Connect with us

NGO WORK

Press Release – CICDHA: UN Human Rights Committee calls on China for mechanisms to investigate and punish harmful activities of its companies and banks abroad

Published

3 months ago

on

This past February, a delegation of 11 Latin American civil society organizations from the Collective on Chinese Finance and Investment, Human Rights and Environment (CICDHA) and representatives of affected communities, in collaboration with the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and FIAN International, participated in the third evaluation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), in Geneva. The organizations requested the CESCR to recommend that the PRC respects, protects and fulfills its extraterritorial obligations related to economic, social, cultural and environmental rights contained in the ESCR Covenant and other UN instruments it has signed and recognized. This obligation includes the activities of Chinese state-owned and semi-state-owned companies and banks, as well as projects in which they participate in Latin America.

Last January, CICDHA and ISHR submitted to CESCR a report documenting the impacts of Chinese corporate activities in 14 projects developed in 9 Latin American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. The report demonstrates violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, the right to health, a healthy environment, water, food, housing, labor rights, and various civil and political rights, which are protected by UN treaties, covenants and conventions. Furthermore, the report states that “…China is one of the largest investors in Latin America and has an enormous responsibility to avoid the negative effects of the projects in which its companies participate or which are financed by its banks”.

Marco Antonio Gandarillas, from Latinoamérica Sustentable and member of CICDHA, said “All the projects analyzed are located in areas of high social conflict, great environmental and cultural diversity, particularly in indigenous territories; it is for this reason that the evaluation of the ESCR Committee is crucial for the future of Chinese investments and financing in the region”.

The Collective on Chinese Finance and Investment Human Rights and Environment (CICDHA in Spanish), has been working since 2018, documenting cases and reporting to various international bodies on the systematic non-compliance of China’s extraterritorial human rights obligations in its business activities in Latin America.

During the dialogue with the Chinese state representatives on February 15, CESCR President Michael Windfuhr echoed civil society’s concern by posing the following questions:

“What kind of binding regulations does China put in place to ensure that state-owned companies do not further undermine the human rights of people in other countries? How do victims of human rights abuses [by Chinese business actors operating abroad] access avenues of accountability or grievance mechanisms? How do they assess environmental, social and human rights impacts and mitigate risks and avoid harm [from Chinese funding and international cooperation]?”

The Concluding Observations of March 3rd, 2023, show that the CESCR welcomed several of the suggestions made by  CICDHA and expressed its concern “about the insufficiency of the legal obligations of companies under the jurisdiction of the State party to exercise due diligence on human rights” and recommended that the PRC ensure that companies and banks abroad “are held accountable for violations of economic, social and cultural rights, paying special attention to the territorial rights of indigenous and peasant farmers and the environmental impact…. and that follow-up and control mechanisms be established to investigate and sanction their harmful activities”.

The CESCR also asked the PRC to ensure that victims of abuses have access to effective complaint mechanisms and adequate redress. In addition, it urged the PRC to take steps, in particular with companies involved in the extraction of commodities and construction of infrastructure, “to ensure the legal accountability of corporate entities…in relation to violations of economic, social and cultural rights in the context of their activities abroad.”

The CESCR’s recommendations help pressure the PRC to establish mechanisms to monitor, investigate and sanction human rights abuses by Chinese business and financial activities outside Chinese territory. In addition, they seek to have the PRC enact policies that oblige Chinese companies and financiers to adopt measures to repair, redress and remedy current impacts and to establish monitoring mechanisms to prevent future impacts.

“Having the Committee recommend that Chinese companies and banks be held legally responsible for human rights abuses arising from their operations abroad is not only a step forward in protecting Chinese investment, but also in guaranteeing human rights in any context of transnational capitalism,” said Sofía Jarrín of Amazon Watch, a CICDHA member organization.

CICDHA welcomes the concluding observations of the CESCR, and considers the results of the assessment to be a substantial step forward towards greater accountability for human rights.

Source: amazonwatch.org

Related posts:

The committee calls for the protection of projects’ host communities. Victims of human rights violations in Uganda still waiting for redress DR Congo: RIAO-RDC calls for the immediate release of four leaders from the community of Mwingi who were arrested after a peaceful protest against the oil palm plantation company PHC Investigate the criminalization of land rights defenders – witnessradio.org asks National Human Rights Body. #StopEACOP campaign calls on Standard Bank to come clean about its funding of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

A corporate cartel fertilises food inflation

Published

2 weeks ago

on

May 24, 2023

By

Last year’s financial results from the world’s largest fertiliser companies are now in — and it’s a shocker. Given the sky high fertiliser prices of 2022, it was anticipatedthat their revenues would break records, but no one could have predicted this scale of profiteering. As the world grappled with a severe food crisis and farmers saw costs rise, the world’s largest fertiliser firms ramped up their margins and more than tripled their profits from two years ago.

