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

The World Bank Must Be Held Accountable for Harm Inflicted on Tanzanian Communities by Tourism Project

Published

on

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors is reviewing the Action Plan (MAP) prepared by the Bank’s management to address the findings of the Inspection Panel’s investigation into the Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth (REGROW) project in Tanzania. The investigation followed a complaint filed by the Oakland Institute in June 2023 on behalf of impacted communities. While the Panel’s findings and MAP will only be made public after its approval by the Board, the Oakland Institute urges the Bank to ensure that demands of impacted communities are addressed by the MAP to redress the harms caused.

“The Bank is responsible for the devastating crisis which has left over 84,000 lives hanging in the balance. For several years, using tax-payer dollars, it financed a project that blatantly violated its operating procedures and safeguards around human rights abuses and forced resettlement. It failed to act when made aware of the violations and continued pouring money into the project. Now the Bank cannot hide behind lame excuses and should fulfil the demands of communities harmed by its financing,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

Beacon marking expansion of Ruaha National Park to consume Luhanga village and make communities trespassers in their own lands
Beacon marking expansion of Ruaha National Park to consume Luhanga village and make communities trespassers in their own lands

The US$150 million REGROW project in Tanzania began in 2017 as a credit from the International Development Association (IDA). It was cancelled on November 6, 2024 after nearly two years of advocacy by the Oakland Institute and affected villagers to hold the Bank accountable for enabling the expansion of Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA) and supporting TANAPA, the paramilitary Tanzania National Parks Authority. Its rangers, equipped and financed by the Bank, are responsible for egregious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and crippling livelihood restrictions that have terrorized local communities. Forced resettlement was initiated by the Tanzanian government in complete disregard for the Bank’s safeguards that require proper consultation and adequate compensation for affected communities.

“We call on the World Bank to fully assume its responsibility and urgently take these necessary steps to answer our pleas for justice. Our lives are on hold as the threat of eviction looms over us every single day. Our livelihoods have been undermined for years, our children are out of school, our farms sit fallow and our cattle are still being forcibly seized. We cannot continue living like this. The Bank must adequately address our past and ongoing suffering.”

Statement by impacted villagers in Mbarali, January 2025

In December 2024, the Institute worked with the impacted communities to carry out a thorough assessment on the ground to evaluate the consequences of the REGROW project. This research lays bare the devastation caused by the expansion of the park – formalized during the project in October 2023 through Government Notice 754. While the Tanzanian government claims only five villages are now inside RUNAPA, the December assessment found that 28 villages across 10 wards and home to over 84,822 people are located inside the area added to the park. As Tanzanian law forbids settlement in National Parks, these farmers and pastoralists will be forcibly evicted unless the expansion is revoked.

Livelihood restrictions enforced by TANAPA rangers have decimated these communities. Thousands of farmers have been barred from farming by the government. For 551 members of two farmer associations stopped from cultivating rice over the past three years, the economic loss is over US$66 million.1

Herders have also been massively impacted by the restrictions of access to pasture land, cattle seizures, and violence committed by TANAPA rangers. Since 2021, 52 pastoralist families have had cattle seized, losing 7,579 cattle for a value of over US$6 million.2 Since 2018, 39 families have paid the equivalent of US$212,175 in fines to recover 4,757 cattle confiscated by TANAPA within disputed park boundaries. These fees and fines have pushed families into destitution.

Over the course of the project, at least 11 individuals were killed by police or rangers, five forcibly disappeared, and dozens suffered physical and psychological harm, including beatings and sexual violence. Victims and their relatives have lost hope of seeing TANAPA rangers brought to justice while continued repression has stopped many from speaking out.

“The World Bank claimed the project was intended to benefit local communities; it has instead destroyed their lives. It must take responsibility for enabling violence and displacement and ensure that the expansion of the park is revoked,” concluded Mittal.

Impacted communities are demanding that the MAP address the following urgent issues:

  1. Removal of beacons placed marking the expansion of the park and to officially revert park boundaries to the 1998 borders established by GN 436a.
  2. Provide comprehensive compensation for damages incurred by livelihood restrictions and violence inflicted by TANAPA rangers, including:
    1. Value of fines paid by pastoralists to reclaim cattle illegally seized.
    2. Value of cattle auctioned.
    3. Compensation for the loss of agricultural production for three seasons (2023, 2024, 2025).
    4. Compensation for the victims of violence and killings by TANAPA.
  3. Establish a multistakeholder independent mechanism to oversee reparations.
  4. Restore social services to villages impacted by GN 754.
    1. Complete construction on Luhanga Secondary School and provide it with government teachers.
    2. Reopen Mlonga Primary School that was closed in October 2022.
    3. Ensure all villages located within GN 754 boundaries are provided with the power, water, and social services they are entitled to like other villages.

