ANNEX I
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE
PREFACE
The ECGD expects all projects to comply with
the World Bank's Safeguard Policies and with the ECGD's Business
Principles. This impact questionaire is intended to screen projects
for compliance. Significant failure to meet the ECGD's stated
expectations will result in projects being screened out from support.
For projects involving significant or medium
potential environmental damage or social and human rights impacts,
the ECGD requires an EIA and/or SIA or RAP to be prepared and
released to the public in a form and language comprehensible to
project affected people. All projects which impact indigenous
peoples or ethnic minorities will require an Indigenous Peoples
Development Plan. Applications for projects that require such
documents will be assessed until the required documents have been
disclosed.
Impact Questionaire has major gaps and should
require supporting documentary evidence of claimed compliance
with stated standards.
A. FORMAT
The "tick-the-box" format of the questionnaire
is open to abuse. For example, Section 3 simply asks whether the
project/business has been designed to meet specified environmental,
health and safety and social standards and gives a series of boxes
to tick. No evidence is required to demonstrate compliance with
the standards that are ticked. Moreover, the ECGD undertakes no
checks to verify the information supplied in the questionnaire
for projects assigned to Category C and only occasional checks
for Category B projects.
This is of serious concern. Given that Category
C projects are not subject to any further investigations or conditionality
(beyond the standards requirement "for compliance with laws"),
there is likely to be considerable pressure on company's to squeeze
borderline cases into Category C. It is therefore imperative that
claims made in the questionnaire are subject to vigorous checks.
We recommend that:
The ECGD requires that all assertions as
to compliance with the standards specified in Section 3 of the
Impact Questionnaire be backed by documentary proof:
All categories of project are subject to
spot checks to confirm the information provided throughout the
Impact Questionnaire.
B. CONTENT
Whilst the impact questionnaire adequately covers
major environmental impacts—which also form the prime determinant
of the categories into which projects are assigned—it is
weak on impacts related to debt, climate, development, human rights
and labour rights.
Corruption, for example, has major social, environmental
and economic impacts. Corruption arising in projects supported
by the ECGD, meanwhile, poses serious reputational as well as
material risks both to the ECGD itself and to British exporters
in general. We believe that to avoid this, the ECGD needs to ensure
that it tightens up its due diligence procedures for deterring
and detecting corruption. We believe that this should include
additional questions relating to corporate governance and accountability
at the Impact Questionnaire stage, additional requirements to
prove compliance with anti-corruption legislation and accounting
standards at the warranty stage, further anti-corruption procedures,
and increased risk assessment of buyer institutions.
The information requirements outlined in Annexe
3 conflict with those in the proposed Impact Questionnaire
We note with particular concern that the information
requirements listed for each impact category in Annexe 3 conflict
with those in the Impact Questionnaire. Thus Paras 1.4 and 2.2
of the Impact questionnaire states that EIAs and RAPs will be
required if the project is located in any of the specified sites
or involves any of the specified social impacts. By contrast,
Annexe 3 states in respect of Category A projects: "For greenfield
projects an Environmental and/or Social Impact Assessment will
usually be required . . ." (emphasis added).
The ECGD should clarify which wording holds.
We would oppose any element of discretion in the requirement to
carry out and release EIAs and other impact assessments.
| 
