Tag Archive for: IFIs

,

We participate in the review of the socio-environmental sustainability policy of the IDB Invest

We participate in the face-to-face public consultation of the IDB Invest in the framework of the revision of its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy.

“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”

Within the framework of the public consultations that the IDB Invest is conducting on the draft of its new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, we participate in the face-to-face public consultation held last Tuesday, September 4 at the headquarters of the IDB Argentina in the city of Buenos Aires. The IDB Invest is a member of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, better known as the IDB Group. It is a multilateral development bank with the purpose of promoting the economic development of the member countries of the region through investment in the private sector. That is, while the IDB is responsible for public sector investment, the IDB Invest invests in private sector projects.

Thus, in June of this year the IDB Invest began the public consultation to review the draft of its new policy of environmental and social safeguards; review that would last for 120 days. The objective of conducting a public consultation is due to the relevance of establishing a dialogue with interested parties to make suggestions for the new policy. Thus, virtual and face-to-face consultations have been carried out or will be carried out not only in Argentina but also in other countries such as Colombia, Jamaica, Panama or the United States.

According to the consultation plan announced by the Bank, once the public consultations have been finalized and a new draft has been prepared, it will be submitted to the Executive Board for approval, giving rise to the new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, replacing the policy of 2013. However, one of the main complaints heard in public consultations by a wide range of civil society organizations and indigenous communities, was the need for the Bank to open a second draft for public consultation. of the policy, in order to identify how the recommendations and suggestions made during public consultations were incorporated.

Additionally, Fundeps together with a group of organizations in the region raised the need, among other things, to: Include two areas of expansion beyond the 8 Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), in particular, a Performance Standard related to gender and, second, another for the participation of stakeholders and communities. In turn, the need was also raised not to dilute responsibilities in the supervision of the implementation of the safeguards; and that the new policy should be guided by the principle of “generating benefits” beyond the idea of ​​”not causing harm” as the policy currently proposes.

More information

IDB and IDB Invest review their environmental and social policies – Fundeps Web page on the Consultation on the Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy of the IDB Invest

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The IDB and the IDB Invest review their environmental and social policies

Both the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and its private arm, the IDB Invest, have recently opened the process for reviewing their environmental and social safeguards policies. It is important that Latin American civil society and, above all, communities affected by the projects financed by these institutions, participate actively in the public consultation process, either by sending virtual comments or by participating in face-to-face consultations that will be held in different cities of the region. Here, 5 key points to consider about the review processes.

“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”.

Why is the review given?

Following the recommendation made by the IDB Office of Evaluation and Supervision (OVE) in its Evaluation of Environmental and Social Safeguards, the IDB Executive Board approved, on July 2, 2019, the launch of the process to “modernize” its policies environmental and social, which seek to ensure that potentially negative environmental and social impacts are properly evaluated, managed and mitigated in IDB operations. According to the IDB itself: “there is a need to update and integrate a policy framework for environmental and social risk management, so it seeks to develop an integrated Social Environmental Policy Framework, aligned with international standards and best practices.” In this way, the IDB follows the steps recently taken by other Multilateral Development Banks, such as the World Bank.

On the other hand, the IDB Invest (formerly Inter-American Investment Corporation -CII-), the IDB’s private arm, began updating its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy last June. According to the Bank, the purpose of the review is to establish “a single framework of standards that customers must meet instead of using multiple third-party standards. The update process includes a review of current trends and best practices related to environmental and social sustainability, including those designed by other international financial institutions (IFIs) operating in the private sector. ” In practice, following OVE recommendations, the IDB Invest seeks that borrowers adhere to the IFC Performance Standards, which are widely recognized and already applied by IDB Invest borrowers, and references to other standards removed. from third parties.

What does the review include?

In the case of the IDB, the review includes the five independent policies that make up the environmental and social safeguards:

  • Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy (OP-703) of 2006
  • Policy on Disaster Risk Management (OP-704) of 2007
  • Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP-710) of 1998
  • Gender Equality in Development Policy (OP-761) of 2010
  • Indigenous Peoples Policy (OP-765) of 2006

So far, the IDB has prepared a Policy Profile on the Modernization of Environmental and Social Policies.

In the case of IDB Invest, the review is only of its:

  • Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, effective since 2013.

And a Draft of the new Policy has been published, which is under public consultation.

When are the consultations carried out?
In the case of the IDB, on July 2, 2019, the Executive Board approved the launch of the modernization process and subsequently published the Policy Profile. The draft policy framework is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board at the end of October 2019 for public consultation. The stage of preparation for the modernization process would culminate in the development of the Environmental and Social Policy Framework (MPAS) in September 2020. The MPAS would be implemented as of 2021.

As for the IDB Invest, a Consultation Plan has been published with the basic information about the process, which basically consists of:

1. Making the Policy Draft available to the public.

2. Digital and face-to-face public consultations open for 120 days (as of June 17, 2019).

3. Consultations in person at:

  • Colombia (September 4),
  • Argentina (September 4),
  • Jamaica (September 6),
  • Panama (September 6) and
  • Washington, D.C. (September, 10th)

4. Virtual consultation session at:

  • Spanish (September 12),
  • English (September 12),
  • Portuguese (September 13).

5. Making the comments received and attended available to the public.

After conducting the public consultation, the IDB Invest will submit to the Executive Board the final draft of the Policy for final approval, after which a plan for its implementation will be established and executed.

Why is it important to participate?

For several reasons, it is necessary that civil society, citizens and, above all, indigenous communities and communities affected or potentially affected by IDB or IDB Invest operations actively participate in this process, contributing their experience and its recommendations and suggestions regarding the environmental and social safeguards of the institutions.

First, because both the IDB and the IDB Invest are, today and despite the diversification of financial actors operating in the region, key actors in financing for development in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the Bank itself: in 2018, with a historical amount of US $ 17,000 million approvals, the IDB and the IDB Invest were consolidated as the main source of multilateral financing for Latin America and the Caribbean. The IDB approved a total of 96 sovereign guaranteed loan projects for a total financing of more than US $ 13.4 billion, and disbursed more than US $ 9.9 billion. In turn, 2018 was a record year for IDB Invest, with approvals of US $ 4,000 million, 26% more in volume and 21% more in number of transactions than the previous year. The IDB Invest extended its support to sectors such as infrastructure and Fintech, adding to education, tourism, water and sanitation, transport and energy. In the case of Argentina, the IDB has historically been the main multilateral partner for the country’s development, with an average of recent annual approvals of US $ 1,360 million. The current active portfolio with the public sector is 54 operations for an approved amount of US $ 9,206.4 million and an unpaid balance of US $ 3,874.7 million, according to the information provided by the Bank itself.

Second, because a robust and effective system of environmental and social safeguards is key to avoiding the impacts at the socio-environmental level that, in many cases, bring infrastructure projects financed by institutions such as the IDB or the IDB Invest. When the design, application or implementation of environmental and social safeguards fails in these types of projects, the impacts and consequences especially in the communities involved are often complex, and unfortunately in many cases, irreversible. Cases such as Camisea in Peru or Hidroituango in Colombia reflect the bitter consequences of the bad, or even the lack of application of socio-environmental safeguards in projects financed by the IDB Group

Third, because an active, informed, responsible and coordinated participation by the key members of civil society and the indigenous and affected communities of the region would contribute to the objective of avoiding a possible (and latent) dilution of the system of environmental and social safeguards from both the IDB and the IDB Invest. Recent experiences of dilution of environmental and social regulatory frameworks after review and “modernization” processes not only in related institutions such as the World Bank or the International Finance Corporation (IFC), but also in the national regulatory systems of the countries of The region clearly reflects a trend that the IDB Group seems not to want to escape.

How to participate?

Actors interested in participating in the review process of the IDB or IDB Invest safeguards can do so in different ways and through multiple channels:

For the IDB review:
The Bank offers two ways to participate in the consultation process.

Initial consultation stage: before developing the new Framework for Environmental and Social Policies, the IDB held two face-to-face workshops in Washington, DC (August 8 and 12) to analyze the lessons learned from the implementation of environmental and social policies existing.

Consultations in person on the proposed new environmental and social policy framework (dates and places have not yet been disclosed): the IDB will hold consultative meetings in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, at the IDB headquarters in Washington, DC , and in other member countries.

Those who want to stay updated about the review process can register on this link provided by the Bank.

  • For the IDB Invest review:

IDB Invest also offers virtual and face-to-face instances to participate in the review process of its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy.

Virtual or written comments can be sent to the SustainabilityPolicy@idbinvest.org email or through the mail addressed to: IDB Invest: Environmental and social sustainability policy. 1350 New York Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C., 20577. USA.

To participate in face-to-face consultations in some of the indicated countries, it is possible to register at the following link provided by the Bank.

In Argentina: The face-to-face consultation in Argentina on the proposal of the Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy of the IDB Invest will be held next Wednesday, September 4 from 09:00 am to 11:00 am at the IDB headquarters in Argentina, located in Calle Esmeralda 130, 11th floor, Buenos Aires.

In addition: those interested in knowing more about how to participate effectively in the consultations, can register to participate in the webinar “Review of IDB Invest safeguards, how to participate effectively?” Organized by DAR, Environment and Society and the Bank Information Center (BIC) by entering this link.

Fundeps, together with a group of organizations in the region, is coordinating actions to promote broad, inclusive and effective participation of civil society and indigenous peoples and affected communities in both the IDB and IDB Invest review process; and to try to strengthen and avoid a weakening of environmental and social safeguards. If you are interested in getting involved in this process, you can contact gon.roza@fundeps.org.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Green Climate Fund

Independent Repair Mechanism

Author

Carolina Tamagnini

Contact

Gonzalo Roza,  gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Fundeps host the International Advocates Working Group (IAWG) Retreat

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

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

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

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

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

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Conversation: Investments for Development and Human Rights in Latin America

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

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

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

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

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

The president of the World Bank resigns: possible conflict of interest and transparency in the appointments

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.

More information

Contact
Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org
Agustina Palencia – agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

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

Contact:

Agustina Palencia: agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Author

Agustina Palencia

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

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

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

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

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

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

More information

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

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

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

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

Image source

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

Author

María Victoria Gerbaldo – victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Global Meeting of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

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

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

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

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

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

More information

– Coalition’s Impact Report 2016

– Web page of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development

Contact

Juan Carballo / Executive Director of FUNDEPS

juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

,

Discussions on Independent Accountability Mechanisms in Greece

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

More information

– Network of Independent Accountability Mechanisms

– Video on the IAMnet network

– MICI website

– Inspection Panel website

– CAO website

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

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Worrying situation of human rights defenders worldwide

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org