Tag Archive for: MICI

Conflicts over an IADB funded project for an environmental center in Carlos Paz

Neighbors requested the closure of the current open dump and expressed their opposition to the development of the environmental center in Carlos Paz, which has funding from the Inter-American Development Bank.

“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 Sunday, January 29, a local autoconvocatoria took place in the square of Villa San Nicolás (Malagueño), with the objective of informing and organizing itself with regard to the problem that generates in the whole area the presence of the open dump administered by the municipality of Villa Carlos Paz in the property located to the side of the motorway to Cordoba. The neighbors formed an inter-district commission that will work to elaborate the “action plan” that will define the following steps.

Through a statement, neighbors said they will request the closure of the current landfill at the time they anticipated that they disagree with the construction of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center in the sector. This work is financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) through the Comprehensive Urban Solid Waste Management Program-AR-L1151.

The meeting came after a week in which the wind moved home smoke from the fire in the landfill that the city has on the side of the highway Justiniano Allende Posse, less than 1 km from the entrance to the neighborhood of Villa San Nicolás. “Only now is awareness. The smoke awoke us all and triggered the protest”, said Lucas Bettiol, a neighbor of San Nicolás, in reference to the fire that was unleashed in the landfill and warned that,“we did not know until last week that they wanted to make an Environmental Center in the same place”. They also stated: “Far from remedying the damage generated by the open dump, pollution levels will increase due to the installation of a new landfill that represents five times the size of the current landfill”.

The neighbors expressed an explicit and emphatic rejection of both the current landfill and the establishment of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center. In this sense ensure that if this proposal materializes “the environment will be even more damaged, the quality of air will decrease and groundwater and surface water will be contaminated, being that in the area all neighborhoods consume well water.” Warned about the progress of the Environmental Center project, Bettiol said:
“… it will be a fight similar to what happened with Monsanto (Malvinas Argentinas), or the dumps of Bouwer and Santa Ana neighborhood … We know that it is approved but we have the antecedent of Monsanto that was managed to stop and we hope To be able to stop this. The authorities are not dimensioning the environmental or social impact (…) The population of San Nicolás was not included in the Environmental Impact Study and we are less than 1 km. TierrAlta is closer. The authorities of Carlos Paz and Malagueño minimize what is happening in the landfill “

In April last year the environmental public hearing took place, in August the Ministry of Tourism carried out the national public bidding process and in November the bids for international public bidding were opened. The works are expected to begin in the middle of this year.

In view of the possible environmental and social impacts, compliance with provincial, national and IDB operational policies must be complied with.

In the statement, they affirm that they have not been considered in the environmental impact assessment process of the IDB-financed project and that, far from remedying the damage currently generated by the open pit, the levels of pollution will increase. They demand that the municipality of Malagueño be present and that Carlos Paz recognizes the violation of his rights. They also ask the province of Córdoba to act in the prevention of damage and demand the immediate repair of the damage done in the area.

The autoconvocados neighbors of San Nicolás, TierrAlta, Mariano Moreno, La Arbolada, Lote Joven, Valle del Golf, Causana and the districts Carlospacenses Costa Azul North and South requested a public study of the quality of the air, the soil and the underground beds.

From FUNDEPS we are following this process to ensure that human rights and the environment are respected. The location of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center next to the La Calera Defense Nature Reserve, and meters away from San Roque Lake in areas that may have a higher propensity to seep or leach into the water, is questionable.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of the Global Governance Area

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Advances and challenges at the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center Project

Administrative processes are advancing and it is expected that in May 2017 work will begin for the construction of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center with financing from the Inter-American Development Bank.

“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 IDB’s Integrated Urban Solid Waste Management Program (GIRSU) finances works for the integral management of solid urban waste and the recovery of degraded areas due to the poor disposal of such wastes. The total cost of the program is US $ 150 million and contains two subprograms: on the one hand, GIRSU in national parks and adjacent municipalities and, on the other hand, GIRSU in other tourist municipalities.

Within the second group is the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center. The center was designed to receive the urban solid waste from five neighboring municipalities that agreed with the municipal administration of Carlos Paz their joint treatment. The project was developed by TecnoMak S.A. Contracted by the Executing Unit of International Loans under the Ministry of Tourism of the Nation.

TecnoMak S.A. Studied three alternatives for possible locations of the new MSW treatment center. Finally, it was decided to locate it in the building of the current open-air garbage dump bordering the La Calera Natural Reserve.

The project has three groups of works:

Works Group 1: Sanitary Landfill for the disposal of MSW generated in the localities of the Municipality of Villa Carlos Paz and communes of the area of ​​influence of the project; With a useful life of 20 years and an average daily income of 163 Tn / day.

Works Group 2: Separation and Treatment Plant and related logistical and administrative support works.

Works Group 3: Closing and Closing of the Landfill to Open Sky currently existing.

On April 7, 2016, the environmental public hearing was held in which the authorities participated and eleven people registered with it.

The mayor Esteban Avilés explained:

“We are working on a regional project that will give us a definitive solution to the open dump (…), with this public hearing would be closed the administrative situation and then move to the instance of decrees that have to do with the Secretariat of Environment Of the province, and the Ministry of Tourism of the Nation by Gustavo Santos”

Regarding the deadlines stated that “we believe that we will be fairly quick compared to other projects approved at the national level” but did not rule out before the end of the year.

Several objections were raised by María Luz Cammisa (Secretary of the Norman Morandini, Director of the Human Rights Observatory of the Senate of the Nation), related to the relevance of the hearing as “it arrives with a work that is tendered and has been up to Pre-awarded (…) We are here in some way to validate what has already been decided by us” It was also stressed the jurisdictional limitation, since the affected lands are outside the ejido of Carlos Paz:

“It is for us a priority issue that I raised to the governor Juan Schiaretti because we can not advance in a planning with the intermediate institutions of the city always being conditioned to that the province resolves this administrative situation.I see that it is a governor that has this type De la Sota really had no interest for anything, “declared the Intendente and later be endorsed by his collaborators: It is a theme of substance for the Carlospacenses; But that does not determine the continuity of the project.”

More controversial was the mention of Cammisa regarding the deadline stipulated by the Technical Commission for the use of the module:

“…it must have a maximum of six years, and that after the same period, a site outside the San Roque basin (…) should be used to specify the integration of a Comprehensive Waste Management Program in the metropolitan area of Córdoba (CORMECOR) “(…) We do not know if the municipality itself will have a solution for its waste beyond six years. That is to say that the projected environmental center will last less years than the time taken to plan it”

Those who responded to this were the architect Liliana Bina and the secretary of Urban Environmental Development, Horacio Pedrone. They mentioned in this respect that the Interdisciplinary Technical Commission suggested this term in view of the CORMECOR project, of which the city would participate if it materialized. However, “this plant would continue to function exactly the same, but instead of throwing the surplus into the sanitary burial, we would do it in a transfer iron to Cordoba.” Meanwhile, Villa Carlos Paz as the member communes will have buried for that date some 475 thousand tons of garbage.

On the other hand, Pedrone said “to say that the municipalities and communes that have signed intermunicipal agreements with us and that they will not be able to throw the garbage more is absolutely false … The project has been thought from the first minute with the participation Of the eight municipalities and municipalities bordering Villa Carlos Paz and have always treated the subject of garbage together” said in a framework of participation in which were present the community leaders Andrea Jordán (Cuesta Blanca), Adolfo Parizzia (Estancia Vieja) and representatives of Icho Cruz and Cabalango.

Other approaches were related to the territorial organization of the native forest:

“… there is no mention in the environmental impact study of the negative impacts of the reserve. It is an area bordering a protected area, and a project that seeks to be authorized by means of exceptions provided for in the Forests Law (…) The opinion of the Technical Commission itself warns against the location of the project that it would be inadvisable to concentrate in this area more potentially impacting installations against the environment, since it is in the vicinity of the natural area (…) and in areas with drainage at Lake San Roque.”

This point was also raised by environmentalist Juan Carlos Paesani, who for health reasons was not present but made read his statement: “Will it be understood that this reservoir gives drinking to almost two million people in the city of Córdoba? Continue to ignore elementary principles.”

More confrontational was the speech of the President of the Council of Representatives, Walter Gispert, who retorted the remarks when pointing out that:

“Apart from saying, we have to do, our government has spoken to everyone … Beyond the technical issues, the material and environmental debt that the city has and the effort made by all public and private institutions to Solve the problem, for our future, I ask you to approve the project.”

He also suggested that “the Chicana” comes from a member who shares his same political space, Norma Morandini, “whom I spoke to personally to raise the situation, but he never came to Carlos Paz, and she was a legislator for Córdoba.”

In August, the national public bidding process was carried out and in November the tenders for the international public tender were opened. The works will start in May 2017. The current landfill will be replaced by a landfill that will house a waste separation plant and a recycling plant. 222 million will be financed by the Inter-American Development Bank and it is estimated that the work will require around eight months and that by mid-2018 this new plant would be put into operation.

From FUNDEPS we follow these processes to ensure that they respect human rights and the environment. The location of the Villa Carlos Paz Environmental Center next to the La Calera Defense Nature Reserve, and meters away from San Roque Lake on land that may have a higher propensity to seep or leach into the water, is questionable. In this context of possible environmental and social impacts, the municipal and provincial governments must ensure the highest levels of transparency and access to information. From FUNDEPS we will monitor compliance with provincial and national regulations on these issues as well as compliance with the corresponding operational policies of the IDB.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

Bogotá: Workshop on Mechanisms for Accountability and Civil Society

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>

,

Call for nominations to form the ICIM External Consultative Group

The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI – acronym in Spanish) of the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) opened a calling on nominations for members of the Mechanism´s External Consultative Group (GCE – acronym in Spanish). Applications can be made until November 30, 2016.

“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 November 3, and after a period of consultations that extended over the last months, the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB Group) opened the call for nominations to form the External Advisory Group (GCE) of the Mechanism. The purpose of the CGE is to support the ICIM’s commitment to fulfilling its accountability mandate in a credible, effective and transparent manner.

The MICI distributed the GCE Conceptual Note in early June 2016 to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including representatives of civil society, government officials and civil society experts. From Fundeps we contributed in this process sending comments and participating in a series of consultations regarding the Concept Note. While we recognized and welcomed this initiative, in part, in response to the suggestions provided in the publication “Glass Half Full: The state of accountability in development finance“; We also make a number of recommendations and suggestions regarding the membership, composition and objectives and functions of the CGE (for full comments on the CCE Concept Note sent to the ICIM, access here)

The MICI recently released the Report on the Consultation Process for the CGE, which contains all the feedback received and the ICIM’s replies. In turn, this feedback was incorporated into the CGE’s Operating Procedures, which contain information about membership composition, member responsibility, and the process for selecting members, including selection criteria.

Candidates interested in applying for the CGE must submit the following information:

– Curriculum vitae.

– An Interest expression of a page expressing the reason why they wish to serve in the CGE and how their experience will add value to the group.

The application must be sent no later than November 30 to John Garrison of MICI at jgarrison@iadb.org. The names and profiles of those selected as members of the CGE will be published in mid-December.

More information:

– Operational Procedures – MICI External Advisory Group (GCE) – October 3, 2016

– Conceptual Note for External Consultative Group. Draft Proposal for Consultation – June 6, 2016

– Comments on the Draft Conceptual Note for the formation of an ICIM External Advisory Group – July 29, 2016

– Report of the Consultation Process on the ICIM External Consultative Group – September 30, 2016

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

– MICI website

Contact

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of the Global Governance Area

gon.roza@fundeps.org

New Research Report: Is the glass half full?

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

 

,

Brochure: Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) – November 2015

This brochure provides a brief overview of the work of the IDB Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) and its procedure to file a complaint. Civil society organisations, workers, communities and groups of individuals who are harmed by a Bank project can use the MICI to address their grievance. This brochure briefly explains how.The document was prepared jointly by FUNDEPS and SOMO, and is part of a series of brochures on grievance mechanisms produced within SOMO’s Human Rights & Grievance Mechanisms Programme (see: http://grievancemechanisms.org/resources/brochures).

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

The MICI disseminates its new Policy in Buenos Aires

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

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

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

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

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

Más información:

Contacto:

Gonzalo Roza – Coordinador del Área de Gobernabilidad Global

gon.roza@fundeps.org

Workshop on International Financial Institutions´ Accountability Mechanisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Más información:

 

Contacto:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes in the new policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

– The ICIM Website

– Proposal of Revised Policy

– Summary of the Main Proposed Changes

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

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

Contact:

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Translation by: Luke Sidaway