Graph 1

Graph 1 shows the total profits of the big nine fertiliser companies over the past five years. They exponentially grew from an average of around US$14 billion before the Covid-19 pandemic to US$28 billion in 2021 and then to an astounding US$49 billion last year. International agencies like the World Bank blamed the spike in fertiliser prices on the Russian war in Ukraine, resulting in high natural gas prices (used to produce nitrogen fertiliser) from shortages and trade disruptions. But as can be seen in Graph 2, a major part of the story is the monopoly power of the fertiliser companies. These companies increased prices far beyond the increases in production costs and boosted their profit margins to a massive 36% in 2022.
Graph 2
There are signs that fertiliser prices are coming down from their stratospheric heights earlier this year, but the effects of the price spike are still being felt. The high prices and lack of supply in some countries caused farmers to cut fertiliser use, thereby reducing production levels and contributing to an alarming rise in global food insecurity. The high prices also pushed many farmers deeper into debt. Farmers from Cameroon to the U.S. say they are still spending three times as much on fertilisers as they were a few years ago. And in countries where fertilisers are heavily subsidised, the price spike has saddled governments with huge debts. In India alone, the central government’s expenditure on fertiliser subsidies last year surged from US$9.8 billion to US$17.1 billion. People are paying the price for the fertiliser industry’s price gouging.
The costs are also rising for the planet. Chemical fertilisers are a major source of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with nitrogen fertilisers alone accounting for one out of every 40 tonnes of annual emissions. New reports from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and Earth4All, a global collective of leading scientists and economists, make it clear that steep and immediate reductions in global fertiliser use are required to avert catastrophic climate change. Both recommend a near phase-out of nitrogen fertiliser consumption by 2050 (see Graph 3). The idea is not to recklessly crash production levels, but a planned transition toward more sustainable, agroecological farming systems that require less or no fertiliser.
Graph 3
It is increasingly clear that today’s food inflation is a product of both corporate greed and ecological breakdown. Obscene levels of profit-taking by corporations are happening across the food system, from fertilisers to processing to retail, and this is pushing up prices. But the way these corporations organise our food production and distribution is also driving climate change and, undermining the capacity for the global food system to deliver affordable and accessible food, now and over the long term.
Bold new approaches are urgently needed to reign in corporate power in the food system and turn the food crisis around. When it comes to fertilisers, policy actions like windfall taxes and price controls can help. But to deal with both profiteering and environmental catastrophe we need to transition food production to rely far less on chemical fertilisers. The fertiliser industry will be pushing for the opposite when it gathers for its annual meeting in Prague this week, yet around the world there are farmers and rural movements already leading a transition away from chemical fertilisers, with plenty of successful examples to learn from. What’s holding us back is the structural political change needed at all levels to address the excess profiteering from the fertiliser industry, and chart a new path toward more resilient food systems.
Source: grain.org

Related posts:

World food prices rise for 2nd consecutive month: FAO Food Sovereignty is the only solution and way forward. UN Food Systems Summit: The Battle Over Global Food and Agriculture Governance The United Nations Food Systems Summit is a corporate food summit —not a “people’s” food summit WTO negotiations: In the face of the food crisis, public stocks are legitimate and necessary
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

The Black Sea Grain Initiative: When the United Nations Brokers Profits for Corporations, Bankers, and Oligarchs

Published

2 weeks ago

on

May 23, 2023

By

“I am so moved watching the wheat fill up the hold of the ship. It was the loading of hope for so many around the world,” said United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, as a cargo ship was loaded up with Ukrainian grain in August 2022. Mr. Guterres was launching the Black Sea Grain Initiative, purportedly to prevent famines and a global food crisis by enabling food exports from Ukraine, amidst the Russian military blockade. USAID claimed that the “lifesaving deal”, which was renewed on May 18, 2023, “helps people in need across the globe by delivering desperately needed grains to lower income countries and bringing down food prices.” The European Commission celebrated the initiative as a “a critical step forward in efforts to overcome the global food insecurity caused by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.”

Mr. Guterres’ hope, loaded on the cargo ship, has however since gone missing at sea.

Despite the hype in political circles and the Western media that the Initiative was essential to secure food supply for those in need — particularly in Africa — data released by the United Nations offers a starkly different reality. As of May 2023, only 3 percent of the food commodities exported from Ukraine under the initiative has gone to low-income countries. Out of the 30.3 million tons exported, a mere 2 percent — 625,000 tons — went to the World Food Programme for food aid operations around the globe.
Charts showing grain exports from Ukraine by income group and country.

The top destination for Ukraine’s agricultural exports is the European Union, with China being second. Spain is the largest recipient in Europe. Instead of offering relief, Ukrainian exports are threatening the livelihoods of millions of European farmers — to the extent that Hungary and Poland banned imports from Ukraine in April 2023 to protect their farmers. As Ukraine and the European Commission pressured for the ban to be lifted, Hungarian and Polish farmers pushed back, asking the critical question: Who actually benefits from these exports?

The Oakland Institute’s report, War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land, answers the question. It exposed that the producers exporting commodities from Ukraine are mostly large-agribusinesses and oligarchs, associated with European and North American financial interests. Furthermore, the report detailed how these producers are heavily indebted to Western financial institutions, in particular the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) — the private sector arm of the World Bank. Together, these institutions are major lenders to Ukrainian agribusinesses, with close to US$1.7 billion lent to just six of Ukraine’s largest landholding firms in recent years. Other key lenders are a mix of mainly European and North American financial institutions — both public and private.

Renewing the Black Sea Initiative and maintaining the flow of exports from Ukraine has nothing to do with supporting the struggling Ukrainian farmers or the trumpeted goal to prevent a global food crisis — which has been largely triggered by speculation on global food markets. Food prices skyrocketed when global stocks of cereals were at historically high levels according to the World Bank.

Pretending their goal is to fight world hunger is appallingly deceitful, when, with the Black Sea Grain Initiative, the United Nations has become a business broker for agribusiness corporations. In violation of its values and the principles of the United Nations Charter, together with the Western banks and financial institutions, the United Nations is supporting large food trading companies, oligarchs, and their lenders and shareholders, to sustain export business and grow profits despite the carnage of war.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs10+) have been released in Accra, Ghana. Breaking! Kiryandongo human rights situation is presented before the United Nations… Advocates meet in Accra to assess the performance of the 10 year United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs 10+) on business and human rights on the African continent. Grain trader Cargill faces legal challenge in US over Brazilian soya supply chain Repression for land and profits
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Grain trader Cargill faces legal challenge in US over Brazilian soya supply chain

Published

4 weeks ago

on

May 8, 2023

By

World’s biggest grain trader accused of ‘shoddy due diligence’ on deforestation and alleged rights violations.

The world’s largest grain trader, Cargill, is facing a first-ever legal challenge in the United States over its failure to remove deforestation and human rights abuses from its soya supply chain in Brazil.

ClientEarth, an environmental law organisation, filed the formal complaint on Thursday, accusing Cargill of inadequate monitoring and a laggard response to the decline of the Amazon rainforest and other globally important biomes, such as the Cerrado savannah and the Atlantic Forest.

The case, which was submitted under the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, argues that Cargill’s “shoddy due diligence raises the risk that the meat sold in supermarkets across the world is raised on so-called ‘dirty’ soy”. ClientEarth says this breaches the international code on responsible business conduct.

The lawyers behind the complaint have stressed the urgency of the issue because Amazon degradation is approaching a tipping point, after which scientists say the rainforest will turn into dry grassland, emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide. The Amazon’s sister biome, the Cerrado, has already lost half of its tree cover.

The lawyers say they hope the legal challenge will raise standards at Cargill – which is the biggest privately owned company in the US, with revenues last year of $165bn (£131bn) – and set an example across the industry.

Laura Dowley, a lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “Cargill has vast resources at its disposal to implement due diligence. The technology is already there. We aren’t asking it to do anything it doesn’t have the resources to do. We hope it will show leadership.”

Cargill has promised to be “deforestation-free” in the Amazon and Cerrado by 2025 and completely eradicate deforestation from all its supply chains by 2030. The company says it has put in place a sophisticated monitoring operation at ports, warehouses and other points in its supply chain. ClientEarth said it identified several shortcomings in this system, including a lack of environmental due diligence on:

  • Soya beans bought from third-party traders, which make up 42% of all Brazilian soya Cargill purchases.
  • Soya beans owned by other companies that passes through Cargill ports.
  • Indirect land use change.
  • Soya sourced from the Cerrado savannah.
  • Soya sourced from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

ClientEarth also cites reports alleging Cargill suppliers have been involved in rights violations of Indigenous, Afro-Brazilian and other forest-dependent communities.

Cargill told the Guardian it had not seen the full complaint but it had an “unwavering commitment” to eliminate deforestation and conversion in South America. In line with this, it added: “We do not source soy from farmers who clear land in protected areas and have controls in place to prevent non-compliant product from entering our supply chains. If we find any violations of our policies, we take immediate action in accordance with our grievance process.”

The company’s website notes: “Cargill is committed to transforming our agricultural supply chains to be free of deforestation by 2030. Our policy on forests lays out our overarching approach to achieving this target globally across our priority supply chains. It is founded on our belief that farming and forests can and must coexist.” A spokesperson added that Cargill was also “strongly committed” to protecting human rights in its operations, supply chains and communities.

However, journalists revealed last year that one of Cargill’s soya suppliers grows crops on land deforested and burned in the Brazilian biome. In 2020, the Guardian and partners uncovered evidence that Cargill supplied Tesco, Asda, McDonald’s, Nando’s and others with chicken fed on imported soya linked to thousands of forest fires and at least 300 sq miles (800 sq km) of tree clearance in the Cerrado savannah. Similar reports were broadcast this year by Sky News.

Source: The Guardian

Related posts:

Finnfund invests US$15m in African agri supply chain business ETG Uganda faces serious hunger Default ThumbnailRights and Resources Initiative (RRI) launched a new report looking at 80 legal frameworks Cadastre disaster Access to information: Challenge those who hold information in courts of law
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter

* indicates required

Trending