Tag Archive for: Global Governance

,

The MICI disseminates its new Policy in Buenos Aires

A workshop that seeks to disseminate the new Policy of the Independent Mechanism of Consult and Investigation (MICI) of the IDB, took place in Buenos Aires. Many civil society´s organizations and individuals from all over the country took part in this event.

El pasado lunes 16 de noviembre se llevó a cabo el Taller “Mecanismo Independiente de Consulta e Investigación: Teoría y Práctica”, cuyo objetivo fue difundir la nueva Política del Mecaniso Independiente de Consulta e Investigación (MICI), recientemente aprobada por el Directorio Ejecutivo del BID. El evento, que fue organizado por el MICI y que se llevó a cabo en las oficinas del Banco interamericano de Desarrollo, contó con la presencia de diferentes representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil del país y de individuos que interpusieron quejas ante el anterior Mecanismo.

El encuentro se dividió en tres sesiones, siendo Victoria Márquez-Mees, designada como la nueva Directora del MICI, la primera oradora. Márquez-Mees comunicó sobre el rol, el alcance y las acciones del MICI en esta nueva etapa, tras la culminación del proceso de revisión de la Política, iniciado en 2013 y finalizado a fines de 2014.

En la segunda sesión se trató la temática “La experiencia como solicitante en un caso MICI”, en la que diferentes solicitantes argentinos comentaron sus experiencias a la hora de interponer una queja ante dicho organismo. Así, expusieron sus respectivos casos el Dr. Gustavo Neme (Programa de Servicios Agrícolas Provinciales II – San Rafael, Mendoza), y los señores Pablo Folonier (Multifase Desarrollo Infraestructura – Paraná, Entre Rios) y Pedro Barragán (Programa de Seguridad y Movilidad Urbana – CABA). Esta sesión también contó con los comentarios de Arantxa Villanueva, Oficial de casos del MICI, y la coordinación de Francisco Giacosa, miembro del equipo de Gobernabilidad Global de nuestra Fundación. Finalmente, la última sesión del taller abordó la relación entre la sociedad civil y el MICI, en la que presentamos nuestra opinión y perspectivas respecto de la nueva Política. Destacamos tanto los aspectos positivos como los negativos de la misma. Asimismo, debatimos junto al resto de los participantes acerca de los principales desafíos que enfrentan en la actualidad los mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de las Instituciones Financieras Internacionales (IFI’s).

El encuentro ha representado una buena oportunidad no solo para promover una mayor difusión de la existencia y funcionamiento del MICI, sino también para compartir valiosas experiencias en relación a quejas presentadas por solicitantes locales e incluso para generar vínculos más estrechos entre la sociedad civil local y el organismo. A su vez, el taller brindó el contexto propicio para presentar y difundir el Folleto sobre el MICI que hemos elaborado y publicado recientemente junto con la organización holandesa SOMO y que se encuentra disponible en nuestra página web (para descargar el documento, acceder al siguiente enlace).

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Workshop on International Financial Institutions´ Accountability Mechanisms

As a part of the Financing and Infrastructure Regional Group (GREFI), FUNDEPS organizes a workshop on Accountability Mechanisms and Civil Society in Lima.

Este evento se organiza en el marco de las Reuniones Anuales del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y del Grupo del Banco Mundial, que tienen lugar en Lima del 6 al 12 de octubre del presente año.

Los mecanismos de queja independientes (MQI) de las bancas multilaterales se crearon con el objetivo de resolver reclamos presentados por comunidades afectadas por los impactos sociales y ambientales generados por la ejecución de proyectos de desarrollo con financiamiento proveniente de estos organismos.

La experiencia muestra que uno de los obstáculos para activar dichos mecanismos es el escaso conocimiento que existe por parte de la sociedad civil sobre éstos y su funcionamiento, de tal manera que puedan ser integrados a estrategias integrales de defensa de derechos frente a proyectos de desarrollo.

En este contexto, el taller tiene como objetivo promover el diálogo con los encargados de diferentes mecanismos de queja y representantes de la sociedad civil, con el fin de dar a conocer distintos MQIs presentes en la región; su funcionamiento; y fomentar un intercambio de experiencias y perspectivas relacionadas a los mecanismos.

El taller contará con la presencia de representantes del Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) de la Corporación Financiera y el Panel de Inspección (PI) del Banco Mundial, del Mecanismo de Queja del Banco de Inversión Europea y del Mecanismo Independiente de Consulta e Investigación (MICI) del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Asimismo, participan diferentes representantes de organizaciones de sociedad civil y de movimientos sociales de la región.

 

Más información:

 

Contacto:

Consult on Human Rights and International Financial Institutions.

FUNDEPS as a part of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CCDH), opens up a consult searching a methodology to incorporate Human Rights within the Environmental and Social standards of the developing Financial Institutions.

Las actividades para el desarrollo pueden tener un profundo impacto en la efectiva vigencia de los derechos humanos. Desafortunadamente, las herramientas estándares de planificación del desarrollo, selección, evaluación y monitoreo no están diseñados para captar plenamente su impacto en los derechos humanos. Por lo tanto, la Coalición por los Derechos Humanos en el Desarrollo (CCDH), una alianza global de la que FUNDEPS forma parte, ha venido llevando adelante un proyecto para desarrollar una metodología para la incorporación de derechos humanos dentro de los marcos de estándares sociales y ambientales de las instituciones financieras de desarrollo. Para mayor detalle, haga click aquí.

