Tag Archive for: IFIs

,

Internal IDB evaluation raises the need for reforms in the operation of the MICI

On April 1, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) presented an evaluation report of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) corresponding to the period 2015-2020. The evaluation examined the Mechanism’s policy and its application, with the aim of informing the Boards of the IDB and IDB Invest on the extent to which the MICI has been an effective and efficient mechanism in the resolution of claims associated with environmental and social impacts of projects financed by the 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”

In its report, the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) determined that the current MICI policy corrected important issues identified in its last evaluation of 2012. Among the main advances, it highlighted the solution to the problems of accountability and associated conflicts of interest. to the previous organizational structure, as well as the duplication problems of the eligibility instance; the establishment of deadlines for the management of requests; and the creation of instances for the participation of the administration. Likewise, he highlighted a greater consistency between the policy, the guidelines developed, and the associated processes.

The evaluation also highlighted the progress made in the internal functioning of the MICI, as a result of the restructuring of the mechanism, as well as the process of consolidation and institutional learning. The mechanism has been able to define its work plan and manage its human and budgetary resources independently of the IDB Group administration.

However, judicial exclusion, a key issue, remained pending. It is one of the exceptions of the internal policy to the eligibility of applications and establishes that those matters raised in an application that are being the subject of arbitration or judicial processes in a member country of the IDB Group are not eligible.

Although judicial exclusion was identified by OVE in 2012 as a limiting factor for the effective and independent functioning of the MICI, it was maintained in the reformulated policy in 2014. Likewise, there are other limitations that have emerged in the application of the policy in recent years. 5 years but that, to a large extent, have been paid for by the MICI. This shows that there is sufficient margin for the mechanism to manage the limitations of the current policy.

Access to the MICI

Regarding access to the mechanism, OVE identified that the MICI is not yet well known among applicants. Realizing that between the different institutional levels there is a lack of consensus on the importance of publicizing the mechanism and the way to achieve it. An issue that should not be overlooked, since access to the MICI depends on the knowledge that people have about the existence of the mechanism.
For their part, those who were able to access the MICI found that their applications were not registered due to the difficulty in complying with some requirements. In this regard, the IDB Group does not have a claims management system, which makes it impossible to know the number of concerns that the administration receives.

Case management

Regarding case management, although the MICI is operating in accordance with the principles established in its policy: independence, objectivity, impartiality, transparency and efficiency; Their ability to act independently is affected by being subject to the decisions of the Board of Executive Directors.

In accordance with its policy, the Board controls the possibility of initiating an investigation in the Compliance Verification Phase (FVO) and decides whether or not to approve the recommendations of an MICI investigation. Originally, the approval of the Board of Directors to continue with an investigation was thought as a short procedure but it has come to be conformed as a contentious procedure affecting the independence of the MICI.

Finally, many ongoing investigations have presented delays related to the complexity of the projects and themes. Complaints were also filed by the applicants about the length and slowness of the processes in the Compliance Verification Phase (FVO), which reduces the possibilities of effective redress.

Recommendations

After identifying the main difficulties in the current operation of the mechanism, OVE proposed a series of recommendations to be adopted by the MICI. Among the main ones, in the first place, the elimination of judicial exclusion and the strengthening of its internal capacities stand out. In turn, OVE highlighted the need to reinforce the independence of the mechanism and ensure the adoption of corrective measures when there are findings of non-compliance with the policies and related damages.

Remembering that one of the main objectives of the IDB Group is to improve the quality of life in the region, monitoring its policy is a key tool to guarantee compliance with socio-environmental safeguards and transparency in the development of projects. funded. If the recommendations made by OVE are applied, it would imply a declaration of commitment by MICI to the users, who, among other complaints, have systematically insisted on an improvement in the conditions for accessing the mechanism.

Based on this evaluation, one might wonder if the limitations of the current policy can be rectified by incorporating OVE’s recommendations or if these limitations, on the contrary, make a new comprehensive review of the policy necessary, a measure that has been ruled out by OVE until the moment.

At Fundeps, we consider that there are still many obstacles to overcome to guarantee an effective and independent action of the mechanism, especially regarding the need to nullify judicial exclusion. However, we highlight the importance of these types of entities that are beneficial for both the public and private sectors, and especially for the communities affected by IDB Group investments.

