CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS indigenous peoples and local communities.”263 But these guidelines are expressed in very general, non-binding terms, and they do not explicitly require consent from those who live in the forests or utilize the forest resources that will be affected by REDD+ projects. They also do not contain language about the equitable distribution of benefits from forestry projects, which may not be a human right in of itself, but which has implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights for those who live in forests and depend on forest resources.264 A variety of proposed standards and guidance documents have been introduced in this context. Two notable examples include the REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards,265 and the Joint Guidelines from UN-REDD Programme and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.266 These standards provide a more comprehensive framework for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and other local stakeholders, and ensuring an equitable distribution of benefits from REDD+ projects, but they are not binding on member states or other project stakeholders.267 That said, projects that are funded through the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) are required to comply with World Bank safeguard policies.268 These include ten social and environmental safeguards addressing the following issues: (i) environmental assessment, (ii) natural habitats, (iii) pest management, (iv) physical and cultural resources, (v) involuntary settlement, (vi), indigenous peoples, (vii) forests; (viii) dam safety; (ix) projects on international waterways; and (x) projects in disputed areas.269 However, compliance with the World Bank safeguards may not ensure that rights will be respected, because the existing safeguards arguably do not fully reflect existing human rights obligations, such as the obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for projects that adversely affect indigenous peoples.270 The World Bank is currently working on revisions to the safeguard policies, which may result in positive human rights outcomes—for example, the current draft requires FPIC for projects that affect indigenous lands and resources or result in the displacement of indigenous communities.271 However, some stakeholders are concerned that the revisions will ultimately weaken protections for affected communities and the environment, as a result of roll backs in due diligence and other procedural requirements.272 Ultimately, to fulfill obligations to protect and promote human rights, countries should ensure that any REDD+ projects financed within their jurisdiction include adequate public participation mechanisms and that they do not result in the dispossession of people from forest lands and resources. Special attention should be paid to the rights of indigenous people in this context, and in particular, the right to FPIC. The COP should also consider adopting a more concrete safeguard policy that applies to all REDD+ projects. (c) Green Climate Fund In 2014, the GCF Board decided to adopt, on an interim basis, the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC’s) environmental and social performance standards for GCF-funded projects.273 The IFC safeguards include eight performance standards addressing the following issues: (i) Assessment and management of social and environmental risks and impacts; (ii) Labor and working conditions; (iii) Resource efficiency and pollution prevention; (iv) Community health; (v) Safety and security; (vi) Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement; (vii) Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources; (viii) Full respect of rights of indigenous people and protection of cultural heritage. The Board also adopted terms of reference for an “Independent Redress Mechanism” to receive complaints related to the operation of the Fund and make operation.274 Once operational, peoples and communities who are directly affected by adverse impacts of projects resulting from a failure to implement the IFC safeguards can submit a complaint to the mechanism. The mechanism can make recommendations on a specific project or on operational policies and procedures. 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 Id. at p. 2(c),(d). See Thomas Sikor et al., REDD-plus, forest people’s rights, and nested climate governance, 20 Global Environmental Change 423 (2010). REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards, Version 2, Sept. 10, 2012. Forest Carbon Partnership and UN-REDD Programme, Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness (2012). For a more detailed assessment of REDD+ finance safeguards, see Stephanie Roe, et al., Safeguards in Bilateral REDD+ Finance (Climate Focus 2014). Alternatively, for projects undertaken in accordance with the FCPF’s “Common Approach”, projects must achieve “substantial equivalence” with the World Bank safeguard policies. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Alyssa Johl & Yves Lador, A Human Rights-Based Approach to Climate Finance (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung 2012). The World Bank’s standards are derived from the IFC’s standards, and thus there are significant overlaps. World Bank, World Bank Performance Standards, http://go.worldbank.org/BZ9RCBSRB0 (last visited Oct. 15, 2015). Johl & Lador (2012), supra note 273, at 10. World Bank, Environmental and Social Framework, Second Draft for Consultation, Section B, p. 18 (July 1, 2015). Human Rights Watch, World Bank: Dangerous Rollback in Environmental, Social Protections (Aug. 4, 2015), https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/08/04/worldbank-dangerous-rollback-environmental-social-protections; Philip Alston, Reprot of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, UN Doc. A/70/274 (Aug. 4, 2015). See Decisions of the Board – Green Climate Fund, GCF/B.07/11, Annex III, June 19, 2014. Decisions of the Board – Green Climate Fund, Terms of Reference for the Independent Redress Mechanism, GCF/B.06/06, Feb. 13, 2014. I M P L E M E N TAT I O N A S S E S S M E N T 37