Connect with us

NGO WORK

Joint CSO Statement Calls on IFC and MIGA to Strengthen its New Approach to Remedial Action Policy

Published

on

IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action was supposed to explain how the institutions would address the well-known human rights and environmental harms caused by some of their investments. Instead, IFC and MIGA’s response to the well-documented remedy gap is to publish a short paper that heralds its existing prevention and mitigation practices and does not admit that the institutions have a human rights obligation to remedy harms to which they have contributed. Thankfully, the document is only a proposal subject to public consultations, and we call upon IFC and MIGA to make significant changes.

IFC and MIGA have known for years that some of their investments cause environmental and social harm and that under international human rights standards, those who contribute to harm should contribute to providing remedy. An independent expert review, led by a former IFC president and requested by the World Bank’s board, confirmed this standard and recommended that the institutions contribute to and promote access to remedy for project-related harms. The review deemed IFC and MIGA’s current accountability system inadequate and remedial actions practically nonexistent. We are surprised, therefore, that the Approach to Remedial Action commits to very few new actions.

The proposed Approach includes some necessary elements, including a commitment from IFC and MIGA to facilitate and support clients’ remedial actions, explore and pilot arbitration, and exercise leverage over clients, including through contractual provisions and the use of various financing instruments. IFC and MIGA largely failed to respond to the board’s assignment, however, as they left out the following necessary components:

  1. Types of remedy: Despite “Remedial Action” in its title, the proposed Approach does not provide a plan for delivering any type of remedy. Further, the draft policy does not include any examples of remedy that IFC and MIGA have provided in the past or how IFC and MIGA will contribute to and promote specific types of remedy available in the future. Remedy can take many forms, including compensation, apology, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and commemoration, among others. The Approach must detail how IFC and MIGA are prepared to provide each type of remedy when the circumstances arise.
  2. Financial contribution by IFC and MIGA: Even though it is evident that remedy often costs money, “the Approach does not contemplate a systemic process for the financing of direct contribution to remedial action” (page v). This is a major gap. IFC and MIGA refer vaguely to directly financing remedy in “exceptional circumstances,” but don’t define them. IFC and MIGA don’t even commit to directly remedying the cases in which its accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), found that projects did not comply with the IFC’s own Sustainability Policy and, as a result, contributed to harm. In line with the recommendations of the external review and per international standards, IFC and MIGA are obligated to financially contribute to remedy when their actions or inactions contribute to harm or when a client cannot provide financial contributions.
  3. Access to remedy after the end of a project: While the proposed Approach to Remedial Action references its draft Responsible Exit Principles, it does not describe specific actions IFC and MIGA will take to provide access to remedy after a project is complete. We expect IFC and MIGA to commit to not exiting a project subject to an ongoing CAO process without the consent of community complainants or until all remedial actions have been delivered to communities, commitments not included in the draft Responsible Exit Principles. This directly contradicts established norms and must be amended accordingly. Further, the proposed Responsible Exit Principles fail to adequately recognize the importance of including impacted communities as full stakeholders in the process. Delivering responsible exit depends on IFC and MIGA’s ability to provide holistic and inclusive remedy in line with communities’ expectations.
  4. Addressing the past: Even though IFC and MIGA’s failure to remedy harm in the past is the impetus for this proposed Approach, the institutions appear to only commit to implementing their remedial obligations going forward, with the document stating that IFC and MIGA would implement this approach to “new” projects. This fails the communities who are currently experiencing harm and need remedy.

The Approach to Remedial Action is risk-averse from an institutional perspective but expects a risk tolerance from rightsholders. Communities adversely affected by development projects have a right to remedy that is co-designed by them. Prioritizing the bottom line over the people these development institutions serve is unacceptable and a missed opportunity.

IFC and MIGA have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership among development finance institutions and the wider financial sector by bringing this proposal in line with prevailing international human rights norms. A failure to do so would mark a concerning precedent and setback for the realization of the right to remedy. We hope that IFC and MIGA provide sufficient opportunities for civil society and project-affected communities to provide feedback on the draft policy, and deliver a revised proposal that meets the moment.

