Two complaints: This one, 14-002 is filed by Cacica General of the Comarca Ngäbe-Buglé and received by DEG on April 14, 2014 14-001 is filed by Movimiento 10 de Abril (M10) and received by FMO on May 5, 2014 (https://www.deginvest.de/%C3%9Cber-uns/Verantwortung/Beschwerdemanagement/Barro-Blanco/) Complaint description: 30. The Complainants include the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M10), which is an organisation centred in the three communities that are likely to be most affected by the dam and the General Cacica of the Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé, Silvia Carrera. Both complainants are supported and represented by two international NGOs with offices in the Netherlands – SOMO and Both Ends. 32. With regard to admissibility, the Panel declared that the complaint was admissible on 17 June 2014. 33. The nature of the complaint put forward by the complainants was that the failure to ensure the project’s compliance with international human rights standards meant that the institutions failed to comply with standards which applied to the lenders, in particular IFC's performance standards, FMO’s Human Rights Policy and the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. It is important to note that the nature of the complaint and the scope of the issues considered by the Panel are necessarily restricted to the actions of the lenders. 40. There are a number of relevant IFC Performance Standards which the complainants claim have not been satisfied by the lenders in relation to this project. These are the following:  Adequacy of social and environmental impact assessment - it is argued that the social and environmental assessment based on the EIA process was not sufficient to meet the standards set out in PS1  Community engagement and consultation process was insufficient to meet the requirements of PS 1 and PS 7. The complaint argues that in various ways the documented meeting engagement and consultation process was not of a sufficient quality to fulfil the requirements of these two performance standards  Inadequate resettlement and forced eviction process. In terms of the failure to minimise resettlement, mitigate adverse impacts and improve or at least restore livelihoods of any displaced persons, the complainants argue that there have been breaches of PSs 7 and 5.  With regards to biodiversity, the complainants argue that the lenders failed to ensure that the impact of the project on biodiversity was properly assessed, particularly taking into account the different values attached to biodiversity by specific stakeholders, as well as impact on ecosystem services. The argument is that this not in line with paragraph 4 of PS 6.  Finally, the complainants argue that the lenders had not ensured that PS 8 was fully complied with in the sense that impacts on cultural heritage were not adequately assessed or mitigated (Source: Compliance Review Report, '2. Background / Complaint: 2.1 Overview / Summary of the complaint', pg 8-9, https://www.deginvest.de/DEG-Documents-in-English/About-DEG/Responsibility/Barro_blanco_final_report_EN.pdf)