,

The United Nations Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights was held

The eighth annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva was held from November 25 to 27. The Forum was attended by representatives of the Member States, Civil Society Organizations and other interested actors.

“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 United Nations Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights is the global platform for evaluating and exchanging lessons learned about efforts to ensure that the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are not only theoretical, but applied in practice. More than 2000 people participate, including government, companies, community groups and civil society, law firms, UN agencies, academia, investors, media, among others.

The objective of the annual meetings of the Forum is to serve as an international platform where the actors involved evaluate and analyze the application of the UN Guiding Principles. In addition, it will seek to promote cooperation and dialogue regarding the issue of business and human rights. The meeting chairs the Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

This year, the forum focused on governments demonstrating progress, commitments and plans for the implementation of the State’s duty to protect and strengthen accountability. The agenda focused on what governments have to do in order to promote respect for human rights by companies and encourage them to develop responsible business behavior.

From Fundeps, the business and Human Rights agenda is transversal to all areas. Therefore, we monitor the results of the sessions and the annual Forums in the framework we work on the Guiding Principles and the binding treaty.

,

75 years after the foundation of the World Bank: successes and failures in its relationship with civil society

Since the creation of the World Bank (WB) in 1944, with the aim of facilitating and promoting reconstruction and post-war development, the purpose of the institution has been changing over time, adapting to new realities and international contexts . Today, on its 75th anniversary and positioned as “one of the main sources of financing for the eradication of poverty through an inclusive and sustainable globalization process,” the Bank has new challenges that include, among other things, its framework of relationship with civil society, which although it has been strengthening in recent decades, still has huge outstanding issues.

“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”.

Over time, the reformulation of the World Bank’s purpose brought new institutional practices, including the incorporation of civil society as a valid counterpart not only in relation to the internal governance of the institution but also as a party consulted at the time of planning the projects.

Thus, as a result of the growing closeness of the work areas of the World Bank and of many Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), as well as the deep commitment of an increasingly organized civil society, the Bank began to open, little by little. , new ways of participation and involvement of CSOs both in the construction of policies and in the administration of projects.

In this way, there has been a paradigm shift, which went from being institutionally focused and merely consultative to a model that works in conjunction with CSOs, focused on specific issues. For example, their more active participation in the elaboration of the Strategies of Assistance to the Countries (EAP) and the documents of strategies to fight against poverty, among others.

On the other hand, many CSOs have also changed their position regarding the World Bank’s role in society and have decided to work in an articulated manner. The majority of CSOs that interact with the Bank are currently adopting an “positive intervention” approach, which aims to influence the Bank’s decisions; rather than adopt an essentially confrontational position. Even so, it should be clarified that a large part of civil society maintains its critical and supervisory stance vis-à-vis the World Bank projects, especially in relation to those Bank-financed infrastructure projects that have major socio-environmental impacts.

The strengthening of the dialogue between civil society and the World Bank has been reflected both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, for example, with the increasing active participation of CSOs in the Annual and Spring Meetings organized by the Bank, and in the increase in policy dialogue sessions within the framework of the Forum on Policies related to Civil Society (which it was organized for the first time in 2009 where 300 representatives of civil society organizations from more than 30 countries participated). In turn, qualitatively the spectrum of participation was broadened by bringing different sectors such as youth associations and also incorporating agenda items such as food security and health, among others.

It should also be noted that, in order to promote this strengthening in a transversal way to the entire institution, the World Bank has coordinated efforts with the International Development Association and other members of the World Bank Group, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), which provides political risk insurance for projects in various sectors of countries, developing members and the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an institution responsible for arbitrating a solution to disputes between governments and nationals of other states that have invested in that country.

In this way, it can be seen that in the course of the last decades and as a consequence of a greater openness on the part of the institution, but more than anything due to the increasing pressure and demand coming from civil society, demanding greater participation in decisions and Bank actions, a process of strengthening relations between the World Bank and civil society has been evidenced. However, there are still important shortcomings and issues still to be resolved in the relationships of these actors, which is currently reflected in the disagreement of a large number of CSOs regarding the Bank’s actions in a series of related agendas, especially to the protection of the environment and human rights, and the responsibility of the institution in this regard.

The revision of the Environmental and Social Framework of the World Bank and the criticisms of civil society

Precisely, one of the most recent criticisms of the World Bank from civil society has been the recent revision of the Institutional Environmental and Social Framework and what much of civil society considers as a clear weakening or dilution of the safeguards framework and social and environmental standards of the institution. The reasons for this weakening follows a trend at global, regional and national levels and responds to the need to make the Bank more competitive, in an international context of loss of competitiveness vis-à-vis other emerging financial actors.

Thus, for example, the Comparative Analysis of the regulations of the International Financial Institutions present in Latin America carried out by the Regional Group on Financing and Infrastructure (GREFI) of which Fundeps is a part, highlights the way in which World Bank investments have been recently made less competitive against new emerging actors such as the Development Bank of China, for example. Likewise, the report carries out a comparative analysis where it can be seen that environmental and social standards turn out to be more lax in emerging financial actors, which to a large extent allows them to become the first sources of financing for National States, displacing traditional institutions such as the World Bank or the IDB, which have more robust standards and, therefore, imply greater costs and delays for national governments.

Given this situation of loss of competitiveness by the World Bank, the Bank’s Social and Environmental Framework recently reviewed and in force in 2019 is considered by some civil society organizations as flexible against some fundamental issues that would put the environment and rights at risk Humans from the villages of the member countries. For their part, CSOs have expressed reservations about the review of safeguards that practically did not take into account their recommendations. Also, CSOs have denounced that the new MAS lacks a human rights approach and does not take any reference of international standards in the matter.

On the other hand, the main criticism towards the work of the World Bank, regarding this context of competitiveness, is the exclusion of due diligence by the bank by granting the possibility to borrowing governments to request to use their own safeguards systems to national level transferring responsibility for the correct application of safeguards to governments and not to the bank.

In this way, it can be concluded that the World Bank faces great challenges as a financial institution to remain competitive in the face of new emerging institutions and, in turn, incorporate the demands of civil society effectively and effectively. Thus, improving the relationship of real participation with civil society in an increasingly complex context, without weakening its socio-environmental regulatory frameworks, continues to be a latent challenge for the World Bank within its 75 years.

More information

New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America – Fundeps

Authors

Ailin Toso

Florence Harmitton

Contact Gonzalo

Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

We participate in an event on Business, Sustainability and Human Rights

Last Monday, November 11, we presented on the subject of Empresas B in the Business, Sustainability and Human Rights Standards event organized by the Business School and the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the Catholic University of Córdoba.

“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”.

Invited by the School of Business and the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the UCC, on November 11 we participated as exhibitors in the Conference “Business, Sustainability and Human Rights Standards”, which brought together academics, officials and representatives of the Civil society of Córdoba and Argentina that address the Human Rights and Business Agenda in their activities.

The event was held within the framework of the Fifth Session of the UN on the binding treaty on human rights and companies, held in Geneva in October. The topics addressed included the standards on business and human rights, the progress that has been made in the draft of the draft treaty on the subject, reparations in the framework of human rights violations, among others

In the second panel, the exponents advocate the themes of the principle of access to sustainable consumption, Companies B and sustainable development, and, finally, the way in which sustainability can increase the profitability of companies.

Fudeps was in charge of the exhibition on Companies B and sustainable development. Our exhibition addressed this new business phenomenon, the benefits of being part of this type of companies and the irregularities that some companies present. Specifically, the Porta case was mentioned, and who or who are responsible for ensuring that B-certified companies fulfill their responsibilities of generating positive social and environmental impacts.

More information

Contact

Sofía Brocanelli, sofiabrocanelli@fundeps.org

,

Fifth session of the UN on the binding treaty of Companies and Human Rights.

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group was held in Geneva. In the negotiations on the revised draft of the binding Treaty on transnational corporations and their responsibility towards Human Rights, the official delegations of the UN member states, civil society and social movements and organizations participated.

“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 14 to 18, the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the revised draft of the binding treaty of transnational corporations regarding human rights (HR) was held in Geneva.

Of the sessions, not only the representatives of the Member States, but also civil society organizations (CSOs) and social movements participated. During the sessions, the Brazilian delegation, along with other delegations, raised the need for negotiations to be direct between States and without civil society; This was rejected not only by CSOs, but also by delegations from other States who highlighted the important role that CSOs have played during these 4 years of negotiations with their contributions to the binding treaty. The need for organizations to participate in the process to ensure that human rights in communities affected by transnational corporations are respected and remedied was also highlighted.

As a point in favor, the progress of the process in comparison with the first draft of the treaty (draft zero) was highlighted. However, many questions remain to be addressed since the new legal instrument would not be guaranteeing justice for communities affected by transnational corporations and, in addition, there are terms that continue to be too ambiguous and will lend themselves to the free interpretation of transnational corporations in disrepair. of the protection of human rights.

At the end of the week of negotiations in the framework of the fifth session, the sixth session was approved with a new version of the revised treaty for the year 2020. It is relevant to emphasize the need for the treaty to contemplate the victims and those affected by the Human rights violations caused by transnational corporations.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Argentina continues to bet on nuclear plants with Chinese financing

The First Integrated Five-Year Plan signed between Argentina and China for Infrastructure Cooperation (2017-2021) contains 16 projects to be developed in the country. Within these are the construction of two nuclear power plants. The choice of building nuclear plants, instead of investing in wind and solar energy, raises certain concerns about the risks of nuclear energy.

“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 strengthening of the Sino-Argentine relationship was observed with the signing of the First Five-Year Plan (2017-2021) between the two actors, which includes 16 projects to be carried out in the country with Chinese financing. One of the projects that generates economic, but above all environmental, questions is the construction of two nuclear power plants, Atucha III and IV.

Around nuclear power plants there are opinions for and against. There are defenders of this type of energy due to low emissions, however, there is an increasing number of opponents of nuclear energy due to its impacts on the environment, the risk it means and how expensive it is in relation to wind and solar energy .

Our country has three nuclear reactors, the first, Atucha I, was built in 1974; the second plant is that of Embalse that began operating in 1984 and the third plant was Atucha II, which began operating in the national system as of 2014. Nuclear-type energy represents 6% of the country’s energy. Energy Matrix.

The agreement for the construction of two nuclear power plants dates from the government of Cristina Kirchner, who agreed to build with China in 2015. When Macri took over as president, the effectiveness of this type of energy was questioned, however it was ratified the agreement with China on the construction of nuclear power plants (Atucha III and IV). Despite this, due to the economic crisis that the country is going through, the government had to choose to build a single plant so that the size of the loan is not so large and the country can face it.

Thus, the Atucha III nuclear power plant will be built, which will add 745 megawatts to the network and will be located in the town of Lima, Province of Buenos Aires. The contract for the construction of this plant includes a loan from China for $ 10 billion, which covers 85% of construction costs; the rest will be invested by Argentina.

Initially, when the agreement was signed, the governments of both countries expressed the importance of signing the contracts before September 2017, and, consequently, begin the construction of one of the plants that same year and the second in 2019. However, none of these events happened.

This Five-Year Plan aims to increase complementarity, cooperation and benefits in the infrastructure sector, contributing to the development of bilateral economic relations and the nations of both countries.

Chinese financing has grown markedly in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Argentina has not been the exception to this growth. Relations between the two countries have evolved in such a way that China is important as a bilateral lender, where the largest amount of loans has been allocated to infrastructure and energy projects.

From Fundeps a request for information was made at the beginning of the year to the National government for the First Five-Year Plan between China and Argentina, emphasizing the construction of nuclear power plants. The main questions that were consulted were about the modalities and characteristics of the financing that the Argentine government agreed to finance the works contemplated in the First Five-Year Plan; the dependencies, officials and other actors involved.

Regarding the construction of nuclear power plants, a topic of relevance in the request for information, the state of construction of nuclear power plants was requested, what have been the social and environmental guidelines of the institutions involved in the project, which were the preselected and selected places to carry out the construction, the studies that were carried out to select the place of construction of the plants and, if there has been an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as if there were instances of citizen participation.

Although the request was answered late (July), the questions asked to the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Finance were not effectively answered. Just to mention some questions of the response to the request, the EIA documents were not provided, much less the studies carried out to select Lima, (province of Buenos Aires) as the place for the construction of the nuclear power plant. In general, the answers to the questions asked were brief, and most, if not all, did not provide the data requested by Fundeps.

In terms of access to information at the national level, progress has been made, as citizens can request information through the web. However, much work remains to be done in the field of open government, since the answers to the requests for information elude the root of the question being asked. Not much information is available and, neither, when requesting the responsible entities, the information that is required is obtained.

More Information

Author

Gonzalo Roza

Contact

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

We exhibited at the ALADAA National Congress about the role of the AIIB in the New Silk Road

On August 23, Fundeps participated in the ALADAA National Congress within the framework of the Global Governance area agenda on Chinese investments in Latin America.

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 August 22 and 23, 2019, the IX National Congress of ALADAA (Latin American Studies Association of Asia and Africa) Argentina “Cultures in Motion: Potentials and Challenges in Globalization. Asia and Africa from Latin America” was held in the city of Río Cuarto. Fundeps participated by presenting a paper entitled “The role of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the New Green Silk Road”, which was presented by the Global Governance area volunteer, Mariano Camoletto.

The article deals with the financing of the Silk Road and the Silk Road Initiative, analyzing the role of the AIIB as its financial engine. In addition, it explores whether financing through the AIIB represents a possibility of providing greater environmental and social sustainability to the projects implemented in the framework of the New Silk Road (also known as the Belt and Road Initiative), the mega project on a global scale driven by China.

The AIIB, whose headquarters is in Beijing, was created in 2015 on the initiative of China and currently has more than 100 members, among which Argentina. The bank aims to contribute to the economic and social development of Asia with a focus on sustainable infrastructure, private capital mobilization and connectivity. For its fulfillment, the AIIB has a portfolio of 100 billion dollars and the strategy is based on the Lean, Clean and Green concept through which the bank seeks to be efficient, agile, ethical and environmentally friendly.

As for the bank’s operational policies, the most important are the Environmental and Social Framework and the Accountability Mechanism. As for the first, it was approved in 2016 and its purpose is to help the bank and its clients achieve positive results of environmental and socially sustainable development in their projects, as well as expose the institutional objectives to address environmental and social risks and impacts in the projects financed by the bank. Likewise, compliance with these policies is mandatory in order to access bank financing.

As for the Bank’s Accountability Mechanism, it was launched in 2018 and is intended to receive complaints and requests from those communities or populations negatively affected by Bank-financed projects. The mechanism has two essential functions: the first one is the resolution of disputes through dialogue and understanding of the affected parties; and secondly, that of compliance review, which consists in this mechanism investigating whether the Bank has fulfilled its obligations regarding the proper application of its operational policies.

The main objective of our participation as exhibitors in this congress was to promote the foundation’s approach to the national and provincial academic community for the study of Chinese investments and initiatives (such as the AIIB) and its impact on society, which is usually reflected in infrastructure projects with potential (or real) environmental and social impacts. The joint work has the purpose of analyzing and understanding China’s socio-political and economic insertion model in Latin America and, especially, in Argentina; as well as the strategies that Latin American countries implement against this phenomenon in the framework of the Silk Road.

More information

Author
Mariano Camoletto

Contact
Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

We participate in the review of the socio-environmental sustainability policy of the IDB Invest

We participate in the face-to-face public consultation of the IDB Invest in the framework of the revision of its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy.

“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”

Within the framework of the public consultations that the IDB Invest is conducting on the draft of its new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, we participate in the face-to-face public consultation held last Tuesday, September 4 at the headquarters of the IDB Argentina in the city of Buenos Aires. The IDB Invest is a member of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, better known as the IDB Group. It is a multilateral development bank with the purpose of promoting the economic development of the member countries of the region through investment in the private sector. That is, while the IDB is responsible for public sector investment, the IDB Invest invests in private sector projects.

Thus, in June of this year the IDB Invest began the public consultation to review the draft of its new policy of environmental and social safeguards; review that would last for 120 days. The objective of conducting a public consultation is due to the relevance of establishing a dialogue with interested parties to make suggestions for the new policy. Thus, virtual and face-to-face consultations have been carried out or will be carried out not only in Argentina but also in other countries such as Colombia, Jamaica, Panama or the United States.

According to the consultation plan announced by the Bank, once the public consultations have been finalized and a new draft has been prepared, it will be submitted to the Executive Board for approval, giving rise to the new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, replacing the policy of 2013. However, one of the main complaints heard in public consultations by a wide range of civil society organizations and indigenous communities, was the need for the Bank to open a second draft for public consultation. of the policy, in order to identify how the recommendations and suggestions made during public consultations were incorporated.

Additionally, Fundeps together with a group of organizations in the region raised the need, among other things, to: Include two areas of expansion beyond the 8 Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), in particular, a Performance Standard related to gender and, second, another for the participation of stakeholders and communities. In turn, the need was also raised not to dilute responsibilities in the supervision of the implementation of the safeguards; and that the new policy should be guided by the principle of “generating benefits” beyond the idea of ​​”not causing harm” as the policy currently proposes.

More information

IDB and IDB Invest review their environmental and social policies – Fundeps Web page on the Consultation on the Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy of the IDB Invest

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Trunk gas pipelines: we make requests for information from agencies in the province of Córdoba

On August 21, we made requests for information on the finished work of the trunk pipelines of the province of Córdoba to different units of the province of Córdoba.

On the occasion of the completion, in the course of 2019, of the work of trunk pipelines that began to be planned more than ten years ago, we made requests for information to the Córdoba Investment and Financing Agency (ACIF), the Ministry of Water, Environment and Public Services and the Ministry of Public Works and Financing.

With this work, according to the government of the province, the gas network reached almost 98% of Cordoba, however, there are a number of issues around the project that are not yet fully clarified.

Despite being completed, issues such as the lack of access to information on the control of the progress of the project, such as the lack of precision about the funders of each of the systems has been controversial and confusing. Although it could be observed that the communication on the progress in the work by the provincial government was constant, the same did not happen with access to more specific and sensitive issues related to the project.

From Fundeps we have carried out periodic monitoring and monitoring of the project, even though the official information has been scarce and difficult to access: requests for information we previously made were never answered. With these new requests made we hope that the modalities in the access of provincial information have been modified in a positive way in order to achieve a more transparent and open government to society.

More information

Author

Sofia Brocanelli

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The IDB and the IDB Invest review their environmental and social policies

Both the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and its private arm, the IDB Invest, have recently opened the process for reviewing their environmental and social safeguards policies. It is important that Latin American civil society and, above all, communities affected by the projects financed by these institutions, participate actively in the public consultation process, either by sending virtual comments or by participating in face-to-face consultations that will be held in different cities of the region. Here, 5 key points to consider about the review 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”.

Why is the review given?

Following the recommendation made by the IDB Office of Evaluation and Supervision (OVE) in its Evaluation of Environmental and Social Safeguards, the IDB Executive Board approved, on July 2, 2019, the launch of the process to “modernize” its policies environmental and social, which seek to ensure that potentially negative environmental and social impacts are properly evaluated, managed and mitigated in IDB operations. According to the IDB itself: “there is a need to update and integrate a policy framework for environmental and social risk management, so it seeks to develop an integrated Social Environmental Policy Framework, aligned with international standards and best practices.” In this way, the IDB follows the steps recently taken by other Multilateral Development Banks, such as the World Bank.

On the other hand, the IDB Invest (formerly Inter-American Investment Corporation -CII-), the IDB’s private arm, began updating its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy last June. According to the Bank, the purpose of the review is to establish “a single framework of standards that customers must meet instead of using multiple third-party standards. The update process includes a review of current trends and best practices related to environmental and social sustainability, including those designed by other international financial institutions (IFIs) operating in the private sector. ” In practice, following OVE recommendations, the IDB Invest seeks that borrowers adhere to the IFC Performance Standards, which are widely recognized and already applied by IDB Invest borrowers, and references to other standards removed. from third parties.

What does the review include?

In the case of the IDB, the review includes the five independent policies that make up the environmental and social safeguards:

  • Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy (OP-703) of 2006
  • Policy on Disaster Risk Management (OP-704) of 2007
  • Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP-710) of 1998
  • Gender Equality in Development Policy (OP-761) of 2010
  • Indigenous Peoples Policy (OP-765) of 2006

So far, the IDB has prepared a Policy Profile on the Modernization of Environmental and Social Policies.

In the case of IDB Invest, the review is only of its:

  • Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, effective since 2013.

And a Draft of the new Policy has been published, which is under public consultation.

When are the consultations carried out?
In the case of the IDB, on July 2, 2019, the Executive Board approved the launch of the modernization process and subsequently published the Policy Profile. The draft policy framework is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board at the end of October 2019 for public consultation. The stage of preparation for the modernization process would culminate in the development of the Environmental and Social Policy Framework (MPAS) in September 2020. The MPAS would be implemented as of 2021.

As for the IDB Invest, a Consultation Plan has been published with the basic information about the process, which basically consists of:

1. Making the Policy Draft available to the public.

2. Digital and face-to-face public consultations open for 120 days (as of June 17, 2019).

3. Consultations in person at:

  • Colombia (September 4),
  • Argentina (September 4),
  • Jamaica (September 6),
  • Panama (September 6) and
  • Washington, D.C. (September, 10th)

4. Virtual consultation session at:

  • Spanish (September 12),
  • English (September 12),
  • Portuguese (September 13).

5. Making the comments received and attended available to the public.

After conducting the public consultation, the IDB Invest will submit to the Executive Board the final draft of the Policy for final approval, after which a plan for its implementation will be established and executed.

Why is it important to participate?

For several reasons, it is necessary that civil society, citizens and, above all, indigenous communities and communities affected or potentially affected by IDB or IDB Invest operations actively participate in this process, contributing their experience and its recommendations and suggestions regarding the environmental and social safeguards of the institutions.

First, because both the IDB and the IDB Invest are, today and despite the diversification of financial actors operating in the region, key actors in financing for development in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the Bank itself: in 2018, with a historical amount of US $ 17,000 million approvals, the IDB and the IDB Invest were consolidated as the main source of multilateral financing for Latin America and the Caribbean. The IDB approved a total of 96 sovereign guaranteed loan projects for a total financing of more than US $ 13.4 billion, and disbursed more than US $ 9.9 billion. In turn, 2018 was a record year for IDB Invest, with approvals of US $ 4,000 million, 26% more in volume and 21% more in number of transactions than the previous year. The IDB Invest extended its support to sectors such as infrastructure and Fintech, adding to education, tourism, water and sanitation, transport and energy. In the case of Argentina, the IDB has historically been the main multilateral partner for the country’s development, with an average of recent annual approvals of US $ 1,360 million. The current active portfolio with the public sector is 54 operations for an approved amount of US $ 9,206.4 million and an unpaid balance of US $ 3,874.7 million, according to the information provided by the Bank itself.

Second, because a robust and effective system of environmental and social safeguards is key to avoiding the impacts at the socio-environmental level that, in many cases, bring infrastructure projects financed by institutions such as the IDB or the IDB Invest. When the design, application or implementation of environmental and social safeguards fails in these types of projects, the impacts and consequences especially in the communities involved are often complex, and unfortunately in many cases, irreversible. Cases such as Camisea in Peru or Hidroituango in Colombia reflect the bitter consequences of the bad, or even the lack of application of socio-environmental safeguards in projects financed by the IDB Group

Third, because an active, informed, responsible and coordinated participation by the key members of civil society and the indigenous and affected communities of the region would contribute to the objective of avoiding a possible (and latent) dilution of the system of environmental and social safeguards from both the IDB and the IDB Invest. Recent experiences of dilution of environmental and social regulatory frameworks after review and “modernization” processes not only in related institutions such as the World Bank or the International Finance Corporation (IFC), but also in the national regulatory systems of the countries of The region clearly reflects a trend that the IDB Group seems not to want to escape.

How to participate?

Actors interested in participating in the review process of the IDB or IDB Invest safeguards can do so in different ways and through multiple channels:

For the IDB review:
The Bank offers two ways to participate in the consultation process.

Initial consultation stage: before developing the new Framework for Environmental and Social Policies, the IDB held two face-to-face workshops in Washington, DC (August 8 and 12) to analyze the lessons learned from the implementation of environmental and social policies existing.

Consultations in person on the proposed new environmental and social policy framework (dates and places have not yet been disclosed): the IDB will hold consultative meetings in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, at the IDB headquarters in Washington, DC , and in other member countries.

Those who want to stay updated about the review process can register on this link provided by the Bank.

  • For the IDB Invest review:

IDB Invest also offers virtual and face-to-face instances to participate in the review process of its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy.

Virtual or written comments can be sent to the SustainabilityPolicy@idbinvest.org email or through the mail addressed to: IDB Invest: Environmental and social sustainability policy. 1350 New York Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C., 20577. USA.

To participate in face-to-face consultations in some of the indicated countries, it is possible to register at the following link provided by the Bank.

In Argentina: The face-to-face consultation in Argentina on the proposal of the Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy of the IDB Invest will be held next Wednesday, September 4 from 09:00 am to 11:00 am at the IDB headquarters in Argentina, located in Calle Esmeralda 130, 11th floor, Buenos Aires.

In addition: those interested in knowing more about how to participate effectively in the consultations, can register to participate in the webinar “Review of IDB Invest safeguards, how to participate effectively?” Organized by DAR, Environment and Society and the Bank Information Center (BIC) by entering this link.

Fundeps, together with a group of organizations in the region, is coordinating actions to promote broad, inclusive and effective participation of civil society and indigenous peoples and affected communities in both the IDB and IDB Invest review process; and to try to strengthen and avoid a weakening of environmental and social safeguards. If you are interested in getting involved in this process, you can contact gon.roza@fundeps.org.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

With the trunk pipelines concluded: positive or negative balance?

In January 2019, and after more than 10 years since the project began to be planned, the Government of the Province of Córdoba terminated the works of the trunk gas pipelines. Despite the obvious benefits of the project, it is worth asking about the true balance left by the experience of this project, especially in terms of transparency and accountability in public policies.

“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”.

At the beginning of 2019, with the authorization of the last supply branch and the pressure regulating plant in Tala Cañada (Pocho), the Government of the province of Córdoba concluded the controversial project for the construction of the trunk pipeline network. According to the government, the gas network thus reached almost 98% of Cordoba people; Although it is clear that the vast majority of industries and neighbors benefiting from the work do not yet have effective access to the service, since the problem of connecting to home and internal networks remains to be resolved.

With the work completed, the axis then moved to the need to connect the backbone networks with the home networks, so that families and businesses can effectively access the benefit. The company Ecogas and the municipalities are responsible for bringing the gas network to private homes, for which they will receive financial support from the province. While the Bank of Córdoba made available a line of credit -Dale Gas! – at zero interest rate and with a return of 48 months for the home gas installation; The provincial government launched a financing plan so that companies can connect to the network. This plan called «Connect Gas Industry» contains three lines of credit for businesses, SMEs, industrial parks, CNG stations and tourist establishments.

A controversial work

This work, according to data handled by the provincial government, benefits 973,490 Cordoba in 228 locations. Some populations will receive natural gas for the first time and, in other locations, the service will reinforce the existing one. However, despite the obvious benefits of the work, the project of gasification of towns in the interior of the province of Córdoba has been the focus of various controversies and has been under the watchful eye of public opinion since its inception. Thus, for example, as regards the financing of the work, the reasons for the fall in financing of both BNDES at first, and of Chinese banks later, were never officially clarified; and the provincial government’s decision to move forward with the work using public indebtedness generated controversy.

Similarly, the lack of access to information to control the progress of the project has been a constant throughout the entire execution process. Additionally, the project has been investigated for alleged acts of corruption in the bidding of the sections to be built, even being mentioned in the Lava Jato case in Brazil from the participation of the Odebrecht company in the works.

Thus, for example, in February 2018, the legislators of the opposition to the provincial Government, Juan Pablo Quinteros, Aurelio García Elorrio and Liliana Montero, filed a complaint with the Financial Information Unit (FIU) regarding the possible payment of charges for the work of the trunk pipelines. This follows from the kidnapping of the list of coimas paid to different governments of the continent belonging to the Brazilian banker Alberto Youssef, where he names at least four times the work in question. This list served as a tool for Brazilian investigators of the Lava Jato cause to prove the existence of a public works club made up of Odebrecht, Andrade Gutiérrez, OAS, Camargo Correa and other construction companies. According to the complainants, a 36 million dollar premium would have been paid. Also, they argue that the collection was made through the session of a real estate project in Puerto Madero (Buenos Aires) to a company of the Horacio Miró group, former official of the administration of José Manuel de la Sota. This accusation was denied by the businessmen involved.

In mid-2018, the possibility that Argentina will reach an agreement with Brazil so that Argentine judges can access the information present in the Lava Jato investigation generated great expectations in Córdoba. The causes for alleged corruption offenses in public works in our country would have the possibility to move forward through the use of this information. This agreement generated expectation given the denunciation for the alleged payment of coimates for 36 million dollars to the company of the Horacio Miró group. In this regard, the administrations of the former governor of La Sota and the current one, Juan Schiaretti, denied all kinds of accusations. This complaint is currently under the responsibility of Prosecutor 1 of the Anti-Corruption jurisdiction, which is based on data provided by Brazil.

However, the scandal caused by the irruption of the cause of the notebooks in August 2018 hit several of the companies involved in the construction of the trunk pipelines. From the provincial government they clarified that all tenders were carried out transparently. Among the companies involved and that have works in progress in the province of Córdoba is Electroengineering, allied with the Chinese company Petroleum Pipeline Boreau for the construction of 30% of the trunk gas pipelines. In addition, there is the Albanesi Group that through Generación Mediterráneo S.A. It owns the Modesto Maranzana thermoelectric plant located in Río Cuarto. Also, the company Iecsa (now Sacde) in charge of the sections of the gas pipelines in the provincial interior in partnership with the Chinese company Communications Construction Company (CCC). Finally, BTU and Esuco companies have also carried out pipeline works in Córdoba.

Positive or negative balance?

In short, after more than a decade of marches and counter-marches, trunk pipelines are finally a reality. What has been the largest infrastructure work in Córdoba in recent times leaves us, without doubt, a positive balance in relation to the potential benefits of the work. It will allow access to natural gas not only to thousands of citizens and hundreds of localities in Cordoba; but also to numerous industries, SMEs and businesses in the interior of the Province that will be able to boost their activity and productivity from access to the gas network. However, if we analyze the project from the point of view of transparency and accountability that must necessarily surround any work that has public funds for its realization; The balance is undoubtedly negative.

In that sense, we will continue monitoring the progress of the next stages of the work. Also trying to obtain more information about the details of its realization, the real reasons for the fall of the financing of the Chinese banks and the participation of Odebrecht in the project and its link with the Lava Jato cause, for which we are preparing requests for information which will be referred to the provincial administration.

More information

Authors

Mariano Camoletto

Gonzalo Roza

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights: Comments from Fundeps and the new revised Draf

At the fourth session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Human Rights, different actors presented their comments and proposals on the ‘zero’ draft of the legally binding international instrument. Fundeps made recommendations and questions about certain axes of the draft, relevant to guarantee the fulfillment of human rights by transnational companies. Based on the comments made, on July 17, the Intergovernmental Working Group presented the new Revised Draft.

“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 2014, the UN Human Rights Council issued two resolutions, one of which ordered the establishment of an intergovernmental working group responsible for developing a binding treaty on business and human rights. The second resolution, of the same year, requested the UN working group to prepare a report containing the benefits and limitations of legally binding instruments.

From there, the work group sessions began. The first one was held in 2016 and the second in 2017, where Ecuador presented the document ‘Elements for the Legally Binding International Instrument Project on Transnational Corporations and other companies with respect to Human Rights’. In these sessions, the intergovernmental working group focused on improving the content, scope, nature and form of the potential international instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other companies in the fulfillment and respect of human rights.

In the third session, in 2018, the working group published the Zero Zero Draft ’of the Binding Treaty; The elements for preparing a draft of a legally binding instrument were discussed taking into account the discussions held in the first two sessions.

Last year, in the fourth session, calls for comments and proposals were made on the draft of the binding treaty. The presentations were made by some States such as Chile, Colombia and the Philippines, non-governmental organizations with consultative status and other stakeholders such as civil society organizations, including Fundeps. The document on the ‘zero’ draft, presented by the foundation, is divided into general and specific comments.

The general comments made by Fundeps cover different aspects that have not been taken into account in the document and that are extremely relevant to ensure that transnational corporations guarantee and respect human rights. Among the comments, the absence in the Treaty of commercial activities that are supported by the States, the high relevance given to the remedy of damages and rights of the victims that, although it is extremely positive, are even more necessary a priori are measures prevention to prevent companies from violating human rights. With prevention there would be no need to remedy any damage caused since these would not exist if they were well regulated.

On the other hand, the draft Treaty only establishes a binding component for the States, but companies are not given responsibility. Therefore, not only does it not make them obliged subjects, which was the initial idea, but they will respond before the laws that the States implement in this matter. In addition, the creation of a court or other institution that has the capacity to judge and penalize the actions of transnational corporations is absent.

Finally, in the general comments of Fundeps, the absence of the sections on ‘corporate obligations’, ‘state obligations’ and the obligations of international organizations, which are fundamental elements to guarantee the fulfillment of rights, is highlighted Humans versus business activity.

Specific comments were made in accordance with the sections of the draft. According to the preamble, it is recommended to include the relationship with other international conventions and recognize ‘Corporate Capture’ as a global issue that undermines human rights. In addition, the absence of guiding principles on business and human rights as an immediate precedent of the treaty is questioned. , as well as the lack of recognition of the danger situation of human rights defenders. Regarding the purpose of the Treaty, it is recommended that the purpose of the document should be the guarantee of human rights and incorporate as an objective of the addressed the resolution of power imbalances between corporations and affected communities.

Finally, in Prevention, the componente Gender ’and conflict of interest component should be incorporated into all due diligence measures. In addition, these measures must ensure transparency in the interactions of transnational corporations with state authorities, and the protection of human rights defenders through specific and reinforced protection mechanisms.

New Draft: progress?

The Intergovernmental Working Group, in charge of drafting the document, has made progress in its development. Consequently, on July 17 they presented the Revised Draft of the binding treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other commercial companies regarding human rights. This version was made according to the recommendations and comments proposed by the different actors convened in the fourth session last year. This draft will be discussed in the fifth session, which will take place between October 14 and 18 of this year.

At first glance, the new draft of the binding treaty has modified the formulation, which, in the words of Hood and Hughes-Jennett, is rather ambiguous. Thus, in Article 3 of the draft, its application has been extended to “all commercial activities”, that is, it will no longer be limited to those of a transnational nature. However, the definition developed in Article 1 on commercial activities leaves those that are purely national in scope of the treaty. A positive development in the project has been the elimination of the requirement that commercial activity should be limited to all those that were carried out “for profit”.

On the other hand, the new Article 6 of the draft treaty incorporates a new provision where States will have responsibility for not preventing damage that the party with whom they have a contractual relationship has caused third parties, regardless of where the damage occurs ( Hood & Hughes-Jennett, 2019).

From the perspective of due diligence, an improvement in the draft has been observed, since the States are not only obliged to regulate commercial companies within their territory where they are obliged to respect and prevent violations of DD.HH .; now in the project it is clarified that the legislation must be introduced to make the due diligence of human rights mandatory and, in addition, companies must be obliged to acquire the appropriate measures to prevent violations or abuses of human rights. It represents a breakthrough because it means a convergence with the UN Guiding Principles (Hood & Hughes-Jennett, 2019).

With regard to legal-criminal liability, the Revised Draft has eliminated the provision on universal jurisdiction and instead has incorporated a new provision that establishes the jurisdiction of territorial, active and passive nationality. Therefore, the states will be disabled to exercise jurisdiction in those behaviors that do not constitute a criminal offense, in accordance with international law in situations where there is no conventional jurisdictional link with the crime (Hood & Hughes-Jennett, 2019) .

Consequently, we must wait and observe the decisions that occur in the fifth session on the Revised Draft. While the incorporation of some recommendations and a closeness to the Guiding Principles on business and human rights is observed, there is still a shortening of distances between the Revised Draft and the Guiding Principles; since these have been the initial kick representing a fundamental advance in the normative criteria on the responsibility and the accountability of the transnational companies. There are still issues that are not clearly defined in the revised draft, which means that transnational corporations continue without being fully obliged to respect and guarantee Human Rights.

Más información:

Authors

Sofia Brocanelli

Contact

Gonzalo Roza gon.roza@fundeps.org

 

 

,

IFIs and climate change: The role of the Green Climate Fund

We participated in a workshop organized by the review mechanism of the Green Climate Fund accounts to inform us about the mandate of that institution and discuss ways of interacting with civil society.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one of the financial institutions for climate within the architecture created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In order to promote a change in the paradigm towards the reduction of emissions and development compatible with the environment, it provides financial support for adaptation projects and mitigation of the effects of climate change. Its objective is to be the main operating entity within the financial mechanism of the Convention, in addition to projecting itself as the central institution in the global climate finance plan.

To make the work and operation of GFC more known, the Independent Repair Mechanism (IRM) convened civil society organizations in Santiago, Chile, on May 30 and 31. In the case of the IRM, it has only been functioning for 2 years and has had only three case presentations, so it was also an opportunity to discuss the future interactions of the mechanism with potential cases and with civil society.

Among the issues mentioned by the organizations are the dangers for human rights defenders, the difficulties in implementing remediation plans, the impact of projects on communities and on the rights of indigenous peoples, gender issues within the projects and the claims. In this way, ways to operate from the mechanism to address these concerns were also discussed

More information

Green Climate Fund

Independent Repair Mechanism

Author

Carolina Tamagnini

Contact

Gonzalo Roza,  gon.roza@fundeps.org