Tag Archive for: World Bank

Last week, the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) took place in Morocco. Likewise, a counter-summit was organized that gave space to civil society and social movements to discuss the neoliberal policies promoted by these institutions. Below are some reflections on these events, their limitations and potential, and the particular situation of Argentina.

“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 Annual Meetings, which this year took place between October 9 and 13 in the city of Marrakech, are spaces where panels are organized with IMF directors and staff, while civil society has its own forums and exhibition spaces and discussion. At the same time, countless closed meetings occur in parallel to the entire official agenda. All of this aims to be able to discuss how the international financial architecture is organized, which determines under what conditions funds are lent mainly to countries in the global south. The role of civil society in these spaces is to bring their concerns and represent the voices of the people affected by this complex lending infrastructure.

For example, the Coalition for Human Rights in Development presented a report where of 38 projects evaluated, in 36 reprisals were identified against people who defended rights and complained against said loans. This shows that, although the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) make high-level proclamations regarding the importance of human rights, there are no measures or real addressing of the negative consequences on defenders who suffer abuse by security forces. security and the police, judicial persecution, the disproportionate use of force, surveillance, and gender violence and sexual harassment in the particular case of defenders.

Likewise, the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN) presented in a panel on the IMF’s climate strategy regarding the Argentine case. It was made visible how the need for foreign exchange from exports is pushing the fossil fuel extractivist model and going against the country’s climate change mitigation goals. The emblematic example is Vaca Muerta, which if fully exploited would use the equivalent of 11.4% of the CO2 budget. In this case, we can see how the short-term foreign trade balance needs override any analysis of environmental impacts and put the environmental sustainability of the planet at risk.

Faced with this, in general the authorities and staff of the IFIs present on the panels insist that existing policies are the ones that work, they dismiss the proposals of civil society with their own data and are not very receptive to any criticism. For this reason, spaces like the Counter Summit appear, where the conversation flows in a more critical and sincere way about what is happening with the impacts of loans and projects, allowing a space to unite voices in order to change injustices. that today affect so many countries and communities.

The Counter Summit opened on October 12 with a march, and over the next two days there were both small group and plenary discussion sessions. Finally, on Sunday the 15th, the plenary session closed with a reading of the conclusions, which included the cancellation of illegitimate debts, policies that respect planetary limits, climate and social justice, and promote food sovereignty. Also, let end financial colonialism, that there be financing for projects that allow adaptation to climate change, social security and universal health coverage, and a special proclamation for the rights of women who are those who are most negatively impacted by austerity policies.

Argentina and its link with the IMF

According to Noemí Brenta, Argentina has a very particular relationship with the IMF, since it is the middle-income country that has been under its agreements the longest, directing economic and fiscal policies. Today, not only does it have almost 30% of the IMF’s loan portfolio, but it is a good student: throughout all these years and of 22 agreements, only 5 were suspended by the organization. Therefore, it can be stated that the guidelines recommended by this organization have had great influence on the decisions of the different governments.

However, compliance with the policies has implied a notable deterioration in people’s quality of life. On the one hand, the conditionalities impose that the income that the country has be used to pay creditors (that is, to the IMF and other debtors as well), which in turn implies that social expenses are cut and there is no investment for the country. development. On the other hand, the extractivist model is deepened through the agro-industrial production of commodities, the exploitation of fossil fuels and mining – lithium mining is very popular today due to its potential to contribute to an energy transition towards other renewable sources. This has negative consequences on the environment, does not take into account the impacts on the use of scarce and non-renewable resources such as water, and limits the development of the communities that live in the exploited territories.

Mariano Féliz suggests that the impacts on the paid labor market have clear gender biases, since it is women who have to face intensified unpaid and reproductive tasks, while receiving fewer public services. IMF policies that promote women’s participation in economic activity do so from an instrumental perspective because it improves macroeconomic indicators and provides labor that usually accepts worse working conditions. However, while the employment rate for adult women increased, the employment rate for men, especially young people, decreased. All of this only results in the capitalist tendency to overload women with care tasks for their own homes and communities, for example, through the organization of popular soup kitchens.

For the logic of financing agreements and governments, human rights are an ideal that is difficult to fulfill rather than an obligation. The panorama then in Argentina makes us have to think about how to build a political movement against unsustainable and illegitimate debts, against abusive conditionalities that are detrimental to fundamental rights and people’s lives. It also forces us to reflect on how these Levels of indebtedness and precarious lives are linked to the growth of far-right electoral options, which ultimately also promote anti-democratic discourses and practices.

