an Indigenous Peoples Policy. We would like to see wording in the ESP that
ensures that any future decision relating to indigenous people will pass through this soon-to-be-policy
and that it will be an integral part of the ESMS.
Further, we note that the guiding principles do not cover a number of issues such as pollution and
cultural heritage, among others. We suggest that the following principles be included:
- The Precautionary Principle should be included as one of the ESMS guiding principles.10 This
8
See the discussion in the “Background” for the Environmental and Social Policy, discussions in paragraph 14
(p. 1-2) and section 1.1 (p. 2). Also, in the draft ESP, paragraph 14(h) says that the gender policy “complements
the intent for social inclusion of the environmental and social policy and the ESS standards.”
9
As stated in the Background portion under “Links with Existing Policies” in section 1.2(i) (p. 6) that “The
GCF gender policy and action plan complements the requirements of the GCF interim ESS standards ….”
10
See Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15 (1992); see also UNDP, Social and
Environmental Standards, para. 23 (2014), available at
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Social-and-Environmental-Policies-andProcedures/UNDPs-Social-and-Environmental-Standards-ENGLISH.pdf) (“UNDP uses a precautionary
68
Page69
principle, which has been widely adopted in international environmental law, states that when there is
lack of scientific consensus, the burden of proof that an activity is not harmful falls on those taking
the action.
- Additionally, the ESP should include as one of its guiding principles that the GCF will not finance
activities that exacerbate climate change.
b) Requirements and roles and responsibilities - Clarity of the requirements of the policy, the
roles and responsibilities of GCF and the entities, and suggestions to improve its
implementation, in the context of the proposed ESMS
Roles and responsibilities of the GCF
On responsibilities of the GCF, the policy states the specific activities in which the Secretariat plays
an active role. These include tasks related to assessing capacities needed in order to seek
accreditation; managing environmental and social risks in GCF activities, information disclosure,
stakeholder engagement, and redress mechanisms for affected communities and developing countries.
More details are needed in the draft policy about which unit/person in the Secretariat is responsible
for what aspect of due diligence. Saying the GCF is responsible for doing something is insufficient.
The policy states that the GCF is responsible for requiring that Accredited Entities (AEs) comply with
their own respective ESMS, however the policy should also clarify that once the GCF’s ESMS is
adopted, it will be applicable to all AEs as well. The policy should make clear that the AEs own
ESMS must be equivalent or better than the GCF’s ESMS. Further, in order to guarantee robust
proactive social and environmental protection that goes beyond a simple “do no harm” approach, it is
imperative that all AEs comply with the same standards according to the type of accreditation and the
level of risk for which they are accredited.
Accreditation
The policy in its section on accreditation (para. 13) is weak in that it only focuses on the capacity to
manage without giving due diligence to the actual track records of accredited entities. It should be
clarified that not only compliance on paper (existence of applicable policies and systems), but also
implementation practice and a respective track record determine the consistency of the AEs’ systems
and approach with the GCF ESP. The GCF’s existing practice of accreditation has shown a lack of
such due diligence in several worrisome instances.
Also, when considering the capacity of an AE to deal with ESS risk, the Secretariat should take into
account the AE’s entire portfolio of activities and ensure that alignment with climate objectives as an
important way to prevent environmental and social harm. As a financial mechanism of the UNFCCC,
the GCF is obliged to fulfil the objectives of the Paris Agreement adopted at COP21 including, in
Article 2.1(c), the objective of “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low
greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development.” The GCF Board has emphasized the
critical role the Fund can play in leveraging its resources to affect changes in broader patterns of
approach to natural resource conservation and reviews its development cooperation activities to ensure they do
not cause negative environmental effects.”).
69
Page70
investment, beyond direct support from the GCF. Towards that end, the GCF has a critical role to play
in encouraging its accredited entities to make the necessary portfolio shifts to realize the objectives
under the Paris Agreement.
Environmental and Social Risk Management throughout the Project/Programme Cycle
The GCF’s ESMS is set up in a similar manner to other development finance institutions, UN entities,
and other similar multilateral institutions, which have an overarching ESP as well as specific ESSs
that provide further requirements for projects and programmes. However, in most of those systems,
the ESP was developed in conjunction with the ESSs. Here, the GCF appears to be developing the
ESP without also developing its own ESSs, and instead is still referring to the interim ESSs (i.e. the
IFC Performance Standards). The problem with that is that the interim ESSs do not necessarily
provide the same level of standards as called for in this draft ESP.
In looking at the diagram explaining the elements of the ESMS, it appears that the GCF is responsible
for ensuring that projects and programmes comply with the ESP and other GCF policies, including the
Information Disclosure Policy and Gender Policy, among others. Then the AEs have to ensure
compliance with the ESSs. However, to ensure that the standards and principles in the ESP are
complied with in each project, the ESSs should incorporate these principles and the interim ESSs do
not do so adequately. The GCF will have to ensure through its due diligence and oversight that the
projects and programmes it is funding meet these policies and recognize that meeting the ESSs and
meeting the requirements of the ESP are not necessarily the same.
The policy appropriately includes the need to ensure that adequate screening and categorization
processes are conducted. However, it does not clarify who in the Secretariat will be responsible for
overseeing such processes or how it will ensure that they are implemented. The policy must clearly
define that the Secretariat’s responsibilities include having enforcement capabilities in instances
where deficits in an AE’s compliance with the GCF’s ESMS become apparent. Thus, the language in
the draft policy under paragraph 14 should be strengthened to reflect the Secretariat’s obligation to
ensure AE compliance.
Similarly, on responsibilities related to information disclosure, stakeholder engagement, and redress
mechanisms, the GCF should have a designated person or unit within the Secretariat to oversee this
work, accessible to stakeholders. This person or unit must ensure that stakeholder engagement is
based on representation through a self-selection process of respective stakeholders involved, and that
AEs comply with their obligation of informing potentially affected people about the grievance and
redress mechanisms during project design and throughout, not only when they are already facing
problems due to the project construction and operation (para. 15(a)).
As noted above, screening and risk categorization are critically important and the responsibility of
both the GCF and the accredited entities. We appreciate that paragraph 26 provides some detail about
what to consider in categorizing the risk, however, the phrase “sensitivity of the receiving
environments and communities” is vague. For instance, does it refer to areas of critical habitat or
areas where there is little rule of law and it is dangerous for environmental and human rights
defenders, or both? This should be clarified by providing more information about what is meant by
sensitivity.
Additionally, paragraph 27 should include gender impacts and risk assessment as part of the screening
70
Page71
and categorization. Further, while we appreciate including both direct and indirect and induced and
cumulative impacts, long term impacts should be also considered during the impacts assessment
detailed in paragraph 27. Lastly, it should include processes for how Indigenous Peoples and other
interested stakeholders can engage in developing participatory risk assessment and categorization.
The ESP should also state very clearly that in order to improve the supervision of the performance and
compliance of AEs, the Fund in its ongoing due diligence (both for the accreditation as well as for
monitoring environmental and social risks throughout the project/programme cycle) should consult
with and welcome relevant information provided by third parties, including CSOs and affected
communities, as well as information coming from the Independent Accountability Units. In this way
self-reported information provided by the AEs can be verified, improving supervision and
performance of these entities.
Roles and responsibilities of Accredited Entities (AEs)
In listing the responsibilities of AEs, the draft policy in paragraph 17(a)(i) should clearly state that the
GCF’s ESMS applies to all AEs and elaborate that the AE’s own ESMS needs to be equivalent to or
better than the GCF’s ESMS, particularly in requiring meaningful and inclusive multi-stakeholder
consultation and engagement throughout the project/programme cycle. The list of AE responsibilities
in the case of GCF-financed activities (para. 17(b)) should include a clear reference to proactive
information disclosure. With respect to sub-projects, the ESP should obligate AEs to ensure that all
sub-projects (such as equity investments) are properly screened, assigned to the appropriate
environmental and social risk categories, subject to the AE’s due diligence and oversight, and that
information about all sub-projects, for example of equity investments, is disclosed in line with the
GCF’s proactive information disclosure.
Further, the draft policy currently makes almost no mention of executing entities. This should be
fixed. Both the accredited entities and executing entities should be fully compliant with the ESP (not
to mention the ESSs) and the AEs need to provide the necessary oversight and compliance
enforcement vis-a-vis executing entities. As the entities that sign the legal agreement with the GCF,
the AEs are obligated to ensure that their executing entities are in compliance with the policies. This
must be insured especially with respect to all the requirements of the ESP on consultation and
participation, with includes in the case of Indigenous Peoples their free, prior, and informed consent
(FPIC). Enforcement of FPIC and more broadly meaningful and fully participatory consultations must
be required as one key responsibility of the AE in case of intermediation of any kind (para. 21).
In general, the GCF ESP should clarify that when AEs are acting as intermediaries they are
responsible for all activities related to GCF-funding of the grantees, borrowers, and investees they
work with regarding their compliance with the ESMS. This also applies in cases such as equity
investments, where GCF funding might be further intermediated by the investee. AEs may choose
whatever intermediaries they wish, but these intermediaries, which can be of the most varied nature,
do not pass through any accreditation or similar due diligence process, to assess compliance with
GCF’s principles and standards. Through the Accreditation Master Agreements (AMAs), AEs are
contracted with the GCF and are obliged to it. Thus, they should be made clearly responsible for
ensuring their chosen intermediaries comply with it as well. This is the only way to ensure that all
71
Page72
GCF-funded activities are in line with the Fund’s ESMS. It is therefore not appropriate, as paragraph
20 seems to imply, that AEs that are functioning as financial intermediaries (FIs) may develop their
own ESMS after accreditation and in response to potential risks, as the equivalency of such a system
with the Fund’s ESMS cannot be assured. Instead, if an AE is going to function as a financial
intermediary, then the ESMS that it presents when applying for accreditation should recognize this
and be determined to be capable of addressing the risks that come with being an FI.
As noted earlier, the proper identification and categorization of risks is key to being able to address
them. One of the responsibilities of AEs is “ensuring that the environmental and social risks and
impacts of activities proposed for GCF financing are assessed.” To fulfil this obligation, a proper risk
categorization must be done, and done in conjunction with an Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) that must be neutral and of the highest quality. This should be mentioned as part
of the ESP.
We appreciate that the draft ESP says that risks need to be identified and that measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate these risks or provide compensation or remedy need to be planned. The ESP
should further specify that in both identifying risks and creating the response to them, the AEs should
consult with the potentially affected communities.
Critically, AEs are responsible for informing potentially affected communities of the existence of the
Independent Redress Mechanism of the Fund and of their own grievance redress mechanism and how
to access them, as required by this policy. The AEs must do this early in the project lifecycle and
during the first stages of the public participation processes.
The draft ESP is silent on the role of the National Designated Authorities (NDAs) in ensuring
compliance with the GCF ESMS and the ESSs. It should acknowledge NDAs as important
partners in the successful application of the GCF ESMS at the level of national implementation
of GCF projects and programmes. NDAs through their no-objection role ensure that proposed
AE projects and programmes are in line with national legal obligations, including under
international human rights law and with respect to gender equality (for example under CEDAW)
or the rights of Indigenous Peoples under UNDRIP, as well as national funding priorities for the
GCF (as elaborated in country programmes for example). As initiator of project and programme
concepts, an NDA also has the ability to put the AEs it selects to develop these concepts into
full-fledged proposals under scrutiny for their ability to comply with the GCF ESMS in line with
the country’s priorities. Lastly, under the monitoring and accountability framework, they play a
role in supporting participatory monitoring approaches and their integration in AE project and
programme implementation. This role should be acknowledged in the ESP.
c) Gaps - identifying any other areas that may have been missed and proposing ways to fill these
gaps, drawing from experiences in policy delivery from similar institutions
While the ESP covers a substantial number of issue areas, there remain several significant gaps that
could result in avoidable harm to people and the environment and more social, environmental, and
economic benefits for all.
Financial Intermediaries
72
Page73
As noted above, the draft ESP does not provide clarity about FIs. Lending through FIs is
difficult for both institutions themselves and affected communities, stakeholders, and the public
to track. Thus, it is important for institutions, like the GCF, to adopt clear guidelines and
requirements for FIs to follow to ensure that their subprojects comply with environmental and
social policies and do not harm people and the environment.
As such, the policy needs to provide specific ESMS rules for financial intermediaries and needs
to be significantly more specific on the application of the policy to subprojects. As the ones
contractually obliged with the GCF, AEs are responsible for the environmental and social
performance of the implementing and executing entities they choose to work with. It cannot be
assumed that those implementing sub-projects will do so in accordance with the GCF’s ESMS.
The ESP should have a specific section devoted to entities functioning as financial
intermediaries, detailing their responsibilities vis-à-vis subprojects, with obligations based on
what we have learned about the problems with FIs through lending at development finance
institutions and ensuring actual positive environmental and social outcomes. Thus, the ESP needs
to spell out details specifically for FIs and their sub-projects.
Exclusion and Prohibited Activities List
The GCF should have an exclusion list of activities that will not receive GCF funding. The exclusion
list should clearly state the activities that “do not qualify for financing” as they pose serious risks and
harms to the environment and communities, including: activities already identified in MDB exclusion
lists such as trade in weapons and munitions, support for nuclear power, harm to tropical forests, and
the use of forced or child labor; land acquisition without Free, Prior and Informed Consent; and, given
the GCF’s climate mandate, financing fossil fuels and other forms of unsustainable energy, for
example waste incinerators, large dams, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Glossary
The ESP should include a glossary with definitions of terms so that all institutions, entities, and
stakeholders understand what each specific term means.
Paris Agreement Obligations
As we noted earlier, the GCF can play a critical role in helping meet the Paris Agreement objective to
make “finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate
resilient development.” The ESP should reflect this obligation and acknowledge the GCF’s role in
helping accredited entities make necessary portfolio shifts.
Rights-Based Approach
The draft ESMS does not specify the adoption of a rights-based approach, although it includes a
human rights standard of “do-no-harm.” A rights-based approach cannot be limited to that component
and needs to be characterized throughout the document.
Furthermore, when dealing with scope and application, the ESP proposes a common approach – that
“will achieve the same level of environmental and social protection as the GCF policy.” As we have
noted previously in this submission, at this stage the ESMS does not envisage a new set of ESS,
instead the current interim ESSs will still apply. This remains concerning given that these interim
standards are not necessarily the most advanced and best available (in the case of FPIC for instance)
73
Page74
hence the risk of using the GCF’s policy as the benchmark for the common approach might in fact
lower the standards applied because in some cases the accredited entities’ or implementing entities’
standards might be higher (for example, the UN agencies’ safeguards). Instead, the ESP should
specify that, when adopting a common approach, the highest and most stringent standard will apply.
In terms of compliance with applicable laws, the ESMS states that “GCF would not support projects
that do not comply with applicable laws, including national laws and obligations of the country
directly applicable to the project, under relevant international treaties and agreements.” This
sentence is not clear, and leaves too many loopholes based on national legislation that in many cases,
for instance in the case of Indigenous Peoples, does not internalize international obligations that are
“directly applicable to the project.”
Grievance Redress Mechanisms
We appreciate the inclusion of a section (6.3) on grievance redress mechanisms in the draft ESP.
Given that the section includes grievance redress at multiple levels, the title of the section should
be “Grievance Redress Mechanisms” (plural rather than the singular “mechanism”). Having
opportunities for providing redress for grievances at all levels is important to ensure that projects
and programmes do not harm people and the environment and when they do that those harms are
addressed adequately and efficiently. However, as was stated in the civil society submission on
the Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM), there
should be no sequencing of grievance mechanisms, but rather the person or group of people
filing the complaint should get to choose which mechanism they wish to use and in what order.
Further, paragraph 74 indicates that the ESS standards establish principles and requirements for
setting up project-level grievance mechanisms. However, the IFC Performance Standards, which
are the interim ESS standards, do not include principles and requirements for project-level
grievance mechanisms. As such it is unclear to what this is referring. When the GCF establishes
its ESS standards, it should include such principles and requirements for project-level grievance
mechanisms and in doing so should look to best practice, such as the UN Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights11 and the guidance toolkit developed by the IFC’s Compliance
Advisor/Ombudsman12, and consult with the IRM. In that vein, we appreciate the requirement
that AEs’ mechanisms should incorporate the criteria in the UN Guiding Principles on Human
Rights. Also, it should be made clear that like the IRM, the project level grievance mechanisms,
and AEs’ grievance mechanisms can receive complaints from people who are affected or
potentially affected by GCF-funded projects and programmes.
Resettlement
As mentioned before, it is problematic that the ESP is not being developed in conjunction with the
ESSs as the ESP does not currently include mention of all the safeguards we hope will be in the GCF
ESSs or even that are in the current interim ESSs. While we assume that the ESSs will include
specific standards on some of its guiding principles mentioned, for example labor and biodiversity, we
11
See UN Human Rights Council Office of the High Commissioner, Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights (2011), available at
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.
12
See Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO), “Grievance Mechanism Toolkit” (2016), available at
http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/publications/documents/CAOGrievanceMechaimsToolkit_2016.pdf.
74
Page75
encourage the GCF to also include a specific safeguard on displacement and resettlement. When the
GCF develops its ESSs, the standard on this should make clear that GCF-funded projects will seek to
avoid physical and economic displacement and involuntary resettlement.
Further, the GCF should not be financing the types of the projects and programmes that have led to
large scale displacement. Even as some ‘modern’ resettlement processes in middle income countries
or with strong safeguard support have been adopted, evidence shows that most schemes still fail to
achieve their objective, as seen, for example in the Bui Dam in Ghana (2011) or the Kandadji Dam in
Niger (2016). Such practices should not continue under the GCF as they are not in line with the
GCF’s mandate to “in the context of sustainable development … promote the paradigm shift towards
low emission and climate resilient development pathways.”13
Information disclosure and stakeholder engagement standards will have to be tailored to the
particular status of Indigenous Peoples
As to information disclosure and stakeholder engagement, the reference to the need to ensure a
culturally appropriate process and also publish documents in local languages is welcome.
However, given the specificity of Indigenous Peoples, we recommend that a dedicated
“Indigenous Peoples Consultation and Engagement guidance” be developed that could also
include guidance on FPIC or that these elements be properly addressed in the ESMS Manual and
the IP Policy.
d) Enhancing outcomes - identifying opportunities to enhance environmental and social
outcomes through the policy and ESMS
The draft ESP elaborates under policy objectives in paragraph 7(h) that the ESP aims to “Provide the
basis for a coherent, consistent and transparent management system founded on the principles of
sustainable development, for improving performance and outcomes, managing risks and impacts, and
enhancing access to benefits for project-affected people in all GCF- financed activities.” We welcome
the intent to combine the avoidance of harm with positive development benefits and giving due
consideration to vulnerable populations. Further, we believe that all GCF projects should seek to
maximize multiple benefits, especially human and economic development benefits in support of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and that the ESMS should lead to a prioritization of GCF
funding for activities that provide sustainable development and sustained livelihood benefits to the
most vulnerable populations. Thus, for the ESP to fulfill these objectives, other current GCF policies,
including for example the investment criteria or performance measurement frameworks, need to be
supportive of and coherent with this goal.
For example, especially around energy, the GCF currently takes a supply perspective measuring
installed capacity and connected households. As the objective of electrification is not to provide as
much power as possible for the invested money but to create human and economic development, the
GCF needs to focus energy-related indicators on addressing energy poverty with equitable and
gender-responsive access to renewable energy service delivery. Rather than just measuring cost
effectiveness per unit of power, GCF performance measurement should focus on expected value
creation per dollar invested for different service levels with particular attention given to the lowest
13
GCF, Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund, para. 2 (2011).
75
Page76
quintile of the population. CSOs, in their submissions on the performance measurement frameworks
and specific indicators, have repeatedly argued in favor of a performance measurement framework
and other specific indicators centered on sustainable development benefits provided to people.
It is a positive development that the draft in fact does not limit itself to a do-no-harm approach, but
rather also hints to contribute to a do-good approach by specifying that one of the goals is to
contribute to the “improvement of environmental and social outcomes.” Nevertheless, in examining
the whole document, it seems that such an acknowledgement of the “do-good” component is not
properly followed up. As a matter of fact, the whole document is characterized by a "do-no-harm"
implementation, risk prevention and management, while it does not envisage any indicator, criteria or
procedures to ensure and assess the "do-good" component, in the specific criteria to assess effective
pursuit of improved environmental and social outcomes. Such a limited approach is also evident
when the document only refers to the purpose of the Environmental and Social Policy's goal of giving
“due consideration to vulnerable populations,” without acknowledging the potential benefits derived
from community-based adaptation and mitigation.
It is understandable that an ESP, that is related to an Environmental and Social Management System,
cannot realistically delve into the positive contributions of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge
and livelihoods, and hence offers a narrow definition of maximized benefits (that somehow needs to
be spelled out: biodiversity conservation, land tenure, sustainable livelihoods, among others).
Nevertheless, such a narrow approach offers a solid reason for a standalone Indigenous Peoples Policy
whose purpose would be to enable the GCF to develop a “vision” on the connection between
Indigenous Peoples and climate change, and on how Indigenous Peoples can contribute to the GCF’s
stated goals, while preventing any harm that the GCF operations might do to Indigenous Peoples.
e) Engagement - identifying scope for further engagement of multi-stakeholders to continuously
improve the policy and ESMS
Developing the full ESMS beyond the ESP
The current draft does not make clear what the process going forward will be, including lack of
reference to the process for the development of the rest of the ESMS beyond the Environmental
and Social Policy. The GCF should set out a clear process for the initial development of the rest
of the ESMS that includes consultation and a call for inputs. Given that the GCF Board has
approved numerous projects, this process for developing the GCF’s own ESSs to replace the
interim ESSs should be undertaken during 2017.
Additionally, as noted at various points throughout these comments, currently the only part of the
ESMS that is being proposed and consulted on is the ESP. This is incomplete. The proposed ESP
consistently references the ESSs, but, as we note above, the GCF has not yet developed its own
ESSs and instead is still relying on the IFC Performance Standards as its interim ESSs, which, as
we have noted, are inadequate for the GCF. In order to ensure that the ESP and ESSs are
consistent, when the GCF does a consultation on its draft ESSs (which it should do), it should
also allow for comments and review of the ESP. Developing an ESMS should not be done in a
piecemeal manner, especially when the ESP and ESSs are so interlinked.
Further, we agree with the GCF that it should be constantly learning and improving its ESMS
76
Page77
and policies as necessary to fulfill its mandate. Thus, in evaluating its policies the GCF should
take into account what stakeholders say, including during consultations on projects and
programmes, as well as lessons learned from the complaints brought to the IRM.
The GCF should develop all the policies of the ESMS in consultation with stakeholders. To help
ensure the GCF is able to adequately engage stakeholders in this process the GCF should
disclose information about the policies in multiple languages and in a timeframe that allows for
feedback from people around the world. The policy should specify that key documents should be
disclosed as early as possible and allow for consultations on the policies that are part of the
ESMS for comments for at least 120 days preferably and, at a minimum, not less than 30
business days.
Further, the IRM is a fundamental piece in the possibility of engaging of the affected
communities. For this mechanism to be fully functional, it is crucial that information about its
existence and support for its use is provided from the very beginning of interactions between
AEs and potentially affected communities. For this to be the case, AEs should inform
communities about the existence of the IRM at the beginning of consultation processes and be
open to supporting its use. This should be clearly stated in wording of the AEs’ obligations to
disclose information and develop stakeholder engagement plans. Additionally, the AEs must
disclose the existence of entity-level and project-level grievance mechanisms.
Relationship between the ESMS and Other GCF Policies
We appreciate that the draft ESP references that there will be coherence with it and the other
GCF policies and practices (para. 11(e)) and in the chart describing responsibilities. However,
there still is room for improvement as regards the standalone Indigenous Peoples Policy that is
soon to be developed, as well as some other policies.
Improving the inclusion of future Indigenous Peoples Policy and UNDRIP/FPIC in the ESMS
and the ESP:
While paragraph 12(b) is welcome, in line with our concerns outlined above, the fact that it is
anchored to non-committing text is reason for concern. As a matter of fact, according to the
current draft, the GCF will seek to ensure that (emphasis added): “All GCF financed activities
will aim to avoid adverse impacts on indigenous peoples, promote benefits and opportunities,
foster respect for the culture, and the people and preserve the indigenous culture, knowledge and
practices, and will support the full and effective participation of IPs. Design and implementation
of activities will be consistent with the rights and commitments set forth in the UNDRIP,
including FPIC.”
“Will seek to ensure” and “aims to avoid” hint at this principle being discretionary in nature,
which, in fact, would create too many legal loopholes and be in conflict with the mandatory
character of the interim ESS standard on Indigenous Peoples. Also the use of the term “adverse”
risks creating excessive flexibility in compliance obligations, and needs to be clearly specified.
77
Page78
What is adverse? Who defines what an “adverse impact” is?
Furthermore, as it stands now, the text does not acknowledge the positive contribution of
Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge and livelihoods to adaptation and mitigation.
Additionally, the ESP correctly refers to FPIC, but while the interim ESSs are in place, the FPIC
requirements do not align with international standards, including UNDRIP, because IFC’s
Performance Standard on Indigenous Peoples is not in line with them. So there is a need to
include specific language on FPIC and what is the applicable standard and when FPIC would be
applied. This can be done in the Indigenous Peoples Policy, but, in the interim, the Adaptation
Fund’s Environmental and Social Policy14 and its list of situations where FPIC is required could
be used as a starting point. And at a later stage, once the ESP and the Indigenous Peoples Policy
are approved, specific guidance on participation of Indigenous Peoples and FPIC should be
developed and adopted. Such guidance could also be included in the planned ESSs of the GCF
that will complement the ESP.
Better language is also needed with reference to screening of potential impacts on Indigenous
Peoples (para. 48). As it stands now the text reads as follows: “screening projects for potential
impact on indigenous peoples, consistent with the objectives and requirements of the ESS
standard on IPs. Where there are potential impacts on IPs the GCF will require the entities to
prepare an indigenous peoples development plan or an IP Planning framework. Scope and
extent of plans will be proportional to the “vulnerability” of IPs and extent of impacts in
customary rights of use and access to land and natural resources, socioeconomic status, cultural
integrity, indigenous knowledge and skills and overall welfare.”
This language is also welcome, but again there are some unclear aspects. What are the categories
of impacts on Indigenous Peoples that would trigger the requirement to prepare an Indigenous
Peoples Development Plan or an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework? There is a limited list
in the second part of the paragraph, but it would be better to include an appendix listing a broader
spectrum, to be developed with the direct contribution of Indigenous Peoples. And again, as
noted above, the interim ESS standard on Indigenous Peoples (the Performance Standard 7 of the
IFC Performance Standards) does not necessarily reflect the best standard available, especially in
regard to climate change related projects and programmes. Finally there is an issue of
consistency along the project cycle, since a project that would be assessed now on the basis of
the interim ESSs might then have to be assessed, monitored, and evaluated again using the new
ESSs that are likely to be developed and adopted in the coming few years. This is why on a
precautionary basis, it would be better to resort to the “higher standard” between the GCF and
IEs.
FPIC is also referred to in paragraph 66 of the draft ESP on stakeholder engagement, which
indicates it will require a “Stakeholder engagement plan that describes the disclosure of
14
Adaptation Fund, Environmental and Social Policy, para. 18 (Nov. 2013), available at
https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Environmental-Social-Policy-approvedNov2013.pdf (stating that “The Fund shall not support projects/programmes that are inconsistent with the rights
and responsibilities set forth in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other applicable
international instruments relating to indigenous peoples.”).
