1. The need for Green Climate Fund Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Best Practices Presentation by: Yator Kiptum Sengwer Indigenous Peoples Programme P.O. Box 3894-30200, Kitale – Kenya Email: sengweripp@gmail.comsengweripp@gmail.com During: 2016 Annual Meetings of International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group Washington DC, October 4-9

2. Green Climate Fund GCF projects will mainly be carried out in IPs ancestral lands in and out of protected areas. For example in Kenya:- -70% of the land is on indigenous peoples ancestral lands and territories; -3 out of 5 main water towers/catchments are within ancestral lands of forest indigenous peoples

3. Need for GCF Policy on Indigenous Peoples Effectiveness and sustainability of GCF depend on:- -Recognition and protection of indigenous peoples rights to live in, manage, govern and own their ancestral lands within conservation/protected areas -Developing (with participation and consultation of indigenous peoples) indigenous peoples policy with strong environmental and social safeguards

4. Best Practices 1)World Bank policy on Indigenous Peoples – the case of Sengwer during implementation of NRMP (2007-2013) 2)European Investment Bank complaint mechanism – the case of Maasai during implementation Olkaria I and IV Geothermal Extensions 3)IUCN Rights-based Approach and standards on IPs – the case of Sengwer in Embobut forest during the ‘Developing an effective and equitable forest landscape and livelihood restoration & investment plan in and around Embobut Forest, Cherangany Hills’

5. World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples The Policy was triggered during implementation of NRMP (2007 – 2013) – the project was carried out on indigenous peoples lands (Sengwer and Ogiek indigenous peoples of Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, respectively. The policy led to development of Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework, Indigenous Peoples screening process, Social Assessment, Indigenous Peoples Plans with participation and consultations of affected IPs. Without the policy the World Bank could not have been called to account for human rights violations and violations on Bank’s policies and procedures

6. World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples (contd) NRMP was restructured (without proper consultation with IPs) half way through in 2011, they dropped the community tenure aspect. The WB inspection panel found restructuring NRMP WB had gone against its own IP safeguards, and had broken various other safeguards, instead strengthening the ability of KFS to evict communities. So the GCF needs to have at least a strong stand alone IP policy as the WB has had in relation to the NRMP. If it had been adhered to then the NRMP could have respected communities rights and built an effective approach to forest conservation.

7. European Investment Bank (EIB) – Olkaria I and IV Geothermal Extensions Maasai indigenous peoples affected by the Olkaria I and IV Geothermal extensions took advantage of an existing EIB complaint mechanism to file complaints touching involuntary resettlement processes, identification of PAPs, restoration of livelihoods, etc Although, World Bank co-financed the geothermal extensions project, it’s policy on Indigenous Peoples was triggered because the question on whether Maasai are indigenous peoples or not. However, World Bank joined the mediation process to resolve the standoff.

8. IUCN adherence on its Rights- Based Approach Changed it’s project from ‘Developing an effective and equitable forest landscape and livelihood restoration & investment plan in and around Embobut Forest, Cherangany Hills’ To ‘Developing an effective, equitable and rights-based road map for forest landscape and livelihood restoration in and around Embobut Forest, Cherangany Hills through informed dialogue and multi-stakeholder engagement’

9. Recommendations: GCF should - (i) Develop and adopt (with participation and consultation of IPs) -Indigenous Peoples Policy -Strong Environmental and Social safeguards -Disclosure Policy -Complaint mechanisms -Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) -Indicators (precautionary measures) (ii) Work directly with Indigenous Peoples who are affected by the projects. Proposal by NEMA in Kenya to work at county and ward level will disadvantage forest indigenous peoples leading to discrimination and marginalization (iii) Accord IPs full representation and participation at all levels of the project design through implementation and be granted an Observer Status

10. Thank You