—–

Endorsed by:

  • Accountability Counsel
  • Bank Information Center
  • Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
  • American University Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
  • Sustentarse (Chile)
  • Association of ESPOD Morocco
  • Inclusive Development International
  • NGO Forum on ADB
  • Recourse
  • ATGL Tunisia
  • Social Justice Platform
  • Studies and Economic Media Center
  • Oxfam
  • Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights
  • Green Development Advocates (GDA)
  • Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign against Poverty (FEMAPO)
  • Observatory of Food Sovereignty and Environment
  • Observatoire d’Etudes et d’Appuis a la responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale (OEARSE)
  • Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Management (CECIC)
  • Centre for Nature Conservation and Development (CNCD)
  • Synaparcam (Synergie Nationale des Paysans et Riverains du Cameroun)
  • Bretton Woods Project
  • TINDZILA
  • Espace de Solidarité et de Coopération de l’Oriental
  • Wedyan Association For Society Development
  • Association Talassemtane for Environment and Development (ATED)
  • Resonate! Yemen
  • Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (LSD)
  • IFI Synergy Group
  • Gender Action
  • urgewald
  • Community Assistance in Development (COMAID)
  • Crude Accountability
  • Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)
  • Fundeps – Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables
  • Action Research for Rural Development (RADER)
  • Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF)
  • International Trade Union Confederation
  • International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF)
  • Centre for Financial Accountability, (India)
  • Just Ground
  • Util
  • Abna Alnazihein Organization
  • Social Justice Platform
  • Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights

Source: Accountability Counsel

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Documenting killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders

Published

on

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Giles Clarke / Global Witness

Every year, Global Witness works with partners to gather evidence, verify and document every time a land and environmental defender is killed or disappeared. Our methodology follows robust criteria, yet undocumented cases pose challenges when it comes to analysing data

Global Witness documents killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally. In partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, we produce an annual report containing these figures, and we have done so since 2012.

Our methodology involves a year-long process of cross-referencing data from different sources to ensure its credibility. Over 2,200 killings or long-term disappearances of defenders appear in our database since 2012 – with 146 cases documented in 2024.

Every year, we maintain a database to keep a record of these crimes and create a comprehensive global picture of the systematic violence defenders face.

The data provides a snapshot of the underlying drivers behind reprisals and indicates how some defenders and their communities face increased risks. Exposing these trends is the first of many steps to ensure that defenders and their communities are protected and can exercise their rights without fearing for their lives.

Killings and disappearances documented between 2012 and 2024

  • 2,253

    defenders have been killed or disappeared since 2012

    Global Witness

  • 146

    of these attacks occurred in 2024

    Global Witness

Classifying defenders’ cases

Most of the cases recorded in our database are killings – including assassinations by illicit actors, state murder and death in detention.

Our database also includes disappearances of defenders, where the individual has been missing for six months or more.

All reports prior to 2025 have combined killings and long-term disappearances into one single headline figure. For greater clarity, our latest report indicates a distinction between these two types of attack, and our reports will continue to make this distinction in future.

Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024

Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024. Tamara Merino / Global Witness

Cases from prior years or those already included in our database are not continuously monitored. Where we receive updated information on an attack, we may retrospectively include or remove cases.

We document the killing or disappearance of a defender when there is a reasonable and suspected link to an individual’s activism or where the individual played a role in defence of the land or the environment.

As well as individuals directly involved in activism, we also document tangential violence against families, community members or others caught up in attacks.

Our definition covers a broad range of people and encompasses different types of land and environmental leadership. Crucially, this involves people who work in any capacity to protect rights linked to the exploitation of land or the environment.

How we define land and environmental defenders

Land and environmental defenders are a specific type of human rights defender – individuals or groups of people who act to promote, protect or strive for the realisation of human rights through peaceful action.

Their role as human rights protectors is recognised by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, principles also enshrined in other legally binding international instruments. This includes those working to protect human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.

We define defenders as people who take peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment.

Land and environmental struggles take different forms and are shaped by local contexts. For example, in every region of the world, communities strive against systematic land dispossession and environmental destruction from extractive industries.

For some the threat to territories is intimately connected to the degeneration of their sovereignty, culture, livelihoods and homes. Others are caught in wider conflicts which exacerbate land, environmental and climate injustices.

Defenders often live in communities whose land, health and livelihoods are threatened by the operations of mining, logging, agribusiness or other industries.

Some defend our biodiverse environment, while others support such efforts through their roles as lawyers, politicians, park rangers, journalists, or members of campaigns or civil society organisations.

Others are holders of traditional or Indigenous knowledge, working as Indigenous guards or community knowledge keepers.

Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer

Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer who disappeared with Indigenous leader Antonio Díaz Valencia after attending a community meeting in San Miguel de Aquila, Mexico. Luis Rojas / Global Witness

Identifying and documenting cases

We learn of killings and disappearances through reliable sources of online reporting, tip-offs and wider documentation efforts from civil society organisations.

We set up search engine alerts using keywords and conduct other searches online to identify relevant cases. We also share information with international and national organisations who report on attacks against human rights defenders.

We then research each case to assess whether the person killed or disappeared was a land and environmental defender, according to our definition.

Desk-based research has its limitations. Many attacks on land and environmental defenders receive little or no media attention, due to the remote location of attacks, stigmatisation by investigating authorities, or widespread government repression of the media.

In most instances, we supplement identified cases with additional research. This includes working closely to share information with trusted civil society organisations and communities who have gathered evidence through their own investigations.

Jealousy Mugisha, a 50-year-old father of seven, refused to leave his home without adequate compensation. He was taken to court and forced to accept compensation that he feels was too low. He has faced reprisals for speaking out against the project.

Communities affected by the East African Oil Pipeline report receiving threats after refusing to leave their homes without adequate compensation. Jjumba Martin / Global Witness

Verifying information

We work closely with in-country partners to verify whether there is a reasonable and suspected link between the killing or disappearance and the person’s activism.

Testimony from families, communities and organisations working with targeted defenders often provides key information. Sometimes we review official documentation, including police reports or legal documents. This information is documented by Global Witness and not made public.

Navigating toxic narratives

Year after year, we are confronted with cases where the very nature of what it means to be a land and environmental defender is questioned.

Often governments, corporations and media outlets propagate a narrow view of land and environmental activism, excluding individuals and communities whose role defending land or environmental rights is less recognisable.

Across the world, defenders and their communities are often labelled as “criminals”, “agitators” or “communists”. These toxic terms are sometimes employed by the institutions and authorities that claim to uphold people’s rights.

Media can often repeat damaging narratives or even simply ignore reporting on these cases, making it difficult to verify whether an attack could be linked to a persons’ activism.

In these situations, we work closely with local organisations to clarify the contexts in which defenders work, and the patterns of stigmatisation they face, and gather more evidence of the role they played in environmental and land rights protection.

An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project

An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project. James Rodriguez / Global Witness

We also work alongside other organisations gathering national, regional and international reprisal-related data. This includes official UN sources of data collection as well as civil society initiatives.

Every data collection project has its own definitions and methodologies, which create challenges in collating this data into a global dataset on attacks against defenders. Some existing datasets overlap with ours, but often do not fully coincide.

For every case documented, we research and evaluate whether it fits our definition of a land and environmental defender.

Often, public reporting on attacks is circumstantial or lacks information. In some cases, attacks go unreported, particularly in rural areas and in certain countries.

In these cases, countries with restricted civic space – where civil society organisations, NGOs and other groups that monitor the work of defenders are less present, for example – are not able to fill the reporting gap.

This is further exacerbated by repression of the media, authoritarian governments and active political conflicts. Documenting massacres or reprisals in active conflict zones, areas under occupation or where organised crime groups have social or territorial control is also challenging.

These contextual challenges mean that our data is likely to underreport killings and disappearances in certain countries and regions of the world – particularly in areas of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Spotlighting our criteria

To meet our criteria, a case must be supported by the following available information:

  • Credible sources of information. This can include online publications, official documentation on a case or collating information from families, colleagues and civil society organisations linked to a case.
  • Details about the type of act and method of violence, including the date and location.
  • Name and biographical information about the victim.
  • Clear, proximate and documented connections to the protection and defence of environmental and land rights. This includes evaluating the various roles of defenders play and the wider contexts and underlying conflicts that affect them.
indigenous people gather together and raise fist to sky

Many of the defenders working to protect land and environment also speak out against the harmful impacts of the climate crisis either because of the direct impact on their livelihoods and communities or in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. Matheus Alves / Sumauma / Global Witness

Analysing the data

We seek to understand the most dangerous repercussions defenders face in the context of the territorial and environmental disputes taking place in their countries.

We also look to understand the characteristics of defenders and their communities – who they are as people and whether some face greater, more targeted risks.

Focusing on the most serious harms (killings and disappearances) enables us to confidently verify the threats defenders face and allows us to analyse geographical trends at regional, country and local level – though with recognised limitations.

We record whether a defender belongs to a marginalised group – Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants or rural communities – or if they act as a defender in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. This enables us to understand more about the characteristics of defenders working to protect land and the environment.

We try to gather information on the rights defenders are striving to protect, such as whether they are engaged in a territorial dispute or preventing environmental damage.

Noch Min, 40, and her husband Et Tam, 39, farm their 1.5 hectares of land given to them as compensation by the Thai based sugar company KSL

Violence is often connected to wider territorial disputes linked to the expansion of extractive projects, devastating the homes and livelihoods of families and communities. Andrew Ball / Panos / Global Witness

We also aim to identify the underlying driver of the harms that led to their acts of protest – for instance, land disputes or industries linked to destructive practices or rights infringements.

Where possible, we record the alleged perpetrator of the crime – both the direct offender and the suspected intellectual authors.

Our dataset is reviewed and updated annually. Before we publish our data, documented cases from the previous year go through a rigorous fact-checking process to ensure confidence in the veracity of our data.

We do not proactively review historic cases in our database. If there are changes in the status of a case or if more information about an individual defender comes to light, we revise and amend our database accordingly.

In the weeks before the publication of our Annual Defenders Report, we temporarily halt the inclusion of new cases – any new cases or information received are kept on file and later added to the database.

Despite efforts to overcome the data access and verification challenges outlined above, our data is likely incomplete. The figures presented in Global Witness reports are therefore probably an underestimate and should be considered as only a partial picture of the extent of killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders.

Read full article: globalwitness.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area

Published

on

Following the one-year anniversary of the historic protest waged by Maasai communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), the Oakland Institute calls on the Tanzanian government to respect their rights to land and life and end mass eviction plans.

Between August 18-23, 2024, over 40,000 Maasai staged a historic mobilization, blocking the Ngorongoro-Serengeti highway and stranding safari tourist land cruisers – forcing the world’s attention to their demand for justice. The protest challenged the Tanzanian government’s attempt to drive the Maasai from the NCA without their consent by stripping them of their land and voting rights. President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s blind pursuit of tourism dollars has resulted in denial of essential services – including life-saving healthcare and education – to approximately 100,000 Maasai, while their pastoralist livelihoods are strangled.

To appease the international outcry generated by the protests, the Tanzanian government launched the “Presidential Commission on Land in Ngorongoro” and the “Presidential Commission on Relocation from Ngorongoro,” on February 20, 2025.  The commissions were granted a three-month mandate to assess land conflicts and the relocation of residents with the expectation that the findings will be released at regular intervals. More than six months later, not a single report has been published or any information shared.

Image
Maasai holding signs

In April 2025, the Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas Initiative at the University of Arizona’s Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy (IPLP) Program submitted a legal brief to the commissions. Endorsed by the Oakland Institute, Land is Life, and Forest Peoples Programme, the brief called on the Presidential Commissions to uphold the rights of the Maasai to land, culture, self-identification, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) while addressing the devastating impacts that so-called conservation policies have inflicted on these communities. The brief urged the commissions to recognize the Maasai as Indigenous Peoples, guarantee their meaningful participation, and align Tanzania’s laws and policies with its international obligations.

