IKI Safeguards FAQ

The IKI Safeguards system is designed to reinforce the effectiveness and sustainability of IKI projects and to ensure that IKI projects do not negatively impact people and the environment. As such, the IKI is committed to complying with international environmental and social standards as well as the German government’s commitments to international human rights and labour rights treaties.

The goal of the IKI is to advance the harmonisation of international environmental and social standards relating to climate action and biodiversity conservation. That is why the IKI has decided to apply the same standards as the Green Climate Fund, which uses the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. This aims to facilitate the submission of applications by implementing organisations by allowing them to draw on established standards and tools.

Environmental and social risks mean the risk that project activities may adversely impact on people and the environment. Environmental and social risks are wide-ranging. Such risks could include anything from a lack of recycling options for batteries in electromobility projects to insufficient human rights protection for residents living near national parks in conservation projects.

Project risks, however, are external risks that may impact the project or jeopardise its success, e.g. if the new governing party no longer supports the project’s goals or local conflicts make project implementation on the ground more difficult.

Safeguards are protective measures undertaken to prevent, minimise or mitigate potential adverse impacts of project activities on people and the environment. The aim of safeguards is to ensure projects comply with international environmental and social standards.

Exclusion criteria are criteria used to determine what type of project activities are in principle not eligible for funding. Activities may be excluded either for ethical reasons (e.g. collaboration with racist media) or because they pose risks to people and the environment that are so high that safeguards measures may be unable to contain them (e.g. support for nuclear power).

The assessment of the overall risk of a project is based on the IFC Performance Standard with the highest risk rating. The implementing organisation proposes an overarching risk category and the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG carry out a final plausibility check of the proposal.

Projects can be categorised into three overarching risk categories: A (very high), B (medium), C (low). The higher the risk category, the stricter the safeguards measures and the more important the monitoring of potential negative effects.

The risk categories are defined as follows:

A - Activities with high adverse environmental and social risks / impacts that are diverse, unprecedented or irreversible.

B - Activities with moderate adverse environmental and social risks / impacts that are few, site-specific and largely reversible.

C - Activities with low adverse environmental and social risks / impacts.

Please also refer to chapter 3 of the IKI Safeguards Policy.

No. The risk category is determined on the basis of the potential harm that could result from the project if safeguards measures were not implemented.

A project’s overall risk category must be modified if the project’s risk profile changes. This may be the case in the event of changes to project activities; changes to the available information on the potential impact of project activities; or changes in the economic, political or environmental contexts underlying the project. Implementing organisations must promptly inform the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG of any changes to their risk categorisation. They should also review all aspects of the project proposal relevant to safeguards, i.e. update the risk analysis and assess whether existing safeguards measures are still adequate. Further details on the procedure are set out in section 3.3 of the Safeguards-Policy. The revised project proposal, including the safeguards chapter, must be submitted to the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and to ZUG for review. However, no amendment request is required for this (Safeguards Policy, section 6.3.).

Yes. Project requirements depend on whether the project is classified as risk category A (high risk), B (moderate risk) or C (low risk) (Safeguards Policy, Section 4.1). The higher the risk category, the more stringent the project requirements. To achieve this, we follow a risk-based approach to prevent adverse impacts. 

Projects classed as risk category C must specify safeguards measures in the environmental and social risk analysis included in the project proposal and must regularly report on safeguards as part of their reporting requirements.

Projects classed as risk category B must also integrate the most relevant safeguards measures into work packages and must provide at least one safeguards indicator in the impact matrix. These rules aim to anchor safeguards more firmly in project management and ensuring environmental and social risks are monitored.

Projects classed as risk category A must fulfil the same requirements as Category B and C, and, in addition, provide more comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) and a Environmental and Social Management Plan or Framework (ESMP/ESMF). It ma also be necessary to hand in more specific safeguards management plans, depending on the individual project.

Implementing organisations are required to provide the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG with all information necessary for a plausibility review of potential environmental and social risks and safeguards measures are subject. To achieve this, the safeguards section of the project proposal must provide as much detail as possible on the likelihood of a particular risk occurring and the extent, intensity and (ir)reversibility of potential harms. Information on the number and characteristics of people affected and the location and size of affected project areas must also be provided (Safeguards Policy, Section 3.2). This information should be as detailed and accurate as possible. A detailed description of planned safeguards measures is also expected.

Depending on the project’s risk category, it may be necessary to submit further environmental and social impact assessments or environmental and social management frameworks / plans in addition to the information included in the project proposal to provide a full picture of risks and mitigation measures (Safeguards Policy, Section 4.1).

No. In principle, projects with a higher risk category have the same chance of receiving funding as projects with a lower risk category. It is important for the risk analysis to be realistic and for the safeguards measures proposed to credibly contribute to the prevention, minimisation and mitigation of harm. We encourage implementing organisations to optimise integration of safeguards measures into their project planning.

Safeguards should always correspond to the realities of the project. This means that information relevant to safeguards must be reviewed and revised whenever a) new project activities are added as part of an amendment application/request; or b) the environmental and social risk categorisation changes.

If an implementing organisation discovers a breach of safeguards standards, i.e. if project activities have harmed people and/or the environment, it is required to notify the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG within 72 hours. The first point of contact should be its departmental contact at ZUG, not the IKI complaint mechanism. A joint amendment process will then be initiated to mitigate the damage, prevent further harm and remedy adverse impacts (Safeguards Policy, chapter 7). In extreme cases, serious breach of safeguard standards may result in project termination. However, finding a solution is IKI‘s highest concern.

The ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG should be promptly informed of changes to a project’s risk categorisation as well as any breach of safeguards standards. In the event of a breach of safeguards standards, i.e. if project activities have seriously harmed people and/or the environment, the implementing organisation must inform the ministry that is thematically responsible for the project and ZUG within 72 hours of becoming aware of the situation (Safeguards Policy, Section 7.1).

Projects moved to a higher risk category must generally satisfy the requirements of their new risk category (Safeguards Policy, Section 4.1). This means, for instance, that projects moved from risk category C to B must then provide a safeguards indicator.

Compliance with the safeguards standards and the implementation of safeguards measures is tracked as part of the regular reporting cycles and evaluations. Persons affected by the project also have the option of submitting a complaint via the independent complaint mechanism.

Compliance with the IKI Safeguards Standards is reviewed as part of the interim evaluations.