,

The 4th session for the discussion of a binding treaty on companies and human rights ended.

During the week of October 15 to 19, the sessions of the Intergovernmental Working Group of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations took place. This group meets for the fourth time, and the discussions around a draft for the adoption of a binding treaty that seeks to regulate the activity of transnational corporations and their effects on human rights.

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

A draft text for the ‘Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ was finally submitted in mid July. This document was launched in Geneva, within the framework of the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Human Rights, which indicated that a binding treaty on this matter should be developed. The sessions in October, took as a starting point for the debate, that ‘Zero Draft’.

The immediate antecedent of this draft was the document known as “Elements of the Treaty” that circulated at the end of 2017 and was discussed at the third session of the Intergovernmental Group in October of that same year. Subsequently, these ‘Elements’ were submitted for public consultation and comments were received until February 2018. Once the process was closed, the construction of a text for the 4th session was left.

About the ‘Zero Draft’

At first glance, the essential difference between both documents (the treaty and the elements), is the disappearance of the term ‘other companies’ when it refers to the subjects susceptible of judicial responsibility. The debate over the inclusion of other companies besides those of a transnational nature was strongly opposed. This, since it was considered that this treaty should only focus on those companies that have activities in two or more national jurisdictions because those that only acted in one State, were subject to national regulatory regimes. However, it should be noted that Article 4 of the draft defines ‘transnational business activities’ as any productive or commercial activity that takes place in two or more national jurisdictions. This reference could also be interpreted for those business activities carried out in a single State but that could be transnationalized due to their inclusion in a value chain.

Likewise, the preamble of the document does not include in its entirety what had been proposed in the draft elements of the treaty. The document published at the end of last year mentioned, among other things, the importance of referencing the Guiding Principles, the rules on the responsibility of transnational corporations and the pressing situation regarding the negative impacts of business activity on human rights. The draft treaty, in its preamble, fails to recognize all the elements that frame the process of creating this binding instrument.

In a second instance, it is important to mention that the draft text highlights the responsibility of the State as the first and only protector of Fundamental Rights in the face of corporate actions, although it ignores the possible damage caused to the commercial activity of nations. In this sense, those commercial activities that are supported by the States (generally public private investments) do not have a reception in this treaty.

The draft also surprises because of the relevance given to the remediation of damages and the rights of the victims, given the urgent need to prevent companies from violating human rights. This disparity between the remedy and prevention was noted by civil society in the ‘Elements’ document, and criticized as it is necessary that the damages caused by business activity be prevented in the same way as the provision of compensation to the victims.

Despite the strong focus on the ‘effective remedy’, the draft adopts an article on prevention; in which it is important to mention the obligation to establish legislation that obliges companies to take due diligence actions. Including environmental and human rights assessments to analyze their activities and take the necessary actions to prevent damage.

Now, it is clear that the draft proposes a binding component for the States, in the sense that it forces them to adopt legislation that ensures respect for Human Rights against business activity. However, the text does not evidence the responsibility of the companies and this is because the treaty will not make them obligated subjects but through the laws that the States will implement. In this regard, the possibility of creating a ‘tribunal’ or another similar institution that has the capacity to judge and penalize the actions of transnational companies disappears.

The draft of the treaty did not include the chapter on ‘Obligations of companies’ that was found in the ‘Elements’; nor were the obligations of international organizations included.

An important element that appears in the draft is the ‘International Fund for Victims’, whose objective is to collaborate with the effective remediation to the damages caused by the business activity.

About the 4th session

After the 4th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group, the polarization of opinions between the countries of the ‘north’ and the global ‘south’ has become evident. The countries belonging to the BRICS block, together with most of the African continents and Latin American; have shown a positive response to the initiative of a legally binding instrument. However, representatives of the European Union, the United States of America, Japan, Australia and Canada, in addition to not having been present at the negotiations, have made clear their refusal to endorse the creation of the aforementioned treaty.

This polarization has relevant effects on the effective force that an instrument of these characteristics can have. Since most of the transnational corporations that would be forced by this text, stay in the States that today pronounce themselves in a manner opposite to the treaty, the protection of human rights against the activity of transnational corporations would not be completely insured .

There are still no certainties about how the process will continue after this fourth session and it is also not clear how civil society will be included in it. According to the ‘Global Campaign to Stop Corporate Impunity’, the following are the points recommended to the Intergovernmental Group, to give continuity to the negotiations:

  1. The future treaty should be aimed at Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and other companies with transnational activities, in accordance with the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Working Group in resolution 26/9.
  2. The future treaty must contain direct obligations for NCDs. It must also establish the joint and several liability of the parent companies with the entities throughout its global production chain (subsidiaries, subcontractors, suppliers, etc.).
  3. The future treaty should provide for an international enforcement mechanism with effective and binding enforcement powers. In this regard, the Global Campaign proposes the creation of an International Court to prosecute TNCs that commit human rights violations and an International Monitoring Center for TNCs.
  4. The future treaty must clearly establish the primacy of human rights obligations over trade or investment agreements.
  5. The future treaty should include concrete measures against the influence of TNCs in the process of formulating public policies at the international and national levels.
  6. The effective participation of civil society in all stages of negotiations on the draft treaty and the safeguarding of the process of influence of TNCs and their representatives.

Writer:

Agustina Palencia

Contacts:

More Information:

We present comments on the draft treaty on business and human rights.

Advancing towards a binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights.

Zero Draft Binding Treaty

, ,

Discussion on “Transparency and Accountability”

On Wednesday, October 3, the “Transparency and Accountability” Conversation will be held at The Tech Pub located at Velez Sarfield 576 – 5th floor, City 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”

Admission is free and with limited requirements, to attend you must complete the form by clicking here

The conversation has two panels in which there are several topics, among them:

  • Access to information and environmental justice
  • Public-private partnerships
  • Transparency in the penitentiary system
  • Open Government

The people who will speak will be:

  • Leandro Gómez – Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN)
  • Valeria Enderle – Environmental Culture Foundation Causa Ecologista (CAUCE)
  • Fabiola Cantú – Latin American Center for Human Rights (CLADH)
  • María Gabriela Larrauri – Civil Association for the Construction of an Open Government (AGA)
  • Melisa Gorondy – Federal Institute of Government (IFG)

We will wait for you!

,

We participate in the Public Consultation on the review of the Access to Information Policy of the IDB Invest in Buenos Aires

On August 10, IDB Invest carried out in Buenos Aires a public face-to-face consultation on the draft for its new Access to Public Information policy. This event is part of the virtual consultation currently open that BID Invest began in May of this year. The day was carried out in order to receive comments from civil society organizations.

“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 May of this year, IDB Invest, the private investment arm of the IDB Group, opened an instance of public consultation to evaluate the draft document of what will be its new Access to Information Policy. In this framework, the institution decided to hold some face-to-face meetings to receive comments and to hear the opinion of civil society organizations.

On August 10, BID Invest called a face-to-face consultation in Argentina, in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; and FUNDEPS participated. The day lasted a couple of hours and the central axes of discussion rested on: the information to be published before the approval of a project, the information to be published during the execution of a project and the list of exceptions to the policy. From the institution, the comments made were received and it was made explicit that after the consultation process was finished, a new document would be created taking into account both the virtual consultation and the face-to-face instance. Likewise, it was pointed out that if any of the comments are not incorporated, the reason for said decision will be justified.

Regarding the call to this meeting, there are some doubts about the selection process of the organizations that were invited. 12 organizations participated and FUNDEPS was the only one from the interior of the country. In this line, the low call makes us think that the information was not circulated with the necessary precedence and it was not foreseen that several organizations and communities could not attend being that they are very far from Buenos Aires.

From FUNDEPS we recognize in a positive way the implementation of face-to-face instances for the consultation. This allows us to clarify doubts and comments about the draft in real time, while at the same time it allowed us to know the intention of the institution when it comes to re-thinking its policy. In this regard, BID Invest explained that considering the relevance of the private investment portfolio of the IDB Group, it was necessary to modernize the Access to Information policy.

In general terms the draft in question has advanced positively on the previous policy. It has improved in key instances but there are still elements to polish. Special emphasis was placed on them by civil society and comments are expected to be incorporated. In addition to the suggestions and comments we made in the framework of the face-to-face consultation, from FUNDEPS, and together with other organizations in the country and the region, we will be sending a document with written comments to contribute to the process of reviewing the Policy.

More information:

Actual Política de Disponibilidad de Información (vigente desde el 2005)

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

Agustina Palencia – agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America

Together with the rest of the organizations that make up GREFI, we publish a comparative analysis of the regulatory frameworks of the main institutions that finance development in Latin America, with a focus on the similarities and differences between traditional, emerging and chinese banking institutions.

“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 Regional Group on Financing and Infrastructure (GREFI), made up of FUNDEPS, DAR, Ambiente y Sociedad and Fundar, recently published its latest research paper on the regulations of international financial institutions (IFIs): Comparative Analysis of IFIs regulations Present in Latin America This is a comparative analysis that takes as an object of study the operational policies of different institutions: the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank (WB), the Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC), the Corporation Financiera Internacional (CFI), the Development Bank of Brazil (BNDES), the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), the Development Bank of China (BDC) and the Chinese Bank of Exports and Imports (ExIm Bank). The essential objective was to be able to achieve a comparison between those traditional institutions, new development institutions and Chinese institutions. The anchoring of this study is given by the number of new actors that today are part of the financial and investment scenario in Latin America.

The analysis was carried out on four axes: access to information, citizen participation, indigenous peoples and social and environmental safeguards. The indicators for these categories were obtained from the best international practices in each of these subjects (the OAS model law on access to information, ILO Convention 169, among others). Each category was divided into different elements that received a score. The product of this work is presented in a statistical way, expressing at what level (percentage) the policies of the institutions achieve the highest standards.

The main results obtained in the study report that two banks categorized as traditional IBRD-BM (86%) and CFI (64%), in addition to an emerging CAF bank (62%), obtain the highest ratings. Among institutions rated less than 50% are two traditional IDB banks (45%) and CII (26%), one emerging bank BNDES (17%) and two Chinese banks BEIC (8%) and BDC (0%). An interesting finding is that only in the categories of traditional banking and emerging banking institutions with relatively high rating are observed. In contrast, Chinese banks stand out with the lowest evaluations according to the proportion of estimated adequacy. This is partly explained by the BDC bank, which does not obtain a qualification in any thematic axis, since, due to lack of access to its regulations, these are not known. (See the specific chapter on CDB).

More information:

Full publication Comparative analysis of the regulations of IFIs present in Latin America

Contact:

Agustina Palencia: agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

Civil society presents recommendations to the G20 at the Civil-20 Summit

We participated in the C20 Summit, which took place on August 6 and 7 in the city of Buenos Aires and where the final communiqué of the C20 was presented, with recommendations for the leaders of the G20 countries.

El Civil 20 (C20) es uno de los siete Engagement Groups o Grupos de Afinidad del Grupo de los 20 (G20) y constituye un ámbito en el que la sociedad civil de distintas partes del mundo puede contribuir a las discusiones y debates que se dan en el marco del G20, buscando incidir en las decisiones adoptadas por dicho foro. En los últimos años, el C20 adoptó como modalidad de trabajo la división  en diferentes grupos de trabajo específicos, desde los cuales se abordan distintas temáticas en profundidad   y se elaboran documentos de alto nivel que luego son presentados ante el G20. El resultado final de todo el trabajo del C20 se refleja en un comunicado final, el cuál es entregado al G20, cuya Cumbre de Líderes tendrá lugar el 30 de noviembre y 1 de diciembre en Buenos Aires.

Fundeps es co-coordinador del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Inversión e Infraestructura del C20, por lo que hemos participado activamente en la coordinación de las discusiones y debates del grupo, tanto a nivel virtual como presencial; y en la elaboración del policy  paper del grupo, que se incorporó al documento de recomendaciones final del C20. A su vez, el 6 y 7 de Agosto pasados participamos de la Cumbre del C20 en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, donde se presentó el documento con recomendaciones de políticas de los grupos de trabajo, el cuál fue además entregado al Presidente Mauricio Macri durante su participación en la apertura del evento.

The document summarizes the recommendations for the leaders of the G20 countries of each of the 8 C20 Working Groups: 1) Anticorruption 2) Architecture of the International Financial System 3) Education, Employment and Inclusion 4) Environment, Climate and Energy 5 ) Gender 6) Investment and Infrastructure 7) Local2Global 8) Global Health.

In the case of the working group that we coordinate (Investment and Infrastructure), the Policy Paper includes the main points and recommendations of the two thematic sub-groups in which the work was divided: Infrastructure Financing and Responsible Business Conduct. In particular, it proposes a series of 12 recommendations, among which are:

  • Promote the transparent and impartial tools necessary to evaluate what type of financing is the most appropriate for a given project.
  • Adopt and promote a set of criteria for sustainable infrastructure and quality to ensure compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals.
  •  Decisions about projects should be guided by national development strategies and priorities, and adopted through participatory processes to identify, mitigate and manage the environmental and social impacts of projects.
  • The guidelines on contractual provisions for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) should take into account public policy considerations and should not favor the interests of private investors over the contracting authorities.
  • Promote radical improvements in the transparency and accountability of infrastructure projects, whether with public or private funds.
  • Implement and complement the standards that establish responsible business conduct; Ensure significant participation in investment decisions, guaranteeing access to information and participation of communities in projects, from their design, according to their own times and priorities, defending the right to free, prior and informed consent; and protecting human rights defenders and informants.
  • Guarantee access to effective remediation for communities impacted by business activities, strengthening judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines for multinational companies.

After two days of debates and exhibitions by representatives of the C20 and other affinity groups, the C20 Summit closed echoing the commitment of President Mauricio Macri himself, who said that the Argentine presidency of the C20 would put people at the center of your policies. However, as expressed in the final communiqué of the C20, “speeches are not enough, genuine commitment is required through action”.

The Summit of G-20 leaders will take place at the end of November in Buenos Aires and until then, it will be the responsibility of the civil society organizations that participated in this process to bring these recommendations and claims not only to the rest of the civil society interested; but also to the affected communities and to the governmental representatives and political leaders not only of the countries that make up the G20, but of the whole world. In that sense, during the next four months we will continue coordinating the Investment and Infrastructure group, seeking to bring the recommendations reflected in the group’s policy paper to as many actors as possible.

More information:

Policy Pack: Recomendaciones del C20 al G20 de 2018

Documento del sub-grupo sobre Financiamiento de Infraestructura

Documento del sub-grupo sobre Conducta Empresarial Responsable

Página oficial del G-20

Página Oficial del C20

El C20 entregó sus recomendaciones a Mauricio Macri – G20 – 06/10/2018

La sociedad civil se reunió en el C20 – FUNDEPS – 17/04/2018

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

, ,

HLAC presented a report to the IACHR on HR and companies

Report prepared by the Healthy Latin American Coalition (CLAS) was presented in the framework of a public consultation opened by the Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (REDESCA) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH), with the to prepare a thematic report on inter-American standards in the area of ​​business and human rights.

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

The growing number of cases of human rights abuses and violations committed by companies has led to the treatment of the problem by the international community for some years now. In this context and within the framework of the inter-American system, the IACHR considered gathering information from different interested parties for the purpose of preparing a report that considers the regional reality, and that analyzes and systematizes the inter-American obligations and standards, in order to finally make recommendations on the matter.

Report presented by CLAS, a network that groups around 300 organizations in Latin America of which FUNDEPS is a part, focuses specifically on analyzing the link between companies and chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

Thus, first, the report provides information on the impact of these diseases in the region, with special mention to the involvement of vulnerable groups. Secondly, the power of influence of companies in the process of formulation of norms and public policies is analyzed, as an obstacle when adopting, executing and advancing in health policies to prevent and reduce the impact of chronic noncommunicable diseases. . In this regard, the cases of the tobacco industry, the food industry and the alcoholic beverage industry are cited as examples.

The document also warns that the current regulations and action plans sanctioned by governments focus on the prevention of the risk factors of these diseases, without including a more general perspective on human rights and companies. It observes that only some countries have made slight progress in this regard, despite the fact that international evidence shows that the most effective measures to reduce the consumption of unhealthy products are those that control the actions of the companies that manufacture and promote these products; especially in relation to marketing and promotion strategies.

Beyond the efforts of Latin American governments to move forward with legislation for the prevention of NCDs, the intervention of companies in the design and implementation of public policies, as well as the lobby of the industry, constitute a great obstacle to effective implementation of norms that prevent the population from the health consequences of consuming unhealthy products.

Currently, at the international level, there are non-binding instruments and mechanisms that aim to protect human rights from the irresponsible actions of companies. These include: the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD guidelines and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Similarly, the work of the IACHR has focused on the search for the prevalence of fundamental rights against the power of corporations; and that is why this thematic report takes on a fundamental character. In this context, also, in the last three years, at the initiative of some States, it has begun to debate the possibility of having an international treaty that effectively forces companies to comply with and guarantee respect for human rights. We believe that an instrument with these characteristics would reinforce the existing regulations, while at the same time ending the abuses perpetrated.

More information

Report presented by CLAS

Contact

Agustina Mozzoni, <agustinamozzoni@fundeps.org>

,

BID Invest calls public consultation for a new Policy on Access to Public Information

The private arm of the BID began the process of public consultation of its Access to Information Policy, which will be extended for 120 days and includes virtual and face-to-face consultations. This policy is key to being able to access information about the projects financed by the Institution, which is substantially expanding its portfolio of projects in Argentina and 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”.

BID Invest (previously called the Inter-American Investment Corporation) is the arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) that is responsible for financing and advising companies and sustainable projects of the private sector that come from and are developed in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. It has a portfolio of US $ 11,200 million in assets under management and 330 clients in 23 countries.

Currently, BID Invest is updating one of its operational policies. To this end, a draft of the new Access to Information Policy has been prepared, which will replace its current Information Availability Policy (in force since 2005) in 2019. It is around this draft (which is available in the BID Invest website) that the public consultation will be held, open to all international civil society. The draft was opened for consultation on May 23 and will receive comments for a period of 120 days.

In turn, the consultation will include virtual and face-to-face dialogues. The virtual consultation will be available through the BID Invest website, and face-to-face consultations will be carried out through meetings (whose dates are yet to be confirmed) in several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in Washington DC, where the body has its headquarters.

From FUNDEPS we will participate in this process of public consultation, reviewing the draft and sending comments to the Bank, in order to ensure that this new policy is framed in a true commitment to transparency in the exercise of its activities and to strengthen its governance and responsibility.

More information

Author

Agustina Palencia

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The MICI seeks to strengthen its institutional framework

During the month of April, the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) published new guidelines for improvement in its Consultation Phase. It was a participatory process that involved different civil society organizations in the revision of the first 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”

The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) is the entity in charge of receiving complaints regarding any project financed by the IDB Group. In this sense, any group of two or more people that is affected by a project financed by these institutions, can go to the mechanism in search of a solution. It should be noted that the complaints submitted should be about non-compliance with the bank’s operational policies and not about other national and / or international regulations.

In order to carry out its task, the ICIM has two functions or phases: (a) Verification of the Observance and (b) Consultation. The complainant may choose to use one or both functions. Verification of the Observance is carried out by the MICI exclusively and it is an investigation regarding the violation of any of the bank’s operational policies. The Consultation involves both those who file the complaint and the party that has taken the loan. This last function is a process similar to mediation and its objective is to achieve consensus among the parties involved to arrive at a solution.

On this second phase, the MICI elaborated a document for internal use that aims to improve the complaint process for those who decide to use this function of the mechanism. In this regard, it should be mentioned that this function must specifically address the needs of the parties involved and the context of the complaint. In these new guidelines, special attention was paid to the affected communities that file the complaint, as well as to the risks and dangers in which they may be involved. This is particularly important since the last few years have made it clear that human rights defenders live in a situation of constant danger.

In this sense, the presentation of a complaint before the ICIM can turn into something that can put at risk the life and / or safety of those who come to the mechanism. The new guidelines try to address this issue by arguing that the ICIM must act in the face of power imbalances, and at the same time ensure that the mediation process is appropriate to the needs of the parties. Within this logic, the guidelines propose to approach the consultation phase attending to six (6) very important principles: (a) the Co-Design of the processes, (b) the Action without Damage, (c) the Good Faith, (d) ) Voluntariness, (e) Sustainability and (f) Attention to Symmetries.

It follows from the latter that the aim of delineating these rules is to improve considerably the complaint process, while strengthening the general policy of the ICIM. We consider that this is a fundamental step in the adoption of better standards that guarantee the rendering of accounts of the financial institutions and the access to an effective remedy by the affected communities. Likewise, we applaud the adoption of these guidelines in consultation with civil society organizations. That made it clear that the MICI is willing to receive feedback from those who position themselves as users of the mechanism and who have been able to glimpse the shortcomings that the processes may have.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

Agustina Palencia – agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

Civil society met in the C20

We were participating in the C20 meeting, a civil society affinity group for the G20 process. In it, we coordinated the discussions of the investment and infrastructure work group, and participated in meetings with authorities.

“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 the occasion of the Argentine presidency of the G20 -which brings together the governments of the 20 largest economies in the world-, the meeting of the civil society group, called C20, took place on April 4 and 5 in Buenos Aires. It is organized into 8 working groups that address the following agendas: anti-corruption; architecture of the international financial system; education, employment and inclusion; environment, climate and energy; gender; global local; global health; and investment and infrastructure.

Within the working group of investment and infrastructure, the discussion was oriented to elaborate recommendations for the G20 governments, especially for the Argentine government for being leading the forum during 2018. Thus, issues concerning responsible investments were debated, with a focus in the impact of business activity on human rights, and different aspects related to infrastructure projects -financial, environmental, accountability, participation, among others-. These discussions began in March, through the online forum of the working group, and will continue in the same way for the elaboration of the conclusions as a group.

Likewise, during the second day, we participated in a meeting with Matías Mondino, Infrastructure Director of the Ministry of Finance and representative before the G20 infrastructure group. During the meeting, in addition to knowing about the government’s agenda for its G20 presidency on investments, the concerns of the organizations present in this regard were expressed about investments in infrastructure and public-private partnerships.

The result of the discussions held during the two days, will be reflected in a working document to be presented at the C20 summit to be held on August 6 and 7 in Buenos Aires. It is expected that the recommendations made by civil society will be taken by governments and reflected within the commitments of the G20. The purpose of the C20 process is to promote economic and financial policies that are attentive to the duties of the states in the area of ​​human rights, including in their agenda transparency and accountability.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

,

Virtual course defense of the territory: Tools of the framework of international law and the rules of the IFIS

The virtual course will be held every Wednesday in May; It is free and proof of participation will be given to anyone who has completed the five modules of the course.

“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 recent years, the actors that finance extractive and infrastructure projects in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region have diversified, resulting in a more complex financial framework. In this sense, a large part of the projects present in the region are co-financed by different actors. In many cases a percentage of the total financing of the projects may come from private financial institutions, development banks, regional or state banks.

In LAC, in addition to traditional banking (World Bank Group, Inter-American Development Bank) the presence of the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) and the Bank of Economic and Social Development of Brazil (BNDES) have had an important presence. However, during the past decade, Chinese banks have gained importance. During 2016, the two main banks of development in this country had record amounts for the region as the third consecutive year. These international financial institutions (IFIs) have their own environmental, social and access to information frameworks, so when designing a territorial defense strategy, it is useful to incorporate these tools. The foregoing complements the normative frameworks of international and national law that should prevail. The virtual course aims to deepen these issues.

 

GENERAL PURPOSE:

  • Strengthen the knowledge of the participants regarding the tools for the defense of the territory against extractive and infrastructure projects in the region.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

  • Understand the main normative frameworks of international law related to the defense of the territory
  • Understand the normative environmental, social and access to information frameworks of the main IFIs present in the region.
  • To create a space that favors the exchange of experiences and strategies for the defense of the territory against the advance of extractive projects and infrastructure in the region.

Wednesday of May: 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30

9 to 10.30: Guatemala

10 to 11.30: Colombia / Mexico / Peru

11 to 12.30: Bolivia

12 to 13.30: Argentina / Brazil

The course is free and proof of participation will be given to those who have completed the five modules of the course.

REGISTRATIONS HERE
Further information: cursogrefi@fundar.org.mx

,

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

On February 28, we presented to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OACNUDH) a report with comments on the draft ‘Elements‘ for the binding treaty on business and human rights.

In 2017, during the third session of the Intergovernmental Working Group for the Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights, a draft of elements to be included in the legally binding instrument was presented. The purpose of this document was to reflect the contributions made by the States and other relevant parties within the framework of the first two sessions. These were dedicated to the development of constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument. Once the third session was over, the States and other interested parties were invited to submit comments on the aforementioned draft.

Convinced that this process must move forward to finalize the legally binding agreement, a report was presented with comments and proposals for the text of the treaty. Among the most important points highlighted, the reference was made to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which is an example of how international regulations can deal with the impacts of transnational corporations on DD In addition, taking the same instrument as a reference, the need to reaffirm certain principles was highlighted: (1) the protection of the space for public decision-making, (2) the principle of progressivity in the fulfillment of human rights and (3) the environmental precautionary principle. These enumerated points become of vital importance, in the sense that they refer to the protection of Human Rights prior to the generation of any damage.

With reference to the actors involved, it was requested that the Multilateral Development Banks be included in the text. This, taking into consideration that this type of institutions, have traditionally been exempted from compliance with international regulations, claiming that their charters do not force them to consider human rights obligations when carrying out their activities.

In relation to the obligations of the States, the report presented by FUNDEPS highlighted:

  • The need to ensure transparency in interactions with transnational corporations with representatives of the State.
  • The establishment of mechanisms to prevent situations of conflict of interest.
  • The need for protection of human rights defenders.
  • The inclusion of impact assessments in human rights, ensuring the incorporation of the gender perspective.

We consider it of particular relevance that this process progresses in accordance with the mandate granted to the Intergovernmental Group. A legally binding instrument in this area is necessary in order to effectively and fully guarantee respect for human rights. In a scenario of globalization and transnationalization of financial and commercial activities, the national legislation is not enough to enforce the responsibility of protect for the DD.HH. In this regard, multinational companies must be accountable for their activities and operations; and for this, it is necessary to have an instrument of this caliber.

More information

Advancing towards a binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights
Effective access to reparation measures at the center of the debate of the 6th United Nations Forum

Más información

Author

Agustina Palencia

Contact

Juan Carballo – juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Leased opportunity: Program and Communication Officer

The Coalition for Human Rights in Development is making a call to fill the post of Program and Communication Officer, under the supervision of FUNDEPS. This position is full-time and will be responsible for providing support to the coordination and advocacy activities of the Coalition, while at the same time coordinating the institutional communication of the Coalition.

For this position, we are looking for a person in Communication, International Relations, Political Science, Advocacy or related careers who have experience in the field of human rights and in institutional communication. The person must have excellent oral and written command of English since communications with the Coalition are conducted in that language.

The post will have a contract with FUNDEPS and the Coalition for a year, starting in April this year, and with the possibility of renewing later, with fees set by the Coalition.

Those who apply should send the following documentation IN ENGLISH:

• Presentation letter
• Curriculum vitae
• Short sample of a written piece.

The documentation should be sent to info@fundeps.org with the subject “Program and Communications Associate” until Monday, March 5 inclusive. Applications in Spanish will be rejected.

To read the full call, click here.

Contact
Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org