IKI Safeguards FAQ

The IKI safeguards are designed to reinforce the effectiveness and sustainability of the IKI projects and to ensure that the 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).

Projects are assigned one of three overall risk categories: A (high risk), B (moderate risk) or C (low risk). The higher the risk category, the more stringent the safeguards measures and the more important it is to monitor potential adverse impacts.

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.

The overall risk categorisation of a project is based on the Performance Standard with the highest risk level. The implementing organisation proposes the risk category, BMWK and ZUG review the proposal based on a plausibility review.

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 BMWK 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.

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 safeguards assessment 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 a 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, in addition, provide more comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) and Environmental and Social Management Plans or Frameworks (ESMP/ESMF). It can also be necessary to hand in more specific safeguards management plans, depending on the individual project.

Implementing organisations are required to provide the BMWK 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 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, it may be necessary to submit further environmental and social impact assessments, environmental and social management frameworks / plans in addition to the safeguards 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 included in the project proposal 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 BMWK and ZUG within 72 hours. The first point of contact should be its departmental contact at ZUG, not the IKI complaint mechanism. We will then jointly initiate a safeguards amendment process to mitigate the damage done and prevent further harm (Safeguards Policy, chapter 7). In extreme cases, serious breach of safeguard standards may result in project termination. However, finding a solution is our highest concern.

The BMWK 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 harmed people and/or the environment, the implementing organisation must inform the BMU 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 that projects moved to risk category B must then satisfy the safeguards requirements for category B projects, etc.

Compliance with safeguards standards and the implementation of safeguards measures is tracked using interim reports, final reports and interim evaluations. In addition, a complaint may also be filed using the independent complaint mechanism.

Yes. Compliance with safeguards standards is reviewed as a standard part of interim evaluations.