Application of the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP)

to the Amerindian Land Titling Project (ALT Project) in Guyana, with Commentary

[revised version1, 2 February 2016]

The primary objectives of the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) are as follows:

1. Identify opportunities to strengthen social and environmental sustainability; and

2. Identify potential social and environmental risks, their significance, and the level of assessment and

management required to address them.

As indicated in the SESP guidance document, the screening procedure consists of three major steps:

Step 1: Gather Information

Step 2: Conduct Screening of the Project Document2

Step 3: Ensure Ongoing Compliance with the SES

This paper describes how the first two SESP steps can be applied to the Amerindian Land Title Project

(ALT project) in Guyana to advance SESP objectives, and provides an initial application of the SESP to

the ALT. These comments are based on guidance provided in the UNDP Social and Environmental

Screening Procedure: Guidance and Template, the ALT project document (Prodoc), and other referenced

materials. A draft screening template, completed as possible given existing information, is included at the

end of this document.

This screening was based on information available to the screener, as well as information gathered during

a one-week mission to Guyana in October 2015. Given that the project has already advanced to

implementation, existing documents and the brief mission may not capture all current issues and risks.

Nevertheless, screening results point to significant issues that need to be addressed, and include

recommendations that will require additional discussion.

Step 1: Gather Information

Regarding the type of information to be gathered, the SESP indicates a need to review available information

relevant to the Project’s social and environmental aspects, such as:

United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), Country Programme Action Plan

(CPAP);

planning documents including existing gender, human rights, social, environmental studies;

applicable national and international legal and regulatory framework;

input from stakeholder engagement activities; and

relevant standards and reports of UN bodies, such as Universal Periodic Reviews, and Inter-

American institutions.

For application of the SESP to the ALT project, information gathering began with an identification of the

social and environmental aspects of the ALT project, and, in response to this identification, a brief review

of a few relevant documents. Following is a brief description of this process.

Identifying the social and environmental aspects of the ALT project: The Prodoc describes the social and

environmental considerations. Generally, it reflects that while the Project is occurring within the context of,

and is intended to advance, Guyana’s broader efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation (to address

1 The 2 February 2016 version reflects feedback from in-person meetings as well as written comments received during and after

the October 2015 mission, when the first draft of the SESP was shared and discussed with project suppliers and beneficiaries. 2 Note, however, that if a project has not yet been designed and implemented a ‘pre-screening’ of the concept note and early drafts

of the project document would be performed prior to final screening

climate change), the Project is focused specifically on titling of lands of indigenous communities. Such

titling clearly includes important social considerations, including, for example, transparency, consultation,

participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making, e.g., securing free, prior, informed consent, etc.

Given the social aspects of the project, gather and review relevant documents: As noted above, given the

possible social and environmental aspects of the ALT project, documents and information to be gathered

and used to inform project design and implementation include the UNDAF, the applicable legal and

regulatory framework, relevant reports of UN or other agencies, (such as Universal Periodic Reviews),

stakeholder studies, and others.3 Below is a very brief review of four types of documents:

UNDAF: A brief review of the Guyana UNDAF indicates several provisions and UNDAF outcomes that

may be relevant to screening of the project – and to identifying both opportunities and risks. First, the

introduction to the UNDAF reflects a need for attention to the normative principles that are mainstreamed

throughout UN agency programmes, including capacity development, environmental sustainability, gender

equality, human rights-based approach, and results-based management.

The outcomes, and related outputs, provide additional details. The first outcome - National policies,

strategies, and plans for disaster risk reduction (DRR), management of natural resources, and access to

clean energy and services developed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated - includes Output 1.4, which

is directly relevant to the ALT project. It indicates a need to provide technical and financial support, training,

and other capacity building for indigenous communities and others, to accelerate the land titling process.

The third outcome - Strengthened public participation, trust, and confidence in national governance

institutions, including the five Rights Commissions, the Parliament, and GECOM – also appears to be

relevant, particularly the outcomes focused on fully informed public participation and confidence in

national governance institutions. As noted in the UNDAF, ‘This implies that all people – including the

poor, women, ethnic and religious minorities, indigenous peoples and other disadvantaged groups – have

the right to participate meaningfully in governance processes and influence decisions that affect them. It

also means that governance institutions and policies are accessible, accountable and responsive to

disadvantaged groups’ and includes promoting the use of a human rights-based approach. The land titling

process will necessarily require such public participation, as well as community confidence in the national

governance institutions relating to such land titling - including institutions that make decisions related to

the titling and institutions that provide for judicial and administrative redress for grievances.

Although these outcomes and outputs stand out as highly relevant to the screening of the ALT, other

outcomes and outputs may also be helpful.

Relevant reports of UN or other agencies, such as Universal Periodic Reviews: The Prodoc indicates “the

GoG and UNDP have agreed to implement the Project Document in accordance with the UNDP

safeguards and standards as stated in Annex 2, cognizant of the regulatory and legal provisions governing

Amerindian rights, land titling and demarcation in Guyana.’ Relevant Annex 2 standards include

‘Compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant

UN human rights instruments.’4

3 Other relevant documents, including, for example, results of investigations undertaken pursuant to the Amerindian Act of 2006,

planning documents, assessment documents, etc. will be identified during the October mission and incorporated, as appropriate,

into the screening document. 4 They include, as well, the following ‘Specific Standards’: Compliance with the safeguards and standards used by UNDP and

UN‐REDD for any REDD+ related project; Definition of the consultation process to be used throughout the project cycle with

the stakeholders and beneficiaries; Definition of the mechanism to obtain, in certain circumstances, the free prior and informed

consent of beneficiaries and stakeholders, especially of the indigenous peoples; Definition of the mechanism to ensure that all

relevant stakeholder groups are identified and enabled to participate in a meaningful and effective manner, following customary

Relatedly, the Prodoc indicates a commitment to UNDAF programming principles, including that

programming support provided by UNDP must be underpinned by a human rights-based approach.

Findings of human rights bodies inform understandings of this human rights-based approach in practice.

Fortunately, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights compiled these findings for

Guyana, and published the report of these findings in January 2015.5 These findings were compiled to

support the preparation of Guyana’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which will be published soon, likely

in 2015. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published several

documents that are important in the context of this project, including a 2009 compilation of standards on

indigenous land and resource rights - which provides a useful checklist for any new law or regulation on

this issue, and a 2013 set of recommendations for the full respect of rights of Indigenous Peoples in

voluntary isolation - which includes reference to more recent land and resource rights-related standards that

apply to all Indigenous Peoples. As a member State of the Organization of American States, Guyana’s

human rights obligations include those enshrined in the OAS Charter and American Declaration of the

Rights and Duties of Man.6

.

The following table, for example, notes several potentially relevant findings and measures that could inform

design and implementation of the ALT project.7

ways of decision‐making; Definition of mechanisms to address conflicts and grievances; Ensure that special attention is given to

most vulnerable groups; Ensure that transparent information is available and accessible to all parties concerned. There should

be records of consultations and a report on the outcome of the consultations that is publicly disclosed in a culturally appropriate

form. 5 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/208/64/PDF/G1420864.pdf?OpenElement 6 IACHR. Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and natural resources: Norms and jurisprudence of the

inter‐American human rights system. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, December 30, 2009; IACHR. Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation

and Initial Contact in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, December 30, 2013. 7 Compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph

15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21. Human

Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Twenty-first session, 19–30 January 2015

8 More specifically, the Compilation notes: “In 2013, CERD considered, under its early warning and urgent action procedure, the

situation of the Kako and Isseneru indigenous communities in Guyana. It was concerned that Guyana had denied those communities

any decision-making rights concerning the mining of lands over which they had title. It also expressed concern about the limits of

the legislation that had allowed mining activities in indigenous traditional territories without the free and prior informed consent

of the affected communities. It reiterated its recommendation to amend the Amerindian Act of 2006 to remove any discriminatory

distinctions in the legislation, and requested Guyana to review the practice of granting mining permits and concessions without

obtaining the prior and informed consent of affected indigenous communities.” Compilation prepared by the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council

resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21 (2010), A/HRC/WG.6/21/GUY/2; CERD findings and

recommendations include the following, ‘ The Committee urges the State party to remove the discriminatory distinction between

titled and untitled communities from the 2006 Amerindian Act and from any other legislation’ and , ‘The Committee urges the

State party to recognize and protect the rights of all indigenous communities to own, develop and control the lands which they

traditionally occupy, including water and subsoil resources, and to safeguard their right to use lands not exclusively occupied by

them, to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence, in accordance with the Committee’s General

Recommendation No. 238 and taking into account ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Concluding

Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, (2006) CERD/C/GUY/CO/14.

Thematic Issues

Recommended Responses to Issues

Institutional and human rights infrastructure and

policy measures

Establish the Human Rights Commission, and ensure

the effective operation of the sectoral commissions –

including the Indigenous Peoples Commission

Cooperation with the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Strengthen further GoG’s cooperation with specialized

agencies and programmes of the United Nations

system, including OHCHR

Implementation of international human rights

obligations, taking into account applicable

international humanitarian law

- Equality and non-discrimination Address discrimination against women and children,

specifically Amerindian children

- Administration of justice and the rule of law Improve legal services and access to justice

- Right to participate in public and political life Ensure the equal participation of Amerindian women in

leadership and decision-making positions in political

and public life.

- Minorities and indigenous peoples Amend the Amerindian Act of 2006 to remove

discriminatory distinctions in the legislation and review

the practice of granting mining permits and concessions

without obtaining the prior and informed consent of

affected communities.8 Note this recommendation is

consistent with directives of the Inter-American system

to OAS member States to

(1) remove or amend legal provisions that impede

protection of the right to property of indigenous and

tribal communities, and (2) to adopt legal measures that

recognize, protect, and give legal effect to community

rights to hold collective title to territories traditionally

used and occupied, and rights to manage, distribute,

and effectively control such territories, in accordance

with customary laws and traditional collective land

tenure systems.

Applicable legal and regulatory framework: Guyana’s Constitution includes several provisions relevant to

the ALT project, including, for example, Articles 39 and 154(a) (human rights), Article 142 (property

rights), Article 149 (non-discrimination), Article 149F (women’s rights), Article 149G (Indigenous

Peoples’ rights), Article 212J (Human Rights Commission), and Articles 212S and T, (Indigenous Peoples’

Commission).9

Articles 39 and 154(a) reflect a commitment to human rights, indicating that human rights enshrined in

international treaties to which Guyana has acceded, ‘shall be respected and upheld by…all organs and

agencies of Government.’10

Article 142, prohibits the compulsory taking of property unless authorized by a law that requires prompt

payment of adequate compensation, or unless it involves the property of Amerindians ‘for the purpose of

its care, protection and management’, or unless it involves any right, title or interest in ‘lands situated in an

Amerindian District, Area or Village established under the Amerindian Act for the purpose of effecting the

termination or transfer thereof for the benefit of an Amerindian community.’ The UN Committee on the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), interpreting the International Convention on the Elimination

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, made the following recommendations related to such activities.11

Article 149 prohibits laws that discriminate, unless the law is ‘for the protection, well-being or advancement

of the Amerindians of Guyana.’ 149F recognizes that ‘every woman is entitled to equal rights and status

with men.’ And 149G reflects that Indigenous peoples ‘shall have the right to the protection, preservation,

and promulgation of their languages, cultural heritage and way of life.’ As indicated above, the Universal

Periodic Review reflects a need for greater attention to women’s rights in Guyana.

Article 212J describes the functions of the Human Rights Commission, and Article 212S and T describes

the Indigenous Peoples’ Commission and its functions. Note that the Universal Periodic Review includes

recommendations related to these Commissions, including a recommendation to establish the Human

Rights Commission and ensure the effective operation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Commission.

As noted in the Prodoc, titling under the project ‘is processed by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs

(MoAA), in accordance with the Amerindian Act of 2006 and other relevant legislation, including the

State Lands Act, and the Land Registry Act, and summarized in Annex 1 of this document.’ As indicated

in the Universal Periodic Review, noted above, concerns have been raised about the consistency of these

laws with human rights norms.

Note that the Prodoc indicates, ‘provisions stated in the Constitution of Guyana, the Amerindian Act 2006

and the LCDS will be the basis for the process of engagement of local stakeholders in project

implementation.’

9 Guyana Constitution, http://parliament.gov.gy/constitution.pdf 10 These include the following: International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention on the Rights

of the Child; Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; Convention on Biological Diversity; UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; Convention on the Protection

and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Note, also, obligations deriving from membership in the Organization of

American States, the International Labour Organization, and the United Nations. 11 The CERD recommends that the State party confine the taking of indigenous property to cases where this is strictly necessary,

following consultation with the communities concerned, with a view to securing their informed consent, and to provide these

communities with adequate compensation where property is compulsorily acquired by the State, as well as with an effective remedy

to challenge any decision relating to the compulsory taking of their property.

Other relevant laws and regulations will be identified during the October mission and incorporated, as

appropriate, into the screening.

Stakeholder Studies: Not all relevant stakeholder studies are available for this screening. These ‘studies’

could include not only formal surveys, but also stakeholder meetings at which information is gathered.

Notes from one stakeholder meeting with the APA on 11 May 2012 were reviewed.12 At that consultation,

five primary issues were identified and discussed, including the following: (1) Consultations – concerns

that there were inadequate government consultations on the low carbon development strategies; (2) Land

Rights – Amerindian representatives indicated a belief that rights to their lands have not been adequately

recognized. Communities noted differences in perception – indicating that Indigenous Peoples identified

43,000 sq. miles of indigenous lands, while the government identified 24,000 sq. miles (the Amerindian

Lands Commission report of 1969 reflects this difference). While the government has indicated that

Amerindians may apply for ‘extensions’ to demarcated lands, some of these ‘extension’ lands have already

been identified for mining. Additionally, in some instances, mining concessions have been granted on titled

lands or, where they existed prior to grants of title, were ‘saved and excepted’ in the title deeds. Amerindians

indicated that they would like to pursue mapping with government surveyors and want agreement on maps.

They indicated a belief that the LCDs land demarcation activity is not beneficial until prior problems are

resolved; (3) the ALT project – UNDP indicated that it will apply its social/environment, financial/fiduciary

safeguards to ensure that rights of communities are not eroded, and funds will be utilized as intended; (4)

Amerindian Representation – Amerindians at the meeting were not confident that the National Toshao’s

Council (NTC) adequately represents their interests since the current chair and deputy chair openly

campaigned with the GoG during the election, and the current NTC Chair was no longer a Toshao; and (5)

Communication - Amerindian Communities indicated that they do not have access to internet, and

documents posted to the Guyana Redd+ Investment Fund website cannot be reviewed and commented on.

During more recent meetings, including with Amerindian representatives, government representatives,

members of the Rockstone Indigenous community, and other entities (see Annex I for complete list), some

of the same concerns were identified, while others were not raised again.13 : (1) consultation, transparency,

and FPIC are not adequate in the context of the ALT project; consultations should be performed by

investigation teams prior to demarcation, more information needs to be provided, and more of the

community needs to be involved in mapping (not just younger Toshaos); (2) the project provides inadequate

protection not only for communities without titles, but also those with titles but existing mining

claims/licenses; (3) a more robust framework for addressing conflicts is needed; titling is creating conflict

within and between communities, and these conflicts cannot be addressed adequately by investigators on a

case-by-case basis; (4) Judicial protection of rights is inadequate; (5) the requirement to accept demarcation

before requesting an extension is a problem – a temporary suspension and review of the project to review

this and other issues is necessary; (6) the 30 day period for appeal of decisions is too short, and more site

visits are necessary – not just one day of demarcating; (7) the process to ensure that the project is delivering

in line with standards and procedures is inadequate; (8) the GGMC is understaffed, some mining is

unregulated and uncontrolled, and the GGMC is not aware of all land claimed – not all applications for

extension and title are shared with GGMC; (9) communities lack understanding of their rights, and are not

fully informed – making engagement difficult and confusing; (1) government representatives lack

understanding of these rights, and even capacity to perform role, e.g., Lands and Surveys Commission

understaffed; (10) there’s a need for a more robust process for making public interest determinations; and

(11) some community members want individual rights within broader community-claimed lands, and other

differences of opinion within communities exist and need to be resolved. A post-discussion summary of

12 Meeting between UNDP and the Amerindian People’s Association (APA), 11 May 2012. Minutes prepared by Vanessa Morris.

The meeting was convened in response to a request from the Amerindian People’s Association (APA) for an opportunity to discuss

APA concerns relating to GRIF projects implemented by UNDP. 13 Note that this paragraph includes a list of concerns expressed, and is not intended to reflect agreed positions.

issues raised included a need for building trust and a stakeholder engagement platform, a clearer grievance

process, a moratorium on mining on claimed Amerindian lands, legislative reform, a review of activities to

date, joint mapping until boundaries are agreed, a need to include climate change considerations in the

SESP, and a need to clarify and broaden list of relevant stakeholders. Other key issues raised in other

discussions on the mission include a need to prevent mining on rivers, given impacts to communities

depending on these sources of water.

Other Documents: The Government of Guyana recently submitted to the National Toshaos’ Council (NTC)

a five-year ten-point Plan of Action for Hinterland Development that reflects a desire to work closely with

the NTC, promises to protect ‘your land and sources of sustenance’ and commits to establishing a

Commission to examine issues in relation to land titling and land demarcation, noting, ‘We invite all

communities which are dissatisfied with their current demarcation to argue their cases before the

Commission.’14

The APA, in turn, submitted a letter to the Government reiterating concerns about the ALT project and its

implementation under the previous government. More specifically, the letter indicates, ‘These concerns

included tying the ALT project to the Amerindian Act 2006, especially its provisions on land titling and the

overly broad discretion accorded to the Minister thereby, the unclear process by which indigenous

communities would consent to the work conducted under the ALT, and in general the lack of adherence to

Guyana's international obligations with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples, among others, as

confirmed in Article 154A of the Constitution.… Our concerns with the ALT project could be in large part

allayed with revision of the Amerindian Act, among other things, to include an affirmative recognition of

our rights to our lands territories and resources traditionally owned (i.e., in accordance with our customary

tenure systems), and an expressed provision requiring that the delimitation, demarcation and titling process

be conducted in accordance with those rights. We recognize however, that amendment of the Act could

take some time…. ln light of the preceding, we respectfully propose the following, which should be

regarded as an interim solution pending revisions to the Amerindian Act 2006: 1) A Protocol to be

incorporated into the ALT… setting out the policy of the new government with respect to indigenous land

delimitation, demarcation and titling, including extensions of existing title, under the ALT. Assuming that

the donors are in agreement, this protocol should be incorporated into the governing structure of the ALT

project and control future activities, and shall include, at a minimum, those points specified in {2-3) below.

2) Two Pilot Areas…, which will serve as demonstrations of how delimitation, demarcation and titling can

be achieved in accordance with applicable international standards and… 3) Adoption of a Regulation by

the Minister… pursuant to the authority granted under Sec 82 of the Amerindian Act 2006. This regulation

shall pertain to Sections 59-64, inclusive, of the Act, and elaborate on and clarify, inter alia: the legal

parameters and criteria for and the process of delimitation, demarcation and titling; the manner in which

indigenous peoples and their communities shall consent to demarcation and titling; and the mechanism(s)

for resolving any grievances that may arise during or subsequent to the process.15

Step 2: Conduct Screening

Information gathered in Step 1 was used to complete Step 2. More specifically, it was used to respond to

the six questions posed in the ‘Social and Environmental Screening Template’ attached as an Annex to the

Social and Environmental Screening Procedure Guidance document.

14 Guyana's indigenous people. Identity, inclusivity and prosperity. Text of an address by Brigadier David Granger, President of

the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, to the National Toshaos' Council meeting at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre,

Georgetown, on 28th August 2015. 15 September 16, 2015 letter from Jean La Rose, for J. Sharon Atkinson, President of the Amerindian Peoples Association to Mr.

Sydney Allicock, Minister of Indigenous Peoples Affairs.

Below are examples of how information gathered in Step 1 was used to complete Step 2 for the ALT Project.

Question 1: How Does the Project Integrate the SES Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen

Social and Environmental Sustainability?

Question 1 prompts consideration of opportunities provided by the ALT project to integrate the overriding

principles of UNDP’s Social and Environmental Standards (SES) into the project to strengthen the social

and environmental sustainability of the project. These ‘overarching principles’ include (1) a human rights-

based approach to development programming; (2) gender equality; and (3) environmental sustainability.

Information gleaned from the documents above provides a very useful starting point for identifying

opportunities to advance these principles in the context of the ALT project. The UNDAF and human rights

findings compiled by the UN OHCHR lists a number of key human rights-related opportunities in Guyana

that could be addressed in the ALT. Measures to respond to opportunities could include, for example,

increased financial and technical support for the indigenous peoples’ commission, increased support and

capacity building for indigenous women’s participation in decision-making related to the project, and

increased financial and other support to mechanisms that provide increased robust access to justice and

redress, etc.

The summaries in Question 1 should also briefly describe measures and procedures to ensure inclusion and

nondiscrimination of marginalized/vulnerable groups among the targeted Amerindian beneficiaries of the

project. Targeted support for women and use of gender-disaggregated data could be described in the gender

section. Linkages between land tenure clarification and enhancing environmental sustainability could be

noted in the environmental sustainability section.

Question 2: What Are the Potential Social and Environmental Risks?

Question 2 of the Screening Template focuses on measures to respond to risks and adverse impacts of the

project. Another attachment to the SESP Guidelines document – Attachment 1. Social and Environmental

Risk Screening Checklist – must be used to respond to this question. It requires a screener to consider a

series of Yes/No questions that relate the UNDP’s social and environmental principles and standards to

potential risks of project activities.

Below are responses to the risk screening questions and commentary, section by section.

Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks

INSTRUCTIONS: The risk screening checklist will assist in answering answer Questions 2-6 of the

Screening Template. Answers to the checklist questions help to (1) identify potential risks, (2) determine

the overall risk categorization of the project, and (3) determine required level of assessment and

management measures. Refer to SES toolkit for further guidance on addressing screening questions.

Important considerations:

Project activities are screened for their inherent social and environmental risks before the

application of mitigation and management measures. It is necessary to form a clear picture of

potential inherent risks in the event that mitigation measures are not implemented or fail

Screening for potential adverse social and environmental risks and impacts encompasses all

activities outlined in the Project documentation and includes review of potential direct and indirect

impacts in the Project’s area of influence

Principles 1: Human Rights Answ

er

(Yes/

No)

1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil,

political, economic, social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of

marginalized groups?

Yes

2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse

impacts on affected populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or

excluded individuals or groups? 16

Yes

3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or

basic services, in particular to marginalized individuals or groups?

Yes

4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders,

in particular marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect

them?

Yes

5. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the

Project?

Yes

6. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? Yes

7. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights

concerns regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process?

Yes

8. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence

to project-affected communities and individuals?

Yes

All of these questions received a ‘Yes’ response because a land titling process includes significant inherent

risks. Although these risks may be addressed by certain avoidance or mitigation measures, the screening

responses consider only risks as if no mitigation measures are applied. Considering Question 1, for

example: Any project focused on identifying the property rights of indigenous peoples can significantly

help, but also significantly adversely impact, the rights of these communities – if rights are secured in

conformity with human rights standards, benefits are great; if standards are not met, risks are great. The

remainder of the questions raise similar concerns. Generally, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination (CERD) has indicated that potential risks of discrimination against indigenous peoples are

significant in the context of activities involving communal lands, territories, and resources traditionally

owned and otherwise inhabited or used by these communities (Question 2).17 As noted above, the CERD

has indicated specific concerns related to such activities in Guyana – and, including specific concerns

related to the Amerindian Act of 2006, which the Project Document indicates will be the primary law under

which titling of Amerindian lands will be processed. If titles do not include all territories and resources

indigenous communities use, access to basic services or resources may be restricted (Question 3). Decisions

related to titling of indigenous lands directly impact indigenous communities that may be marginalized –

politically and otherwise, as well as communities within the larger indigenous community, e.g., women

who may be marginalized. There is, therefore, a possibility that marginalized communities may be excluded

16 Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion,

political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous person

or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to include women and men, boys and girls,

and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as transgender people and transsexuals. 17 Among the most significant of these recommendations and findings by the CERD includes Recommendation 23, which included

a call to State parties to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use the communal

lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned and otherwise inhabited or used, and to ensure the free and informed

consent of communities for these lands.

from decision-making processes that may impact them (Question 4). There is a risk that duty-bearers in

the context of the ALT project – government officials, UNDP officials, etc., lack the capacity to ensure

realization of rights (Question 5), i.e., officials may not have an adequate understanding of rights and

measures to take to respect those rights. Rights holders – e.g., the communities and others potentially

impacted by decisions of the project – may not have the capacity to claim their rights, i.e., communities

may not be aware of their rights and/or have the financial, legal, or technical capacity to ensure that these

rights are respected (Question 6). Although the Prodoc reflects that Outcome 3 is intended to ensure that

all relevant stakeholders are ‘better informed about Amerindian rights and the land titling mechanism’ it is

not clear if this information includes a description of rights of indigenous peoples under International law

– including as described by the UN bodies with a mandate to provide interpretations of these rights.

Outcome 3 indicates that ‘The provisions stated in the Constitution of Guyana, the Amerindian Act 2006,

the LCDS and the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (see Annex 3) will be the basis for the process of

engagement of local stakeholders in project implementation’ but does not mention Guyana’s obligations

under International Law. It appears from the notes of the UNDP meeting with the APA that communities

have expressed concerns about respect for their property rights in the context of the ALT project (Question

7). Given the centrality of property rights to the well-being of the communities, it is possible that the failure

to address these issues adequately could lead to conflict and/or violence or at least impair project success.

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender

equality and/or the situation of women and girls?

Yes

2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender,

especially regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities

and benefits?

Yes

3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project

during the stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall

Project proposal and in the risk assessment?

?

4. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural

resources, taking into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing

environmental goods and services?

For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in

communities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being

Yes

Because the titling process could exclude women from decisions that may impact them, and/or the title to

property could be issued only to males in households, there is a likelihood that the project would adversely

impact gender equality and/or the situation of women and girls (Question 1). Such activities could,

similarly, result in discrimination against women based on gender (Question 2). Gender equality concerns

are unclear from available materials for this initial screening (Question 3). If the project were to result in

titling to indigenous communities less land than currently used by women in these communities, it could

reduce access to land or resources used by women, i.e., reduce access to wood for cooking, etc., (Question

4).

Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management

1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural,

and critical habitats) and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services?

For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation,

hydrological changes

Yes

1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or

environmentally sensitive areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve,

national park), areas proposed for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative

sources and/or indigenous peoples or local communities?

Yes

1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse

impacts on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or

limitations of access to lands would apply, refer to Standard 5)

Yes

1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? Yes18

1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No

1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or

reforestation?

