IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) Manual

Transcription

1 IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) Manual March 2015 i

2 Preamble The purpose of this document is to provide the IUCN Secretariat with systems and procedures designed to integrate measures in projects managed by IUCN or partners in order to avoid (or minimize) the environmental and social impacts, and to enhance positive impacts to the maximum extent possible. The procedures, measures and guidelines provided hereafter build on the various policy and management instruments already developed and applied by IUCN, and are set to evolve and improve over time as IUCN implements the system to guide the management cycle of GEF-funded projects and other large projects in A first version of this document was produced by the IUCN Secretariat in July 2013 as part of the process for IUCN s accreditation as a GEF Project Agency. This version of the document incorporates comments from the GEF Accreditation Panel between July 2013 and May 2014 as well as further inputs received from IUCN Secretariat colleagues from headquarters and the regions between September and December It further underwent a process of final peer-review and consolidation synchronizing the manual more strongly with the other elements of the ESMS. ii

3 Abbreviations E&S Standards ESIA ESMF ESMP ESMS FPIC GEF IFC IUCN NGO PAAS PCMS PGS PIF PCR ToR WCC Environmental and Social Standards Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Environmental and Social Management Framework Environmental and Social Management Plan Environmental and Social Management System Free prior informed consent Global Environment Facility International Finance Corporation International Union for Conservation of Nature Non-governmental organization Project Appraisal and Approval System Project Complaints Management System Project Guidelines and Standards Project Identification Form Physical cultural resources Terms of reference World Conservation Congress iii

4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Purpose of the ESMS Methodological approach Procedures and Measures Overview of Procedures Screening of Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment of Environmental and Social Impacts Environmental and Social Management Plan Appraisal of the final ESIA report and the ESMP Appraisal of the full project proposal Monitoring and Review Pubic Consultation and Disclosure Public consultation Disclosure of Information Free, Prior and Informed Consent Conflict Resolution and Grievance Mechanism Purpose Eligibility Preparing and Filing a Complaint through the PCMS Review Process Maintaining records and monitoring actions Responsibility of executing agencies Protection against retaliation Accountability Organizational structure Corrective actions Grievance System Responsibilities and Competencies of IUCN Overall Organizational Structure Specific ESMS Tasks and Responsibilities Appendix A-1 Environmental and Social Impact Screening Questionnaire A-2 Environmental and Social Impact-Screening Tool B-1 Key elements and outputs of a scoping study for category A projects B-2 ToR for a light and full ESIA C-1 Checklist for appraisal of final ESIA report & ESMP C-2 Checklist for ESMS review of full project proposals D-1 Suggested Format for Complaint D-2 Guidance on signage at project sites iv

5 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the ESMS The main objective of IUCN projects is to realise positive environmental and social impacts, including benefits for communities that depend on natural resources. However, unwanted negative environmental and social side effects from the projects being implemented may occur. Within the context of its Mission, it is IUCN s policy to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to avoid or minimize negative environmental and social impacts while stimulating positive impacts. To put this policy in practice IUCN has developed and set up an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) as an intrinsic part of IUCN s project cycle. It provides operational measures and tools to systematically screen projects on potential negative environmental or social impacts; identify appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for these impacts; and to optimize positive impacts. It also ensures that the implementation of mitigation measures and their effectiveness are monitored and that any other impacts arising during execution of the project are addressed. The ESMS is guided by an overarching governance and policy framework, the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The ESFM determines the operational responsibilities for implementing the ESMS and its scope of application, defines the principles guiding the implementation of the ESMS, provides the definition of environmental and social impacts and specifies IUCN s key focus areas, referred to as IUCN Environmental and Social (E&S) Standards and Guidelines. The Standards establish policy and practice for environmental and human rights areas that are of highest concern to IUCN. Figure 1: Summary ESMF Principles (orange circle) and Policy Standards (blue) and Guidelines (grey) 1

6 The ESMF is based on and consolidates IUCN environmental and social policies, more specifically a series of existing IUCN Policies and IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC) Resolutions, guidelines and instruments developed over time, as well as current practice in implementing these in projects. The ESMF is consistent with the present World Bank s Operational Policies (OP) 1 and GEF s minimum standards on environmental and social safeguards, and has also been influenced by the International Finance Corporation s (IFC) Performance Standards on environmental and social sustainability. 1.2 Methodological approach To put the ESMS in practice a methodological approach has been developed for identifying and managing environmental and social impacts based on clear procedures, rules and guidelines set out in this document (ESMS Manual) 2. Its application is made systematic by being integrated into IUCN s Project Appraisal and Approval System which is described in the IUCN Project Guidelines and Standards (PGS). The ESMS s methodological approach incorporates the following four stages: (i) screening of impacts; (ii) scoping and assessment of impacts; (iii) development of environmental and social management plans with appropriate mitigation measures, and (iv) monitoring and review. The screening and subsequent stages allow the user to identify and focus resources on those projects where significant environmental and social impacts are expected. If the screening shows that no adverse environmental and social impacts are expected, then no further assessment activities are required. Thus the level of detail and complexity of applying the ESMS is commensurate with the level of expected environmental and social impacts. The identification of mitigation measures is guided by the mitigation hierarchy (see figure 2). First all reasonable attempts are being made to avoid negative impacts. Where avoidance is not possible, the project should be adjusted in a way to minimize the impacts; and, where residual impacts to affected communities or the environment remain, they need to be addressed with appropriate compensation measures. Figure 2: Mitigation Hierarchy 1 Presently under revision in a two year effort ending in 2015 (see following link). 2 The ESMS s methodological approach is comparable with the World Bank s operational policy OP/BP 4.01 Environmental Assessment. 2

7 2. Procedures and Measures 2.1 Overview of Procedures The main body of the ESMS are its operational procedures associated with the following stages of the project cycle: Project concept: Appraisal of project concept which includes screening of potential environmental and social impacts and classification of the project in category A, B or C; Project development: o Scoping and detailed Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), with variable level of detail depending upon the intensity of expected potential impacts, and preparation of ESIA report including an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) with appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring indicators; o Appraisal of the project full proposal, with the ESMP integrated, scrutinizing: whether alternatives have been considered, if relevant; whether adequate and feasible mitigation measures have been identified, whether gender consideration have been fully integrated; whether the ESMP includes an adequate monitoring plan; whether the ESMS procedures and E&S principles have been properly applied. Annual project monitoring and reporting, especially regarding progress with respect to implementation of environmental and social mitigation measures; Evaluation and closure of the project, especially with respect to whether expected environmental and social negative impacts have indeed been avoided, minimized and/or mitigated. An important principle of the ESMF is stakeholder engagement and disclosure of information. The different ESMS decision points along the project cycle and how the public is engaged in the identification and assessment of potential environmental or social impacts through consultation and disclosure are depicted in the following table (Scheme 1). Project cycle stage ESMS decision points Project identification: concept (PIF in case of GEF project) ESMS screening on E&S impacts: Screening decision (Classification in category A, B or C) Disclosure of project concept and screening decision Category A: Scoping (with public consultation) followed by full ESIA and ESMP Category B: Light ESIA and ESMP Project development: preparation of project full proposal Project implementation and monitoring Public consultation on draft ESIA report and ESMP Approval of final ESIA report and ESMP Disclosure of ESIA report and results public consultation Appraisal of proposal including ESMP and monitoring system Disclosure of project full proposal Project monitoring reports including ESMP progress Review of ESMP monitoring Consultations on E&S issues if applicable (e.g. Category A projects) Disclosure of project monitoring reports 3

8 Project evaluation and closure Project completion report Disclosure of project completion report Evaluation whether E&S impacts are adequately avoided or mitigated Consultations if applicable (e.g. Category A projects) Scheme 1: ESMS decision points in relation to the IUCN project cycle 2.2 Screening of Environmental and Social Impacts Purpose The purpose of the screening is to review the proposed project concept and to make an initial assessment of whether there are likely to be any negative environmental and social impacts. Based on the screening it is decided whether further assessments are required, e.g. a full environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) or a light or partial ESIA. Procedures The screening is carried out once a project concept is available see Scheme 1. Steps IUCN has adopted a case-by-case approach where each project is analysed on their potential to cause adverse impacts. Screening is carried out in four steps: 1. In the first step the project is reviewed on the degree of stakeholder consultation conducted during the conceptualization stage, the depth and quality of social analysis carried out and how this has informed project design; 2. The second step screens the project against the E&S Standards and Guidelines as these refer to social and environmental issues which are of utmost importance to IUCN. 3. The third step looks at other potential environmental and social impacts beyond the impacts identified already as part of IUCN s E&S Standards and Guidelines analysed in step 2. These might be impacts related to the rights and well-being of women and of vulnerable groups (both groups being the focus of ESMF principles), but the screening could also point to potential impacts related to other social or environmental receptors. Aside from direct impacts the assessment should also consider indirect, cumulative and transboundary impacts. 4. The fourth step assesses potential climate change risks. Responsibility The responsibility for screening lies with the IUCN ESMS Coordinator who is assisted by the internal IUCN Expert Team of the Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS Expert Team). Inputs The appraisal will be undertaken based on information provided in the project concept, the situation analysis and stakeholder analysis carried out during project conceptualization stage and the Environmental and Social Impact Screening Questionnaire ( see Appendix A.1). The questionnaire is composed of four sections reflecting the four screening steps outlined above. The questionnaire is first completed by the project proponent based on available information and knowledge applying professionally and ethically appropriate judgement. It is then reviewed by IUCN s regional or national office to provide an impartial opinion. Both parties sign the form. Screening Tool To support the screening exercise an Environmental and Social Impact-Screening Tool has been developed (see Appendix A.2). The tool is composed of appraisal sheets supporting each of the above described screening steps. Aside from providing an appraisal of the project on the specific 4

9 screening issues, the sheets also allow for specifying what further information and/or assessment are required for better understanding impacts and improving project design. This might include the need to undertake targeted assessments which will become part of the ToR of the full or partial ESIA. If desired, suggested assessments could be further specified in terms of assessment methodologies or technical expertise; it is important to note that some E&S Standards provide detailed guidance on methodology or expertise. Gender equality and women empowerment As for impacts on women the analysis should identify whether women are faced with inequalities in terms of their social role, their access, control and use of services or resources, access to rights and their participation in decision making. Aside from disaggregating between women and men it may also be useful to distinguish further subgroups (e.g. women of ethnic minorities). The focus of the assessment should be to (i) take stock of the recent situations and possible tensions and (ii) enquire about implications for women and men of any planned action, especially considering potential threats of perpetuating inequalities between women and men. Additionally a judgment will be made whether the project sufficiently provides for gender inclusion and for ensuring that men and women derive equitable social, economic, and environmental benefits from the project. At this stage the level of detail of the analysis is admittedly constraint as it is based mainly on the information provided by the screening questionnaire, the project concept and if available - on a situation analysis and stakeholder analysis. A further resort for improving the understanding of potential impacts on women is IUCN s Environment and Gender Index which provides country-level gender data. Screening Decision The ESMS team concludes the screening by making a judgement about the significance of the identified impacts and classifying the project into one of the three categories (A, B or C). The criteria employed for judging the significance are (i) the importance and sensitivity of receptors (ecosystem or social system), (ii) the magnitude of impacts, (iii) the probability of the impact occurring, (iv) degree of public concern and (v) compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The significance assessment can be further strengthened by using the matrix provided in the optional screening step 5 (Assessment of significance). The matrix generates a visual summary of the identified impacts assessed against the criteria for significance laid out above. However, using this matrix requires a level of information that may not be fully available at the concept stage. For classifying the project into Category A, B or C the following guidance is used: Projects are classified as Category A if they have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts. These impacts may influence an area broader than the project site. Category A projects are located in or near areas with sensitive receptors - human populations or environmentally important areas - and impacts may severely affect the health and quality of the receptor, be of long duration, may be irreversible and likely to occur. The significance of issues should also be determined by analysing compliance with applicable national law and regulations as well as international agreements and protocols. For Category A projects a full-fledged environmental and social impact assessment is required. Projects are classified as Category B if their potential environmental and social impacts are less adverse than those of Category A projects and fewer in number. Typically, these impacts are site-specific, few if any of them are irreversible, and mitigation measures could be readily 5

10 designed. Category B projects are analysed through a light or partial environmental and/or social impact assessment focussing on the selected issue(s) identified during screening. Projects are classified as Category C if they are likely to have minimal or no environmental and social impacts. The above classification guidance is illustrative only as impacts cannot be generalized and are very context specific. It is meant as yardstick but should not replace good technical judgment on a project-by-project basis. The outcome of the screening can be thought of as a mini-environmental and social impact assessment. However, it is important to recognize the relative limits of this first analytical step as it is restricted in time and resources (e.g. decision is based on project concept, screening questionnaire and a few other available documents). Therefore and in full recognition of the precautionary principle, wherever there are any doubts about the degree or significance of the identified potential impacts the screening decision should always favour a more comprehensive analysis hence suggesting carrying out a light or full ESIA. The results of the screening and categorization of the project are publicly disclosed (see chapter 3). Supportive Tools Environmental and Social Impact Screening Questionnaire see Appendix A.1. - Environmental and Social Impact-Screening Tool - see Appendix A.2: consisting of: o Screening Step 1 - Process Concept Development o Screening Step 2 - IUCN E&S Standards; o Screening Step 3 - Other potential environmental or social impacts; o Screening Step 4 - Climate Change Risks; o Screening Step 5 (optional) - Assessment of significance Environment and Gender Index (EGI) which provides gender country-profiles of 72+ countries 2.3 Assessment of Environmental and Social Impacts Purpose An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) shall be prepared for projects where the screening procedure has identified the risk of negative environmental and or social impacts and the project has been classified either as Category A or B. The purpose of the ESIA is to examine potential impacts of the proposed project to physical, biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and physical cultural resources, identify, analyse and compare feasible alternatives (including without project situation) and recommend mitigation measures. The aim is to arrive at a sound project strategy where adverse impacts are avoided, minimized or compensated for and benefits for local communities are enhanced. Aside from avoiding environmental and social impacts the proposed strategy should also be favourable and suitable from an economic angle comparing costs and benefits as well as being effective in achieving the project objectives. Procedures The assessment is carried out once a project concept has been approved. Category A projects are assessed with full ESIA, Category B projects only with a light or partial environmental and/or social impact assessments. Because Category A projects are more complex the assessment will be preceded by a scoping study in order to identify priorities for ESIA. Scoping and development of ToR For projects of category A, prior to initiating the full ESIA, a scoping study should be carried out. The primary functions of scoping are to identify and focus the environmental and social impact 6

