Tag Archive for: Accountability Mechanisms

Part of the Global Governance area team traveled the first days of December to the city of Rurrenabaque in Bolivia. Meetings and tours were held in the area where infrastructure projects are being carried out by the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank in the area.

“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 municipality of Rurrenabaque (located in the Department of Beni, Bolivia) is an important tourist center and small-scale agricultural production area, whose population, due to the need to export its products, has been forced to generate pressure on forests Natural. Rurrenabaque is adjacent to the National Park and Integrated Management Natural Area Madidi and the Biosphere Reserve and Community Land Pilón Lajas, where several indigenous communities live.

This region is characterized by its abundant richness and cultural and biological diversity that has led to the establishment of reserves and national parks, but which is also considered by many actors as an unexploited economic opportunity. This has led to the recent promotion of a series of infrastructure works (mainly the construction of important roads) in the vicinity of the protected areas of Madidi and Pilón Lajas, which represents a risk of negative environmental and social impacts Both for biodiversity and ecosystems and for the indigenous communities involved. Among these projects, the one financed by the Inter-American Development Bank is the improvement of the Santa Bárbara-Rurrenabaque highway.

On the other hand, the project financed by the World Bank consists of the Ixiamas – San Buenaventura highway located within the Northern Corridor area of ​​influence and is part of the Alternative Route to reach Cobija from the north of La Paz.

The Ixiamas-San Buenaventura highway within the regional context of the Corredor Norte highway megaproject represents one of the largest works in the Northwest region of Bolivia. The North Corridor is a road project of 1664 km of length linking in its extreme points to the cities of La Paz, Guayaramerin and Cobija. Its area of ​​influence extends over 234,000 km², approximately 26% of the territory of Bolivia, comprising 3 departments and 39 municipal jurisdictions.

The environmental and social impacts and threats to communities living in the area are increasingly serious. The situation in the area is complex and these roads coexist with other projects (financed mainly by Chinese funds) that represent even greater problems and challenges for indigenous communities in the area. From FUNDEPS, we will be collaborating with communities in the area to evaluate options to complain to mechanisms of accountability of international financial institutions. It will be sought that these projects do not negatively impact the environment and the living conditions of the communities.

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@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

Contact

Juan Carballo, <juanmcarballo@fundeps.org>

Eleven civil society organizations and our organization presented a research report called: Glass Half Full? This report talks about the obstacles of communities to access to accountability tools when a specific project concerns them.

Glass Half Full?: The State of Accountability in Development Finance” (¿El Vaso Medio Lleno? El Estado de Rendición de Cuentas en la Financiación del Desarrollo) es un informe que documenta los obstáculos que deben superar las comunidades y trabajadores para recurrir a los mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de las instituciones financieras internacionales cuando son afectados por proyectos de desarrollo. Si bien la estructura y procedimientos de estos mecanismos varían, sus actividades principales consisten en reunir a los reclamantes y a la institución que apoyo financieramente el proyecto en cuestión, a los fines para resolver el conflicto. En ese contexto, se lleva a cabo una investigación para determinar si las políticas ambientales y sociales de las instituciones financieras internacionales han sido transgredidas.

Los mecanismos de rendición de cuentas son a menudo la única opción disponible para las comunidades, y en la actualidad la única vía para que los bancos de desarrollo rindan cuentas sobre al cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental y social. Desde el Panel de Inspección (el primer mecanismo de rendición de cuentas independiente del Banco Mundial, creado en 1994) se han registrado 758 denuncias presentadas a la empresa por 11 diferentes instituciones.

Este informe evalúa el grado en que los bancos de desarrollo y sus mecanismos de rendición de cuentas están preparados para manejar las quejas de las personas afectadas. El informe también contiene anexos que analizan en detalle los mecanismos de denuncia de las diferentes instituciones financieras y ofrecen recomendaciones sobre posibles vías de mejora.

 

Más información:

Glass Half Full?: The State of Accountability in Development Finance

 Glass Half Full?. Annex 11: The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism of the Inter-American 

Contacto:

Juan Carballo – Director Ejecutivo

juanmcarballo@fundeps.org

 

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

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

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

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

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

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Más información:

 

Contacto:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes in the new policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

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

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

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