No

1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other

aquatic species?

No

1.8 Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or

ground water?

For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater

extraction

No

1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or

harvesting, commercial development)

No

1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental

concerns?

No

1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could

lead to adverse social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts

with other known existing or planned activities in the area?

For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and

social impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The

new road may also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate

unplanned commercial development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These

are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar

developments in the same forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple

activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered.

Yes

Since the Project is focused on titling, it would not directly involve or cause adverse impacts to habitat

(Question 1.1). It could result Project activities, e.g., titling, seem likely to occur within areas that

indigenous peoples consider important/sensitive, but information to confirm this is not available for this

initial screening (Question 1.2.). The project could result in changes to habitats that would impact

habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods, i.e., it may not include the titling of lands/resources claimed by

18 Guyana’s Protected Areas Commission (PAC) indicates that outcomes of the titling process could facilitate extractives activities that could pose risks to endangered species.

indigenous peoples, and potentially allow such areas/resources, e.g. forests, to be diminished for other

activities, including forestry or mining; and/or titling could remove areas from ‘protected’ status and local

communities could pursue extractive activities that adversely impact habitats or ecosystems, (Question

1.3). Answers to Questions 1.4 and 1.5 are ‘yes’ for similar reasons. Questions 1.6 to 1.10 are ‘no’ – the

project does not directly involve the activities indicated. The answer to Question 1.11 is ‘Yes’ for reasons

similar to those for Question 1.3. If titling does not include all lands/resources claimed/used for

indigenous peoples, the indirect effect could be to allow rights to these lands/resources to be allocated to

others who might adversely impact the habitat or social values. Alternatively, if titling facilitates

extractive activities, this could lead to adverse environmental and social impacts.

Standard 2: Climate Change

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in significant22 greenhouse gas emissions or may it exacerbate

climate change?

No

4.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of

climate change?

No

4.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental

vulnerability to climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)?

For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of floodplains,

potentially increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically flooding

Yes

Amerindian representatives noted that if the Project fails to protect rights, and extractive resources activities

are allowed to occur in forested areas, the Project could indirectly increase social and environmental

vulnerability to climate change.

Standard 3 Community Health And Safety: The Project is not likely to involve community health, safety,

and working condition issues.

Standard 4: Cultural Heritage

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impact

sites, structures, or objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or

intangible forms of culture (e.g. knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to

protect and conserve Cultural Heritage may also have inadvertent adverse impacts)

Yes

4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for

commercial or other purposes?

No

The Project will result in interventions that could adversely impact cultural heritage, i.e., titling could reduce

the abilities of indigenous peoples to protect areas perceived by them as culturally significant – if the areas

claimed as culturally significant are not included in titling.

Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement

5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical

displacement?

Yes

5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access

to resources due to land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical

relocation)?

Yes

5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions?19 Yes

5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community

based property rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?

Yes

Titling could displace communities, i.e., title could be provided to a smaller area than claimed by indigenous

peoples, and could reduce access to resources (Questions 5.1 and 5.2) There is a risk that the project would

lead to forced evictions – if due process is not adequate, and the area titled is smaller than the area claimed,

indigenous peoples could be displaced involuntarily and in violation of international law (Question 5.3).

Certainly the project involves land tenure arrangements (Question 5.4).

Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples

6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of influence)? Yes

6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories

claimed by indigenous peoples?

Yes

6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands, natural resources,

territories, and traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples (regardless of whether

indigenous peoples possess the legal titles to such areas, whether the Project is located

within or outside of the lands and territories inhabited by the affected peoples, or whether

the indigenous peoples are recognized as indigenous peoples by the country in question)?

If the answer to the screening question 6.3 is “yes” the potential risk impacts are

considered potentially severe and/or critical and the Project would be categorized as

either Moderate or High Risk.

Yes

6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with the

objective of achieving FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands,

resources, territories and traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned?

?

6.5 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of

natural resources on lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples?

No

6.6 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic

displacement of indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands,

territories, and resources?

Yes

6.7 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples as

defined by them?

Yes

6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous

peoples?

No

6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including

through the commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?

Yes

19 Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups, or

communities from homes and/or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating the

ability of an individual, group, or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence, or location without the provision

of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.

Indigenous Peoples are obviously present in the Project area (Question 6.1). The Project affects territories

Indigenous Peoples claim and their rights (Questions 6.2 and 6.3). Although the document reflects a

commitment to FPIC, it appears to be limited to community consent to participate in the titling process,

e.g., consent to submit an application for title. It doesn’t appear to apply to Indigenous communities with

objections to the project – who believe that the project is flawed because it relies on the Amerindian Act,

and will adversely impact them. It is unclear from available materials what FPIC processes to date have

involved, but they are disputed as inadequate by some indigenous peoples (Question 6.4). The Project does

not involve commercial use of land/resources (Question 6.5). As noted earlier, there is potential for eviction

and/or displacement, in particular if lands claimed by indigenous peoples are not included in the titling

(Question 6.6). The Project could adversely impact development priorities of indigenous peoples, i.e., by

restricting their access to lands/resources that they currently claim/use but may fall outside titling (Question

6.7). The Project is not likely to affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples (Questions

6.8). Cultural heritage could be affected if lands/territories claimed by indigenous peoples are not included

in titling and come under control of other interests (Question 6.9).

Standard 7 Pollution Prevention

The Project will not involve pollution, generation of waste, manufacturing of chemicals or materials, or

consumption of raw materials, energy, or water.

Question 3. What is the Level of Significance of the Potential Social and Environmental Risks?

For each identified risk – those marked with a “yes” response – the screener needs to determine the level

of significance. This level is determined by the combination of potential impact (e.g., consequences if the

risk were to occur), and probability (e.g., the likelihood of the risk occurring). The potential impact score

ranges from 1 – Negligible to 5 – Severe, and includes consideration of a range of factors.20 (Table 2 in

SESP Guidance). The probability score ranges from 1 – Slight to 5 – Expected (Table 3). Using these

scores, Table 4 in the SESP Guidance document plots the significance rating for each risk.

In the absence of more detailed information, estimating the significance of risk (and, in particular, the

potential impact) for each risk area is not possible for this initial screening. However, the overall level of

significance of risk for the ALT project is relatively easy to determine (even in the absence of this process),

given that the Project involves Indigenous Peoples and property rights.

As noted above, in Question 6.3, since the project potentially affects the human rights, lands, resources or

territories claimed by indigenous peoples, the potential risks are automatically considered severe and/or

critical. The Project’s risk significance, therefore, would be categorized as either Moderate or High. The

relatively high number of ‘Yes’ responses to the screening questions suggests that potential impact is great.

Given the significant concerns expressed by at least some of the indigenous communities in consultations,

and the likelihood that at least some significant risks will manifest during the Project, a probability score

of at least 4 appears warranted. As a result, the level of significance is likely to be ‘High’ for the ALT

project.

Question 4. What is the Overall Social and Environmental Risk Categorization of the Project?

After the significance level has been identified, the Project risk category – low, moderate, or high – needs

to be ascertained to determine the required level of social and environmental assessment and management

measures required. This risk category does not indicate whether a project is good or bad. It reflects the

inherent risks to ensure that effective risk management and mitigation measures are put in place to allow

20 Including type and location, magnitude or intensity, manageability, duration, reversibility, and community involvement.

UNDP to support the project. The ALT project clearly is not a low risk project, which includes activities

with minimal or no risks of adverse impacts. Moderate risk projects include activities with risks and impacts

that are limited in scale, can be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty, and can be addressed

through application of standard best practice, mitigation measures and stakeholder engagement during

Project implementation. Risks for the ALT project may be considered by some to be limited in scale,

identified with a reasonable degree of certainty and addressed through application of standard best practice.

However, several additional factors suggest the risk categorization is likely to be ‘high.’ High risk projects

include activities with potentially significant and/or irreversible adverse social and environmental risks and

impacts. Land titling has potentially significant impacts that are likely to be irreversible. Additionally, if

an activity raises ‘significant concerns among potentially affected communities and individuals as

expressed during the stakeholder engagement process’, it is considered ‘High Risk.’ Significant concerns

have been raised by communities. Finally, ‘High Risk activities may involve significant impacts on

socioeconomic, or cultural resources’ and, as described above, this is the case for the ALT project. In this

situation, the potentially irreversible impacts could occur to indigenous peoples and their culture and

wellbeing.

Question 5. Based on the identified risks and significance, what requirements of the SES are relevant?

For each risk identified as Moderate or High significance, the related SES principles and standards need to

be considered and applied. Although this review does not utilize all information needed to identify the

significance of risk for each of the risks above, the risk to indigenous peoples is highly significant, and the

Indigenous Peoples standard would, therefore, apply. Risks related to Human Rights, Gender Equality,

Displacement and Resettlement, and Cultural Heritage also appear to be of high significance, and, as such,

require application of relevant requirements of these standards.

Question 6: What is the level of social and environmental assessment and management required to

address potential impacts and risks (for Moderate and High Risk Projects)?

When a Project is categorized as Moderate or High Risk, as the ALT project would be, some form of social

and environmental assessment is required to ensure compliance with the SES. As noted in the SESP

Guidance document, a full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment is required for projects such as

the ALT project that ‘may adversely impact the rights, lands, resources and territories of indigenous

peoples.’ Measures to avoid and mitigate possible impacts are specified in a Social and Environmental

Management Plan, which, for the ALT project, should also include at least an Indigenous Peoples Plan.

Given the significant human rights-related issues raised by the ALT project, a specific human rights impact

assessment and a social and conflict analysis may also be necessary.

As noted in the SESP Guidance document, High Risk Projects require enhanced internal and external

support, including, for example, relevant UNDP thematic area specialists (internal support) and expertise

outside of UNDP. In the context of the ALT project, expertise in human rights, and, in particular, issues

related to findings of the CERD, e.g., issues related to the Amerindian Act of 2006, as well as issues related

to findings of other human rights bodies, need to be considered and addressed. UNDP human rights

expertise is available to provide such assistance.

Possible Management Measures to consider in response to highly significant risks are described below in

Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks. Note that this is not a complete list

of measures – other measures are identified in the specific standards that correspond to the risk in the ‘Risk

Description’ (first column in Part B.), e.g., the Risk 9 risk that ‘land titling could adversely affect human

rights, lands, territories, resources, traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples risk of impact to

Indigenous rights’ should be addressed by measures reflected in the standard on Indigenous Peoples.

Annex [#]. Social and Environmental Screening Template

The completed template, which constitutes the Social and Environmental Screening Report, must be included as an annex to the Project Document.

Please refer to the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure and Toolkit for guidance on how to answer the 6 questions.

Project Information

Project Information

1. Project Title Guyana: Amerindian Land Titling Project (ALT Project)

2. Project Number 00077798

3. Location

(Global/Region/Country) South America/Guyana

Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability

QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability?

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approach

Provide narrative description here

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowerment

Provide narrative description here

Briefly describe in the space below how the Project mainstreams environmental sustainability

Provide narrative description here

Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks

QUESTION 2: What are the

Potential Social and

Environmental Risks?

Note: Describe briefly potential

social and environmental risks

identified in Attachment 1 – Risk

Screening Checklist (based on any

“Yes” responses). If no risks have

been identified in Attachment 1

then note “No Risks Identified”

and skip to Question 4 and Select

“Low Risk”. Questions 5 and 6 not

required for Low Risk Projects.

QUESTION 3: What is the level of significance

of the potential social and environmental risks?

Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before

proceeding to Question 6

QUESTION 6: What social and environmental

assessment and management measures have

been conducted and/or are required to address

potential risks (for Risks with Moderate and

High Significance)?

Risk Description Impact

and

Probabili

ty (1-5)

Significan

ce

(Low,

Moderate,

High)

Comments Description of assessment and management

measures as reflected in the Project design. If

ESIA or SESA is required note that the assessment

should consider all potential impacts and risks.

Risk 1: Potential adverse impacts on

enjoyment of the human rights (civil,

political, economic, social or cultural)

of the affected population and

particularly of marginalized groups

I =

P =

High

(given

involveme

nt of

indigenou

s peoples

and land

rights

issues)

See Human Rights Principle and related guidance.

A Few Possible Management Measures to Consider:

- Ensure that information provided to all

stakeholders to help avoid impacts to human

rights of indigenous communities includes

findings of UN bodies.

- Seek clarification when rights remain unclear.

- Ensure that land titling measures reflect these

rights and information

- Engage UN bodies in human rights capacity

building efforts

Risk 2 Marginalized/vulnerable

groups may be excluded from

participatory processes and/or project

benefits

I =

P =

Yes, this is possible See Human Rights and Gender Principles

See, also, Policy Delivery Process, which directs

UNDP to adopt differentiated measures to ensure

that impacts do not fall disproportionately on

marginalized groups.

Risk 3: Land titling activities could

exacerbate conflicts among

stakeholders

I =

P =

High A Few Possible Management Measures to Consider:

See Measures for Risk 1. and Risk 9

See also Indigenous Peoples Standard ,which

includes measures such as an Indigenous Peoples

Plan

Risk 4: Women may not fully benefit

from land titling

I =

P =

Yes, this is possible Human Rights and Gender Principles

The Gender Principle, for example, reflects a need

for measures to ensure equitable access to resources

and comparable benefits among genders.

Risk 5: Habitats may be adversely

impacted by land use changes

I =

P =

High Yes, this is possible See Biodiversity Standard which includes a

directive to incentivize the protection and

conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem

services, among other measures

Risk 6: Cultural heritage sites/areas

may be adversely affected if not

included in titled areas

I =

P =

Yes, this is possible See Cultural Heritage Standard, which includes

requires measures to avoid impacts to cultural

heritage

Risk 7: Physical displacement, and

potentially forced evictions, could

result from exclusion of occupied

lands/territories in land titling

I =

P =

High Yes, concerns were

expressed about this

Possible Management Measures to Consider:

See Measures for Risk 1 and Risk 9.

Displacement Standard Measures

Risk 8: Economic displacement could

result from access restrictions to

lands currently under use but not

included in titling

I =

P =

High Yes, concerns were

expressed about this

Possible Measures to Consider:

See Measures for Risk 1. and Risk 9

Displacement Standard Measures

Risk 9: Depending on scope and

process, land titling could adversely

affect human rights, lands, territories,

resources, traditional livelihoods of

indigenous peoples

I =

P =

High

(given

involveme

nt of

indigenou

s peoples

and land

rights

issues)

Yes Possible Measures to Consider:

- See Possible Measure for Risk 1.

- Determine if FPIC definition and application is

consistent with UNDP guidance on FPIC.

- Acknowledge and utilize maps prepared by

indigenous communities during the mapping effort

– and pursue joint mapping when indigenous

communities agree

Indigenous Peoples Standard Measures

QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization?

Select one (see SESP for guidance) Comments

Low Risk ☐

Moderate Risk ☐

High Risk ☐

X

QUESTION 5: Based on the identified risks and

risk categorization, what requirements of the SES

are relevant?

Check all that apply Comments

Principle 1: Human Rights ☐

X

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s

Empowerment ☐

X

1. Biodiversity Conservation and Natural

Resource Management

☐X

2. Climate Change Mitigation and

Adaptation ☐

X

3. Community Health, Safety and Working

Conditions ☐

4. Cultural Heritage ☐

X

5. Displacement and Resettlement ☐

X

6. Indigenous Peoples ☐

X

7. Pollution Prevention and Resource

Efficiency ☐

Final Sign Off

Signature Date Description

QA Assessor UNDP staff member responsible for the Project, typically a UNDP Programme Officer. Final

signature confirms they have “checked” to ensure that the SESP is adequately conducted.

QA Approver UNDP senior manager, typically the UNDP Deputy Country Director (DCD), Country Director

(CD), Deputy Resident Representative (DRR), or Resident Representative (RR). The QA

Approver cannot also be the QA Assessor. Final signature confirms they have “cleared” the SESP

prior to submittal to the PAC.

PAC Chair UNDP chair of the PAC. In some cases PAC Chair may also be the QA Approver. Final signature

confirms that the SESP was considered as part of the project appraisal and considered in

recommendations of the PAC.

SESP Attachment 1. Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist

Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks

Principles 1: Human Rights Answer

(Yes/No)

1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political,

economic, social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups?

Yes

2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on

affected populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals

or groups? 21

Yes

3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic

services, in particular to marginalized individuals or groups?

Yes

4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in

particular marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them?

Yes

5. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in the Project? Yes

6. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? Yes

7. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns

regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process?

Yes

8. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conflicts among and/or the risk of violence to

project-affected communities and individuals?

Yes

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality and/or

the situation of women and girls?

Yes

2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender, especially

regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and benefits?

Yes

3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during the

stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and in

the risk assessment?

Yes

3. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural resources,

taking into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental

goods and services?

For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion in

communities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being

Yes

Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screening questions regarding environmental risks are

encompassed by the specific Standard-related questions below

21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation,

religion, political or other opinion, national or social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as

an indigenous person or as a member of a minority. References to “women and men” or similar is understood to include

women and men, boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such as

transgender people and transsexuals.

22

Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management

1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modified, natural, and critical

habitats) and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services?

For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological

changes

No

1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or environmentally

sensitive areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park), areas proposed

for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous peoples or local

communities?

Yes22

1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse impacts

on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to

lands would apply, refer to Standard 5)

Yes

1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? Yes

1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? Yes

1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or reforestation? No

1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of fish populations or other aquatic

species?

No

1.8 Does the Project involve significant extraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground

water?

For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwater extraction

No

1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting,

commercial development)

No

1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental concerns? No

1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could lead to

adverse social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impacts with other known

existing or planned activities in the area?

For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental and social

impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may

also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial

development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or

induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar developments in the same forested area

are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple activities (even if not part of the same Project)

need to be considered.

Yes

Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

2.1 Will the proposed Project result in significant23 greenhouse gas emissions or may exacerbate climate

change?

No

22 This is particularly for the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area and Shell Beach Protected Area. 23 In regards to CO2, ‘significant emissions’ corresponds generally to more than 25,000 tons per year (from both direct

and indirect sources). [The Guidance Note on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation provides additional information

on GHG emissions.]

23

2.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of

climate change?

No

2.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental

vulnerability to climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)?

For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of floodplains,

potentially increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, specifically flooding

Yes

Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions

3.1 Would elements of Project construction, operation, or decommissioning pose potential safety risks

to local communities?

No

3.2 Would the Project pose potential risks to community health and safety due to the transport, storage,

and use and/or disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials (e.g. explosives, fuel and other

chemicals during construction and operation)?

No

3.3 Does the Project involve large-scale infrastructure development (e.g. dams, roads, buildings)? No

3.4 Would failure of structural elements of the Project pose risks to communities? (e.g. collapse of

buildings or infrastructure)

No

3.5 Would the proposed Project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to earthquakes,

subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme climatic conditions?

No

3.6 Would the Project result in potential increased health risks (e.g. from water-borne or other vector-

borne diseases or communicable infections such as HIV/AIDS)?

No

3.7 Does the Project pose potential risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational health and safety

due to physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during Project construction,

operation, or decommissioning?

No

3.8 Does the Project involve support for employment or livelihoods that may fail to comply with

national and international labor standards (i.e. principles and standards of ILO fundamental

conventions)?

No

3.9 Does the Project engage security personnel that may pose a potential risk to health and safety of

communities and/or individuals (e.g. due to a lack of adequate training or accountability)?

No

Standard 4: Cultural Heritage

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impact sites,

structures, or objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible

forms of culture (e.g. knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to protect and

conserve Cultural Heritage may also have inadvertent adverse impacts)

Yes

4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for

commercial or other purposes?

No

Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement

5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical

displacement?

Yes

5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to

resources due to land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical relocation)?

Yes

24

5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions?24 Yes

5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community based

property rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?

Yes

Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples

6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of influence)? Yes

6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories claimed

by indigenous peoples?

Yes

6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands, natural resources, territories,

and traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples (regardless of whether indigenous peoples possess

the legal titles to such areas, whether the Project is located within or outside of the lands and

territories inhabited by the affected peoples, or whether the indigenous peoples are recognized as

indigenous peoples by the country in question)?

If the answer to the screening question 6.3 is “yes” the potential risk impacts are considered

potentially severe and/or critical and the Project would be categorized as either Moderate or High

Risk.

Yes

6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with the objective of

achieving FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and

traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned?

Yes

6.5 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of natural

resources on lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples?

No

6.6 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic displacement of

indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, and resources?

Yes

6.7 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples as defined by

them?

Yes

6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples? No

6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including through

the commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?

Yes

Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency

7.1 Would the Project potentially result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to routine or

non-routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary

impacts?

No

7.2 Would the proposed Project potentially result in the generation of waste (both hazardous and non-

hazardous)?

No

7.3 Will the proposed Project potentially involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or use of

hazardous chemicals and/or materials? Does the Project propose use of chemicals or materials

subject to international bans or phase-outs?

No

24 Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals,

groups, or communities from homes and/or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon,

thus eliminating the ability of an individual, group, or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence,

or location without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.

25

For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as the

Stockholm Conventions on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the Montreal Protocol

7.4 Will the proposed Project involve the application of pesticides that may have a negative effect on

the environment or human health?

No

7.5 Does the Project include activities that require significant consumption of raw materials, energy,

and/or water?

No

Draft Recommendations

In response to the following key issues identified during the screening, draft recommendations are detailed

below.

(1) The need for clarified and strengthened stakeholder engagement, representation structures and decision

making processes at all levels;

(2) The need for a clear process and criteria for investigations (in the context of the titling process) pursuant

to the Amerindian Act of 2006;

(3) The need for additional/new dispute resolution processes to address conflicts that exist within and

among Amerindian communities, as well as between Amerindian communities and various other

parties asserting claims to lands and resources claimed by Amerindian communities;

(4) The need for adequate acknowledgement and protection in the Amerindian Act of 2006 of rights of

Amerindian communities to lands and resources traditionally used and occupied

Recommendations to address these key issues involve two parallel tracks of work – one for issues that can

be addressed in the short term, and one for issues that likely will take a longer period of time. Immediate

next steps and the two strategy tracks of work are described below:

Track 1 – Clarify shorter-term solutions – Jointly MoIPA and UNDP CO-led with help from UNDP

HQ. Process initiated in December 2015 and finalized by Q1 2016.

UNDP CO to facilitate an in-country process to identify a working group to examine and validate

guidelines to ensure a shared understanding of how the following three key project components are to

be implemented: (1) Stakeholder Engagement; (2) Criteria and Process for Titling; and (3)

Process/mechanism for responding to grievances/resolving disputes. Terms of reference for the group

will outline criteria for membership. Recommend broader representation than project board, and

including people who can engage on these issues with a view to finding solutions (including

representatives from MoIPA, GGMC, GL&SC, GFC, the National Toshaos Council, Amerindian

representatives, Indigenous Peoples Organizations, and Independent Advisors)

UNDP to prepare, with support from a UNDP Consultant, draft guidelines for discussion, revision,

and approval by the working group and others through the following process:

o Develop an annotated outline of possible guidelines based on discussions, information, and

literature gathered to date.

o In consultation with project suppliers/beneficiaries, identify a process through which these

annotated guidelines can be further consulted upon and elaborated. The process document

will describe who will be consulted in Georgetown, the hinterland, etc. and why; who

organizes; who joins mission; set of questions, proposed outcome of the process.

o UNDP CO and MoIPA to co-host a 2-3 day information sharing and consultation meeting

with the working group to discuss the draft annotated outline, key issues, and next steps –

including the process elaborated pursuant to the second bullet. (Possibly in December when

the NTC executive meeting is happening).

26

o Immediately following the information sharing/consultation meeting with the working group,

the UNDP consultant will initiate the process to consult on the annotated guidelines,

including some meetings in the hinterlands (2 weeks). Possibly focusing on areas in which

efforts to title would serve as good examples for titling elsewhere.

o Draft guidelines, based on feedback in response to the annotated outline -gathered from the 2-

3 day workshop and meetings in the hinterland - and share for comments.

o UNDP HQ team to return to Guyana, for feedback and validation meeting

o Revise and seek approval of new guidelines on a no objections basis

Track 2 – Explore longer term solutions – led by Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (MoIPA) with

support from UNDP. Track 2 will both be informed by and inform Track 1. Scoping and work to

be initiated in November 2015.

UNDP to provide legal support to MoIPA, including international legal expert, possibly with

assistance from local legal expert (identified by Guyana CO), to (1) enable the GoG and UNDP to

assess the need for additional guidance and legal measures, (2) support the preparation of materials that

respond to identified needs, and (3) otherwise support legal capacity building. These experts will

support the GoG through the following key activities:

o Literature Review: Review the SESP of the ALT project and associated recommendations;

the Report of the October Mission; ALT project documentation and all relevant Guyanese laws,

regulations and policies as a means of identifying key legal issues to be addressed to advance

the ALT project - particularly those related to compliance with human rights norms.

o Analysis and Options Paper: Working closely with relevant GoG and UNDP staff and others,

prepare a brief analysis of 1) key legal issues to be addressed to advance the ALT project and

2) options to address these key issues, including rationale for each option. Circulate to relevant

GoG and UNDP staff and others for feedback.

o Draft legal language: In response to feedback from relevant GoG and UNDP staff, prepare

draft legal language in line agreed option(s). Circulate to relevant GoG and UNDP staff and

others for feedback and revise if necessary.

Government of Guyana to establish, and UNDP to support an Indigenous Peoples Lands

Commission to hear and address disputes related to land claims – both within and outside the context

of the ALT project.

27

Annex 1

List of Meetings

(Names to be added)

UNDP Guyana Country Office

Ms. Khadija Musa, UN Resident Coordinator / UNDP Resident Representative

Patrick Chesney, Programme Specialist

Mr. Ronald Cumberbatch, GRIF Programme Analyst

Ms. Andrea Heath-London, Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Analyst

Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs (MoIPA)

Hon. Sydney Allicock M.P., Vice-President & Minister of Indigenous People’s

Affairs

Mr. Mervyn Williams, Advisor to the Minister of Indigenous People’s Affairs

Mr. David James, Special Assistant to the Minister on Legal issues

Mr. Martin Cheong, Special Assistant to the Minister on Projects

Representatives from the following:

Guyana Geology & Mines Commission

Guyana Forestry Commission

Protected Areas Commission

Ministry of Communities

Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association

National Toshaos Council

Amerindian Peoples Association

The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana

Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples

National Amerindian Development Foundation

Rockstone community, Region 10

Unable to meet with representatives from the following:

Department of Natural Resources and the Environment

Guyana Lands & Surveys Commission