,

BID Invest will review in 2018 its policy of access to information

During 2018, the private sector investment arm of the Inter-American Development Bank, BID
Invest, will review its institutional policy on access to information. It is a process that is expected
to improve its current policy, in order to effectively guarantee this right.

“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 investment arm of the private sector of the Inter-American Development Bank, BID Invest, will review its access to information policy during 2018. IDB Invest, is the entity in which the former Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC) was transformed, as a result of the deepening that the IDB intends to carry out in its financing to the private sector.

The IIC (now BID Invest), like the other international financial institutions (IFIs), has operational policies that regulate the actions of the entity and present criteria for the granting of loans. The policies of access to information fall within the group of rules that define the actions of the institution. In particular, they claim the basic right of access to information that human beings have.

It is also important to mention the relevance that this right adopts in terms of development projects. For a true development to take place, it is necessary that those involved can be part of the information exchange process, and even more, that they can see their development priorities reflected throughout the project’s investment cycle. Only then, policies and projects will be able to provide real benefits to local communities.

In this regard, IFIs and their policies do not always account for the best standards and practices in terms of access to information. In a recent analysis, the organization International Accountability Project, found that the former Corporation failed greatly in guaranteeing this right. Numerous projects financed by this member of the IDB Group have not managed to make the affected communities have access to information or participation mechanisms. This situation has been fostered by a lax normative framework that does not guarantee access to this right in its fullness.

It is expected that in this 2018, with the change to BID Invest, the review of the policy will achieve maximum standards and good practices in what access to information is concerned. However, there are still few details about this process. The dates are not defined and it is not known if there will be any instance that allows participation and / or comments from civil society organizations. From FUNDEPS we will be following this process closely and getting involved in it.

More information

Author

Agustina Palencia

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

What does 2017 leave us in relation to trunk pipelines?

“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 year 2017 began with important and promising news for the Gasification Project of Localities of the Interior of the Province of Córdoba, better known by the people of Córdoba as the “main gas pipeline project”. During the first days of January, the Governor of Córdoba Juan Schiaretti and President Mauricio Macri were present at the inauguration of a Pressure Reducing Plant in La Calera, work carried out by the Brazilian company Odebrecht within the framework of the systems awarded to it after the public tender launched in 2015. The reduction plant constituted the first section inaugurated by the Córdoba-Gran Córdoba Ring System, comprised of 52 kilometers of gas pipelines. reinforcement, and that will benefit 300 thousand inhabitants of both Córdoba and La Calera and of Saldán, Villa Allende, Mendiolaza, Malagueño and Malvinas Argentinas, according to official information.

The presence of Macri at the inauguration of the work represented a gesture of political support for the Schiaretti government. Especially taking into account the strong questions and criticisms received by the provincial government for the involvement in this project of the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht, involved in a corruption scandal in Brazil and other Latin American countries, even in Argentina. Despite these questions, the Schiaretti government always defended the participation of the company by resorting to the debatable argument that the corruption events in which it is involved occurred between 2004 and 2013, while the tender in Córdoba was carried out only in 2015.

However, after a few days the project suffers a major setback: Schiaretti announces that, due to delays in obtaining loans from Chinese banks, 4 stretches of gas pipelines would be re-tendered to avoid postponing the start of the works in said sections, but in this case with the Province’s own financing. Recall that of the 10 trunk systems that were defined in 2015, 4 were awarded to Transitory Business Unions (UTEs) made up of Argentine and Chinese companies and financed by Chinese banks (ICBC and Bank of China); and the remaining 6 were awarded to Odebrecht (at first it was said that the Brazilian company would present its own financing for the start of the work, but finally this was not the case, making the province have to resort to indebtedness to start the works).

Thus, criticisms of the link with Odebrecht in the work will be added to questions about the delays in Chinese financing; the lack of relevant explanations regarding the reasons for the fall in financing; the need to re-tender the work and the decision of the provincial government to go back to the market to borrow to finance the work and even for the substantial increase in the cost of the work, which went from a budget of 8,600 million pesos in 2015 to 12,480 million pesos at the beginning of 2017 (an increase of 45% in almost two years).

After a new call for bids in February, in March the works of the four aforementioned systems were re-awarded to the same UTEs that had won in the first tender. In turn, the government issued a new batch of public securities for 460 million dollars to finance the start of works in the 4 tranches of the project, with the financial agent of Banco de Córdoba (Bancor).

Although in that same month of March advances were announced in the negotiations with the Chinese banks to finish making the committed credits for the work, surprisingly on April 21 the Governor Schiaretti announced the definitive fall of the Chinese financing and the signing of a decree that rendered ineffective the adjudication of the works of the 4 corresponding trunk systems. While Schiaretti himself blamed the Chinese banks for the fall in funding, arguing that they raised conditions “leonine, unacceptable to Cordoba and the national government,” the fact is that the government never made clear the true reasons and reasons that led to the fall of Chinese financing.

In this way, the government of Córdoba decided to launch a new tender for 437 million dollars for the construction of the 4 gas pipeline systems, which now in the new call would become 8 systems (in addition to the 6 remaining systems already awarded to Odebrecht ) and whose financing would come from the same province. In this case, the allocation of the new systems fell to national companies.

In early May, and despite criticism from the opposition, the provincial legislature approves a bill that enables new changes in the pipeline project: the negotiations with Chinese banks to finance 4 of the trunk systems are terminated, and it is approved that it is now the provincial government itself that must obtain the totality of the funds to complete the work (ratifying in this way the authorization granted by law 10,339 that enabled operations to take public credit to carry out the works). Just a few days later, the government made official through a decree published in the Official Gazette, a new debt collection for 450 million dollars to finance the work. By the end of June, Schiaretti himself would announce through his Twitter account that the province had obtained the total financing for the work through the placement of bonds in the international capital market.

In short, this strategic project for Córdoba that was going to have in the beginning with financing provided or managed by international actors (initially through the National Bank of Economic and Social Development of Brazil -BNDES-, then through Chinese banks and own financing provided by the Odebrecht company) to depend exclusively, for its concretion, on the province’s own resources or obtained through debt through the issuance of government securities.

The second half of the year would be marked mainly by the progress of the work (according to the government by the end of the year 14% of the work had been completed and the work was planned to be completed by mid-2019), but also by the constants and recurring questions from sectors of the opposition and civil society in relation to the project. Especially after Córdoba was mentioned in the framework of the Lava Jato case as one of the destinations where the Odebrecht constructure paid bribes in Argentina.

Although the national government of Mauricio Macri began a campaign to review and investigate the possible involvement of Odebrecht in the payment of bribes in numerous public works projects in Argentina (which even led the national government to suspend the company to carry out works at a national level), the gas pipeline project in Córdoba was strangely excluded from said revision and the relevant explanations were never provided to justify such exclusion. Even the company continues to operate in the province despite its suspension at the national level (its main work is precisely that of gas pipelines in Córdoba) and the requirements from the opposition that the same be done at the provincial level. Given the lack of answers at the national level, some opposition legislators traveled to Brazil in October of this year to ask the prosecutors of the Lava Jato case to investigate the link between the Brazilian company in the payment of bribes in the framework of the bidding process in 2008 for the construction of trunk pipelines.

In this way, between marches and counter-marches, the balance of 2017 in relation to the trunk gas pipeline project throws little light and many shadows and suspicions in relation to the transparency and execution of the project. Not only because of the never entirely clear fall of Chinese financing at the beginning of the year but also, and above all, because of the way the provincial government has handled the involvement of the construction company Odebrecht in the work and the numerous causes of corruption that splash throughout Latin America and even in Argentina itself. Although the government of Schiaretti has detached the company from any kind of connection with the possible delivery of bribes and corruption in the bidding of the work (even with the support of the national government of Macri itself that has initiated a kind of “Crusade” against the Brazilian company for its actions in the country during the Kirchner government), the truth is that the year that ends leaves many questions and aspects not clarified about the project.

Undoubtedly, 2017 has left a huge debt outstanding in terms of transparency and accountability in relation to this strategic and emblematic project for Córdoba. From FUNDEPS, we expect this debt to be paid in 2018.

More information

– Working Document: Transparency in the gasification project of localities in the interior of the province of Córdoba by Melanie Mackenzie – December 2017. FUNDEPS.

– Notes and publications of FUNDEPS in relation to trunk gas pipelines.

–  Main gas pipelines in Córdoba: a work that advances in the shadow of corruption by Agustina Palencia – December 2017. El Entramado. FUNDEPS.

Image source

La Voz del Interior

Authors

Macarena Lourdes Mustafa / Voluntaria del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Effective access to reparation measures at the center of the debate of the 6th United Nations Forum

“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”

 

Like every year, during the month of November, the United Nations Forum on Human Rights and Business is held in Geneva. Whenever this event takes place, a particular theme is designated that will be the protagonist. This year, this theme has to do with: ‘access to repair mechanisms’.

The umbrella that protects this high-level meeting is subject to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These Principles constitute the current tool to regulate the actions of national and transnational companies regarding human rights. They were born with the academic John Ruggie and were adopted by the United Nations in 2011, by the Human Rights Council, through resolution 17/4. The objectives of the Board at that time were: identify and clarify corporate responsibility standards; and clarify the role of states. To this end, the established guidelines were divided into three fundamental pillars: the duty of the State to protect human rights, the responsibility of companies to respect human rights and access to redress mechanisms.

The mandate of these guiding principles is to “reduce as much as possible the negative impacts of business on human rights in a short period of time“. They also have general characteristics: (a) they cover all States. (b) they cover all companies, of all sizes, in all sectors and in all countries. (c) identify different but complementary responsibilities between States and companies. (d) they do not create new legal obligations, they elaborate based on existing obligations and best practices for States and companies. (e) are based on the idea that it can not be compensated: positive impacts do not compensate for negative impacts on human rights elsewhere. (f) they are a mixture of regulatory and voluntary approaches.

The context that gave birth to these principles is not different from that of today. The actions of the companies (even after the adoption of the principles) and their consequences, continue to show that national and international regulatory frameworks have not met the objective of protecting human rights. During 2016 we have witnessed the largest massacre of human rights defenders. Around the world, vulnerable communities have been violated their rights (housing, health, life, a healthy environment, among others) because of the actions of companies and corporations.

This situation has shown that the guiding principles have not yet managed to become an effective preventive framework regarding human rights violations due to corporate actions. In this sense, it is understandable why in the session of the Forum this year 2017 has focused on access to reparation. This third pillar refers to the existence of effective remedies for victims of human rights violations. At the state level, it is expected that States take appropriate measures to investigate, punish and repair. On the part of the corporations, the principles encourage the existence of early warnings that identify negative impacts and allow resolving complaints before the situation escalates to more damaging scenarios.

Since DD.HH. are currently at the mercy of business activity, the role of the States becomes fundamental. Specifically in regard to the strengthening of regulatory frameworks at the domestic level. For this, an essential part of the obligations of the States has to do with: ensuring access to judicial and non-judicial mechanisms; and reduce the obstacles to access to justice. In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that non-judicial mechanisms play a very important complementary role. Some of them include: State mechanisms, national human rights institutions, ombudsmen, complaints offices, National Contact Points (OECD), among others.

The application of the guiding principles by the States has been given through the form of National Plans of Action. It is expected that these plans will be constituted as instruments that:

– Promote greater coordination among government agencies with direct involvement in business issues and human rights.

– Promote the protection of human rights through due diligence in companies.

– Identify national priorities regarding this topic and translate them into concrete public policies

– Ensure monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the plan, in a continuous manner.

– Are based on a platform of continuous dialogue with all the actors involved (government, companies and civil society)

– Possess a flexible format for cooperation, coordination and international exchange of good practices and lessons learned.

– Strengthen regulations at the domestic level.

The result of the development of these plans around the world leaves much to be desired. There are still many States that have not embarked on this process and those that have done so have not succeeded in having their plans promote a framework strong enough to respect, protect and / or remedy.

The situation of widespread vulnerability to this problem has raised doubts about the effectiveness of the guiding principles, and a process to create a legally binding instrument has been developed at the same time. During the Forum, it is expected to debate about the roles that the principles and the binding treaty would occupy. Although opinions are divided (between those who support one initiative or another) it is necessary to clarify that the principles and the treaty are complementary. A binding instrument is a step forward with respect to the guidelines. To achieve this progress it is necessary to protect the autonomy of the process of construction of the treaty since, in short, this initiative would give greater impetus to the guiding principles, and would give greater and better content to the action plans.

More information

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

– Discussions in Argentina regarding a business treaty and human rights

– We participate in the second regional consultation of ECLAC on human rights and companies

Author

 Agustina Palencia, agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

Contact

Juan Carballo, juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Regulation of Public-Private Partnerships in Argentina: risks and opportunities

The PPP or PPP (by its name in English: Private Public Partnerships), born in the United Kingdom in the early 70’s and then expanded by the rest of Europe, North America and Latin America, with Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru , Uruguay and Mexico, represent a new form of linkage between the private sector and the public sector. Under this model, part of the services or works traditionally under the responsibility of the public sector are executed by the private sector through a contract in which the shared objectives for the supply of the service or work in question are clearly delineated, and the obligations and risks assumed for each part. Although the level of participation of the private sector has increased since the eighties of the last century, PPPs are presented as innovative agreements. It is supposed that they allow a better mobilization of resources to solve the problems of the public sector to execute this type of projects.

In Argentina, and after some attempts to give legal form to PPPs in the years 2000 and 2005, new legislation is approved in Congress at the end of 2016, through Law 27,328. The text of this law defines public-private partnership contracts in its art. 1 as: “those held between the bodies and entities that make up the national public sector with the scope provided in article 8 of Law 24.156 and its amendments (as a contracting party), and private or public subjects in the terms set forth in establishes in the present law (as contractors) with the aim of developing projects in the fields of infrastructure, housing, activities and services, productive investment, applied research and / or technological innovation”.

In our country we have a serious deficit of public works and, until now, the State has not been able to fill that gap. That is why they are seeking, as with the new APP law, new forms of financing in infrastructure and public works. However, we must be careful when implementing it, since PPPs carry some risks and opportunities. How favorable are these types of agreements for infrastructure development? Do they really work? What are its true scope and limitations? These are some of the questions that arise when evaluating the projects executed under this modality.

So far there are no cases of application of this type of contract for the realization of infrastructure works. We believe it is important to strive for transparency and accountability on the part of the government in the use of this and other forms of contracting. Learning from the experiences of Latin American countries on these issues, during the whole process in which the PPP project is developed, the risks that this implies must be correctly evaluated. Also, control, supervise and plan correctly and responsibly, taking into account the social interest of the project, access to information, citizen participation. Also, trying to avoid corruption and potential environmental, social and human rights impacts.

More information

– Risks and opportunities of the new Law of Public-Private Partnerships in Argentina | FUNDEPS

– Why Public-Private Partnerships now? | Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN)

– Public-Private Partnerships from the multilateral bank. Implementation in Latin America. Part I | Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad

– Comparative study on the implementation of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) | FARN

Image source

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

Author

María Victoria Gerbaldo – victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Claim for higher standards of protection of DD.HH. in infrastructure megaprojects

“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”

Currently, the Latin American region has witnessed a resounding change in the area of ​​large investments for development. Traditionally, international financial institutions (IFIs) played a fundamental role in supporting development projects in the region. The World Bank Group and the Inter-American Development Bank Group were behind the large investments in the infrastructure area.

This situation has been modified by the increase in the presence of the People’s Republic of China as the main investor in this matter. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight that this situation has brought about a strong discussion regarding social and environmental standards. Traditional IFIs have regulations that, while far from functioning properly in practice, minimally seek to ensure compliance with certain environmental, social and human rights standards in their projects. In the case of Chinese institutions, on the contrary, the situation is more complex, since in most cases these institutions lack transparency or clear and robust regulations in socio-environmental matters.

The consequence of the coexistence of these two groups of institutions – the traditional IFIs and the Chinese ones – has given a negative balance and this has been evidenced in the retreat of the safeguards in organisms such as the World Bank. In this sense, the current financing structure in Latin America has seen its standards fall, generating serious situations of violation of rights when launching large infrastructure projects. During 2016, 200 environmental defenders lost their lives claiming their rights before the advance of major oil and mining projects. 60% of those deaths occurred in Latin America and 40% belonged to indigenous peoples.

From this framework, the Regional Coalition for Transparency and Participation, brought together a group of civil society organizations with the aim of influencing the improvement of socio-environmental standards in infrastructure megaprojects. At the Fourth Regional Meeting on Human Rights, Transparency and Investments, held in Lima on August 30 and 31, the organizations gathered spoke for the urgent need to ensure the rights of environmental defenders. Likewise, the growing cases of corruption around the megaprojects and the lack of access to public information were highlighted.

The statement after the meeting noted that: “several governments have been addressing the right of access to public information as a mere administrative procedure, without taking into account that it is an instrumental human right to other fundamental rights, such as the right to life, to health, to freedom of expression, which contributes to the adequate and timely citizen participation and free and informed prior consultation. In this line, it is worrying that several international initiatives on transparency and access to information can not continue to advance adequately because there is a risk that we seek to lower the standards, as in the case of the Regional Agreement of Principle 10.” The large infrastructure projects then, today remain the scenario for the problematization of issues such as transparency and accountability.

Several governments in Latin America have joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and have therefore committed to implementing policies that promote transparency, access to information, accountability and participation. citizen This necessarily implies that these efforts to ‘open the State’ must expand to the environmental and infrastructure branch. Currently this is a pending debt and of the 3000 commitments assumed before OGP, only 54 belong to the field of infrastructure. Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Uruguay are the Latin American and Caribbean nations that have elaborated goals in relation to this matter. However, the problems persist and the situation of human rights around the megaprojects has been getting worse. In addition, after the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Coalition, it was highlighted that “it is important that the processes for the elaboration of the Work Plans of the Alliance for Open Government of the countries be truly participatory and with ambitious, measurable and relevant “. This is especially important when it comes to achieving the involvement and monitoring of society in public works processes (throughout the project cycle).

In Argentina this reality is replicated. Currently, large infrastructure projects are being developed that have been involved in corruption cases and whose information was not shared with citizens. We can mention among them: the hydroelectric dams in the Province of Santa Cruz and the trunk gas pipelines in the province of Córdoba.

The generalized situation of human rights around infrastructure megaprojects is alarming. There continue to be numerous cases in which nearby communities are harmed by this type of work. Added to this, the killing of environmental defenders has worsened in the last two years. In this context, we adhere to the Lima Declaration and urge Latin American governments to move towards more transparent policies on this issue.

More information

– Declaration of Lima

Author

Agustina Palencia, agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

Contact

Gonzalo Roza gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The UN urges banks to address attacks on human rights defenders

“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”

 

“Through its financing and technical support, a complex range of public and private institutions continue to be involved in attacks against defenders,” cites the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst.

According to Forst, “there is a deep crisis linked to the imposition of development models that seem to favor short-term benefits and commodification on the needs and aspirations of local populations.” The report found that in many cases, violations of rights and conflict stem from the exclusion of potentially affected communities from decisions about their lands and natural resources. “Only by guaranteeing the right of those communities to grant or deny their Free, prior and informed consent, as foreseen in international agreements, can avoid these origins of the conflict.”

The Special Rapporteur’s analysis echoes some of the critical trends and challenges highlighted in a brief submittedby the Coalition for Human Rights in Development in response to the Special Rapporteur’s call for the report. These include the growing role of the private sector in development, the lack of due diligence on human rights by development banks, the increasing use of financial intermediaries and the poor execution of consultation and consent processes.

The report of the Special Rapporteur highlights the “urgency” for development banks and other investors to use due diligence on human rights issues to identify potential risks for defenders and identify mitigation measures before making investment decisions. Taking into account the commitments of the States in matters of sustainable development, the Rapporteur stressed that “now is the time to ‘lead by example’ and ensure that no one can be killed or threatened for the mere fact of defending human rights.”

The report recommends several concrete policies and practices that development banks and other investors should adopt to safeguard defenders:

– Conduct ex ante impact assessments on the enabling environment for human rights and fundamental freedoms in host countries, as well as on the risks of projects for human rights defenders.

– Conduct on-site monitoring with human rights experience for all projects;

Use contractual provisions to require clients to ensure that defenders can publicly and securely disclose their claims;

– Demand accessible and independent complaints mechanisms with experience in human rights;

– Monitor projects closely for reprisals and, if they do occur, respond promptly and publicly, including exercising influence over governments to investigate and hold accountable those who use force against protesters or threaten critics of projects;

– Disclose all final users of loans from financial intermediaries and ensure compliance with safeguards and human rights;

– Retain investments where impact evaluations reveal serious threats to civil liberties and to defenders.

The Special Rapporteur’s findings echo many of the priorities and recommendations of the Defenders in Development campaign led by the Coalition along with civil society groups from around the world. The campaign is working to ensure that development activities respect human rights, that development funders promote an environment conducive to public participation, and that defenders can defend their rights and hold development actors accountable. fear.

Source: Coalición para los Derechos Humanos en el Desarrollo

source of the image: Accountability Counsel

,

Moving towards a binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The role of Argentina in the face of the discussion

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

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

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

Author

Agustina Palencia, agustinapalencia@fundeps.org 

Contact

Juan Carballo, juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Global Meeting of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

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

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

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

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

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

More information

– Coalition’s Impact Report 2016

– Web page of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

Contact

Juan Carballo / Executive Director of FUNDEPS

juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Discussions on Independent Accountability Mechanisms in Greece

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

More information

– Network of Independent Accountability Mechanisms

– Video on the IAMnet network

– MICI website

– Inspection Panel website

– CAO website

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

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Call for nominations to form the ICIM External Consultative Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Curriculum vitae.

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

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

More information:

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

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

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

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

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

– MICI website

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of the Global Governance Area

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Civil society organizations call for transparency in World Bank safeguards review

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

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

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

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

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Más información:

Contacto:

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