Connect with us

NGO WORK

EU vote on corporate sustainability due diligence fails to fully recognise key role of human rights defenders

Published

on

JOINT STATEMENT

Last week the European Parliament’s legal affairs (JURI) committee adopted its position on the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Amid strong pressure, the text is a significant step towards ensuring mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence across the full value chain. It includes several important improvements and goes a long way towards aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

However, as organizations working closely with Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) across the globe, we are concerned that the text, compared to the European Parliament (EP) Rapporteur’s draft, the human rights, development and environment committees’ opinions and other positions, constitutes a missed opportunity to explicitly recognise and protect defenders as affected and legitimate stakeholders.

Defenders play a critical role in protecting human rights and the environment, but their work exposes them to enormous risks, too often resulting in reprisals and tragically the loss of life.

In 2022, Front Line Defenders and its HRD Memorial partners documented the death of 401 defenders worldwide – 48% of whom were HRDs defending land, environmental and indigenous peoples’ rights.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) documented over 4,700 attacks on defenders related to business activities since 2015, which highlights this is a salient human rights issue in many business sectors. In a report released on Wednesday, BHRRC shows that 555 attacks took place in 2022 alone, revealing that on average more than 10 defenders were attacked every single week for raising legitimate concerns about irresponsible business activity. Indigenous defenders and communities continue to face disproportionate risks. Additionally, BHRRC data shows that approximately 1/3 of all attacks in 2020 stem from a lack of consultation or the failure to secure the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of affected indigenous peoples and affected local communities with customary tenure rights. In many cases, attacks can be traced directly back to business actors: for example, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are one well-documented tactic used by businesses to stop people raising concerns.

At the same time, while there is growing business acknowledgement of HRDs as affected stakeholders, the particular risks and impacts they face are still not sufficiently recognised by many EU companies. The 2021 UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights’ authoritative guidance clearly states that lead firms may cause, contribute to or be linked to such impacts across their value chains.

In light of the above, the final JURI text, despite promising elements regarding stakeholder engagement, reference to the Aarhus Convention and FPIC, as well as removal of some obstacles to access to justice, misses out on covering human rights defenders more comprehensively and explicitly beyond ‘other stakeholders’ to be consulted. There must be no ambiguity regarding the urgency of engaging with HRDs and ensuring their protection from retaliation and other adverse impacts as affected stakeholders.

A recent Front Line Defenders report documented three case studies – from Colombia, India and Uganda – demonstrating how HRDs and their communities would be better protected by a strong EU Directive that explicitly places defenders at its core.

For ILC, the protection of land and environmental defenders remains a top priority. The draft EU law is a huge step forward for communities across the globe. But to be effective it must be explicit in protecting Human Rights Defenders and how one can enforce those rights in case of violations
Eva Maria Anyango Okoth, HRD from Kenya, and the Senior Program Officer for Africa at the International Land Coalition (ILC)

As the negotiations move to the next step, the plenary vote in the European Parliament and then the trilogue negotiations, we reaffirm that to fully protect and recognise HRDs, it is critical that the legislation avoids ambiguities in protections and retains strong language that had been included in earlier drafts, including the EP Rapporteur’s proposal and the opinions from the human rights, development and environment committees. At a minimum we recommend that the final text of the Directive as agreed by co-legislators:

  • explicitly includes Human Rights Defenders as affected stakeholders in the corresponding stakeholder definition and covers them as such in provisions on mandatory stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms and non-retaliation;
  • similarly recognises organizations protecting human rights and the environment in the same definition and provisions; and
  • includes the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which breaks down key human rights for the specific context of defenders, in the Annex, along with important additional references e.g. to the Escazú Agreement.

We also point to concerns outlined by civil society organizations about the text’s remaining shortcomings regarding access to justice and other areas, both for defenders and all other rightsholders.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

No Heritage Without its People: Why Ngorongoro Cannot be a World Heritage Site and an Eviction Zone

Published

on

The Tanzanian government, under the guise of “conservation,” restricts Maasai livelihoods and denies access to essential services forcing Indigenous residents away from their ancestral lands and turning their heritage into a playground for safari tourists.

As the 48th Session of the World Heritage Committee begins July 19, UNESCO continues to legitimize the continued forced displacement of the Maasai from Ngorongoro. If UNESCO cannot ensure that the World Heritage designation protects the rights of its Indigenous custodians, then the Committee must remove the Ngorongoro Conservation Area from the World Heritage List.

Increased international pressure is imperative to hold UNESCO accountable and protect the lives and rights of the Maasai!

Read our Open Letter to the World Heritage Committee.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Rush: Global Scramble for Minerals Wages War on People and Planet

Published

on

As governments and corporations scramble to secure critical minerals, a new Oakland Institute report exposes the forces fueling today’s unprecedented mining boom. RUSH: Global Scramble for Minerals Wages War on People and Planet dismantles the dominant narrative that massive amounts of minerals are needed for the energy transition, revealing instead a potent convergence of political, military, and corporate interests racing to control the resources that underpin modern warfare and artificial intelligence.

“Securing access to critical minerals is reshaping international relations and foreign aid as competition between the US and China becomes a new geopolitical battleground,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “The costs are being borne by communities around the world as this global race drives wars and violence, results in land grabs, forced displacement, devastating pollution, and the irreversible destruction of lands and livelihoods,” Mittal continued.

With the Pentagon shifting towards an “AI-first” warfighting stance, the US military-industrial complex is rapidly integrating tech and AI firms with a mutual interest in locking down critical mineral supplies. The report exposes key players positioned to profit from a resource boom already drawing trillions in investment. These include ventures tied to the Trump family, billionaire-backed outfits such as KoBold Metals, an AI-driven mining firm supported by Bill Gates, and defense-tech companies like Palantir and Anduril, among others.

To justify a massive scale up of mineral extraction, governments, corporations, and international financial institutions like the World Bank, frame critical minerals as indispensable to the green transition and as a pathway to prosperity for the Global South. However, RUSH documents that more than 70 percent of critical mineral demand today comes from industries unrelated to the energy transition, including the automotive, aerospace, military, communications, and technology sectors. Rapid growth in artificial intelligence, data centers, surveillance technologies, and military spending is expected to increase this demand massively.

“Renewable energy deployment, such as wind and solar, requires only a fraction of the minerals that corporations plan to extract in the coming decades,” said Andy Currier, Oakland Institute Policy Analyst and report co-author. “But growing military demand and stockpiling of materials like copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt will undermine the energy transition, diverting critical resources away from urgently needed climate solutions,” Currier continued.

RUSH warns that the acceleration of resource extraction poses a catastrophic threat to both ecosystems and human survival. In response, Indigenous groups and frontline communities are leading a vital, global resistance to defend their territories. It is, however, undermined by a dangerous myth that expanding extraction is necessary to fix the climate crisis.

“The report issues a resounding call to challenge this false narrative to stop the untenable rush for minerals before it becomes an irreversible global catastrophe,” warned Oakland Institute Policy Director and report co-author, Frederic Mousseau. “The stakes could not be higher. If left unchecked, the global mining rush will trigger hundreds of new mines in a short period. The resulting human and planetary devastation will be at a scale never seen before – livelihoods will be destroyed, millions will be displaced, and environmental destruction will become irreversible,” concluded Mousseau.

Read the report

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Acholi land dispute threatens Shs3bn govt-backed Cassava Factory in Pader

Published

on

Affected residents demonstrate at acholibur town council offices over a disputed 179-acre piece of land earmarked for a government and gulu archdiocese-backed cassava processing factory in pader district.

Pader, Uganda: A protracted land dispute in Acholibur Sub-county, Pader District, is threatening to stall a Shs3 billion cassava processing factory project jointly backed by the Government of Uganda and the Gulu Archdiocese, raising fears over the future of one of northern Uganda’s most significant agro-industrial investments.

The proposed cassava factory, which is being spearheaded by the Gulu Archdiocese with support from the Uganda Development Corporation (UDC), is expected to boost value addition, create employment opportunities and improve household incomes for thousands of cassava farmers across the Acholi sub-region.

At the centre of the dispute is a 179-acre piece of land claimed by two families, the estate of the late Ignatius Lakere Latigo and that of the late Odwong Joseph Lagoro, both of which maintain ownership rights over the property earmarked for the project.

The dispute escalated following a court-directed boundary opening exercise conducted by a joint security team led by Pader Resident District Commissioner Amos Banyizi. Several affected families have since protested the exercise, claiming it was carried out without their knowledge or participation.

Families question boundary exercise

Mr. Latigo Morris, administrator of the estate of the late Ignatius Lakere Latigo, said his family was never notified about the recent boundary demarcation despite earlier agreements that required all stakeholders to be involved.

He recalled that a stakeholders’ meeting held last year, attended by Archbishop Emeritus John Baptist Odama of the Gulu Archdiocese and other parties, had resolved that any future activities on the disputed land would involve all affected families.

According to Morris, his family was shocked to find the RDC accompanied by armed security personnel carrying out activities on land they claim belongs to them.

“We expected dialogue and participation of all stakeholders before any action was taken,” Morris said.

Local leaders have also questioned how the exercise was conducted.

The LCIII Chairperson of Acholibur Town Council, Okumu Robert, said his office was neither informed nor requested to mobilise residents before the boundary opening exercise.

Mr. Ocen Paul, one of the affected stakeholders, appealed to government to intervene, warning that nearly 150 families could lose land if the matter is not handled transparently.

He further alleged that influential individuals could be influencing the ongoing demarcation despite what he described as valid documentation showing that the affected families still hold an active 49-year lease over the land.

Source: dailyexpress.co.ug

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates