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
00Lucía Panerohttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngLucía Panero2019-05-02 13:27:082024-06-30 16:03:05Fundeps host the International Advocates Working Group (IAWG) Retreat
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
00Lucía Panerohttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngLucía Panero2019-04-24 13:53:592024-06-30 16:03:05Conversation: Investments for Development and Human Rights in Latin America
Within the framework of the G20 summit held in Argentina in 2018, the Heads of State of Argentina and China signed 30 trade and investment agreements for the next five years. These agreements are part of the Second Five-Year Joint Action Plan between the two countries.
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 December 2, 2018, Argentine President Mauricio Macri and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed thirty trade and investment agreements within the framework of the second 2019-2023 joint action plan between our country and the People’s Republic of China.
The Second Five-Year Plan, like the first, seeks to strengthen the bilateral relationship and constitutes a roadmap with actions to be carried out in a number of areas. Most of the agreements are of an economic-commercial nature and include the areas of infrastructure, investments , finance, transport, mining, energy, science and technology, tourism, South-South Cooperation and electronic commerce.
Among the agreements, one of the most important is the formalization of the exchange of currencies (swap) with the Asian country for an amount of 8,500 million dollars in addition to the existing one of 11,000 million dollars.
The agreements that were already signed at the time of the announcement of the Second Plan were the Cooperation for Integral Agricultural Development Projects in New Irrigated Areas of the National Water Plan of Argentina, the Memorandum of Understanding on environmental protection and sustainable development, and the establishment of the Confucius Institute at the University of Córdoba.
Agreements have also been signed with companies such as the “Term Sheet” between the Ministry of Finance of Argentina and the Development Bank of China (CBD) for the creation of a Fund for an estimated amount of up to USD 1,000 million, in order to finance “Working Capital”; the Framework Agreement for the Promotion of Trade in Oil Products between the Ministry of Agribusiness Government and China Grain Reserves Group Ltd. Company (SINOGRAIN).
The following agreements were signed after they were announced: the Framework Cooperation Agreement between China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation (Sinosure) and the Bank of the Argentine Nation; the Addition to the Financing Contract for the “Rehabilitation of the Belgrano Cargas Railway”; the Financing Agreement between the Ministry of Finance of Argentina and the Development Bank of China (CBD) for the Acquisition of Rolling Stock for the Roca Eléctrico Railway and, finally, the Commercial Contract between the Ministry of Transportation and the Chinese company CRCC for the recovery of the San Martín Cargas Railway (Stage I: renewal and improvement of roads).
Finally, the following agreements are found:
Agreement on the Extension of the Validity of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Strategic Dialogue Mechanism for Economic Cooperation and Coordination (DECCE);
Agreement for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Income and Property Taxes and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance (CDI);
Memorandum of Understanding for Strengthening Fiscal and Financial Cooperation;
Memorandum of Understanding on the Promotion of Commercial and Investment Cooperation;
Memorandum of Understanding on Strengthening Cooperation in the Infrastructure Sectors;
SWAP expansion of currencies;
Protocol of Phytosanitary Requirements for the Export of Argentine Fresh Cherries to China;
Memorandum of Understanding on Electronic Commerce;
Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Trade in Services;
Sanitary Protocol for the Export of Sheep and Goat Meat to China;
Adaptation of the Health Protocol for the Export of Standing Horses to China;
Convention between China and Argentina on preventing and combating the illicit traffic in cultural property, and the return of illegally transferred cultural property;
Execution Plan for Cultural Cooperation between China and Argentina 2019-2023;
Agreement on reciprocal recognition of higher education certificates;
Agreement between the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences of China and the Secretariat of Science and Technology and Productive Innovation on the establishment of the virtual center of social sciences China-Argentina;
Cooperation Framework Agreement between the National Radio, Film and Television Administration of China and the Federal Public Media System;
Cooperation Agreement between the Media Group of China and Radio and Television of Argentina;
Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the National Supervisory Commission of China and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Argentina;
Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Modernization Government and the Chinese Academy of Government.
The interest of the Asian country to make investments in Argentina is linked to the actions that it has carried out since the last years in the Latin American region, positioning itself as one of the main investors. The First Five-Year Plan between Argentina and China meant the strengthening of ties in their bilateral relations with the aim of developing a cooperation strategy. With the Second Plan, a further step is being taken in strengthening and deepening the bilateral relationship between the two countries.
For Argentina, the agreements represent an opportunity for development in the future, however, we must be cautious about the risks and the potential negative aspects of them, which can result in excessive increases in debt, negative impacts at the socio-economic level. environmental infrastructure projects, competitiveness problems in the commercial field or even a certain tendency towards the reprimacy of the Argentine economy towards which several of the agreements point. And do not forget to add, to all this, opacity and little transparency in terms of access to information that surrounds the vast majority of these agreements, whose general aspects may come to light, but not their details and specifications As for its implementation.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2019-04-09 13:44:282024-06-30 16:03:06The Second Five-Year Joint Action Plan and the deepening of relations between Argentina and China
On March 15, China accepted 284 of the recommendations made in its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). These are aimed at preventing human rights violations in the field of their investments abroad. Undoubtedly, this is an unprecedented event.
“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 People’s Republic of China (China) undertook, before the United Nations, to respect human rights in its investments abroad. It accepted 82% of the recommendations made by dozens of countries in its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The UPR is an evaluation conducted every four and a half years by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It allows rating the behavior of each member state when implementing the UN human rights treaties.
Here are some of the most relevant recommendations that were accepted:
Promote measures that guarantee that development and infrastructure projects, within and outside of their territory, are fully compatible with human rights and respectful of the environment and the sustainability of natural resources, in accordance with national and international law applicable and with the commitments of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Ecuador);
Consider the possibility of establishing a legal framework to guarantee that the activities carried out by the industries subject to their jurisdiction do not undermine human rights abroad (Peru);
Adopt new measures on business and human rights in accordance with their international obligations and ensure that companies operating in high risk or conflict areas conduct due diligence on human rights in accordance with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (State of Palestine);
Continue to apply Chinese laws, regulations and standards, such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to Chinese companies that operate beyond the borders of China (Kenya);
The Chinese delegation said that its opening to host the aforementioned recommendations “fully demonstrates China’s determination and its open and active attitude towards the promotion and protection of human rights.” However, China must inform in two years in its Mid-Term Review before the UNHRC, the progress achieved after the implementation of these recommendations. In addition, you will need to develop an action plan to ensure that your companies and investors respect the rights of local communities and the environment.
María Marta Di Paola of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), expressed that “this commitment should not be considered a paper promise; On the contrary, social organizations around the world must take the floor to the Chinese State, keep vigilant and report to the Chinese embassies and CDHNU when there are violations in the Chinese projects, and demand redress for the violated rights of the victims and the environment “.
It should be noted that last year the Collective on Financing and Chinese Investments, Human Rights and Environment (CICDHA) presented a report in the framework of the UPR, along with 17 other Latin American NGOs, examining 18 projects with Chinese participation in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil and Argentina. The report showed that Chinese companies and banks have systematically violated several rights protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other United Nations instruments.
What happened in Geneva on March 15 is an unprecedented event that must be celebrated. Likewise, it is important to remember that the results obtained must be largely attributed to the hard work done by numerous civil society organizations in the region and the world.
https://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ChinaDDHHONU-2.png444940Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2019-04-08 15:31:372024-06-30 16:03:06China is committed to respecting human rights in its foreign investments
On the initiative of the Peruvian organization ‘Law, Environment and Natural Resources’, on February 25, a letter was presented to the Board of Directors for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), demanding the publication of environmental information. More than 100 organizations in Latin America (including FUNDEPS), signed a letter asking the members of this initiative to make transparency in environmental information mandatory.
“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 EITI standard for transparency in extractive activities, seeks to disseminate information on the oil, gas and mining industry. It requires the publication of information along the value chain of the extractive industry, from the point of extraction, to the way in which revenues continue on their way to the government; even how they benefit the general public. This includes how licenses are adjudicated and registered, who are the actual beneficiaries of those operations, what are the legal and fiscal provisions, how much is produced, how much is paid, how are those revenues distributed, and what is the contribution to the economy, including employment.
It is a multilateral initiative to which governments adhere voluntarily, and ensuring the participation of civil society and companies in the extractive sector.
However, and despite the imprint of this initiative, the standard currently lacks requirements on the obligation to publish information related to the costs and environmental impacts of extractive activity. It is necessary to have information, for example, on the amount of water that a mining project consumes, fines paid by corporations for environmental violations, information on environmental impact assessments, mitigation plans, among others. These data are crucial to avoid irreversible damage to the environment and the violation of the rights of those affected by extractive activity.
During the week of February 25, the EITI Board will meet in Kiev, Ukraine; to review the provisions of the current standard. Civil society organizations in Latin America sent a letter demanding that after the review process new guidelines be incorporated to ensure that:
Information is disseminated at the project level, in relation to all social and environmental assessments, showing the true impact of extractive activity on ecosystems and communities.
Environmental and social information about payments and expenses is disclosed, including impact studies, acquired rights, licenses, fines, compensations and remediation.
Information on all environmental licenses and authorizations, disaggregated by company and project, is disclosed. Including how the authorities monitor environmental commitments and information.
Argentina has officially joined EITI on February 27, 2019. To strengthen the standard with the demands made by civil society, would result in an improvement on the generation and publication of environmental information in our country.
https://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/extractive-industry.jpg7201280Lucía Panerohttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngLucía Panero2019-03-01 14:16:112024-06-30 16:03:06More than 100 organizations are calling on EITI to publish environmental information
On January 7, the world was surprised by the untimely resignation of World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. With three years left to finish her second term, Kim stepped aside to take a position within the private sector. A possible conflict of interest and transparency in the definition of the Bank’s leadership, key issues.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.
Abruptly and unexpectedly, the president of the World Bank (WB) Jim Yong Kim, resigned his mandate to undertake a new job in the private sector. According to the official communiqué of the WB, during the term of Kim, special attention was paid to investments in infrastructure. He assured that the key to the advancement of the developing nations was the support and investment in this sector. For this reason, Jim Yong decided to step aside arguing that his work for global development would be more fruitful from the firm ‘Global Infrastructure’, a multinational company specializing in infrastructure investments for the water, energy, transport and waste sectors. .
Kim’s departure has not gone unnoticed, and numerous civil society organizations around the world have emphasized the possible conflict of interest in Kim’s surprise decision and wonder what will happen from this? In particular, they have raised a series of concerns:
Financing for development through the private sector:
According to the now ex-president of the WB, worldwide there is a deficit in infrastructure that would be around the trillion dollars. This amount, in no way can be covered, not even with the portfolio of all the institutions of financing for the development (IFIs) together. In this regard, Kim, during his tenure, has tried to ensure that financing for development, no longer oriented to the public sector, to turn to the private sector. In this way, the WB and other IFIs have increased their investment portfolio to financial intermediaries and other companies / private corporations. Kim’s decision to continue his professional career in the private sector raises doubts about the underlying interest in the decision to orient the World Bank towards the private sector. In other areas of interaction between the public and private sectors there are window periods during which those who have decision-making roles are prohibited from changing their sector (“cooling off periods” in English). The inexistence of similar mechanisms in the World Bank inevitably calls into question some of Kim’s decisions that in practice expanded financing to the private sector.
The change towards private financing, although it could be beneficial in economic and financial terms for the States, maintains concerns for environmental sustainability and respect for human rights. Recently, there seems to be a positive correlation between the increase in projects financed by companies and the growth of negative impacts on people’s lives and the environment. In addition, it is important to remember that during the mandate of Kim, the revision of the social and environmental safeguards of the WB – the regulations that establish criteria for the projects that the World Bank can support -, far from representing a strengthening of the policy, meant the transformation of these standards, a normative framework much more lax. The resignation of Kim then, leaves open the door to ask if the next president of the WB will have as a priority private funding, and if so, how the institution can adapt to international and national standards regarding respect for Human Rights.
Transparency and accountability at the institutional level in IFIs:
Other questions that have arisen after this event, have to do with the next president of the WB and its selection process: Who will succeed? What will the process be like to elect the next president? Will the government of the United States be in charge of targeting the person who assumes the presidency, as has happened on previous occasions? In what way can the WB’s governance be more transparent when it comes to electing its authorities?
At the global level there is a tacit agreement that, since the beginning of the Bretton Woods system, has established that the head of the World Bank would be defined by the United States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by Europe. Over the years, this has been respected to the letter, with the White House, which has pointed to the president of the WB. Kim was no exception to this practice and was nominated by the government of Barack Obama. This process that has been taking place has little transparency and has always ended up transforming the World Bank into an executing arm of US government policies. In these times, a WB president appointed by the administration of Donald Trump would be risky when thinking about the performance of this institution on issues such as climate change and human rights in general.
Beyond the effects of a WB president appointed by the Trump government, Kim’s departure opens a series of questions about the bank’s governance and transparency in the appointment of its authorities. It is necessary to establish a transparent selection process in which all candidates have equal opportunities to occupy the position. The Chair of the Presidency of the WB must be occupied by a truly qualified person who has as a priority the execution of investments under the umbrella of sustainable development and human rights. The history of secrecy behind each WB president has impacted on the credibility of the institution. This vacancy, now, means an opportunity for the WB to reposition itself within the international system as an independent actor.
From now on
Kim’s departure for ‘Global Infrastructure Partners’ (GIP) has raised doubts about the appearance on the door of a possible conflict of interest. The multinational GIP is responsible for investing in infrastructure for developing economies, this being the main sector of interest of the WB. It is important to follow up on plausible agreements to be finalized between both institutions.
Regarding the vacancy for president, the WB has announced a nomination process for candidates that will be open until mid-March 2019. The civil society will be attentive and making a detailed follow-up of everything that happens to seek the transparency of the process. It will remain to be seen, once the next president is selected, what their main management guidelines will be and if they respond to the true development needs of communities and populations around the world.
https://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/presidente-del-banco-mundial.jpg550980Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2019-01-16 13:12:532024-06-30 16:03:06The president of the World Bank resigns: possible conflict of interest and transparency in the appointments
On October 30, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published a communiqué inviting civil society organizations and other interested social actors of the Organization of American States (OAS) to send information on the situation. of human rights in the region. This information will be used for the preparation of chapter IV A of the annual report of the IACHR corresponding to the year 2018 that will be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS.
“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”.
Each year, the Commission produces an annual report on the human rights situation in the region, reflecting the trends, challenges, advances and good practices that have occurred in the area of human rights in the OAS member states during the year.
For the Annual Report of 2018, the Commission will emphasize the following axes: Democratic Institutionalization, Institutionality in Human Rights, Access to Justice, Citizen Security and Right to the Environment.
Together with lawyers and lawyers from the Argentine Northwest on Human Rights and Social Studies (ANDHES) we present a report on these axes in the areas we work on:
Institutionality in human rights
1. Hierarchical reduction of National Ministries of Environment, Culture, Health, Labor and Modernization and Communication
2. National Budget 2019
3. Comprehensive Sexual Education Law in danger
Access to justice
1. Preoccupation with the draft bill on collective processes
2. Access to the right to abortion in Argentina – Delay of justice in the case of Portal de Belén (by non-punishable abortion protocol in the province of Córdoba)
3. Access to justice for the elderly
Citizen security
1. Institutional Violence in Tucumán
2. Absence of mechanisms to prevent torture in Tucumán
Right to the Environment
1. Affectations to the right to health caused by the use of agrochemicals
2. Concern over project to amend the seed law
3. Failure to comply with the consultation and free, prior and informed consent of provincial law No. 5,915 to the detriment of the environment and the right to life and territory of indigenous communities in Jujuy.
4. Chinchillas Mining Project and the Pozuelos Lagoon in Jujuy
5. The indigenous community of Solco Yampa and the indiscriminate felling of trees in the province of Tucumán
6. Murder of Javier Chocobar in Tucumán
The cases presented in this report give an account of a general situation of regression of the fulfillment of human rights by the Argentine State. The exposed situations of vulnerability are particularly worrisome because they are part of a regional socio-political crisis context. In order to avoid the impact of cuts, the noncompliance with international standards and the promotion of public policies that do not attack the roots of structural inequality impact fully on the populations that are already in a situation of vulnerability, we ask the IACHR to publicly express concern about the state of compliance with human rights in the country.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-12-04 18:41:512024-06-30 18:13:34We present a report on the human rights situation in Argentina before the IACHR
We participated in the call of the Working Group on the Gender Perspective in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, in order to comment from our experience on the relationship between business activities and women’s 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 Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other companies, operating within the framework of the United Nations, made a call for civil society organizations to send their comments on the relevant issues regarding impact. of business activity in the human rights of women. For this, we elaborate comments from the point of view of our work agendas, to comment on the situation of health impacts, on the participation of women in companies, and on women and the media.
First, we address how women experience the impact of human rights abuses related to companies differently and disproportionate, exposing the cases of the tobacco industry and breast milk substitutes. Both industries, with their particularities, have aggressive marketing strategies. The tobacco industry especially targets young women in cigarette consumption through strategies such as flavored cigarettes or “light” or sponsorship of fashion events. On the side of the breast-milk substitution industry, they also operate with misleading marketing and labeling strategies on the characteristics of the products, as well as having great interference in public policies – in a situation of conflict of interest – discouraging breastfeeding. maternal and its replacement by the formula from an early age.
On the other hand, financing for development provided by international financial institutions to the private sector also has environmental, social, health, access to infrastructure and housing, and indigenous rights, which affect women in particular. The IFIs in general have difficulties and failures in the implementation of their policies, and particularly in the design and application of gender policies. We emphasize then that policies in general, and particularly those on gender, should be strengthened so that they establish clear guidelines for clients (especially companies and other private entities) to apply differentiated impact assessments, and also strengthen accountability mechanisms to give effective remedies when there are negative impacts.
Finally, we also exposed all the difficulties and barriers that women face to participate in jobs in the private sector, with information obtained through our research on equal opportunities for women and LGTTBIQ + people in companies, unions and universities. We also send recommendations on how media and advertising industries could fight against gender stereotypes and the disempowerment of women.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-11-14 15:08:382024-06-30 16:03:07Business activity and women’s rights in the United Nations agenda
During the week of October 15 to 19, the sessions of the Intergovernmental Working Group of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations took place. This group meets for the fourth time, and the discussions around a draft for the adoption of a binding treaty that seeks to regulate the activity of transnational corporations and their effects on human rights.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”
A draft text for the ‘Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ was finally submitted in mid July. This document was launched in Geneva, within the framework of the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Human Rights, which indicated that a binding treaty on this matter should be developed. The sessions in October, took as a starting point for the debate, that ‘Zero Draft’.
The immediate antecedent of this draft was the document known as “Elements of the Treaty” that circulated at the end of 2017 and was discussed at the third session of the Intergovernmental Group in October of that same year. Subsequently, these ‘Elements’ were submitted for public consultation and comments were received until February 2018. Once the process was closed, the construction of a text for the 4th session was left.
About the ‘Zero Draft’
At first glance, the essential difference between both documents (the treaty and the elements), is the disappearance of the term ‘other companies’ when it refers to the subjects susceptible of judicial responsibility. The debate over the inclusion of other companies besides those of a transnational nature was strongly opposed. This, since it was considered that this treaty should only focus on those companies that have activities in two or more national jurisdictions because those that only acted in one State, were subject to national regulatory regimes. However, it should be noted that Article 4 of the draft defines ‘transnational business activities’ as any productive or commercial activity that takes place in two or more national jurisdictions. This reference could also be interpreted for those business activities carried out in a single State but that could be transnationalized due to their inclusion in a value chain.
Likewise, the preamble of the document does not include in its entirety what had been proposed in the draft elements of the treaty. The document published at the end of last year mentioned, among other things, the importance of referencing the Guiding Principles, the rules on the responsibility of transnational corporations and the pressing situation regarding the negative impacts of business activity on human rights. The draft treaty, in its preamble, fails to recognize all the elements that frame the process of creating this binding instrument.
In a second instance, it is important to mention that the draft text highlights the responsibility of the State as the first and only protector of Fundamental Rights in the face of corporate actions, although it ignores the possible damage caused to the commercial activity of nations. In this sense, those commercial activities that are supported by the States (generally public private investments) do not have a reception in this treaty.
The draft also surprises because of the relevance given to the remediation of damages and the rights of the victims, given the urgent need to prevent companies from violating human rights. This disparity between the remedy and prevention was noted by civil society in the ‘Elements’ document, and criticized as it is necessary that the damages caused by business activity be prevented in the same way as the provision of compensation to the victims.
Despite the strong focus on the ‘effective remedy’, the draft adopts an article on prevention; in which it is important to mention the obligation to establish legislation that obliges companies to take due diligence actions. Including environmental and human rights assessments to analyze their activities and take the necessary actions to prevent damage.
Now, it is clear that the draft proposes a binding component for the States, in the sense that it forces them to adopt legislation that ensures respect for Human Rights against business activity. However, the text does not evidence the responsibility of the companies and this is because the treaty will not make them obligated subjects but through the laws that the States will implement. In this regard, the possibility of creating a ‘tribunal’ or another similar institution that has the capacity to judge and penalize the actions of transnational companies disappears.
The draft of the treaty did not include the chapter on ‘Obligations of companies’ that was found in the ‘Elements’; nor were the obligations of international organizations included.
An important element that appears in the draft is the ‘International Fund for Victims’, whose objective is to collaborate with the effective remediation to the damages caused by the business activity.
About the 4th session
After the 4th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group, the polarization of opinions between the countries of the ‘north’ and the global ‘south’ has become evident. The countries belonging to the BRICS block, together with most of the African continents and Latin American; have shown a positive response to the initiative of a legally binding instrument. However, representatives of the European Union, the United States of America, Japan, Australia and Canada, in addition to not having been present at the negotiations, have made clear their refusal to endorse the creation of the aforementioned treaty.
This polarization has relevant effects on the effective force that an instrument of these characteristics can have. Since most of the transnational corporations that would be forced by this text, stay in the States that today pronounce themselves in a manner opposite to the treaty, the protection of human rights against the activity of transnational corporations would not be completely insured .
There are still no certainties about how the process will continue after this fourth session and it is also not clear how civil society will be included in it. According to the ‘Global Campaign to Stop Corporate Impunity’, the following are the points recommended to the Intergovernmental Group, to give continuity to the negotiations:
The future treaty should be aimed at Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and other companies with transnational activities, in accordance with the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Working Group in resolution 26/9.
The future treaty must contain direct obligations for NCDs. It must also establish the joint and several liability of the parent companies with the entities throughout its global production chain (subsidiaries, subcontractors, suppliers, etc.).
The future treaty should provide for an international enforcement mechanism with effective and binding enforcement powers. In this regard, the Global Campaign proposes the creation of an International Court to prosecute TNCs that commit human rights violations and an International Monitoring Center for TNCs.
The future treaty must clearly establish the primacy of human rights obligations over trade or investment agreements.
The future treaty should include concrete measures against the influence of TNCs in the process of formulating public policies at the international and national levels.
The effective participation of civil society in all stages of negotiations on the draft treaty and the safeguarding of the process of influence of TNCs and their representatives.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-11-07 20:09:332024-06-30 16:03:07The 4th session for the discussion of a binding treaty on companies and human rights ended.
On August 10, IDB Invest carried out in Buenos Aires a public face-to-face consultation on the draft for its new Access to Public Information policy. This event is part of the virtual consultation currently open that BID Invest began in May of this year. The day was carried out in order to receive comments from civil society organizations.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.
In May of this year, IDB Invest, the private investment arm of the IDB Group, opened an instance of public consultation to evaluate the draft document of what will be its new Access to Information Policy. In this framework, the institution decided to hold some face-to-face meetings to receive comments and to hear the opinion of civil society organizations.
On August 10, BID Invest called a face-to-face consultation in Argentina, in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; and FUNDEPS participated. The day lasted a couple of hours and the central axes of discussion rested on: the information to be published before the approval of a project, the information to be published during the execution of a project and the list of exceptions to the policy. From the institution, the comments made were received and it was made explicit that after the consultation process was finished, a new document would be created taking into account both the virtual consultation and the face-to-face instance. Likewise, it was pointed out that if any of the comments are not incorporated, the reason for said decision will be justified.
Regarding the call to this meeting, there are some doubts about the selection process of the organizations that were invited. 12 organizations participated and FUNDEPS was the only one from the interior of the country. In this line, the low call makes us think that the information was not circulated with the necessary precedence and it was not foreseen that several organizations and communities could not attend being that they are very far from Buenos Aires.
From FUNDEPS we recognize in a positive way the implementation of face-to-face instances for the consultation. This allows us to clarify doubts and comments about the draft in real time, while at the same time it allowed us to know the intention of the institution when it comes to re-thinking its policy. In this regard, BID Invest explained that considering the relevance of the private investment portfolio of the IDB Group, it was necessary to modernize the Access to Information policy.
In general terms the draft in question has advanced positively on the previous policy. It has improved in key instances but there are still elements to polish. Special emphasis was placed on them by civil society and comments are expected to be incorporated. In addition to the suggestions and comments we made in the framework of the face-to-face consultation, from FUNDEPS, and together with other organizations in the country and the region, we will be sending a document with written comments to contribute to the process of reviewing the Policy.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-09-05 13:46:432024-06-30 16:03:08We participate in the Public Consultation on the review of the Access to Information Policy of the IDB Invest in Buenos Aires
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).
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-08-21 21:32:502024-06-30 16:03:08New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America
Report prepared by the Healthy Latin American Coalition (CLAS) was presented in the framework of a public consultation opened by the Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (REDESCA) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH), with the to prepare a thematic report on inter-American standards in the area of business and human rights.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.
The growing number of cases of human rights abuses and violations committed by companies has led to the treatment of the problem by the international community for some years now. In this context and within the framework of the inter-American system, the IACHR considered gathering information from different interested parties for the purpose of preparing a report that considers the regional reality, and that analyzes and systematizes the inter-American obligations and standards, in order to finally make recommendations on the matter.
Report presented by CLAS, a network that groups around 300 organizations in Latin America of which FUNDEPS is a part, focuses specifically on analyzing the link between companies and chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).
Thus, first, the report provides information on the impact of these diseases in the region, with special mention to the involvement of vulnerable groups. Secondly, the power of influence of companies in the process of formulation of norms and public policies is analyzed, as an obstacle when adopting, executing and advancing in health policies to prevent and reduce the impact of chronic noncommunicable diseases. . In this regard, the cases of the tobacco industry, the food industry and the alcoholic beverage industry are cited as examples.
The document also warns that the current regulations and action plans sanctioned by governments focus on the prevention of the risk factors of these diseases, without including a more general perspective on human rights and companies. It observes that only some countries have made slight progress in this regard, despite the fact that international evidence shows that the most effective measures to reduce the consumption of unhealthy products are those that control the actions of the companies that manufacture and promote these products; especially in relation to marketing and promotion strategies.
Beyond the efforts of Latin American governments to move forward with legislation for the prevention of NCDs, the intervention of companies in the design and implementation of public policies, as well as the lobby of the industry, constitute a great obstacle to effective implementation of norms that prevent the population from the health consequences of consuming unhealthy products.
Currently, at the international level, there are non-binding instruments and mechanisms that aim to protect human rights from the irresponsible actions of companies. These include: the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD guidelines and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Similarly, the work of the IACHR has focused on the search for the prevalence of fundamental rights against the power of corporations; and that is why this thematic report takes on a fundamental character. In this context, also, in the last three years, at the initiative of some States, it has begun to debate the possibility of having an international treaty that effectively forces companies to comply with and guarantee respect for human rights. We believe that an instrument with these characteristics would reinforce the existing regulations, while at the same time ending the abuses perpetrated.
00Comunicaciones Fundepshttps://fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/logo-fundeps-2022.pngComunicaciones Fundeps2018-07-23 14:36:262024-06-30 18:13:35HLAC presented a report to the IACHR on HR and companies
