Since our last newsletter in April, the IRM continues to be open for business from four different countries. Some challenges persist, but the team has found itself to be resilient in the face of the Covid pandemic. The team stays actively connected, and our work has fully transitioned onto virtual platforms, making it more efficient in many ways and also reducing our carbon footprint. We have successfully conducted our first virtual outreach event for civil society organisations in the Pacific region and capacity building workshops for the Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRMs) of the GCF’s Direct Access Entities (DAEs) in Latin America and the Caribbean region. The IRM also received a new complaint concerning FP084 in India, which has recently been declared ineligible. The IRM continues to monitor the Secretariat’s commitments regarding FP001 in Peru and it is consulting with parties as part of its problem solving process in relation to the Morocco complaint filed in February (FP043). It has also made significant progress on the issues of retaliation and gender, and it continues to collaborate with GRMs of other international institutions.
Meet the IRM’s team
|
|
1) FP001 - Building the Resilience of Wetlands in the Province of Datem del Marañon, Peru
The IRM continues to monitor the outcomes of its preliminary inquiry into FP001, Peru. Out of the four undertakings provided by the Secretariat, three have now been completed – the issuance of guidance on Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) requirements, and on risk categorisation for projects involving Indigenous Peoples, and the completion of a legal opinion examining potential impacts of the creation of conservation areas on indigenous peoples’ land rights. The GCF Secretariat has filed its June 2020 progress report, and this is available on the IRM’s website, along with the legal opinion.
|
|
|
2) FP043 - Saïss Water Conservation Project
Since the complaint was declared eligible on 7 April, the IRM’s problem solving team conducted initial consultations with the potential parties. All parties have agreed to play certain roles in the problem solving phase, where the issue of insufficient community engagement and consultation and the lack of information and communication will be brought up. The IRM is now working with the parties to establish a mediation plan. Read the IRM’s Initial Steps Report.
|
|
|
3) FP084 – Enhancing Climate Resilience of India’s Coastal Communities
In May, the IRM received a complaint relating to FP084 in India. The complaint was about the clearance of mangroves for the development of a housing scheme in Andhra Pradesh. The complainant(s) alleged that the GCF should have taken steps to stop the felling of mangroves because the GCF has a project in the state of Andhra Pradesh which claims to be conserving mangroves. The IRM declared the complaint ineligible because the felling of the mangroves for the housing scheme did not occur within the FP084 project area, nor was the felling conducted by the GCF or the Accredited Entity.
|
|
|
|
Building the Capacity of Grievance Redress Mechanisms
|
|
|
|
One of the important functions of the IRM is to build the capacity of Grievance Redress Mechanisms of the GCF’s Direct Access Entities. In July, the IRM offered online training to participants in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Those participants who completed all of the online modules and joined the training sessions will receive certificates from the IRM, in collaboration with the Consensus Building Institute and the Harvard-MIT Public Disputes Program. We congratulate the participants on becoming better equipped to handle complaints and grievances! Find out more about the IRM’s capacity building events here.
|
|
|
|
Reaching Out to Civil Society Organisations at GCF Project Sites
|
|
|
|
In June, the IRM hosted its first virtual outreach event in the Pacific region, where the IRM team and the 23 participants learned and shared experiences about grievance redress and accountability, especially in the context of the Pacific region. There were no major technical difficulties, but the IRM noted areas for improvement, particularly regarding the need for increased participation and interaction given the virtual platform. The IRM will keep improving and expanding its virtual outreach sessions to other regions of the world. Read more about our June outreach event here.
|
|
|
|
The IRM’s First Advisory Report
|
|
|
|
The IRM recently submitted its first Advisory Report entitled “Prevention of Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment in GCF projects or programmes (P&PrSEAH): Learning from the World Bank’s Inspection Panel,” together with the GCF Secretariat’s management response to the GCF Board. Drawing lessons from two World Bank cases, the Report contained four recommendations on how the GCF can prevent and mitigate sexual harassment in GCF projects and programmes. You can access the Advisory Report here, the GCF Secretariat’s Management Response here, and our blog here.
|
|
|
|
IRM and Other Grievance Redress Mechanisms
|
|
|
Since the establishment of the very first Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM) in 1993, four Independent Accountability Mechanisms (Inspection Panel of the World Bank, Independent Redress Mechanism of the Green Climate Fund, Independent Project Accountability Mechanism of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Project-affected People’s Mechanism of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) have recently undergone reforms. Find out how their reforms relate to the eight Ruggie principles, the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights endorsed by the United Nations, here.
|
|
|
|
On 17 June, Dr. Lalanath de Silva, the Head of the IRM, was invited to join a panel of representatives from leading grievance mechanisms hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Dr. de Silva introduced the five traditional to unique mandates of the IRM and the challenges that it has faced so far. The main discussions were centred around the separation between mediation and compliance, how to respond to retaliation risks and the importance of trust-building.
|
|
|
|
In June, the IRM and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) co-hosted a regional virtual consultation among Asian Multi-lateral Development Banks, bilateral Development Finance Institutions and their accountability mechanisms, and civil society organisations. It was a consultation process to learn about and incorporate their experiences into the OHCHR’s new research project called “Accessing Remedy in Development Finance (DevRem).” Learn more about the diverse topics that were discussed among the participants here.
|
|
|
|
IRM's Supporting Operating Procedures (SOPs) on Retaliation
|
|
|
As part of the public call for comments on our Supporting Operating Procedures (SOPs) on retaliation, the Head of the IRM hosted three webinars, presenting an overview of the contents of the SOPs and fielding comments and questions. These comments, together with all written inputs, will be reviewed, consolidated and incorporated into the current draft which will be publicly available soon. We thank all those who submitted comments for their valuable contributions! To learn more about why it is so essential that the IRM has procedures in place to deal with the risks of retaliation, read our article here.
|
|
|
The IRM is regretful to find out that it contributed to the global carbon footprint by producing 61 tonnes of CO2 through its air travels in 2019. From its calculation of emissions, the IRM recognises a need to cut its emissions by finding creative ways to perform its functions. Covid-19 has offered the IRM an opportunity to test out its strategies, such as conducting outreach and capacity building workshops and handling complaints through virtual means. Find out more about the IRM’s carbon footprint in our new opinion piece.
|
|
|
The IRM has recently started developing a gender strategy note so that it can act in a gender-responsive manner in all its procedures and operations. The strategies are mainly framed around the IRM’s five major functions: complaints handling, outreach, capacity building, processing reconsideration requests and advisory work. It has already started implementing the strategies and will continue to improve and update its strategies as it learns more and gains more experience. Read about our initiative here and contact us if you have any advice for the IRM.
|
|
|
Last week, the IRM’s beloved colleague Leonardo Paat Jr., Environment and Social Safeguards, Gender and Indigenous Peoples Manager at the GCF, passed away. His passing is a loss not only to the GCF but to the entire practice of environmental and social safeguards (ESS). Leo was always concerned for project beneficiaries and the environment, and he openly shared his experience and passion for ESS with the IRM staff. The IRM prepared an “in memoriam” post to give thanks for his life and the countless contributions he made to the GCF and the IRM.
|
|
|
To make itself more accessible to potential complainants, the IRM continues to translate its information brochure into other languages. Currently, the IRM’s information brochure is available in 13 languages: English, Español, Français, Português, العَرَبِيّة, 中文, Монгол хэл, Tiếng Việt, русский, Українська, 한국어, Deutsch and Kiswahili. If the information brochure is not provided in your language and you would like to request it, please contact the IRM. We will make it available to you!
|
|
|
|
The IRM has a new cell phone to allow for easier communication with its stakeholders and potential complainants. The number for this phone is +82-10-4296-1337 and it is reachable from 9 am to 6 pm Korean Standard Time. The IRM can also be contacted on this number through a variety of messaging apps: facebook messenger, whatsapp, wechat, line and a few more. Contact us! The IRM of course remains contactable through its existing channels such as landline number, email and its online complaints and request forms. The IRM constantly finds ways to make itself more accessible to its stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