The independence of the commissions remains questionable, with both notably dominated by government personnel and very limited Maasai representation. It is believed that the commissions have already submitted reports, recommending further relocations to the President, who intends to release them after the October general elections.

In a concerning sign, during a July 2025 speech, President Samia Suluhu Hassan condemned the presence of livestock and local communities in the NCA, which she claimed undermines the area’s tourism value. Days after, rangers demolished newly renovated settlements and a church in the Oldupai area, while arresting several Maasai villagers. These actions mark an intensification of efforts to pressure residents into “volunteering” for relocation.

Image
Maasai mobilization

The Oakland Institute has previously shattered state propaganda regarding a better life waiting for those who “volunteer” to resettle in Msomera, documenting how the site – 600 km away – lacks adequate water resources and grazing land while promises of improved social and health services by the government remain unfulfilled.

The NCA was established in 1959 as a multiple land use area that explicitly recognized the Maasai’s settlement rights and authority in governance decisions, while accommodating conservation and tourism. The Maasai were even promised that “should there be any conflict between the interests of the game [animals] and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.” It is time that the Tanzanian government keeps its word.

As the environmental stewards of the area, it is imperative that the land rights of the Maasai are restored in compliance with national and international law. The Oakland Institute reiterates the calls made by international law experts to the Presidential Commissions:

  1. Recognize and protect Maasai land rights, in line with international standards.
  2. Affirm the role of Indigenous knowledge in conservation, with a focus on Indigenous women and girls.
  3. Guarantee Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) before any conservation initiatives are launched.
  4. Support sustainable livelihoods rooted in Maasai knowledge, culture, and environmental stewardship.
  5. Establish ongoing, transparent dialogue between Maasai communities and authorities.
  6. Promote community-led education and knowledge sharing on conservation.
  7. Implement U.N. recommendations on halting forced relocations and upholding human rights.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Press Release | African Women in Action: AfDB, Reparations NOT Debt!

Published

on

The Regional Week of Action taking place from 28 to 31 July 2025, is part of a growing movement demanding reparations from the African Development Bank (AfDB) for decades of financing extractive, patriarchal, and profit-driven “development” on the continent. It is an important moment of Pan African mobilisation for women on the frontlines of resistance against AfDB funded maldevelopment in Africa.

“AfDB, Reparations NOT Debt” is the message that hundreds of women in West and Central Africa will voice as they carry out their bold, vibrant actions to challenge the destructive development model financed by the AfDB. Communities and particularly women whose livelihoods and ways of life have been destroyed by the construction and exploitation of mega-projects such as hydroelectric dams, mining, monoculture plantations and other big developments, will rally to call attention to the impacts they face.

The recent AfDB Counter Space held from 21-23 May in Abidjan was aimed at shifting the mainstream neoliberal development narrative and help create space to strengthen solidarity and resistance to AfDB’s continued support for maldevelopment in African communities, concluding in the Abidjan Declaration.

Across five countries – Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, and Guinea – communities will participate in public testimonials, creative actions, community, and online mobilisations, and amplify official demands for reparations. They will make visible the true costs of extractive mega-projects on their land, their livelihoods, and nature.

Women from Batchenga in Cameroon and Bomboré in Burkina Faso will gather during this week to share traditional practices and techniques for crafting organic fertilisers to restore their land and preserve ecosystems. In Côte d’Ivoire, women from Singrobo are joining hands for a day of awareness-raising and intergenerational dialogue around a memory tree.

We are not against development. We are against destruction. If ‘development’ is destruction in disguise, then we say NO,” said Massaouda, a community leader in Niger and member of the steering committee of the AfDB, Reparations NOT Debt campaign.

The campaign: “AfDB, Reparations NOT Debt” calls for:

  • An immediate end to destructive mega-extractive projects.
  • Reparations for women and their communities affected.
  • A transition to ecofeminist alternatives centred on people, not profit.

This Week of Action is a continuation of regional mobilisations in 2023 and 2024 and marks a new stage in the struggle for reparations in Africa.

Source: WoMin

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter