Civil Society Organizations’ critics to bank interpretations on human rights responsibilities

The Bank Group of Thun published a document about the implications of the UN Guiding Principles for corporate and investment banking. A group of civil society organizations publicly criticise these statements.

“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.”

 

Faced with the risks involved in the Thun Group document, a group of civil society organizations issued an open letter criticizing many of the issues raised in that document. We signed the letter 34 academic and civil society organizations from 17 countries, including BankTrack, SOMO, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Global Witness and OECD Watch.

The Thun Group document develops a conceptual framework for the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights for banks in a context of corporate and investment banking. This document misrepresents principle 13.

The letter requests that the Thun Group demonstrate that it is prepared to participate in the OECD Proactive Agenda Project in good faith by amending the document they have issued and making it clear that it recognizes and respects the advice of the Office of the High Commissioner for United Nations for Human Rights.

The guiding principles are a set of guidelines agreed upon by the international community as a guideline that guides both States in their work to protect human rights and companies in their duty to respect them. This work was led by Professor Ruggie. These principles were adopted unanimously in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

In this context, on 21 February, Professor Ruggie of Harvard responded strongly to the Thun Group document. He is “deeply concerned” by the document and raises similar points to those of the open letter. “They can undermine attempts by banks and others to fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights.” In addition, he adds that:

“It is a good example that a group of large banks are doing important work on the application of UNGPs to their sector. But I am afraid that misinterpretation of the basic elements of UNGPs and their implications in this document can seriously damage I would urge the Group to reflect on these issues and consider the possibility of issuing a future document more in line with the basic elements of the UNGPs.”

On 23 February, the coordinator of the United Nations Working Group promoting the implementation of the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights also responded by inviting Thun Group banks to review the document “to align it with UNGPs” The Working Group considers that the discussion paper offers some useful practical considerations for banks in certain situations where they may be directly linked to the effects of human rights through the financial products or services they provide to third parties , Which may contribute or cause a human rights conflict abuse.

“The efforts of the Thun Group to explore the practical implications of the UNGPs are welcome … However, these instruments of practice that seek to interpret the meaning of UNGPs in a sector-specific context should be subject to a consultation process And review by other stakeholders in order to ensure accuracy, soundness and legitimacy. “

The Working Group believes that if not addressed, this can cause unnecessary confusion on UNGPs, which may undermine attempts by banks and others to fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights. It should be noted that the discussion paper of the Thun Group was approved by Barclays, BBVA, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank, ING, JPMorgan, RBS, Standard Chartered, UBS Group AG and UniCredit.

On 28 February Christian Leitz on behalf of the Thun Group responded to the CSO group, Professor John Ruggie and the UN Working Group. He claims to be trying to generate a constructive discussion between banks and other interested parties but has not indicated any willingness to revise the document. And it hopes to continue with stakeholders in upcoming multi-stakeholder forums by discussing the document.

A meeting open to all signatories of the letter is scheduled for 19 June where a broader dialogue with the Thun Group will take place. Professor Ruggie has said he will consider participating in this meeting if they retracted the premise that banks can not contribute to damage through their relationships with customers.

In the counter response, civil society organizations express two concerns about the June meeting. On the one hand, define a stakeholder engagement strategy as promised by the Thun Group at its last public meeting. And secondly, that you withdraw and reconsider your recent document.

From FUNDEPS we follow this process and we expect a change in the response that has given the Thun Group. The Guiding Principles on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights were created to “protect, respect and remedy” human rights, and we expect cooperation from states, private sectors and civil society to fulfill their commitments.

More information

Thun Group of Banks releases new Discussion Paper on implications of UN Guiding Principles for corporate & investment banking; commentaries provided

Leading banks under fire for misrepresenting human rights responsibilities

Contact

Victoria Gerbaldo / Encargada de Proyectos del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org

The ICIM External Consultative Group was formed

In February the ICIM concluded the process of selecting members of its External Consultative Group. Juan Carballo, Executive Director of FUNDEPS has been selected to integrate it.

“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”

Following a selection process, the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank selected eight members to form its External Advisory Council (GCE).

The purpose of the CGE is to support the ICIM’s commitment to fulfilling its accountability mandate in a credible, effective and transparent manner.

Juan Carballo, our Executive Director, has been selected to join GCE with Ana-Mita Betancourt (United States), Maximiliano Brandt (Costa Rica), Leonardo Crippa (United States), Manuel Morales (Ecuador), Paulina Ibarra , Andrea Repetto (United States) and Melanie Salagnat (Mexico). The members will participate voluntarily, without remuneration and the initial mandate will be for a period of two years.

The CGE is planning its first meeting for the first half of this year. We hope that the recommendations and suggestions regarding the membership, composition and objectives and functions of the CGE that we present at the time will be taken into account in the actions of the group.

From FUNDEPS, we will share with civil society in general the opportunities for monitoring and advocacy provided by the CGE.

More information

Contact

Juan Carballo / Executive Director

Juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

Participation in the strategic planning of the IACHR

On February 10, we participated in the consultation process opened by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to civil society organizations in Washington, DC. This is done in the framework of the implementation of its strategic planning for the period 2017-2020.

“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”

During the first part of the day, the space was allocated to the organizations present to give their position on the human rights challenges to be taken into account for the coming years. Among the topics mentioned are the rights of migrants, women, LGTBIQ people, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples. In the second part of the consultation, the objectives that the Commission drew up as a draft were revised by working groups.

The challenges we identify in the future for human rights in the region are related to economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (DESCA), which have been widely recognized as human rights but not sufficiently addressed by hemispheric bodies. Another important item on the agenda is access to information, fundamental for democratic systems, and declared as a human right related to freedom of expression by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Access to information is of the utmost importance since it has a direct impact on the exercise of other human rights, including DESCA.On the other hand, we highlight the link between human rights and companies, due to the growing tendency to capture corporations around the world. In this sense, States should play a greater role, avoiding giving in to self-regulation commitments of the private sector and the interference of companies in sensitive public policy sectors. To this end, initiatives should be promoted to increase the levels of accountability of the private sector, not forgetting the responsibility of States. Finally, we express our concern about the situation of human rights defenders, with Latin America being one of the most dangerous regions for this group and we have proposed instances of participation outside national capitals.

The IACHR is a principal and autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS) responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Americas. The processes for reviewing the agency’s activities, such as strategic planning, are of great relevance to the inter-American human rights system and the agenda of civil society on the continent.

More information

Intervention of FUNDEPS in the Strategic Plan process

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

MAR 8: FUNDEPS accompanies the International Women’s Strike

The International Women’s Strike (PIM) is a grassroots movement formed and organized by women from 35 countries in response to the social, legal, political, moral, media and verbal violence experienced daily by women throughout the world.

“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 October 3, 2016 -following the example of the Icelanders, the first women who called for a national strike in 1975– the Polish women called a strike in what was known as “Black Monday”.

In our country, on October 19, 2016, in response to a week in which 7 femicides happened and after a weekend in which the women were repressed in the march of the National Meeting of Women; A call was launched on social networks to join a one-hour strike and mass mobilizations. Thus, in a self-contradictory way, women’s and feminist organizations, including the Ni Una Menos group, joined the measure that was replicated in most countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

In Poland, on 24 October, the second “Polish strike” against State violence on women’s issues occurred. Polish women established contact with other women in South Korea, Russia, Ireland, Israel, Italy and Argentina. At the end of October 2016, this group – already under the name of the International Women’s Stop – decided the slogan “Solidarity is our weapon” and a call for unemployment translated into several languages. It was decided that on November 25 of this year, International Day against Gender Violence, will be the first global solidarity action and was elected on March 8 for the International Women’s Strike.

In this way, they proposed to approach a new global activism and to interpret the facts of violence from a common conjuncture. They formed a union to fight against the institutionalized oppression that the patriarchal system supposes and that suffer the men, the women and the society in general, from the State, the Justice and the means of communication.

In Argentina, the strike was promoted from the Ni Una Menos Collective and the main workers’ union centrals (CGT, CTA de los Trabajadores and CTA Autónoma) reached a political agreement of unity in articulation with groups, organizations and activists autoconvocadas. The measure of force seeks to denounce the historical inequality of women in society and its multiple consequences: from sexist violence – and its most extreme expression, femicides – to the feminization of poverty, economic violence, domestic work and care Wage gap in relation to male salaries, labor precarization, universal vacancies in maternity gardens, maternity and paternity leave extensions, salaries for victims of gender violence, equal pay for equal work, reopening of the moratorium for women Of home, among other claims. Each union is defining its type of membership: from cessation of activities from noon to assemblies at workplaces.

From FUNDEPS we extend our concern to all the forms of violence that women suffer every day around the world whose maximum exponent is the femicides. We accompany the fight, invite and join the International Women’s Stop on March 8, 2017.

More information

History of PIM (03/10/2016)

How the International Women’s Strike arose (La Tinta, 03/10/2016)

The United Nations CEDAW Committee listened to civil society organizations (FUNDES, 21/12/2016)

Appeal to the International Women’s Strike – March 8, 2017 (23/01/2017)

The gender claim achieved unity (Página 12, 17/02/2017)

Contact

Emiilia Pioletti – emiliapioletti@fundeps.org

Severe lack of transparency in the budget of the National Council of Women

From FUNDEPS we express our concern for the lack of transparency and clarity in the management of the budget for the National Council of Women announced in the last Official Gazette.

“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 January 11 of this year, the budget modification for the National Women’s Council (CNM) and the National Plan of Action against Gender Violence (PNA) was reflected in the Official Gazette, signed by the Chief of Staff , Marcos Peña. Until December 2016, there was a budget approved by the National Congress, which included a CNM and NAP item for 47 million pesos, which was added an increase of 20 million pesos to the original budget planned for the CNM. The Budget Law 2017 was then promulgated with that increase from 96 to 116 million by 2017. In the current Administrative Decision 12/2017 of the Chief of Cabinet, only the amount of 96 million was designated for the CNM which implies a reduction of 67 Million pesos of the assigned budget.

From this confusing situation, an amparo action was filed by the Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ), the Latin American Justice and Gender Team (ELA), the Foundation for the Study and Research of Women (FEIM), The Argentine Commission for Migrants and Refugees (Caref), the Women in Equality Foundation (MEI) and the 21st Century Foundation. The organizations made a presentation to the Court to declare unconstitutional the reduction of funds allocated to the National Council of Women And the National Plan of Action against Gender Violence, demanding the State for the violation of the division of powers and the discretionary use of “superpowers”.

The authorities of the National Women’s Council tried to deny this information through an official press release and various statements in the media, claiming that it was an “error” and that the budget item, although not properly published in The Official Gazette, was guaranteed by the Ministry of Finance.

We emphasize the importance of carrying out the budgetary allocation according to established procedures, in order not to weaken institutional quality and respect democratic processes. On the other hand, if the elimination of these funds in the Administrative Decision was the product of an error, in order to be valid, the same must be corrected and published in the Official Gazette, according to the formal process. As of today, more than a month has elapsed since the publication of the Administrative Decision, it has not yet become official. This demonstrates the seriousness of the situation and the unclear and transparent management of the budget by the Office of the Chief of Staff.

As the budget line announced in the NAP is one of the points where progress was made in protecting women, we express our concern about this evidence of institutional fragility, lack of clarity and transparency that weakens the achievements against violence of genre. This situation violates the rights of women and girls in a country where every 18 hours a woman dies a victim of violence.

We also add our call for greater transparency in the mechanisms for monitoring public funds for budget execution and for greater clarity in the decisions taken by state agencies that affect the lives of millions of women.

More information

Contact

Emiilia Pioletti – emiliapioletti@fundeps.org

Concern over a Supreme Court decision that weakens human rights treaties in Argentina

A recent decision from the highest tribunal of Argentina finds that it is not mandated to change its decisions, even when these decisions were found to be violations human rights by the Inter-American Court of 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.”

 

On February 14, 2017, the Argentine Supreme Court rejected the presentation of the Directorate of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, which requested that, as a result of the ruling of the Inter-American Court in the case “Fontevecchia et al. C / Argentine Republic, “a final judgment of the Supreme Court would be rendered null and void. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights had established that the Argentine Supreme Court should annul a civil conviction against two journalists that was understood as a violation of freedom of expression.

The new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court represents a disturbing change in the sustained jurisprudence that had allowed to position the Argentine right in a place of vanguard at regional level with respect to the scope and normative value of the international human rights treaties. According to the new criterion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction to order review of Supreme Court rulings that violate human rights.

This is a serious setback in human rights, which weakens the value of the inter-American system of protection and places the Supreme Court practically outside the state structure, without the possibility of its decisions being reviewed in that supranational instance. In this way, the Supreme Court states that its decisions would be the only state acts unrelated to the control of human rights tribunals, further limiting their accountability.

This Supreme Court jurisprudential change confirms the fears expressed by many organizations, academics and human rights experts, including FUNDEPS, when a little more than a year ago we objected to the nominations of Drs. Rosenkrantz and Rossatti. Some of the criticisms we made at that time pointed to their doctrinal positions contrary to the full validity of international human rights treaties.

In short, we reject the criterion of our highest court and hope that it will be modified to avoid weakening the system of protection of human rights in our country.

More information

Contact

Juan Carballo, Executive Director

Conflicts over an IADB funded project for an environmental center in Carlos Paz

Neighbors requested the closure of the current open dump and expressed their opposition to the development of the environmental center in Carlos Paz, which has funding from the Inter-American Development Bank.

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

 

On Sunday, January 29, a local autoconvocatoria took place in the square of Villa San Nicolás (Malagueño), with the objective of informing and organizing itself with regard to the problem that generates in the whole area the presence of the open dump administered by the municipality of Villa Carlos Paz in the property located to the side of the motorway to Cordoba. The neighbors formed an inter-district commission that will work to elaborate the “action plan” that will define the following steps.

Through a statement, neighbors said they will request the closure of the current landfill at the time they anticipated that they disagree with the construction of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center in the sector. This work is financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) through the Comprehensive Urban Solid Waste Management Program-AR-L1151.

The meeting came after a week in which the wind moved home smoke from the fire in the landfill that the city has on the side of the highway Justiniano Allende Posse, less than 1 km from the entrance to the neighborhood of Villa San Nicolás. “Only now is awareness. The smoke awoke us all and triggered the protest”, said Lucas Bettiol, a neighbor of San Nicolás, in reference to the fire that was unleashed in the landfill and warned that,“we did not know until last week that they wanted to make an Environmental Center in the same place”. They also stated: “Far from remedying the damage generated by the open dump, pollution levels will increase due to the installation of a new landfill that represents five times the size of the current landfill”.

The neighbors expressed an explicit and emphatic rejection of both the current landfill and the establishment of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center. In this sense ensure that if this proposal materializes “the environment will be even more damaged, the quality of air will decrease and groundwater and surface water will be contaminated, being that in the area all neighborhoods consume well water.” Warned about the progress of the Environmental Center project, Bettiol said:
“… it will be a fight similar to what happened with Monsanto (Malvinas Argentinas), or the dumps of Bouwer and Santa Ana neighborhood … We know that it is approved but we have the antecedent of Monsanto that was managed to stop and we hope To be able to stop this. The authorities are not dimensioning the environmental or social impact (…) The population of San Nicolás was not included in the Environmental Impact Study and we are less than 1 km. TierrAlta is closer. The authorities of Carlos Paz and Malagueño minimize what is happening in the landfill “

In April last year the environmental public hearing took place, in August the Ministry of Tourism carried out the national public bidding process and in November the bids for international public bidding were opened. The works are expected to begin in the middle of this year.

In view of the possible environmental and social impacts, compliance with provincial, national and IDB operational policies must be complied with.

In the statement, they affirm that they have not been considered in the environmental impact assessment process of the IDB-financed project and that, far from remedying the damage currently generated by the open pit, the levels of pollution will increase. They demand that the municipality of Malagueño be present and that Carlos Paz recognizes the violation of his rights. They also ask the province of Córdoba to act in the prevention of damage and demand the immediate repair of the damage done in the area.

The autoconvocados neighbors of San Nicolás, TierrAlta, Mariano Moreno, La Arbolada, Lote Joven, Valle del Golf, Causana and the districts Carlospacenses Costa Azul North and South requested a public study of the quality of the air, the soil and the underground beds.

From FUNDEPS we are following this process to ensure that human rights and the environment are respected. The location of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center next to the La Calera Defense Nature Reserve, and meters away from San Roque Lake in areas that may have a higher propensity to seep or leach into the water, is questionable.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of the Global Governance Area

gon.roza@fundeps.org

The Nation questions the updating of the forest regulations

In the context of the discussion on how to update the provincial legal framework to protect the native forests of Cordoba, the National Forest Direction states that more information is needed, including a map and technical reports. At the same time, the National Direction affirms that the provincial process must assure mechanisms for substantive participation.

“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 Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of the Nation, through the Directorate of Forests, made known its considerations in relation to the process of updating the territorial order of native forests that faces the province of Cordoba, in response to a request made Córdoba Environmental Forum, by means of note dated 01/27/2017.

– Expressed its concern about the failure of the province of Cordoba to comply with the deadlines set for the update. In this regard, he recalled that he had already requested the delivery of progress regarding the upgrade process. In the communications with the provincial government, he communicated the guidelines and the vision to take into account the adjustment procedures and the accreditation of the updating of the OTBN (according to notes sent on 2/23/16 and 4/6/2016).

– Reported that in August 2016, the local enforcement authority shared informally a first update project. The National Directorate detected significant changes to the first provincial OTBN plan, and highlighted two points: “an increase in the area of ​​declared forest and an important passage from native forests from Category I (red) to Category II (yellow)”.

– Checked the exchange of progress on the updating and existence of opposing positions of various actors, according to their participation in the meetings of the inter-institutional table of dialogue convened by the General Secretariat of the Gov. From Cordoba, the Sec. Of Environment and the Sec. Of Agriculture. In this instance does not refer to any process to try to approach antagonistic positions.

– Observed, among others, that the OTBN bill does not allow to know the areas of native forests by conservation category, which is essential for its accreditation.

In summary, he stressed that for the purpose of carrying out the analysis for the accreditation of OTBN of the province of Cordoba, it is necessary:

1. Have the complete bill (it does not contain the map with the location of the forests and their conservation categories of the OTBN update)

2. To have the technical document with the methodology used for the evaluation of the criteria of environmental sustainability and the resulting surface.

3. Know the participatory process that would accompany this proposal.

So far, the discussion on updating the framework for protection of native forests in Córdoba has not complied with national regulations, has not allowed open participation, has hidden information and shared it with only a few specific sectors.

From FUNDEPS, we demand that the process be transparent, participatory, comply with the requirements demanded from the Nation and be respectful of minimum environmental budgets, in order to avoid the repetition of conflictive situations in relation to the territorial order of native forests of Cordova.

More information

Contact

Male Martínez – Environmental Equity Coordinator

malemartinez@fundeps.org

Worrying situation of human rights defenders worldwide

During 2016 more than 280 human rights and environmental activists were murdered in 25 countries, marking a growing radicalization of violence towards them. The murders that occurred during the first weeks of 2017 have ratified this worrying trend. From FUNDEPS we join the widespread demand for a change in the situation of those who have seen their rights vulnerable due to the protection of the environment, the territory, the rights of indigenous peoples, among others.

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

 

“On March 2, 2016, gunmen stormed the house of environmental activist Berta Cáceres in the middle of the night and shot her dead. Cáceres had spent several years attempting to stop the construction of a hydroelectric dam in the land of his community in Intibucá, in western Honduras, which endangered a vital and sacred water source for the indigenous Lenca people. Less than a year before his death, he had delivered a poignant address to a crowded auditorium when he was awarded the Goldman Environment Award of 2015 for his exceptional courage in the field of environmental activism”

So begins the latest report by Global Witness, an organization that exposes the hidden links between the demand for natural resources, corruption, armed conflict and the destruction of the environment. The reason for this report is to expose the situation of human rights defenders in Honduras, identified by the report as “the deadliest country in the world for environmental activism”. The appalling levels of violence and intimidation suffered by rural communities are documented as opposing the imposition of dams, mines, logging or agriculture on their land, projects controlled by rich and powerful elites, including members of the political class. The root causes of these abuses are widespread corruption and failure to provide adequate consultation to those affected by these projects.

According to Global Witness’s research, since the coup d’état of 2009, 123 land and environmental activists have been killed in Honduras; Many others have been threatened, attacked or imprisoned. Throughout 2016, human rights defenders from all regions of the world have faced attacks because of their work to improve and defend the human rights of their communities. They have been persecuted by both state and non-state actors who sought to discourage, discredit and disrupt their non-violent activities.

According to FrontLine Defenders in its latest report of late 2016 the number of murders in 2016 was an increase over the previous year’s figure. About 281 people were killed in 25 countries. 49% of these defenders worked to defend the environment, the territory and the rights of indigenous peoples. Some of the cases occurred when local defenders launched campaigns against multinational corporations and resisted the occupation of their land and forced relocations, which were often carried out without adequate consultation or compensation.

In addition to the above, ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union’s defense mechanism, recognized that human rights defenders throughout the world are frequently subjected to harassment and false criminal accusations aimed at paralyzing, Intimidate and delegitimize their activities for human rights. They have difficulties in developing their work in increasingly restrictive environments in which the right to freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly; they do not exist. Permits are permanently revoked by human rights NGOs, bank accounts are seized and their right to access foreign funds is violated. An increasing number of States have also developed a systematic pattern of obstacles to the freedom of movement (through the use of travel bans) of human rights defenders, with the clear intention of isolating them.

The murder of the defenders impacts in a way that goes even further than their own death. They affect the entire human rights community. Organizations that have been in charge of investigating the situation of defenders around the world have often come across that their killings have usually been framed in previous protests against multinational companies. It also highlights the role of complicity of governments in these attitudes that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people throughout the world.

Land rich in natural resources in Central and South America, Africa and Asia continue to be a source of conflict between the extractive industry and indigenous peoples in the context of projects frequently financed by international financial institutions (IFIs) or by Western and Chinese companies. The lack of checks and balances on human rights issues within these institutions, often accompanied by the abovementioned complicity of the current government, has resulted in intimidation of the local population and other more serious things, Has led them to consider that their concerns have not been adequately addressed.

So far this year 2017, new murders have been visualized to defenders. Isidro Baldenegro, an indigenous ecologist, defender of forests in the Tarahumara sierra, Mexico, was killed during the month of January. Two weeks later Juan Ontiveros Ramos, Mexican defender was brutally beaten along with other members of his family and taken to the force. On 1 February, the activist’s body was found. Likewise, on Tuesday, January 17, demonstrators led a peaceful demonstration against a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala. But the event ended with death after the paramilitaries killed and 72-year-old activist Sebastián Alonso.

From FUNDEPS we join in the widespread demand to prevent this type of behavior against environmental and human rights defenders from being perpetuated in 2017. Our work has been closely related to the monitoring of projects financed by international financial institutions, as well as Also a good part of those projects that have counted on Chinese financing. We emphasize the need for civil society to continue with its control tasks on this type of projects, while ensuring respect for the rights of those who exercise this type of task.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

Worrying situation of the Public Defender’s Office

Three months ago the Office of the Public Defender is out of town, a circumstance that leaves the agency unable to fully carry out the functions assigned in the current Audiovisual Communication Services Act. This situation runs counter to the recommendations of the CEDAW Committee and aggravates the situation of vulnerability of the rights of the hearings.

“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 Office of the Public Defender of Audiovisual Communication, which was created together with the Audiovisual Communication Services Law, is an organization that promotes, diffuses and defends the right to democratic communication in the media.

As we have previously reported, this dependency of the State has been in place since November 14 of last year when, upon the expiration of the term of Lic. Cynthia Ottaviano, the Congressional Bicameral Commission decided not to appoint a new defender / Nor to renew the mandate of the outgoing defender. To date, the agency has filed a petition for the attorney María José Guembe, Director of Protection of Rights of the Ombudsman, to be the highest authority in this transitional stage. In the same way and given that the role of Guembe does not enjoy all the faculties, the organism remains acephalous, and therefore, lacking in operability.

The institution of the Public Defender’s Office is fundamental because it acts as an intermediary between the communication and public actors, representing the interests and rights of the audiences. In this way, acephaly violates citizenship and their rights can not be fully enforced without the full action of this body. This situation has already lasted for almost 3 months, but continues to work, receiving and channeling claims.

Complaints made from FUNDEPS

During 2016, from FUNDEPS, we made several complaints to the organization, highlighting those made to the TV channel TYC Sports and the program “Majul 910” by Radio AM 910.

In December of last year, we received a telephone notification about the status of the claim made by an institutional advertisement of the TV channel TyC Sports, in the month of September. In such advertising, a conversation is shown between a heterosexual couple, reproducing stereotypes of the sexual division of labor, as well as of power relations within couples. In response to this claim, the Ombudsman acknowledged and mentioned the stereotypes that reproduce the media and highlighted the positive aspects of the audiences by expressing their agreement with the constructed messages. For this complaint, a communication was made to the television channel, which was not answered. We received a formal written response in which it is mentioned that:

“In its report on the piece, the Directorate of Analysis, Investigation and Monitoring of this Ombudsman said that” it receives the comments expressed in the consultation as an indication of the legitimate disagreement of the hearings with the uncritical reiteration of stereotypical representations that, moreover, do not Correspond to the current social diversity in terms of family compositions and role assignment within families”

Due to the serious situation that the organism is undergoing, it was not possible to take other measures. In addition, in November of last year we made a complaint about the radio program “Majul 910” in Radio La Red AM 910 in which, under the supposedly “humorous” language, reproduce stereotypes and apologies to gender violence.

In this case, the Ombudsman also acknowledged the legitimacy of the complaint and reported that the company RED CELESTE Y BLANCA SA, owner of LR5 Radio La Red AM 910 responded to the complaint:

“… the comments made by comedian Claudio Rico have been made exclusively with animus iocandi and that he never had the objective of offending women or carrying forward a stereotype of beauty that is offensive and oppressive for women. Has been the goal of ‘LA RED’ to spread a message of media violence as stated in the presentation”

Finally, the Radio expresses: “In this sense … we take due note of it and proceed to communicate the terms of the same to the drivers, participants and producers of the”Majul 910″ Program”.

Since they can not take any further measures or issue their opinions on the quality of the contents, the complaints made to the Public Defender’s Office have lost strength and legitimacy and are left to the will of the denounced media.

In this context of great uncertainty, it is important to remember that, in its concluding observations to Argentina, CEDAW recommended “Amend Act No. 26.522 (2009) on audiovisual media services in order to provide the Public Defender with the power to Sanction violations of provisions to regulate gender stereotypes and sexism in the media. ” Faced with this, the institutional situation of the Public Defender’s Office is even more serious. The international recommendations are aimed at giving more powers to the body, which is currently limited to its functioning, a limitation that is constituted as a regressive situation that diminishes the level of protection of women against symbolic and media violence, and of audiences in general.

The reproduction of gender stereotypes in the media is a form of mediatic and symbolic violence, in accordance with the definitions of Law 26.485 of Comprehensive Protection to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women, which are also contemplated in the Law 26,522 of Individual Communication Services. Agencies such as the Public Defender’s Office are fundamental to ensure the production of content and programming in media that do not foster a culture of discrimination and violence. Given the gravity of the case, we again express our concern about the violation of the rights of the hearings and demand that the situation be rectified shortly.

More information

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

Emiilia Pioletti – emiliapioletti@fundeps.org

We participate in the second CEPAL regional consultation on human rights and business

The Second Regional Consultation for Latin America and the Caribbean on the Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights was held during the week of January 17-19 in the city of Santiago de Chile. The meeting was attended by governments, businessmen and 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”

During the year 2016, the first consultation was held and it was concluded that it was necessary to make progress in a regional report on human rights and business. In 2017, the second meeting was convened in order to continue the effort to implement the Guiding Principles, serving as a platform for dialogue among various actors, to illustrate the content of an agenda that guides the policies related to the subject matter ( Both in the public and private spheres) towards the progressive enjoyment of human rights in the context of business operations.

The Guiding Principles are based on the recognition of: (a) Current obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfill human rights and fundamental freedoms; (B) The role of companies as specialized bodies of society which perform specialized functions and which must comply with all applicable laws and respect human rights; C) The need for rights and obligations to be accompanied by adequate and effective remedies in case of non-compliance. These principles apply to all States and to all enterprises, whether transnational or otherwise, irrespective of their size, sector, location, owners and structure.

The expected results of this consultation were related to:

  • Recognize international developments in business and human rights;
  • Recognize outstanding challenges and regional reality in the development and implementation of national action plans and public policies on business and human rights;
  • Sharing experiences of different stakeholders on their relationship with the Guiding Principles and national action plans;
  • Identify opportunities to improve collaboration between countries and regions, and to continue the peer learning mechanism;
  • Evaluate progress on the regional agenda on business and human rights.

It should be noted that prior to the meeting, FUNDEPS and other civil society organizations signed a letter to encourage greater participation by civil society in this consultation. As a result of this request, a specific panel was incorporated for the organizations at the same time as the interventions of this sector were prioritized over the three days.

The consultation was attended by American governments (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and the United States), representatives of civil society organizations and representatives of companies that are working on the implementation of the guiding principles. Each of the participating governments showed progress in the design and implementation of a national plan that addresses the application of the principles. For their part, representatives of civil society had the opportunity to express their concerns and perceptions about the work that governments and companies have been doing on this issue.

In the same way as in the case of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), FUNDEPS considers it of great importance to promote such initiatives that seek to provide greater transparency and accountability in the Private sector, but without neglecting the responsibility of national governments. Particularly in Argentina, and taking into account the current scenario of foreign investment, characterized by an increasing role of private sector investments (the case of investments of Chinese companies or the growing portfolio of projects of the Inter-American Investment Corporation, for example ) Or through Public-Private Associations, we believe that it is vital that both the national government and those of a local nature do not lose sight of these guiding principles in order to guarantee respect for human rights within the framework of business activities. We also hope that the process of designing a national human rights and business plan will have a space for civil society input.

More information

Contact

Agustina Palencia – agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

We reject pressures on artists and demand open and technical discussion about our forests

In recent weeks there have been repeated pressures to advance against the few remaining native forests in the province of Cordoba. We defend freedom of political and artistic expression and we demand a participatory and technical discussion that assures an adequate protection of our forests.

“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”

By the end of 2016, and thanks to the mobilization of communities and civil society organizations, it was possible to extend the treatment of a forest law project that was intended to be approved without adequate discussion. That project would have meant a clear weakening of the protection to native forests in our province.

From FUNDEPS, we developed a document with numerous legal and environmental critiques of the bill. The criticisms marked the clear weakening of the environmental protection of the forests as well as the existence of a process non-transparent and non-participatory. Both points violate the National Law of Minimum Budgets for the Protection of Native Forests

Some of these criticisms had already been raised in a joint document between the Environmental Forum, FUNDEPS and other institutions that rose to the government in response to the position of CARTEZ entitled “Producing conserving and conserving produce”. Neither CARTEZ nor legislators who presented the project responded to the technical questions that were posed to that position.

Instead of taking advantage of the extension of the discussion period to generate a participatory space or to respond to the legal and technical questions that were made to the project, from the agricultural sector is pressed to get a rapid approval of the bill. It is accused of setting positions without scientific basis when from that sector could never answer the questions that were sent. Likewise, artists such as José Luis Serrano and Raly Barrionuevo are especially under pressure to mobilize against the few remaining native forests in our province. In a statement, CARTEZ strongly criticized Doña Jovita and Raly Barrionuevo for accusing them of “generating confusion” and defending “extreme ideologies”. As a reply, José Luis Serrano challenged the ruralist entity to answer with “scientific arguments” the doubts raised by the Environmental Forum.

In that line and in a surprising twist, journalist Andrés Carpio de Cadena 3 intimately informs José Luis Serrano for his comments regarding the journalist’s description of the March 28 march. The journalist made a strongly negative description of the march describing it in a number much lower than the estimates of the organizers. He also suggested that those who marched did not know well why they did so to the extent that there was already a decision to postpone the treatment of the bill. It seems that in the journalist’s position, the defense of native forests and the visibility of a popular demand are not enough reasons to publicly manifest in a peaceful way.

In that context, the artist José Luis Serrano personifying his character “Doña Jovita” marks his surprise for the inaccurate description of the demonstration against the forest law project. It does so through his character, in an artistic expression and criticism of an inadequate description of a popular mobilization.

We defend the right to free expression and artistic expression with connections to rights and social demands. We are opposed to pressures against public demonstrations. We also strongly reject the use of legal mechanisms to limit the critical positions of public figures.

Contact

Juan Carballo, Director Ejecutivo

juanmcarballo@fundeps.org