Date: octobre 19, 2017
- Conclusions Principales
- Uneven application and enforcement of interim environmental and social standards (ESS). Study results reveal a clear departure from the GCF’s commitment to apply its interim environmental and social standards to all its investments.
- Miscategorization of risks. GCF policies do not ensure that risks are accurately identified and categorized. Project documents reveal miscategorization and downgrading of higher-risk investments, which in turn minimizes the level of required consultation, transparency, monitoring, and mitigation.
- Limited recognition and protection of Indigenous Peoples’, local communities’, and women’s rights. GCF standards note that it may be appropriate for a client to complement environmental and social risks and impacts assessments with specific human rights due diligence in limited high risk circumstances only.
- Weak enforcement of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Lax implementation requirements and project-level discretionary authority to define an investment’s area of influence and possible impacts on Indigenous Peoples and local communities have resulted in the limited application of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
- Variable stakeholder engagement, benefit sharing, grievance/redress mechanisms, and project monitoring. Evidence of stakeholder engagement was noted across reviewed GCF projects, but the timeliness and comprehensiveness of consultations is inconsistent.