 |
[9:00am] Hello Everyone and Welcome to our second live chat. We are again sitting in the IFC offices in Washington, DC on a cool but sunny winter day. We have been out and about engaging in various forums and with various groups and look forward to your questions and comments. Please refresh this page for the live discussion session as this is where the questions and answers will be posted and updated as they come in. Patty Q [9:04am]: Is IFC planning to enhance its requirements related to water conservation? PS1 requires clients to assess the impact of their project to water resources. PS3 requires clients to examine and incorporate resource conservation (i.e. water conservation) into their projects. PS6 looks at water through the lens of promoting the sustainable management and use of natural resources as an objective. IFC will consider, especially in relation to the climate change agenda, where and how we might strengthen our requirements around water conservation. Q [9:11am] Several CAO complaints were related to labor union issues -- how can IFC reassure unions that there will be no dilution of PS2 and holding clients responsible for meeting those labor standards? Assessing issues related to workers organization is a challenging topic. IFC has started to use detailed labor audits on a more frequent basis to ensure compliance with PS 2 requirements. We have trained over 60 external consultants in 4 regions to support our efforts in this area. Q [9:17am]:What kind of feedback are you hearing in relation to PS8, Cultural Heritage? We actually are hearing very little feedback either internally from our own specialists or externally. Statistically, IFC projects have not encountered PS8 very often with the exception of the requirement for clients to prepare a "chance find procedure". Do you have any specific feedback for us on PS8? Q [9:24am]: Dear IFC team, I would like to know whether it is envisaged to review the definition of Critical Natural Habitat and if yes, how do you anticipate it is likely to change? Also, will there be a process specific to PS 6 review? Many thanks. We are reviewing PS6, Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management. I don't know if we will change the definition but we definitely want to provide more clarity on what the words mean and how the private sector would apply the PS to their projects. There won't be a separate process to review PS6 but given the complex and technical nature of PS6 it is fair to say that we will be having in-depth PS6 technical discussions during the review period. Is there a type of forum (live chat only on PS6; or an open house meeting at IFC or somewhere else only on PS6) that you would find helpful? Q [9:33am]: Is IFC going to consult with communities? We will consult with some directly affected communities. The intention is to select a sample that highlights each region, covers several sectors and touches on each of the eight performance standards. We have posted the methodology for selecting this sample of projects on this site under the "Participate" section. Q [9:43am]: What is your current practice in regards to supply chains and do you think it will change in the future? Supply chains are on the agenda of the review process. PS1 states that the impacts associated with supply chains will be considered where the resource utilized by the project is ecologically sensitive, or in cases where low labor cost is a factor in the competitiveness of the item supplied (child labor and forced labor). The Sustainability Policy recognizes that sometimes our client does not have control over the third party, which could be a supplier. The "ecologically sensitive" case (e.g., beef, oil palm, cocoa, soy, cotton, forest products, etc.) is a rapidly evolving area that is not always easy to control. In direct investments, if an IFC client has control or influence over the supply chain, such as sourcing from its own plantations, IFC requires the client to apply the PS to its facilities. If the client is a majority buyer from a supply chain supplier, IFC requires it to use its leverage to effect positive results. This type of integrated company is rare and the real complexity comes when our clients do not have control over the supply chain or when our client is positioned in the value chain after the commodities are commingled making it impossible to identify the suppliers. We will be looking for ways to make the supply chain requirements clearer. Q [9:52am]: I would like to see the performance standards put more emphasis on health and safety. It seems like health and safety always gets over shadowed by environment and social issues. Thanks for your question. We currently address health and safety in PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4. In PS3 (para 3) we tied in the IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines as related to pollution control techniques and one of the improvements we could make is to tie the IFC Guidelines into PS2 to strengthen the related health and safety elements. Q [10:00am]: Accidents and injuries are some of the causes for disability and absence at work. The standards currently do not cover occupational health and safety aspects for workers in the supply chain. Is IFC going to change that and include occupational health and safety for the supply chain? We are analyzing the implications of including this requirement and the feasibility of our clients actually being able to implement this given the complex and diverse nature of supply chains. Many of our clients do not have authority over or leverage to make their supplier take an action so this is an issue as well in terms of being able to implement a requirement around OHS in the supply chain. Q [10:07am]: When is resettlement deemed complete and successful for IFC? Performance Standard 5 states that the resettlement can be considered complete when the adverse impacts of the process have been addressed in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the agreed RAP. The RAP should contain indicators that articulate and can be measured that demonstrate when the resettlement has been successfully completed. Q [10:16am]: IFC currently uses the requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consultation with projects with significant social impacts. Increasingly we see that there is a move towards Free Prior and Informed Consent, particularly for projects involving indigenous peoples. Will IFC be looking at adoption of the consent criterion for projects affecting IPs or for all projects? As part of the review of consultation requirements articulated in PS1, PS5 and PS7, IFC is considering various aspects of our requirements including the impacts on affected communities, verification and disclosure of project/clients consultation with affected communities and IFC verification of broad community support throughout the project cycle. The issue of whether IFC should adopt the ‘consent’ criterion is part of these considerations. One of the challenges related to this that we are studying is how to define, measure, and articulate when consent is achieved and what does this mean in the timeline of a project given that this would mean consent in a single moment of time. Q [10:24am]: How do the standards protect vulnerable groups other than Indigenous Peoples? Performance Standard 1 defines vulnerable groups (those who may be affected disproportionately by the project by virtue of their gender, ethnicity, religion, culture, dependence on a unique natural resource for their livelihood's, or other characteristics) and requires that they should be identified in the Social and Environmental Assessment of a project, that mitigation measures should be adopted to ensure that adverse impacts do not fall disproportionately on these groups, and that they share in project benefits like other groups. Guidance Note 5, footnote 5, also provides further guidance on vulnerable groups in the context of involuntary resettlement. Q [10:28am]: Why does PS2 not support hiring local workers? This would have a great developmental effect. Hiring pro-actively from and investing in the local work force is a very legitimate suggestion from a developmental perspective. A large influx of migrant workers can create social tensions and pose risks to the local communities. Employment creation is an important economic contribution of private sector projects to local development. Local employment brings direct and indirect benefits to the project area and should be encouraged as much as possible. At the same time, the choice of where to secure the work force is at the core of any company’s business strategy and it makes sound business sense that if they can procure the right type of employee locally that they would; thus if they are not, there may be a legitimate reason. In 2006 we decided not to adopt a specific requirement for clients to hire only from the local work force and we left this determination to the client. We will reexamine this during the review process. Migrant workers are one of the key challenges for large scale projects and the consequences to the local communities should be thoroughly analyzed during the process of Social and Environmental Assessment as required by PS1. [10:30am] Thanks to everyone that asked a question today and also to those who are silently observing. As with our last live webchat, we will post a transcript of this session on the website. Please keep checking back to the website frequently as we continue to post new information each week. | |||||||||||||||||||||