The challenges are many, they are complex and involve a lot of political articulation. However, the context is urgent, since there is no sustainability of life possible under the policies of austerity, impoverishment and extractivism. We have to continue building collective narratives, mobilizing and supporting communities by defending their territories.


Carolina Tamagnini, carotamagnini@fundeps.org

In recent weeks, the World Bank approved a project for 35 million dollars and the IDB and CAF have committed amounts of 1,800 and 4,000 million dollars respectively for projects that allow Argentina to face the effects of COVID-19 . These are fast-disbursing loans that, while important to alleviate the economic, social and health consequences of the pandemic, raise a series of doubts regarding the effective fulfillment of the requirements and conditions necessary for their approval.

“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 effect of the pandemic on the world economy can be reflected in the paralysis of international trade and economic activities. Furthermore, the situation of uncertainty has led to the tightening of external financing for the States, which at this moment are essential to face the health emergency, which requires heavy investments in materials and specific medical equipment.

Faced with this scenario, various International Financial Institutions such as the World Bank Group, the Inter-American Development Bank -IDB-, the European Investment Bank -BEI- or the Development Bank of Latin America -CAF-, among others, have put Quick disbursement financing available to countries for projects to cope with the effects of the pandemic. On April 2, the World Bank -BM- approved an emergency loan of $ 35 million for Argentina, with the aim of strengthening the health system by purchasing equipment and medical supplies to minimize the impact of the coronavirus on the country. This financing is part of the $ 14 billion fund that the World Bank created to provide assistance to countries that must face the consequences on their health and economic systems due to the outbreak.

Fuente: Página 12

In addition, the World Bank promised to cooperate with the Argentine Republic in the implementation of the Emergency Project for the Prevention and Management of the Disease by COVID-19. The purpose of the same is to strengthen the preparation and response against the pandemic and the adaptation of the country’s national public health systems. The execution of the emergency project will be in two stages: the first consists of the emergency response efforts of COVID-19, which consists of two sub-stages: on the one hand, detection, confirmation, follow-up of contacts, registration and reporting of cases and on the other, the strengthening of health systems. The second stage is the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project.

Likewise, on May 7, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced a loan of 1.8 billion dollars for the country to alleviate the economic, social and health consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. It is the largest amount disbursed by the IDB to Argentina in the last 10 years. The support provided by the IDB is linked to care for the health system, transfer to the social protection network for the most vulnerable, and economic and employment recovery, mainly from micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).

Fuente: Infobae

The programs of the public area of ​​the IDB Group linked to Argentina with the objective of responding to the emergency of COVID-19 and that will be approved this 2020 is 1,000 million dollars, while the other 600 million dollars correspond to current projects.

In an official statement, the Presidency explained that the first of the projects will allocate $ 470 million for a public health program to support the response to the coronavirus, of which 300 million were disbursed this year. The objective is to ensure access to the health system for 17 million people. Similarly, with the intention of supporting the productive sector and promoting job creation, 500 million dollars will be allocated, for which 300 million were disbursed this year. It is estimated that the amount will go to the aid of 30 thousand micros, small and medium-sized companies.

In addition, 600 million will be allocated with the goal of serving the most vulnerable population through a social protection program created in conjunction with the IDB. Of this total, 400 million will be disbursed this year with the purpose of transferring resources and subsidies to vulnerable sectors. It will support around 3 million companies.

For its part, the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) has stated that in the current context, each State must adopt economic measures that respond to the situation of each country, without neglecting the productive sector and the most vulnerable social sectors. To contribute to these spaces, CAF has deployed an emergency loan package for each country of up to $ 50 billion to serve public health systems; We also allocate emergency disbursements of 2.5 billion dollars per country to SMEs that involve different aspects of the financial portfolio. In addition, non-reimbursable cooperation resources have been made available to donate essential supplies to the health sector.

The Argentine president held talks with the CAF executive (Luis Carranza Ugarte) exchanging concerns and initiatives to respond to the crisis. The institution committed to the Argentine Government to carry out the execution of technical cooperation projects for more than 4,000 million dollars within the next four years aimed at economic reactivation and social aid at different government levels. For the current year, specific financing will be allocated to strengthen the emergency in the provinces ($ 40 million), promote social policies ($ 30 million), develop investments in infrastructure, including educational establishments, repair and construction of routes. , and sanitation (USD 900 million dollars).

In this way, it can be seen that the Financial Institutions have made fast-disbursing funds available to the national government to be able to deal with the effects of the pandemic in an executive manner. And Argentina is not the only case, since more than 130 projects have been approved in countries in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa for a total amount greater than 25 billion dollars, according to a mapping of projects carried out by the Early Warning System.

While recognizing the need for countries to quickly have resources to face the economic and social effects of the pandemic, it should be noted that most of these projects are being prepared, discussed and approved in an accelerated manner, in a few weeks, when they are generally processes that take several months since they must go through a series of instances and meet a series of requirements for their approval and start-up. Requirements that not only contemplate economic-financial issues, but also in terms of transparency, public participation, accountability, due diligence and social and environmental sustainability of projects. Therefore, it is questionable whether such requirements are effectively being contemplated and applied in these fast disbursement projects by the Financial Institutions and governments involved.

More information


  • Ailín Toso
  • Mariano Camoletto


Since the creation of the World Bank (WB) in 1944, with the aim of facilitating and promoting reconstruction and post-war development, the purpose of the institution has been changing over time, adapting to new realities and international contexts . Today, on its 75th anniversary and positioned as “one of the main sources of financing for the eradication of poverty through an inclusive and sustainable globalization process,” the Bank has new challenges that include, among other things, its framework of relationship with civil society, which although it has been strengthening in recent decades, still has huge outstanding 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”.

Over time, the reformulation of the World Bank’s purpose brought new institutional practices, including the incorporation of civil society as a valid counterpart not only in relation to the internal governance of the institution but also as a party consulted at the time of planning the projects.

Thus, as a result of the growing closeness of the work areas of the World Bank and of many Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), as well as the deep commitment of an increasingly organized civil society, the Bank began to open, little by little. , new ways of participation and involvement of CSOs both in the construction of policies and in the administration of projects.

In this way, there has been a paradigm shift, which went from being institutionally focused and merely consultative to a model that works in conjunction with CSOs, focused on specific issues. For example, their more active participation in the elaboration of the Strategies of Assistance to the Countries (EAP) and the documents of strategies to fight against poverty, among others.

On the other hand, many CSOs have also changed their position regarding the World Bank’s role in society and have decided to work in an articulated manner. The majority of CSOs that interact with the Bank are currently adopting an “positive intervention” approach, which aims to influence the Bank’s decisions; rather than adopt an essentially confrontational position. Even so, it should be clarified that a large part of civil society maintains its critical and supervisory stance vis-à-vis the World Bank projects, especially in relation to those Bank-financed infrastructure projects that have major socio-environmental impacts.

The strengthening of the dialogue between civil society and the World Bank has been reflected both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, for example, with the increasing active participation of CSOs in the Annual and Spring Meetings organized by the Bank, and in the increase in policy dialogue sessions within the framework of the Forum on Policies related to Civil Society (which it was organized for the first time in 2009 where 300 representatives of civil society organizations from more than 30 countries participated). In turn, qualitatively the spectrum of participation was broadened by bringing different sectors such as youth associations and also incorporating agenda items such as food security and health, among others.

It should also be noted that, in order to promote this strengthening in a transversal way to the entire institution, the World Bank has coordinated efforts with the International Development Association and other members of the World Bank Group, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), which provides political risk insurance for projects in various sectors of countries, developing members and the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an institution responsible for arbitrating a solution to disputes between governments and nationals of other states that have invested in that country.

In this way, it can be seen that in the course of the last decades and as a consequence of a greater openness on the part of the institution, but more than anything due to the increasing pressure and demand coming from civil society, demanding greater participation in decisions and Bank actions, a process of strengthening relations between the World Bank and civil society has been evidenced. However, there are still important shortcomings and issues still to be resolved in the relationships of these actors, which is currently reflected in the disagreement of a large number of CSOs regarding the Bank’s actions in a series of related agendas, especially to the protection of the environment and human rights, and the responsibility of the institution in this regard.

The revision of the Environmental and Social Framework of the World Bank and the criticisms of civil society

Precisely, one of the most recent criticisms of the World Bank from civil society has been the recent revision of the Institutional Environmental and Social Framework and what much of civil society considers as a clear weakening or dilution of the safeguards framework and social and environmental standards of the institution. The reasons for this weakening follows a trend at global, regional and national levels and responds to the need to make the Bank more competitive, in an international context of loss of competitiveness vis-à-vis other emerging financial actors.

Thus, for example, the Comparative Analysis of the regulations of the International Financial Institutions present in Latin America carried out by the Regional Group on Financing and Infrastructure (GREFI) of which Fundeps is a part, highlights the way in which World Bank investments have been recently made less competitive against new emerging actors such as the Development Bank of China, for example. Likewise, the report carries out a comparative analysis where it can be seen that environmental and social standards turn out to be more lax in emerging financial actors, which to a large extent allows them to become the first sources of financing for National States, displacing traditional institutions such as the World Bank or the IDB, which have more robust standards and, therefore, imply greater costs and delays for national governments.

Given this situation of loss of competitiveness by the World Bank, the Bank’s Social and Environmental Framework recently reviewed and in force in 2019 is considered by some civil society organizations as flexible against some fundamental issues that would put the environment and rights at risk Humans from the villages of the member countries. For their part, CSOs have expressed reservations about the review of safeguards that practically did not take into account their recommendations. Also, CSOs have denounced that the new MAS lacks a human rights approach and does not take any reference of international standards in the matter.

On the other hand, the main criticism towards the work of the World Bank, regarding this context of competitiveness, is the exclusion of due diligence by the bank by granting the possibility to borrowing governments to request to use their own safeguards systems to national level transferring responsibility for the correct application of safeguards to governments and not to the bank.

In this way, it can be concluded that the World Bank faces great challenges as a financial institution to remain competitive in the face of new emerging institutions and, in turn, incorporate the demands of civil society effectively and effectively. Thus, improving the relationship of real participation with civil society in an increasingly complex context, without weakening its socio-environmental regulatory frameworks, continues to be a latent challenge for the World Bank within its 75 years.

More information

New analysis on regulations in development institutions present in Latin America – Fundeps


Ailin Toso

Florence Harmitton

Contact Gonzalo

Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

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

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

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


Agustina Palencia: agustinapalencia@fundeps.org

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


María Victoria Gerbaldo – victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org


Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

“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


Gonzalo Roza / Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global


From April 18 to 22, the World Bank’s spring meetings were held in Washington. On April 20 we presented a panel on the legal framework of Public-Private Partnership Projects and Infrastructure Projects in Latin America with the NGOs that make up GREFI.

“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”


Spring meetings of the World Bank are being held in Washington, DC from April 18 to 22. On April 20 we presented a panel on the legal framework of Public-Private Partnership Projects and Infrastructure Projects in Latin America with the NGOs that make up GREFI.

From April 18 to 22, the Spring Meetings of the World Bank took place in Washington. These meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (GBM) meet annually with central bank authorities, finance and development ministers, private sector executives and representatives of academic circles.

The aim is to discuss issues of global concern, such as the global economic outlook, the end of poverty, economic development and aid effectiveness. In addition, seminars, regional briefings, press conferences and many other activities focusing on the world economy, international development and the global financial system are organized.

Within this framework and within the Civil Society Policy Forum, we will be presenting, together with the NGOs that make up the Regional Group on Financing and Infrastructure, a panel on the legal framework of Public-Private Partnership Projects and Infrastructure Projects in Latin America. Martha Torres Marcos-Ibanez of Law, Environment and Natural Resources will moderate the panel. The exhibitors will be Vanessa Torres from Environment and Society Association, María José Romero from Eurodad, Nancy Alexander from Heinrich Boell Foundation and Heike Mainhardt from Bank Information Center (BIC).

Public-private partnership (PPP) projects have gained a key role in the development of infrastructure projects in Latin America. In this context, the legal framework of PPPs has been deepened in several countries of the region in order to improve and promote the use of this form of investment in the implementation of mega projects in Latin America. It is becoming more common to see how the private sector is taking on the responsibilities and duties of the state alone, and the best example is the provision of public services and the development of infrastructure. In this regard, PPPs have been used by governments as a powerful tool to boost the economy through increased infrastructure development and as a mechanism to bridge the infrastructure gap. This panel intends to report on the legal framework of PPPs in Latin America, more precisely in Peru and Colombia. The legal instruments used by the private sector and the State will be developed to implement the PPPs and will focus on the gaps in the legal framework that generate environmental and social risks in the implementation of infrastructure projects under APP.

On 20 April, we also moderated a panel on accountability mechanisms in financial institutions. We also participated in meetings with the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism of the Inter-American Development Bank and the Inter-American Investment Corporation.

More information



Juan Carballo – juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

On December 5, the Workshop on Mechanisms for Accountability and Civil Society was held in Bogotá. The workshop was jointly organized by the Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) of the Inter-American Development Bank (Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism / MICI) and the World Bank Group (Inspection Panel and Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman CAO), in collaboration with civil society organizations (CSOs), Environment and Society Association, and the Regional Group on Financing and Infrastructure (GREFI).

“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”


Independent accountability mechanisms were established to address the grievances of people affected by environmental and social impacts of development projects funded by multilateral institutions. Since CSOs sometimes work to support affected communities through capacity-building efforts and support in access resources, IAMs carry out proactive public outreach in collaboration with CSOs throughout Latin America to publicize Their services with civil society networks and that both sides can broaden their perspectives.

In this sense, the three main objectives of the event were:

– Allow Colombian CSOs to become more familiar with the IAMs and the conflict resolution and enforcement services they provide;

– To allow IAMs to expand their relationship with CSOs in Colombia, especially with local organizations and communities that are in populations potentially affected by projects; Y

– Provide a space for dialogue between IAMs and CSOs, in order to exchange experiences, reflections and points of view on accountability issues related to public and private sector development projects in Colombia.

The one-day workshop included presentations by the different IAMs about their services and examples of their work; CSO presentations on their experiences with the activation of the mechanisms, as well as tools to access project information; Small discussion groups related to the access and work of the IAMs and a broader discussion on the trends of accountability in Colombia.

Source: Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad


Juan Carballo, <juanmcarballo@fundeps.org>

On June 11, 2015, the World Bank Board approved a project to Argentina for a 350 million dollars in the health area. This project focused on the Protection of Vulnerable Population against NCDs, supported the strategy of the Ministry of Health for these diseases, in search of improved the access to prevention and control services to 3.2 million adults between 40 and 60 years who takes greater risks. We presented a request for information to the World Bank because of the lack of official information project and the non-reply from the Ministry of Health of the Nation and the province of Cordoba.

“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”

Noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases are responsible for 81% of deaths in Argentina. However, a considerable part of these diseases can be prevented or controlled, reducing risk factors, among which we can find: a diet with excess sugars, refined flour, fat and salt, and low fiber intake; overweight and obesity; snuff consumption; hypertension; and a high level of blood glucose.

The project aims to work to improve the capacity of primary care to provide quality services in early detection and continuous monitoring of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Added to that, at provincial and municipal level are expected to perform aimed at promoting healthy diets, promoting physical activity and consumption of snuff control interventions.

Despite the importance of the project from the Ministry of Health of the Nation, it has only produced an early report, but it has not been updated, or have incorporated references to the way it is being implemented.

In this context, from FUNDEPS -together with FIC Argentina- present public information requests to the agencies of the Ministry of Health of the Nation, to learn about the progress of the project. Likewise, we consulted about the existence of instances of citizen participation and if the project monitoring mechanisms are foreseen by Civil Society Organizations.

In addition, information particularly referred to the contribution of funds requested by YPF, as expressed in the portal of the Government of the Province of Tierra del Fuego.

Finally, given the lack of response by the Ministry of Health of the Nation, we request the information by the means provided to apply directly to the World Bank, financer of the project.

Lack of information undermines its objectives and hinders proper coordination with provincial authorities. Of journalistic sources it is known that some governments have deposited more funds are not enabled to run.

From FUNDEPS as members of the Argentina Coalition for the Prevention of Non-Communicable Chronic Diseases with other organizations that share the mission to work in preventing these diseases from different perspectives (medical, consumer, human rights, advocacy, academic ) we are monitoring this project.

More information:

– The Minister of Health of the Nation received the Governor of Tierra del Fuego (Prensa Tierra del Fuego – 19/05)

– Ricardo Cardozo manages resources to the nation for the Province (Diario La Republica 13/09)

– Investment of U $ S 437 million in protection against chronic noncommunicable diseases (Telam 08/10)


Franco De Grandis, francodegrandis@fundeps.org

María Victoria Gerbaldo, victoriagerbaldo@fundeps.org

On Thursday 26 May, FUNDEPS and other 68 civil society organizations from different countries, signed a letter asked World Bank management to maintain transparency throughout the ongoing review of its environmental and social policies.

Transcurridos cuatro años desde el inicio del proceso de revisión, el Banco Mundial no ha dejado claro en qué momento se hará público el borrador de su nueva política de salvaguardas. Esto impide que la sociedad civil pueda observar el borrador final antes de la deliberación final del Directorio para su aprobación, a pesar que en los últimos años muchos de estos actores aportaron sus percepciones y recomendaciones al procedimiento.

El pasado jueves 26 de mayo, en una carta enviada al Directorio Ejecutivo del Banco, 69 organizaciones – incluyendo a FUNDEPS – demandaron que el borrador final del Nuevo Marco Ambiental y Social sea divulgado públicamente de manera previa a la deliberación de su aprobación por parte del Directorio. Lo cual resultaría consistente con la Política de Acceso a la Información del Banco. La carta enfatiza que la nueva política de salvaguardas tendrá una enorme implicancia en  el nivel de protección de los derechos humanos y la integridad medioambiental en todos los proyectos de desarrollo financiados por la Institución. Muchas de las cuestiones que se debaten en esta revisión son centrales en la agenda de desarrollo global actual, incluyendo el derecho a la tierra, la protección de los bosques y los hábitats naturales, el cambio climático, y la no discriminación e inclusión.

Esperamos recibir una respuesta satisfactoria de la Institución, ya que la divulgación del borrador de manera previa a su consideración por el Directorio dotaría de mayor transparencia a un proceso que fue fuertemente criticado desde sus inicios por parte de la sociedad civil. Para acceder a la carta enviada al Banco (en inglés) acceder aquí.

Más información:


Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global


In the framework of a public consult made last December 8th in the city of México, over 180 Civil Society Organizations of Latin America and the Caribbean sent their position regarding the second draft of the new Environmental and Social Framework of the World Bank. They asked for answers to the representatives of the region that are part of the Executive Board.

El pasado martes 8 de diciembre el Banco Mundial llevó adelante, en la ciudad de México, una consulta pública en relación al segundo borrador del nuevo Marco Ambiental y Social (MAS), en el marco de la revisión de las Políticas de Salvaguardas de la Institución. Este proceso, iniciado hace ya más de tres años, ha tenido una participación limitada de la ciudadanía y representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC), no ha sido ampliamente difundido y ha carecido de información oportuna para su revisión de manera previa a la consulta y de criterios claros que establezcan cómo los representantes del Banco responderán a las preocupaciones y propuestas que las OSC han realizado.

El nuevo borrador del MAS está siendo ampliamente criticado por diversos motivos. En particular, se destaca que el Banco no tiene un compromiso explícito respecto a respetar los derechos humanos, que se refleje en sus políticas. El MAS propuesto evita referencias a estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos, lo que es indispensable si se quiere lograr un desarrollo sustentable. Además, el Marco está permeado de un lenguaje ambiguo, es decir, no cuenta con procedimientos definidos, plazos claros y criterios y requisitos obligatorios.

Además, la propuesta del Banco deja abierto el cumplimiento de los estándares, es decir, no define claramente cuándo ni cómo se debe cumplir con lo establecido en el MAS. En el marco vigente, un requisito indispensable consiste en evaluar los impactos y riesgos ambientales y sociales de manera previa a la aprobación de un proyecto, así como publicar las evaluaciones antes de la fase de evaluación de proyectos de alto riesgo. El nuevo Marco, por el contrario, establece que las evaluaciones ambientales y sociales deben iniciarse “lo más temprano posible”, por lo que de entrada pone en riesgo los procesos de consulta, ya que éstos no pueden realizarse de manera efectiva sin que se cuente con la información completa y detallada acerca de un determinado proyecto.

Por esto, más de 180 organizaciones de la región de América Latina y el Caribe (ALC), entre ellas FUNDEPS, se han posicionado frente a este borrador, que va en contra de la misión principal del Banco Mundial sobre erradicar la pobreza extrema y promover una prosperidad compartida. Las organizaciones solicitan una respuesta por parte de los Directores Ejecutivos que representan a la región de ALC.

El MAS del Banco Mundial baja el estándar tanto para el propio Banco, como para toda la comunidad internacional. En lugar de promover un fortalecimiento de estándares, este borrador estimula que otros bancos multilaterales, instituciones financieras internacionales, bancos nacionales de desarrollo y otras iniciativas en el ámbito de desarrollo bajen sus estándares o carezcan de incentivos para fortalecerlos en aras de tener una mayor competitividad.

Más información:


Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global