Tag Archive for: Social and Environmental Standards

On a public consultation on the draft of the Profile of the Access to Information Policy of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), civil society organizations, including Fundeps, have made comments and recommendations to the Bank in order to generate one more policy effective and efficient.

The purpose of this document is to bring observations and comments made by civil society organizations to the rules of implementation of the IDB Access to Information Policy Invest.

This document aims to bring observations and comments to the draft of the new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy of the IDB Invest. These observations are made with the objective of making visible conflicts and problematic problems in the IDB Invest.

This document aims to present the observations and comments to the draft of IDB Invest’s new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy from a gender perspective, which is practically absent in the current draft. These observations are made with the aim of making conflicts and existing problems in the actions of IDB Invest more visible, related to the violation of rights, inequality, violence and the sexual division of labour, first and foremost.

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

Authors

Ailin Toso

Florence Harmitton

Contact Gonzalo

Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

The article proposes an approach to financing the Silk Road and the Silk Road Initiative,
trying to analyze the extent to which the recently created Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) plays as a "financial engine" of the Initiative, It represents (or not) an
opportunity for the objective of greater environmental and social sustainability in the
infrastructure projects carried out within the framework of the “New Green Silk Road”.

The First Integrated Five-Year Plan signed between Argentina and China for Infrastructure Cooperation (2017-2021) contains 16 projects to be developed in the country. Within these are the construction of two nuclear power plants. The choice of building nuclear plants, instead of investing in wind and solar energy, raises certain concerns about the risks of nuclear energy.

“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 strengthening of the Sino-Argentine relationship was observed with the signing of the First Five-Year Plan (2017-2021) between the two actors, which includes 16 projects to be carried out in the country with Chinese financing. One of the projects that generates economic, but above all environmental, questions is the construction of two nuclear power plants, Atucha III and IV.

Around nuclear power plants there are opinions for and against. There are defenders of this type of energy due to low emissions, however, there is an increasing number of opponents of nuclear energy due to its impacts on the environment, the risk it means and how expensive it is in relation to wind and solar energy .

Our country has three nuclear reactors, the first, Atucha I, was built in 1974; the second plant is that of Embalse that began operating in 1984 and the third plant was Atucha II, which began operating in the national system as of 2014. Nuclear-type energy represents 6% of the country’s energy. Energy Matrix.

The agreement for the construction of two nuclear power plants dates from the government of Cristina Kirchner, who agreed to build with China in 2015. When Macri took over as president, the effectiveness of this type of energy was questioned, however it was ratified the agreement with China on the construction of nuclear power plants (Atucha III and IV). Despite this, due to the economic crisis that the country is going through, the government had to choose to build a single plant so that the size of the loan is not so large and the country can face it.

Thus, the Atucha III nuclear power plant will be built, which will add 745 megawatts to the network and will be located in the town of Lima, Province of Buenos Aires. The contract for the construction of this plant includes a loan from China for $ 10 billion, which covers 85% of construction costs; the rest will be invested by Argentina.

Initially, when the agreement was signed, the governments of both countries expressed the importance of signing the contracts before September 2017, and, consequently, begin the construction of one of the plants that same year and the second in 2019. However, none of these events happened.

This Five-Year Plan aims to increase complementarity, cooperation and benefits in the infrastructure sector, contributing to the development of bilateral economic relations and the nations of both countries.

Chinese financing has grown markedly in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Argentina has not been the exception to this growth. Relations between the two countries have evolved in such a way that China is important as a bilateral lender, where the largest amount of loans has been allocated to infrastructure and energy projects.

From Fundeps a request for information was made at the beginning of the year to the National government for the First Five-Year Plan between China and Argentina, emphasizing the construction of nuclear power plants. The main questions that were consulted were about the modalities and characteristics of the financing that the Argentine government agreed to finance the works contemplated in the First Five-Year Plan; the dependencies, officials and other actors involved.

Regarding the construction of nuclear power plants, a topic of relevance in the request for information, the state of construction of nuclear power plants was requested, what have been the social and environmental guidelines of the institutions involved in the project, which were the preselected and selected places to carry out the construction, the studies that were carried out to select the place of construction of the plants and, if there has been an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as if there were instances of citizen participation.

Although the request was answered late (July), the questions asked to the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Finance were not effectively answered. Just to mention some questions of the response to the request, the EIA documents were not provided, much less the studies carried out to select Lima, (province of Buenos Aires) as the place for the construction of the nuclear power plant. In general, the answers to the questions asked were brief, and most, if not all, did not provide the data requested by Fundeps.

In terms of access to information at the national level, progress has been made, as citizens can request information through the web. However, much work remains to be done in the field of open government, since the answers to the requests for information elude the root of the question being asked. Not much information is available and, neither, when requesting the responsible entities, the information that is required is obtained.

More Information

Author

Gonzalo Roza

Contact

gon.roza@fundeps.org

On August 23, Fundeps participated in the ALADAA National Congress within the framework of the Global Governance area agenda on Chinese investments in Latin America.

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 August 22 and 23, 2019, the IX National Congress of ALADAA (Latin American Studies Association of Asia and Africa) Argentina “Cultures in Motion: Potentials and Challenges in Globalization. Asia and Africa from Latin America” was held in the city of Río Cuarto. Fundeps participated by presenting a paper entitled “The role of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the New Green Silk Road”, which was presented by the Global Governance area volunteer, Mariano Camoletto.

The article deals with the financing of the Silk Road and the Silk Road Initiative, analyzing the role of the AIIB as its financial engine. In addition, it explores whether financing through the AIIB represents a possibility of providing greater environmental and social sustainability to the projects implemented in the framework of the New Silk Road (also known as the Belt and Road Initiative), the mega project on a global scale driven by China.

The AIIB, whose headquarters is in Beijing, was created in 2015 on the initiative of China and currently has more than 100 members, among which Argentina. The bank aims to contribute to the economic and social development of Asia with a focus on sustainable infrastructure, private capital mobilization and connectivity. For its fulfillment, the AIIB has a portfolio of 100 billion dollars and the strategy is based on the Lean, Clean and Green concept through which the bank seeks to be efficient, agile, ethical and environmentally friendly.

As for the bank’s operational policies, the most important are the Environmental and Social Framework and the Accountability Mechanism. As for the first, it was approved in 2016 and its purpose is to help the bank and its clients achieve positive results of environmental and socially sustainable development in their projects, as well as expose the institutional objectives to address environmental and social risks and impacts in the projects financed by the bank. Likewise, compliance with these policies is mandatory in order to access bank financing.

As for the Bank’s Accountability Mechanism, it was launched in 2018 and is intended to receive complaints and requests from those communities or populations negatively affected by Bank-financed projects. The mechanism has two essential functions: the first one is the resolution of disputes through dialogue and understanding of the affected parties; and secondly, that of compliance review, which consists in this mechanism investigating whether the Bank has fulfilled its obligations regarding the proper application of its operational policies.

The main objective of our participation as exhibitors in this congress was to promote the foundation’s approach to the national and provincial academic community for the study of Chinese investments and initiatives (such as the AIIB) and its impact on society, which is usually reflected in infrastructure projects with potential (or real) environmental and social impacts. The joint work has the purpose of analyzing and understanding China’s socio-political and economic insertion model in Latin America and, especially, in Argentina; as well as the strategies that Latin American countries implement against this phenomenon in the framework of the Silk Road.

More information

Author
Mariano Camoletto

Contact
Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

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

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

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

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

Why is the review given?

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

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

What does the review include?

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

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

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

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

  • Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy, effective since 2013.

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

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

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

1. Making the Policy Draft available to the public.

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

3. Consultations in person at:

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

4. Virtual consultation session at:

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

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

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

Why is it important to participate?

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

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

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

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

How to participate?

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

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

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

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

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

  • For the IDB Invest review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

On January 7, the world was surprised by the untimely resignation of World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. With three years left to finish her second term, Kim stepped aside to take a position within the private sector. A possible conflict of interest and transparency in the definition of the Bank’s leadership, key issues.

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

Abruptly and unexpectedly, the president of the World Bank (WB) Jim Yong Kim, resigned his mandate to undertake a new job in the private sector. According to the official communiqué of the WB, during the term of Kim, special attention was paid to investments in infrastructure. He assured that the key to the advancement of the developing nations was the support and investment in this sector. For this reason, Jim Yong decided to step aside arguing that his work for global development would be more fruitful from the firm ‘Global Infrastructure’, a multinational company specializing in infrastructure investments for the water, energy, transport and waste sectors. .

Kim’s departure has not gone unnoticed, and numerous civil society organizations around the world have emphasized the possible conflict of interest in Kim’s surprise decision and wonder what will happen from this? In particular, they have raised a series of concerns:

  • Financing for development through the private sector:

According to the now ex-president of the WB, worldwide there is a deficit in infrastructure that would be around the trillion dollars. This amount, in no way can be covered, not even with the portfolio of all the institutions of financing for the development (IFIs) together. In this regard, Kim, during his tenure, has tried to ensure that financing for development, no longer oriented to the public sector, to turn to the private sector. In this way, the WB and other IFIs have increased their investment portfolio to financial intermediaries and other companies / private corporations. Kim’s decision to continue his professional career in the private sector raises doubts about the underlying interest in the decision to orient the World Bank towards the private sector. In other areas of interaction between the public and private sectors there are window periods during which those who have decision-making roles are prohibited from changing their sector (“cooling off periods” in English). The inexistence of similar mechanisms in the World Bank inevitably calls into question some of Kim’s decisions that in practice expanded financing to the private sector.

The change towards private financing, although it could be beneficial in economic and financial terms for the States, maintains concerns for environmental sustainability and respect for human rights. Recently, there seems to be a positive correlation between the increase in projects financed by companies and the growth of negative impacts on people’s lives and the environment. In addition, it is important to remember that during the mandate of Kim, the revision of the social and environmental safeguards of the WB – the regulations that establish criteria for the projects that the World Bank can support -, far from representing a strengthening of the policy, meant the transformation of these standards, a normative framework much more lax. The resignation of Kim then, leaves open the door to ask if the next president of the WB will have as a priority private funding, and if so, how the institution can adapt to international and national standards regarding respect for Human Rights.

  • Transparency and accountability at the institutional level in IFIs:

Other questions that have arisen after this event, have to do with the next president of the WB and its selection process: Who will succeed? What will the process be like to elect the next president? Will the government of the United States be in charge of targeting the person who assumes the presidency, as has happened on previous occasions? In what way can the WB’s governance be more transparent when it comes to electing its authorities?

At the global level there is a tacit agreement that, since the beginning of the Bretton Woods system, has established that the head of the World Bank would be defined by the United States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by Europe. Over the years, this has been respected to the letter, with the White House, which has pointed to the president of the WB. Kim was no exception to this practice and was nominated by the government of Barack Obama. This process that has been taking place has little transparency and has always ended up transforming the World Bank into an executing arm of US government policies. In these times, a WB president appointed by the administration of Donald Trump would be risky when thinking about the performance of this institution on issues such as climate change and human rights in general.

Beyond the effects of a WB president appointed by the Trump government, Kim’s departure opens a series of questions about the bank’s governance and transparency in the appointment of its authorities. It is necessary to establish a transparent selection process in which all candidates have equal opportunities to occupy the position. The Chair of the Presidency of the WB must be occupied by a truly qualified person who has as a priority the execution of investments under the umbrella of sustainable development and human rights. The history of secrecy behind each WB president has impacted on the credibility of the institution. This vacancy, now, means an opportunity for the WB to reposition itself within the international system as an independent actor.

From now on

Kim’s departure for ‘Global Infrastructure Partners’ (GIP) has raised doubts about the appearance on the door of a possible conflict of interest. The multinational GIP is responsible for investing in infrastructure for developing economies, this being the main sector of interest of the WB. It is important to follow up on plausible agreements to be finalized between both institutions.

Regarding the vacancy for president, the WB has announced a nomination process for candidates that will be open until mid-March 2019. The civil society will be attentive and making a detailed follow-up of everything that happens to seek the transparency of the process. It will remain to be seen, once the next president is selected, what their main management guidelines will be and if they respond to the true development needs of communities and populations around the world.

More information

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

On August 10, IDB Invest carried out in Buenos Aires a public face-to-face consultation on the draft for its new Access to Public Information policy. This event is part of the virtual consultation currently open that BID Invest began in May of this year. The day was carried out in order to receive comments from civil society organizations.

“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”.

In May of this year, IDB Invest, the private investment arm of the IDB Group, opened an instance of public consultation to evaluate the draft document of what will be its new Access to Information Policy. In this framework, the institution decided to hold some face-to-face meetings to receive comments and to hear the opinion of civil society organizations.

On August 10, BID Invest called a face-to-face consultation in Argentina, in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; and FUNDEPS participated. The day lasted a couple of hours and the central axes of discussion rested on: the information to be published before the approval of a project, the information to be published during the execution of a project and the list of exceptions to the policy. From the institution, the comments made were received and it was made explicit that after the consultation process was finished, a new document would be created taking into account both the virtual consultation and the face-to-face instance. Likewise, it was pointed out that if any of the comments are not incorporated, the reason for said decision will be justified.

Regarding the call to this meeting, there are some doubts about the selection process of the organizations that were invited. 12 organizations participated and FUNDEPS was the only one from the interior of the country. In this line, the low call makes us think that the information was not circulated with the necessary precedence and it was not foreseen that several organizations and communities could not attend being that they are very far from Buenos Aires.

From FUNDEPS we recognize in a positive way the implementation of face-to-face instances for the consultation. This allows us to clarify doubts and comments about the draft in real time, while at the same time it allowed us to know the intention of the institution when it comes to re-thinking its policy. In this regard, BID Invest explained that considering the relevance of the private investment portfolio of the IDB Group, it was necessary to modernize the Access to Information policy.

In general terms the draft in question has advanced positively on the previous policy. It has improved in key instances but there are still elements to polish. Special emphasis was placed on them by civil society and comments are expected to be incorporated. In addition to the suggestions and comments we made in the framework of the face-to-face consultation, from FUNDEPS, and together with other organizations in the country and the region, we will be sending a document with written comments to contribute to the process of reviewing the Policy.

More information:

Actual Política de Disponibilidad de Información (vigente desde el 2005)

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza – gon.roza@fundeps.org

Agustina Palencia – agustinapalencia@fundeps.org