 

¿Qué es esta herramienta?

Un componente clave de esta metodología ha sido la elaboración de una Herramienta de Análisis de Oportunidades y Riesgos (AOR). La AOR ha sido diseñada para ser utilizada por Instituciones financieras y gobiernos, que planifiquen e implementen proyectos y actividades de desarrollo. La AOR llevará al usuario a través de un proceso que identifique y evalúe riesgos y oportunidades asociadas para  los derechos humanos, permita ajustar el diseño de una actividad para responder a los mismos y desarrolle indicadores  y un plan de monitoreo.

AOR está basado en un Registro de Estándares, organizado en 12 Áreas temáticas y acompañadas por un set de preguntas de indicadores de riesgo y de evaluación de impacto. Haga click aquí para acceder los estándares e indicadores. Haga click aquí para mayor información.

Este es un proyecto ambicioso, que busca contribuir a la protección de los derechos humanos en el desarrollo. En este contexto, abrimos una consulta para poder crear una herramienta innovadora que demuestre tanto a gobiernos como instituciones financieras qué significa identificar y responder a riesgos e impactos en derechos humanos.

 

Cómo participar de la consulta

  • Documentos en borrador: Es posible acceder al Registro de Estándares e Indicadores directamente aquí. Los hemos organizado por área temática así pueden verse directamente los aspectos que más se vinculan con la experiencia de cada particiapnte.
  • Encuesta online: Hemos desarrollado un cuestionario online que se puede completar haciendo click aquí
  • Comentarios en documentos: Es posible enviar comentarios usando directamente los archivos de las tablas, con control de cambios, a esta dirección: hr_consultation@fundeps.org
  • Entrrevistas personales: Hemos dispuesto un equipo de trabajo para organizar reuniones virtuales para recibir comentarios y observaciones. Para hacerlo, comunicarse con el correo hr_consultation@fundeps.org.
  • Fecha límite: 31 de Octubre.

States’ Extraterritorial Obligations regarding the protection of human rights

Despite the universitality of human rights, a large number of States continue interpreting their obligations as applicable only within their own territory.  This has led to an important void in the protection of these rights, for which reason a series of principles has been developed that intend to clarify what States’ extraterritorial obligations are in terms of economic, social and cultural rights.

“Extraterritorial obligations” (ETO) are those obligations that States have as a consequence of their acts or omissions, that impact on the enjoyment of human rights outside of their own territorial limits.  Although they have acquired greater relevance as a consequence of the effects of globalization, States still show a strong tendency to limit their obligations to their own territory.  This has led to important voids in the protection of human rights, particularly in the case of transnational businesses and intergovernmental organizations, such as the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

Consequentially, since 2011, and thanks to the effort of international experts in the underlying principles of the ETO, there exists a set of principles known as Maastricht’s Principles about States’ Extraterritorial Obligations in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  At present, these principles constitute an expert international opinion, which clarify States’ extraterritorial obligations based on current international rights.

Extraterritorial Obligations (ETOs) and their relationship with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and transnational businesses

In this context, it so happens that States frequently turn to IFIs with the aim of requesting financing for their projects, many of which are liable to cause violations to human rights, not only in the territory of the State that requested the financing but also outside of it.  However, it is important to clarify that international rights do no permit the States to ignore – nor transgress – their respective human rights obligations, through the use of the IFIs as agents that do not comply with, in their practices, the own obligations of the States.  In this sense, Maastricht’s principle number 15 directly refers to States’ obligations as members of international organizations, establishing that:

“A State that transfers competencies or participates in an international organization must adopt all reasonable measures to guarantee that the organization acts according to international obligations on the subject of  human rights of said State.” (Maastricht’s Principles, point 15)

That is to say, that States can not evade their obligations protecting themselves with the justification that actions are developed by the IFIs.  On the contrary, as members of said organizations, they must take the measures that are within their reach so that the activities of said organizations are consistent with internationally recognized human rights.

A similar analysis is applicable in the case of transnational businesses originating from a State, but whose activities can have effect on the human rights of the population where they operate.  In this case, point 24 of Maastricht’s Principles highlights the States’ obligation of protection or regulation, establishing that:

“All the States must adopt the measures to assure that non-governmental actors that are in positions to regulate […] including individuals and private organizations, transnational businesses and other commercial businesses, do not override or undermine the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.” (Maastricht’s Principles, point 24)

This implies that a State can not wash their hands of  the actions and obligations of their transnational businesses that operate outside of their own territory.  To the contrary, they must take charge of regulating and supervising their activities,  above all those that are related to economic, social and cultural rights (DESC).  In this way, Maastricht’s Principles establish that the States must try through their means, to achieve the highest grade of satisfaction possible from the DESC; those that encompass basic questions of human dignity such as food, health, housing, work, education and access to water, among others.  States contribute to the guarantee of these rights through their acts or omissions, their decisions that support the governing bodies of the IFIs, and in the regulation and supervision of the actions of their transnational businesses.

In this context, civil society must advocate for the recognition of and compliance with Maastricht’s Principles, since without the observance of extraterritorial obligations, human rights cannot assume their role as legal basis for the regulation of globalization, nor assure the universal protection of all people and groups.  Therefore, one of the current challenges consists of finding the way to tackle the immunity that the IFIs claim and the consequent lack of accountability.

These types of advances in terms of international rights, and in relation to the protection of human rights, is relevant within the context of the work of FUNDEPS.  Both from the global view point when considering, for example, the obligations of the States that make up the IFIs; as from the local point of view, taking into account violations to human rights in the local sphere, that can be caused by the actions of transnational businesses or projects financed by the IFIs.

More information:

–Web page of the ETO Consortium

–Maastricht’s Principles about States’ Extraterritorial Obligations in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinator of the Area of Global Governability

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Yamile Najle – Co-coordinator of the Area of Human Rights

yamilennajle@fundeps.org

Translated By: Rebecca Rhoads

The IDB approves the ICIM’s new policy. A weaker and less reliable Mechanism

With virtually no regard for the comments and suggestions from civilsociety, the IDB has approved the new policy of the IndependentConsultation and Investigation Mechanism (ICIM). While this doesinclude a sparse few positive aspects, it implies a setback in theprocess of strengthening the ICIM started in 2010.

On December 17th, 2014, the IDB’s Board of Executive Directors approved by consensus the new policy of the ICIM, or the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism, by which the Bank aims to respond to the concerns and complaints lodged by individuals or communities affected by “a substantial, adverse, and direct damage as a result of any potential breach by the Bank due to its operational policies in operations funded by the institution” [1] and, through this, improve the social and environmental outcomes of its operations.

According to the provisions established by the Bank itself, the aim of the recent review of the ICIM’s policies, which began in August 2013 and was recently completed in late 2014, was to “ensure that the mechanism is organized and appropriately staffed so as to meet current and future needs, and has the structure, policies, and processes needed to function effectively. “[2]

However, adopting this new policy has only confirmed the concerns of many civil society organizations that saw the review as a clear and deliberate weakening of the Mechanism and a set back to the process of strengthening it, launched in 2010.

In turn, throughout the entire review process imposed by the Bank, a series of irregularities and shortcomings have been pointed out, particularly with respect to public consultations and incorporating feedback from civil society. These irregularities question the legitimacy of the entire process.

Not only has the IDB turned a deaf ear to the claims of a number of organizations involved in the effective and participatory process of consultation for the second phase of the review of mechanism, but worse still it seems that the IDB has not taken into account the comments and suggestions made by civil society while preparing the Revised Draft ICIM Policy.

A clear example of this is the document Comments on the Revised Draft Policy that FUNDEPS, along with a group of more than 20 civil society organizations from different countries around the world, sent to the bank last September during the second phase of public consultation. Of the more than 45 comments suggesting improvements to the Mechanism made in that document, only 3 of them have been taken into account in the new policy, and only partially so.

Moreover, it is unlikely that the suggestions from other individuals and organizations from different countries of the region and of the world have been taken into account since they voiced their suggestions during the public consultation (a total of 43 written documents with comments, according to the Bank), and the new policy’s document is almost equal to the Draft provided for consultation, with the exception of some minor modifications. If analyzed comparatively, both documents are virtually identical, with only few substantial additions; the vast majority of the differences are strictly in wording. There are no more than 15 substantial changes, many of which do not even incorporate substantial improvements for the sake of forming a more effective and efficient mechanism.

In addition to this, the Revised Draft Policy has effectively covered very few of the recommendations and suggestions made by civil society during the first phase of public consultation. This can be observed from a comparative analysis of the Draft document to said comments, accessible through the Bank website.

In light of all this, one is left to wonder what the true purpose of the IDB conducting public consultations is; does the Bank really take into account the comments made by the many organizations and individuals who invest their time, effort, and resources in order to improve the functioning of the institution? … or is it a mere procedure by which the Bank legitimizes its actions without truly taking into consideration the comments made by civil society in these spaces?

Changes in the new policy

The new policy proposed by the Bank provides a number of important changes in the structure and function of the Mechanism, among which are the following:

Structure: The structure of the Mechanism has been redefined to include the following changes:

• From now on it will be lead by a ICIM´s Director, who will report to the Bank’s Executive Board and will be responsible for all ICIM’s office, administrative, and operational staff, including the two Phase Coordinators who are to work under the supervision of the Director.
• The Coordinator of the Consultation Phase will replace the figure of the Project´s Ombudsman.
• The Compliance Review Panel will no longer be permanent and will now be settled by the Compliance Review Phase Coordinator (who will act as chairman of the Panel) and two ad hoc independent experts hired for each case from a roster of experts.
• The Director of the ICIM shall be appointed by the Executive Board while Phase Coordinators shall be appointed by the Director.
• The position of Executive Secretary of the ICIM will be eliminated.

Operation: various modifications were introduced, among which stand out:

• Changes in the processing, requirements, and necessary content of applications.
• Scope: limited coverage to operations financed by the Bank with the approval of the Board (the previous policy also covered the operations financed before the approval of the Board) and up to only 24 months (2 years) after the last expenditure.
• simplified process of Eligibility of Applications establishing a sole eligibility managed by the Director of ICIM in conjunction with the Phase Coordinators.
• Elimination of the sequence requirement for cases in which applicants wish to go directly to Compliance Review Phase, yet they shall remain in the event that the applicant opts for both Phases.
• Deadlines for all stages are to be established so as to reduce response times.

It is worth mentioning that the new policy incorporates a number of provisions which, although few in number, are positive in relation to the previous policy, such as:

• Changes in the structure of the Mechanism in order to make it more effective;
• The unification of project eligibility processes into a sole process led by the Director of ICIM;
• The possibility of field trips to those countries in which the projects are carried out (during Eligibility Phase);
• The intention of making the process of Applicant Registration more structured and transparent;
• The possibility of allowing Applicants to choose either the Consultation Phase, the Compliance Review Phase, or both, thus eliminating the sequential requirement when Applicants wish to resort directly to Compliance Review Phase;
• The creation of a Roster of experts from which the two ad hoc Panel members that will accompany the Compliance Review Phase Coordinator will be selected in each particular case.

However, beyond these few positive aspects, the new policy is a serious weakening of the Mechanism, especially in terms of Accessibility and Independence, crucial aspects of an effective and efficient instrument. As such, the new ICIM Policy establishes conditions that challenge the independence of the Mechanism, creates many unnecessary barriers to its access, and renders the filing of a request by the affected parties much more complicated. (For detailed information on some of the main criticisms and suggestions made by a group of Civil Society Organizations under the ICIM review process, see the following document).

The new Policy not only means a sharp decline in the process of strengthening the Mechanism by replacing the old, inefficient IIM (Independent Investigation Mechanism) with ICIM, it also means a deterioration of other existing mechanisms of accountability in other institutions similar to the IDB. While most of these institutions’ mechanisms tend to facilitate and promote accessibility, it seems that the IDB is doing more the opposite by establishing an inaccessible mechanism, hardly independent and therefore very unreliable and ineffective.

As such, the IDB has begun 2015 by taking a preoccupying step backwards with respect to the ICIM, an instrument of great importance for environmental and protection of human rights in countries where the Bank operates. It is the responsibility of civil society to ensure that, beyond the weakening of the IDB’s accountability presented by the new policy, the mechanism works as effectively and efficiently as possible. FUNDEPS will continue to work towards that goal.

More information:

– ICIM website
– New Approved Version of ICIM – December 17, 2014
– ICIM Policy Revised Draft – June 2014 (subject to public consultation in the second phase)
– Comments on the Draft of the Revised Policy of the ICIM – September 2014 (sent to the Bank by over 20 Civil Society Organizations in the framework of the Second Phase of Public Consultations)
– Summary of Major Changes Proposed for the Second Phase
– Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism Policy 2010 (old policy).

Contact:
Gonzalo Roza – Coordinator  of the Global Governance Area
gon.roza@fundeps.org

[1] See section ICIM in IDB website: http://www.iadb.org/en/mici/home,1752.html
[2] Document “Revision of the structure and policy of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (ICIM): summary of key changes.” July 30, 2014. IDB. Pp. 1. available at: http://www.fundeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Revised_Policy_Summary_of_Changes_in_English.pdf

UN Rapporteurs Urge the World Bank to Recognize Human Rights in its Policies

In response to the proposed modifications to the World Bank’s social and environmental safeguards, a large group of UN human rights rapporteurs launched tough critiques of the proposed changes, requesting via a letter addressed to the President of the World Bank that human rights be properly considered in the guarantees that the financial institution demands.

On December 16th of last year, 28 special rapporteurs for the United Nations Human Rights Council sent a collective letter to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, severely criticizing the proposed modifications to the Bank. These modifications have been in full discussion and have been an ongoing project for FUNDEPS. According to the human rights rapporteurs, the proposed modifications “appear to move in opposition to progress” considering that they would reduce the amount of social and environmental guarantees that the Bank requires when approving loans, especially in regards to human rights. According to the special rapporteurs,“the document seems to go out of its way to avoid any meaningful references to human rights.”

Philip G. Alston, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, maintains that the principal reason for these modifications appears to be the Bank’s intention to compete with alternative financing initiatives (mainly backed by China, Russia, and India) which do not apply these minimum safeguards. Nevertheless, Alston explained that this is not sufficient reason to reduce the existing safeguards, considering that the World Bank, in their Articles of Agreement, are formally committed to the elimination of extreme poverty and to improving the quality of life for people in developing countries. The pursuit of these goals does not line up logically with the proposed modifications.

The authors of the letter hold that “the international community has already accepted that development and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.” That is why, in keeping with international law, they maintain that the World Bank should consider the relevance of human rights in its programs’ objectives, as well as incorporate human rights into its policies.

Ultimately, after appending a list of well-founded criticisms to the original letter sent to the President of the institution, the rapporteurs recommend that the Bank only finance projects that satisfy the established requirements. Further, they should withhold support from projects that do not comply with human rights obligations. In the screening process for each project, the Bank should rely not only on the information provided by the loan applicant, but should itself carry out the pertinent investigations, keeping in mind the affected or potentially-affected groups, as well as human rights defense groups and civil organizations. In this context, the rapporteurs pointed out that many vulnerable groups remain unprotected under projects funded by the World Bank, an issue that inspired protests at the Bank’s most recent annual meetings . In the same vein, they maintain that the proposed modifications should utilize stricter language that through clarity and precision would minimize discretionality when approving loans.

Here at FUNDEPS, we will continue participating in these global discussions, and in this way attempt to ensure that the World Bank establishes respectable human rights standards in its operational processes.

More information:

Letter to the President of the World Bank by the human rights rapporteurs-Safeguards-ENGLISH

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza, Area Coordinator of Global Governance
gon.roza@fundeps.org

Translated by: Elizabeth Laudenslager and Julian Novales Flamarique

 

, ,

Funding infrastructure in Latin America- COP20, Lima

The frame of activities for the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on the Lima Climate Change Conference, will discuss how international funding and socio environmental safeguards in infrastructure projects in Latin America have an impact on the Amazon jungle.

This event has been jointly organised by FUNDAR, Centre of Analysis and Investigation (Mexico), Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies- FUNDEPS (Argentina) Association for Environment and Society AAS (Colombia) and the Right of the Environment and Natural Resources- DAR (Peru) all constituting as the regional group for Funding and Infrastructure.
The discussion forms part of the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on climate change in Lima. The speakers will tackle the actual state of funding for infrastructure in Latin America from traditional banks like the World Bank Group/ International Finance Corporation and the new bank from the BRIC Countries. A comparative analysis of four projects with external funding has been carried out in Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, evaluating the impacts on the Amazon forest and the instruments (safeguards) for the management of social and environmental risks.

It will especially be about the negative example of Brazil and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES, its acronym in Portuguese). The BNDES, who also funds projects outside of Brazil, has been accused of its lack of transparency, of described social and environmental norms, which have been clearly defined, and the mechanisms guaranteeing the fulfillment of national laws.
It is feared that the recent creation of the BRICS nations bank will neither put enough emphasis on the norms that protect the environment and society in the process of its application. This reality is affecting the policies of traditional banks, such as the World Bank Group or the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Those countries seeking to attract more investment will also react to the changes in the available international funding. Large infrastructure projects that ignore the environmental concerns, such are the cases of CVIS (Peru), Mocoa Pasto (Colombia), Coca Codo Sinclair (Ecuador) and the TIPNIS (Bolivia), are proof of it.

A panel of experts on climate change, megaprojects and governance (transparency, participation, risk management) will debate the key ideas and any advance of the previously mentioned analysis. The session will also give the public the possibility to participate in the debate.

Key questions:

1.How can banks apply safeguards on project funding in Latin America to prevent social conflicts and environmental disasters?
2.What is the role of the new national and regional banks in the funding of regional infrastructure?
3.How the weakening of standards in funding the region affects the countries system? How can these react in front of new challenges?

More information:

– Details on the logistics of the event
– Panorama on the funding for infrastructure in Latin America
– Guideline for the discussion. Implementation of a Freedom of Information Policy for The Brazilian Development Bank
– Paradigmatic cases of BNDES investment in South America. Need and opportunity to improve internal policies

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of Global Governance
gon.roza@fundeps.org

Translated by: Gisela Quevedo

The Role of International Financial Institutions in the Management of Sustainable Forestry Resources in Argentina

In recent years, our country received and continues to receive various funds from international financial institutions in order to manage existing forest resources.  How are theseplanned, executed and decided? 

In this context, it is worthwhile for civil society to question the principles and governing rules that are taken as the starting point to apply the funds and if these areactually implemented. For this reason, FUNDEPS has decided to monitor the management of the funds that our country has received and match the conditions to the “AR Sustainable Natural Resources Management”, provided by the World Bank and the “AR – L 1067: Forest Sustainability and Competitiveness Program” provided by the Inter-American Development Bank. These standards are applied in several Argentinian provinces and will impact much of the country, but the goal is the same: improve forestry production sustainably.

The management of our forestry resources has historically been marked by the excessive encroachment on agricultural land, the constant deforestation of native forests and human rights violations of indigenous farming communities as well as the absence of transparent and participative decision-making processes. As such, we sent out numerous requests soliciting information linked tothese projects and we contacted a number of persons responsible for implementing the funds.

Although in our final report will include all the relevant conclusions, we find it necessary to bring forward that after the specified deadlines for responses to the information requests sent to the provinces had expired, only a handful responded. Of the responses received, the majority did not provide relevant information about the application of the projects. It is extremely complex to access the information needed to evaluate the areas where forestry projects are implemented and the breakdown of the state organizations is overwhelming.
Although we found much information about the rules that are applied, benchmarks and accountability, and technical criteria on the objectives of the funds, we believe that this reading is complex, the information is over-abundant, which, in practical terms, makes it inaccessibleand, in some cases, it is in another language.

For more information:

– Informacion_sistematizada_-_Proyectos_gestion_de_bosques – Banco Mundial – BID

Contact:

info@fundeps.org

Translated by D. Phillips

Right of access in environmental matters. Towards a Latin American regional convention. Fourth meeting on focal points: negotiations begin.

The process towards international environmental governance has its origin in 1972 in the Stockholm Conference, and developed through various conferences and summits.

The process towards international environmental governance has its origin in 1972 in the Stockholm Conference, and developed through various conferences and summits. In the 1992 Rio Summit, the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” adopted principle 10, which refers to the rights of access in environmental matters: right to information, participation to decision-making and access to justice. This declaration, of global scope, isn’t binding on the countries, so that its operativity is needed.

For this reason, in 1998 in Europe the Aarhusen Convention was dictated, serving as an instrument that regulates and operationalize these three pillars of environmental democracy being binding on countries in Europe, Central Asia and the European Community.

Regional Convention for Latin America

In terms of Latin America, we hope that within 2015-2016 a Regional Convention operationalizing principle 10 and effectively reflecting the highest standards of access to information, participation and environmental justice will be dictated.

Many conferences and meetings have been held to advance this process, with ECLAC as Technical Secretariat. In the last four meetings on Focal Points of the signatory countries of the Declaration on the application of Principle 10 there has been a clear advance, and committed participation by the signatory countries towards the realization of this regional instrument. The first meeting was held on November 6th and 7th in Santiago de Chile, where delegates of the signatory countries agreed on a Roadmap for the full implementation of the regional convention.

The second one took place in 2013 on April 18th in Guadalajara (Mexico), and here was approved an Action Plan up to 2014 to strengthen the rights of access in environmental matters. The third one was conducted in 2013 on October 30th and 31st in Lima (Peru), and members agreed on a series of lines of action for 2014 on the empowering of capacities and cooperation.

Recently, from the 4th to the 6th of November 2014, the forth meeting of Focal Points was held in Santiago de Chile, where the representatives of the 19 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that signed the Declaration of Principle 10 approved to start the negotiations for the creation of a regional convention in this area. From 2012 to date, the Declaration has been signed by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay. In the fourth meeting also participated as observers Antigua and Barbuda, Nicaragua and Saint Lucia.

Attendees welcomed the recent incorporation of Bolivia and El Salvador, and reminded that the process is open to all countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. During this last meeting, Alicia Bárcena, Executive Secretary of ECLAC, highlighted that the instrument should not be merely declaratory, but must be ambitious and set clear and specific legal obligations to ensure effectively the three pillars of right of acces in environmental matters: information, participation and justice. These negotiations, will have to be based on the minimum contents of San José de Costa Rica.

Through FUNDEPS will be supported the work of other NGOs in the region towards the effective implementation of the rights of access and to cooperate with governments through recommendations and/or exchanges of ideas to move towards a regional instrument support. More information: – Comunicado de prensa de la reunión de la CEPAL – Propuesta de naturaleza y contenidos del instrumento regional de principios de acceso en materia.

Contacts:

info@fundeps.org

Translated by: Arianna Tamanini

, ,

FUNDEPS participates in the Annual Meeting of the World Bank and the IMF, dominated by the review of the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards

In addition to participating in the discussions and demonstrations that took place regarding the process of reviewing the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards, FUNDEPS met with staff from the IDB and MICI; and it was part of a discussion panel where a publication about the current funding landscape for infrastructure in Latin America, prepared by the Regional Group on Finance and Infrastructure, was presented.

During the course of this last week, FUNDEPS was involved in the 2014 Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington DC (USA).

En el transcurso de la semana pasada, FUNDEPS estuvo participando de las Reuniones Anuales 2014 del Banco Mundial y el FMI en la ciudad de Washington D.C. (Estados Unidos). Si bien la agenda predominante durante estas Reuniones Anuales fue el proceso de revisión y actualización de las Salvaguardias ambientales y sociales del Banco Mundial, la visita a Washington sirvió también para trabajar en una serie de agendas adicionales en las que FUNDEPS está involucrado, tales como el proceso de revisión del MICI del BID; la presentación de una publicación sobre Financiamiento para Infraestructura en América Latina, realizada con el Grupo Regional sobre Financiamiento e Infraestructura; e incluso tener una serie de reuniones estratégicas y de planificación con diversas organizaciones de la región y del mundo.

Sin dudas, la agenda prioritaria actualmente respecto al Banco Mundial es el futuro de las salvaguardias de la Institución, cuyo proceso de revisión tiende a un preocupante debilitamiento y dilución de los estándares ambientales y sociales a cumplir cuando el Banco financia un proyecto en uno de sus países miembros (Ver Comunicado “El Banco Mundial busca debilitar los estándares socio-ambientales en sus proyectos. Respuestas de Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil”). El borrador del nuevo régimen de salvaguardias recientemente publicado por el Banco confirma en gran medida esa tendencia y fue fuertemente criticado y rechazado por gran parte de la sociedad civil alrededor del mundo. Justamente, a principios de Octubre fue enviada al Banco una Declaración con la suscripción de más de 130 organizaciones alrededor del mundo, rechazando el borrador y destacando cuáles son los principales retrocesos que plantea. (Ver Declaración enviada al Banco).

A tal punto llegó la inconformidad de la sociedad civil respecto al proceso de revisión de las salvaguardias, que en el transcurso de la consulta pública planificada por el Banco para el pasado sábado 11 de octubre, la mayoría de los participantes, tras cuestionar tanto las reformas que plantea el Banco como el proceso de consulta en general, decidieron abandonar la sala (Ver Videos sobre la Consulta) y realizar una movilización fuera del Banco, que contó con una amplia participación de diversos actores descontentos no sólo con el proceso de revisión de las salvaguardias sino también con el modelo de gobernanza y financiamiento que plantea la Institución. (Para ver fotos de la movilización acceder Aquí)

En el transcurso de las Reuniones Anuales se confirmaron, también, los lugares en donde se desarrollarán las próximas consultas regionales para brindar comentarios acerca del proceso de revisión siendo Brasil, Paraguay, Perú y Bolivia los países latinoamericanos donde se estarán desarrollando las consultas presenciales en el transcurso del próximo mes.

En cuanto al proceso de revisión del MICI, FUNDEPS aprovechó su presencia en Washington para mantener reuniones presenciales con Victoria Márquez-Mees, Directora Ejecutiva del MICI; y con Flavia Milano, especialista de Sociedad Civil del BID. Más allá de obtener una actualización acerca del estado de la revisión del Mecanismo, las reuniones sirvieron para trasladar al Banco y al equipo del MICI la gran preocupación existente en relación al retroceso en materia de Accesibilidad, Independencia y Efectividad que representa el Borrador de Política Revisada que el Banco ha sometido a consulta. (Ver comunicado “Preocupa el potencial debilitamiento del MICI en el proceso de revisión que está llevando adelante el BID”)

A su vez, con Flavia Milano pudieron tocarse temas de la relación entre el BID y la Sociedad Civil, tales como la situación de los Grupos Consultivos de la Sociedad Civil (ConSOCs); el estado de implementación de la Política de Acceso a la Información, la misma revisión del MICI e incluso las reformas institucionales que está planificando el Banco, como la reforma de la Corporación Interamericana de Inversiones (CII) con el objetivo de darle mayor relevancia al financiamiento de carácter privado (Ver comunicado “En una reunión en la que se excluyó a la sociedad civil, el BID realiza cambios en su estructura”); e incluso el probable inicio de una revisión de las salvaguardias sociales ambientales del Banco, siguiendo los pasos del Banco Mundial.

Finalmente, cabe destacar que en el marco del Policy Forum de la Sociedad Civil de las Reuniones Anuales del Banco Mundial/FMI, se realizó la presentación del documento “Panorama del Financiamiento para Infraestructura en América Latina”, elaborado por el Grupo Regional sobre Financiamiento e Infraestructura, del cual FUNDEPS forma parte junto con otras tres organizaciones de la región: Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR) de Perú; Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) de Colombia; y Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación, de México.

Más información

– Panorama del financiamiento para infraestructura en América Latina

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza

Coordinador del Programa de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Concerns on the ICIM potential weakening in the review process being carried out by the IDB

The changes put in place by the bank suggest a deliberate weakening of the Mechanism, especially in terms of accessibility and independence, aspects that are crucial for creating an effective and efficient instrument.

The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (ICIM) is an independent mechanism within the institutional framework of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) which aims to respond to worries and complaints of individuals or communities affected by “some direct damage which is both unfavourable and substantial, as a consequence of the Bank’s posible breach of some of it’s operating policies in an operation financed by the institution”.[1] At the same time it is trying to improve social and environmental results of the bank’s operations through its actions. Hence, the importance of this instrument for the protection of the environment and human rights in countries where the bank operates: and the worrying outcome of the changes that they are trying to introduce, that imply a clear weakening of the Mechanism and a clear step backwards in the process of strengthening itself, which started in 2010.

In 2010 the ICIM rightly replaced the failed and inefficient Independent Investigation Mechanism (IIM), which represented a good bet for the Bank to strengthen and make the mechanism more efficient. However, in the year 2013, they started new revision, which resulted, through the first phase of public consultation, in the elaboration of a draft policy revised by the ICIM, which was published by the Bank recently. The document was submitted to a second phase of public consultation that was recently finalised, last September 15th, where the bank received the opinions and commentaries of civil society at the same time.

It is under this mark that a group of more than 20 civil society organisations from different countries [2] are sending a document of Commentaries to the Revised Draft Policy, expressing their concerns about the changes that the bank are putting in place. The document, in which FUNDEPS has had active involvement, underlines the huge setback that the Bank’s proposal suggests, above all in terms of Accessibility and Independence of the Mechanism, and has set out a series of criticisms and recommendations, which include:

  • The revised policy not only represents a weakening and setback in relation to the mechanism which is still in place, but also in relation to the rest of the issuing mechanisms of existing accounts of institutions that are similar to the BID. Despite the majority of the mechanisms of said institutions have to facilitate and promote the access to its mechanisms: The BID  is trying to do the opposite by establishing a mechanism that is barely accessible, barely independent, and even less reliable or effective;
  • The Revised Draft Policy establishes dispositions that keep independence of the mechanism in check in addition to creating a lot of unnecessary obstacles that prevent access to it and makes the presentation of a request on behalf of those affected more complicated;
  • Over the course of the Bank’s revision process, a series of irregularities and scams have been noticed, especially those concerning Public Consultation and the inclusion of comments on civil society, which puts the legitimacy of the process in doubt; consequently the bank has to establish a participative and inclusive implementation process for the new mechanism which allows us to soften said irregularities.

In turn, the document raises a wide and detailed series of commentaries and suggestions regarding the revised draft policy in terms of implementation; Accessibility, Independence; Effectiveness; Structure, mandate and process; Terminology and definitions. (See full document)

FUNDEPS has been actively participating in the revision process of the ICIM (see communiqué “Organisations of civil society call for the IDB to carry out a effective and participative public consultation process for the second revision phase of the ICIM”) trying to avoid the weakening of the Mechanism, which would clearly result in the slightest possibilities of an amendment for those affected by the projects financed by the banks. Accordingly, and in the mark of its participation in the month of October in the next Annual Meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in Washington DC, the global governability team from FUNDEPS will carry out meetings regarding the Executive Board of the Bank and the personnel from ICIM with the aim of expressing the strong concerns of civil society regarding the revision of the Mechanism and avoiding the weakening of the Mechanism.