11 assessment on significant environmental and social issues, to indicate what type of impact studies and which expertise is required and to establish the ToR for the ESIA. The starting point for identifying potential environmental and social impacts is reviewing the screening tool applied during the screening step. The second and third matrix of the screening tool will have usually already provided an early list of impacts and a first approximation of their relative significance. This list should be further elaborated and broadened to allow a more comprehensive view of impacts based on further data and on consultations with a wide array of local stakeholders, most importantly with local communities, to achieve a comprehensive understanding of public concerns. It is also recommended to obtain the opinion of key informants and specialists with previous experience with the project type, project area and similar sites. Once a list of environmental and social issues has been established, it will be necessary to determine which of these issues are most significant and define the final scope of the ESIA. This is best done in consultation with involved and affected stakeholders. The level of detail and comprehensiveness of an environmental assessment should be commensurate with the complexity of the project and the significance of its potential impacts and risks. The key elements and outputs of a scoping study are detailed in Appendix B.1. For Category B projects the development of ToR is based on the impacts identified during the screening phase. Appendix B.2 provides a list of the elements provided in the ToR for both, the light or partial ESIA for B projects and the full ESIA for A projects. For selected sectors (land degradation, biodiversity, wetlands and water resources) generic impact assessment ToR are available together with sector guidelines in order to facilitate the work of the ESMS team. Also generic TORs for a socioeconomic assessment are available. These documents are designed as generic terms of reference and must be adapted and tailored to each specific situation. The actual scope and depth of these assessments will be determined by the nature and importance of the issues studied, as identified in the screening (and scoping) phase of the ESMS. Implementation of the ESIA A full ESIA is always conducted by a third party, e.g. a consultant or a consultant team external to IUCN, in order to guarantee an independent view. A light or partial ESIA is also preferably conducted by an independent party, in particular if the impacts to be studied are related to sensitive issues. 3 The IUCN ESMS Coordinator and ESMS Expert Team can be consulted during the ESIA however they will not influence study results as independence of the expert opinion is required. The ESIA consultant or team should make use of any documentation or reports produced during the initial steps of project conceptualization (e.g. situation analysis, stakeholder analysis and Theory of Change analysis), should be mindful about people s time investment during the preceding steps avoiding duplication of preceding work. The list below describes and illustrates the key elements of an ESIA. All of the elements are thoroughly covered by a full ESIA undertaken for a Category A project. For Category B projects only a partial or light environmental and/or social impact assessment is carried out because identified impact issues are more limited in scope, fewer in number and less complex. The light ESIA is generally focused on assessing the issues identified during screening and doesn t provide as much background and baseline data as a full ESIA. The elements usually not covered in a light ESIA are marked below with an asterisk. 3 For GEF projects ESIA will always be undertaken by independent consultants or consulting firms at arm s length from IUCN, both categories (A and B). 7

12 1. Analysis of policy, legal, and administrative framework.* Discusses the policy, legal, and administrative framework within which the ESIA is carried out. Identifies relevant international environmental agreements to which the country is a party. Explains the environmental requirements of any co-financing partners, if applicable. In cases where pertinent, gender national and international legal framework must be taken into account. 2. Project description. Concisely describes the proposed project and its geographic, ecological, social, and temporal context, including any implications of the project outside the project site. Indicates the need for any resettlement plan or indigenous peoples plan. Normally includes a map showing the project site and the project's area of influence. Attention should be paid to associated infrastructure. 3. Stakeholder identification and analysis. The stakeholder analysis carried out during the preceding steps of project conceptualization will be expanded by taking into account potential impacts identified in the screening phase; this might include adding new stakeholder (e.g. those that might potentially be affected by the identified impacts and others) as well as deepening the analysis. Compared to the existing analysis, more detail might be required on stakeholder s interest, roles and responsibilities, their rights (covering both legal and non-legal rights), as well as requirements for effective consultation and participation where feasible and relevant disaggregated by sex. 4. Environmental and social baseline data*. Assesses the dimensions of the study area and describes relevant physical, biological, socioeconomic conditions and gender elements including any changes anticipated before the project commences. Also takes into account current and proposed development activities within the project area but not directly connected to the project. Data should be relevant to decisions about project location, design, operation, or mitigation measures. Accuracy, reliability, and sources of the data need to be specified. Socioeconomic assessment may be required for which generic ToR are available. The actual purpose, scope and depth of the assessment will be determined by the nature, complexity and importance of the issues studied, as identified in the screening phase. Gender equality and women empowerment In all instances where the screening process carried out as part of the ESMS has determined that women could be negatively affected by the project, a more detailed gender analysis will be carried out in order to identify gender-related issues and opportunities. This gender analysis will be guided by IUCN s Framework for Conducting Gender Responsive Analysis and will cover: demographic, social, economic information on women who could be affected, taking into account diversity among women; description and analysis of all forms of resource tenure and use, and of customary rights and claims to lands, territories and resources in (or potentially impacted by) the project area, and the status of recognition of these rights and claims under national legislation and administrative practices; mapping of local women s organizations and networks, and gender experts (including institutions and individual contacts for consultation processes and other inputs); local knowledge relevant to the proposed project, identification of the groups or individuals who may be the special holders of such knowledge, and determination of how it may be affected and used during project implementation. 5. Environmental and social impact assessment of project proposal. Assesses potential impacts of the proposed project to physical, biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and physical cultural resources, including transboundary concerns, and potential impacts on human health and safety. Impacts should be predicted in qualitative and, to the extent possible, in quantitative terms. Identifies mitigation measures and any residual negative impacts that cannot be mitigated. Explores opportunities for environmental and social enhancement. Identifies and estimates the extent and quality of available data, key data gaps, and 8

13 uncertainties associated with predictions, and specifies topics that do not require further attention. The assessment takes into account provisions from all E&S Standards triggered, but also covers all other impacts as identified during screening (and scoping, in case of full EISA). Gender equality and women empowerment The assessment of the social impacts should be disaggregated by sex and aside from assessing potential negative impacts of the project on both gender should also examine whether women s and men s concerns and experiences have equally been included in project design and whether men and women are expected to derive equitable social, economic, and environmental benefits from the project. 6. Analysis of alternatives*. Systematically compares feasible, less adverse alternatives to the proposed project site, technology, design, and operation -- including the "without project" situation -- in terms of their potential environmental and social impacts; the feasibility of mitigating these impacts; estimating implications on costs and benefits of the alternatives; their suitability under local conditions and effectiveness of achieving the project objectives; their impact on women equality and empowerment and their institutional, training, and monitoring requirements. 7. Environmental and social management plan (ESMP). Covers mitigation measures, monitoring, capacity- building and institutional strengthening (for further details see next section). 8. Results of consultations. A summary of public consultations carried out during the ESIA process and their recommendations should be included in the report, with an explanation how these results have been taken into account. This should also discriminate how women have been included in the consultation, taking into consideration their gender-specific knowledge, roles, responsibilities and potential impact. It should also document the results of the final stakeholder meeting where feed-back of affected communities and other relevant stakeholders on the draft ESIA and ESMP is gathered. The IUCN s E&S Policy Standards provide some guidance for carrying out impact appraisal in their respective impact areas which should be followed for every Standard that has been triggered. Obviously a project can cause impacts related to more than one Standard which means that their respective guidelines need to be combined in the ESIA. A brief summary of the Policy Standards and Guidelines and their provisions is presented below; the details are set forth in the respective Standard documents: Involuntary resettlement and access restrictions: The Standard guides the assessment through a set of principles, first and foremost the need for comprehensive analysis of affected stakeholders and their rights and roles and how they may be affected by the project. It sets the clear preference of avoiding involuntary resettlement and access restrictions by searching for and assessing all feasible alternatives. It also establishes the requirements for a full assessment of the economic, social and cultural impact of potential resettlement and access restriction measures, if they cannot be avoided, with a proper valuation of the goods and services that would be lost as a result of the engagement. It further stipulates the need for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and defines when and how monetary or other forms of compensation are to be developed. Indigenous peoples: The Standard provides detailed guidance for the assessment in cases where communities and groups potentially affected by the project include indigenous peoples. The Standard establishes the need to conduct a comprehensive social analysis to improve the understanding of the local context and affected communities and delineates the elements to be covered. It also stipulates the requirements to implement a process to achieve free, prior, and informed consent. 9

14 Natural habitats: The Standard guides the assessment through a set of objectives and principles as well as by referring to a series of existing IUCN policies and resolutions which have been widely applied and aim at enhancing positive conservation effects. It alerts to the fact that conservation projects, albeit seeking to enhance or protect biodiversity, may give rise to adverse side-effects impairing natural habitat and associated biodiversity. Where impacts might be expected the ESIA should seek alternative project approaches and/or suggest alternative siting of physical infrastructure on lands where natural habitats have already been converted to other land uses. It further stipulates the need to screen projects on the potential of accidentally introducing invasive species. Generic TORs and sector guidelines for specific impact studies for selected sectors (Wetlands and Water Resources, Land Degradation, Biodiversity) are provided. Physical cultural resources (PCR): The standard describes the process of analysing potential impacts on physical cultural resource. It establishes the key principle that local and traditional knowledge will be sought during assessment and used as appropriate to identify potential risks. Pest management: For projects related to agriculture or invasive species management where the use of pesticides cannot be avoided, special guidance is provided for analysing the need of using chemicals and assessing the risks. Dams and other water infrastructures. IUCN does not engage in the design, construction and rehabilitation of large dams or other water, but projects in areas such as river basin management including environmental flows and floodplain restoration plans may have indirect impacts on the operations of dams. The guidelines provides guidance for impact assessment and provides a list of specific technical studies to be undertaken, if applicable, in order to ensure that projects carried out by IUCN and partners don t exert impacts on existing dams and other water infrastructures. Supportive Tools Key elements and outputs of a scoping for category A projects see Appendix B.1. Elements provided in the ToR for a light or full ESIA see Appendix B.2. IUCN s Framework for Conducting Gender Responsive Analysis is available to guide the incorporation of gender-differentiated impacts in scoping and assessment processes. Environment and Gender Index (EGI) which provides gender country-profiles of 72+ countries Generic TORs for impact studies for selected sectors: o Generic ToR for assessing Wetlands and Water Resources o Generic ToR for assessing Land Degradation o Generic ToR for assessing Biodiversity o Sector guidelines on land degradation, wetlands and water resources and biodiversity Generic TORs for socioeconomic assessment. 2.4 Environmental and Social Management Plan Purpose A project's Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) aims to structure the set of mitigation, monitoring, capacity building and institutional measures to be applied during execution and operation to avoid adverse environmental and social impacts, reduce them to acceptable levels or, if this is not feasible, cost-effective or sufficient, to offset them in an agreed way. The plan also includes the actions needed to implement these measures. ESMPs are an essential element of the ESIA reports for Category A and Category B projects and are part of the project full proposal submitted to or developed by IUCN. Where IUCN assumes the role of a supervising agency (e.g. as implementing agency for GEF projects) the ESMP becomes part of the contractual agreement with the agencies executing the project. 10

15 Procedures To prepare an ESMP, the ESIA Team needs to: (a) identify the set of responses to all anticipated significant adverse impacts; (b) determine requirements for ensuring that those responses are made effectively and in a timely manner; and (c) describe the means for meeting those requirements. In general, the ESMP includes the following components: Mitigation measures - List of proposed measures to mitigate significant adverse social and environmental impacts to acceptable levels - Evidence of technical and economic feasibility and cultural adequacy of proposed measures - Cost estimates of mitigation measures - Compensatory measures if mitigation measures are not feasible, cost-effective, or sufficient Monitoring plan - Monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures (process monitoring) and their effectiveness in mitigating impacts (impact monitoring) - Indicators to be measured, frequency of measurements, methods and responsibilities Institutional arrangements and capacity development - Description of institutional arrangements to carry out the mitigating and monitoring measures - Identification of potential gaps and capacity building measures to ensure implementation of ESIA recommendations Implementation schedule Integration of ESMP with project planning, assignment of institutional implementation responsibilities and budget In case the project has triggered one or more E&S Policy Standards separate project action plans may be required as set out in the respective Standard documents. The plans are summarized briefly as follows: Involuntary resettlement. IUCN does not support forced resettlement and also aims at avoiding and minimizing, to the maximum extent possible, involuntary resettlement and access restriction. In case where this cannot be avoided, agreement with affected peoples and groups needs to be procured in strict adherence with the FPIC principle. A Resettlement Action Plan identifies the host communities, defines the consultation, agreement and monitoring mechanism and specifies compensation and assistance schemes in order to guarantee that livelihoods of all affected persons are enhanced or restored in real terms relative to pre-project levels. In the case of projects or sub-projects that may involve involuntary resettlement without knowing at the time of the ESIA- the exact location and the respective population to be displaced, nor the overall resettlement costs, a Resettlement Policy Framework will be formulated. For projects where limited access restriction is necessary, a Process Framework will be used which determines the process and methodology for arriving at an agreed assistance and compensation mechanism. Indigenous peoples. IUCN does not support projects that negatively impact indigenous peoples rights and their livelihoods. In cases where projects operate in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples an ESMP will be developed to include provisions to minimise, restore and compensate for any potential impacts. In cases where provisions and measures are substantial, they will be articulated in a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP). Seeking full adherence with the FPIC principle, affected communities will be comprehensively informed about potential impacts and fully engaged in the preparation of the ESMP or IPP. Natural habitats: As a conservation organization IUCN avoids projects which might involve negative impacts on natural habitats, in particular on critical natural habitat, and defines a number of conditions where projects would not be undertaken if no alternatives can be found 11

16 and the risk could not be mitigated significantly. If the impacts are considered manageable an ESMP will be devised specifying mitigation measures for minimising, restoring or compensating for the negative impacts on habitats. An Ecosystem Management Plans can often figure as an important element of the ESMP. In order to assist the development of Ecosystem Management Plans generic ToR are available together with an 8-page technical guidance note. Physical cultural resources (PCR): IUCN projects avoid impacts on physical cultural resources wherever possible by identifying alternative sites or other alternative project approaches. If impacts on PCR cannot be completely prevented, mitigation measures are identified and included in the ESMP. In cases of chance finds, regulations and procedures stipulated in national law will apply whenever they available; when national law is insufficient specific provisions of IUCN s Policy Standard will be given precedence. Pest management. IUCN projects avoid the use of pesticides wherever possible by promoting alternative pest management approaches. Where the use of pesticides cannot be avoided a Pest Management Plan is required in order to minimize and mitigate any risks. Dams and other water infrastructures. It is not expected that a separate action plan will be needed in relation to dams as IUCN projects will not lead to significant impacts on dams or in relation to dams, because IUCN is not involved in dam construction or rehabilitation. However, for specific water resources projects technical assessment might be necessary which would also provide for adequate and feasible mitigation measures, if applicable. The mitigation measures will be included in the ESMP. Supportive Tools Generic TORs for Ecosystem Management Planning Technical guidance on Ecosystem Management Planning 2.5 Appraisal of the final ESIA report and the ESMP The final ESIA report and the ESMP will be appraised by the IUCN ESMS Coordinator. This is done before the project proponent finalizes the full project proposal. The ESMS coordinator will be supported by the ESMS Expert Team and also seeks consultation with other IUCN units on relevant issues. The aim is to evaluate the quality of the ESIA and to determine whether the information provided in the ESIA report is sufficient for understanding potential impacts of the project and its possible alternatives and for finalizing the project design in a way so as to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate adverse impacts, and enhance benefits. The appraisal also aims at reviewing the ESMP proposed by the ESIA team. To assist the appraisal a checklist has been developed to be completed by the ESMS coordinator in consultation with relevant members of the ESMS Expert Team - see Appendix C.1. The checklist is applicable for both, the full-fledged ESIA and the Light ESIA, but certain areas or questions will not apply for the light ESIA as indicated in the checklist. The appraisal culminates in a final decision of the ESIA defining whether the study is considered adequate or whether additional work needs to be done because the ESIA or elements of it are considered not sufficient or inadequate. The ESMS Coordinator will work in close partnership with the project proponent and IUCN s Office of the Legal Adviser (OLA) to spell out the legal covenants confirming the need for implementing the ESMP in order to make the project acceptable to IUCN and to the financiers. Supportive Tools Checklist for appraisal of final ESIA report and ESMP - see C.1. 12

