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.
Project Name | Project Number | Country | Category | Nature of Indigenous Risk |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pan Pacific VN | 34305 | Vietnam | B | Unknown footprint for expanded operations |
Summit Bibiyana II Power Company Limited | 30542 | Bangladesh | A | See paper |
CHSC Limited | 35033 | Egypt | B | Client has no feasible complaint mechanism (given Egyptian political context) and IPs lack legal protections. Yet IFC accepted client ESDD on downgradient community impacts/identification |
Heineken Rwanda | 35078 | Rwanda | B | IFC does not say how client determined there are no indigenous peoples in Gisenyi. A methodology would be needed as IP identification could be complicated |
Tinka | 35873 | Peru | B | This is campesino lands - descendants of Incas |
Yaoure | 34822 | Cote D'Ivoire | B | Indigenous peoples are present in Cote d'Ivoire - and the project has a large footprint and area of impact. IFC project summaries make no mention of indigenous peoples at all |
Ooredoo Myanmar | 34170 | Myanmar | B | The physical footprint of the network could affect IP lands compounding IP impacts associated with internet technology |
Portea Medical | 37150 | India | B | As there are no physical assets . . . and company operations are mainly based at patients homes" PS7 is bypassed. But workers come from poorest states and marginalized castes |
Robi Axiata II | 36136 | Bangladesh | B | Focus is explicitly on hill tribe areas |
Cimenterie de Lukala SA | 36898 | Congo - Democratic Republic of | B | This footprint is massive - spanning lime quarries - sand quarries and a cement factory. How IFC determined indigeneity in DRC is never articulated - but PS7 did "not apply |