More information:

– The ICIM Website

– Proposal of Revised Policy

– Summary of the Main Proposed Changes

– Policy of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism 2010 (actualmente en vigencia).

Attachments:  Comments to the ICIM Revised Draft Policy -IDB_-English.pdf

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinator of the global governability programme
gon.roza@fundeps.org

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] See section of the ICIM on the IDB Website: http://www.iadb.org/es/mici/inicio,7736.html  [2] Accountability counsel of the USA-Environmental association and society of Colombia- Interamerican association for Environmental Defence (AIDA) in Mexico- Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in the USA – Commission for Justice and Peace in Colombia – United communities macroproject El Dorado Airport Colombia – AC Cooperative of Foundations in Mexico – Environmental right and natural resources (DAR) IN Peru – Ecoa in Brazil – EarthRights international in the USA- Foundation for the Environment and Natural resources (FARN) in Argentina – Public prosecutor for the environment (FIMA) in Chile – Citizen’s participation forum for justice and human rights (FOCO) in Argentina – Fundar, Analysis and investigation centre, AC in Mexico- Foundation for the development of sustainable policies (FUNDEPS) in Argentina- Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Law in the USA- Human Rights Council in Ethiopia- Jamaa Resource initiatives in Kenya- Natural Justice in South Africa- Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER) in the USA – Social justice connection in Canada- centre for research on Multinational Organisations (SOMO) in Holland- Yansa foundation in the USA

Translation by: Luke Sidaway

China’s growing role in funding the development of Latin America

In recent years, China has substantially increased its investments and funding for the development of the majority of the countries in Latin America. Civil society organizations are worried about environmental standards and human rights.

The recent tour of Latin America by the president of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping in Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela, and the corresponding agreements both bilateral and multilateral signed by the president, did nothing but reinforce a tendency that has been growing little by little over the course of recent years: the growing presence of China in the region, resulting in a substantial increase in the amount of investments and funding for the development of the majority of the countries in Latin America.  Specific examples of this are the official visits, which, during 2013, were made by the president to Mexico, other Central American countries and the Caribbean, and the visits by the former Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile in 2012, which resulted in the creation of the China-Latin America Cooperation Fund.

If the main agreements signed during this presidential tour are analyzed, it is easy to see that the infrastructure sector is the leading destination of the Chinese investments, especially transportation and energy. For example, the agreements signed in Argentina involve the investment of more than $4,800,000 for the restoration of railroads (e.g. Belgrano Cargas), the funding of hydroelectric dams, and various agreements on the subject of nuclear energy, infrastructure, agriculture and the naval industry, among others (listed under signed agreements). In the case of Venezuela, the agreements involve funding social and infrastructure projects and an agreement with PDVSA for mineral research. In Brazil, the Chinese president attended the sixth BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Summit at which the Reserve Fund and Development Bank of the BRICS (named New Development Bank) was established. The bank aims to mobilize resources for infrastructure projects and sustainable development in emerging and developing economies, and is considered an “alternative” to the World Bank and the IMF.

If the total numbers are observed, since 2005 onwards China has given loans to the region topping 100 billion dollars, in a relationship that many have defined as “mutually beneficial,” considering that China obtains the resources and raw materials that its growing economy demands (basically food and energy resources), while the Latin American countries access an important and needed source of external funding.

However, what has not been taken into account in this analysis and is being largely overlooked by the different Latin American stakeholders both public and private are the socio-envrionmental and human rights risks that can come with projects and initiatives funded in this way, which generally come with requirements and socio-environmental standards more flexible than traditional funding sources, like the World Bank or the IDB, for example. Projects funded this way continue to be strongly questioned by civil society for their inability to effectively address the protection of the environment and the human rights of the populations involved.

In turn, it is very difficult to access accurate and reliable information about the Chinese investments (amounts, conditions, characteristics of the funding, stakeholders, etc.) both in the region in general and in Argentina in particular, since there is not currently a large number of stakeholders (whether they be from the civil society, like academia, the private sector or even the public sphere) who are dedicated to detailed tracking and monitoring of this type of financing, and, more importantly, of its impacts and implications on each one of the countries.

In this type of scenario, where on one hand the amount of the investments and loans increase exponentially and on the other hand, the information is limited and ambiguous, some of the stakeholders in the civil society have begun to try to conduct research and monitoring, and have even built tools that allow a greater understanding of the characteristics and particularities of the Chinese investments in the region.

Recently, for example, the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CDES) in Ecuador presented the “Legal manual for Chinese environmental and social regulations for foreign loans and investments,” a theoretical and practical tool destined to serve as a guide for local communities and share the parameters in relation to rights and sustainability against Chinese investments and loans. The document, written by Paulina Garzón, represents a huge advance for the communities and the rest of the sectors of civil society involved and contributes substantially to a better comprehension of a topic of increasing relevance for our region.

Keeping in mind this increasing need, FUNDEPS has recently begun a project monitoring and tracking this topic in the framework of research and advocacy being carried out by the different regional stakeholders of the funding for development.

More information:

– CDES – Legal manual for Chinese environmental and social regulations for foreign loans and investments

Contact: 

info@fundeps.org

Translated by Lindsay Graham