17 2.6 Appraisal of the full project proposal Final appraisal of the project is carried out once a project s full proposal is available and submitted for approval. The purpose of the appraisal is to assure that the project has incorporated the findings of the ESIA, that its ESMP foresees adequate measures to avoid, minimize or compensate potential social and environmental impacts and that a suitable mechanism is conceptualized to assure the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring of their effectiveness. The appraisal is supported by the appraisal checklist provided as Appendix C.2. The appraisal checklist is filled out by the ESMS Coordinator in consultation with the ESMS Expert Team. The reviewer may also work in close cooperation with other IUCN units and/ or other lead experts on relevant E&S standards to develop the assessments and judgments. An overview the different steps, the approximate duration for complying with the triggered environment and social standards and its relation with the stages of project development is depicted on the next page (Scheme 2). The graph also illustrates at what stages the various ESMS tools described in the sections above come into play. It has to be noted though, that the duration of these steps strongly depends on the nature and complexity of the project and that it is likely to require less time for small and mid-sized projects. Supportive Tools Checklist for the ESMS review of the full project proposal - see Appendix C2. ESMS Flowchart 2.7 Monitoring and Review Purpose All projects classified as Category A or B projects are required to develop either an ESMP or action plans as specified by the respective E&S Policy Standards that has been triggered (e.g. Resettlement Action Plan, Indigenous Peoples Plan etc.). For these projects regular monitoring of the ESMP and the action plans is undertaken (also referred to as E&S monitoring) in order to furnish information on the progress and results of impact mitigation and to ensure early detection of conditions that might necessitate further mitigation measures. For all other projects monitoring of environmental and social conditions to detect potential unanticipated E&S risks or impacts and review of the project implementation are fundamental elements of an adaptive project management system. Procedures E&S monitoring is integral part of the project s overall annual monitoring and reporting cycle. Monitoring results are documented and reported annually. Details of the monitoring requirements such as the need for establishing baselines and for defining monitoring methods and responsibilities are delineated in the PGS. Monitoring is normally carried out by the executing entity, using competent professionals or external experts, as part of its project management system. In certain cases, e.g. Category A projects, supplemental monitoring may be required which may result in the imposition of additional monitoring and/or verification activities. This is the case in particular for projects requiring involuntary resettlements or where impacts related to indigenous peoples or physical cultural resources are expected as well as projects involving pest management, all requiring the development of action plans. These action plans include the provisions for supplemental monitoring activities, including the appointment of qualified and experienced external experts to independently verify monitoring results. 13

18 Participatory monitoring methods involving women and men from local or affected communities are considered for projects where potential significant adverse risks on these communities were identified during ESMS screening and assessment. Employing participatory monitoring usually involves providing culturally appropriate guidance and/or implementing capacity building measures. Certain types of projects may result in, or contribute to, cumulative, transboundary and global impacts. The initial ESMS screening should have given an indication about the risk of causing these impacts and suggested methods for their further assessment and /or monitoring. The project s ESMP, where applicable, will include specific mitigation measures for managing and monitoring these impacts. All relevant E&S action plans including resettlement action plans must be implemented before the project is formally concluded. Upon completion of the project, IUCN assesses whether projectrelated resettlement measures have met their planned objectives. If not, provisions should be made to correct the situation and make certain that the necessary compensations are paid and income restored. Monitoring results are publicly disclosed on an annual basis. Supporting Tools As part of the PGS, IUCN has developed a template for monitoring which describes the progress made in the implementation of the ESMP and the mitigating measures included in it. 14

19 Development of Project Concept Development of Full Project Proposal Months Project Design Scheme 2: ESMS Flowchart Stakeholder Analysis Situation Analysis Problem Analysis Theory of Change ESMS Manual: Tools in annexes Risk Analysis Partner: Organizational & Financial Risk Screening Env & Social Impact/ESMS Standard A-1 Env.& Social Impact Screening Questionnaire Financial Planning Env & Social Impact / ESMS Standard: Project Classification C Project No ESIA required A-2 Env.& Social Impact Screening Tool 4 Submission Project Concept to Project Review Committee A Project B Project A-3 Details on criteria for A,B,C Classification Appraisal Approval Concept Results-oriented Planning Scoping Issues and ToR Stakeholder Involvement B-1 Guidelines for scoping study for category A projects Risk Analysis Findings ESIA can serve as input Into project design (iterative process) Full-Fledged ESIA Light ESIA B-2 Elements for ToR of light and full ESIA Financial Planning Appraisal ESIA & ESMP Stakeholder Involvement Appraisal ESIA & ESMP C-1 Checklist appraisal final ESIA report and ESMP Submission Full Project Proposal to Project Review Committee Appraisal C-2 Checklist ESMS review of full proposals 7-12 Project Approval 15

20 3. Pubic Consultation and Disclosure 3.1 Public consultation Consultation with relevant stakeholders (men and women) including affected groups, indigenous peoples, other most vulnerable groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and local authorities about the project's potential environmental and social aspects is an important element of project development in order to assure that the views and concerns of all relevant stakeholders are perceived and fully taken into account. The project proponent initiates stakeholder consultations as early as possible during project identification and development. IUCN verifies whether consultation has taken place in an appropriate and meaningful manner, especially at two important points during the ESMS process: 1. ESMS screening, based on the Environmental and Social Impact Screening questionnaire filled out by the project proponent (Appendix A.1) 2. Approval of the ESIA using the Checklist for appraisal of final ESIA report & ESMP (Appendix C.1) Further public consultation is recommended as part of project monitoring and evaluation in particular for Category A projects. For meaningful consultations, the project team provides relevant information about the project in a timely manner and in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to the groups being consulted. Women involvement and expression of opinion in equal condition needs to be ensured. Where indigenous peoples are present and/or may be affected by the project, project teams are guided by IUCN s Policy Standard on Indigenous Peoples and associated guidance on Free, Prior, Informed Consent processes (see section 3.3 of this Manual). Requirements for public consultation are stricter for category A projects than for other projects. For Category A projects, relevant stakeholders are consulted at least at the following points in time: (i) during scoping in order to decide on the most critical impacts to be studied in the ESIA, (ii) once a draft ESIA report has been prepared (including ESMP) in order to assure that stakeholder views are fully reflected in the ESIA and the ESMP, (iii) during project monitoring to understand whether environmental or social impacts are successfully avoided or mitigated and (iv) during the final evaluation after the project has been completed. For the scoping consultation, the project team provides a summary of the proposed project s objectives, description, and potential impacts. For consultation on the draft ESIA report the external expert(s) provides a non-technical summary of the report s findings in local language. In both cases, the summaries are provided in advance of consultation and proactively disseminated to local stakeholders in a form and language meaningful to those being consulted. For Category B projects the above procedures are also applied, especially in those cases where close relations with communities are important for project execution, but may be less intensive and frequent. For category C projects this is generally not required, however, public consultations are always encouraged to build up ownership and commitment, mobilize local knowledge and seek potentials for creating social benefits. Following the public consultation on the draft ESIA, the ESIA expert/team supplements the ESIA by providing details of the public consultation process, including a summary of the concerns raised by the various stakeholders and suggested measures for addressing these concerns to be incorporated into the ESMP. 16

21 The project executing entity continues to consult with relevant stakeholders throughout project implementation as part of project monitoring to address ESIA related and other issues that affect the stakeholder. 3.2 Disclosure of Information Disclosure of information concerning environmental and social issues relevant to the project is associated with ESMS decision points as depicted in see scheme 1. The main decision points where disclosure of information is required are the following: Disclosure of project concept Disclosure of results of ESIA consultations and ESIA report Disclosure of full project proposal Disclosure of monitoring reports Disclosure of project completion report If a project involves involuntary resettlement or access restriction, before appraisal the project proponent shall disclose draft resettlement plans, resettlement policy frameworks or process frameworks, as specified in the policy Standard, including documentation of the consultation process; this should be done in a timely, culturally-appropriate, and inclusive manner, in a place accessible to key stakeholders, including project affected groups. Such documentation should be disclosed in a language understandable to key stakeholders. All relevant project documents including the ESIA reports, the results of any consultations on the ESIA and ESMP as well as all documents required by policy Standards triggered by the project (e.g. Indigenous Peoples Plan or Indigenous People s Policy Framework, Resettlement Action Plan, Process Framework or Resettlement Policy Framework, Integrated Pest Management Plans or Mitigation Measures to avoid Impacts of Projects on Dams) are published on the IUCN website prior to the final appraisal and approval of the full project proposal. For GEF projects the relevant documents will be published on the IUCN GEF Programme webpage. The information may also be posted on the relevant regional and national IUCN websites and on those of project partners, as appropriate. Since project affected people may not have reasonable access to an IUCN Office or the IUCN public website(s), information on the project, associated social and environmental impacts and results of any consultations are translated into the local language and released locally in a culturally appropriate manner. This will occur in a reasonable timeframe in order to allow for stakeholders to access this information and if applicable- raise any potential concerns in time. 3.3 Free, Prior and Informed Consent IUCN not only recognizes potentially affected peoples right to require that States obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting those lands, territories, and resources including relocation, but also will not promote or support, and may actively oppose, interventions which have not received free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This is a response to experiences of conservation initiatives that have not engaged with indigenous peoples prior to project development, allowed indigenous communities to freely decide upon their involvement, or provided adequate information before decisions were made. Incorporating FPIC procedures in the ESMS is a crucial step to redress this situation. For IUCN, FPIC implies no coercion, intimidation or manipulation. Consent must not be imposed or manufactured, but obtained through free consultation and voluntary negotiations. Consent must be sought sufficiently in advance of any decision-making, authorization or commencement of activities and time requirements of potentially affected people consultation/ consensus processes must be respected. There is full information disclosure about all the details of the project or initiative. Consultation and participation are crucial components of a consent process. Consultation should 17

22 be undertaken in good faith. The parties should establish a dialogue allowing them to find appropriate solutions in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and full and equitable participation. Consultation requires time and an effective system for communicating among interest-holders. Indigenous peoples should be able to participate through their own freely chosen representatives and customary or other institutions and access technical/ legal services if needed. A guiding principle is that consent should not be limited to individuals, but should also include the collective voice of indigenous communities whether through customary institutions, local authorities, formal organizations or collective decision-making processes. Gender equality and women empowerment Consistent with the FPIC principle, and in accordance with the provisions of IUCN s E&S principle on gender equality and women empowerment, women will be: (a) informed of proposed interventions and notified of their rights under national law and under the standards and procedures of all agencies involved in the proposed intervention, (b) fully engaged and consulted in the processes mentioned above, and (c) provided with information disclosed in an accessible manner and format, with legitimate and representative women s organizations and networks fully involved, and (d) with time and resources being provided to allow for effective participation in analysis and decision making. Women will therefore be meaningfully consulted and involved in the actual design of these processes, and the outcome of consultations and negotiations will be properly documented. In cases where representation is questioned by communities, complementary processes are often needed, for example grassroots level consultations with affected groups taking into account both gender and age dimensions. FPIC should not be limited to countries where indigenous peoples are recognized and formal FPIC procedures are in place, but should be applied as a basic standard including where indigenous communities are not formally recognized. The emphasis on «prior» underlines the importance of initiating consultations as early as possible and providing adequate time for indigenous peoples own decision-making processes to inform different steps of the project cycle. Key elements of an FPIC procedure include: Identifying customary land and rights holders. This step establishes who are the rightsholders to a given area are, and therefore who needs to give consent to a particular activity. As land claims based on customary rights are often not formally recognized in law, fulfilling this element may require support for a participatory community mapping process to document nonlegal and community-recognized rights. Mapping should include different groups with special attention to women within the community (who may have differences in knowledge, interests and uses of resources) as well as neighbouring communities (to validate and agree boundaries). Identifying and engaging with appropriate community-based institutions. Communities should be represented by institutions they choose themselves through a verifiable process, which may differ from institutions set up under government structures. Communities may also develop or designate new bodies to engage in participatory development of an initiative; for example, where the geographical scale of the initiative spans several community institutions, or where structures of representative in relation to outsiders are not yet in place. Representation should be broad and inclusive. Identifying and engaging support organizations. Engaging with support organizations such as regional or national representative organizations of women and indigenous peoples and/or expert or advocacy groups on indigenous/community rights enables communities to access independent information and advice from a rights perspective. Building mutual understanding and agreement on an FPIC process. This element addresses the need for outside actors to understand local community decision-making 18

23 processes and for communities to define their own process as well as expectations regarding information and support from outside groups. Aspects of the local process may include: who makes decisions, timeframes for community discussions and agreement, how potentially marginalized groups are involved, requirements to reach a decision, points along a process at which FPIC is needed, and how agreements are documented. Providing information. Information provision addresses the principle that decision-making and consent should be informed. Specific relevant information will vary depending on the stage of the work e.g. initiating a process, designing a project and developing a project implementation agreement. 4. Conflict Resolution and Grievance Mechanism 4.1 Purpose In accordance with its social policies 4, IUCN has established a grievance mechanism to allow for the expression of and response to complaints related to the implementation of its projects, whether these are GEF-funded projects or not. This mechanism (entitled Project Complaints Management Mechanism - PCMS) aims at monitoring and evaluating compliance with IUCN policies, principles, and project practices at any stages in the project cycle, and sets out effective, accessible and transparent procedures to receive and resolve complaints. The grievance mechanism is designed to enable the receipt of complaints of affected communities and public concerns regarding the environmental and social performance of the project. In short, the aim of the mechanism is to provide people fearing or suffering adverse impacts with the opportunity to be heard and assisted. It is designed to address the concerns of the community(ies) with a particular project, identify the root causes of the conflicts and find options for the resolution of grievances. Therefore, it is an essential tool to foster good cooperation with project stakeholders and ensure adequate delivery of previously agreed results. The PCMS includes a focal point responsible for assessing compliance with best practices in project design, implementation and execution, and for recommending measures for redress in case of non-compliance. 4.2 Eligibility Any community, project stakeholder or affected group (consisting at least two or more individuals) who believes that it may be negatively affected by IUCN s failure to respect its own ESMS policies as articulated in the ESMF and in the ESMS Manual may submit at all times a complaint to the PCMS. Representatives (a person or a local NGO) can submit a complaint on behalf of a community, project stakeholder or affected group. Anonymous complaints will not be considered, however, complainants identities will be kept confidential upon their written request. For IUCN the best approach to resolving grievances involves project management and the affected party reviewing conflicts and deciding together on the way forward in their mutual best interests. This reflects the fact that local and country-level authorities often have better information and understanding relating to the causes of disputes arising from project implementation. Decide together approaches are usually the most accessible, natural, unthreatening and cost-effective ways for communities and project management to resolve differences. 4 For example, IUCN Policy on Conservation and Human Rights for Sustainable Development (2012 WCC Res 5.099) and IUCN Policy on Social Equity in Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (Council, 2000) 19

24 Therefore, in order to submit their request through the PCMS, and if interaction with project management has not been successful, complainants must raise their concerns with IUCN staff locally. To do so, contact needs to be made first with the nearest IUCN Office (regional, national, or project office). If resolution of complaints is not possible at the local or country level through the aforesaid initial contacts with IUCN staff, then it is appropriate to bring forward complaints to IUCN through the PCMS. The following requests shall not be considered as eligible: (a) Complaints with respect to actions or omissions which are the responsibility of parties other than IUCN and the relevant executing agencies under its authority; (b) Complaints filed (i) after the date of official closure of the project, or (ii) 18 months after the date of official closure of the project in cases where the complaint addresses an impact resulting from project activities that was not, and reasonably could not have been, known prior to the date of official closure. The IUCN PCMS is available and may be accessed through two different addresses on the IUCN public website: at under IUCN s accountability and values and at under IUCN s resources. Since the PCMS is a part of the IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS), it will also be available at a later date on the IUCN website page dedicated to the joint IUCN / GEF partnership, entitled IUCN in the GEF Programme. 4.3 Preparing and Filing a Complaint through the PCMS If not satisfied with the response provided by IUCN and project management locally, a complaint - which will be kept confidential upon an accompanying written request from the complainant - may be made directly to: The IUCN Head of Oversight, IUCN Headquarters, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland in any of below indicated way - by post - by at [email protected] - by fax at or - by telephone at The written complaint sent by post or should include the following information (in any language). Complainant s name, address, telephone number, fax number and address (if the complaint is filled by the representative of a legal person/entity, please provide valid proof of representation). Description of the project or programme concerned. The harm that is, or may be resulting from policy failures or omissions by IUCN and/or the project executing agency. The names (if known) of relevant IUCN policies or procedures that were/are being allegedly breached. List actions taken to solve the issue at stake, including previous contacts with IUCN and/or the executing agency; reasonably detailed description of explanations received by and (if any) actions proposed to complainant(s), and why these are not considered satisfactory by the complainant(s). List of supporting documents and attachments, as appropriate. 20

25 See Appendix D.1 for the format for complaints. 4.4 Review Process The review process addressing allegations of non-compliance with IUCN policies and procedures is designed to investigate such situations and recommend measures for redress. Upon receipt of a complaint, the IUCN Head of Oversight will, within 5 business days, indicate to complainant whether or not the request is eligible. To achieve this, the Head of Oversight will contact the Director, Policy and Programme and up to three advisers drawn from the IUCN ESMS Expert Team to assess whether the complaint is eligible. If the complaint is eligible, the Director, Policy and Programme, will appoint an internal, but independent of the project, investigator who will notify the local (nearest) IUCN office and executing agency (and its project office) and request, within 20 business days, a detailed response including a plan of action and timetable for assessing and resolving the complaint. The investigator and the Coordinator, Environmental and Social Management System, will review the proposed action plan and timetable for adequacy. Should the IUCN Office and executing agency confirm that the complaint is valid under the eligibility provision set forth above, the agency executing the project will then implement the action plan and work with complainant(s) 5 and relevant stakeholders to develop remedial measures for the issue(s) identified, including a detailed description of agreed corrective actions, time table for implementation and for progress reports. The investigator and the Coordinator, Environmental and Social Management System, will again review the remedial measures to assess adequacy and cost effectiveness. The agency executing the project, in collaboration with the relevant IUCN office, will produce an executive summary of the complaint, the process followed and the corrective actions, which will be provided to all stakeholders involved, the investigator and the Director, Policy and Programme. Recommendations become part of the project s implementation plan. 4.5 Maintaining records and monitoring actions Under the Director, Policy and Programme, IUCN will ensure that: the Global Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit processes reports provided by the executing agency on progress made to implement recommendations and coordinates, in cooperation with the Head of Oversight Unit, all necessary monitoring tasks. IUCN maintains a database of complaints filed and a detailed record of the remedial measures agreed. Periodical reports on compliance with IUCN s policies and procedures will be posted on the website for consideration by IUCN Members and partners, and the general public. Regular reports will also be made to the IUCN Council. 5 If confidentiality has been requested, IUCN Head of Oversight will not disclose the name of the complainant. At the end of the process, recommendations will be communicated confidentially to the complainant directly by the Head of Oversight. 21

26 4.6 Responsibility of executing agencies The agencies executing GEF projects in the field on behalf of IUCN will ensure that signage is erected on each project site, displaying easily legible and clear information allowing anyone to contact IUCN in case of concerns or complaints. See Appendix D.2 for guidance on signage. The executing agencies will also ensure that students in at least one school in proximity to the project site are given leaflets providing information on the project s nature and objectives, as well as clear guidance on how to contact IUCN in case of concerns or complaints over negative impacts of the project. 4.7 Protection against retaliation IUCN undertakes that no retaliatory action shall be taken (or condoned, as applicable) against any of its staff members or any staff member of an executing agency, because he or she made a disclosure on the reasonably expected environmental and/or social effects of the execution of a particular project. Staff members who reasonably believe that they have been victims of any such retaliation should follow the steps set out chapter 4.3 Preparing and Filing a Complaint through the PCMS. 5. Accountability 5.1 Organizational structure The overall accountability system of IUCN relies on a number of key senior positions within the Secretariat: - Chief Finance Officer - Head of Oversight - Legal Adviser - Global Director, Human Resources Management Group - Global Director, Policy and Programme Group The accountability system with regard to environmental and social standards is based on the following units and staff, all within PPG - Policy and Programme Group for clear firewalling reasons as explained in the document entitled Proposed separation of implementation functions from execution functions in IUCN - July The Global Policy and Programme Group, under the Global Director, supervises the following two units: The Capacity Development Unit, which from 1 January 2014 will also assume the functions of the Global GEF Coordination Unit (IUCN CU) reporting to the Director, PPG, is composed of: o Head of Unit o Manager, GEF Programme Portfolio o Coordinator, Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS Coordinator) The Global Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (PM&E) reporting to Director, PPG, is composed of: o Head, PM&E Unit o Evaluation Officer, PM&E Unit o Monitoring Officer, PM&E Unit Placing GEF Coordination under PPG is appropriate because PPG, unlike other IUCN Global and Regional technical Programmes, does not execute projects and it already assumes monitoring and 22

27 programme support functions. It is therefore ideally suited to host the Unit leading implementation of GEF-funded projects. The Director, Policy and Programme Group, plays a pivotal role both to ensure adherence and accountability to standards, ensuring that procedures described in the Project Guidelines and Standards (PG&S) and ESMS are respected. This position also assumes the role of Compliance Officer, ensuring that all environmental and social processes are in line with IUCN agreed procedures. During execution, monitoring of progress with ESMPs is made on a regular basis, to ensure compliance with the project document and to take corrective action if needed. In order to ensure that environmental and social impacts are avoided and/or mitigated as agreed, procedures include reviews of the monitoring reports prepared by the executing agency, consultations with external experts, involvement of the PM&E unit, and inputs from staff from the IUCN ESMS Expert Team. To oversee this process, lead staffs are: ESMS Coordinator, whose key duties are to apply the E&S Standards and the ESMS procedures as described in this Manual. His/her Terms of Reference include coordination of input from the IUCN ESMS Expert Team (including the IUCN Social Policy Adviser responsible for social standards, the Gender Adviser responsible for gender mainstreaming, and all other experts with technical mandate on environmental standards). Head, PM&E Unit, whose duties include oversight of planning, monitoring and evaluation procedures. In case of non-compliance, the ESMS Coordinator or Head of PM&E Unit informs the Director, PPG, immediately. 5.2 Corrective actions For IUCN the best approach to correcting non-compliance involves a joint review with executing entities of the issue followed by agreement on the best way to improve project implementation. However, a more formal process for corrective actions may be necessary. The process involving reviews and consultations should assess the root cause of non-compliance and determine the appropriate response (ensuring actions are appropriate to the size of the problem, with IUCN offering assistance). It should also identify institutions and personnel responsible for implementing corrective actions within a clear time frame, provide measures to prevent repetition, and define monitoring procedures to assess whether corrective actions have been implemented and are effective. Suggested steps for minor corrective actions under the accountability system: Report from reviews and consultations held at the GEF Unit and PPG levels; Advice on how to best comply with agreed plans and standards, with clear deadlines; Request for regular and specific updates on the case. Suggested steps for major corrective actions under the accountability system: As above Warning that major corrective actions will be necessary including: - Detailed analysis of the root causes of non-compliance, including fact finding missions (with technical support from IUCN or external consultants); - Production of action plan with timeframe, identifying strengthened monitoring procedures and specific reporting requirements - The action plan is being reviewed and its implementation monitored by the ESMS Coordinator; - Conditions put upon the approval of transactions; 23

28 - Moratorium on the disbursement of funds. 5.3 Grievance System The IUCN grievance system is described in chapter 4. As for accountability with regard to environmental and social safeguards, the Director, Policy and Programme Group (PPG), assisted by the Head of Oversight, and the Head, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation, plays a key role in ensuring that the process, corrective actions and measures to remedy the grievance are followed effectively. The fact that for accountability and grievance the lead role is given to the Director, Policy and Programme Group provides a clear linkage and good coordination between the accountability and grievance systems. Steps for corrective actions to remedy to the grievance, should the recommendations produced under the official review process described in chapter 4.4 fail to be implemented effectively, are very similar to those proposed under accountability: Suggested steps for corrective actions under the grievance mechanism: Report from reviews and consultations between concerned IUCN units describing the issue; Warning to executing entities that major corrective actions will be necessary including: - Detailed analysis of the root causes for non-implementation of recommendations, including fact finding missions (with technical support from IUCN or external consultants) and meetings with stakeholders; - Production of new action plan with timeframe, identifying strengthened monitoring procedures and specific reporting addressing the issue - The action plan is being reviewed and its implementation monitored by the ESMS Coordinator; - Conditions put upon the approval of transactions; - Moratorium on the disbursement of funds; - Disclosure of information on the dedicated page of the IUCN public website. 6. Responsibilities and Competencies of IUCN 6.1 Overall Organizational Structure IUCN has the overall responsibility for ensuring that environmental and social issues are adequately addressed within the project cycle, in line with the ESMF policy and ESMS implementation guidelines presented in this manual. The project proponent is responsible for carrying out ESMS activities if applicable- and the implementation of the ESMP discriminating mitigation or compensation measures. IUCN has set in place an organizational structure and systems to assure coordination and quality control of the application of the ESMS procedures. This includes an ESMS Coordinator assisted by the (in-house) ESMS Expert Team. At the beginning the ESMS Coordinator is expected to work predominantly on GEF-funded projects and some other donor-funded projects, especially large ones that are expected to have potential environmental and social impacts. In addition the position will assist in ensuring progressive mainstreaming of environmental and social Standards across the entire IUCN project portfolio. For compliance with, and adequate application of the Standards, the ESMS Coordinator will work with the IUCN Global Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, which itself is involved in regular project performance assessments. 24

29 6.2 Specific ESMS Tasks and Responsibilities The ESMS Coordinator supported by the ESMS Expert Team plays a critical role during the project preparation and management process in the above mentioned decision points, and more specifically: 1. First is the screening of project concepts, to identify potential environmental and social issues, classify them and ascribe procedures to further assess potential impacts and design mitigation measures, as needed. 2. Second is the review and appraisal of the final project proposal, in three ways: a. whether adequate and feasible mitigation measures have been identified for all potential negative environmental and social impacts, as part of the environmental and social management plan, which might include action plans for involuntary settlement, indigenous communities, PCR or pest management issues; b. whether the environmental and social management plan of the project includes an adequate monitoring plan; c. whether the ESMS procedures and process principles (e.g. on stakeholder consultation) have been adequately applied. 3. Third is the monitoring of the environmental and social management plan (ESMP) and the related mitigation measures. 4. Fourth is a final review at the end of the project whether the expected environmental and social negative impacts are indeed avoided, minimized and /or mitigated and the project has enhanced positive impacts. The main steps and ESMS entry and decision points along the project cycle are depicted in the table below (Scheme 3). Aside of those project cycle related tasks other responsibilities include information dissemination, capacity building and continuous enhancement of the system based on lessons learned through application. 25

30 Project cycle ESMS decision points Responsible Involved ESMS Questionnaire Project Proponent Project conceptualization (e.g. PIF / GEF) Screening on E&S impacts: Classification in Category A, B or C; ToR ESIA (for B) Disclosure project concept and screening decision ESMS Coordinator ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Category A: Scoping study (incl ToR ESIA) Project Proponent or Expert Project Stakeholder Category A: full ESIA and ESMP External Expert Project Stakeholder Category B: light ESIA and ESMP Project Proponent or Expert Project Stakeholder Project development (full proposal) Public Consultation draft ESIA report External Expert Project Stakeholder Approval of final ESIA report and ESMP ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Disclosure of ESIA report (incl. results consultations) Appraisal of proposal including ESMP and monitoring system Disclosure of project full proposal ESMS Coordinator ESMS Coordinator ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Project monitoring reports including ESMP progress Executing Entity Project implementation and monitoring Review of ESMP monitoring ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Consultations on E&S issues - if applicable (e.g. Category A projects) Executing Entity Disclosure of project monitoring reports ESMS Coordinator Project completion report Executing Entity Project evaluation and closure Disclosure of project completion report Evaluation whether E&S impacts were adequately avoided or mitigated ESMS Coordinator ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Consultations on E&S issues - if applicable (e.g. Category A projects) ESMS Coordinator ESMS Expert Team Scheme 3: ESMS decision points and responsibilities 26