S0urce: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Business, UN, Govt & Civil Society urge EU to protect sustainability due diligence framework

Published

on

As the publishing date for the European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package proposal draws closer, a coalition of major business associations representing over 6000 members, including Amfori and the Fair Labor Association, has called on the EU to uphold the integrity of the EU sustainability due diligence framework.

Governments have also joined the conversation, with the Spanish government voicing its strong support for maintaining the core principles of the CSRD and CSDDD.

Their call emphasises the importance of preserving the integrity of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

These powerful business voices have been complemented by statements from the UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights, alongside 75 organisations from the Global South and 25 legal academics, all cautioning the EU against reopening the legal text of the CSDDD.

Additionally, the Global Reporting Initiative has urged the EU to maintain the double materiality principle of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, meanwhile advisory firm Human Level published a briefing exploring the business risks of reopening level 1 of the text.

Concerns stem from fears that reopening negotiations could weaken key human rights and environmental due diligence provisions, undermine corporate accountability and create legal uncertainty for businesses.

The European Commission’s Omnibus proposal is expected to be published on 26 February.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Kenya: Court halts flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix and British Airways over unlawfully acquiring community land without consent

Published

on

“Landmark Court Ruling Delivers Devastating Blow To Flagship Carbon Offset Project”, Friday, 31 January 2025.

A keenly-watched legal ruling in Kenya has delivered a huge blow to a flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix, British Airways and other multinational corporations, which has long been under fire from Indigenous activists. The ruling, in a case brought by 165 members of affected communities, affirms that two of the biggest conservancies set up by the controversial Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) have been established unconstitutionally and have no basis in law.

The court has also ordered that the heavily-armed NRT rangers – who have been accused of repeated, serious human rights abuses against the area’s Indigenous people – must leave these conservancies. One of the two conservancies involved in the case, known as Biliqo Bulesa, contributes about a fifth of the carbon credits involved in the highly contentious NRT project to sell carbon offsets to Western corporations. The ruling likely applies to around half the other conservancies involved in the carbon project too, as they are in the same legal position, even though they were not part of the lawsuit. This means that the whole project, from which NRT has made many millions of dollars already (the exact amount is not known as the organisation does not publish financial accounts), is now at risk.

The case was first filed in 2021, but judgment has only recently been delivered by the Isiolo Environment and Land Court. The legal issue at the heart of this case was identified in Survival International’s “Blood carbon” report, which also disputed the very basis of NRT’s carbon project: its claim that by controlling the activities of Indigenous pastoralists’ livestock, it increases the area’s vegetation and thus the amount of carbon stored in the soil.

The ruling is also the latest in a series of setbacks to the credibility of Verra, the main body used to verify carbon credit projects. Even though some of the participating conservancies in the NRT’s project lacked a clear legal basis and therefore could not ‘own’ or ‘transfer’ carbon credits to the NRT, the project was still validated and approved by Verra, and went through two verifications in their system. Complaints by Survival International prompted a review of the project in 2023, which also failed to address the problem.

Caroline Pearce, Director of Survival International, said today: “The judgement confirms what the communities have been saying for years – that they were not properly consulted about the creation of the conservancies, which have undermined their land rights. The NRT’s Western donors, like the EU, France and USAID, must now stop funding the organization, as they’ve been funding an operation which is now ruled to have been illegal…

The lawsuit accused NRT of establishing and running conservancies on unregistered community land, “without participation or involvement of the community,” including not obtaining free prior and informed consent before delineating and annexing community lands for private wildlife conservation.

The complaint reads, in part, “(NRT), with the help of the Rangers and the local administration, continue to use intimidation and coercion as well as threats upon the community leaders where the community leaders attempt to oppose any of their plans.” The case was brought by communities from two conservancies, Biliqo Bulesa Conservancy (which is in the NRT’s carbon project area and where 20% of the project’s carbon credits were generated) and Cherab Conservancy, which isn’t.

These two conservancies, the court has ruled, were illegally established. Permanent injunctions have been issued banning NRT and others from entering the area or operating their rangers or other agents there. The government has to get on with registering the community lands under the Community Land Act, and has to cancel the licences for NRT to operate in the respective areas. The NRT’s carbon offset project is reportedly the largest soil carbon capture project in the world.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter