Connect with us

NGO WORK

Summary of Specific Instance Complaint to the United States National Contact Point against Marsh regarding its support for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline

Published

on

On February 7, 2023, 10 Ugandan and Tanzanian organizations and Inclusive Development International brought a complaint to the United States National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises (‘the US NCP’). The complaint outlines failures by the U.S.-based insurance broker firm Marsh, part of the Marsh McLennan Group, to meet the standards of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (‘OECD Guidelines’) in relation to its reported role as insurance broker for the construction phase of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (‘EACOP’).

The full complaint document is not disclosed, per the confidentiality provisions of the US NCP operating  procedures. This document summarizes the key points of the complaint and provides background information on the OECD, US NCP, and the complaint procedure. The Ugandan and Tanzanian complainants are choosing to remain anonymous due to the security risks associated with filing this complaint.

Adverse Impacts associated with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)
The EACOP is expected to cause—and in many instances, is already causing—extensive and severe adverse human rights and environmental impacts, which the project sponsors have failed to adequately address, prevent and mitigate. These include:1

• Improper land acquisition without adequate safeguards: The project’s land acquisition process is being carried out in a manner inconsistent with human rights and international standards, with adverse impacts being exacerbated rather than mitigated. Communities have reported coercion in the land acquisition and valuation process; have faced hardship due to delayed compensation and restrictions
on the use of their land; and report having received inadequate compensation for their acquired land and assets.

• Security risks and impacts: There are numerous reports of intimidation, harassment, security threats and arbitrary arrests of community members, environmental and human rights defenders, and journalists critical of the project.

• Failure to adequately consult local communities: The complaint points to detailed testimony from local communities that demonstrates a failure by the project sponsors to meaningfully consult affected people, including by failing to provide local communities with information on the project’s risks and providing misleading information about the potential economic benefits.

• Impacts to natural resources: EACOP would put vital freshwater resources at risk from oil spills. The pipeline route traverses numerous lakes, rivers and wetlands, including the Lake Victoria basin,

See  the Assessment of the EACOP and Associated Facilities’ Compliance with the Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards,  pproduced by Inclusive Development International, BankTrack, and African Institute for Energy Governance (July 2022). See also the community-based reviews of the human rights impact of EACOP by Oxfam and others, Empty Promises Down the Line? A Human Rights Impact Assessment of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (September 2020) and by Les Amis de la Terre and Survie, A Nightmare Named Total (October 2020) and EACOP: A Disaster in the Making (October 2022), and the preliminary environmental and socio-economic
threat analysis for EACOP conducted by WWF Safeguarding people & nature in the East Africa crude oil pipeline project (July 2017).

which supports 40 million people in the region. The pipeline also risks contaminating the high-quality groundwater relied upon by millions for consumption. In addition, the construction and operation of EACOP will threaten agricultural land, forests and wetlands relied on for farming, energy for cooking, construction materials, medicine and cultural goods.

• Impacts to ecosystems and protected areas: The EACOP would cause, and is already causing, immense and irreversible harm to local ecosystems and habitats, including from the clearing of land for construction and the risk of oil spills or leaks. In particular, the pipeline threatens to irreversibly impact a number of legally protected and/or internationally recognized wildlife areas along its route and off the coast of Tanzania.

Climate impacts: The full value chain emissions of EACOP is expected to reach 379 million metrictons of CO2 over the pipeline’s 25-year operational lifetime.2 As such, the project poses unacceptable climate risks, which are fundamentally incompatible with the Paris Agreement and a pathway to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The Complainants submit that many of the most egregious impacts associated the project are inherent to the project and are therefore impossible to adequately mitigate. The EACOP is a fundamentally unsustainable and untenable project that should not proceed.

Marsh’s role in enabling the project to proceed
In May 2022, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Financial Times reported that Marsh had secured the contract to serve as insurance broker for the construction phase of the EACOP.3 In its role as broker, Marsh is tasked with arranging insurance for the pipeline. The company pursued this contract despite internal resistance from the corporate group’s own employees, who called on management to refuse the engagement.

The EACOP cannot be constructed without insurance. It is a legal requirement under Ugandan law that the EACOP must be insured, and large-scale construction projects such as the EACOP are unlikely to be financially viable without insurance. Through its engagement as insurance broker for the EACOP, Marsh is enabling the construction of the pipeline and is therefore contributing to the above adverse impacts.

The Complainants have contacted Marsh numerous times to attempt to engage in a dialogue in relation to the EACOP and to inform Marsh of potential risks that should be reflected in its due diligence process. Marsh did not respond to any of this correspondence. Accordingly, the complainants have turned to the US National Contact Point to resolve this dispute.

Marsh’s breaches of the OECD Guidelines
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises apply to all companies based in or with operations in OECD countries, including the United States. As a U.S.-based company, Marsh should operate in alignment with the Guidelines. The complaint alleges that Marsh has breached the Guidelines in four main ways:

Contribution to adverse impacts
The Guidelines specify that companies should avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts, including human rights and environmental impacts, and to address such impacts where they occur. Where companies have caused or contributed to impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in the provision of remedy. Where

https://climateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CAI-EACOP-Rptlores-Oct22.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/597a2b01-fb54-4fd3-b326-dadf52dc250a
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2022-05-19/insurance-giant-marsh-signs-on-forenvironmentally-disastrous-pipeline-project

adverse impacts are only directly linked to a company’s operations, products or services by a business relationship (but the company has not itself caused or contributed to the impacts), the company must seek to prevent or mitigate the impacts.

The complaint argues that by providing insurance brokerage services, Marsh is contributing to the adverse environmental and human rights impacts that would be, or have already been, caused by the EACOP. In particular, the complaint argues that Marsh is contributing to the adverse impacts under the Guidelines6 (and is not just directly linked) because: (1) it is enabling the project to go ahead by arranging legally and financially necessary insurance coverage; and (2) in light of the wealth of publicly available information on the damaging effects of EACOP, the human rights and environmental impacts were foreseeable and should have been identified in Marsh’s due diligence process.

Due diligence

Under the Guidelines, companies must conduct risk-based due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts related to human rights and the environment. The complaint argues that whatever environmental and social due diligence process Marsh may have conducted in relation to EACOP was deficient, as any adequate due diligence process would have concluded that EACOP entails unacceptable unmitigatedenvironmental and human rights risks.

Disclosure
Companies should disclose relevant information on their due diligence policies and processes, including what actions they have taken to prevent or mitigate risks that they identify.8 Marsh has failed to disclose adequate information about its due diligence policy and processes, including failing to disclose any information on the due diligence it conducted in relation to the EACOP.

Sustainable Development
The Guidelines requires companies to operate in a manner that contributes to sustainable development and respects internationally recognized human rights. The complaint alleges that Marsh is undermining sustainable development efforts by supporting EACOP, as it is a fundamentally unsustainable project that poses unmanageable climate, environmental and social risks.

Remedies Sought
To remedy these breaches and bring its operations back into alignment with the OECD Guidelines, the Complainants are calling on Marsh to:
• Publicly confirm whether or not it is currently acting as broker for the EACOP, and disclose whether it has any involvement in the associated Tilenga, Kingfisher, or Kabaale refinery projects.

OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 11-12; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, paras 1-6; OECD Guidelines, Environment, paras 3 and  Guidance on when companies will contribute to adverse impacts is at: OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 70; OECD Guidelines, General Policies, commentary para 14; OECD Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting, pages 44-45 OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 10-12.; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, para 5; OECD Guidelines, Environment, para. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 33; OECD Guidelines, Disclosure paras 2-3. OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 1-2; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, paras 1-6.

• Cease its role as broker for the construction of the EACOP and make a public statement to this effect. In addition, Marsh should not be broker for future renewals of insurance cover (such as for the operation phase of the project).
• Fully disclose its current human rights and environmental due diligence policies and procedures.
• Publicly disclose the due diligence process that it undertook in relation to the EACOP specifically, including any areas of risk it identified and the actions it took to prevent or mitigate those risks.
• Adopt and disclose an effective due diligence policy and procedures for future potential engagements. The procedures should set out how Marsh identifies and addresses the environmental and human rights impacts associated with the companies and projects for which it provides insurance brokerage services.
• Stop publicly claiming to be committed to the Sustainable Development Goals unless it ceases its support for the EACOP and improves its environmental and human rights due diligence procedures.

The Complainants request that the US NCP offer its good offices to resolve this complaint. In particular, the Complainants request that the NCP consider these allegations and issue recommendations to bring Marsh back into compliance with the Guidelines.

What happens next?
The US NCP must first determine whether the complaint is admissible, including by assessing whether there is a likely link between Marsh’s activities and the issues raised, and whether the issue is material and substantiated. If the NCP accepts the complaint, it will offer to bring the complainants and Marsh together for a mediated dialogue, subject to both parties’ voluntary participation. Through this mediation, the parties will attempt to negotiate a resolution of the issue.

At the end of the process, the NCP will publicly issue a final statement which outlines the allegations of the complaint, any outcomes reached during the mediation, or reasons why an agreement was not reached. The NCP may also issue recommendations as to how the Guidelines are to be implemented.

Further background on the OECD, OECD Guidelines, and National Contact Points
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries, created to promote economic growth, prosperity and sustainable development.

Because Marsh is based in the United States, a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it should follow the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The OECD Guidelines are recommendations from governments to multinational enterprises with operations or headquarters in OECD adhering countries. The Guidelines set out non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct across a range of issues, including human rights and the environment.

All OECD countries are required to establish National Contact Points within their governments. National Contact Points (NCPs) are a unique grievance mechanism responsible for receiving complaints from people or organizations who allege that companies have not complied with the Guidelines.

More information on the US NCP’s procedures can be found here: https://www.state.gov/u-s-national-contact-point-for-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises/a-guide-to-the-u-s-national-contact-point-for-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises/#FinalStatement
https://usoecd.usmission.gov/mission/oecd/about-the-oecd/

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

New Report: Only 0.3% of Climate Change Funding Reaches Family Farmers

Published

on

The World Rural Forum, together with 7 of its regional member organisations representing family farming in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific, alongside other key allies, are part of a new report unveiling international climate funding directed towards family farming.

November 16, 2023 – The recent report conducted by Climate Focus and published by the World Rural Forum sheds light on inequities in funding to address climate change. Despite family farmers producing a third of the world’s food, only a mere 0.3% of the international climate finance has been directed to them.

Alongside the World Rural Forum (FRM), the family farmer organisations participating in the report are: Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF), Eastern and Southern Africa Small-Scale Farmers’ Forum (ESAFF), Regional Platform of Farmers’ Organisations in Central Africa (PROPAC), Maghreb and North African Farmers Union (UMNAGRI), Network of West African Farmers’ and Producers’ Organisations of (ROPPA), Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA), Pacific Islands Farmers Organisation Network (PIFON), Confederation of Family Farmers Producers’ Organizations of Greater Mercosur (COPROFAM), and the Regional Rural Dialogue Program (PDRR).

The detailed analysis, conducted by Climate Focus in collaboration with the said organisations, the FFF and the FFORA, reveals an alarming situation: despite their crucial role in global food security, most family farmers lack adequate financial support to adapt to climate challenges.

Hakim Baliraine, President of ESAFF and a member of the WRF, underscored the urgency of this situation: “The climate crisis has pushed hunger to 122 million people since 2019. Reversing this trend won’t be possible if governments continue to tie the hands of millions of family farmers.”

The report outlines that 80% of climate funding aimed at the agri-food sector is channelled through recipient governments and NGOs of donor countries. This creates significant barriers for family farming organisations to access these funds due to complex eligibility regulations and a lack of information on how to apply for these resources.

Alberto Broch, President of COPROFAM and Vice President of the WRF, emphasized: “Our message to governments is clear: There is a vast accumulated knowledge that is imperative to harness. Over 600 million family farms are already committed to building more sustainable and resilient food systems.”

Esther Penunia, Secretary General of AFA and a member of the WRF, stated: “Generations of family farming experience and the latest scientific evidence demonstrate that working with nature and empowering local communities is key to safeguarding food production in an ever-changing climate. A major re-evaluation of climate finance is needed to support these proven climate solutions, allocating much more funding to family farmers and sustainable practices such as agroecology.”

Indeed, within a context of the dramatic impact of the climate crisis on family farming production systems in many territories, this report highlights the need to reorient international climate finance to facilitate the transition of family farming towards more sustainable and agroecological agronomic practices. Which, in turn, will help them to overcome family farmers’ vulnerability to extreme weather phenomena by investing in available assets, while strengthening public policies specific for family farming.

The World Rural Forum will facilitate the participation of an international delegation of family farmers at the upcoming climate summit, COP28, proposing a greater role for family farming in climate negotiations and funds, recognizing its catalytic role in the climate action, the transformation of food systems, and the protection of biodiversity.

Download the full report here

Source: World Rural Forum (WRF) 

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Faced with global crises, we demand concrete actions from governments to ensure Food Sovereignty for our Peoples and our Peasant Rights

Published

on

Press Release for the International Day of Action for Peoples’ Food Sovereignty against Transnational Corporations – October 16, 2023


On the 16th of October, as we commemorate the International Day of Struggle for People’s Food Sovereignty, we, La Via Campesina, the global movement of peasants and rural communities, once again take to the streets, flood social media platforms, and occupy public squares and spaces. Our aim is to hold those responsible for the severe food crisis humanity is facing accountable. In today’s world, wars continue to rage destructively. A clear example is Israel’s recent genocidal strategy, which for 10 days has completely denied 2.5 million Palestinians access to essential resources such as food, water and electricity, actions that undeniably constitute war crimes. Our struggle for peoples’ sovereignty over their food and our efforts to confront those who deprive them of it remains a top priority for La Via Campesina.

We denounce the World Food Forum organized by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) this week in Rome and the ongoing transnational corporations takeover of FAO.

We are highly concerned about the World Food Forum, which is especially encouraging the action of global youth, linking them to new technologies and innovation in the food systems promoted by agribusiness. We do not need a reinvention of corporate power to solve world’s hunger, we need instead our governments to have autonomy to decide about their food. We need our peasant rights to be respected and promoted.

It is we, the peasants, who are guaranteeing food for our peoples on a daily basis, and yet we are also among the populations most affected by these crises. Our lands, our water and our seeds continue to be grabbed and owned by agribusiness transnationals. The climate crisis, exacerbated by extractivism, is displacing millions of us and our families, and hunger and malnutrition continue to increase globally. Our peasant rights to a dignified life and social justice continue to be violated. Our lives are at constant risk.

The call of the global peasant movement remains to return to the land, to continue our ancestral legacy of healthy peasant production with agroecological proposals and equitable participation. We aim to integrate new generations, diversities, and alliances in our territories.

This call for action, also want to highlight the process that social movements have initiated towards building a Nyeleni Global Forum for Food Sovereignty in 2025. At this point, we are engaged in a collective effort to broaden and strengthen the struggle for food sovereignty, by forming alliances with climate justice movements, labor unions, feminist groups, and environmental organizations to foster shared proposals for systemic change. Our upcoming 8th International Conference to be held in Colombia from December 1st to 8th will also be a decisive space for convergence and mobilization.

This October, we will continue to negotiate for a binding treaty to effectively challenge transnational corporate power and impunity. Together with civil society, we are in a campaign to end the human-rights violations that transnational corporations continue to do with impunity on our lands and territories. From 23 to 27 of 2023, a peasant delegation will participate in the 9th Session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG), charged with elaborating a UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (OEIGWG). Legal progress at the international level would allow us to take transnational agribusiness corporations to court whenever they violate our rights, just as they do with our States when they fail to comply with their imposed norms.

A new achievement: UNDROP now has a Special Procedure at the United Nations

Our current struggle for Food Sovereignty is making great progress in the international legal framework. Since the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas – UNDROP, we have not stopped mobilizing for its implementation at global, national, regional and local levels. When COVID restrictions were lifted worldwide allowing a return to normal life, LVC and our allies seized the moment to increase pressure for the creation of a Special Procedure (specifically a UN Working Group) on UNDROP at the UN Human Rights Council before the end of 2023.

And we have succeeded. The UN Working Group on UNDROP, adopted in a UN Human Rights Council resolution this October 11, will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the UNDROP, and for providing support and technical assistance to countries to help them better implement the Declaration. This UN Working Group will be very useful to strengthen the promotion and protection of the rights of food producers around the globe. There is no doubt that humanity can use this mechanism to tackle the global crises we face, especially in rural areas. This is a huge victory in our fight for Food Sovereignty.

Urgent actions to safeguarding Food Sovereignty and Human Rights:

  1. Immediate restoration of essential resources: We demand that Israel immediately restore access to essential resources, including food, water, and electricity, to the 2.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. The denial of these basic necessities constitutes a violation of international law and human rights. This request is also extended to all peoples whose Food Sovereignty is being violated by the actions of other States as a result of wars and conflicts like Haiti, Cuba, Niger, among others.
  2. Binding Treaty Against Corporate Impunity: We call for the swift finalization and adoption of a legally-binding treaty that holds transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations. Transnational agribusiness corporations must be held legally responsible whenever they infringe upon our rights.
  3. Full Implementation and Monitoring of UNDROP: We urge the international community to actively support and monitor the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). The newly established UN Working Group on UNDROP should be empowered to ensure that the rights of food producers globally are promoted, protected, and upheld.

Source: viacampesina.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

World Bank is backing dozens of new coal projects, despite climate pledges

Published

on

New research shows that the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group, is providing back-door support to at least 39 new coal projects, constituting over 68 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity throughout China, Indonesia and Cambodia.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private lending arm of the World Bank Group, is indirectly backing dozens of new coal projects throughout Asia, according to a new report, Blowing Smoke: How Coal Finance is Flowing through the IFC’s Paris Alignment Loopholes. The report, based on research conducted by Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia, was published today, in advance of the World Bank Annual Meetings taking place in Marrakech next week.

“We found that the IFC is still backing new coal capacity through its investments in banks and other financial institutions despite its commitments to align those investments with the Paris Agreement,” said David Pred, executive director of Inclusive Development International. “This is the opposite of the sustainable development that IFC purports to promote, and it is having a devastating impact on coal-affected communities throughout Asia and the entire planet in this time of climate peril.”

A planned 700-megawatt coal-fired power plant called Jambi 2, to be located in Indonesia’s Jambi province, is among the new coal projects the IFC is indirectly supporting. The new report focuses on Jambi 2 as a case study for how the IFC’s lending ends up supporting new coal development and the impact that has on local communities. According to local advocates and community members interviewed by Inclusive Development International, Jambi 2 is a project the province doesn’t want and doesn’t need—one that will exacerbate the already devastating impacts of coal development in the area, including air and water pollution and related health issues. Yet Postal Savings Bank of China—an IFC intermediary and a major coal financier in the region—has provided a credit line to Jambi 2’s developer, China Huadian.

“Ongoing coal development in Indonesia, including the Jambi 2 plant, will accelerate climate change and its catastrophic consequences,” said Novita Indri, energy campaigner at Trend Asia. “It’s a slap in the face to Indonesia, an island nation that is uniquely vulnerable to rising sea levels and already suffering from extreme weather events.”

Postal Savings Bank of China is by far the largest financier of coal developers in the IFC’s portfolio. According to data compiled by Inclusive Development International and published alongside the new report, the IFC purchased a $300 million equity stake in Postal Savings Bank in 2015 and the bank has gone on to provide 418 billion RMB ($57.3 billion) in no-strings-attached credit lines and project loans to companies developing dozens of coal-fired power plants in the region. The bank has provided these loans at a time when much of the financial industry is shifting away from coal, implicating the IFC and the World Bank Group in the last vestiges of coal finance and the devastating impacts it has for coal-affected communities and the climate. The authors of the report are calling on the IFC to leverage its influence as a major shareholder to stop Postal Savings Bank from continuing to finance coal development.

“It’s hypocritical for the IFC to allow its banking clients to finance projects like Jambi 2 and other coal development in Asia while at the same time promising to align its lending with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change,” said Kate Geary, co-director of Recourse. “While committing to move away from coal on paper, the World Bank Group is failing to ensure that its investments aren’t  supporting coal power projects that are significant contributors to climate change and that wreak devastation on affected communities.”

These latest revelations come on the heels of reports last month that communities in Indonesia’s Banten province have lodged a formal complaint against the IFC for backing two new massive units in the Suralaya mega-coal complex. Similar complaints have been lodged against the IFC in the past, including regarding its support for coal expansion in the Philippines.

“The IFC has contributed to serious harms related to coal expansion in many countries,” added Pred. “Now it has a responsibility to repair the damage it has done and prevent future harm by requiring that all of its financial intermediary clients, including Postal Savings Bank of China, stop financing coal development immediately.”

Notes for editors:

Regarding IFC’s financial intermediary lending and “no coal” commitments

Inclusive Development International previously followed the money in the IFC’s financial-sector portfolio and published our findings in our Outsourcing Development investigative series, which exposed (among other things) the coal plants and mines the IFC was indirectly backing.

Since then, the World Bank Group has made a series of commitments designed to reform its approach to investing in financial institutions, reduce its exposure to coal and align itself with the Paris Agreement. Most prominently, in 2019 the IFC launched its Green Equity Approach, which requires financial institutions in which it holds shares to halve their coal exposure by 2025 and eliminate it from their portfolios by the end of the decade. In 2023, the IFC closed a major loophole that Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia pointed out in the approach by updating the rules to restrict equity clients from financing any new coal projects.

However, the IFC’s flagship approach aligning its indirect lending operations with the Paris Agreement contains other loopholes and gray areas: it still allows equity clients to underwrite bonds for coal developers, and it allows clients to finance industrial projects that are powered by dedicated coal plants, a concept known as captive coal. And it is unclear how and whether the “no new coal” rule is being applied to existing clients’ corporate financing of coal developers. In fact, as our new research and report show, banks in which the IFC holds equity stakes—including Postal Savings Bank of China—have continued to provide financing to the developers of new coal projects.

Regarding our methodology

For this report, Inclusive Development International traced the International Finance Corporation’s money through financial intermediaries to new coal-fired power capacity in Asia. The full results are here.

We define new coal capacity as projects that have become operational since 2019; projects that are under construction; and projects that have been announced by developers. This data does not include projects that are listed as shelved or canceled, although developers regularly reactivate shelved projects after long periods of inactivity.

For all data on coal plants, including project names, generating capacity, development timelines and project owners, we relied on the Global Energy Monitor, which tracks energy infrastructure around the world. For data on project developers, including their current coal-generating capacities, development plans, and issuances of debt securities, we relied on the Global Coal Exit List, which the IFC also uses  to help its clients identify coal exposures in their portfolios.

All other data comes from research conducted by Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia into corporate filings, the International Finance Corporation’s project disclosures, and site visits in Indonesia.

Source: inclusivedevelopment.net

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter