UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme–OAI,SocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit

FinalInvestigationReport

Investigatingallegationsofnon-compliancewithUNDPsocialandenvironmental

commitmentsrelatingtothefollowingUNDPactivities:

IntegratedandTransboundaryConservationofBiodiversityintheBasinsoftheRepublicof

Congo,TRIDOMII.(October2017–March2023)

CaseNo.SECU0009Date:4June2020

Page2of51

CaseNo. SECU0009

CategoryofNon-Compliance EnvironmentalandSocial

Location: RepublicofCongo

Datecomplaintreceived: 2August2018

Sourceofcomplaints: SixindigenouscommunitieslocatedinthevicinityoftheproposedMessok-DjaProtectedArea,northernRepublicofCongo

Page3of51

TableofContentsI. EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................6II. BACKGROUND,FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................12

TRIDOMIIintheRepublicofCongo.......................................................................................................12TheBakaPeople..............................................................................................................................................12IndigenousRightsLaw–LawNº5-2011..............................................................................................14InsightsgleanedfromEvaluationReportsofPreviousProjects................................................15IssuesraisedintheComplaints................................................................................................................17

FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................................................181. SocialandEnvironmentalStandards(SES)....................................................................................18SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure...............................................................................18IdentificationofRisksintheProjectDocument(Prodoc).............................................................19IndigenousPeoplesStandard....................................................................................................................21AccesstoInformation....................................................................................................................................23StakeholderEngagementandResponseMechanisms....................................................................25

2. OverarchingSESPolicyandPrinciples.............................................................................................26HumanRightsPrinciple................................................................................................................................26HarmtoCommunities...................................................................................................................................27TestimonyfromtheBaka............................................................................................................................27IntimidationandViolence...........................................................................................................................27Lackofaccesstovitalresources&inabilitytotransmitknowledge........................................28Lackofsupportforsocialinfrastructureandalternativelivelihoods.....................................29AllegationsofBakaInvolvementinCriminalPoaching.................................................................29GrowingPressureontheForestsurroundingMessokDja...........................................................30Corroborationofhumanrightsabusesbyeco-guardsthroughouttheregion....................31WWFReactiontoReportedAbusesCommittedbyEco-Guards.................................................31

3. PolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector.....................................32RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................................................34

ANNEX1.TECHNICALNOTE.RELEVANTUNDPSOCIALANDENVIRONMENTALCOMMITMENTSANDPOLICIES................................................................................................................................36

UNDPSES............................................................................................................................................................36SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure-Overview.......................................................37ApplyingtheSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure–ScreeningQuestions.....39ApproachtoEnvironmentalAssessmentWhenIndigenousPeoplesArePotentiallyImpacted.............................................................................................................................................................40StakeholderEngagement.............................................................................................................................42MeasuresinResponsetoRisksIdentifiedinScreeningandAssessmentProcess.............43SESStandards–Standard6,IndigenousPeoples.............................................................................44SESStandards–Standard5DisplacementandResettlement.....................................................48

Page4of51

SESStandards–Standard4,CulturalHeritage..................................................................................49SESOverarchingPolicyandPrinciples–NationalLaw,InternationalLaw(HumanRights)..................................................................................................................................................................49SESPolicyDeliveryandAccountabilityProcess................................................................................50

Page5of51

ListofAcronymsCIFOR CenterforInternationalForestryResearchCPAP CountryProgrammeActionPlanESIA EnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessmentETIC EspaceTRIDOMInterzoneCongoEU EuropeanUnionFPIC Free,PriorandInformedConsentFSC ForestStewardshipCouncilGEF GlobalEnvironmentFacilityIFO IndustrieForestièredeOuessoIPP IndigenousPeoplesPlanIUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNatureIWT IllegalWildlifeTradeLAP LivelihoodActionPlanMEFDDE CongoMinistryofForestEconomy,SustainableDevelopmentandEnvironmentNGO Non-GovernmentalOrganizationNIM NationalImplementationModalityOAI OfficeofAuditandInvestigationsPAC ProjectAppraisalCommitteePOPP UNDPProgrammeandOperationsPoliciesandProceduresProdoc ProjectDocumentRAP ResettlementActionPlanSECU UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnitSEFYD YUANDONGWoodsIndustryCo.,Ltd,CONGOSES UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsSESA StrategicEnvironmentalandSocialAssessmentSESP UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedureSIFCO LebaneseIndustrialLoggingGroupeFadoulTRAC TargetforResourceAssignmentfromtheCoreTRIDOM Tri-nationalDjaOdzalaMinkebeUN UnitedNationsUNDAF UnitedNationsDevelopmentAssistanceFrameworkUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeUNDRIP UnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesUNOPS UnitedNationsOfficeforProjectServicesWWF WorldWideFundforNature

Page6of51

I. EXECUTIVESUMMARY

1. On2August2018theUNDPSocialandEnvironmentalComplianceUnit(SECU)receivedcomplaints from six Baka indigenous communities who live in the forest region of thenorthernRepublicofCongo.TheBakaareapeopleof traditionalhunter-gathererswhoformillenniahavelivedintheCongoBasinrainforestThecomplaintsweresubmittedtoSECU via the UK-based NGO Survival International. The Baka communities, allege thatUNDP supported activities to establish the Protected Area of Messok Dja on theirtraditionalforestlandsareviolatingtheirhumanrights.Theystatethattheysufferactsofviolence by eco-guards (forest rangers),who are patrolling the area, and that they arebeingdeprivedofhavingaccess to their forestsand the resources thatarevital to theirlivelihoods.TheystatethattheirexclusionfromthefutureMessokDjaProtectedAreaisseverelyaffectingtheirwell-being,wayof lifeandchances forsurvivalasapeople. Theemploymentcontractsoftheecoguardsaresignedbythegovernment.

2. Messok Dja is considered to be a critical wildlife corridor linking protected areas in theRepublicofCongoandinCameroon.TheGEF/UNDP“IntegratedTransboundaryConservationof Biodiversity in the Basins of the Republic of Congo,” known as Tridom II, includes 16expectedoutcomes,andtheestablishmentoftheMessokDjaProtectedAreaiscentraltotheProject’sgoalofexpandingthenetworkofgloballyprotectedareasintheCongoBasin.

3. TRIDOMIIconsiderstheIllegalWildlifeTrade(IWT),includingivorypoaching,tobethemain threat to the area’s rich biodiversity. The anti-poaching strategy pursued by theproject includes the strengthening and expansionof ProtectedAreas and the expansionandstrengthenedmanagementofHighConservationAreasoutsideProtectedAreas.WiththesupportofUNDP,theWorldWideFundforNature(WWF)isthekeyimplementerofproject activities related to the establishment of Messok Dja as a protected area.1 TheProjectwasinitiatedinOctober2017,wassuspendedinMarch2019andisscheduledtobecompletedbyMarch2023.

4. The project’s grand-total financing is USD 23,807,650, of which USD 4,125,250 isadministeredbyUNDP.The latter consistsof aUSD3,125millionGEFgrant andUSD1million from the UNDP-TRAC resources. A total of $ 226,800 is paid toWWF based onLetters of Agreements of 2017 and 2018 between UNDP and WWF. The remainingamountsarein-kindcontributionsfromtheGovernmentofCongoandparallelcashfromatourismcompany(CongoConservationCompany),apalmoilcompany(Eco-OilEnergy),alogging company (IndustrieForestièredeOuesso) and twoconservationNGOs (WildlifeConservationSocietyandWWF-ETIC).2

5. The project management arrangement follows the “National Implementation Modality”

(NIM), where the Government is the project Implementing Partner and assumes fullresponsibilityandaccountabilityfortheuseofGEFresources.UNDPisaccountablefortheuse of resources for the achievement of programme results in conjunction with theimplementing partner. UNDP also undertakes project assurance and oversight. The

1Lettred’AccordStandardEntreleProgrammedesNationsUniespourleDeveloppementetl’ONG“WorldWideFundforNature(WWF)”ConcernantlaRéalisationduProjet“ConservationintégréeettransfrontalièredelabiodiverstitédanslesbassinsdelaRépubliquedoCongo”,October15,2017.Lettred’AccordStandardEntreleProgrammedesNationsUniespourleDeveloppementetleFondsMondialpourlaNature(WWF)PourlaRéalisationd’ActivitésDanslecadredeServicesd’AppuifournisparlePNUDauProjetConservationIntégréeetTransfrontalièredelaBiodiversitédanslesBassinsdelaRépubliqueduCongoDit“TRIDOMII”,April9,2018.2UNDPCongoCO.‘IntegratedandTransboundaryConservationofBiodiversityintheBasinsoftheRepublicofCongoProjectDocument’.April2017.

Page7of51

project’s implementing partner is the Republic of Congo’s Ministry of Forest Economy,SustainableDevelopmentandEnvironment(MEFDDE).Parallelcashisanestimateofthecostofin-kindsupporttheco-financerswouldprovidetotheobjectivesoftheproject.NoparallelamounthasbeenreceivedormanagedbyUNDP.Thistypeofsupportismanagedbytheco-financer.

6. On24October2018thecomplaintswerefoundeligibleforaninvestigationbyOAI/SECU.

7. SECUundertookadocumentreviewand,from20February–1March2019,undertookafieldmissionto theRepublicofCongoto interviewcomplainants,adjacentcommunities,UNDPstaffbothinthecapitalandinthefield,governmentofficialsinrelevantministries,civil society organizations, technical experts and others. SECU wishes to express itsappreciation for all the assistance provided by the Country Office and the Republic ofCongostakeholders,allofwhomsoughttobetterunderstandthecomplianceissuesintheprojectaswellaspossiblesolutions.

8. Theinvestigationfocusedongatheringandreviewingevidencewithregardtocomplianceof theprojectwithUNDP standards andpolicies concerning (a) the screening of socialand environmental risks; (b) implementation of the requirements enshrined in UNDP´sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,especiallyconcerningIndigenousPeoples(Standard6); (c) public access to information; (d) stakeholder engagement and responsemechanisms; (e) adherence to the Policy on Due Diligence and Partnerships with thePrivateSector.ThesestandardsarespelledoutinAnnex1.

Summaryofkeyfindings.

Finding1UNDP’sover-archingcommitmenttohumanrights,whichalsoconstitutesPrinciple1oftheSES,wasnotadheredtowithrespecttotherightsofindigenouspeoples.

9. SECU’s investigation has obtained credible testimony during the fieldwork in February

2019notonlyfromrepresentativesoftheindigenous(Baka)communities,butalsofromgovernment and non-governmental sources, that armed eco-guards engage in violenceand threatsof violence against the indigenousBakapeople in theMessokDja area.Thetestimonialevidencefromtheindigenouscommunitiesexpressedanon-goingsituationofintimidation related to eco-guard abuses. The eco-guards are employed by theGovernmentoftheRepublicofCongo’sMEFDDE(UNDP’simplementingpartner).

10. In addition to supporting community consultations on geo-referencingmaps,,UNDP haspaid for training fees, uniforms, and daily subsistence allowances formissions throughWWF, a parallel co-financier of the project and whose project together with theGovernmentoftheRepublicofCongoonthegroundisknownasETIC.(WWFpointsoutthatETICisanentitywhichisacollaborationbetweentheGovernmentoftheRepublicofCongoandWWF.However,UNDPandconsultantstoWWFrefertoWWF-ETICorsimplytoWWF.ThisreportadoptstheusageofWWF-ETIC.)

11. TheviolenceandthreatsareleadingtotraumaandsufferingintheBakacommunities.Itisalso preventing the Baka from pursuing their customary livelihoods, which in turn iscontributingtotheirfurthermarginalizationandimpoverishment.

Recommendation1

12. Inadditiontoaddressingthefindingsinparagraphs9through11through,interalia,

appropriatein-kindorservice-basedsupportdeterminedinconsultationwiththeBaka

Page8of51

andprojectpartnersaspartofUNDP’sprogrammaticwork3,UNDPCongomusttakeappropriateandeffectivemeasurestopreventfutureactsofviolenceagainstBakacommunities.4

Finding2TheSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure(SESP)failedtoidentifycriticalprojectrisks.Asaresult,SocialandEnvironmentalStandards(SES)werenotimplemented.13. As required by UNDP Policy, the project under review has undertaken a Social and

Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP). However, the SESP was handled in aperfunctorymanneranddidnotidentifycriticalrisksoftheproject.Thiscontributedtoaprojectdesignthatinadequatelymitigatedprojectrisks.

14. Theproject’sexecutedSESPdescribesanassumptionthattheprojectwillprovidesocio-economicbenefits to IndigenousPeoplesand that itwill restore theiraccessand tenurerightsovernaturalresourcesinprotectedareasinorderforthemtobeabletomeettheirlivelihoodandculturalneeds.

15. However,theSESPnotesthatithadnotbeenpossibletoorganizeconsultationswiththecommunities in the region of the proposedMessok Dja protected area.5 Its assumptionthat the projectwill bring only benefits to indigenous communities leads it to concludethatthereisnodiscernibleriskandthatculturallyappropriateconsultationswiththegoalof obtaining Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) are not required. However, as ameansofensuringthatUNDPprojectsthatmayimpact indigenouspeoplesaredesignedinaspiritofpartnershipwiththem,UNDPstandardsrequiresecuringtheirfree,priorandinformedconsentwheretheirrights, lands,resourcesandtraditional livelihoodsmaybeaffected.6

16. Asaresultof itsoptimisticandunverifiedassumptions,theSESPdidnottriggerUNDP’s

SocialandEnvironmentalStandards(SES).Standard6onIndigenousPeoplesisofspecialrelevancehere. Itrequiresapriorassessment, theelaborationofanIndigenousPeoples’Plan and, as referred to above, obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent for anyUNDP-supportedactivitythatmayaffectIndigenousPeoples.

3UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsmandatethat“SECUevaluateswhetherUNDPhascompliedwithitsobligations,whetheranynon-compliancehascausedharmtothecomplainant,andhowUNDPcancorrectthenon-compliance.”TheSECUInvestigationGuidelinesstate,“TherearenumerousoptionstoencouragecompliancewithUNDP’ssocialandenvironmentalcomments.Suchoptionsinclude…[a]decisionbytheUNDPAdministratortomitigateanyharmcausedbyaproject,andtorestoreclaimantstoapre-harmstate,incollaborationwiththeimplementingpartner,wherethecircumstancesandfinancialresourcesallowforit.”4UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsrequirethatnorelocationofindigenouspeoplestakeplacewithout their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and only after agreement on just and faircompensationand,wherepossible,withtheoptionofreturn(Standard6).5AsstatedbytheSESP,ithadnotbeenpossibletoorganizeconsultationswiththecommunitiesintheregionoftheproposedMessokDja.However,UNDP’sCountryOfficenotesthatittookintoconsiderationa2016workshopdonebytheGovernmentandWWF.Furthermore,itaddsthatin2018,18villageswereconsultedinthebroaderprojectareaoftheTridomlandscape.WhileappreciativeoftheeffortsoftheCountryOffice,SECUfoundthattheseeffortsdidnotcontributetoarobustFPICprocessandthedevelopmentofanIndigenousPeoplesPlanasrequiredbySES.6UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”.January2015.

Page9of51

17. The project’s objective is to create synergies between conservation and development.However, the lackofadherence to theSEShas led toade factosituationwhereProjectactivities to date have failed to explore the natural synergies between protection of anareaofsignificantbiodiversityandpromotingtherightsofIndigenousPeoples.

Recommendation218. UNDP Congo should create a detailed Stakeholder Engagement Plan that meets the

requirementsofSES.ThishastobefollowedbythepreparationofanIndigenousPeoplesPlanwith the full participationof the communities concerned as an integral part of theproject. It has to clearly spell out objectives, activities, budget, institutionalresponsibilitiesandmonitoringindicators.

19. These initiatives have to be accompanied by the establishment of fair, effective and

transparent grievance mechanisms accessible to communities to report to UNDP anyproblems that may occur. The establishment of project-level grievance mechanism is anintegralpartofUNDP’sstakeholderengagementrequirements.

Finding3PolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector–Partnershipswerenotreviewed

20. The Project Document (Prodoc) identifies the road networks created by logging

concessionsasbeingassociatedwithhighlevelsofpoachingbecausetheyopenupaccessto previously inaccessible regions and provide the transport arteries required by theIllegalWildlifeTrade.

21. TheProdocalsoreferstotheexpansionofmonocultures,especiallyofpalmoil,ascreatinganenvironmenthostiletothesurvivalofwildlife.

22. UNDP’s private sector partners,which provide parallel financing to the project, includelarge international loggingandpalmoil industryconglomerates: IndustrieForestièredeOuesso (IFO), an affiliate of German-Swiss group Danzer, which covers an area almosttwice the size of the state of Delaware in northern Congo, and the Malaysian Eco-OilEnergycompany.Thelatterexpectstovastlyincreaseitsinitialconcessionareaof50,000hectares for the export of biofuels. The private sector partners have not received anyfunding from UNDP, nor is SECU aware of any partnership agreements. However, theProdoc lists working with private logging and agro-forestry companies as part of theproject’sstrategy.

23. AccordingtoUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,UNDPisnotrequiredtoensurecompliance with the SES of activities that are not funded through UNDP accounts.However, UNDP is required to review the entire Programme or Project for consistencywithSESrequirements.

24. UNDP’s Policy on Due Diligence and Partnerships with the Private Sector identifiesindustrialloggingandpalmoilashighrisksectorsrequiringaduediligenceassessment.

25. SECU’sinvestigationfoundnoevidencethataduediligencereviewofthesepartnershipshadtakenplaceaselementspotentiallydamagingUNDP’sabilitytoachievetheoutcomesdesiredfortheprojectandexposingUNDPtoreputationalrisk.

Recommendation3

Page10of51

26. UNDPCongo should conduct a due diligence assessment on the project’s private sectorpartners and commit to documenting the direct and indirect impacts of extractiveactivitiesonthebiodiversityintheregion.

Thewayforward27. ThecontinuationofTridomIIrepresentsauniqueopportunitytochartanewcoursefor

biodiversityprotectionintheCongoBasin.

28. IntheMessokDjaareathere isasignificantconvergenceof the interests inprotectingaregionofsignificantbiodiversityandpromotingtherightsofIndigenousPeoples.Thereisa commonality of objectives of the international community in protecting endangeredwildlife and the Bakas’ need to protect their traditional land, territories and resourcesfromexternalthreats.

29. TheestablishmentofnationalparksintheCongoBasinhasahistoryofbeingfocusedonconservationwhiledefactoignoringhumanrightsoftheindigenouscommunitieslivinginor on the periphery of protected areas. This approach considers Indigenous Peoples athreat and fails to take into account the role that Indigenous Peoples have historicallyplayed in conserving biodiversity given the inextricable links between indigenousidentitiesandcultureandthelandtheyhavetraditionallyused.

30. Thewindowoftimetoaddresstheimpoverishmentandrelatedlossofculturalidentityof

theBakapeople,aswellasthebiodiversitytheyhavehelpedprotectformillenniaislikelytobeshort.Carefulmonitoringofthesituationisrequiredtoensurethatgoodintentionsare translated into tangibleoutcomes thatare fullyconsistentwithUNDPgoals,policiesandstandards.

Page11of51

MessokDjaareainRepublicofCongo

DetailofMessokDjaareainRepublicofCongo

Page12of51

II. BACKGROUND,FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSTRIDOMIIintheRepublicofCongo

31. The Integrated and Transboundary Conservation of Biodiversity Projects, known as

TRIDOM II, seeks to protect biodiversity on theRepublic of Congo side of a tri-nationalareaalsocoveringforestecosystemsinneighboringCameroonandGabon.Theregionasawhole isknownfor itswealth inrareandendangeredspecies, including largemammalssuchasforestelephants,lowlandgorillasandothers.

32. This is a UNDP-GEF project managed under a National Implementation Modalityarrangement with the Ministry of Forest Economy, Sustainable Development andEnvironmentas the implementationpartner. Its scheduledstartingdatewasApril2017anditsprojectedclosingdateisMarch2023.

33. Total project costs are listed as USD 23.807 million of which USD 3.125 million arefinanced throughaGEFgrantandUSD1million from theUNDPTRACresources.Thereare six parallel co-financiers listed in the Project Document. They include: The CongoGovernmentprovidingUSD6,522,400, theCongoConservationCompanyprovidingUSD4,360,000, Eco Oil Energie SA providing USD 2,150,000, Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS)providingUSD1,250,000,ForestIndustryofOuessoprovidingUSD1,250,000,andthe World Wide Fund for Nature / Espace TRIDOM Interzone Congo (WWF / ETIC)contributingUSD4,150,000. Theremainingamountsare in-kindcontributions fromtheGovernment of Congo and parallel cash from a tourism company (Congo ConservationCompany),apalmoilcompany(Eco-OilEnergy),aloggingcompany(IndustrieForestièredeOuesso) and two conservationNGOs (WildlifeConservationSociety andWWF-ETIC).Parallelcashisanestimateofthecostofin-kindsupporttheco-financerswouldprovideto the objectives of the project. No parallel amount has been received or managed byUNDP.Thistypeofsupportismanagedbytheco-financer.

34. The project seeks to protect biodiversity by combatting the illegal trade in wildlife,especiallyofbushmeatandivory.AspertheProdoc,thestrategypursuedbytheprojectincludes the expansion of protected areas and functional zoning that incorporatessustainabledevelopmentgoals.ItalsoseekstostrengthenthegovernancecapacityintheRepublic of Congo to effectivelymanage protected areas, to address the IllegalWildlifeTrade and to use community-based resource management systems/ sustainablelivelihoodsasanti-poachingtools.

35. A principal expected outcome of the project is the establishment of the Messok DjaNationalParkonanareaof144,000ha.Inadditiontoitspopulationsofforestelephants,gorillas and chimpanzees, Messok Dja is considered to be a critical link in the wildlifecorridors connecting theprotected areaofOdzala in theRepublic ofCongoand theNkiprotectedareainneighboringCameroon(Maps).

36. TheproposedestablishmentofMessokDjaliesattheheartofthecomplaintsreceivedbySECU.TheindigenousBakacommunitiesallegethattheyaresufferingharmasaresultofrestrictionsonaccessandactsofviolenceandintimidationbyEco-Guardsinconnectionwith the establishment of the future Messok Dja protected area. They state that theirtraditional use of the Messok Dja area is central to their survival and compatible withestablishingasustainableresourcesystemforthePark.

TheBakaPeople

Page13of51

37. TheBakaareoneoftheindigenousgroupsspreadoutthroughtheCentralAfricanforests

who are often collectively referred to as Pygmies. The term “Pygmy”, however, isperceivedaspejorativeasithasbeenusedtoindicatetheinferiorandmarginalizedstatusof forest peoples as opposed tomainstreamBantu society. The Baka, aswith the otherindigenousgroupsintheregion,prefertobecalledbytheirproperethnicnames.

38. ScholarlyliteraturereferstotheCentralAfricanforestpeoplesasthefirstonthelandand

afountainofcivilizationwhenBantupeoplefirstmigratedtoequatorialAfricasome2000years ago.7 Their knowledge of the region’s pharmacopeia remains renowned to thepresentdayasdotheirunmatchedskillsinnavigatingvastexpansesofforestlandwhilemaintainingaprecisesenseoftheirlocation.

39. A study led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) estimates thenumberofindigenousforestpeopleintheCongoBasintobeabout920,000anddescribesthemasbeingofgreatsignificancetohumanity’sculturaldiversityasthelargestgroupofhunter-gatherers inAfricaandperhapstheworld.8 Thestudyalsowarnsoftheculturalextinctionofthesepeoplesunlesstheinternationalcommunitycomestogethertorespecttheirhumanrights.

40. AmongthedefiningfeaturesoftheBakaistheirsemi-nomadicwayoflife,theirmobility

overvastareasof forest, their in-depthknowledgeof the forestanddeepattachment totheirtraditionalterritories.Theirsocialstructureisofanegalitariannatureandtheylackhighly definedhierarchical leadership. Typically, theBaka spendpart of the year insidethe forest with their formidable knowledge and sense of orientation allowing them tocovervastdistances.Otherpartsoftheyeartheyreturntotheirsmallsettlements/campsinproximitytosedentaryBantuvillages.

41. WhilethesedentaryfarmingBantucommunitiesalsofacegreateconomicdifficultiesandlack of access to social services, they are clearly dominant. The Bantu farmers oftencontinuetoviewthemselvesasthe“masters”oftheBakaanddonotconsiderthemtobeequallyhuman.Exclusionandmarginalization,includingbypublicauthorities,continuetobe pervasive.9 The Bakas’ mobility, which traditionally has assured them independentaccesstotheresourcestheirlivelihoodsdependon,hasbeenessentialtotheirresilienceinthefaceofrelentlessdiscrimination.10 Inaddition,whiletheBakawereabletoaccesstheir traditional forest land, theywereable to tradewith theBantu inproducts that theBantu were not able to obtain themselves, such as medicinal plants and other forestproducts. In exchange forwhich theBakawould receive articles of clothing, knives andother objects. However, with their traditional forest lands shrinking due to industriallogging and the establishment of protected areas, these traditional exchange relationshaveeroded.Asaresult,theBakareportthattheyfindthemselvesincreasinglysubjecttoworkingunderexploitativeandslave-likeconditionsonBantufarms.

7Vansina,J.,“PathsintheRainforests–TowardaHistoryofPoliticalTraditioninEquatorialAfrica,”TheUniversityofWisconsinPress,1990.8CIFORForestNews,“FirstEstimateofPygmyPopulationsrevealstheirPlight,”Jan12,2016.https://forestsnews.cifor.org/39177/first-estimate-of-pygmy-population-reveals-their-plight?fnl=en(accessedonMay29,2019).9L’ObservatoireConogolaisdesDroitsdel’Homme,“RapportsurlaSituationdesDroitsdesPeuplesAutochtones2017,”reportsupportedbytheEuropeanUnion,Brazzaville.10Lewis,J.,FreemanL.andBorreil,S.,“Free,PriorandInformedConsentandSustainableForestManagementintheCongoBasin,”Anthroscape,Intercooperation,SwissFoundationforDevelopmentandInternationalCooperation,Bern,andSocietyforThreatenedPeoplesSwitzerland,July2008.

Page14of51

42. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya,investigatedthesituationofindigenouspeoplesintheRepublicofCongoandemphasizedthat they suffer from extreme social and economic disadvantages, discrimination andmarginalizationwhencomparedtotherestofCongolesesociety.11

43. TherearenoreliablecensusdataontheindigenouspeoplesintheRepublicofCongoandAnaya’s report refers towidely varyingestimates,whichput theirnumberat anywherebetween1.4%and10%of the country’s total population.TheBakaare concentrated inthenorthernLikoualaandSanghaDepartments.

44. TheSpecialRapporteurnotesthe lackofcivilstatusof the indigenouspeoplesgiventhedifficulties they face in obtaining birth certificates.Without civil status, access to socialservices,suchashealthcareandeducation,becomesthatmuchmoreunattainable.

45. HisreportalsoreferstothefactthatindigenouspeoplesintheRepublicofCongorarelyhold formal title to landorguaranteedrights to the landtheyhavetraditionallyusedoroccupied. He adds that the Land Law of 2004 does not appear to have a provision toinvolve affected indigenous communities in the process of determining collective andcustomarypropertyrights.

46. ItisimportanttonotethattheProdocreferstotheLandLawof2004,especiallyitsArticle10,asthebasisforhelpingrealizecommunityrightsonwildlifeandotherforestresourcesvia allocationof forest lands for communityownershipanddevelopment.12 It isunclearwhy theProdocdidnot refer to themore recent and comprehensive IndigenousRightsLawof2011asapivotallegalinstrumenttomeetitsstatedobjectiveofrestoringaccessandownershipofforestandwildlifeforlocalandindigenouscommunities.

47. AccordingtotheSpecialRapporteur,thepassageoftheIndigenousRightsLaw(LawNº5of 2011) created a potentially ground-breaking legal basis recognizing the rights ofindigenous peoples in the Republic of Congo to their traditional lands and resources.Reference to this law in theProdocwouldhavebeenessential indescribing thecurrentlegalcontextintheRepublicofCongo.

IndigenousRightsLaw–LawNº5-2011

48. In2011thePresidentoftheRepublicofCongopromulgatedLawNo5-2011onarangeof

social,economicandculturalrightsofindigenouspeoples.13UnitedNationsagenciesweredeeply involved in assistingwith the development of the Law. According to the SpecialRapporteur, this law is largely consistent with the U.N. Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenousPeoples.

49. The Law provides for the protection of rights of Indigenous Peoples to lands andresources they have traditionally used or occupied for their subsistence, pharmacopeiaandwork.AccordingtotheLaw,theStateisobligedtofacilitatethedelimitationoftheselandson thebasisof customaryrights.Concerning theestablishmentofprotectedareas

11Anaya,J.,“ReportoftheSpecialRapporteurontherightsofIndigenousPeoples-TheSituationoftheIndigenousPeoplesintheRepublicofCongo,”ReportpresentedtotheHumanRightsCouncil,18thsession,July11,2011.12ProjectDocument,IntegratedandTransboundaryConservationofBiodiversityintheBasinsoftheRepublicofCongo(UNDP-GEF-PIMSIDNº5612),GEF/UNDP/RepublicofCongo,startingdateApril2017,p.12andp.28.TheprojectwasinitiatedinOctober2017.13LoiNo.5/2011du25Février2011portantsurlapromotionetlaprotectiondesdroitsdespopulationsautochtones(onfileatSECU).

Page15of51

thataffectthewayoflifeofIndigenousPeoples,theLawstipulatesthatconsultationswithindigenouspeoplesarecarriedout ingood faith inorder toobtain theirFree,PriorandInformedConsent.

50. While the law dates from 2011, its first six implementation decrees (Décretsd’Application), were issued in July 2019. This is a welcome step forward. Issuesaddressedbythedecreesincludetheparticipationandconsultationofindigenouspeoplesas well as their access to education and social services. As Congolese human rightsorganizationsmake clear, it isnow important to ensure the effective implementationofthese decrees and to adopt further implementation decrees that address the criticalquestionsofrightstolandandnaturalresources.14

51. Moreover,theBakaonlyhavelimitedknowledgeoftheirrightsunderthisLaw.ThelackofawarenessoftherightsenshrinedinthisLawcombinedwiththeexpenseinvolved,thelanguagebarrier and thedistance to townswhere administrative offices and courts arelocated,continuestoimpedetheiraccesstojustice.15

52. During SECU’s interviews at the Ministry of Forest Economy, Sustainable Development

andEnvironment inBrazzaville in February 2019, officials stated that the dates for theadoptionoftheimplementationdecreesforLawNo.5-2011werenotknown.However,asone senior official noted, the lack of implementation decrees is no impediment toimplementingthespiritofthisLaw.

53. VerymuchinlinewiththespiritofLawNo.5-2011,theU.N.SpecialRapporteur’sreportof2011recommended:“Further,theUnitedNationscountryteamshouldensurethatawarenessaboutindigenouspeoples and their rights is integrated into all planning processes with regard toprogrammesandinitiativesdevelopedbytheUnitedNationssysteminCongo.”

54. Following SECU’s mission, six implementation decrees for Law No5-2011 entered into

force on July 12, 2019. These address important areas such as the consultation andparticipation of indigenous peoples as well as their access to social services. However,theydonotyetcovercriticalissuessuchasrightstolandandnaturalresources.

InsightsgleanedfromEvaluationReportsofPreviousProjects

55. As part of its document review, SECU tried to verify if evaluations of similar UNDP-

supportedprojectsintheregionprovidedanyindicationofproblemsthatmightcastlightontheissuesraisedbythecomplaintsfromtheBakacommunities.Ourreviewfoundthatthe evaluationsdidnotparticularly focuson impacts related to indigenouspeoples, butthattheyraisepertinentquestionsthatrelatetotheproblemsraisedinthecomplaints.

a) Mid-termEvaluationofUNDP-GEFproject“CatalysationdelaGestiondurabledes

ForêtssurleSitedesZonesHumidesTransfrontalièresdesLacsTele-Tumba”(ProjectAtlasPIMS4182)of2017.

14ObservatoireCongolaisdesDroitsdel’Homme,AgirEnsemblePourlesDroitsdel’Homme,CommuniquédePresse,Brazzaville/Lyon,July23,2019.15Ayari,I.andCounsell,S.,“TheHumanCostofConservationintheRepublicofCongo,”TheRainforestFoundation,London,2017.

Page16of51

56. This transboundary UNDP-GEF project covers both the Republic of Congo and theDemocratic Republic of Congo.16 The mid-term evaluation was unable to obtain directtestimonyfromindigenouspeoples.Itstatesthatoneoftheproblemsencounteredduringits mission was that it had been unable to meet with indigenous peoples because thecommunity had not been previously informed and therefore were not present in thevillagewhenthemissionarrived.

57. However,theevaluationnoteswithsurprisethattheProdocdoesnotmentionindigenouspeoples. It states that itwould be an illusion to think that sustainable results involvingindigenous peoples could be achieved if their particularway of life, theirmobility, andtheirstrongsocio-economicdependenceontheforestanditsresourcesarenottakenintoaccount.

58. The evaluation notes that it could not find any environmental and social assessments,resettlementorcompensationplansdespite the fact that theestablishmentofprotectedareaswouldaffect thecommunities’access toresources. Itexpressesdismay thataGEFproject of suchmagnitude,whichaffects indigenouspeople,wouldnothave carriedoutsuch previous studies despite the fact they are a requirement of multilateral agencies,includingtheWorldBankandUNDP.17

b) EvaluationofTRIDOMIof2014(UNDPProjectID1583).

59. TRIDOM I, the predecessor of TRIDOM II, covers the samebroaderDja-Odzala-Minkebetransboundary region between theRepublic of Congo, Cameroon andGabon. TRIDOM Iwasinitiallyidentifiedin1998/99,approvedbytheGEFCouncilin2004,butonlystartedafter significant delays in 2009 and was officially closed in 2015. Total project costs,includingallco-financiersandcoveringthethreecountries,exceededUSD45million.

60. An evaluation of this project in 2014 found that its goals were hampered by a lack ofownership of key stakeholders and that its impact in terms of alternative incomegeneratingactivitiesforitsintendedbeneficiarieswasnotperceptible.18Onthewhole,theevaluation considers the impacts of the project to be minimal, while pressure frompoachingandindustrialmining,loggingandagro-industrialactivitieshadincreased.

61. AmongtherecommendationsoftheevaluationoftheTRIDOMIproject for itssuccessorTRIDOM II are the need to gain the trust of local populations by creating alternativeincome-generating activities and by ensuring that the maintenance of the ecologicalwildlife corridorsnot infringeon communitydevelopment.WhileTridom II intended toaddress these issues, SECU found little evidence that they were implemented on-the-ground.

62. Another recommendation of the 2014 evaluation concerns the need to improvemonitoringofWWFandensuregreaterclarityandtransparencyofWWFactivitiesintheregion.ThisrecommendationisofspecialrelevancetoTRIDOMII.WhilethegovernmentoftheRepublicofCongoistheUNDPproject’simplementingpartner,projectactivitieson-

16Kasisi,R.andKaya,J.A.P.,“ProjetPNUD-FEM:CatalysationdelaGestionDurabledesForestssurleSitedesZonesHumidesTransfrontalièresdesLacsTele-Tumba,”mid-termevaluationreport,November2017.17UNDPnotesthatGEFrequirementsatprojectdesignhaveonlybeeninplacesinceNovember2011andthisproiectwasapprovedinMay2010.18Ngono,G.,“Rapportdel’ÉvaluationfinaledoProject‘ConservationdelaBiodiversitéTransfrontalièredansl’InterzoneCameroun,CongoetGabon,”October2014.ProjectcarriedoutundertheauspicesofUNDP,GEF,UNOPSandTRIDOM.

Page17of51

the-groundintheMessokDjaareaarecarriedoutbyWWF,whichisaparallelco-financierof the UNDP project andworks closelywith the government. It isWWF’s local project,known as WWF-ETIC (Espace TRIDOM Interzone Congo) which is visible to localcommunities.

63. In addition, given the multiple pressures on the region, the evaluation calls for amultisectoralapproachtoconservation,andcallsondonorstoaddresslandgrabsintheregion by influential persons and companies. Intended outputs in Tridom II includedmeasurestoaddresstheseproblems,butSECUfoundlittleevidencethatthesemeasureshadbeenimplemented

64. The findings and recommendations of both evaluation reports emphasize the need to

engagewith local communities ofwhich indigenous peoples are themostmarginalizedandvulnerablesegment. TheyforeshadowproblemsthatledtothecomplaintsreceivedbySECU. Theabsenceofprevious studies related to the impactson indigenouspeoplesofestablishingprotectedareasorwildlifecorridors isconsistentwitha lackofattentionto therightsandneedsofaffected indigenouspeople,asdescribed in theProdocstating the“vastmajority of protected areas in the Republic of Congo were established without taking intoaccount customary rights to land or the historical, cultural or socio-economic realities thathaveshapedtheseecosystemsovermillenniaofhabitationandusebyindigenouspeoples.”

65. Duringthecourseofitsinvestigation,SECUfoundlittleevidencethatthefindingsofthese

evaluationreportswereusedtoshapethepreparationandimplementationofTRIDOMII.IssuesraisedintheComplaints66. The complaints received from six indigenous communities in the Sangha region in the

northoftheRepublicofCongofocusontheProject’splannedcreationoftheMessokDjaprotectedarea.MessokDja is considered tobeavital componentofa corridorallowingwildlife to pass from northern Congo into the Nki Protected Area in neighboringCameroon. The indigenous Baka allege that their access to the area, which is theirtraditional homeland and is essential to their livelihoods, has been severely restricted.Neighboring Bakwele (Bantu) communities, while not subject to the same deeplyengrained discriminatory attitudes suffered by the semi-nomadic Baka people, havesupportedthecomplaintssubmittedbytheBaka.

67. Although UNDP has undertaken consultations in 18 villages in the broader Tridomlandscape, the Baka state that they have not been informed or consulted about theboundariesoftheproposedprotectedarea.TheystatethatWWF-ETICstaffarriveintheirsettlements and simply inform themwhere theymay no longer go for their traditionalhuntingandgatheringactivities.Thisperceiveddefactopolicyofrestrictedaccess,differsfrom the official policy, which according to WWF, is that there are no restrictions onaccesstotheprotectedareas..19

19TheCountryOfficeinCongonotesthat18meetingswereheldin2018(pls.alsoseefootnote4,page8).WhileitisnotclearwhetheranyofthesemeetingswererelatedtotheestablishmentofMessokDjaorwhethertheywereaddressingissuesfacedinotherpartsoftheTRIDOM,theydidnotcontributetoarobustFPICprocess.TheCountryOfficenotesthatWWF-ETICheldFPICmeetingsintwovillagesin2017andinanotherthreevillagesin2018.SECUhasseenthemid-termreportcoveringthesemeetingsandnotesthatitshowsamisunderstandingofwhattheFPICprocessismeanttobe.Muchtoitscredit,in2019WWFcommissionedtwoseparateentitiestohelpitwithcarryingoutFPICinMessokDja.TheseentitiespublishedtheirreportsinJune2019:“FPICinMessokDja”bytheForestPeoplesProgrammeand“AppuiàlaMiseenOeuvreduConsentementLibre,InforméetPréalable(CLIP)descommunautés

Page18of51

68. TheBakaallegethattheeco-guardssubjectthemtobeatingsandarrestsastheygoabout

their traditional livelihood activities. They state that they have seen their houses andforestcampsburneddownbyeco-guards,thattheeco-guardsarestealingtheirfoodandthattheyaresubjecttoindiscriminateviolence,humiliation,andintimidation.

69. TheBakacommunitiesSECUinterviewedstatethattheyliveinconstantfearandthattheloss of access to their traditional forest lands has led to a situationwhere they can nolongerfindthefoodandmedicinesthatareindispensabletotheirwell-beingandsurvival.Thecommunitiesstatethattheyfearforthefutureoftheirchildrentowhomtheycannolonger transmit their deep knowledge of life in the forest, including their renownedpharmacologicalexpertise.YetBakachildrenhavenoaccesstoschoolsormedicalcareaspossiblealternatives.Asaresult,theBakafeartheywillnotbeabletosurviveasapeople.

FINDINGS1. SocialandEnvironmentalStandards(SES)

SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure70. SECU finds that the project under review has undertaken a Social and Environmental

ScreeningProcedure (SESP)as requiredby theSES. TheSESPassumes that theprojectwillprovidesocio-economicbenefits to IndigenousPeoplesand that itwill restore theiraccessandtenurerightsovernaturalresourcesinprotectedareastoensuretheirabilitytomeettheirlivelihoodandculturalneeds. Italsostatesthattheproject’shumanrightsapproach will ensure full participation of indigenous and local communities in projectactivities

71. The SESP notes that it had not been possible to organize consultations with thecommunitiesintheregionoftheproposedMessokDjaprotectedarea.Itsassumptionthatthe projectwill only bring benefits to indigenous communities leads it to conclude thatthere will be no discernible risk and that culturally appropriate consultations with thegoalofobtainingFreePriorandInformedConsent(FPIC)arenotrequired.

72. TheSESPturnsouttobealistingofgoodintentions,whichonlyperfunctorilyrespondstothe detailed questionnaire included in the SESP form. Indications of its lax approachincludeitsreferenceto“Cameroonian”lawwhentheprojectislocatedintheRepublicofCongo(RoC),aswellasitsuseoftheFrenchterm“indigène”withitscolonialassociationsintheFrenchlanguageasopposedtotheterm“autochtone”whichisthecurrentterminFrenchfortheEnglishterm“indigenous”.

73. UNDP’sscreeningprocedurescategorizeprojectswhichmayadverselyimpacttherights,lands, resources and territories of Indigenous Peoples as being of high risk. Given itscursorynature,theSESPfailstoidentifypotentiallyadverserisksforIndigenousPeoplesattheearlieststagesofprojectdevelopment.

74. Boththerecordofdisplacementandexclusionintheestablishmentofprotectedareasinthe RoC, which is referred to in the Prodoc, and the evaluation report of the previousprojectTRIDOMI,shouldhaveraisedredflagsasthenewprojectwasbeingscreenedforrisks.

LocalesatAutochtonesenvuedelacréationdel’AireProtégéeMessokDja”byBrainforest,ComptoirJuridiqueJuniorandCercledesPopulationsAuchtochtonesdelaSangha.

Page19of51

75. Since the SESP failed to identify possible risks, the application of UNDP’s Social andEnvironmental Standardswere not adequately ensured. Themost immediately relevantstandard is Standard 6 on Indigenous Peoples. In addition, both Standard 1 onBiodiversity and Standard 5 on Displacement and Resettlement refer to the specialattentionthatneedstobepaidinprojectswhereIndigenousPeoplesarepresent.

76. Standard6onIndigenousPeoplesrequiresalimitedsocialandenvironmentalreviewforprojects without adverse impacts and a full social and environmental assessment forprojectswith potentially significant adverse impacts. In addition, any project thatmayaffect the rights, lands, resources and territories of Indigenous Peoples requires theelaborationofanIndigenousPeoplesPlan(IPP)whichisdevelopedwiththeeffectiveandmeaningfulparticipationoftheIndigenousPeoples.

77. Incasesofpotentiallyadverse impactson IndigenousPeoples,Standard6states“…inno

case shall Project activities thatmay adversely affect Indigenous Peoples, including theexistencevalue,useofenjoymentoftheirland,resourcesorterritoriestakeplacebeforetheactionplaniscarriedout”(Paragraph14).

78. Neither a limited social and environmental review, nor a full social and environmental

assessment were carried out to date. The required Indigenous Peoples’ Plan was notprepared.

79. Furthermore, theSESPdoesnotraise the issueofpossiblerisksassociatedwithUNDP’spartnershipswithprivatesectorentitieslinkedtothisproject.Thesepartnershipsincludecompanies in sectors (industrial logging and palm oil) which are well known for theirpotentialnegativeimpactsonbiodiversityandindigenouscommunities.UNDP’sPolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector(2013)explicitlylistspalmoilandotherlargemonocultures,aswellastimberproductionandlogging,amongthehigh-risksectors that require following the Policy’s full risk assessment tool to identify anysignificant controversies in order to manage risks to its reputation and ensure theintegrityandindependenceofUNDP.

80. Since the SESP did not identify the potential risks of partnerships with private sectorentitiesasamatterrequiringattention,UNDP’sPolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswith thePrivateSectorwasnot triggered.Asa result, theduediligencerequiredbeforeenteringsuchpartnershipswasnotcarriedout.

IdentificationofRisksintheProjectDocument(Prodoc)81. Initssectionon“SocialandEnvironmentalSafeguards,”theProdocreferstoandaccepts

the low risk ratingof the Social andEnvironmental ScreeningProcedure (SESP) and itsclaim that there is virtually no social risk because local and indigenous communitieswouldbefullyparticipatingandbethebeneficiariesoftheproject.

82. However,unliketheSESP,theProdocdescribesaprojectcontextofhighrisk.Itssectionson“TheChallengeforSustainableDevelopment”and“Threats,rootcauses,andbarriers”layoutawholerangeofseriousrisks.SomeoftherisksidentifiedrelatetothehistoricalrecordofmarginalizationandevictionofIndigenousPeoplesfromprotectedareasintheregion and the lack of community involvement in the management of protected areas.Other identified risks concern the expansion of industrial logging operations and ofmonoculturalplantations.

83. The Prodoc recognizes the evidence that traditional forms of using the forest byIndigenous Peoples has contributed to biodiversity conservation, but that forest

Page20of51

dependentcommunitieshaveoftenbeenperceivedasathreatratherthanaspartnersinconservation.ConsideringtheexperienceintheRepublicofCongo,theProdocstatesthatthe establishment of protected areas has taken place without taking into account thecustomaryrightstolandorthehistorical,culturalandsocio-economicrealitiesthathaveshapedtheseecosystemsovermillenniathroughtheusebyitsindigenousinhabitants.

84. Seemingly anticipating the complaints received by SECU in 2018, the Prodoc notes thatanti-poaching activities are often brutally carried out by eco-guards. It notes that theIllegalWildlifeTrade (IWT)iswell-structured andorganizedby elite criminal networks,which often operate internationally and are supported by politically well-connectedactors.GiventhatthosebehindITWarealmostnevercaughtandprosecuted,theProdocreferstotheeco-guardsasunfairlypenalizingtraditionalhuntingandgatheringactivities.This leads to a situationwhere theBaka areunable tomaintain their customary rights,unique knowledge, and traditional way of life, while also not having the choice ofalternativelivelihoodactivities.

85. TheProdocalsodiscounts the importanceofBakapeopleassistingcriminalpoachers. It

notes that given the precarious living conditions and the lack of alternative options,criminal networks may exploit traditional hunters and gatherers given their skills intrackingwildlife.TheProdocaddsthatevenwherethismayoccur,theBakaonlyreceiveameagreshareofthevalueofthewildlife.TheyclearlyareamongthevictimsoftheIWT.

86. In addition to excluding the Baka and other communities from protected areamanagement, the Prodoc lists government corruption as a driving force of poaching.Furthermore, the Prodoc includes the increased availability of automatic weaponsstemmingfromrecentcivilwarsintheregionasacontributingfactortotheescalationofpoaching.

87. The Prodoc highlights the negative impacts on biodiversity of the expansion ofmonoculturalplantationsand industrial logging, including illegal logging.Theexpansionof road networks in logging concessions is especially relevant because it supports theIllegalWildlifeTradebyopeninguppreviouslyinaccessibleareasandprovidesarteriesoftransportationfortheillegaltrade.

88. Although the TRIDOM II project based on its Prodoc, entered co-financing partnershipswith private sector companies in the high-risk sectors of palm-oil production andindustriallogging,theProdoccontainsnoreferencetoduediligencemeasuresasrequiredbyUNDP´sPolicy.

89. TheProdocisveryarticulateinitsdescriptionsofthehistoricalrecordofmarginalization

andexclusionofIndigenousPeoplesintheestablishmentofprotectedareasintheregion.It refers to the displacement of indigenous communities in and around protected areasand anti-poaching activities that are brutally enforced by eco-guards, which penalizetraditionalhuntingandgatheringactivitiesonwhichtheirsubsistencedepends.

90. However, the awareness of these risks did not lead to a revision of the Social andEnvironmentalScreeningProcedureandsubsequently informtheapplicationof theSES.However,itshouldbenotedthattheProdocidentifiedoverestimationofthefeasibilityoflocaleconomicactivitiesasalternativestopoachingasarisk.

91. Those preparing the Prodoc apparently lacked knowledge of SES requirements, inparticularwheretheyallowedtheprojecttoproceedwithoutfirstpreparingandcarryingoutanIndigenousPeoplesPlan.

Page21of51

92. Asaresult,theProdocdeprivedtheprojectofapivotalinstrumentthatwouldhavebeen

of critical importance to its statedobjectiveof restoringaccess andownershipof forestandwildliferesourcestolocalandindigenouscommunities.

93. The Prodoc states that it has paid andwill pay special attention to applying the UNDPguidingprinciplesregardingIndigenousPeoples(“UNDPandIndigenousPeople–APolicyof Engagement” of 2001). It specifies the need to encourage the active participation of“Pygmies”andrecognitionoftheirrightstonaturalresourceownership.

94. TheProdoc,however,makesnoreferencetoUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsof 2015, whichwere applicable to TRIDOM II. Alongwith the international communitypaying greater attention to indigenous rights, UNDP had moved on from the guidingprinciplesofthe2001PolicytomorestringentrequirementsenshrinedinUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards.

95. ThelackoftheProdoc’sreferencetoUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsisallthemoresurprisingsinceUNDP’sDesign&AppraisalStageQualityAssuranceReportofApril3, 2017 refers to “Social & Environmental Standards” and provides the project with aquality rating of “Highly Satisfactory”.20 UNDP must ensure that its Quality AssuranceReportsprovideobjectiveassessmentsthatarefreeofpossibleconflictsofinterest.

IndigenousPeoplesStandard96. TheSECUinvestigationfoundthatprojectactivitiestodatehavelargelyfocusedonanti-

poachingmeasures.CombattingtheIllegalTradeofWildlifewhichsuppliesinternationaldemandforivory,giantpangolinscalesandotherwildlifeproductsisclearlyessentialtoprotecting the region’s rich wildlife. The same holds for the trafficking of bushmeat tomeetthedemandinmajorurbanareas,suchasBrazzaville,YaoundéandDouala.

97. UNDP’sStandard6onIndigenousPeoplesisdesignedtoensurethatindigenousidentitiesand rights are respected and thewell-being of indigenous communities is improved. Inorder to fulfill thismandate, projects affecting the rights, lands, resources, territoriesofIndigenousPeoplesarerequiredtodevelopanIndigenousPeoplesPlanthatmustbepartofprojectdocumentation.

98. However,TRIDOMIIdidnotconsidertherequirementsofthestandardandanIndigenousPeoplesPlanwasnotelaborated.IntheabsenceofanIndigenousPeoplesPlan,theanti-poachingmeasurestodatehavenotincludedtheIndigenousPeoplesasvaluablepartnersin protecting wildlife and biodiversity. To the contrary, the planned establishment ofMessokDja as a protected area has until to date involved restrictions of access for thelocal Baka communities and the often brutal enforcement of these restrictions by eco-guards.

99. Theon-the-groundactivitiestoestablishtheMessokDjaprotectedareaarecarriedoutbythe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which works together with the Ministry ofForest Economy, Sustainable Development and Environment (MEFDDE) in the ETICProgramoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofCongo,UNDP’simplementingpartner.

100. Although government agents are in the region as part of the ETIC (Espace TRIDOMInterzone Congo) and perhaps other programs, Government structures in general are

20UNDP,ImplementationandMonitoringStageQualityAssuranceReport,ProjectNo.0092643,April3,2017.

Page22of51

largelyabsentfromtheseforestareas.WWF’scooperationwithandsupportfromUNDPisformalized inLettersofAgreement (Lettresd’Accord) signedbyUNDPandWWFdatedOctober15,2017andApril9,2018.21 UNDPsignedtheseLettersofAgreementnotwithMEFDDE,butwithWWFgiventhatWWFhastheresourcestomanagetheprojecton-the-ground.

101. ThecenterpieceoftheactivitiesoftheLettersofAgreementconcernstheestablishmentofMessokDjaasanationalparkcoveringanareaof144,000hectares.Theindicatorsforthe activities include the elaboration of 48 geo-referenced maps on the use of naturalresourcesbythecommunitiesborderingonthefutureprotectedareaofMessokDjaandareport on how local communities have been “sensitized” (sensibilisation) to theestablishmentof theprotectedarea. Thesecondexpectedresult is theestablishmentofthe“NationalUnitforApplicationoftheLawonCriminalityconcerningWildlife”throughtrainingandequipmentoftheSembésub-Unit,whichincludestheeco-guards.22

102. The indicators for the success of this activity include the annual numbers of patrols,

annualnumbersforwildlifeseizedbythepatrols,annualnumberofarrestsmadeandofconvictionsforpoachingandtheillegalwildlifetrade.

103. TheLettersofAgreementalsorefertoWWF’scontributiontosocio-economicstudies,thedevelopmentofparticipatorymanagementapproachesand strengtheningof sustainablelivelihoodsinthebroaderregionoftheTRIDOM.These,however,arenotfurtherspecifiedintheindicators.

104. Further below in the section “Access to Information and Participation of IndigenousPeoples” of this report SECU provides its findings related to themapping exercise and“sensitization”oftheBakacommunities.

105. MessokDjasharesaborderinthenorthwithCameroon’sNkiprotectedarea.Itssidesareframed by two axes ofmostly dirt and some recently paved roadswhich run from thesmall local townofSembéto thevillageofSouankéononeside,and fromSembéto thevillageofNgbalaontheother.

106. The Baka and Bantu communities, who have settled near the two road axes runningalongsideMessok-Dja, see the establishment ofMessok Dja as aWWF project, becausewhat is most visible to them are the four-wheel drive vehicles with WWF’s logo, thecontact made with WWF-ETIC staff and most of all their encounters with armed eco-guardsworkingundertheaegisofWWF-ETIC.

107. Theparamilitary trainingof theecoguardswasgivenby theGovernment.According toWWF,WWFhastrainedtheecoguardsonHumanRights,useofGPSandecologyandwasalsoproviding inputon the termsofreference for therecruitmentsofecoguardswhichtook place in the second half of 2019. Sometimes the eco-guards are accompanied by

21Lettred’AccordStandardEntreleProgrammedesNationsUniespourleDeveloppementetl’ONG“WorldWideFundforNature(WWF)”ConcernantlaRéalisationduProjet“ConservationintégréeettransfrontalièredelabiodiverstitédanslesbassinsdelaRépubliquedoCongo”,October15,2017.Lettred’AccordStandardEntreleProgrammedesNationsUniespourleDeveloppementetleFondsMondialpourlaNature(WWF)PourlaRéalisationd’ActivitésDanslecadredeServicesd’AppuifournisparlePNUDauProjetConservationIntégréeetTransfrontalièredelaBiodiversitédanslesBassinsdelaRépubliqueduCongoDit“TRIDOMII”,April9,2018.22AccordingtoUNDP,theseLettersofAgreementwereunderimplementationbetweenOctober2017andMarch2019whentheprojectwassuspendedandrepresentedabudgetofUSD220,000ofwhichUSD163,000wasspentbyWWFwhichrepresentslessthan4%ofthetotalbudgetoftheproject.

Page23of51

government police or military forces. Although the final boundaries and exactconservation status of Messok Dja have not yet been established, there are numerousreportsofactsofviolence,harassmentandintimidationagainstindigenouspeoplebyeco-guardsintheMessokDjaarea.

108. Thequantitativeindicators,suchasthenumberofpatrols,meanttomeasurethesuccessof the project, did not refer to the special relationship of the Baka to their traditionalresources.SECUwasunabletofindevidencethattheanti-poachingactivitiesreflectedintheindicatorsleadtothedismantlingofthecriminalnetworksbehindtheIllegalTradeinWildlife.23Asaresulttheindicatorsarelikelytoinadvertentlycontributetopenalizingtheeasiesttargets.

109. UNDPstaffandotherobserversinterviewedbySECU,referredtothesenetworksasbeinglinked to politically well-connected elites. Since these powerful actors are difficult toconfront,theactivitiesofthearmedeco-guardsinthefieldappeartoincludemeasuresofintimidationandaccompanyingviolencedirectedat indigenous communities topreventthemfromaccessingtheirtraditional forest landandpursuingtheirsubsistencehuntingandgatheringactivities.

110. The SECU investigations heard numerous accounts in all the communities that wereinterviewed about the eco-guards’ failure to distinguish between traditional hunting(mostlytrapssetforsmallanimals)andgatheringactivitiesandthepoachingofwildlife.Asaresult,theBakas’traditionalsubsistenceactivitiesarebeingcriminalized.24

111. SECU found no evidence that local communities meaningfully benefit from the IllegalWildlifeTrade. To the contrary, they are obviously in a state of deepdistress given therestrictions on their livelihood activities and the threats and attacks on their personalsafetybythepersonnelhiredbytheprojecttocombatpoaching.

112. Concerning the anti-poachingmeasures related to the establishment of theMessok-Dja

protected area, SECU finds continuity of the marginalization, exclusion and violenceagainst IndigenousPeoples that theProdochadsoclearly identifiedas thehallmarksofpreviousexperiencewiththecreationofprotectedareasintheregion.

113. SECUfindsthatthelackofadherencetoUNDP’sStandardonIndigenousPeoplesandtheelaborationofanIndigenousPeoplesPlanledtodefaultpositionofbusiness-as-usual.Intermsofproject activities todate,TRIDOM IIhas repeated thepatterns that theProdochadidentifiedasthelegacyofpastprojects.

AccesstoInformation114. UNDP’s InformationDisclosurePolicyaswellas itsSocialandEnvironmentalStandards

(SES) consider the public disclosure of its programs at the earliest stages a keyprerequisiteforpublicparticipationofallstakeholders.

23UNDPnotesthattheProjectwasonlyunderimplementationfor16monthsbeforeitwassuspendedinMarch2019.AccordingtoUNDP,thisshorttimeframemayexplainthelackofevidencedemonstratingthedismantlingofcriminalnetworks.24Ayary,I.andCounsell,S.,”TheHumanCostofConservationintheRepublicofCongo,”TheRainforestFoundation,U.K.,London,December2017.Forbroaderhumanrightssituation,pleaseseeObservatoireCongolaisdesDroitsdel’Homme,“OCDH–2017-RapportsurlaSituationdesDroitsdesPopulationsAutochtones.”ReportsupportedbytheEuropeanUnion,Brazzaville,2017.

Page24of51

115. Stakeholderengagementplansarearequirementearlyduringprojectdevelopmentwiththegoalofensuringthatproject-affectedpeopleunderstandtheopportunitiesandrisksofaproject.Theinformationistobemadeavailablenotonlyinatimelymanner,butalsoina form and in the language of the affected people in order to allow them to providemeaningfulinputintothedesignandimplementationoftheproject.

116. Standard6on IndigenousPeoplesof theSES further specifies thatallprojects thatmayimpact the rights, land, resources and territories of Indigenous Peoples require priorreviews and assessments that are conducted transparently with the meaningfulparticipationoftheIndigenousPeoplesconcerned.

117. However,astheProject’sSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure(SESP)notes,noconsultationswith thecommunities in theregionof theproposedMessokDjaprotectedareahadtakenplace.

118. SECU’s fact-findingmission in the region in February 2019 found that the communitieshadreceivednopriorinformationandwereonlymadeawareoftheplansforthecreationoftheprotectedareawhenWWF-ETICstafffirstinformedthemofthemappingexercisethatwouldbeundertakenintheregion.

119. This is confirmed by aWWF-ETIC document describing the various phases of the FPIC

process it was going to carry out in the region. It states thatWWF-ETICwould use itscontact with the local communities to inform them that a “National Park” would beestablishedintheirarea.TheincompleteunderstandingoftheFPICprocessbyWWFwasconfirmedinastudycommissionedbyWWFin2019performedbytheOxford-basedNGOForestPeoplesProgramme.25

120. In some cases, WWF-ETIC staff informed the affected indigenous people and theirneighboringcommunitiesthattheywerenolongerallowedtoentercertainforestareas.Inothercases,theeco-guardshiredbytheprojectinformedlocalpeoplewhentheyfoundthem in forestareas that theywereno longerallowed tobe therebecausea “park”wasgoingtobetherenow.WWFclaimthattheecoguardshaveneverreceivedinstructionstoinformcommunitymembersthatrestrictionsonaccesstoresourceswereimplemented.

121. According toUNDP staff in the region, therewasnoprohibition inplace for indigenousand other communities to go about their livelihood activities in the forest. But thetestimony provided to SECU showed that such a prohibitionwas often enforced by theeco-guards.

122. The way the information for local communities was handled led to wide-spreadopposition to the future protected area ofMessokDja. The initial communitymappingexercise carried out byWWF-ETIC andwhichwas part of its Letter of AgreementwithUNDPdidlittletoaddressthefearofcommunitiesthattheywouldbedeprivedofaccesstoresourcesvitalfortheirsubsistencebytheestablishmentoftheprotectedarea.

123. WWF-ETIC carried out the initial community mapping exercise along the axes of theSembé-Ngbala and Sembé-Souanké roadswhich frame the futureMessokDja protectedarea. Carrying out participatory mapping is always a complex undertaking requiringseveral rounds of confirmation and validation to obtain an approximate picture ofresourceusebylocalcommunitiesinaregion.

25ForestPeoplesProgramme,FPICinMessokDja:AreportandassessmentbyFPPonthefree,priorandinformedconsentprocessundertakeninrespectoftheproposedMessokDjaprotectedareaintheRepublicofCongo,5June2019.

Page25of51

124. Themid-termreportproducedbyWWFdoesnotindicateattentiontothedistinctcultural

and livelihood relationship of theBaka indigenous people to the forest areas they havetraditionallyused.26WhilethelocalBantu(Kwélé)andBakacommunitiessharetosomedegreeadependenceonforestresourcesfortheirlivelihoods,thesemi-nomadichuntingand gathering Baka have very distinct notions of territory marked by their seasonaltraditionalactivities, theuseofmuch largerextensionsof forestareasandamuchmorediverseandexpertuseofforestresources.

125. The more sedentary Bantu communities survive to a large extent on fields withestablishedboundaries. They supplement their cropswith food,medicines andbuildingmaterialsfromtheforestandalsosufferasaresultofrestrictedaccesstotheforest.Buttothemthecentralproblemisthedestructionoftheircropsbyelephants.Intheirview,theestablishment ofMessok Dja is designed to protect animals to the detriment of peoplebeingabletofeedtheirfamilies.

126. TheWWF-ETICMid-Termreportalsoreflectsadeepmisunderstandingoftheconceptof

“FreePriorandInformedConsent(FPIC)”whichitappearstoviewasatooltoinvolveallstakeholders in decision-making, including the private sector and local authorities.However,FPIC,asenshrinedintheU.N.DeclarationontheRightsof IndigenousPeoplesandincludedinUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,ismeanttobeaspecifictooldesigned for securing the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples inprojectsthatwouldaffecttheirrights,resources,traditionallivelihoodsandterritories.

127. WWFhasnowengagedseveralnon-governmental-organizations(NGOs),whichoperateattheinternational,nationalandlocallevelstoadviseonpreparingandimplementingFPICintheregion.27AfirstvisittotheregionbysomeoftheseNGOscoincidedwiththetailendofSECU’sfact-findingmissioninlateFebruary2019.

128. Althoughlateintheprocess,andafterharmtocommunitieshasgeneratedill-willtowards

theestablishmentofMessokDja,thisisapositivedevelopment.TheconcreteoutcomesofWWF’s initiativewillhave tobecarefullymonitored toensure that theypresenta freshstartinwhichindigenousrightsandwell-beingarefullyrespected,asrequiredbyUNDPpolicies.

129. UNDPpolicyrequiresthatprojectactivitiesitsupportsareconsistentwiththeSES,and,inthisregard,totheextentactivitiesadvancedbyWWFandotherstoimplementtheprojectaresupportedbyUNDP,theyhavetobemonitoredbytheCOtoensureconsistencywiththe SES.28 If the UNDP-supported activity is not compliant with the SES and otherapplicablestandards,UNDPmustworktoensuretheactivityisbroughtintocompliancewiththestandardsorceasesupportingtheactivity.

StakeholderEngagementandResponseMechanisms130. UNDP’s commitment to ensuring meaningful, effective and informed participation of

stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of projects includes theestablishmentofproject-levelgrievancemechanismswhereneeded.

26WWF-ETIC,“RapportaMi-ParcourssurlaMiseenOeuvreduProcessusClipautourdeMessok-Dja,”June2018.27TheNGOscontractedbyWWFincludeBrainforest(Gabon),ComptoirJuridiqueJunior(Brazzaville),CercledesPeuplesAutochtonesdelaSangha(Ouesso)andForestPeoplesProgram(UK).28UNDP,SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Paragraphs8-10,2014.

Page26of51

131. Both the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure and the Prodoc of TRIDOM IIstate that such a project-level grievance mechanism would be established to ensure arapid response to concerns raised by local communities. The Prodoc enters into somedetailonthetechnicalitiesofsuchamechanism.Itstatesthatsuchamechanismmustbeeasily accessible, that complaints must be registered, that there has to be feedback tocomplainants and that there must be the possibility to appeal decisions shouldcomplainantsnotbesatisfiedwiththeresponsegiven.

132. As of the time of SECU fact-finding mission in February 2019, a grievance redressmechanism accessible to communities in the Messok Dja region had not been put inplace.29

133. However, localcommunities informedtheSECUmissionthatshortlybeforeitsarrival intheregion,WWF-ETICpersonnelhadcomebythevillagestodropoffaFrenchlanguageform explaining what to do in case of becoming a victim of aggression of WWF-ETICagents, i.e. theeco-guards.30 In the interviews conductedbySECU,Baka stated that theformwasdroppedoffwithoutfurtherexplanationandthatitdidnotmakesensetothem.

134. When SECU inquired about why the form did not make sense to them, communitymembersreferredtoinstancesinthepastwhentheyhadtriedtocomplaintotheWWF-ETICofficeinSembéaboutsevereabusescommittedbyeco-guards.Theyfoundthattheircomplaintswerenot taken seriously and that the individual eco-guards they accusedoftheabuseswereactuallyprotectedbytheWWFoffice.Theyalsoreportedthattheywerethreatenedwhentheytriedtocomplain.

135. GiventhelackoftransportconnectingthecommunitiesalongtheroadaxesfromSouankéandNgbala to the regional town of Sembé, it takes considerable effort and sacrifice forBakatocoverthedistancefromtheirsmallvillagestoSembé.

136. The fruitless and intimidating experience of trying to complain coupled with thedifficultiesinreachingSembéhelpexplainwhytheformdroppedoffbyWWF-ETICstaffdidnotmakesensetotheBakacommunities.Theyexpressedadeepsenseofdesolationfornothaving access to anykindof recoursewhen they suffer at thehandsof the eco-guards.

2. OverarchingSESPolicyandPrinciples

HumanRightsPrinciple137. The protection and fulfillment of human rights represent the overarching principle in

UNDP’sworktoadvancesustainabledevelopmentandreducepoverty.TheSESreinforceapplicationofthisprincipleattheprogrammeandprojectlevels.HumanRightsconstitutePrincipleNo.1oftheSES.

138. WhileUNDPdoesnothavearole inmonitoringStateeffortstomeettheirhumanrightsobligations, its due diligence obligations require UNDP to monitor compliance with itspoliciesinthecontextofUNDPProgrammesandProjects.

29Forthemeetingsheldwith18communitiesin2018andWWF-ETICmeetingsin2017and2018,pleaseseefootnotes4(page8)and18(page16).30ETICletterheadform,“Victimed’AgressionCommiseparunAgentETIC–QueFaire?(undated,onfileatSECUoffice).

Page27of51

139. TheTRIDOMIIproject includeshumanrightsgoals. It liststherestorationofaccessandownership of forest and wildlife resources for local and indigenous people among itsobjectives.TheProdocexplicitlyreferstoIndigenousPeopleshavingbeenmarginalizedinpreviousprojects toestablishprotectedareasand that therewere reportsof abuseandhumanrightsviolationsbyeco-guards.Theproject’sstrategytorestorecommunityrightsandensurethatcommunitiesbenefitfromastableandsufficientrevenueflowcarriestheimplicit promise of overcoming the legacy of past approaches that ignored the humanrightsdimensionsofestablishingprotectedareas.

140. However, the translation of thesewell-intended goals into practical outcomes has beenhamperedbythelackofadherencetoUNDPstandards,notablythefailuretojointlywiththecommunitiesprepareandimplementanIndigenousPeoplesPlan.

141. Moreover,UNDPhasnotmonitoredtheactivitiescarriedoutbyWWF,oneof itsprojectpartnersinMessokDja.MonitoringofWWFactivities,ashadbeenrecommendedbytheevaluation report ofTRIDOM I andas is requiredbyUNDPduediligence requirements,did not take place. As a result there was no early recognition that TRIDOM II wasrepeating the patterns of the past in terms ofmarginalizing and penalizing IndigenousPeoples.Theopportunitytohaltabusesandreviseproject implementationearlyonwasmissed.

HarmtoCommunities142. Any visitor to the regionwill quickly notice the profounddistress suffered by theBaka

communities,amongthemthecomplainants,whoareforcedtoekeoutalivingalongthetwomostlydirtroadsthatframetheproposedMessokDjaprotectedareatotheeastandtothewest.Eveninaregionwheredeeppovertyisendemicamongthevastmajorityofitsinhabitants,thedestitutionoftheBakastandsout.

143. In the Messok Dja region, the Baka not only suffer a de facto lack of access to theirtraditional forest land as the result of the planned establishment of the protected area,theyarealso forcedoutof theadjacentareasbymajor loggingconcessionssurroundingMessokDja.

144. While there are differences from community to community, the subordination andmarginalizationoftheBakarelativetotheirBantuneighborsstandsoutineverycase.TheBakas´housing,clothingandfoodinsecurityarevisiblyandsubstantiallymoreprecariousthanthoseoftheadjacentBantucommunities.

145. TheSECUfieldmissionheldextensivemeetingswithbothBantuandBakacommunities,but great carewas taken to alsomeet separatelywith theBaka. This turned out to beindispensable in creating an environment where the Baka could express themselvesfreely.

146. SECU interviews were not limited to the Baka communities who had submitted thecomplaints, but also includedotherBaka communities along the two road axes framingMessok Dja. What emerged is a generalized atmosphere of intimidation, fear anddeprivationresultingfromactionsbytheeco-guards.

TestimonyfromtheBakaIntimidationandViolence

Page28of51

147. BothBantuandBakacommunitiesSECUmetwithexpressedtheirfearandhatredofeco-guards, but SECU interviews show that the Baka aremore severely affected by acts ofviolencebytheeco-guards.Thereasonsforthisarelikelytobemultilayered.

148. NumerousBaka referred to the eco-guards treating them as sub-human. Thismay be areflection of the deeply ingrained racial prejudices against traditional hunters andgatherersbyBantusociety,fromwhichmosteco-guardsaredrawn.

149. Another critical factor is that Baka livelihoods aremore dependent on access to forestresources than their sedentary Bantu neighbors. This generates more conflict with theeco-guardsas theBaka try togoabout their traditionalhuntingandgatheringactivitiesfortheirsubsistenceneedsintheforest.

150. TherearenumerousreportsofseverebeatingsofBaka.Thesebeatingsoccurbothwhenthe Baka are in their camps along the road aswell aswhen they are in the forest. Thebeatingsaffectmen,womenandchildrenalike.Otherreportsrefertoeco-guardspointingagunatoneBakatoforcehimtobeatanotherBaka.Othersrefertotheeco-guardstakingawaythemachetesoftheBaka,thenbeatingthemwiththosemachetes.

151. TherearereportsofEco-guardsforcingBakawomentotakeofftheirclothesandbe“likenaked children.” There was palpable cultural reluctance of women to talk about theseincidencesexcepttosaythattheywereshameful“humiliations.”

152. NumerousBakaprovided testimonyabout theburningdownof their campsandhomesandtheconstantneedofhavingtorebuildtheirshelters.

153. (Therearereports)TestimonialevidenceobtainedbySECUreferredtoBakamenhaving

beentakentoprisonandof tortureandrape insidetheprison. ThewidowofoneBakaman spoke about her husband being so ill-treated in the prison of Ouesso that he diedshortlyafterhisrelease.HehadbeentransportedtotheprisoninaWWF-markedvehicle.

154. ThereareadditionalaccountsofvehicleswiththeWWFlogohavingtransportedmembersof theBakacommunitiestotheprison intheSangharegion’smaintownofOuesso. Forthe Baka, even visiting the small provincial town of Sembé is rare and few communitymembersdo.ReachingtheregionalcapitalofOuesso,whichisjustover100milesaway,is exceptionally hard. Since there also no telephone or othermeans of communicationavailable,theBakaprisonersareisolatedfromanytypeofsupportfromtheirfamilies.

Lackofaccesstovitalresources&inabilitytotransmitknowledge

155. TheSECU investigation finds that theeco-guardsdonotdistinguishbetween traditional

huntingandgatheringactivitiesandpoaching.ThishasledtoasituationwheretheBakas’customaryways ofmeeting their subsistence needs have been criminalized. The Bakareferredtothisasbeingmadeto“feelasifwearethievesinourownforests.”

156. TheBakas’traditionalusesofforestresourcesincludethetypicalBakawomenactivitiesof fishing in foreststreamsand lakes, thecollectionofwildmangoes,wildyamsandtheprotein-rich coco leaves (Gnetumafricanum).Bakamen find that they canno longer gointotheforesttoobtainhoney,whichiscollectedhighupintrees.Theyfeartheyarenolongerabletotrapsmallanimalswithoutrunningtheriskofbeingseverelypunishedbythe eco-guards. All of these traditional foods are essential to the Baka diet and theirinsufficiency shows in the poor nutritional health of the Baka in their roadsidesettlements.

Page29of51

157. TherewerenumerousreportsofBakacaughtintheforestnotonlybeingbeaten,butalsoof the food theyhavebeencollectingbeing stolenby theeco-guards tobe “eaten in thehousesoftheBantus.”

158. The restrictions on the Bakas’ access to the forest also affects their ability to collecttraditionalmedicines.TheBakaarerenownedintheregionfortheirin-depthknowledgeofmedicinalplants.IntheBaka-BanturelationshipstheBakaaretraditionallyregardedashealersandthemedicinesbrought fromthe forestwerean important itemtobe tradedwiththeBantuinexchangeforitemsofclothingandmetallicobjects.

159. OneBakawomaninacommunityclosetothefutureMessokDjaprotectedareasummedupthesituation:

“Weused tohaveall themedicinesweneeded fromthe forest.Weknewwhichplants touse. But this knowledge is nowgetting lost, the youngpeople are losing this knowledge.Womenusedtogivebirthintheforestwithoutanyproblems,wehadnomalaria.NowifaBakaisintheforestforafewdays,heiscalledapoacher.ThismakesitimpossiblefortheBakatoteachtheirchildrenaboutthemedicinalplantsoftheforest.”

160. AforeignsourcefamiliarwiththehealthsituationoftheBakaintheregionconfirmedto

SECU theworsening condition of the Bakawithout access to traditionalmedicines. Theweakenedstateofwomeninparticularhassevereimpactsonchildbirthandthehealthofinfants. The source referred to a recent case of a Baka woman dying immediatelyfollowingchildbirth.Thesurvivingnewborninthearmsofatoddlersiblingwaspresentedtothissourcewhosawthattheinfanthadfewchancesofsurvivalgiventhefamily’slackofaccesstofood.

161. The restrictions of access to their traditional livelihood activities surely has seriousimpacts on community health and well-being, indigenous culture and knowledgetransmissionsystemstothenextgeneration.

Lackofsupportforsocialinfrastructureandalternativelivelihoods.162. Although the TRIDOM II project includes sustainable livelihoods as part of its anti-

poachingstrategies,nosuchactivitieshavebeen implemented in theMessok-Dja regionduringthe16monthsbeforetheprojectwassuspended inMarch2019. TheBakahavelittle to no access to schools since evenwhen there is a school in a Bantu village,mostcannotaffordtheschoolfees,clothingandschoolmaterialfortheirchildren.Theyhavenoaccesstoconventionalhealthcareorbasicmedicinesintheircommunities.

163. UNDPstaff intheregionandinthecapitalconfirmthatnomeasureshavebeentakentodate tosupportBaka livelihoods in theMessokDjaregion.They indicate that theyplacemuchhope in the futureof ecotourism in the region.They referred toplans forwildlifeobservationzones,whereBakacouldserveasguidesforsafaris.

164. UNDP staff referred to future plans for using GEF small-grants to support economicactivitiesintheregion.Whilethismightbehelpful,utmostcarewouldhavetobetakentoavoid elite capture of such grants. Furthermore, it is not likely that such small grantswouldbeable tomakemuchofadifferencewithoutadequatelyaddressing thebroaderquestionsofindigenousrightstotraditionalresourcesandindigenousparticipationinthemanagementofMessokDjaundersometypeofprotectionstatus.

AllegationsofBakaInvolvementinCriminalPoaching

Page30of51

165. The Prodoc notes that given the precarious living conditions and the absence ofalternative options, criminal networksmay exploit traditional indigenous hunters giventheirskillsintrackingwildlife.Itaddsthatthosesoengagedreceiveameagrepricefortheanimalstheyhelphunt.

166. SECUheardreportsthatcriminalnetworksprovidegunstoBantuchiefswhointurnasktheBaka,ofwhomtheyconsider themselves tobe themasters, toassistwith the illegalhunting.

167. TheSECUmissionwasunabletoconfirmtheseallegations.TheprecarioussituationoftheBaka combined with their wildlife tracking skills makes such participation in criminalpoachingplausible.However,astheProdocnoted,anysuchincidentsmustbeviewedasactsofdesperationgiven thegreatpressureon theBakaand that theBakadonot reaprealbenefitsfromanysuchactivity.

168. The traditional Baka hunt is carried out with traps and spears. In response to SECUquestionsonelephanthunting, theBakasaid that itwas theirgrandfathers’ tradition tohunt elephants for ritual purposeswhen young boyswere initiated intomanhood. TheBaka say that this practice has been largely abandoned and that the evolution of Bakaculturehasreplacedthisinitiationritualwithotherceremonialrites.

169. WhileSECUcannotruleoutacompleteabandonmentoftraditionalritualpractices,suchpractices cannot be comparedwith the poaching donewith automaticweapons carriedoutbycriminalnetworksfortheprofitableinternationalivorymarket.

170. TheBakaexpressedtheirincredulityattheideathataparkcouldbeprotectedwhenitisemptyofpeople.Intheirview,peoplewhoknowtheforestarecentraltokeepingoutthepoachers. They also expressed their commitment to protecting elephants and otherwildlifeaspartoftheirengagementinafuturearrangementtoprotectMessokDja.

GrowingPressureontheForestsurroundingMessokDja.171. The local Bantu (Bakwele) communities also refer to conflictwith eco-guards, but they

report that the destruction of their fields and crops by elephants is causing them greathardship. They view the establishment of Messok Dja as an indication of outsidersgranting special status to wildlife, while ignoring the needs of people. Some Baka alsoreferred to wildlife/human conflict but to a lesser degree since they do not rely onsedentaryfarmingasmuchastheirneighbors.

172. Themost likely explanation for growing conflict between elephants and farmers is thegrowingpressureonelephantpopulationsstemmingfromhabitatlosscausedbythetwomain logging concessions in Messok Dja. The companies carrying out large-scaleindustrialloggingoperationsaretheChinesecompanySEFYDandtheLebanesecompanySIFCO. A technically detailed independent report financed by the European Uniondocuments how both companies are engaged in illegal logging, the falsifying of recordsandignoringCongoleseForestLaw.31

31IndependentReportfinancedbytheEuropeanCommission,Rapport001/CAGDF/CV4C,“ObservationForestièredansleBassindoCongo–APV-FLEGT(AccordPartenariatVolontaire–ForestLawEnforcement,GovernanceandTrade),February26,2018.

Page31of51

173. The findings of the EU-financed report mirror an investigation by the EnvironmentalInvestigationAgencyaboutthestaggeringextentofbribery,taxevasionandforestcrimesintheforestsectoroftheRepublicofCongomorebroadly.32

174. SECU’sinvestigationdidnotincludeareviewoftheregion’stimberconcessions,butfindsit necessary to refer to them given the pressure they put on the region’s forests. TheevaluationreportofTRIDOMIhadcalledonTRIDOMII, itssuccessorproject,toadoptamultisectoral approach to conservation, which would take into account the multiplepressures on the region. The Prodoc of TRIDOM II addresses these issues but does notconsidermeasuresonhowtomanagethem.

Corroborationofhumanrightsabusesbyeco-guardsthroughouttheregion

175. SECU’s findings of severe abuses by eco-guards in theMessokDja area arenot unique.

SimilarabusesofIndigenousPeoplesinthecourseoftheestablishmentofprotectedareasin theCongoBasinhave recentlybeen the subject of reports in the internationalmediaandanearlierreportbytheNGORainforestFoundationUK.33Themediareportsinturnare leading to parliamentary investigations in Europe and a call for a review of WWFfundingbyU.S.lawmakers.

176. In addition, theForest StewardshipCouncil (FSC), a leading timber certification agency,also foundhumanrightsabusesofeco-guards towardsBaka in theSangharegion. In itsreviewofthecertificationoftheloggingconcessionIndustrieForestièredeOuesso(IFO),a UNDP co-financing partner in the TRIDOM II project, it issued a notice of non-compliancewith FSC rules related to the ill-treatment and abuse of IndigenousPeoples(please see below in the section on “Partnerships with the Private Sector” examiningUNDP’sdecisiontopartnerwithprivateentities).

WWFReactiontoReportedAbusesCommittedbyEco-Guards177. IninterviewsconductedbySECUwithWWFofficesintheregionandinthecapital,WWF

staffmembers acknowledged that there are reportsof abuse againstBakapeopleby itseco-guards.Suchoccurrenceswerepresentedasisolatedincidentsduetotheexistenceofa“fewbadapples”amongtheeco-guardsinwhatwasotherwiseasuccessfuloperation.AWWF staff member familiar with the problems explained that these incidences wereoccurringbecauseof thepsychological ramificationsof “putting someone inuniformandgivinghimagun,”which for somemenrepresentsa license tocommitabuse. Improvedtrainingforeco-guardsandsanctioningof inappropriatebehaviorwerecitedasthewaytoaddresstheseproblems.

178. InNovember2018WWF-ETICdraftedaCodeofConductforitspersonnel,whichincludesthe eco-guards and also ismeant to apply to thepolice andmilitary forceswhichworkjointlywiththeeco-guards.Respectforhumanrightsandinparticularforthetraditionalrights of IndigenousPeoples is included in thedraft. As of June2019, thedraft CodeofConducthadnotyetbeensignedbytherelevantgovernmentagenciesandhadnotcomeintoforce.34

32EnvironmentalInvestigationAgency,“ToxicTrade–ForestCrimeinGabonandtheRepublicofCongoandtheContaminationoftheUSMarket,”Washington,D.C.,2019.33PyhaelaeA,OrozcoA.O,andCounsellS.,ProtectedAreasintheCongoBasin:FailingBothPeopleandBiodiversity,RainforestFoundationUK,London,April201634WWF-ETIC,ChartedeBonneConduiteduProjetd’AppuiàlaConservationdelaBiodiversitédansl’EspaceTRIDOMInterzoneCongo(ETIC),undated.OnfileatSECU.

Page32of51

3. PolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector179. The Prodoc refers to the establishment of palm oil plantations and commercial logging

operationsasmajorthreatstotheregion’sbiodiversityandwildlife.

180. Itstatesthattheland-usechangesbroughtaboutbypalmoilplantationsthreatentoturnlargetractsoflandintohostileareasformediumandlarge-sizedmammalseitherbecausetheycannotsurviveinoilpalmmonoculturesorbecausethepresenceofanimalswillnotbetoleratedbyplantationmanagers.

181. Concerning logging, the Prodoc states that timber production is not only affecting theregion’s forest cover, but is also associated with high levels of poaching as formerlyinaccessible forest tracts are being opened up by the logging roads crisscrossing theconcessionareas.

182. TRIDOMIIliststwocompaniesinthesehighrisksectorsaskeystakeholdersinthezoningofprotectedareas,thedevelopmentofIntegratedManagementPlansandtheinvolvementoflocalandindigenouscommunities.

183. TheseareEco-OilEnergy (palmoil)and IndustrieForestièredeOuesso (logging)whichareamongthepartnersprovidingparallelco-financingfortheproject.

184. AccordingtoUNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,UNDPisnotrequiredtoensurecompliance with the SES of activities that are not funded through UNDP accounts.However, UNDP is required to review the entire Programme or Project for consistencywithSESrequirements.SECUfindsnoevidencethatsuchareviewhastakenplace.

185. Furthermore, theProdoc indicatesnoawarenessofUNDP’sPolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector(2013).ThisPolicyincludespalmoilandloggingonitslistofhighrisksectors.Theduediligencemeasuresincludeapre-screeningtoassesswhetherapartnerisinvolvedinahighrisksector.Ifthisisthecase,thePolicycallsforanextracarefulapproachbyfollowingthefullriskassessmenttooltoestablishtheexistenceofsignificantcontroversies.

186. TheduediligenceassessmentcriteriaofthePolicythatareparticularlyrelevantforpalmoil and logging in northern Congo include respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples,impactsonlivelihoods,impactsonecosystemsandlandscapesandcorruption.

187. BasicinternetresearchonthetwocompaniesprovidingparallelfinancingfortheprojectraisesquestionsthatconfirmtheimportanceofcarryingouttheduediligenceassessmentrequiredbyUNDP’sPolicy.

188. Eco-OilEnergy isaMalaysiancompanywhichacquired the territoriesof twopreviouslyexistingcompanies(SanghaPalmandRégieNationaledePalméraiesduCongo) in2013.The concession agreement with the Congolese State covered an initial area of 50,000hectaresbut isexpectedtovastlyexpand. Mostof itsproductionismeant forexportingbiofuel.35

189. TheevaluationreportofTRIDOMI36,carriedoutonbehalfofUNDP,GEF,UNOPSandtheTRIDOMProject, recommends thatdonorscallon theGovernment to limit landgrabsby

35Foradditionalinformation,seeEco-OilEnergieSA’swebsite,www.ecooilenergy.com.36Ngono,G,Rapportdel´ÉvaluationFinaleduProjet“ConservationdelaBiodiversitéTransfrontalièredansl`InterzoneCameroun,CongoetGabon,”PNUD,GEF,UNOPS,ProjectTRIDOM,October2014.

Page33of51

influential persons or companies, which seek to occupy large areas of forest land foragribusinessoperations.WhilenotmentioningEco-OilEnergybyname,itclearlyreferstocompaniesofthisnature.

190. A2014studyonpalmoildevelopmentinCentralAfrica37notesthatlandattributionsforindustrialpalmoilplantationsintheRepublicofCongohavetargetedforestedareasintheNorthernpartofthecountryalthoughtheGovernmentwouldhavebeenbetteradvisedtoestablishplantationsinotherpartsofthecountryinordertopromotecoherencewithitsengagementtowardagreeneconomy.

191. ThesamestudycallsattentiontothefactthatthedefinitionofavailablelandintheCongoBasinregionismostoftenbasedonassessmentswhichdonotconsiderexistingland-useand traditional rules governing access to land.Givenoverlapping land claims, the studycallsforthefullagreementofvillagerstothepreciselimitsofplantations.

192. IndustrieForestiéredeOuesso(IFO)isanaffiliateoftheGerman-SwissgroupDanzer,oneoftheworld’s largesttimberconglomerates. IFO’sconcessioninNorthernCongocoversanareaof1.16millionhectares,whichcorrespondstonearlytwicethesizeofthestateofDelaware.

193. The IFO concession has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), aninternational certification organization. According to FSC principles, a forest concessionmust be well managed from an environmental, economic and social perspective. FSC-labeledtimberproductsobtainhigherpricesfromwesternconsumers.

194. However, NGO and academic critics note that FSC is dominated by industry

representatives,hasnothadan impactonreducingdeforestationandhasbeenfoundtocoverupillegaldeforestation.38

195. However, independentofanysuchcontroversies,FSC’s latestcertificationreporton IFOincludes a finding of non-compliance concerning the actions of eco-guards against localvillages:

“The eco-guards are not without fault since they invade villages and houses withoutfollowingestablishedprotocol, to seizemeatandbasichuntingweapons,and sometimesaskthevillagerstopayunapprovedfines.Theauditorsreceivedtestimonialsonthismatterfrompersonsdirectlyaffectedinthreeofthefivevillagesvisited,aswellasfromlocalNGOsandIFOworkers.DespitethetraininggivenbyIFO,theeco-guardsdonotalwaysrespectthe protocols established for conducting inspections in the villages. This representsnonconformity.”39

196. Theabusescarriedoutby theeco-guards,which led toFSC’snon-compliance findingas

wellasaTVdocumentaryontheimpoverishmentofPygmiesontheIFOconcessionasaresult of the severe restrictions on their traditional livelihood activities (European TV

37Feintrenne,L.etal.,“ModellingasaToolforSpatialPlanningofCommodityProduction:TheExampleofCertifiedOilPalmPlantationsinCentralAfrica,”2014WorldBankConferenceonLandandPoverty,Washington,D.C.,March24,2014.38Conniff,R,“GreenwashedTimber–HowSustainableForestCertificationhasFailed,”YaleEnvironment360,February20,2018.39“AuditReport:AnnualVerificationof2017forForestryManagementOfOuessoForestIndustry,”TheRainforestAlliance,April2018.

Page34of51

ChannelArte)40,mirrorthecomplaintsreceivedbySECUconcerningtheestablishmentoftheMessokDjaprotectedarea.

RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendation1

197. Inadditiontoaddressingthefindingsofthisreportthrough,interalia,appropriatein-kind

orservice-basedsupportdeterminedinconsultationwiththeBakaandprojectpartnersaspartofUNDP’sprogrammaticwork,UNDPCongomusttakeappropriateandeffectivemeasurestopreventfutureactsofviolenceagainstBakacommunities.

Recommendation2198. UNDP Congo should create a detailed Stakeholder Engagement Plan that meets the

requirementsofSES.ThishastobefollowedbythepreparationofanIndigenousPeoplesPlanwiththefullparticipationofthecommunitiesasanintegralpartoftheproject.Ithasto clearly spell out the objectives, activities, budget, institutional responsibilities andmonitoring indicators. Given the region’s extreme power imbalances, special attentionmust be paid to prevent elite capture of project benefits targeted at indigenous andadjacentcommunities.

199. These intiatives have to be accompanied by the establishment of fair, effective andtransparent grievance mechanisms accessible to communities to report to UNDP anyproblems thatmayoccur.Theestablishmentofproject-level grievancemechanism isanintegralpartofUNDP’sstakeholderengagementrequirements.

Recommendation3

200. UNDPCongo should conduct a due diligence assessment on the project’s private sector

partners and commit to documenting the direct and indirect impacts of extractiveactivitiesonthebiodiversityintheregion.

AnewparadigmfortheestablishmentofProtectedAreasintheCongoBasin201. IntheMessokDjaareathere isasignificantconvergenceof the interests inprotectinga

regionofsignificantbiodiversityandpromotingtherightsofIndigenousPeoples.Thereisa commonality of objectives of the international community in protecting endangeredwildlife and the Bakas’ need to protect their traditional land, territories and resourcesfromexternalthreats.Itisaseriousdetrimenttoboththatthesesynergieshavenotbeenput towork by TRIDOM II. Although participatory approaches and the need to involveindigenous and local communities are often cited in project documents, the prevailingconservationmodelisstilldominatedbytheideologicalviewthatprotectedareashavetobe empty of people. However, evidence from other regions shows that empoweringIndigenous Peoples tomanage the biodiversity in their own territories results inmoresustainable and cost-effective ways to protect biodiversity. Satellite images of theBrazilian Amazon reveal that indigenous territories have formed an effective barrier to

40“ArteDocumentary:IFOHasDeprivedIndigenousPeopleonTheirLivelihoodsintheRepublicofCongo,”FSCWatch,October2018.

Page35of51

deforestation, while global studies indicate that forests managed by local communitiessufferlowerratesofdeforestationthanstrictlyprotectedforests.41

202. TheestablishmentofnationalparksintheCongoBasinhasahistoryofbeingfocusedonconservationwhileignoringthehumanrightsoftheindigenouscommunitieslivinginorontheperipheryofprotectedareas.ThisapproachconsidersIndigenousPeoplesathreatandfailstotakeintoaccounttherolethatIndigenousPeopleshavehistoricallyplayedinconserving biodiversity given the inextricable links between indigenous identities andculture and the land they have traditionally used. The violent abuses and economicimpoverishment caused by this approach have recently received extensive coverage byinternationalmediaandbroughttheproblemtotheattentionofpolicy-makers.

203. WhilethechallengesofoperatingintheRepublicofCongowithitsgovernanceconditionscannotbeunderestimated,thecountryadoptedalandmarklawinFebruary2011onthePromotionandProtectionoftheRightsofIndigenousPopulations(LawNº5-2011).Thislaw is to a large extent consistentwith theUnitedNationsDeclaration on theRights ofIndigenousPeoples.

204. While this law dates from 2011, its first implementation decrees were adopted in July2019. This welcome development should provide an added lever in finally movingforwardwithimplementingpoliciesbasedontherecognitionofindigenousrights.

205. The TRIDOM II project provides a critical opportunity to serve as a catalyst forimplementing the Law on Promotion and Protection of the Rights of IndigenousPopulations of 2011. Doing so would create a valuable precedent for a newmodel forconservationintheCongoBasinasawhole.

206. ResponsibleUNDPstaff intheRepublicofCongoarenowcognizantoftheproblemsandwillingtoaddressthem.UNDP’sprojectpartnerWWFhasalsoexpresseditsintentiontoadopt a different approach. Coinciding with the SECU mission to the region, it haslaunchedaneffortforaprocessintendedtoensurethattherightsofindigenousandlocalcommunities are taken into account. However, the translation of good intentions intotangibleoutcomesthatareconsistentwithUNDP’sgoals,policiesandstandardshastobesubjecttocarefulmonitoring.

207. Asmentionedabove,membersoftheBakacommunitiesintheMessokDjaareatoldSECUthat they found it inconceivable that parks emptied of people could be protected. Thispoint of view is supported by international research showing a strong correlationbetweenindigenouspresenceandtheprotectionofnaturalecosystems.42

208. TheU.N.ConventiononBiodiversityConservation(1992),theIUCNWorldParksCongress(2003)andtheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(2007)areamong the international documents that highlight the recognition of the rights ofIndigenous Peoples with regard to their land, territories and resources that fall withinprotectedareas, theneed toobtain their free,prior, informedconsent for anydecisionsthat affect these areas and their crucial role in biodiversity conservation.UNDP’s Socialand Environmental Standards, especially Standard 6 on Indigenous Peoples, enshrine

41Porter-Bolland,L.,Ellis,E.A.,Guariguata,M.R.,Ruiz-Mallén,I.,Negrete-Yankelevich,S.andReyes-Garcia,V.,“Community-managedforestsandforest-protectedareas:Anassessmentoftheirconservationeffectivenessacrossthetropics,”N.ForestEcologyandManagement268,2012.42Sobrevila,C.,“TheRoleofIndigenousPeoplesinBiodiversityConservation,”TheWorldBank,May2008.

Page36of51

these very principles and require their application in project development andimplementation.

209. TheestablishmentofMessokDjaisanongoingprocessandpresentsauniqueopportunitytobreakwiththelegacyofthepastestablishmentofprotectedareasintheCongoBasin.Whetheritshouldbeaprotectedarea,acommunityreserveoranareawithsomeothertypeofspecialstatusshouldbedeterminedinlinewiththepreferencesexpressedbytheBaka communities. Empowering and supporting indigenous community-drivenconservationofwildlifeandprovidingthesocialinfrastructure(healthandeducation)thecommunitieswant,wouldgreatlyenhancethewell-beingoftheBaka,thepreservationoftheirancestralknowledgesystemswhilealsorepresentingthemostpromisingapproachtoprotectbiodiversity.

ANNEX1.TECHNICALNOTE.RELEVANTUNDPSOCIALANDENVIRONMENTALCOMMITMENTSANDPOLICIES

UNDPSES210. UNDP’sSocialandEnvironmentalStandards(SES)describeactionsUNDPstaffmusttake,

inthecontextofprojectsandprogrammesfundedthroughUNDPaccounts,toavoidandmitigate social andenvironmentalharms.Most fundamentally, theSES requireUNDP toensure that potential social and environmental risks, impacts, and opportunities areidentifiedandaddressedinallUNDPprojectsandprogrammes.

211. UNDP’s standard LegalAgreement –whichUNDPhas required staff to use sinceMarch2016–indicatesthatUNDP’sProgrammeandOperationsPoliciesandProcedures(POPP)requireUNDPCountryOfficestoapplytheSESandensurethatImplementingPartnersareconducting activities in a manner consistent with the SES. It states, “Consistent withUNDP’s Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures, social and environmentalsustainabilitywillbeenhancedthroughapplicationoftheUNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards (http://www.undp.org/ses) and related Accountability Mechanism(http://www.undp.org/secu-srm)….TheImplementingPartnershall:(a)conductprojectand programme-related activities in a manner consistent with the UNDP Social andEnvironmental Standards, (b) implement anymanagement ormitigation plan preparedfor the project or programme to comply with such standards, and (c) engage in aconstructiveand timelymanner toaddressanyconcernsandcomplaintsraised throughtheAccountabilityMechanism.”43

212. SES provisions most relevant to the TRIDOM II project include the following: (1) arequirement to apply UNDP’s Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) toidentify social and environment-related risks and pursue additional assessments andmeasures as necessary to respond to these risks; (2) a requirement to meaningfullyengage with local communities, including through implementation of a StakeholderEngagementPlan;(3)SESStandard6requirementsrelatedtoIndigenousPeoples;(4)SESStandard 5 Related to Displacement and Resettlement; (5) SES Standard 4 related toCultural Heritage; (6) Overarching Policy and Principles requiring UNDP to avoid

43UNDP,“ProjectDocumentTemplate,“March12016.RegardingSECU,theLegalAgreementadditionallynotes,“UNDPwillseektoensurethatcommunitiesandotherprojectstakeholdersareinformedofandhaveaccesstotheAccountabilityMechanism.6.AllsignatoriestotheProjectDocumentshallcooperateingoodfaithwithanyexercisetoevaluateanyprogrammeorproject-relatedcommitmentsorcompliancewiththeUNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards.Thisincludesprovidingaccesstoprojectsites,relevantpersonnel,information,anddocumentation.”

Page37of51

supporting activities that do not comply with National Law and obligations ofInternational Law (whichever is the higher standard), and to further the realization ofHuman Rights; and (7) a requirement to ensure that mechanisms exist to receive andrespondtogrievancesfrompotentially-impactedcommunities.

SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure-Overview213. The SES require UNDP staff to screen projects using UNDP’s Social and Environmental

ScreeningProcedure(SESP).Thepurposeforthis isdescribedintheSESas follows,“AllproposedProjectswillbescreenedtoidentifypotentialapplicationofrequirementsoftheSESOverarchingPolicyandPrinciples(i.e.humanrights,genderequality,environmentalsustainability) and relevant Project-level Standards. UNDP utilizes its SESP to identifypotentialsocialandenvironmentalrisksandopportunitiesassociatedwiththeproposedProject.”44

214. The screening considers how activities outlined in the Prodoc might directly andindirectly impact the environment or communities in the “Project’s area of influence” –defined to include, “areas and communities potentially affected by cumulative impactsfrom the Project or from other relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeabledevelopments in the geographic area … and (iv) areas and communities potentiallyaffectedby induced impacts fromunplannedbut predictable developments or activitiescausedbytheProject,whichmayoccurlateroratadifferentlocation(e.g.facilitationofsettlements,illegallogging,agriculturalactivitiesbynewroadsinintactforestareas).”45

215. TheSESPdescribeswhenandhowthescreeningmustbeperformed.Moreparticularly,it

describes that, as a “first step’”, a range of existing social and environmental-relatedinformation should be used to perform a “pre-screening” that informs project design,“ReviewavailableinformationrelevanttotheProject’ssocialandenvironmentalaspects,such as: UNDAF, CPAP; planning documents including existing gender, human rights,social, environmental studies; applicable legal and regulatory framework; input fromstakeholder engagement activities; relevant reports of UN or other agencies, such asUniversalPeriodicReviews.”46

216. As detailed more in paragraphs below, UNDP Country Offices must provide localcommunities with opportunities to express their views “at all points” in the decision-makingprocessonmattersthataffectthem,including“socialandenvironmentalrisksandimpacts… (and) proposed mitigation measures.” When the project potentially impactsIndigenousPeoples,theUNDPCountryOfficemustidentifyIndigenousPeoplespresenceintheprojectarea,andengageIndigenousPeoples’representativesinthispre-screeningand project design process.47 As noted in the Guidance Note for Standard 6, “An earlymapping of the affected indigenous peoples to be consulted should begin in the designphase.Itisessentialthatsuchprocessesbedevelopedinaparticipatorymannerwiththeindigenouspeoplesconcerned.”48

44UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”,page47,January2015.45Id.P.49.46UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”page11,March2016.47SeealsoUNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”January2017.48 Id. Page 12. SECU notes the following about UNDP Guidance documents: UNDP adopted the Guidance for Standard 6 in January 2017 and for Stakeholder Engagement in October 2017. The Prodoc was submitted to the GEF for CEO endorsement in December 2016, before the UNDP Guidance for Standard 6 and Stakeholder Engagement were issued. Based on comments received from the GEF Secretariat, the ProDoc was resubmitted in March and May 2017 and received final CEO endorsement in June 2017. The Guidance is not prescriptive

Page38of51

217. Risksidentifiedduringthescreeningarethenusedto“categorize”thesignificanceofthe

riskandtohelpUNDPdetermineifadditionalsocialandenvironmentalassessmentsarenecessary. The SESdescribes categorization as follows, “UNDP’s SESP applies a Project-level categorization system to reflect the significance of potential social andenvironmentalrisksandimpactsandtodeterminetheappropriatetypeandlevelofsocialand environmental assessment. Each proposed Project is scrutinized as to its type,location, scale, sensitivity and the magnitude of its potential social and environmentalimpacts….Basedonthescreening,UNDPcategorizesProjectsaccordingtothedegreeofpotential social and environmental risks and impacts. In some cases, applicability ofspecificrequirementswillneedtobedeterminedthroughadditionalscoping,assessment,or management review. The screening process results in one of the following threecategories for the proposed Project: low…moderate…high….Projects that undergosubstantiverevisionaftertheinitialscreeningandcategorizationwillbere-screenedandpotentiallyre-categorized.”49

218. AccordingtotheSESP’s‘’ListofHighRiskProjects,”whenprojectsmayadverselyimpactthe rights, lands, and/or resources of Indigenous Peoples’ they “should generally becategorized as High Risk.” The Guidance Note for Standard 6 describes risks thatconservation-related projects pose for Indigenous Peoples: “While some might see aProject activity – such as restricted access to resources for conservation purposes – ashaving little or no adverse impact on indigenous rights, lands or resources, from anindigenousperspective,itmaybeadeprivationoftraditionalmedicinesandmaterialsoraninterferencewithspiritualpracticesrelatedtosacredfloraorfauna.Suchrestrictionsmight represent a permanent loss of the territorial base fromwhich indigenous peoplesustain their unity and distinct governance, and manifest, preserve and transmit theirculturalnorms,valuesandpractices.”50

219. TheGuidanceNoteforStandard6includesindicativeexamplesoflow,moderate,andhigh

risk projects, including an example specific to conservation-related activities that aredefined “in partnership” with indigenous communities: “A forest conservation projectconductedinconjunctionwithaffectedlocalindigenouscommunities.Therisksarelikelyto be at most moderate if the project’s parameters and activities are defined inpartnershipwiththeaffectedindigenouscommunity.”51

220. UNDPCountryOfficestaffmustuseSESPscreeningquestions-detailedinthenextsection–todeterminethefinalriskcategory.

221. Uponcompletionofthescreeningprocess,thefollowinginformationandmeasuresshouldexist: (1)A listofSESstandards triggeredbyprojectactivities; (2)Anunderstandingof

and does not affect compliance with the SES, but it is important for building the capacity of staff to implement the SES Policy. 49UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”March2016.50TheGuidanceNoteadditionallystatesonthispoint,“Standard6thusrequiresthat‘UNDPProjectswillrecognizethatindigenouspeopleshavecollectiverightstoown,use,anddevelopandcontrolthelands,territoriesandresourcestheyhavetraditionallyowned,occupied,orotherwiseusedoracquired,includinglandsandterritoriesforwhichtheydonotyetpossesstitle’(seeRequirement6).Inaddressingthisrequirement,itisimportanttokeepinmindatalltimesthat:i.aprofoundrelationshipexistsbetweenindigenouspeoplesandtheirlands,territoriesandresourceswhichhasvarioussocial,cultural,spiritual,economicandpoliticaldimensionsandresponsibilities;ii.thecollectivedimensionofthisrelationshipissignificant;andiii.theintergenerationalaspectofsucharelationshipisalsocrucialtoindigenouspeoples’identity,survivalandculturalviability.”51UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page18,January2017.

Page39of51

the significance/category of risk posed by project activities, e.g., low,moderate, or highrisk;); (3) a description of the approach the UNDP Country Office will take to anyadditionalsocialandenvironmentalassessments;and(4)aStakeholderEngagementPlan(orat leastadraftplan,asreflectedbelow)withdetail thatrespondstothe levelofrisk(including information thathelpshapesrequiredFPICprocesses inamannerconsistentwithSESstandards).

ApplyingtheSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure–ScreeningQuestions222. TheSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure–SESP-includestwoparts–thefirst,

PartA.,mustbeappliedbyUNDPstafftoidentifyopportunitiestointegrate“overarchingprinciples”,e.g.humanrightsandgenderequality,intotheprojecttostrengthensocialandenvironmentalsustainability,andthesecond,PartB.,mustbeappliedtoidentifypotentialsocial and environmental risks and impacts associated with all activities outlined inProjectdocumentation,andmeasurestorespondtotheserisks.

223. To respond to the first question for Part B., “What are the Potential Social andEnvironmentalRisks?”UNDPstaffaredirectedtouseUNDP’s,“SocialandEnvironmentalRiskAssessmentScreeningChecklist.”

224. Checklistquestionsmost relevant to theTRIDOM IIproject includequestions related toHuman Rights (Principle 1.); Cultural Heritage (Standard 4.); Displacement andResettlement(Standard5);andIndigenousPeoples(Standard6).

225. SESP screening questions related to Human Rights, and pertinent in the context of theTRIDOMIIproject,includethefollowing:“1.CouldtheProjectleadtoadverseimpactsonenjoymentofthehumanrights(civil,political,economic,socialorcultural)oftheaffectedpopulationandparticularlyofmarginalizedgroups?2.IstherealikelihoodthattheProjectwould have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on affected populations,particularlypeoplelivinginpovertyormarginalizedorexcludedindividualsorgroups?3.Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources orbasicservices,inparticulartomarginalizedindividualsorgroups?4.Istherealikelihoodthat the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in particularmarginalizedgroups,fromfullyparticipatingindecisionsthatmayaffectthem?5.Isthereariskthatduty-bearersdonothavethecapacitytomeettheirobligationsintheProject?6.Isthereariskthatrights-holdersdonothavethecapacitytoclaimtheirrights?7.Havelocal communities or individuals raised human rights concerns regarding the Projectduring the stakeholder engagement process? 8. Is there a risk that the Project wouldexacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to project-affected communitiesandindividuals?”52

226. SESPscreeningquestionsrelatedtoCulturalHeritage,andpertinentinthecontextoftheTRIDOM II project, include the following: “4.1 Will the proposed Project result ininterventions that would potentially adversely impact sites, structures, or objects withhistorical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible forms of culture(e.g.knowledge,innovations,practices)?(Note:ProjectsintendedtoprotectandconserveCulturalHeritagemayalsohaveinadvertentadverseimpacts).”

227. SESPscreeningquestionsrelatedtoDisplacementandResettlement,andpertinentinthecontextof theTRIDOMIIproject, include the following: “5.2Would theProjectpossiblyresult in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to resources due to landacquisitionoraccessrestrictions–evenintheabsenceofphysicalrelocation)?5.4Would

52UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”page31,March2016.

Page40of51

theproposedProjectpossiblyaffect landtenurearrangementsand/orcommunitybasedpropertyrights/customaryrightstoland,territoriesand/orresources?”53

228. SESP screeningquestions related to IndigenousPeoples, andpertinent in the contextoftheTRIDOMIIproject,includethefollowing:“6.1AreindigenouspeoplespresentintheProject area (including Project area of influence)? 6.2 Is it likely that the Project orportions of the Project will be located on lands and territories claimed by indigenouspeoples? 6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands,natural resources, territories, and traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples(regardlessofwhetherindigenouspeoplespossessthelegaltitlestosuchareas,whetherthe Project is located within or outside of the lands and territories inhabited by theaffectedpeoples,orwhethertheindigenouspeoplesarerecognizedasindigenouspeoplesby the country in question)? 6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriateconsultationscarriedoutwiththeobjectiveofachievingFPIConmattersthatmayaffectthe rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and traditional livelihoods of theindigenouspeoplesconcerned?…6.6Isthereapotentialforforcedevictionorthewholeor partial physical or economic displacement of indigenous peoples, including throughaccess restrictions to lands, territories, and resources? 6.7Would the Project adverselyaffectthedevelopmentprioritiesofindigenouspeoplesasdefinedbythem?6.8WouldtheProject potentially affect the traditional livelihoods, physical and cultural survival ofindigenous peoples? 6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage ofindigenous peoples, including through the commercialization or use of their traditionalknowledgeandpractices?”54

229. Significantly, responses to these questions must consider risks as they exist prior tomitigationormanagementmeasures.AsnotedintheSESP,“risksshouldbeidentifiedandquantifiedasifnomitigationormanagementmeasuresweretobeputinplace’because‘Itisnecessarytoformaclearpictureofpotentialinherentrisksintheeventthatmitigationmeasuresarenotimplementedorfail.”55

230. As noted above, once the checklist questions are answered, and potential social andenvironmentalrisksare identified, theSESPrequiresstaff to“categorize”risksbasedonthepotentialseverityandlikelihoodofrisk.

231. NotethattheSESPspecifiesthata“yes”answerinresponsetoquestion6.3.–wouldtheprojectpotentially impact rights,natural resources, lands, livelihoods,etc.of IndigenousPeoples - means “the potential risk impacts are considered potentially severe and/orcriticalandtheProjectwouldbecategorizedaseitherModerateorHighRisk.”56

ApproachtoEnvironmentalAssessmentWhenIndigenousPeoplesArePotentiallyImpacted 53Id.P.33.54Id.P.34.55UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”page7,March2016.Seethefollowinginformationfrompage7,“Question2ofSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsProcedure–Whatarethepotentialsocialandenvironmentalrisks?33.Projectactivitiesarescreenedfortheirinherentsocialandenvironmentalrisksregardlessofplannedmitigationandmanagementmeasures.Itisnecessarytoformaclearpictureofpotentialinherentrisksintheeventthatmitigationmeasuresarenotimplementedorfail.Thismeansthatrisksshouldbeidentifiedandquantifiedasifnomitigationormanagementmeasuresweretobeputinplace.”56AsnotedinAnnex2oftheSocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,UNDP’sIndicativeListsimilarlyreflectsthatforprojectsthatinvolveIndigenousPeoplesandwith“yes”answerstoscreeningquestionsrelatedtoIndigenousPeoples,UNDPisrequiredtoperformadditionalassessments/reviewsofpotentialimpactstothesecommunities,andtotakemeasurestoavoidandmitigatesuchimpacts.

Page41of51

232. Asnotedabove,after theUNDPCountryOfficeapplies theSESPand identifiesrisksandthesignificanceofrisk,e.g.,categoryofrisk,itmustdeterminethescopeofanyrequiredsocialandenvironmentalassessments.

233. Whilelowriskprojectsrequirenoadditionalassessment,moderateandhigh-riskprojectsrequire additional social and environmental assessment and management measures toensurecompliancewiththeSES.57

234. Standard 6, Indigenous Peoples, specifies that “All [emphasis added] Projects that mayimpact the rights, lands, resources and territories of indigenous peoples require priorreviewand/orassessmentofpotentialimpactsandbenefits.”Additionally, ‘Projectswithpotentiallysignificantadverseimpactsrequireafullsocialandenvironmentalassessmentconductedbyanindependentandcapableentity.”58

235. The SESP specifies that such assessments should be “conducted as part of Project

preparation.” TheGuidanceNoteforStandard6,IndigenousPeoples,notesthesameforprojects involving Indigenous Peoples, “Timing of assessments: Every effort should beundertaken to ensure that the assessment is conducted and shared with potentiallyaffectedindigenouspeoplesandotherstakeholderspriortoProjectapproval.”

236. TheSESPandtheGuidanceNoteonSocialandEnvironmentalAssessment,alsorecognize,

however, that in certain circumstances completion of a social and environmentalassessment(andthescopingprocess)mayneedtobefinancedthroughtheProjectbudget(hence,conductedduringProject implementation).“Insuchcases, theProjectDocumentneeds to incorporate an initial management plan and budget to conduct appropriateassessmentduringprojectimplementation.”

237. Regardlessofwhentheassessmentoccurs,potentiallyimpactedIndigenousPeoplesmustbe involved in the assessment process, “Reviews and assessments will be conductedtransparentlyandwith the full, effectiveandmeaningfulparticipationof the indigenouspeoplesconcerned.”59

238. Assessments must accomplish the following (detailed more in the Guidance Note onindigenous Peoples)60: (1) Examine the short-and long-term, direct and indirect, andpositive and negative impacts61; (2) Analyze gender dimensions and impacts onmarginalized groups: (3) Examine ownership and usage rights to lands, territories,

57UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”page20,March2016.NotealsothatStrategicEnvironmentalandSocialAssessment(SESA)and/orEnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessments(ESIA)arerequiredforHighRiskProjects,andmayalsobeutilizedtoaddresspotentialimpactsofModerateRiskProjects.58UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”page39,January2015.59Id.60UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page23,January2017.61Id.P.21.Thefullparagraphis‘Examinetheshort-andlong-term,directandindirect,andpositiveandnegativeimpactsoftheProjectonthesocial,culturalandeconomicstatusanddifferentialimpactsoftheprojectontheirlivelihoodsystems,cultureandsocioeconomicstatusofaffectedindigenouspeoples(Requirement10).Theassessmentshouldincludeconfirmationanddescriptionofthepresence(viabothoccupationanduse)ofindigenouspeoplesinareasthatmaybeaffectedbytheProject'sactivities,includingbaselinesocioeconomicprofileoftheIPgroupsintheprojectarea(Requirement5).Inaddition,theassessmentneedstosummarizetheparticipatoryprocesseswithaffectedindigenousgroupsontheconductoftheassessment,including,ifalreadyinitiated,asummaryofFPICprocessesanddocumentedoutcomes(Requirement9).’

Page42of51

resources.62(4)AnalyzepotentialimpactsonCulturalHeritage:and(5)Analyzepotentialrelocationanddisplacementrisksandimpacts.

239. TheSESPalsoaddressessituationsinwhichUNDPisnottakingtheleadonassessments,“WhereUNDPwillnot take the leadonadditional social andenvironmental assessmentthat may be required (see SESP para. 45), UNDP ensures that support is provided topartners through Project implementation to ensure adequate assessment andmanagementplansareinplacethatareconsistentwithUNDP’sSES.”63

StakeholderEngagement240. SES stakeholder engagementprovisions require thatUNDPCountryOffices identify and

consult with potentially-impacted local communities, with particular attention tovulnerable and marginalized communities, “Stakeholder analysis and engagement will(ensure) thatpotentiallyaffectedvulnerableandmarginalizedgroupsare identifiedandprovided opportunities to participate. Measures will be undertaken to ensure thateffectivestakeholderengagementoccurswhereconditionsforinclusiveparticipationareunfavourable.”64

241. Thepurpose,itnotes,istobuildaconstructiverelationshipwiththesecommunities,andto avoid and mitigate potential risks in a timely manner, “Meaningful, effective andinformedstakeholderengagementandparticipationwillbeundertakenthatwillseektobuild and maintain over time a constructive relationship with stakeholders, with thepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganypotentialrisksinatimelymanner.”65

242. UNDPCountryOfficestaffmustprovidelocalcommunitieswithopportunitiestoexpresstheirviews“atallpoints”inthedecision-makingprocessonmattersthataffectthem.66Itlistsexamplesoftopicsstakeholders“willbeabletoexpresstheirviewson:Programmeand/orProjectgoalsandstrategies;socialandenvironmentalrisksandimpacts;proposedmitigation measures; sharing of development benefits and opportunities; andimplementationissues.”67

243. TheapproachtheUNDPCountryOfficewillusetoengagestakeholdersthiswaymustbedetailedina“StakeholderEngagementPlan.”

244. For projects affecting Indigenous Peoples, the Guidance Note for Standard 6 furtherelaborates,“MechanismsandprocessesforIndigenousPeoplestobeinvolvedthroughoutproject development and implementation are to be articulated in a Stakeholder

62Id.Thefullparagraph,‘WhereProjectactivitiesmayaffectindigenouspeoples’lands,territoriesandresources,thesocialandenvironmentalassessmentwillneedtoincludeatargetedanalysisofthestatusofownershipandusagerightsoftheaffectedlands,territoriesandresourcesinordertoanalyzetheProject’spotentialimpactsonsuchrights(seeBox8).Theanalysiswouldbeconductedaspartofthescopingexercisefortheassessmentinordertohelpfocustheassessmentoncriticalissuesthatrequiredetailedexamination.’63UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,”page19,March2016.64UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”page51,January2015.65Id.P.51.66Id.Para.14,“Meaningful,effectiveandinformedconsultationprocessesinUNDPProgrammesandProjectsseektoidentifyprioritiesofstakeholdersandwillprovidethemwithopportunitiestoexpresstheirviewsatallpointsintheProgrammeand/orProjectdecision-makingprocessonmattersthataffectthemandallowstheProgrammeand/orProjectteamstoconsiderandrespondtothem.”67Id.P.52.TheSESStakeholderengagementprovisionsidentifycharacteristicsof“meaningful,effectiveandinformedconsultationprocesses”including,forexample,documentationoftheseprocesseswithadescriptionofmeasurestoaddressrisksandimpacts.

Page43of51

Engagement Plan that is incorporated in Project documentation, and specifically in theIndigenous Peoples Plan (described in greater detail in paragraphs below).”68Additionally,“Anearlymappingoftheaffectedindigenouspeoplestobeconsultedshouldbegin in the design phase. It is essential that such processes be developed in aparticipatorymannerwiththeindigenouspeoplesconcerned.”69

245. Asdescribed in theGuidanceNote forStandard6, theStakeholderEngagementplan forIndigenousPeoplesmustensure thatconsultationprocessesmeet the followingcriteria:“(1) are culturally appropriate and conducted in good faith, i.e., exercised through thecommunities’owngovernancestructuresandchosenrepresentatives,andinaccordancewiththeirownlawsandcustomsfordecision-makingonsuchmatters;(2)payattentionto disadvantaged individuals/groups; (3) ensure timely access to information that isunderstandable to communities – ensuring for example, that both full and abbreviatedversions of the Indigenous Peoples Plan– in draft and updated forms – are disclosedlocally,inaproactivemanner;and(4)ensureaccesstogrievanceredressmechanisms.”70

246. TheGuidanceNote for Standard 6 further notes in relation to Stakeholder Engagementthat the UNDP Country Office must secure the free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) ofcommunities in certain circumstances, “while all consultationswith Indigenous Peoplesshouldbecarriedoutingoodfaithwiththeobjectiveofachievingagreement,Standard6stipulatescircumstances inwhichFPICmustbepursuedandsecuredbeforeproceedingwith the specified actions….” Paragraphs describing Standard 6, Indigenous Peoples,describewhenandhowrequirementsrelatedtoFPICapply.

MeasuresinResponsetoRisksIdentifiedinScreeningandAssessmentProcess247. As noted above, after screening and any additional assessments of risks are completed,

UNDPstaffarerequiredtoidentifymeasuresthatmustbetakentorespondtotheserisks.Formoderateorhighriskprojects,thesemeasuresmustbeincludedinanEnvironmentalandSocialManagementPlanorFramework.71

248. The GuidanceNote for Standard 6 reflects that, for projects thatmay affect IndigenousPeoples,thisPlan/FrameworktypicallyisanIndigenousPeoplesPlan,i.e.,mitigationandmanagementmeasures are typically contained in an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) – aplanbasedonthefindingsofthesocialandenvironmentalassessment.72“Thisplanmust

68UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page59,January2017.69Id.70Id.71UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards–PolicyDelivery,”December2016.Excerpt:“Enhancepositiveimpactsandavoid,minimize,and/ormitigateadverseimpactsthroughsocialandenvironmentalplanningandmanagement.DevelopanEnvironmentalandSocialManagementPlan(ESMP)thatincludestheproposedmeasuresformitigation,monitoring,institutionalcapacitydevelopmentandtraining(ifrequired),animplementationschedule,andcostestimates.WhenuncertaintyremainsregardingspecificProjectcomponentsorexactlocations(e.g.for‘upstream’activities),developanEnvironmentalandSocialManagementFramework(ESMF)inplaceofanESMP.”72UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page25,January2017.AsnotedinSection5,thereisapresumptionthatsuchProjectsaretobeconsideredeitherModerateorHighRiskprojects(dependingonthesignificanceofriskrating).HighRiskProjectswouldrequireanIPPinallcases.ThepresumptionisthatModerateRiskProjectsthataffectindigenouspeoples’rights,lands,resourcesorterritorieswouldalsorequiredevelopmentofanIPP.

Page44of51

bedevelopedwith the full, effectiveandmeaningfulparticipationofpotentially affectedindigenouspeoples.”73

249. TheGuidanceNote forStandard6describes that “Forprojects thatmay requirean IPP,every effort should be expended to ensure that the assessment is undertaken prior toprojectappraisalandafullydevelopedIPPbepresentedforPACconsideration.Wheretheassessment must be funded through the project budget and hence conducted duringproject implementation, an initial management plan must be presented for PACconsideration.”74

250. The Guidance Note for Standard 6 further details, “The initial management plan mustaddressasmanyaspectsoftherequiredIPPaspossible…andneedstoclearlystatewhenandhowthe full IPPwillbedevelopedandreflect the findingsandrecommendationsofthe social andenvironmentalassessment, consultationandany requiredFPICprocessesonce undertaken. A subsequent PACmeeting or the Project Board needs to review thecompleted IPPandensureall requiredmeasuresare incorporated into theProjectplan,budget,andmonitoringindicators.”

251. The SES Standards detailmeasures thatmust be taken and included in the IndigenousPeoplesPlan(describedingreaterdetail inparagraphsbelow).75 Asnotedinparagraphabove,fortheTRIDOMIIproject,themostrelevantSESStandardsincludethoserelatedtoIndigenousPeoples,culturalheritage,anddisplacement.

SESStandards–Standard6,IndigenousPeoples252. Standard6, IndigenousPeoples, details requirements andmeasuresUNDPmust take to

avoid and mitigate risks and potential impacts (identified during screening andassessment)toIndigenousPeoples.76

253. This Standard applies “to all Projectswhichmay affect thehuman rights, lands, naturalresources, territories, and traditional livelihoods of indigenouspeoples regardless of (i)whethertheProjectislocatedwithinoroutsideofthelandsandterritoriesinhabitedbythe indigenouspeoples inquestion, (ii)whetherornot title ispossessedby theaffectedindigenous peoples over the lands and territories in question, or (iii) whether theindigenouspeoplesarerecognizedasindigenouspeoplesbythecountryinquestion.”

254. It first requires UNDP to respect the human rights of Indigenous Peoples (this is arequirement for the current SES “Human Rights” principle also)77 and a UNDPcommitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

73Id.P.25.74Id.75UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”January2017.SeeAnnex1.AttachedtothisreportasAnnex*,Annex*includesadescriptionofwhatmustbeincludedintheIPP.76 SECUnotesthefollowingaboutUNDPGuidancedocuments:UNDPadoptedtheGuidanceforStandard6(IndigenousPeoples)inJanuary2017andforStakeholderEngagementinOctober2017.TheProdocwassubmittedtotheGEFforCEOendorsementinDecember2016,beforetheUNDPGuidanceforStandard6andStakeholderEngagementwereissued.BasedoncommentsreceivedfromtheGEFSecretariat,theProDocwasresubmittedinMarchandMay2017andreceivedfinalCEOendorsementinJune2017.TheGuidanceisnotprescriptiveanddoesnotaffectcompliancewiththeSES,butitisimportantforbuildingthecapacityofstafftoimplementtheSESPolicy. 77Itwasalsoacommitmentundertheformer2014UNDPPOPP.UNDPcommittedto“respectandpromotethehumanrightsprinciplesoftransparency,accountability,inclusion,participation,non-discrimination,equalityandtheruleoflaw,andstandardsderivedfrominternationalhumanrightslaw.”

Page45of51

(UNDRIP): ‘UNDP will not participate in a Project that violates the human rights ofindigenouspeoplesasaffirmedbyApplicableLawandtheUnitedNationsDeclarationonthe Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDP will ensure that social andenvironmental assessments for Projects involving indigenous peoples include anassessmentoftheirsubstantiverights,asaffirmedinApplicableLaw.78

255. Several articlesof theUNDRIPemphasize the rightsof IndigenousPeoples to landsandresources, and with consideration for future generations. Article 25, for example,describes the right of Indigenous Peoples to maintain and strengthen the distinctivespiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or occupied and used lands,territories, andwatersand touphold their responsibilities to futuregenerations.Article26alsoindicatestherightsofIndigenousPeoplestolandsandresourcestheypossessbyreasonoftraditionaloccupationoruse.

256. TheUNDRIP reflects that securing these rights requires the participation of IndigenousPeoples in decision-makingwhen activities ormeasureswould affect their rights. Thismustoccurthroughrepresentativeschosenbythecommunities,inaccordancewiththeirownprocedures.79

257. Relatedly,anotherkeyrequirementinStandard6isthatFPICmustbeensuredincertaincircumstances: “FPIC will be ensured on any matters that may affect the rights andinterests, lands, resources, territories (whether titled or untitled to the people inquestion) and traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned. Projectactivities thatmayadverselyaffect theexistence, value,useor enjoymentof indigenouslands,resourcesorterritoriesshallnotbeconductedunlessagreementhasbeenachievedthrough the FPIC process…. UNDP will respect, protect, conserve and not take orappropriate the cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property of indigenouspeopleswithouttheirfree,priorandinformedconsent.”80

258. TheGuidanceNoteforStandard6furtherelaborates,“Incertaincircumstances,freepriorinformed consent (FPIC) must be sought. These requirements go beyond the generalstakeholder engagement requirements of the SES and must be carefully reviewed andimplemented.”Thesecircumstancesincludethefollowing:

- “Rights, lands territories, resources, traditional livelihoods: FPICwill be ensuredonanymattersthatmayaffecttherightsandinterests,lands,resources,territories(whethertitledoruntitledtothepeopleinquestion)andtraditionallivelihoodsoftheindigenouspeoplesconcerned.Projectactivitiesthatmayadverselyaffectthe

78UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”page37,January2015.79UnitedNations,“UnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples,”September13,2007.Art.18,P.15.“IndigenousPeopleshavetherighttoparticipateindecision-makinginmatterswhichwouldaffecttheirrights,throughrepresentativeschosenbythemselvesinaccordancewiththeirownprocedures,aswellastomaintainanddeveloptheirownindigenousdecision-makinginstitutions.”Seealso,“Article19,StatesshallconsultandcooperateingoodfaithwiththeIndigenousPeoplesconcernedthroughtheirownrepresentativeinstitutionsinordertoobtaintheirfree,priorandinformedconsentbeforeadoptingandimplementinglegislativeoradministrativemeasuresthatmayaffectthem;Article20,1.IndigenousPeopleshavetherighttomaintainanddeveloptheirpolitical,economicandsocialsystemsorinstitutions,tobesecureintheenjoymentoftheirownmeansofsubsistenceanddevelopment,andtoengagefreelyinalltheirtraditionalandothereconomicactivities;andArticle23,IndigenousPeopleshavetherighttodetermineanddevelopprioritiesandstrategiesforexercisingtheirrighttodevelopment.Inparticular,IndigenousPeopleshavetherighttobeactivelyinvolvedindevelopinganddetermininghealth,housingandothereconomicandsocialprogrammesaffectingthemand,asfaraspossible,toadministersuchprogrammesthroughtheirowninstitutions.”80UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page11,January2017.

Page46of51

existence, value, use or enjoyment of indigenous lands, resources or territoriesshall not be conducted unless agreement has been achieved through the FPICprocess.(Requirement9)

- Resettlement:Norelocationofindigenouspeopleswilltakeplacewithoutthefree,priorandinformedconsent(FPIC)oftheindigenouspeoplesconcernedandonlyafter agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible, with theoptionofreturn(Requirement8)

- Cultural Heritage: UNDP will respect, protect, conserve and not take orappropriate the cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property ofindigenouspeopleswithouttheir free,priorand informedconsent(Requirement13d).”

259. KeyparametersforthisprocessaredescribedintheGuidanceNote,includingtheoverall

aim, “The overall aim of the FPIC process with all stakeholders is to obtain a signedagreementororalcontractwitnessedbyanindependententityagreedtobybothparties,ensuringthatthegreatestnumberofcommunitymembersareinvolvedandrepresented,including potentially marginalized groups. The community's customs and norms forparticipation,decision-makingandinformationsharingaretoberespected….”.81

260. TheSESalsorefertoguidancedocumentsreflectingthatnotallFPICprocesseswillleadtoconsent,“whiletheobjectiveofaconsultationprojectistoreachagreement,notallFPICprocesseswill lead to theconsentofandapprovalby therights-holders inquestion. AtthecoreofFPICistherightofthepeoplesconcernedtochoosetoengage,negotiateanddecidetograntorwithholdconsent,aswellas theacknowledgementthatundercertaincircumstances, it must be accepted that the project will not proceed and/or thatengagement must be ceased if the affected peoples decide that they do not want tocommenceorcontinuewithnegotiationsoriftheydecidetowithholdtheirconsent…”82

261. TheUNDP,inensuringrespectforrights,willconsiderfindingsofUNandregionalhumanrights bodies, that might be related. This might include, for example, findings of theAfricanCourtonHumanandPeople’sRightsrelatingtoIndigenousPeoples.

262. A landmark decision from the African Court, involving the Ogiek community in Kenya,providesaclearanalogousexampleinthisregard.First,theCourtfoundthatbecausetheOgiek have certain traits, namely “presence of priority in time with respect to theoccupation and use of a specific territory; a voluntary perpetuation of culturaldistinctiveness,whichmay includeaspectsof language, social organisation, religionandspiritualvalues,modesofproduction, lawsand institutions, self-identificationaswellasrecognition by other groups, or by State authorities that they are a distinct collectivity;and an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or

81Id.P.13.Note,also,thatSESfootnote74pointstoguidanceavailabletoUNDPstafftoimplementFPICrequirements,includingtheUnitedNationsDevelopmentGroupGuidelinesonIndigenousPeoples(hereinUNDGGuidelines)andtheUN-REDDGuidelinesonFree,PriorandInformedConsent(hereinUN-REDDGuidelines).TheUNDGGuidelinesdescribethatFPICimplies“anabsenceofcoercion,intimidationormanipulation,thatconsenthasbeensoughtsufficientlyinadvanceofanyauthorizationorcommencementofactivities,thatrespectisshownfortimerequirementsofindigenousconsultation/consensusprocessesandthatfullandunderstandableinformationonthelikelyimpactisprovided….Theparticipationofindigenouspeoplesmaybethroughtheirtraditionalauthoritiesorarepresentativeorganization.”TheUN-REDDGuidelinesprovideasimilardescriptionofFPIC.82TheUNDGGuidelinesandUN-REDDGuidelinesrefertothe“ReportoftheUNPFIIworkshoponMethodologiesregardingFreePriorandInformedConsentandIndigenousPeoples”asprovidingelementsofacommonunderstandingofFPIC.

Page47of51

discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist.”83, the Ogiek community isconsidered Indigenous and have a right to use, occupy and enjoy their ancestral lands.Second,thecourtconsideredwhenrightstoancestral landscanberestricted.TheCourtacknowledgedthatwhiletheycanberestrictedwhenmeasuresinthepublicinterestarenecessary and proportional, the evictions of the Ogieks from their territory for thepreservation of the natural ecosystemwere not legal because theGovernment failed toprovide any evidence that the Ogiek were the main cause for the depletion of theenvironment in thatarea.TheCourtconcludedthat theevictionof theOgiekpopulationwasnotnecessarynorproportionatetoachievethepurportedjustificationofpreservingthe natural ecosystem of the Mau Forest and as a result, the Court held that theGovernmentviolatedtherightstoland,asdefinedbyArticle26ofUNDRIP,aswellas14oftheCharter.84

263. Asnotedabove, Standard6also includesa requirement for an IndigenousPeoplesPlanwhenprojectsmayaffectIndigenousPeoples.

264. UNDP’sGuidanceNoteforStandard6liststhefollowingaskeycomponentsofanIPP:

“(B)Descriptionof theProject:Generaldescriptionof theproject, theprojectarea,andcomponents/activitiesthatmayleadtoimpactsonindigenouspeoples;(C) Description of Indigenous Peoples: A description of affected indigenouspeople(s) and their locations, including: i. a description of the community orcommunities constituting the affected peoples (e.g. names, ethnicities, dialects,estimatednumbers,etc.); ii.adescriptionof theresources, landsandterritories tobeaffectedandtheaffectedpeoplesconnections/relationshipwiththoseresources,lands,andterritories;and iii.an identificationofanyvulnerablegroupswithin theaffectedpeoples(e.g.uncontactedandvoluntaryisolatedpeoples,womenandgirls,thedisabledandelderly,others);(D) Summary of Substantive Rights and Legal Framework: A description of thesubstantiverightsofindigenouspeoplesandtheapplicablelegalframework.(E) Summary of Social and Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Measures,including i. a summaryof the findingsandrecommendationsof therequiredpriorsocial and environmental impact studies (e.g. limited assessment, ESIA, SESA, asapplicable) – specifically those related to indigenous peoples, their rights, lands,resources and territories. This should include the manner in which the affectedindigenouspeoplesparticipated insuchstudyandtheirviewsontheparticipationmechanisms, the findings and recommendations, and ii.Wherepotential risks andadverse impacts to indigenous peoples, their lands, resources and territories areidentified, the details and associated timelines for the plannedmeasures to avoid,minimize,mitigate,orcompensatefortheseadverseeffects.”85

265. Annex 1 to the Guidance Note for Standard 6, provides an “indicative outline of the

substantiveaspects’thataretobeaddressedintheIPP,including:(1)Ensuringculturally

83AfricanCourtonHumanandPeople’sRights,“AfricanCommissiononHumanandPeople’sRightsv.RepublicofKenyaJudgement,”page31,May26,2017.84Id.P.37.85UNDP,“GuidanceNote,UNDPSocialandEnvironmentalStandards,Standard6:IndigenousPeoples,”page28,January2017.

Page48of51

appropriate benefits;86 (2) creating action plans for legal recognition of indigenouspeoplesrightstolands,territories,resourcesandlegalpersonality;87(3)supportingrightsimplementation;and(4)creatingaResettlementActionPlan/LivelihoodActionPlan.”88

266. A Livelihood Action Plan is required when displacement (including economicdisplacement) of IndigenousPeoples is unavoidable. TheGuidanceNote for Standard6,observes, “In the exceptional circumstances when physical displacement or economicdisplacement of indigenous peoples is unavoidable, UNDP needs to integrate into theProjectdocumentationaResettlementActionPlan(RAP)orLivelihoodActionPlan(LAP)that has been developed transparently with the individuals and communities to bedisplaced….The RAP/LAP must meet the requirements of Standard 5 and Standard 6,including documentation of agreement through FPIC. The objectives, activities, andtimelinesforbothoftheseplanswillbeharmonizedandincorporatedbyreferenceintheIPP.”

267. Finally, the IPP must also outline monitoring measures to ensure that the Project’smitigationandmanagementmeasures(alsodescribedintheIPP)arebeingimplemented,“Transparent participatorymonitoring arrangementsmust be put in placewherein theindigenouspeoplesconcernedwilljointlymonitorProjectimplementation.”

SESStandards–Standard5DisplacementandResettlement 86Id.P.26.Thefullparagraphis,“TheIPPneedstodetailthearrangementsagreedtowiththeindigenouspeoplesconcernedregardingtheequitablesharingofbenefitstobederivedbytheProjectinamannerthatisculturallyappropriateandinclusiveandthatdoesnotimpedelandrightsorequalaccesstobasicservicesincludinghealthservices,cleanwater,energy,education,safeanddecentworkingconditions,andhousing(Requirement11).Thosearrangementsshouldbeevidencedinthewrittenoutcomesoftheconsultationandconsentprocessundertaken.Indigenouspeoplesshouldbeprovidedwithfullinformationofthescopeofpotentialincomestreams,servicesandbenefitsthattheProjectmaygenerateforallpotentialbeneficiaries.Indeterminingwhatconstitutesfairandequitablebenefitsharing–particularlywheretraditionalknowledge,culturalheritage,lands,resources,andterritoriesareinvolved–indigenouspeoplesshouldbetreatednotjustasstakeholders,butappropriatelyasrightsholders.”87Id.Thefullparagraphis,“CertainProjectactivitiesmaynotbesuccessfulormayleadtoadverseimpactsunlesstherightsofindigenouspeoplestotraditionallands,territoriesandresourcesareofficiallyrecognized.Forexample,initiativestosupportindigenouspeopleslandtenureortodevelopresourcesontraditionallandsmayfirstrequireofficialrecognitionoflegalrights.Inaddition,recognitionoftherightsofindigenouspeoplestolegalpersonalitymayalsoberequiredifnotadequatelyprovidedforunderdomesticlaw.WherethesuccessandcontinuationoftheProjectasawhole,orspecificProjectactivities,arecontingent(Box9)onestablishinglegallyrecognizedrightstolands,resources,orterritoriesoftheaffectedindigenouspeoples,theIPPwillneedtocontainanactionplanthatoutlinesUNDPmustcarefullyevaluatewhetheraProjectcouldcontinuewithoutundueharmifneededlegalreformsordelimitation,demarcationandtitlingactivitiescannottakeplacewithintherelevanttimeperiodoftheProjectgivenitsmandateandfinancing.InsuchcasestheIPPwouldneedtoclearlyaddressthepotentialconsequenceswhereonlysomeoftheactivitiestakeplacewithintheProjectperiod(e.g.someprogressbutnotfinalrecognitionofthelandandterritoryrights).Withtheconsentofrelevantauthorities,UNDPwillsupportsuchactivitiestoachievesuchrecognition.”88Id.P.27.Thefullparagraphstates:“Intheexceptionalcircumstanceswhenphysicaldisplacementoreconomicdisplacementofindigenouspeoplesisunavoidable,UNDPneedstointegrateintotheProjectdocumentationaResettlementActionPlan(RAP)orLivelihoodActionPlan(LAP)thathasbeendevelopedtransparentlywiththeindividualsandcommunitiestobedisplaced.Norelocationofindigenouspeopleswilltakeplacewithoutthefree,priorandinformedconsentoftheindigenouspeoplesconcernedandonlyafteragreementonjustandfaircompensationand,wherepossible,withtheoptionofreturn(Requirement8).TheRAP/LAPmustmeettherequirementsofStandard5andStandard6,includingdocumentationofagreementthroughFPIC.Theobjectives,activities,andtimelinesforbothoftheseplanswillbeharmonizedandincorporatedbyreferenceintheIPP.(SeetheGuidanceNoteonStandard5DisplacementandResettlement).”

Page49of51

268. The requirementsof this standard largelyoverlapwith the requirementsof Standard6,IndigenousPeoplesforTRIDOMIIactivities.Standard5,DisplacementandResettlement,however, details criteria and theprocess for creating aLivelihoodActionPlan,which isrequiredwhencommunities(includingIndigenouscommunities)aredisplaced(includingeconomicallydisplaced).

269. Key criteria for a Livelihood Action Plan include “(a) Displaced individuals andcommunities are compensated for loss of assets or loss of access to assets at fullreplacement cost. (b) In addition to compensation for lost assets, if any, economicallydisplacedpersonswhose livelihoodsor income levelsareadverselyaffectedwillalsobeprovided opportunities to improve, or at least restore, their means of income-earningcapacity,production levels, and standardsof living.An independent review, consideringbaseline data,will confirm that capacity, production levels and standards of living havebeenimprovedorrestored.(c)Transitionalsupportisprovidedtodisplacedpersonsandcommunitiesasnecessary,basedonareasonableestimateofthetimerequiredtorestoretheirincome-earningcapacity,productionlevels,andstandardsofliving.”89

SESStandards–Standard4,CulturalHeritage270. This standard reflects that for projects that might impact the Cultural Heritage of

indigenous peoples, the requirements of Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples apply.RequirementsofStandard6aremostrelevanttotheinvestigation.

SESOverarchingPolicyandPrinciples–NationalLaw,InternationalLaw(HumanRights)271. SES“OverarchingPolicyandPrinciples”requireUNDPtoavoidsupportingactivitiesthat

donotcomplywithNationalLawandobligationsofInternationalLaw(whicheveristhehigherstandard),andtofurthertherealizationofHumanRights.90

272. ThemostrelevantNationalLawincludesLawNº5/2011onthePromotionandProtectionof the Right of Indigenous Populations of 25 February 2011, which covers a range ofsocial,economicandculturalrightsofindigenouspeoples.

273. The Law provides for the protection of rights of Indigenous Peoples to lands andresources they have traditionally used or occupied for their subsistence, pharmacopeiaandwork.AccordingtotheLawtheStateisobligedtofacilitatethedelimitationoftheselandson thebasisof customaryrights.Concerning theestablishmentofprotectedareasthataffectthewayoflifeofIndigenousPeoples,theLawstipulatesthatconsultationswithindigenouspeoplesarecarriedout ingood faith inorder toobtain theirFree,PriorandInformedConsent.

274. Thefirst implementationdecrees(Décretsd´Application)ofLawNº´5/2011wereissuedinJuly2019.TheycoverissuessuchastheparticipationandconsultationofIndigenousPeoplesaswellas theiraccess toeducationandsocialservices.Further implementationdecreesincriticalareassuchasrightstolandandnaturalresourcesarestillremaintobeissued. However, a senior official at the Ministry of Forest Economy, SustainableDevelopment andEnvironment inBrazzaville noted in an interviewwith SECU that thelackofimplementationdecreesrepresentsnoimpedimenttotheimplementationofLawNº5/2011.

89UNDP.“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”page34,January2015.90ThisrequirementtocomplywithinternationallawandfurthertherealizationofhumanrightsoverlapswithStandard6,IndigenousPeoples,requirementstoensurerespectforthehumanrightsofIndigenousPeoples.

Page50of51

SESPolicyDeliveryandAccountabilityProcess275. Inaddition to theSESPandrequirements foraStakeholderEngagementPlan,otherkey

policy delivery provisions include those relating to Stakeholder Engagement andestablishingagrievancemechanism.

276. The SES notes “When necessary, UNDP will ensure that an effective Project-levelgrievancemechanismisavailable.Themandateandfunctionsofaproject-levelgrievancemechanismcouldbeexecutedbytheProjectBoardorthroughanImplementingPartner’sexisting grievance mechanisms or procedures for addressing stakeholder concerns.Where needed, UNDP and Implementing Partners will strengthen the ImplementingPartners’ capacities to address Project-related grievances.”91 If further notes, “Project-level grievancemechanisms andUNDP’s StakeholderResponseMechanismwill addressconcerns promptly through dialogue and engagement, using and understandable andtransparent process that is culturally appropriate, rights-compatible, and readilyaccessibletoallstakeholdersatnocostandwithoutretribution.Theywillbegender-andage-inclusiveandresponsiveandaddresspotentialaccessbarrierstowomen,theelderly,the disabled, youth and other potentially marginalized groups as appropriate to theProject.”92

UNDPPolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector(2013)277. ThepurposeofthisPolicyistofacilitateandguidetheselectionofprivatesectorpartners

insuchawaythatUNDPmanagesriskstoitsreputation.93

278. Caseswheretheprivatesectorprovidesco-financingforaspecificUNDPprojectareoneofthemodalitiesofUNDP’svarioustypesofengagementwiththeprivatesector.

279. TheTRIDOMIIProject for theRepublicofCongo listsapalmoilcompanyanda loggingcompanyamongitsprivatesectorpartnersandco-financers.94

280. The Policy lists palm oil, timber production and logging as among the high risk sectorsthat require an extra careful approach by undertaking due diligencemeasures such ascarryingoutapre-screeningtoassesswhetherapartnerisinvolvedinahighrisksector.Where this is the case, thePolicy calls for followingUNDP’s full risk assessment tool toestablishtheexistenceofsignificantcontroversies.

281. TheduediligenceassessmentcriteriaofthePolicythatareparticularlyrelevantforpalmoil and logging in northern Congo include respect for the rights of indigenous peoples,impactsonlivelihoods,impactsonecosystemsandlandscapes,aswellascorruption.

91UNDP,“SocialandEnvironmentalStandards,”page52,January2015.92Id.P.53.93UNDP,“PolicyonDueDiligenceandPartnershipswiththePrivateSector,”paragraph1,2013.94UNDP/GEF,ProjectDocument.

Page51of51

ANNEX2.INDICATIVELISTOFINTERVIEWEESCommunities

• 6BakaCommunitiesSurroundingMessokDja(Complainants)• SeveralBantuCommunitiesSurroundingMessokDja• AdditionalMembersofBakaCommunities• AdditionalMembersofBantuCommunities

UN/UNDPPersonnel

• TheUNResidentCoordinator• TheUNDPResidentRepresentative• 5UNDPProjectStaffinBrazzaville• 2UNDPProjectStaffinOuesso

RepresentativesofWWF

• 1RepresentativefromWWFinGeneva,Switzerland• 2RepresentativesfromWWFinBrazzaville• 2RepresentativesfromWWF/ETICinOuesso

RepresentativesoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofCongo

• 2RepresentativesfromtheMinistryofJusticeandHumanRightsandthePromotionofIndigenousPeoplesRights

• 2RepresentativesoftheMinistryofEconomyandForestry• SeveralRepresentativesoftheMinistryoftheEnvironment• 1RepresentativeoftheMinistryoftheInterior

OtherStakeholders

• 2representativesofSurvivalInternational• RepresentativesofthreeNGOsconductingFPICworkforWWFnearMessokDja• PresidentofalocalNGOrelatedtotheBakwelePeople• ExecutiveDirectorofanationalhumanrightsNGOinBrazzaville• RepresentativeofareligiousorderworkingintheMessokDjaregion• RepresentativefromtheForestPeoplesProgramme