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
Azure RG 40099 India B Greenfield projects located "across India" should consider SC/STs, even if footprints are generally small
Canvest Corporate Loan 40570 China B Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region is home to numerous IP groups unmentioned in IFC documentation. IFC claims no IPs "are known to have been in areas or affected by" the client
Twiga Foods 41195 Kenya B IPs are not "known to have been affected" but if Twiga targets the rural and poor IPs could potentially be impacted and PS7 analysis would be sensible
Srinivasa Farms 41149 India B Footprints are not known so the client must "consider" "applicable legal and other requirements". But unless PS7 is written into the loan agreement it is not a requirement at all
Acajutla LNG 34588 El Salvador A ESIA sec 4.3.5 states that IPs (Lenca-Kakawira-NahuaPipil) live along the transmission line route. Consultants did not engage them so ESRS concluded they are not affected https://bit.ly/3xDkEet
Trans Corpora 40677 Indonesia B Project footprint for tourism could affect Indonesian indigenous peoples depending on siting, but "Willing sellers" and established population centers are used to bypass PS7
Metro Myanmar 40001 Myanmar B A massive resettlement was carried out but indigeneity of the displaced was not considered. Satellite warehouses and docking stations should be evaluated for IP presence here regardless
Sinu 41152 Colombia B IFC bypasses PS7 because "according to the Company" there are no IPs. The Ministry of Interior actually certified this but IFC did not mention it https://bit.ly/2PUsRtK
La Genoveva 41190 Argentina A There are Mapuche lands to the west of this site and Argentina has historically failed to acknowledge many IP claims. Project had no CommRel team and relied solely on ESIA to bypass PS https://nyti.ms/3xINk5z
Belgrade WtE 37838 Serbia A No indigenous evaluation was carried out but in 2021 the affected Roma populations brought a complaint to co-investor EBRD lamenting loss of livelihood

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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