Role of national law with Biodiversity offset is difficult to verify and achieve. A cautious approach regard to protecting and should be taken for biodiversity offsets. conserving natural and critical The relations between the sections on and “critical habitats” “legally habitats protected area” are unclear. Criteria for biodiversity The Bank is requested to review the appropriateness of “anticipated” used offsets, including in ESS6, para 24 (e) for no net reduction. The standard should be clearer consideration of project and stronger. benefits It is positive that the coverage of ESS6 is broader than the current policy Definition and application of on forests. However, the Bank should not forget the importance of net gains for biodiversity forests, as has been confirmed in the Paris agreement on climate change. ESS7 Indigenous Peoples Implementation of the Projects that impact Indigenous Peoples' lands and resources will be Indigenous Peoples standard required to secure their free, prior, informed, consent (FPIC). The Bank in complex political and should clarify whether this requirement still applies when recipient cultural contexts country does not recognize the affected communities as Indigenous Implementation of ESS7 in Peoples. countries where the ESP, para 51, provides that “the Bank may follow the Borrower’s constitution does not framework for identification of IPs during project screening, when that acknowledge Indigenous framework is consistent with this Policy (ESS7)”. However, the definition Peoples or only recognizes of IPs by Borrowers may have a significant risk, when there is a political certain groups as indigenous tension between the Borrower and affected IPs. Thus, the Borrower’s Possible approaches to reflect framework for identification of IPs should not be used. alternative terminologies used in different countries to describe Indigenous Peoples Circumstances (e.g. criteria and timing) in which a waiver may be considered and the information to be provided to the Board to inform its decision Criteria for establishing and implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
Role of national law with regard to protecting and conserving natural and critical habitats Criteria for biodiversity offsets, including consideration of project benefits Definition and application of net gains for biodiversity Biodiversity offset is difficult to verify and achieve. A cautious approach should be taken for biodiversity offsets. The relations between the sections on “critical habitats” and “legally protected area” are unclear. The Bank is requested to review the appropriateness of “anticipated” used in ESS6, para 24 (e) for no net reduction. The standard should be clearer and stronger. It is positive that the coverage of ESS6 is broader than the current policy on forests. However, the Bank should not forget the importance of forests, as has been confirmed in the Paris agreement on climate change. ESS7 Indigenous Peoples Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples standard in complex political and cultural contexts Implementation of ESS7 in countries where the constitution does not acknowledge Indigenous Peoples or only recognizes certain groups as indigenous Possible approaches to reflect alternative terminologies used in different countries to describe Indigenous Peoples Circumstances (e.g. criteria and timing) in which a waiver may be considered and the information to be provided to the Board to inform its decision Criteria for establishing and implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Projects that impact Indigenous Peoples' lands and resources will be required to secure their free, prior, informed, consent (FPIC). The Bank should clarify whether this requirement still applies when recipient country does not recognize the affected communities as Indigenous Peoples. ESP, para 51, provides that “the Bank may follow the Borrower’s framework for identification of IPs during project screening, when that framework is consistent with this Policy (ESS7)”. However, the definition of IPs by Borrowers may have a significant risk, when there is a political tension between the Borrower and affected IPs. Thus, the Borrower’s framework for identification of IPs should not be used.
final_feedback_summary_for_phase_3_consultation_with_japanese_multistakeholders_february_2_2016.docx