78
Page79
information, meaningful consultation, and informed participation and in certain circumstances,
FPIC as required in the ESS standards.” Again, the current interim ESS standard on FPIC does
not align to international best practice. Further, in paragraph 67, it says “(...) For activities
affecting indigenous peoples, this engagement will be supported by the objectives and
requirements of the ESS standard on indigenous peoples, including with respect to free, prior
and informed consent. There is no universally accepted definition of free, prior and informed
consent.” Again, we welcome the reference to FPIC, however the specification that there is no
universally accepted definition of FPIC seems redundant, if not counterproductive, since it does
not ensure a coherent and consistent application of FPIC in GCF projects, leaving too much
space for discretion and choice between FPIC, Broad Community Support, or Free Prior
Informed Consultation. As previously stated, the interim ESS on FPIC lists a limited set of
modalities to implement FPIC. Such a list needs to be updated, for instance, by using the list
provided by the Adaptation Fund. As regards FPIC, for instance, according to the Adaptation
Fund’s Guidance Document for Implementing Entities on compliance with the Adaptation Fund
Environmental and Social Policy, the IE will have to:
1) Describe how the project/programme will be consistent with UNDRIP, and particularly
with regard to Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) during project/programme design,
implementation and expected outcomes related to the impacts affecting the communities of
indigenous peoples.
2) Describe the involvement of indigenous peoples in the design and the implementation of
the project/programme, and provide detailed outcomes of the consultation process of the
indigenous peoples.
3) Provide documented evidence of the mutually accepted process between the
project/programme and the affected communities and evidence of agreement between the
parties as the outcome of the negotiations. FPIC does not necessarily require unanimity
and may be achieved even when individuals or groups within the community explicitly
disagree.
4) Provide a summary of any reports, specific cases, or complaints that have been made
with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples by the Special Rapporteur and that are
relevant to the project/programme. This summary should include information on
subsequent actions, and how the project/programme will specifically ensure consistency
with the UNDRIP on the issues that were raised.”15
Coherence with the Gender Policy (and Related Gender Action Plan)
As indicated earlier in this submission, coherence of the ESP with the Gender Policy requires a
full, separate consideration of gender risks and impacts beyond those relating only to social
inclusion more broadly and requires that a separate gender impact and risk analysis feed into a
project/programme specific gender action plan as required by the GCF Secretariat. This means
15
Adaptation Fund, Guidance document for Implementing Entities on compliance with the Adaptation Fund
Environmental and Social Policy 12 (revised June 2016), available at https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/ESP-Guidance_Revised-in-June-2016_Guidance-document-for-ImplementingEntities-on-compliance-with-the-Adaptation-Fund-Environmental-and-Social-Policy.pdf.
79
Page80
specifically that being in compliance with the ESMS and the ESP requires the AE to consider
gender dimensions more broadly and articulate beyond a “do no harm” approach to a proactive
approach that supports gender equality and women’s empowerment. This also has to carry
through the ESP to other principles and requirements, such as in the engagement with Indigenous
Peoples, in stakeholder engagement and disclosure, in compliance with applicable laws, and with
labour and working conditions, in all of which gender equality considerations play an important
role.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposals. Please see the attached Annex for the
specific textual edits and suggestions on the document itself. We welcome any questions you
have, and we would be happy to discuss this submission with you further.
Submitted by:
CSO Contacts for this Submission (alphabetically)
Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA)
Andrea Rodriguez Osuna (GCF Contact Point)
Senior Attorney, Climate Change Program
(52-55) 5212-0141
[email protected]
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Erika Lennon (GCF Contact Point)
Senior Attorney, Climate & Energy Program
+1-202-742-5856
[email protected]
The following civil society organizations (CSOs) have provided input for this submission in
addition to AIDA and CIEL (in alphabetical order):
Friends of the Earth US
Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America
Forest Peoples Programme
Hivos International
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
Practical Action UK
Rainforest Foundation Norway
Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education) (Philippines)
Trade Union Advisory Council
Ulu Foundation
Additionally, the following civil society organizations (CSOs) have signed on to this submission (in
alphabetical order):
African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests (Africa/Cameroon)
Alianza Hondureña ante el Cambio Climático (Honduras)
Alliance for Rural Democracy (Liberia)
80
Page81
Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development
Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia)
Both ENDS (The Netherlands)
Campaign for Climate Justice Nepal (CCJN) (Nepal)
Center of Indigenous Cultures of Peru (CHIRAPAQ) (Peru)
Centre for 21st Century Issues (c21st) (Nigeria)
Centre of Research and Development in Upland Area (CERDA) (Vietnam)
Centro para la autonomía y desarrollo de los pueblos indígenas (CADPI) (Nicaragua)
Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR) (Peru)
Federación por la Autodeterminación de los Pueblos Indígenas (FAPI) (Paraguay)
Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustenables (FUNDEPS) (Argentina)
Gender Action
Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI) (Nigeria)
Germanwatch (Germany)
Global Forest Coalition
Green Advocates International (Liberia)
International Rivers
International Trade Union Confederation
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (Denmark)
Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre (Nigeria)
Latinamerican Climate Finance Group (Latin America)
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Natural Resources Women Platform (Liberia)
Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Malaysia)
Sierra Club (U.S.)
Social Justice Connection (Canada)
Solidaritas Perempuan – Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights (Indonesia)
Third World Network (Malaysia)
Transparency International Korea
81
Page82
ANNEX
This Annex contains the specific textual edits and suggestions on the draft ESP itself.
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 Environmental and social management system Table of Contents I.
Background 1
II.
Stakeholder inputs for the GCF environmental and social management system 1 III.
Environmental and social management system 1 3.1 Elements of an environmental and social management system 2 3.2 Coherence with best practices 4 IV.
Links with existing policies and frameworks 4 V.
Environmental and social policy 6 5.1 Overview of an environmental and social policy 6 5.2 Description of the contents of an environmental and social policy 6 Annex I: Environmental and social policy 8 82
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 Background 2.
In its seventh meeting, the Board requested the Secretariat to develop an environmental and social management system (ESMS) for the GCF. An ESMS is a set of management processes and procedures that would allow the GCF to identify, analyse, avoid, control and minimize the potential adverse environmental and social impacts of its activities and maximize the potential environmental and social benefits in a consistent way, and to improve the environmental and social performance of the GCF and its activities over time. An outline of the ESMS as contained in the decision describes its key elements, which include the environmental and social policy, the interim environmental and social safeguards (ESS) standards and a suite of management processes and procedures, including organizational capacity and functions. 3.
This document summarizes the progress made in developing the ESMS of the GCF, describes the architecture of the envisaged ESMS and presents the proposed environmental and social policy. Stakeholder inputs for the GCF environmental and social management system On 30 November 2015, the Secretariat, through a call for public inputs, invited organizations and all entities involved and interested in climate change mitigation and adaptation, GCF interim ESS standards and related topics, to provide inputs for the development of the ESMS of the GCF. Inputs to the following elements, as per the ESMS outline adopted in decision B.07/02, were requested: 4.
(a)
Environmental and social policy; (b)
Environmental and social assessment and management procedures and processes, including the review of institutional capacities of entities during the accreditation process and the categorization of funding proposals by accredited entities; (c)
Monitoring and reporting (including the GCF monitoring and accountability framework for accredited entities adopted in decision B.11/10); and (d)
Organizational capacities and functions, including roles and responsibilities within the GCF and between various entities. The inputs received have informed the formulation of the proposed environmental and social policy, as well as process for further developing the ESMS. Further inputs on the scope of the ESMS and the draft environmental and social policy were provided by the AC and AP in October 2016. 5.
Environmental and social management system An ESMS is an overarching framework for achieving improvements in environmental and social outcomes while addressing any unintended adverse impacts in all the GCF‐financed activities. As a broader operational framework, it provides an opportunity for the GCF to incorporate environmental and social considerations into its decision‐making and operations in ways that not only include safeguard measures of ‘do no harm,' but also identify opportunities to ‘do good’ and improve environmental and social outcomes. An ESMS allows the GCF to integrate environmental and social considerations across various levels of decision‐making and operations in a systematic, coherent and transparent manner and at three entry points: 6.
(a)
At the facilities and operations level, in relation to the organization’s operations, such 1 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 as environmental and social management practices, institutional capacities and stakeholder involvement; (b)
At the project and programme level, through an environmental and social risk assessment and management framework tailored to the nature and scale of the activities and the magnitude of the environmental and social risks and impacts; and (c)
At the policy level, by establishing the process for integrating sustainability considerations into the strategies and decisions of the organization. 1.1
Elements of an environmental and social management system The structure of an ESMS should reflect the mandate of an institution, how it is organized and operated and how it intends to fulfil this mandate. In general, ESMS and the safeguards frameworks are structured with the following elements: (a)
An environmental and social policy that sets out the purpose and objectives, scope, principles, roles and responsibilities and general requirements to effectively manage environmental and social risks and impacts and improve performance. The policy presents the commitments of the institution and articulates the principles to which the institutions will hold itself accountable; (b)
Related policies and practices that represent the existing rules and governance frameworks of institutions. The policies and practices are expected to complement and support the ESMS. These typically include information disclosure, grievance redress mechanism, the gender policy and action plan, and supervision, monitoring and reporting policies. For the GCF, these would involve those cited in section IV of this document, as well as those that may still be developed that are relevant to the design and implementation of the ESMS, including a new indigenous peoples policy; (c)
An environmental and social management system manual consisting of management processes, procedures and guidance, which assists an organization in implementing the environmental and social policy and the application of the ESS. The ESMS also describes the organization’s institutional and governance arrangements (e.g. roles and functions) and how an organization will conduct its due diligence, screening, monitoring and reporting. For the GCF, the processes, procedures and guidance will be aligned with the contents of the ESMS as indicated in the decision by the Board; (d)
Environmental and social safeguards that identify the outcomes and operational requirements applicable to GCF‐financed activities, including the technology choices of activities.1 For the GCF, this currently refers to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which were adopted by the GCF Board as interim ESS standards.2 In paragraph (d) of the same decision, the Board also decided that the process of developing the GCF own ESS standards, which would build on evolving best practices, should be completed within three years of the GCF becoming operational, and with inclusive multi‐ stakeholder participation. It is therefore expected that this process will begin in the near future;3 (e)
takeholder engagement delivering meaningful and active participation of GCF stakeholders, including national designated authorities and focal points and civil society organizations. Such participation ensures that projects are designed, developed implemented, monitored, and reported on in a manner that recognizes and takes into account the views of the various stakeholders and affected communities, including in particular women and indigenous peoples, and including cooperative technology assessment. 2 Commented [LS9]: Recommended to have explicit mention of these two relevant policies Deleted: as Deleted: pertains Deleted: ,
Deleted: the GCF
Deleted: S
Commented [LS10]: The suggested edits reflect that language is needed that stronger reflects the entire project cycle, including the earliest design and planning stages. Deleted: and planned and Deleted: vulnerable
Commented [EL 11]: All stakeholders should be supported to be sufficiently informed and have sufficient capacities to jointly assess and decide on climate technology options, and to work together to analyse the most suitable climate technology options for adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage needs. Given the potential environmental and social impacts, this will ensure that environmental and social concerns are adequately addressed from all stakeholder perspectives when implementing climate technologies, which will be fundamental aspects of GCF funded projects. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 1 GCF‐financed activities may refer to GCF projects, programmes and readiness activities. 2 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (c). 3 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (d) (f)
(g)
his also includes accountability mechanisms such as the GCF’s own Independent Redress Mechanism and the grievance mechanisms of accredited entities, which function as fora for people who may be affected by GCF projects to seek redress; Deleted: T
Guidance and tools containing technical and administrative references for entities in implementing the environmental and social policy and ESS standards. In adopting the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability as the GCF interim ESS standards, the Board also adopted the IFC Performance Standards Guidance Notes as well as the World Bank Group’s Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines.4 This element also includes normative references to stakeholder engagement, including consultations, country coordination, obtaining necessary consent from indigenous peoples, and support and acceptability from local communities, and from vulnerable and socially excluded populations, including women. Best practice options for country coordination and multi‐
stakeholder engagement in developing national strategic frameworks and funding proposals are contained in annex XIV to decision B.08/10; and Deleted: a
Deleted: i
Deleted: um
Commented [HT12]: Reference to the IRM should be a standalone element of the ESMS rather than seemingly subsumed under (e) ‘stakeholder engagement’ as it is at the moment. The IRM is not about engagement, really, it is about accountability for financing choices. Deleted: that do not comply with the ESMS or ESS Deleted: on
GCF staff, resources and organizational structure to support the effective implementation of the ESMS. Staff will have the necessary expertise in all areas covered by the ESS standards of the GCF to carry out their responsibilities. The envisaged ESMS for the GCF brings these elements together and into a coherent system of managing the environmental and social aspects of institutions and their operations. It also brings together three key interacting sets of actors: (a)
The GCF itself, ensuring that the proposed policy is implemented, and its objectives reached; (b)
Accredited entities, applying the GCF interim ESS standards in GCF‐financed activities; and (c)
Stakeholders, including national designated authorities, and focal points, civil society and communities, who provide feedback on project/programme operations throughout the project/programme cycle and help to shape outcomes and policy discourses. The structure of the ESMS of the GCF takes note of the interrelationships among the various elements and institutions and ensures that the roles and responsibilities of the institutions are consistent with their mandates and the business model of the GCF. For the GCF, the proposed architecture of the ESMS is illustrated in the figure below. 4 IFC. 2012. International Finance Corporation’s Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Deleted: GCF
3 Commented [EL 13]: The subsequent list is not just of institutions so this should be changed. Deleted: institutions
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 Sustainability. Available at <http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/e280ef804a0256609709ffd1a5d13d27/GN_English_2012_Full‐ Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES>; and IFC. 2007. Environmental, Health, and Safety General Guidelines. Available at <http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/554e8d80488658e4b76af76a6515bb18/Final%2B‐ %2BGeneral%2BEHS%2BGuidelines.pdf?MOD=AJPERES>. The World Bank Group’s guidelines are undergoing updating. Elements of the Green Climate Fund environmental and social management system Abbreviations: EHS = environmental, health and safety, ESMS = environmental and social management system, ESS = environmental and social safeguards, IFC = International Finance Corporation, NDAs = national designated authorities, PS = Performance Standards, WBG = World Bank Group. 1.2
Coherence with best practices The outline of the proposed ESMS of the GCF draws coherence in terms of structure with the safeguards frameworks of other international finance institutions, multilateral development banks (MDBs), UN agencies, and other relevant multilateral institutions. The elements of the ESMS will be organized to reflect the best practices in safeguards and sustainability frameworks of MDBs, UN agencies, and other relevant multilateral institutions, which typically consist of an overall policy, set of standards, management procedures and processes, guidance and references, and methods of disclosure, alongside an accessible and independent grievance mechanism. In addition to the coherence of the ESMS with the safeguards and sustainability frameworks, the elements of the ESMS will also be consistent with the continual improvement process and specifications of internationally accepted environmental and quality management systems. Completing the architecture of the ESMS of the GCF will entail adopting an overarching environmental and social policy and developing a manual for the ESMS, while maintaining flexibility to allow for GCF operational policy changes and additions such as an indigenous peoples policy, and the development of the GCF’s 4 Deleted: and
Commented [LS14]: Concern about only allowing reference to MDBs, which are generally much weaker than ESMS of UN agencies with respect to human rights integrations/obligations. We should not allow for MDB standards to become de facto standards for the GCF as a UN organization under the UNFCCC. Commented [KO15]: i.e. things like GAFSP, Global Partnership for Education, others Deleted: and Deleted: The ESMS elements will correspond to the continual improvement model of Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act found in management system standards such as the ISO 14001 and the European Union Eco‐Management and Audit Scheme.
Deleted: Most of the elements of what is envisaged as the ESMS of the GCF are already established vis‐à‐vis the existing relevant policies and frameworks, the GCF interim ESS standards, and the technical and normative references such as the IFC guidance notes and practices on stakeholder engagement.¶
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 own environmental and social safeguards (ESS). Commented [EL 19]: The GCF should develop its own ESSs as the interim ESSs are not suitable for permanent adoption by the GCF. Links with existing policies and frameworks Deleted: s
Deleted: For an ESMS to be effective as a broad operational framework, it must be able to harness the resources and existing policies of an organization. For GCF, the elements of an ESMS will need to be linked and implemented in a manner consistent with the following existing governance framework and policies, which are described in the context of the GCF interim ESS standards and ESMS requirements: (a)
Accreditation framework. In line with the initial guiding framework for the GCF accreditation process,5 the accreditation considers the capacity, competency and track record of entities in applying the GCF interim ESS standards as reflected in their ESMS. The assessment underpins the fit‐for‐purpose approach to accreditation and the scaled risk‐ based deployment of the GCF interim ESS standards in GCF‐financed activities;6 (b)
(c)
Economic and financial feasibility analysis. The project’s economic and financial feasibility analyses consider the expenses and savings from the environmental and social risk mitigation and management processes. It does so in a timely and integrated manner; (d)
Monitoring and accountability framework. The framework provides the monitoring and reporting requirements both at the accredited entities’ institutional level (accreditation) and for GCF‐financed activities.8 The framework covers the compliance performance and reporting requirements for the ESS standards of the GCF, which will be consistent with the requirements of the ESMS; (e)
Evaluation policy and Independent Evaluation Unit. The Independent Evaluation Unit will conduct periodic independent evaluations of the Fund’s performance in order to provide an objective assessment of the Fund’s results and the effectiveness and efficiency of its activities. Through the GCF evaluation policy and the Independent Evaluation Unit, evaluations may be undertaken regarding the effectiveness of implementing the GCF interim ESS standards; (f)
Information disclosure policy. The policy supports the commitments of the GCF to proactive disclosure, transparency and accountability in all aspects of its operations and to strengthening public trust.9 The policy promotes effective and meaningful stakeholder engagement by making available to the affected communities and the public timely, understandable, relevant and accessible information on the environmental and social risks and impacts as well as the benefits of GCF‐financed activities (e.g. information related to environmental and social reports). There are varying advance disclosure timelines depending on the project’s environmental and social risk category; for example, at least 120 days in advance of the Board’s decision, whichever is earlier, for category A/intermediation 1 activities and at least 30 days for category B/intermediation 2. The policy also stipulates that the reports be available in both English and the local language; (g)
Results management framework. The results of the adaptation and mitigation actions at the strategic, programme and project levels are considered as potential co‐effects from the implementation of the ESMS and the application of the GCF interim ESS standards. In managing risks and adverse impacts, the environmental and social outcomes of activities, measured through quantitative and qualitative information in the performance measurement framework, enhance the achievement of results; Risk management framework, guidelines and register. The initial risk management framework, and subsequent risk and investment guidelines for the public and private 5 Deleted: s
Deleted: Deleted:
7
Commented [KO20]: Hasn’t the board clarified that the 120 day disclosure period applies to GCF board decision making?
Deleted: accredited entity’s or DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 sectors and the detailed risk register10 apply to the operations of the GCF.11, 12 The risk register identifies risk categories that are triggered by a failure in the application and practice of the GCF interim ESS standards by the executing entities or a failure of oversight by accredited entities of executing entities on conformance to the GCF interim ESS standards, among other GCF standards. The risk register also acknowledges the role of the GCF interim ESS standards in mitigating risks particularly related to the failure of entities to comply with applicable national and international laws; Commented [JC21]: Language should be clarified to ensure that it also captures all with environmental risks posed by project implementation? E.g. use of untested geoengineering technologies?
5 Decision B.07/02, annex I 6 Decision B.08/03, annex I 7 Decisions B.07/04 and B.08/08 8 Decision B.11/10. 9 Decision B.12/35. 10 Decision B.12/34. 11 Decision B.13/36, annexes VIII and IX. 12 Decision B.12/34. (h)
(i)
(j)
Independent Redress Mechanism. This independent mechanism was mandated under the Governing Instrument for the GCF to provide redress for the grievances and complaints of communities and people.13 The mechanism provides the GCF with a process for receiving complaints and issues from project and programme affected persons and/or communities, and processes to respond and provide redress ; and Gender policy and action plan. The gender policy and action plan details the commitment of the GCF to efficiently contribute to gender equality and ultimately bring about greater and more sustainable climate change results, outcomes and impacts.14 The GCF gender policy and action plan complements the requirements of the GCF interim ESS standards, particularly in enhancing social access to development benefits and addressing potential social risks and impacts related to gender responsiveness, equitable benefit‐sharing and inclusiveness. The gender policy and action plan should be applied in conjunction with the ESS standards and its requirements be mainstreamed in the GCF environmental and social policy (ESP). Indigenous peoples policy. The indigenous peoples policy will provide an overarching statement of the GCF’s approach to financing activities implemented by, or impacting on, indigenous peoples. The policy is expected to be adopted in 2017/2018 and will form part of the ESMS once it is in place. Environmental and social policy 1.3
Overview of an environmental and social policy An essential element of an ESMS is the environmental and social policy which elaborates the commitments of an institution to integrate environmental and social issues into its functions and outcomes, and establishes the responsibilities and requirements to deliver on these commitments. Specifically, the proposed policy of the GCF aims to: (a)
Provide a coherent, consistent, accountable and transparent approach that will improve outcomes, manage risks and impacts, and enhance access to benefits from all GCF‐
financed activities; (b)
Support the decision‐making of the GCF by ensuring that environmental and social 6 Deleted: on environmental and social impacts that result from an action or an omission to follow GCF operational policies and procedures
Deleted: regarding the GCF interim ESS standards
Commented [LS22]: The ESMS treats the Gender Policy and Action Plan too much as an add‐on, but does not reflect sufficiently on the mainstreaming of gender equality considerations in the ESP and ESMS. Thus, in the following, some suggestions are provided how language on gender policy integration in the ESP could be improved. Commented [LS23]: With the Board decision at BM15 to develop an Indigenous Peoples policy, the ESP going forward needs to formally acknowledge its role for both the ESP and its integration into the ESMS. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 considerations are mainstreamed into all of its functions and mandates (e.g. accreditation of entities, choice of climate technologies, readiness and preparatory support and the general project/programme cycle of approval, implementation and review); (c)
Underpin the development of an ESMS that integrates a systematic approach to assessing, managing and monitoring the environmental and social performance of the operations of the GCF and those of the accredited entities and other development institutions with which it is associated; and (d)
Define the responsibilities and processes to deliver on the commitments of the GCF. 1.4
Description of the contents of an environmental and social policy The organization and contents of the proposed policy closely follow similar policies and reflect the lessons learned and experiences of institutions in implementing safeguards and mainstreaming sustainability actions: (a)
Policy objectives. This section of the proposed policy identifies what the policy intends to achieve and aligns the objectives with the institutional mandate of the GCF, as well as the objectives of other relevant policies and governance frameworks such as those discussed in section IV of this document. It also highlights the policy as an overarching framework that ensures institutional consistency and coherence in managing risks and impacts by linking to the other relevant policies and practices of the GCF; 13 Decision B.06/09, annex V. 14 Decision B.09/11, annexes XIII and XIV. (b)
Scope of application. The proposed policy clarifies the applicability of the commitments outlined in it, including its mandatory application by all accredited entities and implementing and executing institutions ; (c)
Guiding principles. This section describes the principles adhered to by the GCF that will guide it in achieving the objectives of the proposed policy. These principles include those described in the Governing Instrument, the environmental and social objectives and those elaborated in the GCF interim ESS standards, the indigenous peoples policy, the gender policy and action plan, and the other relevant policies of the GCF; (d)
Overview of roles and responsibilities. This section describes the roles, responsibilities and the institutional arrangements between the GCF, accredited entities and other stakeholders in achieving the objectives and requirements of the proposed policy. Where additional parties will be involved, their respective roles and responsibilities will be described in the ESMS manual to be developed in alignment with the policy and the GCF interim ESS standards; (e)
General requirements for environmental and social risk management. This section describes the requirements of the proposed policy and how the GCF intends to achieve the objectives of the policy. Given the business model and the project cycle of the GCF, the identified requirements include those associated with accreditation, screening, due diligence, assessment, management planning, monitoring and reporting. These processes are expected to contribute to achieving the objectives of the proposed environmental and social policy; (f)
Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress mechanism. The 7 Deleted: This
Commented [Aa24]: It needs to be made clear here that this policy is mandatory and should be applied by all entities and institutions regardless of their existing policies on this matter. Deleted: Deleted: the policy
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 requirements for ensuring transparent, inclusive, consistent and meaningful participation of stakeholders are discussed in this section. These requirements are linked to the GCF information disclosure policy, as well as the options and best practices for multi‐
stakeholder engagement, country ownership, and the independent Redress Mechanism; (g)
Implementation and resource provision. This section describes the implementation of the policy through the ESMS and the GCF resources to support the implementation; and (h)
Effective date and review. This section defines the effective date and the review of the policy. Annex I: Environmental and social policy I.
1.
Introduction and context The GCF is an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with the role of contributing to international actions to combat climate change through long‐term climate financing for developing countries through country‐driven climate actions under the Convention. The Governing Instrument for the GCF mandates the GCF to promote the paradigm shift towards low‐
emission and climate‐resilient development pathways in the context of sustainable development. 2.
The global community is confronted with the task of addressing climate change while at the same time ensuring the well‐being of people and ecosystems. To support this, the GCF strives to maximize the impact of its funding for mitigation and adaptation, and seeks a 50/50 balance between the two, while promoting environmental, social, economic and development co‐benefits and taking a gender‐sensitive approach. Taking into consideration the sustainable development context in its mandate, the GCF ensures that adequate safeguards are integrated into its operations and access to benefits from supported activities are enhanced. This integration of safeguards translates into an opportunity for the GCF to support projects and undertake activities that, at a minimum, do not harm, and preferably positively benefit, the already fragile environment and vulnerable people while maximizing development outcomes in a gender‐responsive way. 3.
The GCF is establishing an environmental and social management system (ESMS) to ensure that mechanisms are in place to assist the GCF in incorporating environmental and social considerations into the core of its decision‐making and ensuring projects and programmes do no harm while working towards the goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation. An ESMS is a collection of policies, standards, management processes, and procedures that allow an organization to examine, control, eliminate, and reduce the adverse environmental and social impacts of its activities in a consistent way and to improve outcomes over time. These elements of the ESMS will be integrated with other business processes and governance frameworks and will be utilized across the organization of the GCF. The ESMS will be an evolving management system that will continue to mature as the GCF’s operations develop. The figure below illustrates how the various ESMS parts relate to and support each other. 4.
The GCF adopted the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability as its interim environmental and social safeguards (ESS) standards, which is an element of the ESMS.16 The ESS standards – the interim standards as well as the GCF’s own ESS standards which are still to be developed ‐‐ identify the key environmental and social outcomes and their technical and procedural requirements for GCF‐
financed activities, as well as environmental and social issues needing particular attention.17 8 Deleted: mobilizing
Deleted: for
Commented [WU25]: This ESMS policy would be better if it had the GCF’s proposed ESSs rather than consistently referring to the interim ESSs as it is difficult to fully understand the entire ESMS and how the ESP and ESSs will work together when the GCF’s ESSs are missing. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 5.
The GCF intends to establish an overarching environmental and social policy that organizes the existing policies and practices of the GCF into a coherent framework. The policy articulates the environmental and social standards that must be met into the wide‐ranging actions to address climate change that are financed by the GCF. This document presents the proposed environmental and social policy of the GCF. Deleted: integration of Deleted: considerations 16 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (c). 17 Until the GCF develops and adopts its own ESS standards, the ESS standards referred to in this document are the interim ESS standards of the GCF. Elements of the Green Climate Fund environmental and social management system Abbreviations: EHS = environmental, health and safety, ESMS = environmental and social management system, ESS = environmental and social safeguards, IFC = International Finance Corporation, NDAs = national designated authorities, PS = Performance Standards, WBG = World Bank Group. II.
Environmental and social policy 2.1
Policy objectives 6.
(a)
The GCF will ensure that, in carrying out its mandate of promoting in the context of sustainable development the paradigm shift towards low‐emission and climate‐resilient development pathways by providing support for climate actions in developing countries, it will effectively and equitably manage environmental and social risks and impacts and improve outcomes performance. The policy presents the commitments of the GCF and articulates the standards to which the GCF will hold itself accountable. Through this policy, the GCF will ensure that all its activities and the projects and programmes that it supports will seek to: Avoid, and [where avoidance is impossible,] [where all efforts at 9 Deleted: ,
Commented [KO26]: This mandate is wrong. Its mandate isn’t to mobilize resources. Deleted: mobilizing resources to
Commented [EL 27]: The ESP articulates the standards that the GCF will hold itself accountable to, not merely principles. Deleted: principles DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 avoidance are exhausted,] mitigate the adverse impacts on people and the environment; (b)
Provide equitable access to development benefits; (c)
Undertake collaborative technology assessments to ensure unknown impacts of emerging technologies, including potential trans‐boundary impacts, are thoroughly considered; and Give due consideration to vulnerable populations, including ensuring the (d)
Commented [KO28]: What does ‘due consideration’ mean? free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples, and ensuring that priority is given to the participation of communities and other groups of people potentially affected by GCF activities, including ensuring appropriate spaces for women, children, the elderly, disabled persons, and other traditionally marginalized groups. 7.
(h)
The policy articulates the commitments of the GCF with regard to sustainable development, elaborates its intention to integrate environmental and social issues into its processes and activities, and sets the roles and responsibilities of the GCF and its partners, including the requirement to deliver on these commitments. The policy defines how the GCF will manage the environmental and social risks and impacts and support the overall sustainability of its operations and investments in line with obligations under national law, international law, and other relevant standards. Specifically, the policy aims to: Provide the basis for a coherent, consistent and transparent management system founded on the principles of sustainable development, for improving performance and outcomes, managing risks and impacts, and enhancing equitable access to benefits for project/programme‐affected people in all GCF‐ financed activities; (i)
Support the decision‐making of the GCF, particularly regarding the accreditation of entities, the provision of support, and the design, development, approval, implementation, and review of GCF‐financed activities; (j)
Underpin the development of an ESMS that integrates a systematic approach to integrating environmental and social performance and risk into the operations of the GCF and those of the accredited entities and other institutions with which it is associated; and (k)
Define the responsibilities and processes to deliver on the commitments of the GCF. 2.2
Scope of application 8.
(a)
The policy will apply to all prospective and approved GCF‐financed activities and to both public and private sector entities. Activities supported by the GCF include projects and programmes, and other activities, and thus include a wide range of investment and readiness and preparatory support activities. The financial instruments may vary and may include grants, concessional loans, guarantees and equity investments. The policy applies to three engagement areas: At the strategic and institutional level, the policy responds to the mandate expressed in the Governing Instrument and links to other operational strategies and policies, 10 Deleted: managing
Deleted: development DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 including internal structures and governance frameworks of the GCF; (b)
At the implementing entities and financial intermediaries level, the policy sets out the requirements for accredited entities working with the GCF to establish and maintain robust, systematic, accountable, inclusive, gender‐responsive, participatory, and transparent systems to manage the risks and impacts arising from GCF‐ financed activities in a manner consistent with the policy and the ESS standards adopted by the GCF. These requirements complement the accreditation framework and will also be considered in the accreditation and re‐accreditation processes; and (c)
At the project and programme level, the policy establishes the requirements for environmental and social risk assessment and management aligned to the ESS standards of the GCF ensuring that due diligence is undertaken in line with applicable obligations under national and international law for all GCF‐financed activities, including at the sub‐project level, regardless of whether these are solely supported by the GCF or co‐financed by other institutions. 9.
10.
Where activities are co‐financed by other institutions, the GCF will encourage accredited entities and the co‐financing institutions to explore a common approach for the assessment and management of the environmental and social risks and impacts. The GCF can agree to a common approach, provided that such a common approach is consistent with this policy and the ESS standards of the GCF and takes the GCF gender policy and action plan into account and will achieve the same, or higher, level of environmental and social protection as this policy. Additional country requirements on environmental and social safeguards and sustainability may be integrated with the requirements of the GCF provided that the entities establish the consistency of the additional requirements with this policy and the ESS standards of the GCF. III.
11.
Commented [LS29]: The common approach should also apply to the gender policy and its requirements such as the initial social and gender impact and risk analysis Commented [EL 30]: Explicit mention should include the gender policy as that is part of the overall ESMS and the common approach minimum is the level of protection of it. Commented [LS31]: More clarity is needed on how is this equivalency then going to be achieved/certified? Does the Secretariat check this? Guiding principles TTo achieve the objectives of this policy, the GCF will ensure the following requirements are met: (a)
Deleted: development organizations
Integration of environmental and social sustainability. Sustainable development underpins the mandate and objectives of the GCF and hence is a key consideration in the policies and governance frameworks of the GCF. Within the parameters of the ESMS, this is translated into the operations of the GCF such as accreditation and reaccreditation, investment criteria, ESS application, monitoring and accountability, information disclosure, gender mainstreaming and the Independent Redress Mechanism; 18 (b)
Scaled risk‐based approach. The ESS will be implemented using a risk‐based approach rather than a simple one‐size‐fits‐all approach. This will ensure that environmental and social requirements and processes are commensurate with their level of risk and coupled with a focus on the relevant ESS standards; (c)
Fit‐for‐purpose approach.19 In the context of the GCF accreditation process, the approach recognizes the roles of a wide range of entities, which can differ according to the scope and nature of their activities, and their capacity to manage environmental and social risks and impacts. The GCF enables entities to access various levels of support differentiated by their capacities in meeting fiduciary and environmental and social safeguards requirements; (d)
Mitigation hierarchy. The GCF adheres to the mitigation hierarchy as an overall principle to managing environmental risks and impacts. The mitigation hierarchy 11 Deleted: he guiding principles setting out how Commented [EL 32]: Reference to principles is too weak and the GCF should be required to do the following things, elaborated under para. 11. Deleted: achieve the objectives of the policy will be as follows
Deleted: i
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 aims to: (i)
Anticipate and avoid adverse risks and impacts on people and the environment; (ii)
Ensure that, where avoidance is not possible, adverse risks and impacts are minimized through abatement measures; (iii)
Mitigate through measures to remedy adverse impacts; and Where avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are not available or sufficient, design and implement measures that compensate for any residual risks and impacts or provide restoration; Where potential risks and impacts are identified that cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then the GCF will not approve the project or programme. Deleted: A
(iv)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Coherence and links with relevant policies and practices of the GCF.20 The GCF environmental and social policy is an overarching policy that will be consistent and linked with the relevant policies and practices of the GCF such as those related to accreditation, monitoring and accountability, the Independent Redress Mechanism, information disclosure, indigenous peoples, gender policy and action plan, and others as appropriate; Continuous improvement and best practices.21 The ESMS of the GCF will be continuously updated in a transparent and participatory manner to sustain its relevance and responsiveness to the prevailing organizational, social, economic and political conditions. It will also be consistently in compliance with international best practices and applicable standards and reflect the experiences and lessons learned by other relevant institutions as well as on its own; Deleted: or offset Deleted: Deleted: i
Deleted: aligned Stakeholder engagement and disclosure. The ESMS of the GCF ensures that there is broad multi‐ stakeholder support and participation in planning, developing, and implementing GCF ‐financed activities throughout the project/programme cycle, including measures to manage and mitigate environmental and social risks and impacts. The process to build 18 Decision B.07/02, annex I. 19 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (j), and decision B.08/02, paragraph (c). 20 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (n), and annex VI. 21 Decision B.07/02, paragraph (n), and annex VI, requiring the ESMS of the GCF to be consistent with accepted evolving international systems for quality and environmental management systems support will be inclusive, gender‐responsive, culturally appropriate and supported by the disclosure of relevant information;22 (h)
(i)
(j)
Gender‐sensitive approach.23 The GCF will contribute to gender equality and inclusiveness by ensuring that the methods and tools to promote gender equality and reduce gender disparities in climate actions are established and implemented. The gender policy adopted by the GCF complements the intent for social inclusion of the environmental and social policy and the ESS standards; Knowledge‐sharing to improve performance. The GCF will lead and promote the sharing of lessons learned and experiences in applying ESS and in implementing ESMS among entities and stakeholders and integrate with the capacity development, communications and outreach activities of the GCF and the entities; Harmonized application of environmental and social requirements. The GCF will promote the harmonized application of environmental and social requirements with co‐financing institutions to reduce multiple and overlapping requirements for entities, through the 12 Commented [LS34]: The gender policy applies to the ESP implementation beyond “the intent for social inclusion.” Deletion suggested. Deleted: , where applicable,
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 development of common approaches that ensure the GCF standards are met and achieve the same or greater level of environmental and social protection; (k)
Deleted: maintain Compliance with applicable laws. The GCF will not support projects that do not comply with applicable laws, including national laws and obligations of the country or countries directly applicable to the project or programme under relevant international treaties and agreements; and (l)
12.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Consistency with UNFCCC REDD‐plus safeguards. On issues related to REDD‐plus, the environmental and social requirements of the GCF will be consistent with all relevant REDD‐plus decisions under the UNFCCC and existing highest standards for the operationalization of these decisions. The GCF will ensure that GCF‐financed activities comply with these requirements, as well as the following environmental and social safeguards: Labour and working conditions. All activities financed by the GCF will promote decent work, fair treatment, non‐discrimination and equal opportunities for workers and will meet the requirements of the core labour standards as set by the International Labour Organization; Indigenous peoples. All GCF‐financed activities will avoid adverse impacts on indigenous peoples, promote benefits and opportunities, respect and preserve indigenous cultures, knowledge systems, and traditional livelihoods and practices, and will support the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and recognize their positive contribution to GCF goals throughout the entire project/programme cycle. The design and implementation of activities will respect the rights and commitments set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent; Human rights. All activities supported by the GCF will be designed and implemented in a manner that will promote, protect, and fulfil universal respect for, and observance of, human rights for all. Actions to support human rights will be consistent with the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. The GCF will not support projects/programmes that negatively impact human rights. The GCF will require entities to ensure that the supported activities do not cause, promote, contribute to, perpetuate or exacerbate human rights violations; and 13 Deleted: The environmental and social requirements of the GCF will be consistent with the guidance and safeguards for policy approaches and positive incentives on issues related to 24
REDD‐plus. Deleted: In addition to the guiding principles for Deleted: implementing the policy, the GCF adheres to the underlying principles and objectives of its ESS standards. These embody the generally accepted principles related to assessing and managing environmental risks and impacts. Deleted: seek to Deleted: conform to Deleted: principles
Deleted: as may be relevant, Deleted: ose pertaining to
Deleted: issues requiring particular attention, as follows
Deleted: aim to Deleted: foster Deleted: for the culture and the people, and preserve the Deleted: be consistent with
Deleted: principle Deleted: of Deleted: I
Deleted: H
Deleted: R
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 22 Decision B.12/35, paragraph (a), annex XXIX. 23 Decision B.09/11, paragraphs (a–b). Deleted: 24UNFCCCdecision1/CP.16.¶
(d)
Biodiversity. All GCF‐financed activities will be designed and implemented in a manner that will protect critical habitats, biodiversity and ecosystems. The GCF will not support projects/programmes that negatively impact critical habitats. Compensation, “offsets,” should be used to mitigate adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystemscritical habitats in rare cases and only as a last resort when: (i)
All other technically feasible avoidance, minimization and restoration measures have been considered; (ii)
They are supported by rigorous, sound science; (iii)
Developed in consultation with independent experts; and (iv)
Long‐term management and financing is secure. Deleted: services
Deleted: or Deleted: Commented [WU37]: The ESP should make it clear that the GCF will not support projects or programmes that impact critical habitat. IV.
Overview of roles and responsibilities25 4.1
Overview of the roles and responsibilities of the GCF 13.
14.
Deleted: Where capacities exist,
Deleted: t
Deleted: On the other hand, where the capacities are constrained, Managing environmental and social risks throughout the project/programme cycle. Within the parameters of GCF‐financed activities, the GCF is responsible for: Requiring the accredited entities to implement their ESMS, which should be equivalent to, or better than the GCF’s ESMS, thereby providing for a systematic, consistent and transparent management of risks and impacts of GCF‐financed activities. Where gaps or weaknesses exist between the ESMS of an entity and the GCF’s ESMS, the GCF will require that these be addressed by the entities in a manner and time amenable to the GCF and the entities so that an effective ESMS is in place before GCF‐financed activities are implemented; Commented [Aa38]: In implementing their own ESMS, it needs to be ensured that it is equivalent to or better than the GCF’s ESMS. Thus compliance with the GCF ESMS becomes the minimum mandatory standard for all AEs. (b)
Requiring and ensuring appropriate screening and categorization processes within the ESMS; Commented [KO40]: What is meant by ‘screening’ in this case?
(c)
Conducting environmental and social due diligence on activities proposed for funding consideration, and recommending to the Board for GCF financing only those proposed activities with satisfactory approaches to managing environmental and social risks and impacts, consistent with the ESP and ESS standards of the GCF; Commented [KO41]: Who specifically is responsible for this?
(d)
Requiring that environmental and social risks and impacts assessments for an accredited entity’s activities are adequate and provide sufficient information to (i) assess whether the GCF should consider funding the project or programme, or not finance it because of the potential risks and impacts and (ii) determine suitable avoidance, mitigation or compensation measures, in those cases where proceeding with funding consideration is (a)
Accreditation. In relation to the accreditation of entities, the GCF is responsible for determining the capacity of the entities to manage environmental and social risks and impacts of GCF‐financed activities based on both existing policies and management systems as well as implementation track records. The GCF will assess the consistency of the system and approach used by the entities and intermediaries with GCF environmental and social standards using the fit for purpose approach. As necessary the GCF will collaborate with the entities on measures to improve capacities, including the deployment of necessary support and assistance through the GCF Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme. 14 Commented [KO39]: Who does what at the GCF to ensure implementation? Deleted: an
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 appropriate. Where gaps or weaknesses exist, the GCF will require that they be addressed. The assessments will also provide the basis 25 These roles and responsibilities are further elaborated in the remaining sections of the policy.
for the GCF to confirm the risk categories of activities in line with the definition of the ESS standards of the GCF and the level of risks to which the entity was accredited; (e)
(f)
Reviewing proposed operational changes within the accredited or executing entity or of the project/programme and require additional measures to comply with the GCF’s ESMS, if necessary; and (g)
Carry out monitoring, reviewing, and reporting functions related to the environmental and social performance of accredited entities and the supported projects and programmes, as may be required, consistent with the monitoring and accountability framework for accredited entities (MAF); 15.
Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress. The GCF is responsible for: (a)
Confirming that the project/programme‐affected persons and communities are consulted – and in the case of indigenous peoples their free, prior and informed consent attained ‐ by the accredited entities or through the executing entities during the design and implementation of the activities and that effective grievance redress mechanisms to receive complaints and feedbacks are established and function in a collaborative manner complementary to the Independent Redress Mechanism, and requiring that any gaps or weaknesses be addressed; (b)
Ensuring that accredited entities agree to fully implement remedial actions stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the Independent Redress Mechanism in response to complaints it has received and in accordance with the terms of reference, guidelines, and procedures of the Independent Redress Mechanism; and (c)
Confirming that all information related to the environmental and social risks and impacts of activities are appropriately disclosed to meet the requirements of the information disclosure policy of the GCF, and working with entities to address any gaps or weaknesses. 16.
Ensuring that accredited entities’ environmental and social management plans (ESMPs) address the identified risks and impacts and any other safeguards, instruments and tools that may be required, and reviewing their adequacy. Where there are gaps or weaknesses, the GCF will require that they be addressed. The GCF will also require that accredited entities implement (which may include the role of an executing entity), or monitor and supervise (as an intermediary) the project or programme’s implementation and compliance with the environmental and social obligations and conditions, and require that any gaps or weaknesses be addressed; The GCF will require accredited entities to comply with their environmental and social obligations, including those specified in the project/programme safeguards plans and frameworks, its project/programme‐specific gender action plan, the indigenous peoples policy, applicable country laws and regulations, and the obligations of the country applicable to the project under relevant international treaties and agreements. Where the accredited entities fail to comply with the safeguards requirements, the GCF will work with them to develop and implement corrective actions that will bring the activities back into compliance, 15 Deleted: Confirming with
Deleted: the
Deleted: to Commented [KO42]: Who specifically at the Secretariat is responsible – because even currently not all of this is being done. Deleted: and
Deleted: i
Commented [KO43]: Who at the GCF Secretariat is responsible for this? It is not clear that this is currently being done for projects. Commented [LS44]: The enforcement should not focus on agreeing to implement, but on the implementation. Deletion suggested Deleted: i
Deleted: i
Deleted: directly DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 and that will fully compensate for harms caused by non‐compliance. Where the accredited entities fail to re‐establish compliance within a time frame and manner that are mutually agreed upon, the GCF may exercise its remedies under its legal agreement with the entities, such as suspension of financial transfers or revoking the entity’s accreditation. Commented [LS46]: Language should be strengthened with reference to enforcement actions by the Secretariat 4.2
17.
(a)
Overview of roles and responsibilities of the accredited entities Accredited entities are responsible for: In the case of activities proposed for GCF financing: (i)
Implementing an ESMS, at least equivalent to the GCF’s ESMS, to manage the environmental and social risks and impacts of activities, including meaningful and inclusive multi‐stakeholder consultation and engagement throughout the project/programme cycle, taking into account the particular situation of indigenous peoples, from design through implementation, appropriate to their role as an implementing entity (which may include a project execution role), an intermediary entity, or both, maintaining or improving on the ESMS on which their accreditation was approved; (b)
(ii)
Ensuring that activities proposed for GCF financing are properly screened and assigned to appropriate environmental and social risk categories; (iii)
Cooperating with the GCF in the due diligence of the activities proposed for GCF financing; (iv)
Ensuring that the environmental and social risks and impacts of activities proposed for GCF financing are properly assessed; (v)
Ensuring that measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts are planned for activities proposed for GCF financing; and (vi)
Ensuring that remedial actions stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the Independent Redress Mechanism in response to a complaint from project/programme‐affected people are respected and promptly implemented; and (i)
Ensuring that ESMPs are implemented, with operational changes as needed; (ii)
Monitoring the environmental and social performance of GCF‐financed activities; (iii)
Proactively disclosing information and developing and implementing a stakeholder engagement plan, and an Indigenous Peoples’ Action Plan where it applies, including entity‐level and project‐level grievance mechanisms; and (v)
18.
Commented [KO47]: The ESP needs to include a glossary with definition of terms to provide clarity on their differentiation and meaning: for example, implementing entity vs. intermediary entity vs. executing entity vs.; sub‐project; program; etc. Deleted: and offset
Deleted: i
In the case of GCF‐financed activities: (iv)
Commented [KO45]: What happens to projects in interim? i.e. while the AE is out of compliance and project activity is occurring? Can the project be put on hold? Further, the GCF must ensure that when this happens the AEs must compensate for any harms that occurred due to non‐compliance. Monitoring and reporting the progress and performance to the GCF and its stakeholders throughout the implementation of the GCF‐financed activities, in accordance with the MAF. Disclosing sub‐projects (including, for example, new equity investments) and ensuring that these activities are properly screened, assigned to the appropriate environmental and social risk categories, and subject to due diligence and oversight. The accredited entities will confirm that the measures to manage environmental and social risks and impacts, including, as relevant, information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and 16 Deleted: D
Deleted: p
Commented [KO48]: Shouldn’t a plan for stakeholder engagement also be including for GCF activities propose for financing – i.e. (a)? Deleted: R
Commented [OR49]: More clarity about application of the policy to “sub‐projects” is needed and should be elaborated in the policy. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 grievance redress, are included in the agreements with executing entities such as tendering documents and contracts. 19.
The accredited entities are responsible for compliance with all applicable laws, including the laws, regulations and standards of the country or countries in which the projects or programmes are located, and obligations of the country or countries directly applicable to the project or programme under relevant international treaties and agreements. 20.
Entities that are functioning as financial intermediaries are exposed to environmental and social risk through the activities of their grantees, borrowers, and investees. Intermediaries are responsible for managing the environmental and social risks associated with the supported activities and ensuring positive social and environmental outcomes, or at minimum, outcomes that do no harm. The intermediaries will review the activities to identify where the entities and the GCF could be exposed to potential risks and take necessary action, including the development and operation of an ESMS to oversee and manage these risks. 21.
The accredited entities will be responsible for ensuring that the project/programme‐affected communities and vulnerable populations are properly consulted – and in the case of Indigenous People, free, prior and informed consent appropriately attained‐ on the risks and anticipated impacts and the expected benefits that can be derived from the projects. In order to ensure meaningful and effective consultation and participation of the affected communities and vulnerable populations, the accredited entities will disclose and make publicly available relevant information on the project in accordance with the requirements of the information disclosure policy of the GCF and subsection 6.1 of this policy. Commented [LS50]: Financial intermediation also includes on‐
granting. Should make sure that grant‐giving is not forgotten. Commented [KO51]: There should be a specific section devoted to entities functioning as financial intermediaries, detailing their responsibilities vis‐à‐vis subprojects, with obligations based on what we’ve learned about the problems with FIs and ensuring actual positive environmental and social outcomes. Details need to be spelled out specifically for FIs and their sub‐projects. V.
General requirements for environmental and social risk management 5.1
Accreditation 22.
23.
The GCF operates through accredited entities (including financial intermediaries). These entities are tasked to deliver upon the objectives of the GCF through the supported projects and programmes while ensuring that the environmental and social commitments of the GCF are met. Accredited entities will have the capacity and the system for developing and screening funding proposals to identify the potential environmental and social risks and impacts and to determine necessary actions to ensure compliance consistency with the ESP and ESS standards of the GCF. The accreditation of entities will be conducted pursuant to the GCF accreditation framework.26 Under this framework, the GCF examines, in line with the ESP, ESS standards and other relevant policies, the robustness of the applicant’s ESMS, including the effectiveness and independence of its grievance redress mechanism as well as its capacity to comply with the GCF gender policy and other specific policies that will be adopted by the Fund. The accreditation process will also ensure that entities access GCF support at a level commensurate with their institutional capacity to undertake the assessment and management of environmental and social as well as gender equality risks and impacts. Commented [KO52]: It is unclear why the AE would be determining consistency with ESS standards of the GCF. The AP would have already done that during the accreditation process. Or do they mean determining compliance of environmental/social risk and impacts with GCF’s ESS? This needs to be clarified. Deleted: where applicable and 5.2
24.
Environmental and social management system of Accredited Entities The accredited entities will ensure that an effective ESMS, equivalent to or better than the GCF’s ESMS, is in place to allow a better understanding of the environmental and social risks and impacts associated with the projects and programmes and the means to subsequently manage these effectively and equitably. The ESMS will be appropriate to the role of an implementing entity (which may include a project execution role), an intermediary entity, or 17 Deleted: accedited
Commented [EL 53]: The Accredited Entities ESMS should be equivalent or better to the GCF’s ESMS. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 both. The accredited entity will maintain or improve on the ESMS on which its accreditation was approved to ensure that it is equivalent to or better than the GCF’s ESMS. The level of detail and complexity of the management system and the staff and financial resources allocated to it will be adequate to manage the expected level of risks and impacts of the projects and programmes to be financed. If the accredited entity has been accredited to have an intermediary function, its ESMS will include the policies, procedures, and resources to conduct due diligence and oversight over executing entities and ensure that the executing entities fulfil the GCF project‐level requirements discussed in sections IV, V and VI of this policy and in line with the ESP and ESS standards of the GCF. The staff of the accredited entity, including those who may be part‐time or externally acquired (e.g. consultants) will have the necessary expertise in all areas covered by the ESS standards to carry out their responsibilities. The ESMS forms one of the important criteria for the accreditation of the entities and also the basis for project screening and due diligence process to confirm how the ESS are translated to specific measures at the project level. Commented [KO54]: This has to be dealt with more carefully, since it’s a huge problem for FIs. 5.3
Screening and categorization 25.
The GCF, pursuant to the ESS standards, requires an accredited entity – whether its role is as an implementing entity or an intermediary entity – to screen projects and programmes, including any sub‐projects, and to categorize them appropriately. 26.
In screening projects, the entity will determine the nature and scale of risks and potential impacts, the breadth and depth of environmental and social assessment, measures to manage these and the appropriate stakeholder engagement and type of information to be disclosed. The risk category of a project or programme, aligned with the fit‐for‐purpose approach,27 is proportional to the nature, scale and location of the project or programme and its environmental and social risks and impacts and the sensitivity of the receiving Deleted: extent of
26DecisionB.07/02.
27 Decision B.08/03. environments and communities. Pursuant to the ESS standard on assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts, accredited entities assign risk categories to all activities, including sub‐projects under a programme, with attention paid to specific environmental and social risks, as specified in the environmental and social safeguards. The risks and impacts are assessed at the pre‐mitigation stage and consider the most serious potential impacts of all activities, including associated facilities28 and all sub‐
projects. 27.
The risks and impacts will include direct and indirect, induced and cumulative impacts,29 and will cover the areas of influence, including associated facilities. In assigning the risk categories of activities, the accredited entities will undertake an integrated review taking into consideration the combined environmental and social risks and impacts, as well as the nature, magnitude and complexity of these impacts and specific characteristics (including the physical environmental characteristics as well as the societal, social, and legal characteristics) of the influence area. 28.
If a programme (not a single project) is being submitted for consideration for GCF funding, the accredited entity will assign the risk categorization of the highest risk project in the programme. 29.
The GCF reviews the projects and programmes proposed for GCF financing, including the accompanying ESS documents, to confirm the environmental and social risk category assigned 18 Commented [EL 55]: The IFC Performance Standards are interim safeguards for the GCF and should not be considered permanent, but merely as placeholders until the GCF develops its environmental and social safeguards. If necessary, a footnote could be inserted that says “Until the GCF develops its own environmental and social safeguards, the IFC Performance Standards 1 to 8 are the applicable safeguards.” Deleted: IFC Performance Standards 1 to 8
Deleted: .
Deleted: , where relevant
Commented [EL 56]: Where reference to specific characteristics are made, this should include both the physical characteristics of the area as well as the social and legal characteristics in the country/area, i.e. the risks for environmental and human rights defenders, openness of spaces for civil society, etc. Commented [KO57]: Who at the GCF does this? Need more specificity to make sure it gets done and the public knows who does it. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 during screening. If it is inconsistent, the GCF will require the accredited entity to reflect the necessary classification. In reviewing the ESS risk categorization, the GCF verifies that proposed project and programme activities are appropriate given the risk level at which the entity is accredited. Only projects and programme activities within the accredited entity’s accreditation level will be considered for GCF financing. 30.
The environmental and social risk categories as defined in the interim ESS standards of the GCF apply to activities financed by the GCF as follows: (a)
Category A. Activities with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented; (b)
Category B. Activities with potential mild adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are few, generally site‐specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation measures; and (c)
Category C. Activities with minimal or no adverse environmental and social risks and/or impacts. 31.
(a)
In assessing risks and impacts associated with investments through financial intermediation, the assessment will be based on the risks associated with the intended end use. Categories of projects involving investments through financial intermediation functions or delivery mechanisms involving financial intermediation are divided into the following three levels of risk: High level of intermediation, I1. An intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include, financial exposure to activities with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented; 28 Associated facilities are those that are not funded as part of the project, and that would not have been constructed or expanded if the project did not exist and without which the project would not be viable (refer to IFC Performance Standard 1, paragraph 8). 29 Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact, on areas or resources used or directly affected by the project, from other existing, planned or reasonably defined developments at the time the risks and impacts are identified (IFC Performance Standard 1, paragraph 8). (b)
Medium level of intermediation, I2. An intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include, substantial financial exposure to activities with potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and impacts that are few, generally site‐specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation measures; and includes no activities with potential significant adverse environmental and social risks and impacts that, individually or cumulatively, are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented; (c)
Low level of intermediation, I3. An intermediary’s existing or proposed portfolio includes financial exposure to activities that predominantly have minimal or negligible adverse environmental and social impacts. 32.
The accreditation of the entities is based on the definitions of risk categories A, B and C for projects and I1, I2 and I3 for intermediaries. Entities and intermediaries accredited to category A or I1 can propose for funding programmes, projects and activities with assessed environmental and social risk categories of up to category A or I1. Entities and intermediaries accredited to category B or I2 can propose programmes, projects and activities with assessed risk categories of up to category B or I2 only. Entities accredited to category C or I3, however, 19 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 can propose for funding only category C or I3 activities. 33.
In screening activities, the entities determine the applicability of specific ESS standards and identify actions sufficient to meet the requirements of each applicable ESS standard. The screening of the activities will benefit from an integrated assessment that brings together the perspectives of environmental, human rights, and social risks and the impacts of the projects on the communities and the receiving environment. 34.
The entities will ensure that all GCF‐financed activities meet applicable laws related to managing environmental and social risks and impacts, including national laws, regulations and standards, and obligations of the country or countries directly applicable to the project or programme under relevant international treaties and agreements. The compliance with applicable laws and relevant international obligations and standards, will be reflected in the screening process indicating these national and international requirements and how these will be met through the management programmes and plans. 35.
The GCF will require the entities to ensure that associated facilities meet the requirements of the ESS standards of the GCF. Where the associated facilities are financed by other funding agencies, the GCF and its entities may rely on the environmental and social requirements of these funding agencies provided that these are at a minimum, equivalent to aligned with the ESS standards of the GCF. Deleted: to the extent that the entities have the control and influence over these associated facilities
Commented [LS58]: “Aligned” is too weak a standard. Should be replaced by “equivalent to” 5.4
36.
Environmental and social due diligence The GCF will conduct its environmental and social due diligence for activities proposed for funding consideration. The purpose of the due diligence is to understand and evaluate how the environmental and social risks and impacts are screened, assessed and planned to be mitigated and managed by the entities. The due diligence of the GCF will verify the consistency of the assessments and proposed management measures by the accredited entities with the ESS standards of the GCF and recommend to the Board for GCF financing only those proposed activities that manage environmental and social risks and impacts consistent with the ESS standards. 37.
In the case of approved I1 and I2 progammes, proposed category A and category B [sub]projects will undergo equivalent due diligence processes by the GCF individually. 38.
When accredited entities bring investment projects or programmes to the GCF for consideration, the GCF will review the environmental and social assessment of the activities and related documents to determine the Commented [KO59]: Need more specificity about who at the GCF Secretariat will be doing the due diligence Deleted: with satisfactory approaches Deleted: to Deleted: ing
Deleted: ,
consistency of the project/programme risk categories with the accreditation of the entities and the alignment of the proposed approach to environmental and social risks and impacts with the requirements of the ESS standards of the GCF. The GCF will use third party information in order to make such assessment. With the review, a set of actions will be agreed upon with the entities to fill remaining gaps with the ESS standards, if any. 39.
The environmental and social due diligence of the GCF includes: (a)
Supporting decision‐making related to accreditation as well as to the consideration of funding proposals; (b)
Assessing the ESMS of the entities and their application to the projects, including the safeguards instruments that describe the set of actions to assess, avoid, minimize, mitigate and/or compensate for environmental and social risks and impacts, the effectiveness and independence of the grievance redress mechanism of the accredited 20 Commented [KO61]: Third party information, including from affected people and communities, must be taken into account beyond AEs self‐categorization and be part of the due diligence review by the Secretariat. Deleted: offset
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 and implementing entities, the ability of the accredited and implementing entities to conform to the information disclosure policy of the GCF, and the capacity to conduct meaningful and timely consultations with all stakeholders; and Providing guidance to entities in developing and implementing measures to manage the risks and impacts. The responsibilities of the entities include ensuring that all the necessary assessments of risks and impacts are conducted, management plans developed and implemented, information provided and necessary stakeholder engagement and communications conducted. (c)
40.
The GCF will undertake initial due diligence based on the available information at the time the process is undertaken. Where information on the activities is limited, for example in the case of programmatic approaches, the risks and impacts inherent to the type of activity, sector or industry, the specific context with which the project or programme will be developed and implemented, and the capacity of the entities to implement the activity following the requirements of the ESS will be assessed and reviewed subsequently during implementation. If compliance with the GCF’s ESS standards cannot be properly assessed or guaranteed, Board consideration of the programme should be delayed until all necessary information to make that determination is made publicly available. As part of this information gathering, the GCF will also consider and include information obtained through participatory monitoring in line with the monitoring and accountability framework mandate. Where assessments have already been done and the permits obtained, the due diligence for the activities will consist of gap analyses to understand whether there is a need for any additional studies or measures to meet the ESS requirements. The significance of the gaps (including time elapsed), the extent of information provided and the potential risks these present to achieving the objectives of the ESS will be reflected in the relevant review documents. In the case of approved I1 and I2 progammes, proposed category A and category B [sub]projects will undergo equivalent due diligence processes by the GCF individually. Commented [EL 62]: In regards to programmatic approaches and programmes with undefined sub‐projects, it is necessary to ensure that before the Board considers the project it is given all the information necessary to determine that compliance with the GCF’s standards can be guaranteed. Deleted: i
Deleted: ¶
5.5
41.
Environmental and social assessment The interim ESS Standard on the assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts requires accredited entities to ensure that each of the activities proposed for GCF financing is designed to meet the requirements of the ESS standards. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require the executing entity to fulfil the project‐level assessment requirements discussed in this section and will conduct the necessary due diligence and oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. Accredited entities are responsible for appropriate implementation of GCF‐funded activities. For approved I1 and I2 progammes, proposed category A and category B [sub]projects will undergo equivalent due diligence processes by the GCF individually. 42.
The assessment of the activities will be in a manner that follows best industry practices internationally and allows for an integrated and balanced view of the environmental and social risks and impacts. The scope and depth of environmental and social assessment will be proportional to the level of risks and impacts and address the specific requirements of applicable ESS standards. The specific focus of the assessment will be determined by the requirements of the applicable ESS standards. For category A projects that are expected to have significant environmental and social impacts, a full and comprehensive environmental and social impacts assessment (ESIA) as well as a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required. For category B projects with limited impacts and with well‐developed 21 Commented [KO63]: The ESP should include a special paragraph/section on clarifying obligations in the case of sub‐
projects implemented via FIs. Deleted: DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 mitigation and monitoring measures, a limited focus environmental and social impacts assessment, taking into account human rights implications, and ESMP will suffice. Category C projects having no expected significant environmental and social impacts may not require any assessments although a pre‐assessment should confirm that the project is indeed in category C. Commented [KO64]: What if the mitigation and monitoring measures aren’t well developed? 43.
The entities may use a variety of tools and studies to complement and strengthen further the assessment of projects and programmes. These form part of commonly accepted assessment tools such as strategic impacts assessment, regional impacts assessment, cumulative impacts assessment, human rights impact assessment, and other specialized studies as may be required under specific ESS standards. The GCF may recommend additional tools and planning instruments as may be necessary to meet the national requirements and international commitments of countries. 5.6
44.
The GCF requires the entities to develop ESMPs that contain the measures to manage and mitigate the identified risks and impacts. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require the executing entity to fulfil the project‐level ESMP requirements discussed in this section and will conduct the necessary due diligence and oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. 45.
Based on the results of the assessment, the ESMP will be designed such that the measures are adequately described, roles defined and the corresponding timelines and resources identified. Where the project/programme involves existing facilities, an environmental and social audit may be required, and the corresponding ESMP may include remediation, recompense or management of any residual environmental and social issues. 46.
The ESMP will be integrated into the overall planning, design, resourcing and execution of the GCF‐ financed activities as well as being reflected in the ESMS. Where gaps in the capacity of entities to implement the mitigation measures exist, the GCF will work with the entities to explore how the institutional capacity can be built or enhanced, and how the gap‐
filling measures will be integrated into the project. 47.
47.
Environmental and social management plan The entities will screen projects for potential involuntary resettlement impacts, consistent with the objectives and requirements of the GCF’s ESS standard on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement. Where there is potential involuntary resettlement, the GCF will require the entities to prepare a resettlement action plan with participation of affected people or communities, or, if specific activities or locations have not yet been determined, a resettlement policy framework proportional to the extent of physical and economic displacement and the vulnerability of the people and communities. A resettlement framework will include provisions for the development and implementation of site‐specific resettlement action plans and will comply with national and international law. These plans or frameworks will complement the social assessment of the project and provide guidance on specific issues related to involuntary resettlement, including land acquisition, compensation for assets, livelihood loss and restoration, transition allowances, facilities and resettlement sites, and displacement. The entities will screen the projects for any potential impacts on indigenous peoples, consistent with the objectives and requirements of the GCF’s Indigenous Peoples Policy. Where there are potential impacts on indigenous peoples, the GCF will require the entities to prepare an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan or, if specific activities or locations have not 22 Deleted: may Commented [EL 65]: When they are developed, the GCF’s own ESSs should include a policy on displacement and resettlement. It should not rely on the IFC Performance Standard on this. Deleted: the ESS standard on indigenous peoples
Deleted: i
Deleted: p
Deleted: d
Deleted: p
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 yet been determined, an indigenous peoples planning framework. The framework should be developed with the close collaboration and consent of indigenous peoples affected by the project or programme, through an appropriate process to ensure the free, prior informed consent of the affected peoples. The scope and extent of such plans will be proportional to the vulnerability of the indigenous peoples and the extent of the impacts on the customary rights of use and access to land and natural resources, socioeconomic status, cultural integrity, indigenous knowledge and skills, and overall welfare. An indigenous peoples planning framework will include provisions for the development and implementation of site‐
specific indigenous peoples plans. These plans and frameworks will complement the social assessment of the project and provide guidance on specific issues related to addressing the needs of the affected indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’ contributions in risk assessment will also be facilitated.
Commented [KO66]: How does this work with an Indigenous Peoples Policy? Deleted: ¶
48.
49.
50.
The entities will screen the projects and programmes for any potential negative impacts on the promotion, protection, respect for, and fulfilment of human rights. For projects or programmes that have potential negative impacts on human rights, the GCF will require the entities to prepare an action plan that describes the mitigation measures that will be taken to ensure compliance with international and national human rights laws. If compliance with human rights laws cannot be guaranteed, entities will be required to suspend such activities. The entities will screen the projects and programmes for any potential negative impacts on the promotion, protection and respect for gender equality and women’s empowerment in accordance with the GCF Gender policy and in compliance with international and national gender rights laws and obligations through a gender impact and risk analysis. Supporting and mitigating actions (“do good” as well as “do no harm”) are to be spelled out in a project/programme specific gender action plan. Projects/programme proposals without a supporting gender action plan should not be funded.The entities will screen the projects for any potential impacts on biodiversity, consistent with the objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources. The entities will strive to avoid impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, and if avoidance of impacts is not possible, measures to minimize impacts and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services will be implemented. The mitigation hierarchy may include biodiversity offsets, which may be considered only after appropriate avoidance, minimization and restoration measures have been applied; they are supported by sound science; and long‐
term management and funding are secure. Projects that have potential negative impacts on critical habitats should not be financed by the GCF. For activities requiring financial intermediation, the ESS standards of the GCF require the accredited entity in an intermediary function to develop an ESMS to identify and manage the risks associated with its portfolio on an ongoing basis. The complexity of the ESMS will vary according to the risk exposure that the intermediary is expected to manage. The ESMS can be integrated into an intermediary’s existing risk management systemprovided this can be done in a manner that is consistent and ensures compliance with the ESS standards of the GCF. The GCF will provide support and guidance and guarantee that this is done in a way that complies with GCF standards and policies. 5.7
51.
Deleted: ,
Commented [LS67]: Suggested addition to spell out the relationship of obligations of the gender policy with the ESP requirements. Deleted: ¶
Deleted: services
Deleted: For
Deleted: p
Deleted: , the GCF will require the entities to prepare a biodiversity action plan that describes the long‐term mitigation, conservation outcomes, monitoring and evaluation programme.
Commented [LS68]: Shouldn’t the ESMS be designed so as to support the implementation of the GCF ESSs? Not quite sure why this sentence seems to go out of its way to give intermediaries leeway with respect to their ESMS. Deleted: will be designed and operated to meet the needs of the intermediaries and Commented [OR69]: Sentence should be added about GCF Secretariat offering some guidelines/support to ensure that it’s done properly. Operational changes The accredited entities will notify the GCF when there are material changes in the project design and execution, policy and regulatory setting, receiving environment and community, unanticipated environmental risks and impacts, or other circumstances that elevate the risk 23 Deleted: its Deleted: Deleted: within the intermediary
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 levels of the project and required associated mitigation measures. The GCF will require and ensure that the accredited entities undertake a due diligence process appropriate to the new risk level of the project and revise the ESMP or ESMS to meet the requirements of the ESS standards. 52.
The accredited entities will also notify the GCF when changes to the ESMP or other management plans are required. In the context of adaptive risk management, accredited entities will ensure that the implementation of the ESMP is responsive to changing conditions and the results of monitoring, including participatory monitoring, throughout the project’s lifecycle. The GCF requires the entities to maintain effective due diligence processes to address unanticipated developments in the activities or to reflect improved techniques and technologies for addressing environmental and social risks and impacts, to meet the requirements of the ESS standards. 53.
The accredited entities will also notify the GCF of any changes in their ESMS that may adversely affect the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of GCF‐financed activities. Where the changes render the project’s ESMP or the entity’s ESMS inconsistent with the ESS standards of the GCF, the GCF will require and ensure that the accredited entities make appropriate revisions of the project’s ESMP; adjust the accredited entity’s ESMS; or undertake other necessary actions to meet the ESS standards requirements. 54.
If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require and ensure that the executing entity informs it of the operational changes discussed in this section and, in turn, inform the GCF. It will collaborate with the GCF and executing entity to ensure that any further required measures are implemented. Deleted: to
Deleted: to
Deleted: to 5.8
55.
56.
Monitoring and reporting The GCF, through its Secretariat, will carry out monitoring and reporting functions related to the environmental and social performance of the accredited entities and the supported projects and programmes as required in the MAF.30 The monitoring will be a continuous process, and the extent of monitoring will be based on the type and level of risks identified, including environmental and social risks. The accredited entities are responsible for monitoring and reporting to the GCF on the GCF‐
financed activities. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require and ensure that the executing entity fulfils the project/programme‐level monitoring and reporting requirements discussed in this section and will, in turn, provide the requisite monitoring and reporting information to the GCF. This may include both project‐specific and aggregated monitoring and reporting. 57.
The reporting requirements will include annual performance reports and interim evaluation and final evaluation reports specifying the projects’ consistency with the ESS standards, the ESMS of the GCF, and any other applicable environmental and social provisions in the legal agreement. If needed, the GCF may require more frequent or ad hoc monitoring and reporting or audits on specific environmental and social issues, which may also include site visits and consultations with beneficiaries, communities, and national designated authorities. The Secretariat will then report to the Board on the performance of the accredited entities in relation to their GCF‐financed activities, providing information related to implementation progress, issues, risks, and lessons learned, including those affecting environmental and social safeguards. 58.
In monitoring a project’s or programme’s environmental and social performance, the accredited entities will obtain guarantee participatory monitoring through the involvement of communities, local stakeholders, indigenous peoples, and civil society organizations in all the 24 Commented [KO70]: Who at the Secretariat? Deleted: ing
Deleted: to Deleted: DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 stages, starting with project or programme design, of the project/programme cycle, consistent with the monitoring and accountability framework. This participatory monitoring approach will also encourage the national designated authorities or focal points to organize country portfolio reviews participated in by project‐affected people and other local stakeholders. The GCF will monitor the compliance of accredited entities with the GCF’s ESS standards requirements. On an annual basis, the accredited entities will provide the GCF with a self‐
assessment of their compliance with the ESS standards, among other issues. The self‐
assessment shall be published on the website of the GCF and the accredited entity, in relevant languages. Half‐way through the five‐year accreditation, the Secretariat will undertake a mid‐term review of compliance performance of the accredited entities. The mid‐
term review shall be published on the website of the GCF and the accredited entity, in relevant languages. The Secretariat will report annually to the Board the consolidated results of the annual self‐assessments, mid‐term reviews, and any ad hoc reviews that were conducted, all of which shall be published on the website of the GCF and the relevant accredited entity, in relevant languages. 59.
Commented [KO71]: “This participatory monitoring approach” makes it sounds like participatory monitoring was described earlier, but this is the first time the term was used in the draft.
Commented [KO72]: Is this only in relation to particular projects, or for the AE more generally? What if an AE is ok for a GCF project but commits extraordinary violations in its other financing initiatives? VI.
Information disclosure, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress 6.1
Information disclosure 60.
The Governing Instrument affirms that the GCF will operate in a transparent and accountable manner guided by the principles of efficiency and effectiveness. The GCF information disclosure policy operationalizes this commitment by ensuring transparency, public access to information and stakeholder participation in all its activities. The policy requires that relevant information, including with respect to environmental and social issues, is made available to the affected and potentially affected communities and external stakeholders in a proactive manner.
30DecisionB.11/10.
61.
62.
63.
This information is made available in accordance with the provisions of the information disclosure policy, allowing the stakeholders time to review, seek further information and provide inputs on a proposed activity, including ways to improve the design and implementation of its environmental and social safeguards. The information in the form of environmental and social reports, including ESIAs, ESMPs, HRIAs, and ESMSs, will be provided through electronic links on the websites of both the accredited entity and the GCF (in the case of the GCF website, upon submission of the funding proposal to the Secretariat), as well as in locations convenient to affected peoples. The information will be available in both English and the local language(s) (if not English) to foster adequate understanding by the affected communities, stakeholders, and the general public. The information disclosure policy of the GCF requires the accredited entities to disclose to the public and, via the Secretariat, to the Board and active observers, the necessary documentation relevant to the environmental and social safeguards of the activities, and meet the required disclosure period. The required disclosure periods also apply to all I1, I2, category A and category B sub‐projects of GCF‐funded programmes. The GCF requires that additional environmental and social safeguards documents be disclosed. These documents include a suite of assessment and management instruments, such 25 Commented [KO73]: What’s an environmental and social report? Commented [KO74]: How can it be assured that this is done in practice? Our general impression is that this hasn’t been fully implemented thus far. Commented [OR75]: Just to be clear… this means the sub‐
projects of activities that have an I1 or I2 level of overall risk? Commented [KO76]: This strongly argues for public release of all project proposal documents. Deleted: , where relevant,
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 as resettlement action plans and policy frameworks, indigenous peoples plans and planning frameworks, and due diligence and audit reports as well as project/programme‐specific gender action plans. These documents complement the core safeguards instruments required in all cases – ESIA, ESMP, and/or ESMS – and will be disclosed in the same manner and time frame as the core instruments, including on the GCF website and the website of the accredited entity, in all relevant languages. 64.
Entities will also disclose a project/programme summary in a manner that is culturally appropriate and gender‐responsive and in the local language(s) including on the GCF website and the website of the accredited entity, alongside the environmental/social information, including the following at a minimum: (i)
The purpose, nature and scale of the project/programme, including details on its intended beneficiaries; (ii)
The duration of proposed project/programme activities; (iii)
The envisaged stakeholder engagement process; and (iv)
The available grievance mechanism(s). 65.
If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require and ensure that the executing entity fulfils the project‐level information disclosure requirements discussed in this section and will conduct the necessary due diligence and oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. Accredited entities are not precluded from fulfilling the project/programme level information disclosure requirements. Such efforts should be conducted by both entities. 6.2
66.
Stakeholder engagement The GCF will require accredited entities, including intermediaries, to ensure the effective engagement of communities, vulnerable populations, groups, and individuals affected or likely to be affected by the activities proposed for GCF financing, through the development and implementation of a stakeholder engagement plan that describes the disclosure of information, meaningful, culturally appropriate, and gender‐responsive consultation and informed participation, and free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples, as required in the ESS standards and any further relevant policy. The engagement will be designed and undertaken in a manner that that is commensurate with the risks and impacts of the proposed activities, and will be ensured throughout the project lifecycle. Deleted: Deleted: to Commented [KO77]: FI concerns, etc.
Commented [Aa78]: The ESP needs to clarify that the AE also takes on this responsibility even when they are only acting as intermediaries because outside observers will not know who the executing entities (EEs) are and EEs are after all not the legally responsible party vis‐à‐vis the GCF. Deleted: ,
Deleted: in certain circumstances, Deleted: continue 67.
68.
The GCF will describe the process and set guidance to assist the accredited entities to put in place and implement a process for meaningful consultation with project‐affected people, guided by the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, non‐discrimination, and accountability. This meaningful consultation will be culturally appropriate, undertaken throughout the project lifecycle, with information provided and disclosed in a timely manner and in an understandable format and language, gender inclusive and responsive, free from coercion, and incorporate the views of stakeholders in the decision‐making process. The process will pay particular attention to including vulnerable groups and to conducting consultations in a manner that does not put vulnerable individuals and groups at risk. For activities affecting indigenous peoples, this engagement will be supported by the objectives and requirements of the ESS standard on indigenous peoples, and any relevant policy that will be adopted by the Fund, including with respect to free, prior and informed consent as articulated under UNDRIP. There is no universally accepted definition of free, prior and informed consent. The GCF reserves the right to observe and participate in the consultation process or request 26 Commented [KO79]: This really needs to happen already. Commented [LS80]: No relativism here with respect to FPIC. It should follow UNDRIP elaborations (referenced earlier) and not allow for weakening (under “equivalency/common approaches”) with respect to the C as “consultation” instead of “consent”. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 the documentation of the process to gain a better understanding of the issues and concerns of the affected communities, groups and individuals as well as how such concerns will be addressed by the accredited and implementing entities. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require and ensure that the executing entity fulfils the project‐level stakeholder engagement requirements discussed in this section and will conduct the necessary due diligence and oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled, including by participating in the processes undertaken by the executing entity. 69.
The GCF undertakes direct stakeholder engagement in processes related to the management by the GCF of environmental and social risks and impacts, including the development of policies, procedures and guidance, and including this ESMS. In such processes, key documents should be disclosed as early as possible (preferably 120 days) and, at a minimum, 30‐business‐day public disclosure period. 70.
Country coordination and multi‐stakeholder engagement processes for developing national strategic frameworks and funding proposals are expected to use the best practices referred to in decision B.08/10.31 71.
Deleted: to Commented [Aa81]: How does the GCF make sure this happens? There has to be mandatory participation by the AE in such processes. Deleted: are subject to
Commented [KO82]: The ESP should follow international best practice on this. These are the time‐frames suggested as minimum. 6.3
72.
Grievance redress mechanism The accredited entity’s own grievance redress mechanism should be easily accessible by project/programme‐affected peoples and communities, and it is the responsibility of the accredited entity to ensure that its grievance mechanisms and those of the projects are accessible and functioning effectively, efficiently, equitably, predictably, transparently, and independently. The GCF should perform the necessary evaluation to ensure this as well. 73.
The approach of the GCF is to provide for grievance and redress at the GCF, entity, and project/programme levels. The accredited entities will inform the communities affected, or likely to be affected, by the GCF‐ financed activities about the grievance and redress mechanisms at all three levels and in all relevant languages, as part of the stakeholder engagement process. The details for sending complaints containing the contact information and the appropriate modes by which these will be received will be provided by the entities to the communities and will also be made available in relevant languages on the entities’ and GCF’s webstes. 74.
The still to be developed GCF ESS standards will establish the principles and requirements for setting up a grievance redress mechanism at the project/programme level, to receive and facilitate the resolution of concerns and grievances related to the projects and programmes. The ESS standards require accredited entities to ensure that all environmental and social issues arising or that may potentially arise from projects or programmes are reported and addressed in a manner that is satisfactory to the affected peoples and communities, the GCF, the entities, and the host countries. To this end, the GCF will require accredited entities to identify, where this already exists, or establish and maintain appropriate and effective mechanisms to receive complaints and facilitate the resolution of such complaints in connection with the projects and activities financed by the GCF. Deleted: e
Deleted: d
Commented [EL 84]: This paragraph as written in the draft indicates that the ESS Standards provide principles and requirements for project level grievance mechanisms. However, the IFC Performance Standards, which are the current interim ESS Standards, do not do so. In fact, the IFC Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO), seeing this as a gap, has provided a toolkit for developing project level grievance mechanisms. Thus, the GCF should include principles and requirements for project level grievance mechanisms in its own ESS standards when they are developed. Deleted: Deleted: ESS standards Deleted: about the environmental and social performance of 31DecisionB.08/10,annexXIV.
75.
Deleted: the forum first accessed Commented [LS83]: See the submission by CSOs on the IRM ToR review in which CSOs make clear that there should be no restriction or hierarchy about which grievance mechanism should be accessed first – the GCF’s grievance redress mechanism, the IRM, must always be accessible at any time. If the accredited entity is acting in an intermediary function, it will require the executing entity to fulfil the project‐level grievance mechanism requirements discussed in this section 27 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 and will conduct the necessary due diligence and oversight to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. Additionally, the accredited entity’s grievance mechanism should be available to persons and communities affected or potentially affected by the activities of the executing entity in line with the project or programme financed by the GCF. 76.
The accredited entity’s mechanism should be scaled to the risks and impacts of the projects and activities. The mechanism will incorporate the criteria outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights unanimously approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The mechanism will facilitate the resolution of grievances promptly through an accessible, fair, transparent, and constructive process. It will also be culturally appropriate, gender‐responsive, and readily accessible, in all relevant languages, at no cost to the public, and without retribution to the individuals, groups, or communities that raised the issue or concern. The mechanism will not impede the access to judicial or administrative remedies that may be available through the country systems, acknowledging that these localized systems may provide more robust information and better reflect the context of the issues on the ground. 77.
t the GCF level, the Independent Redress Mechanism will address the grievances and complaints by people and communities who may be or have been affected by GCF‐financed activities. In the event of a complaint being filed with the Independent Redress Mechanism, the accredited entity will cooperate with the Independent Redress Mechanism, provide all required information and explanations requested by the mechanism, and will promptly implement remedial measures stipulated by the Board on the recommendation of the IRM in keeping with its guidelines and procedures. Deleted: A
Deleted: i
Deleted: the adverse impacts through the failure of the Deleted: funded by the GCF to implement its operational policies and procedures, including the ESS standards of the GCF
Deleted: i
Deleted: i
Deleted: mechanism VII.
78.
Implementation arrangements and resource provision The policy is an essential component of the overall management process described as the GCF ESMS. The implementation of this policy will be through the processes and procedures developed as part of the ESMS, taking into account other relevant policies and the ESS standards of the GCF, including the gender policy and action plan as a complement to the ESP, and will include relevant training for GCF staff. The GCF will have staff with appropriate expertise and will allocate responsibilities and adequate resources to support the effective implementation of this policy. Deleted: ,
VIII. Effective date and review 79.
The policy will become effective upon its approval by the Board. The policy will apply to ongoing projects and activities and those that will be initiated after the effective date. 80.
The GCF will review and evaluate the overall environmental and social performance based on the objectives of this policy and the ESS standards of the GCF as discussed in paragraph 81 below. Appropriate amendments to this policy and ESS standards will be considered, based on the results of such review and evaluation and changes to the policy and ESS standards will follow the normal decision‐making processes of the GCF. 28 Deleted: Applicable provisions of t
Commented [EL 85]: The GCF is currently using interim ESS standards and those should be replaced by the GCF’s own ESS standards, which should be developed in a transparent and participatory manner, prior to the 5 year review called for in the following paragraph. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 15 December 2016 81.
A review of the policy will be undertaken five (5) years after the effective date to assess the effectiveness of the GCF in achieving the objectives of the policy. This review will include opportunity for public comment and consultation. This review will be supplemented by annual and mid‐term operational reviews and reporting, which may lead to improvements in the ESMS, as required. All reporting will be made publicly available on the GCF website in all relevant languages. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 29