More information:

Authors:

Clara Labat 

Julieta Boretti

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

We participated in a discussion with the new MICI director, Andrea Repetto

On April 27, we participated in a discussion with civil society organized by the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the IDB, on the occasion of the recent inauguration of its new director, Andrea Repetto. Civil society organizations, individuals and people from the public and academic sectors from different countries participated. One of the main points of discussion revolved around the evaluation of the Mechanism’s operation recently carried out by the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) of the IDB Group.

“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 Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) was established in 2010 as an instance of last resort so that people who consider themselves affected by projects financed by the IDB Group can turn to the mechanism in search of a solution. In this regard, it should be noted that the complaints submitted must relate to non-compliance with the bank’s operating policies and not to other national and / or international regulations.

At the beginning of the discussion, the new director introduced herself personally, conducted a review of the most outstanding events of 2020 and indicated what the priorities of the mechanism will be during 2021.

Case management in times of COVID-19 and management priorities during 2021

In 2020, the MICI took actions to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on claims management. Managed a total of 21 claims from communities potentially affected by projects financed by the IDB Group in 9 countries: 17 claims refer to IDB projects with the public sector and four to IDB Invest operations with the private sector. In addition, the MICI began, for the first time, a completely remote dispute resolution process in Colombia (Ruta del Cacao).

Similarly, with the recent assumption of Repetto as director, 2 priority areas were identified during 2021: on the one hand, the opening of the mechanism, seeking to make it more accessible to the communities that need it and, on the other, institutional learning, with The objective of adding more value to the IDB Group and reinforcing its accountability and sustainability.

OVE’s evaluation of the MICI

OVE carried out a first evaluation of the MICI in 2012 and identified significant problems in terms of its policy, structure and operation, recommending ending the pilot phase of the MICI and reformulating its policy and structure. Thus, in December 2014, the Bank’s Board of Directors approved a new policy and structure for the mechanism and, since the beginning of 2016, the MICI is also responsible for managing requests related to IDB Invest operations, that is, the private sector.

In the following evaluation (2015-2020), 19 cases were analyzed (between December 2014 – June 2020) and it was concluded that the MICI, in general, is operating in accordance with the principles established in its policy: independence, objectivity, impartiality, transparency and efficiency and that the current policy corrected important issues identified by OVE in its 2012 evaluation as limiting the proper functioning of the MICI. Similarly, there was greater consistency between the policy, the guidelines developed, and the associated processes. OVE also highlighted the consolidation of capacities in conflict resolution within the MICI.

However, there is still room for the MICI to deepen its efforts to maximize its contribution to the IDB Group’s system of safeguards and environmental and social standards.

A key issue that remained pending is judicial exclusion, which continues to be an important factor limiting the effective and efficient functioning of the MICI.

OVE also found that some requirements to access the mechanism are difficult for applicants to meet, such as the need to present their concerns to management before resorting to the MICI. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the difficulty of complying with the requirement of prior contact with the administration had to do, to a large extent, with the lack of a complaints management system within the IDB Group during the period under evaluation (2015 -2020) and one of the OVE evaluation recommendations points towards that goal.

Promotion of access and risk of retaliation

OVE indicated that the mechanism is not yet well known despite the important efforts of the MICI to make it known, including important work in the area of ​​attention to the risk of retaliation that has important implications for safe access to the mechanism. Nor is it clear that at the institutional level there is consensus on the importance of publicizing the mechanism and how to achieve it. Not a minor issue, since access to the MICI depends on the knowledge that people have about the existence of the mechanism.

Finally, another point that the evaluation indicates that should be strengthened is the independence of the mechanism, a fundamental issue since the credibility of the mechanism depends on its ability to work independently. Although the MICI is an arm of the Board of Directors, its added value depends on the extent to which it can present you with frank and honest reports on complaints associated with IDB Group projects.

Based on these and other observations, OVE made 5 recommendations, directed both to the MICI and to the administration and the Boards of the IDB Group. These include: 1) implementing the management system for environmental and social claims of the IDB Group’s administration so that it is articulated with the MICI, 2) nullifying the judicial exclusion, 3) reinforcing the independence of the MICI, 4) ensuring the adoption of corrective measures when there are findings of non-compliance with the policies and related damages and, finally, 5) strengthen the internal capacities of the MICI.

One might wonder, however, if the limitations of the current policy can be remedied by incorporating OVE’s recommendations or if these limitations, on the contrary, necessitate a new comprehensive review of the policy, a measure that OVE has ruled out in its evaluation.

At Fundeps, we believe that this type of instance is essential to exchange opinions and positions in relation to how the Mechanism could be even more efficient and effective in its interventions to the problems that arise in our region. Likewise, we consider that a strengthening of the mechanism translates into an improvement in the accountability system of the IDB Group as a whole.

We hope that these instances will continue to be repeated over time and we celebrate that the MICI is willing to receive feedback from those who position themselves as users of the mechanism, being able to glimpse the shortcomings that the processes may have.

More information
Author
  • Camila Victoria Bocco
Contact
,

The 2021 Annual Meeting of Governors of the IDB and IDB Invest was held

Between March 17 and 21, the Annual Meeting of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank was held virtually. Different economic and financial leaders from member countries and the private sector discussed the pandemic and the economic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean.

“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”

Each year, the IDB holds its Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors in one of the member countries. This year, the Assembly was held in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia, and its agenda was crossed by two central themes: the economic recovery of Latin America and the Caribbean in the face of the crisis caused by the pandemic, and the capitalization of the Bank.

First, the Bank’s president, Mauricio Claver-Carone, affirmed the IDB’s commitment to helping countries recover from the current economic crisis, reaffirming support for the financing needs of governments and assistance for access and negotiation in the purchase of vaccines. Based on this, Claver-Carone is committed to promoting the agenda that the Bank baptized as “Vision 2025”: reinvesting in the Americas, a decade of opportunities ”.

This agenda establishes five areas in which the IDB will focus in our region. These areas are: regional integration, strengthening value chains, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, promoting the digital economy and prioritizing responses to gender and climate change issues.

On the other hand, Claver-Carone emphasized the work of the IDB Group during 2020, which in response to the COVID-19 emergency, approved loans for almost US $ 24,000 million, both to companies and governments, reaching record levels in the granting of loans. Faced with this, the president referred to the Bank’s capitalization: “I ask you to reinvest in us so that we can decisively reinvest in the region (…) The region will have a committed partner to help countries face these historical challenges and be well equipped with the financial resources necessary to make a big difference ”.

The Assembly then approved a resolution authorizing the work necessary to consider a potential capital increase of around US $ 80 billion. This amount was authorized by the United States Senate and was described by the Bank’s president as “the largest capitalization in its history.” Capitalization is a process that will increase the IDB’s creditworthiness and lending capacity. Through this, the Bank’s capital will be revalued and will allow it to face its need to address the financing problems of the region.

Finally, Claver-Carone referred to the need for the participation of women in the labor market to promote economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean and made known new contributions for the Amazon region between Colombia and Brazil to promote development sustainable through an environmental approach.

Undoubtedly, this year’s Assembly leaves us with a clear forecast of what the IDB Group will do in our region, crossed by the needs generated by the pandemic, by a new Bank presidency and by new agendas to be implemented, supported by the new capitalization. In this sense, it is worth noting that this capitalization process should be accompanied by a series of necessary internal reforms at the institutional level, which effectively ensure greater transparency and protection of social and environmental rights in projects financed by the Bank or its clients. .

At the same time, the process of citizen participation and relationship with civil society should be strengthened. The way in which spaces such as the Board of Governors are structured and planned, for example, reflect the Bank’s little predisposition to create effective spaces for exchange and dialogue with civil society and affected communities. We hope that these are some of the points to be reviewed by the Bank in view of a possible capitalization.

More information

Author

  • Sofia Armando

Contact

IDB Invest presented a revised version of the Implementation Manual for its Sustainability Policy

Through a virtual session, on February 25, IDB Invest presented the latest revised version of the Implementation Manual for its Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy. The document is key to achieving a correct and effective implementation of the policy approved in April 2020 and which came into effect last December.

“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”

After being approved by the Board of Executive Directors on April 10, 2020, the new IDB Invest Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy came into effect on December 15. The latest revised version of the Implementation Manual for said policy was presented on February 25 through a virtual session in which more than 20 representatives of civil society organizations participated.

The new Implementation Manual is based on the Bank’s Sustainability Framework composed of the Sustainability Policy and the policies and standards that accompany it, such as the Access to Information Policy, the IFC Performance Standards, the MICI Policy, among others. The purpose of this Manual is to guide clients in their actions according to the different factors and environments that may arise, taking into account the principles and requirements of the IDB Invest Sustainability Framework. Also, the Manual addresses, in a general way, the activities that the project cycle contemplates and the accountability mechanisms that people and communities can access in case the project affects them.

On the other hand, it considers the risk factors that may occur or that already occur in the environment where the project is carried out. Among the topics and risk factors mentioned in the Manual are vulnerable groups, human rights, the inclusion and participation of stakeholders in the project, working conditions, among others.

An important advance is the incorporation of the Exclusion List that lists the activities that IDB Invest will not finance due to adverse environmental and social effects.

However, the application of the Manual is not mandatory for clients or the Bank since it constitutes rather a roadmap that contemplates the requirements of the Environmental and Social Sustainability Framework, and international good practices and lessons learned that clients may or may not apply. In addition, although it addresses the options available to the Bank in the event of non-compliance with the Sustainability Policy by its clients, there is little precision regarding the manner and requirements in which these options would be applied.

In this way, it remains to be seen if this manual ends up being really effective in filling the gaps left by the Sustainability Policy in force. Key to this will not only be a strong commitment on the part of the Bank and its clients, but also a work of monitoring and follow-up to the effective implementation of the policy by civil society.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

Transparency at development bank FMO is seriously lacking

The Dutch development bank FMO is not sufficiently transparent about the projects it finances, and is therefore acting contrary to its mandate. This is evident from a new report published by the International Accountability Project (IAP) and the Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies (FUNDEPS), endorsed by 28 organizations including Both ENDS, SOMO and Oxfam Novib. The research assesses FMO’s disclosure and access to information practices for investments proposed between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2020. Only in 25% of the cases was it disclosed what potential negative consequences an investment by FMO would have for people and the environment.

“If the forest next to your village is cut down to build an oil palm plantation, or there is a big dam in the river that you depend on for water and fish, you need to have access to information to defend your interests and have a voice in decision-making,” says Anne de Jonghe of Both ENDS. “You are entitled to know the costs and benefits for your community, before you can consider what is best for you. As an investor, FMO shares responsibility for this information provision, but unfortunately falls seriously short in this.”

Operating with public money

FMO’s response to the report shows that the bank itself believes that the responsibility for making information public and the potential negative effects of investments on people and the environment lie with the project developers and its clients. However, as a development bank that is largely funded with public money, FMO has the mission and responsibility to invest in sustainable, fair projects that improve people’s lives and respect human rights. One way to ensure this is to strive for as much transparency as possible about intended investments and to enable affected communities to meaningfully participate in the decision-making surrounding a project. This research shows that FMO still has a lot of ground to cover in fulfilling communities’ right to information.

No reports on social and environmental impacts

The analysis of 241 projects disclosed on FMO’s website between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2020, reveals that potential negative impacts for these investments was disclosed in only 59 cases (25%). For the remaining 182 investments (75%) there was no information available on the website.

Appendices with more detailed technical information, such as reports on social and environmental impacts, were under no circumstances available on the website. “What’s more, the little information that is disclosed is only available in English, while FMO has investments all over the world, often in countries where English is not the first or even second language,” said Ishita Petkar of the International Accountability Project (IAP). “As a development bank, it is FMO’s responsibility to ensure they are fulfilling the right to information for the communities they impact. True development requires respecting human rights – FMO should ensure vital information, including technical documents, are disclosed and accessible in national and local languages.”

FMO must improve policy and practice

The 28 organizations have written a letter to FMO calling on the bank to thoroughly review and strengthen its access to information policy and practice. This includes improving information disclosed on the FMO website, adopting internationally endorsed principles on access to information, and obligating clients to fully disclose project documentation. FMO must also ensure that information is disclosed in understandable formats and reaches the communities concerned, so that they can participate meaningfully in project decision-making processes as the intended beneficiaries of development.

More information
Press contacts
,

Gender and International Financial Institutions: the case of the Inter-American Development Bank

This document proposes a descriptive and evaluative analysis of the implementation of the Gender Policy in the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and its main objective is to investigate such implementation based on the weaknesses and strengths identified in the Bank’s gender policy. , in order to continue making progress in incorporating elements and tools that guarantee women’s rights and diversity.

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

CSOs point out the weaknesses of the new IDB Invest’s Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy

On December 15, the new IDB Invest Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy will take effect. Civil Society Organizations in the region issued a Public Declaration warning about the weaknesses that the new Policy presents.

“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 April 10, IDB Invest approved the new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy that takes effect tomorrow, December 15. After the process of face-to-face and virtual public consultations that the Bank carried out last year in which civil society organizations, peasant communities, indigenous peoples, and Afro-descendant peoples participated, at the end of May the new policy of the private arm of the IDB Group was presented.

Despite the participation, through the sending of comments, of interested parties in the period of face-to-face and virtual public consultations, in the new Policy there is little or even no incorporation of issues considered relevant. For this reason, and in the face of the weaknesses and limitations that the new Environmental and Social Sustainability Policy presents, the CSOs of the region issued a Public Declaration warning about the precariousness of the policy, the consequences that it would bring to the countries of the region and the setback it means compared to the previous Policy.

Among the main points that we highlight in the Declaration on the limitations of the new Policy are, firstly, the direct adoption of the Environmental and Social Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation -CFI- dating from 2012, not including changes or adaptations to new realities, making them obsolete in the current context of environmental and social challenges faced by Latin America and the Caribbean.

Another important limitation is the absence of subsidiary and joint liability on the part of IDB Invest regarding the actions of the actors over whom it has influence, that is, it is detached from institutional responsibility in the face of the possible negative impacts that the activities it finances may cause where the responsibility will fall solely on the client. This means the weakening of environmental and social protections created in order to avoid the adverse impacts caused by the projects. Along these lines, IDB Invest omits its duty to “enforce”, which means that it reserves the right to decide in which cases it will apply corrective measures and in which not.

In addition, the Public Declaration highlights the vagueness and ambiguity of the language used in the new Policy since it favors the Bank to act according to what it deems pertinent as well as increases the risk of non-compliance by customers.

Finally, one of the most alarming points are the gaps in the commitments regarding the environment and the social. Regarding the environment, the commitment to mitigation is fragile since there are no express restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions -GEI-, just to mention one case. With regard to social matters, although the policy makes clear its commitment to promote good international practices, in matters such as Human Rights, Retaliation, Gender Risk Management and Equality, as well as Participation of Interested Parties and Disclosure of Information , a superficial and weak commitment is evident when addressing them. For example, in relation to human rights, essential rights such as economic, social and cultural rights or the right to a pollution-free environment are not mentioned.

Then, regarding stakeholder participation, no commitment is made to ensure timely, meaningful and culturally appropriate participation. The Policy undertakes to establish a system for receiving and monitoring complaints of retaliation, it does not detail a procedure to resolve them, nor does it follow the recommendations of the specialized guide prepared by the MICI for the management of retaliation and protection of environmental defenders and activists.

Finally, in gender risk management and equality, the Policy does incorporate the promotion of good practices but excludes the IDB Group’s Operational Policy on Gender Equality in Development, a significant setback that will increase inequality and risks for women. women and LGBTQ + people.

Among many other issues that are addressed in the Public Statement, it is extremely necessary for IDB Invest to be relentless in demanding compliance with environmental, social and transparency standards from its clients if it is truly to promote sustainable growth, reduce poverty. and the inequality of the region. With the current pandemic context and looking at the post-pandemic situation, IDB Invest cannot be flexible in the procedures of social and environmental evaluation and due diligence in the approvals of financing operations since this is the only way to achieve sustainable development and reduce the environmental and social crisis in which Latin America and the Caribbean finds itself.

More information

, ,

Analysis of the IDB Invest Gender Risk Assessment Tool

This document proposes a descriptive and evaluative analysis of the recently published (2020) “Gender Risk Assessment Tool” (HERG) of the IDB Invest, which is a gender plan for companies to evaluate the impact of their projects on gender issues and structure prevention processes.

Descargar Documento / Download File
, ,

Analysis of the new Environmental and Social Policy Framework of the Inter-American Development Bank, from a gender perspective

This document analyzes those issues that have been incorporated and the aspects that have not been incorporated and / or modified from the public consultation process carried out by the IDB. In particular, it emphasizes the need to guarantee the rights of girls, adolescents, women and LGBTTTQ + people so that the human rights of all people are effectively respected and guaranteed (Only spanish)

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

The First Finance in Common Summit was held, which brought together the world’s public development banks

The Finance in Common Summit, held from November 9 to 12, is the first global summit to be attended by all the world’s development banks and multilateral institutions. Civil society organizations from different regions have demonstrated in the absence of human rights and the voices of the communities on the event’s agenda.

“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”.

Between November 9 and 12, 2020, the Finance in Common Summit was held, which was attended by 450 Public Development Banks of the world, multilateral institutions, heads of State, representatives of the private sector, civil society, academia, among others. The event was an initiative of the World Federation of Financial Institutions for Development -FEMIDE- and the International Development Finance Club -IDFC-. It was sponsored by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron and by the French Development Agency -AFD; and counted with the participation of the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres.

The summit focused on the crucial role that Public Development Banks play as capable and necessary actors to provide a collective response to global challenges, agreeing on short-term sustainable recovery measures on the COVID-19 crisis and with an impact on long-term in the environment and in societies. However, the Summit’s agenda did not address human rights, rights that are constantly violated and violated by the investments of development banks. Thus, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, local communities, and human rights defenders did not have a space to express their concerns and concerns.

This, despite the fact that in September, more than 200 civil society organizations from around the world sent a letter to the French Development Agency requesting that the principles of development that is focused on rights be included and prioritized. humans. Due to the lack of response, CSOs issued a Joint Declaration calling on Public Development Banks -BPD- to invest their financial resources in building a just, equitable, inclusive and sustainable future for all societies in the world. 

This summit should be an opportunity for development banks to modify the way they operate and place democracy, inclusion, equality, solidarity and the common good as the axis of their actions. It is urgent that PDBs commit to financing for fair, equitable and sustainable development, promoting and guaranteeing human rights for all, without neglecting vulnerable and marginalized communities.

Más Información 

Contact
Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org
, ,

Virtual meetings on Gender and International Financial Institutions

Two virtual meetings to learn about the world of the IFIs, their accountability mechanisms, and share useful tools with feminist organizations in the region.

“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 international financial institutions -IFIs- are one of the most important actors for the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in terms of project financing. However, it is necessary for the IFIs to have Gender Policies and mainstream the gender perspective in the design, development and execution of the projects they finance, and consider the gender-differentiated impacts they cause.

For this reason, we launched two virtual meetings in which we will learn about the IFIs and share useful tools for organizations made up of diverse and dissident feminities and identities to build capacity to monitor the projects financed by them.

In the first meeting, we will get closer to the world of the IFIs and their accountability mechanisms. It will take place on Tuesday, November 10, at 4:00 p.m. Argentina.

In the second meeting, we will provide tools to obtain information and monitor projects financed by development financial institutions. It will be held on November 17 at 4:00 p.m.

REGISTER
,

The incorporation of Argentina to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was approved

Today, October 28, the Argentine Chamber of Deputies approved the bill to enter our country into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Thus, the incorporation of Argentina as a Non-regional Member to the bank is made effective.

“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 September 3, the Argentine Senate approved the bill for the entry of the Argentine Republic to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank -AIIB-. The approval of the law was carried out today, October 28, in the Chamber of Deputies by 235 positive votes and 4 negative votes.

The management for Argentina to form part of the Bank began in the first Forum ‘One Strip and One Route for International Cooperation’ held in 2017, in which the previous government management affirmed the country’s intention to be part of the AIIB and the The Bank’s Board of Directors approved the admission of Argentina to the Institution.

The Asian Bank was born in 2015 at the initiative of China and began operating in January 2016. It has 102 members from different regions of the world. AIIB is a multilateral financial institution and, between completed and ongoing projects, has already financed 138 infrastructure projects.

For Argentina, joining the AIIB means an additional alternative to access financing for infrastructure works through a new multilateral organization. However, although it has been proposed as a different alternative to Western multilateral banking, the AIIB does not escape the logic, operation and even institutional structure that characterizes institutions such as the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation or the Inter-American Development Bank. . In this sense, from civil society, criticisms and questions have been raised regarding the transparency, accountability and environmental sustainability of the projects financed by the bank, which should be taken into account by Argentina when receiving financing of this institution.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org