,

Argentina getting closer to the BRICS?

After receiving the support of the Chinese and Indian foreign ministers, Argentina is getting closer to becoming a member of the BRICS group – made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. For Argentina it could represent an opportunity taking into account the current situation in which our country finds itself in terms of external restrictions and financing deficit. However, it is also worth questioning what other implications this union could bring about.

“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 July 8, Argentina took another step towards its rapprochement as a full member of the BRICS group; The event took place after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi confirmed China’s support for Argentina to join the bloc. The meeting between the representatives of both countries took place in Bali, Indonesia, where the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting took place. In it, Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero showed his interest in approaching the BRICS, highlighting the need to deepen multilateralism to accelerate the conclusion of agreements that are beneficial both for the region and for our country. Currently, the rotating presidency of the group is in charge of China, so its support and commitment to those countries that intend to join the bloc is essential. More recently, during his visit to Argentina, the Indian foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, ratified his support for Argentina’s advance towards the bloc. For Argentina, the incorporation into a group of such magnitudes represents a very tempting opportunity in view of the search for new commercial partners. But, what are the BRICS, and what would joining them mean for Argentina?

The term refers to the block made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Headquartered in Brasilia, these countries have been advocating common development for eighteen years, consolidating themselves as a relevant multilateral and strategic space that represents approximately half of the planet’s population and almost a quarter of the global economy. With a prominent role on the world stage, they seek to promote a new financial, economic and commercial architecture through different instruments such as, for example, international investment banks, among which we can highlight the New Development Bank (BDN) and the Contingency Reserves Agreement (ARC).

As an alternative to the conditionalities imposed by the Bretton Woods institutions, the New Development Bank offers better financing conditions for key infrastructure projects based on the principles of non-interference. In this sense, the BRICS countries reflect the growing influence of emerging economies worldwide, proposing themselves as an increasingly influential and alternative space to Western forces. However, we cannot fail to point out that each alternative and form of financing has its own advantages and complications. While the traditional Western proposals have greater restrictions, they are also characterized by being relatively more transparent and having relatively more robust regulatory and accountability frameworks. On the contrary, new alternatives can represent good sources of financing with fewer restrictions but with a great lack of transparency and accountability. As a consequence, the options should not be conceived as mutually exclusive, but rather as complementary.

Argentina sees the possibility of joining the BRICS as an opportunity to promote development and well-being, in addition to functioning as a channel for growing multilateralism and the reconfiguration of the world order. As it is a South-South cooperation platform made up of emerging economies, it could mean for our country a more equitable space for cooperation with greater margins of autonomy.

It is also important to highlight the role played by Argentina’s main trading partners: China and Brazil. During the last twenty years, China has gained an economic presence in the region, showing increasing interest in establishing new strategic associations with countries such as Brazil, Peru or Venezuela. Although it is not the first time that our country has turned its gaze towards new alternatives, it is essential to consider the consequences that could be triggered by such an association. They could be of an economic nature, since a reprimarization of the Argentine economy would be encouraged, or else, of a geopolitical nature, by generating greater tensions with Western partners such as the United States. For its part, the bloc is willing to work to open a path towards an international community characterized by dialogue, for which systemic rupture would be kept away.

In terms of foreign trade, the BRICS bring together 30% of Argentine exports, and provide 45% of our imports, so if the incorporation materializes, it would mean the possibility of obtaining financing and assistance for key projects. On the other hand, the transfer of knowledge in technology and innovation could also be encouraged, which would guarantee a shared cooperation that guarantees inclusion and similar visions.

In this way, it can be argued that being parte of the BRICS could represent a great opportunity for Argentina to strengthen ties with one of the blocks that has been gaining relevance at the international level and that, in addition, brings together two of the greatest powers in the world and with whom it maintains a bond of strategic character. However, the possible implications of such an association should not be overlooked, as well as the consideration that Argentina’s accession process to the BRICS must have the approval of all its member states, for which it may give rise to a procedure slow and extensive. In short, will Argentina be able to consolidate its entry into one of the groups with the greatest economic and geopolitical weight? And in that case, what will be in store for the country to be part of said bloc?

 

More information

Authors

Camila Busso

Candela Jauregui

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Trunk gas pipelines: What will happen to the most vulnerable population?

The Comprehensive Gas Infrastructure Program – or the Trunk Gas Pipeline Program – promoted by the government of the Province of Córdoba, came to an end in 2019 with the completion of the works. By 2022, works continue at the municipal level, and the program has already begun its phase of connection to the natural gas network. However, there are still doubts about how citizens will be able to access the service, especially those who are located in vulnerable sectors.

“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”.

Access to public information and transparency are constituted as a fundamental human right. People have the right to know what will be planned for their communities and based on this, make informed and pertinent decisions about the development processes that will affect their lives.

In the field of public policies, providing and guaranteeing access to public information is the cornerstone of good governance. Transparency is vital to enable individuals and communities to hold their institutions accountable and to foster trust in government and reduce corruption. Ensuring this right results in the generation of opportunities for citizens to learn, grow and make better decisions for themselves and those around them.

Reference to this is relevant when analyzing public policies and programs that aim to contribute to large-scale development. Such is the case of the Comprehensive Gas Infrastructure Program promoted by the Government of the Province of Córdoba. This series of infrastructure works began in 2015 and ended in 2019, with the purpose of “strengthening the natural gas supply to homes, businesses and industries.” According to the Government, 890 million dollars were invested to deploy 2,801 kilometers of pipes that will give the possibility of connecting to the natural gas network to 972,430 Cordovans without service. However, the planning began long before the year of implementation and under sustained skepticism due to the lack of information and transparency regarding its financing, its potential environmental and social impacts, the number of total beneficiaries, among others.

After the end of the project in 2019, there were still doubts about what the connection process would be like for the localities and how citizens would have effective access to the service. Similarly, there were also infrastructure works to be completed at the municipal level. By July 2021, the Government declared that 75 localities already had access to natural gas after the trunk gas pipeline program. Mention was made of the number of inhabitants who will benefit, without regard to information regarding their location and other data that show whether the gaps in inequality in access have begun to close or may be closed as a result of this work. This is of vital importance since the government also spoke about the Bancor credit network for homes and businesses, which would facilitate the connection and obtaining the service. It remained to be seen how those marginalized and vulnerable groups who will find it difficult to access this benefit will be supported, and who therefore will not have access to natural gas -or will be able to do so in the distant future.

Towards 2022 the doubts regarding the scope of this project for the population of Cordoba have not yet dissipated. According to Cordoba news portals, the connection of companies and businesses to the natural gas network is progressing at a much faster pace than the connection of homes. This discrepancy arises more than anything else because connecting to the network is expensive and involves decision-making at the family level. Even when the conditions have been provided to facilitate access – through credits, and the now confirmed support from the provincial government for vulnerable families – not all people are in equal conditions to quickly decide to join the network. In many cases, the connection also requires the structural adaptation of houses and the purchase of household appliances.
Regarding the latter, access to information and transparency play a fundamental role. In the first place, because if the project had been published and socialized correctly with the populations of the affected localities, the families could have decided to plan in advance the connection to the network. Secondly, the role played by government officials when informing and publishing the documentation regarding a project of this caliber is evidenced. This was left in the hands of the municipal level and its mayors, and in many cases their actions to inform the population were deficient -especially considering that works have also been needed at the municipal level to guarantee the connection-.
The practice of publishing information such as the publication of documents does not mean or result in an informed citizenry. Added to the open data and active transparency initiatives are actions aimed at informing the population, such as public consultations. These spaces work -or should work- as opportunities to socialize information about projects and public policies, obtain feedback from citizens and work on a co-creation process. During the beginning of the work of trunk gas pipelines, a good part of the challenges identified had to do with the lack of public consultations -required by law- and the general misinformation of the people about the possible impacts and benefits of the project.

Towards 2022 there is no accurate information on the works carried out in the localities and the public consultations that have been carried out with neighbors. The existence of these instances play a crucial role in citizen decision-making. Especially in these cases when it is a duty to report on the project, warn of the impacts, clarify the benefits and clarify the alternatives that families would have to access the network gas service.

In this sense, even though the work of the Trunk Gas Pipelines represents a great advance for the Province of Córdoba, and the possibility of closing the inequality gaps in access to natural gas, the serious problems regarding access to public information still stand out, transparency and accountability. A project of this magnitude should have had clear and concise information for the population from the beginning, communication channels with citizens, much more transparent work award processes, etc. The process has not yet finished, and there is an opportunity for the provincial government to make an effort to make transparent what remains to be done.

 

More information

Author

Agustina Palencia

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

 

*Photo taken from losprimeros.tv

,

Projects financed by the IDB during the pandemic in Latin America: risks and benefits for whom?

On June 16, we participated in the WEBINAR in which the document was presented: “Investments of the Inter-American Development Bank for the response and recovery to COVID-19 in Latin America. Risks and benefits for whom?”, created in collaboration with more than 10 civil society organizations, including Fundeps.

“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”.

It is widely known that the Multilateral Development Banks have a fundamental role in the response and recovery to COVID – 19, this is due to their ability to rapidly mobilize financing to support and help countries respond to the impacts it has generated. this unforeseen situation. Within Latin America, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) plays a key role in this regard, since, in 2020, it approved 7.9 billion dollars and, as of June 2021, it had approved 597.6 billion dollars.

There is a tendency on the part of the Multilateral Development Banks to consider projects related to health issues, as having a lower risk of environmental and social damage, so the application of safeguards to these projects tends to be less rigorous. Added to this is the fact that many of the projects were approved with a rapid disbursement or fast track modality, that is, with shorter preparation times and environmental and social due diligence.

However, the findings of the presented report show that the implementation of this type of health projects and others in the context of the pandemic, have a significant risk of harm, especially when the groups most susceptible to contracting COVID-19 are excluded. of access to the benefits of the project. The context of crisis is worrying due to the tendency of the Multilateral Development Banks to make environmental and social parameters more flexible in pursuit of rapid responses.

The document presents six recommendations resulting from the analysis of the post-pandemic Latin American situation. They emphasize the importance of taking into account marginalized groups, such as those most likely to be affected and relegated in a crisis situation, and highlight the need for transparency and risk assessment to prevent extraordinary measures that restrict space from being perpetuated. public.

Within this framework, the webinar aimed to generate a space for discussion on the main findings in relation to the social and environmental due diligence processes of IDB investments, approved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At Fundeps we promote the application of socio-environmental regulatory frameworks, accountability mechanisms and access to information in projects linked to financing for development, even (and even more so) when they occur in an extraordinary context of pandemic.

 

View Report

More Information

Authors

  • Lourdes Alvarez Romagnoli
  • Valentina Rasso

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

, , , ,

2021, another year defending human rights

We present the 2021 Yearbook, a synthesis of the work we have carried out at Fundeps in a challenging year, with great struggles and achievements in pursuit of a more just, equitable and sustainable society.

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.

During 2021 we investigated, debated, proposed, worked, and participated in historic victories for human rights. Activities that are reflected in this new edition of the yearbook, which begins with a compilation of our actions in numbers and the main milestones we have achieved.

In addition, we share a summary of the activities carried out in the agendas of our 5 areas: Environment, Democracy, Gender and Sexual Diversity, Global Governance and Health.

2021 was also a year in which we promoted our institutional growth and participated in different activities and meetings to rethink ourselves. In this framework, we present our renewed mission and vision and the values ​​present in each of our initiatives.

We believe that collective action is the way to transform reality. For this reason, we want to thank our entire team, friendly organizations and donors, and those who support us every day to continue defending human rights.

SEE YEARBOOK 2021

,

What does joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank imply for Argentina?

Since 2021, Argentina officially integrates the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. For our country, the AIIB represents a new multilateral source of financing for strategic sectors such as infrastructure, energy, telecommunications and transportation, among others. However, the AIIB is a little-known bank. How does it work and what are the implications for the country of joining this institution promoted mainly by China? We present a new report with the analysis.

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 March 30, 2021, Argentina’s membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was made official. The AIIB officially began its activity in October 2014. It is a new multilateral development bank promoted mainly by China with a focus on investments in infrastructure, especially aimed at emerging countries. Its Asian origin does not limit its actions to a single region, since the Bank has a large number of member countries in other continents and projects financed in South America, Africa and Europe.

The model proposed by China has distinctive features. The dominant feature is that the investments are focused on infrastructure, connectivity and industrialization, marking an important difference with Western development financing entities that, in recent times, have oriented their loans mainly to institutional reforms, health projects, education or fighting against poverty, among others.
In this way, it postulates an interesting alternative for the financing of an infrastructure that is largely in deficit in Latin America and, particularly, in Argentina. For our country, the AIIB represents a new multilateral source of financing for strategic sectors and opens an opportunity to help solve its historical deficits in terms of infrastructure and connectivity. For its part, with still little participation from Latin America, the Asian Bank is consolidating itself as a viable option for the region in light of development goals. To date, five effective Latin American members are reported: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador and Chile.

From its origins, the AIIB was presented as a different option to the historical Western multilateral development institutions such as the World Bank, the IDB or the International Finance Corporation (IFC). However, the AIIB has implemented a regulatory and operational framework very similar to that of those institutions, including policies for access to information, accountability, and environmental and social regulation to authorize disbursements. In turn, it contemplates cooperation and co-financing with other multilateral banks, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, adhering to their regulatory frameworks.

Despite this, since its entry into operations the Bank has received criticism from various sectors of civil society and affected communities that have questioned its actions in different development projects and even certain weaknesses in its regulatory framework.

In this sense, the implications that admission to the AIIB may have for Argentina depend largely on the type of relationship that the country establishes with the institution and the way in which it manages to take advantage of the potential financing resources for infrastructure that the Bank can provide. . Likewise, it is necessary to avoid repeating the problems related to public participation, access to information and socio-environmental impacts that have historically been associated with development projects financed by multilateral banks.

Given the general ignorance that exists in the country about this institution, it is important to analyze in depth what the Bank consists of, how it works and what the true implications of Argentine membership may be. To contribute to this objective, from Fundeps we present a report that analyzes part of these questions.

Read full review

 

More information

The incorporation of Argentina to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – Fundeps was approved
Argentina, one step away from becoming a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – Fundeps
Are the brothers united? Profiling of the Sino-Argentine relationship in the government of Alberto Fernández – Fundeps
The role of the AIIB in the New Green Silk Road – Fundeps

Author

Camila Victoria Bocco

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

We send observations to the IDB to strengthen its link with civil society

In the framework of the review process of the second Action Plan of the IDB Group-Civil Society (2022-2024), more than 20 civil society organizations sent a letter to the President of the IDB, Claver-Carone, with observations and recommendations to strengthen the IDB’s relationship with civil society and affected communities.

“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”.

While we welcome the fact that the IDB is reviewing the Action Plan to strengthen the relationship with civil society and affected communities, we believe that the way the review is being structured inhibits civil society participation in the process. For this reason, the recommendations sent to the President and his Executive Secretary are oriented in two ways:

  • On the one hand, the Bank is asked to provide specific spaces and complete and accessible information so that civil society, including indigenous peoples, local communities, people affected by IDB Group projects (including MICI applicants), and organizations critical to the IDB can participate and get involved effectively. In this sense, it is essential that agendas begin to be built in a participatory way, that invitations to consultations are at least 30 days in advance and that they include a wide range of stakeholders. The optimization and adjustment of public consultation processes is also necessary, since they are currently excessively rigid and do not promote a meaningful or direct discussion between the parties, ultimately generating low-productive inputs that continue to weaken transparency and accountability in the Bank.
  • On the other hand, it is emphasized that after the consultation or dialogue, the IDB must guarantee continuous communication that keeps the interested parties informed and provide information on how their contributions influenced the decisions taken.

We believe that the IDB Group’s commitment to civil society and communities affected has been and continues to be worryingly weak compared to other peer institutions. The IDB president has the opportunity to lead the change towards a more responsible bank and must foster an institutional culture in which it is accepted that the Bank makes mistakes and is more responsive not only to interactions and constructive criticism from external actors, including civil society and affected communities, but also to their internal accountability mechanisms.

To access the complete letter sent to the IDB, access here.

More information

How can the IDB Group strenghthen engagement with civil society and projects affected communities? – Bank Information Center (BIC)

Carta Grupo BID-Relacionamiento con Sociedad Civil

Recommendations to strengthen the IDB Group’s relationship with civil society and affected communities – Coalición para los Derechos Humanos en el Desarrollo

Author

Camila Victoria Bocco

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The Seventh session was held on the binding Treaty on Human Rights and companies

From October 25 to 29, the seventh session of the Intergovernmental Working Group was held in Geneva. Delegations from UN member states, movements and civil society organizations participated in the session, which discussed the Third Revised Draft of the binding Treaty on Human Rights and transnational corporations.

“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 Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) was created by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2014 to develop a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations with respect to human rights. From October 25 to 29, the seventh session of the IGWG was held in Geneva, which discussed the Third Revised Draft of the binding treaty on Human Rights and companies published on August 17, 2021. Not only representatives of the States participated in the session. members, but also civil society organizations and social movements.

The presidency of the IGWG, currently led by Ecuador, opened the seventh session stating that the negotiations should be “led by the States,” which raised concerns about how the contributions of civil society will be included, especially in a context where the that there is a continuous and broad participation of civil society organizations, trade unions, social movements and communities affected by the activities of transnational companies, and as this initiative is one of the most supported processes in the history of the IGWG from the ONU.

On the other hand, this year marked the 10th anniversary of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”, one of the most important initiatives at a global level in the protection of human rights in business activity and which constitutes a frame of reference in which complementary duties and responsibilities are explained and distributed between States and Companies. However, its application is voluntary. This anniversary will be the main theme of the United Nations Global Forum on Business and Human Rights that will take place from November 29 to December 1, and will offer the opportunity to evaluate the next achievements made to date, identifying gaps and challenges. , and to inspire renewed momentum for greater and better global enforcement by States and businesses in the next decade.

Más información:

Autor

Julieta Boretti

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The VI Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean was held

The VI Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean was held virtually from October 4 to 6, 2021, under the slogan “Building the business and human rights agenda for the next decade.”

“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”.

Ten years after the adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (PRNU), the Forum was a great opportunity for reflection on the pending challenges and offered a space for dialogue between governments, companies, society civil society and other interested groups such as indigenous peoples, workers’ organizations and international organizations, on trends, challenges and good practices to prevent and address the negative impacts of companies on human rights.

The next decade of the Guiding Principles calls especially on the States of the world to redouble their commitments and take concrete actions to create the enabling conditions for the respect of human rights by companies. However, the participation of other interested parties in the framework of the construction and implementation of the business and human rights agenda has not only proven to be a necessity for legitimacy but also a guarantee for its effectiveness and continuity.

Furthermore, the current world situation and the context of economic reactivation and climate crisis, emphasize the importance of the existence of a business and human rights agenda committed to addressing structural problems that are exacerbated, such as inequality, poverty and informality. and in mitigating the negative effects on human rights caused by the pandemic.
In this scenario, reflect among the different parties involved on the opportunities in the region to build greater coherence between the related agendas and move decisively towards the prevention, mitigation and repair of the negative impacts of business activity on human rights and the environment, it becomes fundamental.

In line with its purpose, during the VI Regional Forum experiences have been discussed and shared in different areas that were included in panels such as: “The consolidation of international coherence for the next decade of Business and Human Rights in the region”, “The role of civil society”, “Instruments of public policy in Business and Human Rights”, “State of the process towards a legally binding instrument on Business and Human Rights”, among others. It should be noted that, prior to the start of the Forum, on October 4, there were different preparatory sessions. From Fundeps we also participate in the preparatory session for Civil Society Organizations.

We celebrate the enrichment of this meeting and reaffirm the need to continue actively participating and strengthening this type of spaces that seek to contribute to a greater implementation of the UNRP in Latin America and the Caribbean through greater appropriation and collective construction of concrete recommendations aimed at States, companies and other parties involved.

We also hope that the dialogue will be fruitful for all the actors and give a boost to the different initiatives in force at the global level for the protection and respect of human rights (such as the National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights or the International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Companies and other companies with respect to Human Rights) and that is not only limited to good intentions but also really serves to improve the relationship between business activity, workers, the environment and local communities.

More information

 VI Foro Regional sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos en Latinoamérica y el Caribe

Se realizó el V Foro Regional sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos para América Latina y el Caribe – Fundeps

We present comments on the draft treaty on business and human rights –Fundeps

The V Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean was held – Fundeps

Author

Camila Victoria Bocco

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Access to information on projects with Chinese financing

Within the framework of the day of access to public information, we presented the document “Access to Information in Argentina. Difficulties and lessons learned accessing information on infrastructure and energy projects with Chinese financing in the country ”.

“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 People’s Republic of China is the second world economy, with great relevance in international trade and financing and the provision of direct foreign investment, being Latin America, and in particular Argentina, one of the largest recipients of investments in infrastructure of Chinese origin .

Despite this, one of the main challenges that arise when analyzing the growing Chinese financing of projects both in the region and in Argentina, is the lack of transparency and the difficulty in being able to access detailed, accurate and official information about of these projects. Thus, in many cases, the scant information available about the investment amounts, the actors involved, the financing conditions or even the particularities of the projects, make it difficult to carry out a detailed follow-up and monitoring of them and even their impacts. and implications for the country or region where it is carried out.

At the same time, the evaluation of China’s compliance with the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights carried out by the United Nations in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) shows that many development and infrastructure projects of Chinese companies are not compatible with human rights, nor respectful with the environment and the sustainability of natural resources, causing impacts not only economic but also social, environmental and cultural. Hence, the information on these projects must necessarily be transparent and provided in a timely and efficient manner, especially to those communities and populations that are affected by them.

Starting from this panorama, this publication seeks to identify difficulties and lessons learned from the practical experience of accessing information on infrastructure and energy projects with Chinese financing in Argentina. For this purpose, a series of requests for information were made within the framework of the Law on Access to Public Information No. 27,275 in force in the country. Likewise, the experience of access to information from state and non-state sources was evaluated, mainly portals and journalistic media that focus on Sino-Argentine ties.

Based on the identification of some of these existing difficulties when accessing information on the subject, reflections and lessons learned are provided that feed a list of recommendations aimed at strengthening the right of access to information in Argentina.
Transparency and correct and timely access to information are presented as key elements to better understand the growing participation of China in the financing of infrastructure and energy projects in our country. Precisely, access to information, transparency and infrastructure projects should go hand in hand if you want to achieve sustainable and quality infrastructure.

DOWNLOAD THE PUBLICATION

More information

Contact

  • Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org
,

Civil society responds to the MICI evaluation

Last April 2021, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB Group) published the Evaluation of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI). After the evaluation, the MICI has modified its policy, excluding the clause that prevents the registration of complaints that are part of open national judicial processes.

“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 evaluation carried out tried to determine if the MICI is effective and efficient in three areas: (1) the resolution of complaints, (2) the promotion of institutional learning, (3) accessibility, objective independence, impartiality and transparency. Finally, OVE made 5 general recommendations on how the Board, the Bank, and the MICI can improve the application of the IDB’s social and environmental safeguards.

In general, the document identified elements that impede the effective functioning of the MICI, including accessibility barriers, unnecessary limitations to its independence, and a systemic lack of remediation by the IDB Group when projects do not comply with safeguards. Fundeps, together with other civil society organizations, decided to publish a response and send recommendations / comments to the MICI.

Below, we summarize our points of discussion and concern for each of the recommendations made by OVE:

Recommendation # 1 – Implement and improve the Bank’s management system for environmental and social claims: We agree with OVE’s findings that show that the requirement for communities to make prior contact efforts with the Administration is a problematic barrier for access to the MICI. Affected persons who present complaints to the MICI have experienced first-hand the ineffectiveness of presenting certain complaints to the Administration. However, OVE’s proposal to establish a Bank’s own management mechanism is a measure that we consider incomplete. To ensure the effectiveness of the mechanism and the Bank, it would be best to remove the requirement that the communities first contact the Administration.

Recommendation # 2 – Repeal the legal exclusion: The report’s findings on the impropriety of the legal exclusion, and its severe restriction on accessibility, are clear. We applaud the report for mentioning that the legal exclusion should be removed. The role of an accountability mechanism within an institution is unique and different from judicial procedures. A mechanism should examine compliance with the institution’s own standards, a mandate that does not overlap with the courts or tribunals. With the approval of the OVE Evaluation by the Board, the decision to remove the legal exclusion becomes effective as of July 1, 2021. However, the resolution approving the removal of the legal exclusion should be publicized or published. to ensure that the decision to remove this requirement is widely known.

Recommendation # 3 – Strengthen the independence of the MICI: The importance of the independence of the MICI, as well as other accountability mechanisms, cannot be stressed enough. Independence is an essential condition for other attributes such as objectivity, impartiality, and transparency. The report finds the need for the MICI to ensure the approval of the Bank’s Board of Directors before starting the investigations, as a major problem that has generated “situations that compromise the independence of the mechanism.” From civil society we believe that to ensure its independence, the MICI should have the authority to determine when to initiate an investigation without approval from the Board. This is a good practice that, as noted by the report, is adhered to by many other mechanisms. As an alternative to the current policy, to mitigate the detrimental effect on the independence of the MICI, the policy should be updated by specifically and closely outlining the technical reasons for the Board to review the MICI’s decision to initiate an investigation.

Recommendation # 4 – Ensure corrective action when there are findings of non-compliance and associated damage: The Evaluation clearly stated the lack of remedy for cases of verification of compliance being that “they have not had concrete results for the applicants, despite the findings of non-compliance and related damages established by the MICI ”. We have seen this in our case work. The recommendation of the Evaluation so that all the actors – the Board of Directors, the Administration and the MICI – adhere to the practice of consistently providing corrective actions, is a step in the right direction. However, this result would be best achieved with a clear change in the policy that includes points such as: (a) Consultations during the development of corrective action plans, (b) approval of action plans based on their sufficiency, (c) monitoring compliance with action plans, and (d) alerting the Board of Directors in cases of non-compliance with the plans. Finally, while OVE’s assessment documents multiple instances in which communities have been left without remedy, despite compliance verification reports finding a cause of harm in the Bank’s non-compliance, unfortunately no recommendation is provided for these communities.

Recommendation # 5 – Strengthen the internal capacity of the MICI: One of the focuses of the MICI Evaluation of its internal functioning is the dependence on the model of consultants for the staff. The importance of MICI staff in relation to their effectiveness in resolving complaints is evident. The Bank should commit to providing the human and financial resources necessary to implement this change and avoid that the lack of human resources translates into delays during the complaint processes. The Bank should also ensure the increase of its capacity in terms of resources as necessary.

Now, from civil society we consider that public and inclusive consultations are required for the implementation of all the recommendations. Likewise, we believe that the implementation of these recommendations will require changes to the MICI policy. The steps taken to ensure compliance with social and environmental safeguards and accountability in cases of non-compliance should be reported by those affected by the projects (who live and work in the implementation sites). To hear from those affected and their representatives, the IDB and the MICI should consult publicly about their plans to implement the
OVE recommendations.

The MICI plays a fundamental role within the IDB, providing a channel for the people affected by the projects, beneficiaries of the Bank’s work, to file their claims in search of remediation. However, as OVE’s Evaluation makes clear, there are gaps in the current practices of the MICI – and related practices of the Board and Management – that prevent the effectiveness of the mechanism. To ensure the legitimacy of the MICI, the Bank has to act to address these issues fully.

More information:

Internal IDB evaluation raises the need for reforms in the operation of the MICI

Autora: 

Agustina Palencia

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Sergio Díaz-Granados was elected the new Executive President of CAF

On July 5, the Board of Directors of CAF – Development Bank of Latin America – elected Sergio Díaz-Granados as the new Executive President of the institution by majority, in a blended meeting held at the National Palace of Mexico. Colombian Díaz-Granados will take office on September 1, 2021 for a period of 5 years.

“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 Development Bank of Latin America, formerly known as Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF), is a leading multilateral financial institution in Latin America whose mission, according to its website, is to support the sustainable development of shareholder countries and integration regional. Since 1970, the institution has served the public and private sectors, supplying multiple financial products and services to a wide portfolio of clients, made up of the governments of the shareholder states, financial institutions, and public and private companies.

CAF’s Board of Directors appointed Sergio Díaz-Granados as the institution’s new Executive President on July 5 at a blended meeting that took place at the National Palace of Mexico. In the election, the Colombian Díaz-Granados surpassed the Argentine candidate Christian Asinelli, current undersecretary of International Financial Relations for Development of the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs of the Presidency, who will occupy one of the vice-presidencies of the entity.

The election of the new president comes after the resignation of the previous Executive President, the Peruvian Luis Carranza, who retired from the entity a year before the end of his term amid allegations of abuse of power, forced resignations and strong internal in the multilateral credit organization.

Sergio Díaz-Granados, is a prominent lawyer who currently serves as Executive Director for Colombia in the IDB Group. He has an extensive career in public and private service, both nationally and internationally, with special emphasis on issues of development and regional integration. Throughout his career, Diaz-Granados has served as Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Colombia, Vice Minister of Business Development and President of the Boards of Directors of Bancóldex and ProColombia. He has also been a congressman and chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.

More information:

Author:
Juliet Boretti

Contact:
Gonzalo Roza – Coordinator of the Global Governance Area
gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Internal IDB evaluation raises the need for reforms in the operation of the MICI

On April 1, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) presented an evaluation report of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) corresponding to the period 2015-2020. The evaluation examined the Mechanism’s policy and its application, with the aim of informing the Boards of the IDB and IDB Invest on the extent to which the MICI has been an effective and efficient mechanism in the resolution of claims associated with environmental and social impacts of projects financed by the Bank.

“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 its report, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) determined that the current MICI policy corrected important issues identified in its last evaluation of 2012. Among the main advances, it highlighted the solution to the problems of accountability and associated conflicts of interest. to the previous organizational structure, as well as the duplication problems of the eligibility instance; the establishment of deadlines for the management of requests; and the creation of instances for the participation of the administration. Likewise, he highlighted a greater consistency between the policy, the guidelines developed, and the associated processes.

The evaluation also highlighted the progress made in the internal functioning of the MICI, as a result of the restructuring of the mechanism, as well as the process of consolidation and institutional learning. The mechanism has been able to define its work plan and manage its human and budgetary resources independently of the IDB Group administration.

However, judicial exclusion, a key issue, remained pending. It is one of the exceptions of the internal policy to the eligibility of applications and establishes that those matters raised in an application that are being the subject of arbitration or judicial processes in a member country of the IDB Group are not eligible.

Although judicial exclusion was identified by OVE in 2012 as a limiting factor for the effective and independent functioning of the MICI, it was maintained in the reformulated policy in 2014. Likewise, there are other limitations that have emerged in the application of the policy in recent years. 5 years but that, to a large extent, have been paid for by the MICI. This shows that there is sufficient margin for the mechanism to manage the limitations of the current policy.

Access to the MICI

Regarding access to the mechanism, OVE identified that the MICI is not yet well known among applicants. Realizing that between the different institutional levels there is a lack of consensus on the importance of publicizing the mechanism and the way to achieve it. An issue that should not be overlooked, since access to the MICI depends on the knowledge that people have about the existence of the mechanism.
For their part, those who were able to access the MICI found that their applications were not registered due to the difficulty in complying with some requirements. In this regard, the IDB Group does not have a claims management system, which makes it impossible to know the number of concerns that the administration receives.

Case management

Regarding case management, although the MICI is operating in accordance with the principles established in its policy: independence, objectivity, impartiality, transparency and efficiency; Their ability to act independently is affected by being subject to the decisions of the Board of Executive Directors.

In accordance with its policy, the Board controls the possibility of initiating an investigation in the Compliance Verification Phase (FVO) and decides whether or not to approve the recommendations of an MICI investigation. Originally, the approval of the Board of Directors to continue with an investigation was thought as a short procedure but it has come to be conformed as a contentious procedure affecting the independence of the MICI.

Finally, many ongoing investigations have presented delays related to the complexity of the projects and themes. Complaints were also filed by the applicants about the length and slowness of the processes in the Compliance Verification Phase (FVO), which reduces the possibilities of effective redress.

Recommendations

After identifying the main difficulties in the current operation of the mechanism, OVE proposed a series of recommendations to be adopted by the MICI. Among the main ones, in the first place, the elimination of judicial exclusion and the strengthening of its internal capacities stand out. In turn, OVE highlighted the need to reinforce the independence of the mechanism and ensure the adoption of corrective measures when there are findings of non-compliance with the policies and related damages.

Remembering that one of the main objectives of the IDB Group is to improve the quality of life in the region, monitoring its policy is a key tool to guarantee compliance with socio-environmental safeguards and transparency in the development of projects. funded. If the recommendations made by OVE are applied, it would imply a declaration of commitment by MICI to the users, who, among other complaints, have systematically insisted on an improvement in the conditions for accessing the mechanism.

Based on this evaluation, one might wonder if the limitations of the current policy can be rectified by incorporating OVE’s recommendations or if these limitations, on the contrary, make a new comprehensive review of the policy necessary, a measure that has been ruled out by OVE until the moment.

At Fundeps, we consider that there are still many obstacles to overcome to guarantee an effective and independent action of the mechanism, especially regarding the need to nullify judicial exclusion. However, we highlight the importance of these types of entities that are beneficial for both the public and private sectors, and especially for the communities affected by IDB Group investments.

More information:

Authors:

Clara Labat 

Julieta Boretti

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org