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
Amadeus JV 42202 Brazil A The ESAP required the client to evaluate potential IP presence but PS7 was not flagged based on the absence of IPs "inside or using" project land
Suguna III 42834 India B Bangladesh - Kenya and India (including Odisha) have IPs that should be considered - but IFC's evaluation only considered "land acquisition" as a trigger for applying PS7
Delta Solar 37636 Egypt B IFC financed 11 of 39 projects in the new industrial zone. IFC does not describe downgradient or legacy IP impacts but observed there "are" no IPs presently "in the project area
Taqa Arabia Solar 37637 Egypt B IFC financed 11 of 39 projects in the new 37km2 industrial zone. IFC does not describe downgradient or legacy IP/herder impacts but noted there are no IPs presently "in the project area
Cerradinho Bio 35523 Brazil B Because the company will "likely have flexibility over" plantation sites "no involuntary resettlement is expected." When IPs have not been state certified clients have no incentive to identify them
Irrawaddy Towers 35935 Myanmar B IFC does not explain why network construction "is not expected" to encroach or degrade indigenous lands. But impacts on IPs associated with IT also include the Rohingya Genocide
Summit Mezzanine 37593 Bangladesh A Initial footprints looked low-impact (Barisal - Narayanganj - Kaliakoir - Meghnaghat) but ended up in hill tribe lands. They then carried out IP evaluations (all without a PS7 trigger)
Bel Ga JSC 38011 Vietnam B No [IP] issues are expected" because the site is "a well-developed industrial zone in semi-urban / agricultural setting." The project location is not clear from public documents
FCEL 37943 India B The "types of risks and impacts envisaged in PS7" are considered absent but PS7 covers all risks to IPs. Sri Lankan indigeneity seems not to be considered in agricultural supply chain
Glenmark 38371 India B Sikkim and Madhya Pradesh have substantial IP populations that are not mentioned at all. Yet company E and S mgmt systems are to identify future IP risks despite not having done so to date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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