,

Moving towards a binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

The idea of ​​moving forward in an international instrument that responds to the regulatory challenges generated by the actions of international companies is taking on a new impetus in 2013, based on the initiative of a group of countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa. From the identification of numerous cases of human rights violations by transnational corporations, it was decided to create a space that would allow the debate on the creation of a legally binding instrument. The statement made at that time highlighted that:

The growing number of cases of human rights abuses and violations committed by transnational corporations remind us of the need to move towards a legally binding framework to regulate the work of transnational corporations and to provide adequate protection, justice and reparations to victims of transnational corporations. abuses against human rights, related to the activities of certain transnational corporations and other enterprises.

So far, the legal framework regulating the activities of international companies has been summarized in non-binding instruments and mechanisms: among them the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines and the UN Working Group on companies and human rights. Such instruments have limited powers to monitor companies’ compliance with the Principles and only provide a partial response to urgent issues related to human rights abuses by transnational corporations. These principles and mechanisms do not adequately respond to the regulatory challenges of actors such as international companies. In addition, they fail to secure access to justice in the face of actions by transnational corporations that have an impact on human rights or to ensure adequate reparations for victims.
Resolution 26/9, established by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 26 June 2014, created the Working Group mandated “to develop a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other enterprises in international human rights law“.
An international legally binding instrument, adopted within the United Nations system, would make clear the obligations of transnational corporations, both in the field of human rights and in the face of States. It would also allow for fair reparations for victims in cases where it is clearly impossible to effectively prosecute companies with domestic legislation.

Meetings were held in the years following the formation of the intergovernmental group (2015 and 2016) to further advance the treaty negotiations. In 2017, the third session of the group was held, seeking to outline a possible textof the legally binding instrument.

During the course of the first two sessions both civil society organizations and participating States stressed that:

– The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights did not address the core of the debate on maximum protection of human rights and access to justice and redress.

– Any binding instrument should clearly establish the obligation of transnational corporations to respect environmental, health and labor standards and international humanitarian law.

– The gender perspective was requested to be incorporated into the instrument, as human rights violations committed by transnational corporations could accentuate previous inequalities and have negative gender consequences.

– It was noted that the working group process was related to the implementation of Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.

– International financial institutions could also be included in the scope of the instrument, which would be consistent with international law.

– The size of the companies to which the treaty should apply was discussed, taking into account the activities of all companies, but focusing on transnational corporations.

– NGOs agreed to recognize the principle of human rights hierarchy in other areas of international law, in particular the rules on trade and investment protection.

For the 2017 session civil society has sought to achieve greater commitment on the road to the creation of the treaty. Numerous organizations and social movements are driving the generation of this instrument to finally achieve better levels of accountability on the part of transnational corporations. Groups such as Stop Corporate Impunity and Treaty Movement have been involved in trying to incorporate the vision of civil society organizations into the text of the treaty. In addition, the G77 + China Group, in its Ministerial Declaration of 2017, emphasized the importance and acceptance of a binding treaty; and urged Member States to participate in the third session to be held in Geneva.

In contrast, the International Business Community has emphasized that the elements to be included in the treaty proposed by the Intergovernmental Group represent a ‘setback on the commitments assumed from the Guiding Principles’. In this regard, it was emphasized that the almost exclusive approach in transnational corporations does not take into account the serious human rights violations caused by the actions of national companies. Likewise, it stresses that the creation of a legally binding instrument removes the power of States, and even underestimates them, when enforcing the current regulations. In addition, the need to strengthen state institutions is emphasized rather than embarking on the creation of such an instrument.

Since the creation of the Intergovernmental Working Group, the debate has focused on the need to define the approach of the treaty. Civil society has stressed the urgent need to involve transnational corporations, while the corporate community and the states of the European Union plus the United States have rejected this perspective.

The role of Argentina in the face of the discussion

Argentina’s position on this issue has not been entirely clear. During the management of Cristina Fernandez, the decision was to abstain in the vote to try to create the binding instrument. However, under the management of Mauricio Macri, there was no formalisation of a position. However, following a request for access to information to the Ministry of RREE and Worship, a response was received which showed that the Argentine Republic shares the growing interest of the international community in linking corporate responsibility with respect to human rights. In the same way, it maintains an active commitment with the initiatives aimed at raising the standards in this matter.

In this sense, it should be mentioned that it seems that Argentina is positively inclined towards this initiative. It is also worth noting that in the middle of this year a first version of a National Action Plan for the application of the Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business was presented.

During the remaining days of the third session, the debate will continue on the generation of a binding instrument and we hope that the result will be a substantive advance regarding the obligations of companies to respect and guarantee human rights. Likewise, we hope that Argentina will assume a position of support for this initiative and that in that process it will allow the participation of civil society organizations and in particular of communities that have been impacted by the actions of transnational corporations.

Author

Agustina Palencia, agustinapalencia@fundeps.org 

Contact

Juan Carballo, juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Global Meeting of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

From October 7 to 9, 2017, the 2017 Meeting of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development was held, a global coalition of social movements, civil society organizations and community groups of which we are part, and which works to ensure that all institutions that finance development respect, protect and fulfill human rights.

The agenda of the meeting focused on strengthening the relations of Coalition members and allies, closely examining the current development model, identifying strategies and modes of collaboration to successfully address it, and setting priorities and key initiatives for the next two years. This, after a 2016 where the work of the Coalition and its members was very active (see Coalition’s Impact Report 2016).

Over the course of three days, more than 60 participants from various regions of the world participated in discussions, activities and strategic discussions around a number of key issues. Among them, we sought to share experiences, challenges, lessons learned, and future needs around community participation partnerships; efforts were made to establish priorities for collective action and to strengthen the Coalition’s connections, collaborations and campaigns, and progress was made in the elaboration of a Collective Action Plan.

Within this framework, some global advocacy goals were selected, such as strengthening gender work and development finance or monitoring Chinese funding for development projects. Specific institutional focuses were also established, such as the New BRICS Development Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank.

More information

– Coalition’s Impact Report 2016

– Web page of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

Contact

Juan Carballo / Executive Director of FUNDEPS

juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Discussions on Independent Accountability Mechanisms in Greece

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

Last Wednesday, August 30, at the annual meeting of the Network of Independent Accountability Mechanisms(IAMNet) held this year in the city of Thessaloniki, Greece, a roundtable discussion between representatives of the mechanisms and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) working on accountability agendas, including FUNDEPS. At the same time, a public outreach event was held to present the work of the IAMNet Network and the characteristics and mandates of the main accountability mechanisms of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs), Inspection of the World Bank, the MICI of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB Group) or the CAO of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), among others.

For their part, the CSOs that participated in the event addressed opportunities and challenges in accountability in the IFIs and the work that has been done from civil society in accountability.

At the round table, a technical discussion was held around a key question regarding the function of this type of mechanism: “Can Dispute Resolution be compatible with Rights?”. Recall that most of the IFIs’ independent accountability mechanisms have a dispute resolution function for complaints from communities affected by projects funded by these financial institutions. In that regard, the current problems of the dispute resolution process were discussed in the way it is currently being developed; and sought to address what an effective rights-based dispute resolution process should be, and what their outcomes should be.

On the other hand, in the days leading up to and after the aforementioned event, strategic meetings of two working groups were held that address issues and agendas related to our work at Fundeps. On 28 and 29 August the annual meeting of the EuroIFI network was held and on 31 August a strategic meeting of the IAWG (International Advocates Working Group) working group, of which we are part. The EuroIFI Network is an informal network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that focus their work on IFIs such as the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Monetary Fund, among others. The IAWG is a network of NGOs around the world that share information, lessons learned, best practices and strategies around accountability mechanisms; and supports communities that complain to these mechanisms.

Our participation in these three events has been very useful, not only because we were able to share information and experiences in terms of accountability with key players in this agenda, but also because it has enabled us to know and acquire more information regarding specific cases of presentation of complaints to this kind of mechanisms. Moreover, in view of our work on accountability mechanisms, and in particular in relation to the ICIM and the advice we are giving to communities in Córdoba and Bolivia regarding the possible submission of complaints to the ICIM.

More information

– Network of Independent Accountability Mechanisms

– Video on the IAMnet network

– MICI website

– Inspection Panel website

– CAO website

– Glass Half Full. The state of accountability in development finance – Enero de 2016

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

, ,

Repeated figurine: garbage, conflicts and San Roque lake

The project “Centro Ambiental Carlos Paz” presents serious irregularities and violates environmental regulations and participation. It would affect Lake San Roque and would not be a definitive regional solution to the historical problem related to the integral management of solid urban waste.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 In the province of Cordoba, our officials continue to fail to provide an adequate and committed response to the problem of solid urban waste management. As in the elaboration of many other public policies deaf ears are made to the recommendations of science, technology and the needs of the citizens.

The management of urban solid waste is considered one of the main environmental problems of our society. And as a consequence of this, Argentina has an Integrated Management Program for Urban Solid Waste (GIRSU) -AR-L1151 financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

The Program finances works for the integral management of urban solid waste (MSW) and the recovery of degraded areas due to the poor disposition of such residues. The total cost of the program is 150 million dollars within the same is the Environmental Center Villa Carlos Paz, whose name is already biased since it would be more accurate to talk about a landfill. A landfill is a place destined to the final disposition of trash, in which multiple measures are taken to reduce the impacts to the environment. In short, it seeks to reduce and isolate waste and develop mechanisms to treat liquids and gases produced by the decomposition of organic matter.

The questioned Environmental Center Villa Carlos Paz pretends to be a landfill where there is now an open dump. The autoconvocado neighborhood group, opposes the construction of the landfill in the selected place and approved by the Secretariat of Environment and Climate Change of Cordoba. Since the beginning of this year we are working together with neighbors and neighbors of the area. The reasons why we require the relocation of this project of more than 200 million pesos are varied. The guidelines of science and technology have not been followed for the elaboration and construction of this type of works and are violating environmental norms and citizen participation.

First, the environmental impact study (EIA) presents inconsistencies.

* Probable outdated baseline studies: There is a high probability of a mismatch of baseline description of water quality, soil, air as a function of the behavior of natural and environmental variables and impacts evaluated . The exact date of its elaboration is not known, but the EIA was presented by TecnoMak S.A. On March 30, 2015, had an opinion of the Technical Interdisciplinary Committee on February 29, 2016 and was submitted to a public hearing on April 6 of that year. In this context, both for the instance of citizen participation and for the execution of the work, the study was done in a context that is not the current one.

* Lack of clarity on the basis for the selection of the location of the work: it is objectionable the justification of the choice of the farm to carry out the works. To carry out the project TecnoMak S.A. Considered three possible properties, however it is unknown the fundamentals by which it was chosen for its location in the building of the current open dump. Neither are the reasons why the other two alternatives were ruled out.

* Possible impacts to the lake and a reserve: The situation is aggravated by the fact that it is intended to build a few meters from Lake San Roque on land that may have a greater propensity to seep or leach into the water and adjoining a protected natural area Natural Reserve La Calera).

* Use of outdated census data: The EIA uses data from the 2008 national population census, with one being carried out in 2010, which shows considerable changes in the number of inhabitants of the area.

Secondly, the resolutions of the administration that establish the useful life of the project are not clear. The first opinion of the Interdisciplinary Technical Commission of the Environment Secretariat (February 29, 2016) suggests that “the draft module for the final disposal of MSW will be maximum for a use of six years.” It also recommends that the use of the module for the final disposal of RSU receives only the waste from the town of Villa Carlos Paz. Following the public hearing held on April 6, 2016, and without public prefeasibility studies, a second opinion of the ITC decided to extend the useful life of the project to twenty years, as well as the number of communes reached To the towns of Villa Río Icho Cruz, Mayu Sumaj, Cuesta Blanca, Tala Huasi, Cabalango and Malagueño. In summary, the reasons for which this decision was taken are not known, the plane with the exact coordinates where the Landfill and the total number of projected modules.

Thirdly, the right to participation of citizens living within the area of ​​influence of the project was affected. The art. 67 of Law 10,208 establishes that the public hearing process must be carried out in the area of ​​influence of the project and open participation. In this case, the public hearing was convened only in Villa Carlos Paz (Department of Punilla), and one of the areas most affected by the proximity of the property is the municipality of Malagueño, belonging to the Department of Santa Maria. In addition, the possibility of convening a popular consultation was not foreseen, considering the possible categorization of the project as having a high environmental complexity (article 68, law 10,208).

This alarming project has an environmental license approved by the Ministry of Environment of the Province, and the EIA has not been prepared in strict compliance with the current regulatory framework. Socio-environmental conflict is imminent and works can begin at any time.

The excessive growth in the volume of waste in today’s society is endangering the capacity of nature to maintain our needs and those of future generations. Population and consumption grow, and as a consequence, also the amount of garbage we generate. The problem is that the space does not grow and that we are not giving the right treatment.

We have submitted requests for information to the Secretary of Environment of the Province of Córdoba, the Municipality of Malagueño and the Municipality of Villa Carlos Paz. In addition, on May 8, we approached a note to IDB officials in Argentina responsible for following up on the program by letting us know about these concerns.

We demand transparency, accountability and coherence in government acts. We need integral and long-term solutions for the integral management of solid urban waste. Our officials are obliged to comply with current standards and to ensure that human rights and the environment are respected. It is not possible to make decisions democratically at any cost and regardless of the conditions.

More information

Contact

Male Martinez, malemartinez@fundeps.org

María Victoria Gerbaldo, victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org

,

Call for nominations to form the ICIM External Consultative Group

The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI – acronym in Spanish) of the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) opened a calling on nominations for members of the Mechanism´s External Consultative Group (GCE – acronym in Spanish). Applications can be made until November 30, 2016.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

On November 3, and after a period of consultations that extended over the last months, the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB Group) opened the call for nominations to form the External Advisory Group (GCE) of the Mechanism. The purpose of the CGE is to support the ICIM’s commitment to fulfilling its accountability mandate in a credible, effective and transparent manner.

The MICI distributed the GCE Conceptual Note in early June 2016 to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including representatives of civil society, government officials and civil society experts. From Fundeps we contributed in this process sending comments and participating in a series of consultations regarding the Concept Note. While we recognized and welcomed this initiative, in part, in response to the suggestions provided in the publication “Glass Half Full: The state of accountability in development finance“; We also make a number of recommendations and suggestions regarding the membership, composition and objectives and functions of the CGE (for full comments on the CCE Concept Note sent to the ICIM, access here)

The MICI recently released the Report on the Consultation Process for the CGE, which contains all the feedback received and the ICIM’s replies. In turn, this feedback was incorporated into the CGE’s Operating Procedures, which contain information about membership composition, member responsibility, and the process for selecting members, including selection criteria.

Candidates interested in applying for the CGE must submit the following information:

– Curriculum vitae.

– An Interest expression of a page expressing the reason why they wish to serve in the CGE and how their experience will add value to the group.

The application must be sent no later than November 30 to John Garrison of MICI at jgarrison@iadb.org. The names and profiles of those selected as members of the CGE will be published in mid-December.

More information:

– Operational Procedures – MICI External Advisory Group (GCE) – October 3, 2016

– Conceptual Note for External Consultative Group. Draft Proposal for Consultation – June 6, 2016

– Comments on the Draft Conceptual Note for the formation of an ICIM External Advisory Group – July 29, 2016

– Report of the Consultation Process on the ICIM External Consultative Group – September 30, 2016

– Glass Half Full. The state of accountability in development finance – January 2016

– MICI website

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of the Global Governance Area

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Civil society organizations call for transparency in World Bank safeguards review

On Thursday 26 May, FUNDEPS and other 68 civil society organizations from different countries, signed a letter asked World Bank management to maintain transparency throughout the ongoing review of its environmental and social policies.

Transcurridos cuatro años desde el inicio del proceso de revisión, el Banco Mundial no ha dejado claro en qué momento se hará público el borrador de su nueva política de salvaguardas. Esto impide que la sociedad civil pueda observar el borrador final antes de la deliberación final del Directorio para su aprobación, a pesar que en los últimos años muchos de estos actores aportaron sus percepciones y recomendaciones al procedimiento.

El pasado jueves 26 de mayo, en una carta enviada al Directorio Ejecutivo del Banco, 69 organizaciones – incluyendo a FUNDEPS – demandaron que el borrador final del Nuevo Marco Ambiental y Social sea divulgado públicamente de manera previa a la deliberación de su aprobación por parte del Directorio. Lo cual resultaría consistente con la Política de Acceso a la Información del Banco. La carta enfatiza que la nueva política de salvaguardas tendrá una enorme implicancia en  el nivel de protección de los derechos humanos y la integridad medioambiental en todos los proyectos de desarrollo financiados por la Institución. Muchas de las cuestiones que se debaten en esta revisión son centrales en la agenda de desarrollo global actual, incluyendo el derecho a la tierra, la protección de los bosques y los hábitats naturales, el cambio climático, y la no discriminación e inclusión.

Esperamos recibir una respuesta satisfactoria de la Institución, ya que la divulgación del borrador de manera previa a su consideración por el Directorio dotaría de mayor transparencia a un proceso que fue fuertemente criticado desde sus inicios por parte de la sociedad civil. Para acceder a la carta enviada al Banco (en inglés) acceder aquí.

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Position towards the new Environmental and Social Framework of the WB.

In the framework of a public consult made last December 8th in the city of México, over 180 Civil Society Organizations of Latin America and the Caribbean sent their position regarding the second draft of the new Environmental and Social Framework of the World Bank. They asked for answers to the representatives of the region that are part of the Executive Board.

El pasado martes 8 de diciembre el Banco Mundial llevó adelante, en la ciudad de México, una consulta pública en relación al segundo borrador del nuevo Marco Ambiental y Social (MAS), en el marco de la revisión de las Políticas de Salvaguardas de la Institución. Este proceso, iniciado hace ya más de tres años, ha tenido una participación limitada de la ciudadanía y representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC), no ha sido ampliamente difundido y ha carecido de información oportuna para su revisión de manera previa a la consulta y de criterios claros que establezcan cómo los representantes del Banco responderán a las preocupaciones y propuestas que las OSC han realizado.

El nuevo borrador del MAS está siendo ampliamente criticado por diversos motivos. En particular, se destaca que el Banco no tiene un compromiso explícito respecto a respetar los derechos humanos, que se refleje en sus políticas. El MAS propuesto evita referencias a estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos, lo que es indispensable si se quiere lograr un desarrollo sustentable. Además, el Marco está permeado de un lenguaje ambiguo, es decir, no cuenta con procedimientos definidos, plazos claros y criterios y requisitos obligatorios.

Además, la propuesta del Banco deja abierto el cumplimiento de los estándares, es decir, no define claramente cuándo ni cómo se debe cumplir con lo establecido en el MAS. En el marco vigente, un requisito indispensable consiste en evaluar los impactos y riesgos ambientales y sociales de manera previa a la aprobación de un proyecto, así como publicar las evaluaciones antes de la fase de evaluación de proyectos de alto riesgo. El nuevo Marco, por el contrario, establece que las evaluaciones ambientales y sociales deben iniciarse “lo más temprano posible”, por lo que de entrada pone en riesgo los procesos de consulta, ya que éstos no pueden realizarse de manera efectiva sin que se cuente con la información completa y detallada acerca de un determinado proyecto.

Por esto, más de 180 organizaciones de la región de América Latina y el Caribe (ALC), entre ellas FUNDEPS, se han posicionado frente a este borrador, que va en contra de la misión principal del Banco Mundial sobre erradicar la pobreza extrema y promover una prosperidad compartida. Las organizaciones solicitan una respuesta por parte de los Directores Ejecutivos que representan a la región de ALC.

El MAS del Banco Mundial baja el estándar tanto para el propio Banco, como para toda la comunidad internacional. En lugar de promover un fortalecimiento de estándares, este borrador estimula que otros bancos multilaterales, instituciones financieras internacionales, bancos nacionales de desarrollo y otras iniciativas en el ámbito de desarrollo bajen sus estándares o carezcan de incentivos para fortalecerlos en aras de tener una mayor competitividad.

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global
gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The MICI disseminates its new Policy in Buenos Aires

A workshop that seeks to disseminate the new Policy of the Independent Mechanism of Consult and Investigation (MICI) of the IDB, took place in Buenos Aires. Many civil society´s organizations and individuals from all over the country took part in this event.

El pasado lunes 16 de noviembre se llevó a cabo el Taller “Mecanismo Independiente de Consulta e Investigación: Teoría y Práctica”, cuyo objetivo fue difundir la nueva Política del Mecaniso Independiente de Consulta e Investigación (MICI), recientemente aprobada por el Directorio Ejecutivo del BID. El evento, que fue organizado por el MICI y que se llevó a cabo en las oficinas del Banco interamericano de Desarrollo, contó con la presencia de diferentes representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil del país y de individuos que interpusieron quejas ante el anterior Mecanismo.

El encuentro se dividió en tres sesiones, siendo Victoria Márquez-Mees, designada como la nueva Directora del MICI, la primera oradora. Márquez-Mees comunicó sobre el rol, el alcance y las acciones del MICI en esta nueva etapa, tras la culminación del proceso de revisión de la Política, iniciado en 2013 y finalizado a fines de 2014.

En la segunda sesión se trató la temática “La experiencia como solicitante en un caso MICI”, en la que diferentes solicitantes argentinos comentaron sus experiencias a la hora de interponer una queja ante dicho organismo. Así, expusieron sus respectivos casos el Dr. Gustavo Neme (Programa de Servicios Agrícolas Provinciales II – San Rafael, Mendoza), y los señores Pablo Folonier (Multifase Desarrollo Infraestructura – Paraná, Entre Rios) y Pedro Barragán (Programa de Seguridad y Movilidad Urbana – CABA). Esta sesión también contó con los comentarios de Arantxa Villanueva, Oficial de casos del MICI, y la coordinación de Francisco Giacosa, miembro del equipo de Gobernabilidad Global de nuestra Fundación. Finalmente, la última sesión del taller abordó la relación entre la sociedad civil y el MICI, en la que presentamos nuestra opinión y perspectivas respecto de la nueva Política. Destacamos tanto los aspectos positivos como los negativos de la misma. Asimismo, debatimos junto al resto de los participantes acerca de los principales desafíos que enfrentan en la actualidad los mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de las Instituciones Financieras Internacionales (IFI’s).

El encuentro ha representado una buena oportunidad no solo para promover una mayor difusión de la existencia y funcionamiento del MICI, sino también para compartir valiosas experiencias en relación a quejas presentadas por solicitantes locales e incluso para generar vínculos más estrechos entre la sociedad civil local y el organismo. A su vez, el taller brindó el contexto propicio para presentar y difundir el Folleto sobre el MICI que hemos elaborado y publicado recientemente junto con la organización holandesa SOMO y que se encuentra disponible en nuestra página web (para descargar el documento, acceder al siguiente enlace).

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

, ,

Funding infrastructure in Latin America- COP20, Lima

The frame of activities for the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on the Lima Climate Change Conference, will discuss how international funding and socio environmental safeguards in infrastructure projects in Latin America have an impact on the Amazon jungle.

This event has been jointly organised by FUNDAR, Centre of Analysis and Investigation (Mexico), Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies- FUNDEPS (Argentina) Association for Environment and Society AAS (Colombia) and the Right of the Environment and Natural Resources- DAR (Peru) all constituting as the regional group for Funding and Infrastructure.
The discussion forms part of the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on climate change in Lima. The speakers will tackle the actual state of funding for infrastructure in Latin America from traditional banks like the World Bank Group/ International Finance Corporation and the new bank from the BRIC Countries. A comparative analysis of four projects with external funding has been carried out in Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, evaluating the impacts on the Amazon forest and the instruments (safeguards) for the management of social and environmental risks.

It will especially be about the negative example of Brazil and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES, its acronym in Portuguese). The BNDES, who also funds projects outside of Brazil, has been accused of its lack of transparency, of described social and environmental norms, which have been clearly defined, and the mechanisms guaranteeing the fulfillment of national laws.
It is feared that the recent creation of the BRICS nations bank will neither put enough emphasis on the norms that protect the environment and society in the process of its application. This reality is affecting the policies of traditional banks, such as the World Bank Group or the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Those countries seeking to attract more investment will also react to the changes in the available international funding. Large infrastructure projects that ignore the environmental concerns, such are the cases of CVIS (Peru), Mocoa Pasto (Colombia), Coca Codo Sinclair (Ecuador) and the TIPNIS (Bolivia), are proof of it.

A panel of experts on climate change, megaprojects and governance (transparency, participation, risk management) will debate the key ideas and any advance of the previously mentioned analysis. The session will also give the public the possibility to participate in the debate.

Key questions:

1.How can banks apply safeguards on project funding in Latin America to prevent social conflicts and environmental disasters?
2.What is the role of the new national and regional banks in the funding of regional infrastructure?
3.How the weakening of standards in funding the region affects the countries system? How can these react in front of new challenges?

More information:

– Details on the logistics of the event
– Panorama on the funding for infrastructure in Latin America
– Guideline for the discussion. Implementation of a Freedom of Information Policy for The Brazilian Development Bank
– Paradigmatic cases of BNDES investment in South America. Need and opportunity to improve internal policies

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of Global Governance
gon.roza@fundeps.org

Translated by: Gisela Quevedo

, ,

FUNDEPS participates in the Annual Meeting of the World Bank and the IMF, dominated by the review of the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards

In addition to participating in the discussions and demonstrations that took place regarding the process of reviewing the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards, FUNDEPS met with staff from the IDB and MICI; and it was part of a discussion panel where a publication about the current funding landscape for infrastructure in Latin America, prepared by the Regional Group on Finance and Infrastructure, was presented.

During the course of this last week, FUNDEPS was involved in the 2014 Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington DC (USA).

En el transcurso de la semana pasada, FUNDEPS estuvo participando de las Reuniones Anuales 2014 del Banco Mundial y el FMI en la ciudad de Washington D.C. (Estados Unidos). Si bien la agenda predominante durante estas Reuniones Anuales fue el proceso de revisión y actualización de las Salvaguardias ambientales y sociales del Banco Mundial, la visita a Washington sirvió también para trabajar en una serie de agendas adicionales en las que FUNDEPS está involucrado, tales como el proceso de revisión del MICI del BID; la presentación de una publicación sobre Financiamiento para Infraestructura en América Latina, realizada con el Grupo Regional sobre Financiamiento e Infraestructura; e incluso tener una serie de reuniones estratégicas y de planificación con diversas organizaciones de la región y del mundo.

Sin dudas, la agenda prioritaria actualmente respecto al Banco Mundial es el futuro de las salvaguardias de la Institución, cuyo proceso de revisión tiende a un preocupante debilitamiento y dilución de los estándares ambientales y sociales a cumplir cuando el Banco financia un proyecto en uno de sus países miembros (Ver Comunicado “El Banco Mundial busca debilitar los estándares socio-ambientales en sus proyectos. Respuestas de Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil”). El borrador del nuevo régimen de salvaguardias recientemente publicado por el Banco confirma en gran medida esa tendencia y fue fuertemente criticado y rechazado por gran parte de la sociedad civil alrededor del mundo. Justamente, a principios de Octubre fue enviada al Banco una Declaración con la suscripción de más de 130 organizaciones alrededor del mundo, rechazando el borrador y destacando cuáles son los principales retrocesos que plantea. (Ver Declaración enviada al Banco).

A tal punto llegó la inconformidad de la sociedad civil respecto al proceso de revisión de las salvaguardias, que en el transcurso de la consulta pública planificada por el Banco para el pasado sábado 11 de octubre, la mayoría de los participantes, tras cuestionar tanto las reformas que plantea el Banco como el proceso de consulta en general, decidieron abandonar la sala (Ver Videos sobre la Consulta) y realizar una movilización fuera del Banco, que contó con una amplia participación de diversos actores descontentos no sólo con el proceso de revisión de las salvaguardias sino también con el modelo de gobernanza y financiamiento que plantea la Institución. (Para ver fotos de la movilización acceder Aquí)

En el transcurso de las Reuniones Anuales se confirmaron, también, los lugares en donde se desarrollarán las próximas consultas regionales para brindar comentarios acerca del proceso de revisión siendo Brasil, Paraguay, Perú y Bolivia los países latinoamericanos donde se estarán desarrollando las consultas presenciales en el transcurso del próximo mes.

En cuanto al proceso de revisión del MICI, FUNDEPS aprovechó su presencia en Washington para mantener reuniones presenciales con Victoria Márquez-Mees, Directora Ejecutiva del MICI; y con Flavia Milano, especialista de Sociedad Civil del BID. Más allá de obtener una actualización acerca del estado de la revisión del Mecanismo, las reuniones sirvieron para trasladar al Banco y al equipo del MICI la gran preocupación existente en relación al retroceso en materia de Accesibilidad, Independencia y Efectividad que representa el Borrador de Política Revisada que el Banco ha sometido a consulta. (Ver comunicado “Preocupa el potencial debilitamiento del MICI en el proceso de revisión que está llevando adelante el BID”)

A su vez, con Flavia Milano pudieron tocarse temas de la relación entre el BID y la Sociedad Civil, tales como la situación de los Grupos Consultivos de la Sociedad Civil (ConSOCs); el estado de implementación de la Política de Acceso a la Información, la misma revisión del MICI e incluso las reformas institucionales que está planificando el Banco, como la reforma de la Corporación Interamericana de Inversiones (CII) con el objetivo de darle mayor relevancia al financiamiento de carácter privado (Ver comunicado “En una reunión en la que se excluyó a la sociedad civil, el BID realiza cambios en su estructura”); e incluso el probable inicio de una revisión de las salvaguardias sociales ambientales del Banco, siguiendo los pasos del Banco Mundial.

Finalmente, cabe destacar que en el marco del Policy Forum de la Sociedad Civil de las Reuniones Anuales del Banco Mundial/FMI, se realizó la presentación del documento “Panorama del Financiamiento para Infraestructura en América Latina”, elaborado por el Grupo Regional sobre Financiamiento e Infraestructura, del cual FUNDEPS forma parte junto con otras tres organizaciones de la región: Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR) de Perú; Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) de Colombia; y Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación, de México.

Más información

– Panorama del financiamiento para infraestructura en América Latina

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza

Coordinador del Programa de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org