Projects Missing Indigenous Peoples (PS7) Analysis

The database assembled by NomoGaia analyzing public data regarding IFC’s potential impact on indigenous peoples is available on this page, both as a downloadable file and through the search function below.

Search
Project NameProject NumberCountryCategoryNature of Indigenous Risk
SEI Solar Power Pvt Ltd 30053 India B Greenfield projects should consider SC and ST
Wings Beverage and Detergent 32208 Indonesia B CAO complaint. IFC actually invested starting in 1997 but didn't disclose til 2010 - after a series of 2008 investments had also been made
Snowman IV 33009 India B Odisha has a vast indigenous population - but the IFC concluded that indigenous impacts were not "foreseen" without describing how this decision was made
Lacteos Toni 31439 Ecuador B IFC does not say where agriculture originates or if communities consider themselves indigenous but states people wouldn't: "be considered as Indigenous" by the WBG
Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd 31665 India B It is unclear how the investment will 'support' company operations and thus what the impacts could be on IPs esp. in India
Rider Iron and Steel Ghana Limited 42860 Ghana B Unstated where are steel inputs sourced from but this supply chain is vulnerable to indigenous risks
Boulos F and B 33473 Nigeria B Agricultural inputs pose indigenous rights risks in this context but were not evaluated
Proteak 31195 Mexico B Costa Rica - Colombia - Mexico greenfield plantations could affect IPs who live in rural areas. Footprints aren't defined thus risks aren't assessed
CCM 42410 Mali B IFC reviewed IPs in the "project footprint" but not impact zone. Tuaregs are unlikely in Karaga - but the question doesn't seem to have been considered
Muyuan ASF 43279 China B Project locations include Inner Mongolia where effluent from pig farms triggered protests that left 2 dead in 2016. News from the region is now restricted https://bit.ly/3nX4Vm9

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *