Tag Archive for: Accountability Mechanisms

,

We participated in a discussion with the new MICI director, Andrea Repetto

On April 27, we participated in a discussion with civil society organized by the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the IDB, on the occasion of the recent inauguration of its new director, Andrea Repetto. Civil society organizations, individuals and people from the public and academic sectors from different countries participated. One of the main points of discussion revolved around the evaluation of the Mechanism’s operation recently carried out by the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) of the IDB Group.

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

The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) was established in 2010 as an instance of last resort so that people who consider themselves affected by projects financed by the IDB Group can turn to the mechanism in search of a solution. In this regard, it should be noted that the complaints submitted must relate to non-compliance with the bank’s operating policies and not to other national and / or international regulations.

At the beginning of the discussion, the new director introduced herself personally, conducted a review of the most outstanding events of 2020 and indicated what the priorities of the mechanism will be during 2021.

Case management in times of COVID-19 and management priorities during 2021

In 2020, the MICI took actions to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on claims management. Managed a total of 21 claims from communities potentially affected by projects financed by the IDB Group in 9 countries: 17 claims refer to IDB projects with the public sector and four to IDB Invest operations with the private sector. In addition, the MICI began, for the first time, a completely remote dispute resolution process in Colombia (Ruta del Cacao).

Similarly, with the recent assumption of Repetto as director, 2 priority areas were identified during 2021: on the one hand, the opening of the mechanism, seeking to make it more accessible to the communities that need it and, on the other, institutional learning, with The objective of adding more value to the IDB Group and reinforcing its accountability and sustainability.

OVE’s evaluation of the MICI

OVE carried out a first evaluation of the MICI in 2012 and identified significant problems in terms of its policy, structure and operation, recommending ending the pilot phase of the MICI and reformulating its policy and structure. Thus, in December 2014, the Bank’s Board of Directors approved a new policy and structure for the mechanism and, since the beginning of 2016, the MICI is also responsible for managing requests related to IDB Invest operations, that is, the private sector.

In the following evaluation (2015-2020), 19 cases were analyzed (between December 2014 – June 2020) and it was concluded that the MICI, in general, is operating in accordance with the principles established in its policy: independence, objectivity, impartiality, transparency and efficiency and that the current policy corrected important issues identified by OVE in its 2012 evaluation as limiting the proper functioning of the MICI. Similarly, there was greater consistency between the policy, the guidelines developed, and the associated processes. OVE also highlighted the consolidation of capacities in conflict resolution within the MICI.

However, there is still room for the MICI to deepen its efforts to maximize its contribution to the IDB Group’s system of safeguards and environmental and social standards.

A key issue that remained pending is judicial exclusion, which continues to be an important factor limiting the effective and efficient functioning of the MICI.

OVE also found that some requirements to access the mechanism are difficult for applicants to meet, such as the need to present their concerns to management before resorting to the MICI. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the difficulty of complying with the requirement of prior contact with the administration had to do, to a large extent, with the lack of a complaints management system within the IDB Group during the period under evaluation (2015 -2020) and one of the OVE evaluation recommendations points towards that goal.

Promotion of access and risk of retaliation

OVE indicated that the mechanism is not yet well known despite the important efforts of the MICI to make it known, including important work in the area of ​​attention to the risk of retaliation that has important implications for safe access to the mechanism. Nor is it clear that at the institutional level there is consensus on the importance of publicizing the mechanism and how to achieve it. Not a minor issue, since access to the MICI depends on the knowledge that people have about the existence of the mechanism.

Finally, another point that the evaluation indicates that should be strengthened is the independence of the mechanism, a fundamental issue since the credibility of the mechanism depends on its ability to work independently. Although the MICI is an arm of the Board of Directors, its added value depends on the extent to which it can present you with frank and honest reports on complaints associated with IDB Group projects.

Based on these and other observations, OVE made 5 recommendations, directed both to the MICI and to the administration and the Boards of the IDB Group. These include: 1) implementing the management system for environmental and social claims of the IDB Group’s administration so that it is articulated with the MICI, 2) nullifying the judicial exclusion, 3) reinforcing the independence of the MICI, 4) ensuring the adoption of corrective measures when there are findings of non-compliance with the policies and related damages and, finally, 5) strengthen the internal capacities of the MICI.

One might wonder, however, if the limitations of the current policy can be remedied by incorporating OVE’s recommendations or if these limitations, on the contrary, necessitate a new comprehensive review of the policy, a measure that OVE has ruled out in its evaluation.

At Fundeps, we believe that this type of instance is essential to exchange opinions and positions in relation to how the Mechanism could be even more efficient and effective in its interventions to the problems that arise in our region. Likewise, we consider that a strengthening of the mechanism translates into an improvement in the accountability system of the IDB Group as a whole.

We hope that these instances will continue to be repeated over time and we celebrate that the MICI is willing to receive feedback from those who position themselves as users of the mechanism, being able to glimpse the shortcomings that the processes may have.

More information
Author
  • Camila Victoria Bocco
Contact
,

Andrea Repetto Vargas began functions as the new director of the MICI

Andrea Repetto has been appointed by the Executive Board of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) as Director of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) for the period 2021-2026 and began functions on March 16, 2021.

“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 5, the IDB announced the appointment of the Chilean Andrea Repetto Vargas as the new Director of the MICI for the period 2021-2026. Repetto Vargas is a lawyer and has more than 15 years of experience in accountability mechanisms, promotion of human rights and mediation. He was a Human Rights Specialist at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) and worked as a conflict resolution specialist for the CAO, the independent accountability mechanism of the Group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC). World Bank. She has also led mediation and dialogue processes to address complex environmental and social project issues in Latin America and West Africa.

Upon assuming office on March 16, Repetto Vargas expressed his commitment to work for an MICI “even more open to all the people and communities in the region who need us”, emphasizing his will to “promote institutional learning, which allows us to contribute even more value to the institution and thus reinforce accountability and environmental and social sustainability of IDB Group projects. She, in turn, highlighted the work done by the outgoing director, Victoria Márquez-Mees, and her entire team, pointing out that she allowed the Mechanism to be strengthened and to position it as a benchmark.

From Fundeps we welcome the appointment of Andrea Repetto Vargas as the new Director of the MICI and we hope that this election will allow the process of strengthening and dissemination of the Mechanism that has been taking place since its creation in 2010 to continue.

More information

Author

  • Juliet Boretti

Contact

,

We demand participation and transparency in the change of direction of the MICI

Before the departure of the current Director of the MICI, Victoria Márquez Mees, at the end of June, a group of civil society organizations requested, through a letter sent to the IDB Executive Board, the inclusion of interested parties and the transparency in the selection process of the new Director of the Mechanism.

“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 June 30, the current Director of the MICI, Victoria Márquez Mees, ends her term as head of the IDB accountability mechanism, a post she has held since 2015. In this way, the IDB is beginning the selection process from the new Director, therefore, together with a group of civil society organizations, we sent a letter to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors requesting the inclusion of civil society and interested parties in said selection process. It should be noted that the last selection process carried out by the Bank was not very transparent and did not include civil society or other external stakeholders.

In line with the above, we recommend that the Bank create opportunities and encourage the participation of civil society and external stakeholders in the selection process. Especially considering that the MICI policy establishes that the Board will convene a selection panel to identify candidates. Furthermore, the inclusion of external stakeholders in the process of selecting the Director of accountability mechanisms is a good practice carried out by various international financial institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, for example.

In line with the process of changing the mechanism’s direction, on June 12, together with a group of civil society organizations, we sent a second letter to the IDB requesting that the External Consultative Group -GCE- of the MICI be part of the process of selection. The participation of the CME will bring greater transparency to the process since the members of the Group are interested parties in the Bank who have knowledge about the region, the operation of the MICI and on issues related to transparency, sustainability and accountability. In addition, the inclusion of CGE members in the selection process means reporting your experience and qualified perspectives on the legitimate topic and the selection process and identifying the best possible candidate.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org 

, ,

The IDB’s Gender Policy and the International Standards on Women’s Rights: A Comparative Analysis

The following document deals with the Inter-American Development Bank’s Gender Policy and Action Plans, and the international standards on women’s human rights with the purpose of developing a comparative analysis between both instruments. This analysis is motivated by the few complaints with a gender component that has been submitted to the IDB’s accountability mechanism, MICI. 

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

The responsibility of accountability mechanisms to protect human rights: ICIM Case

The ICIM, accountability mechanism of the IDB and IDB Invest, on the occasion of increased reprisals towards applicants, has worked to improve the capacity of its team in dealing with these situations. Consequently, it has developed a series of Guidelines to address the risk of reprisals in the management of applications that will take effect in 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”.

The IDB and the IDB Invest have an accountability mechanism (IAMs), the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism, better known as ICIM.

The accountability mechanisms have been created by the IFIs so that communities can file claims against possible damages that have been caused by the investments that banks make and, therefore, that are not complying with environmental, social standards and transparency according to which the institutions carry out their work. The characteristics of this type of mechanisms are adapted to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, specifically its pillar 3 of access to reparation mechanisms by victims.

However, it has been frequently observed that applicants who file complaints in the ICIM suffer from reprisals, manifested in various ways. This does not cease to endanger the life of the applicants, who in most cases are environmental and / or human rights defenders. In 2018, the mechanism observed an increase in cases where confidentiality is requested for fear of reprisals or acts of intimidation towards the communities in which the Bank-financed project is being developed.

For this reason, the ICIM developed the toolkit ‘Guide for IAMs on measures to address the risk of retaliation in claims management’. This guide aims to assess the level of risk that would involve the intervention of a mechanism and what are the ways to prevent, mitigate, reduce or address it. In both sections, the document provides tools to guide the mechanisms and their respective institutions on what steps should be taken to address these situations.

In Latin America, environmental and human rights defenders suffer constant violations of their rights. For this reason, and in order for financial institutions to become more aware of this problem, the mechanism met with the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The central conclusion of this meeting was to ratify the centrality that human rights should occupy in financing for sustainable development. As a result, the ICIM, starting in 2020, will have the ‘Guidelines to address the risk of retaliation in the management of applications’.

The Guidelines have been created so that applicants, given the risk of reprisals before or after making a complaint before the mechanism, can effectively apply the MICI-IDB and MICI-IIC Policies. They constitute a tool to implement in regions or areas where there is simply the risk of retaliation.

The Guidelines will be used according to factors that create, increase or aggravate the risk of retaliation by applicants before the Mechanism; It is also intended to work with applicants to reduce and address the risk factors that are identified.

The guidelines document addresses the principles for case management where retaliation risk is detected. Some of these principles are:

  • Zero tolerance for retaliation,
  • Participatory and continuous risk assessment;
  • Action without damage;
    Honesty and transparency about the ICIM mandate on reprisals.

The guidelines should serve as a guide to train the entire work team in Retaliation Risk Management, disseminate the guidelines and provide training to other IDB Group units. In addition, it makes the document available for any institution to use, provided they do not alter its content.

Finally, the guidelines will have to be shared with applicants at the registration stage to analyze the existence of retaliation risk. If so, an ICIM team must prepare a Retaliation Risk Analysis (ARR). According to the level of risk identified in the analysis, the Mechanism team will develop a Joint Plan to reduce retaliation risk (PCRR) that may establish prevention or mitigation measures.

If these guidelines are applied correctly, it would mean an advance in the protection of environmental and human rights defenders, as well as communities, who make claims due to the negative social and environmental impacts of projects financed by international financial institutions.

More information

Author

Sofia Brocanelli

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

What is the Green Climate Fund and how does it work?

The purpose of this document is to describe the operation of the Green Climate Fund, where its financial resources, its projects, operational policies come from and how its accountability mechanism works.

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Green Climate Fund

Independent Repair Mechanism

Author

Carolina Tamagnini

Contact

Gonzalo Roza,  gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Fundeps host the International Advocates Working Group (IAWG) Retreat

During the month of April, Fundeps organized the annual retirement of the International Advocates Working Group (IAWG) in the city of Villa General Belgrano. Over three days, 30 IAWG members met to share information, experiences and lessons learned about non-judicial accountability mechanisms in international financial institutions (IFIs).

“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 IAWG is a global network of civil society organizations and individuals that work to ensure that IFI complaints mechanisms ensure accountability and effective remedies to affected communities. This working group focuses on working with the mechanisms, while providing support to communities negatively impacted by IFI projects.

The grievance mechanisms associated with these institutions offer an important, and sometimes, only option for affected communities seeking accountability from IFIs or from companies that receive IFI financing.

Over the past 4 years, the IAWG meets almost annually for its members to share experiences and lessons learned around working with non-judicial complaint mechanisms. During the days of the retreat, joint actions are discussed and planned to ensure that the work of the mechanisms is as transparent and accessible as possible for those wishing to make complaints.

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Conversation: Investments for Development and Human Rights in Latin America

On April 22 in the auditorium of the Nueva Córdoba headquarters of the 21st Century University, Fundeps organized a discussion on investments for development and human rights in Latin America.

During the last years, the Latin American region has been the scene of exponential growth of large development projects. For this reason, from Fundeps together with the 21st Century University, the discussion ‘Investments for Development and Human Rights in Latin America’ was organized

It analyzed the role of international financial institutions, their obligation to Human Rights, their impact on the Latin American region and the performance of their accountability mechanisms. . Also, the development in Latin America and the Human Rights issues associated with it were discussed.

There were the participation of renowned exponents who addressed these issues from their work and analyzed current trends and challenges regarding investments for development in the region. Participants: Carolina Juaneda, who serves as the Latin American Consultant of the Bank Information Center (BIC), Caitlin Daniel as Senior Communities Associate of the Accountability Counsel (AC) and Juan Carballo, Executive Director of Fundeps.

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

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

Contact:

Agustina Palencia: agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

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

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