Connect with us

NGO WORK

What future for seeds under the African Free Trade Area?

Published

2 years ago

on

Angelique Ipanga a teacher and also farmer in a manioc field, Lukolela, Democratic Republic of Congo.
The African Union is putting the finishing touches to the draft protocol on intellectual property rights to the agreement establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Once ratified, this text will form an integral part of the AfCFTA and will be applied across all 54-member countries. The protocol will apply to all categories of intellectual property, including plant varieties, genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Specifically, it will aim to promote “coherent” intellectual property rights policy and a harmonised system of intellectual property protection throughout the continent (article 2.2.).
Given that intellectual property rights privatise agricultural biodiversity – our collective heritage and the cornerstone of food sovereignty – the implications of this protocol on seeds and the rights of peasants and rural communities in Africa must be carefully analysed.
Around the world, free trade agreements are forcing the privatisation of seeds, whether through patents or plant breeders’ rights. These rights enable seed companies to demand royalty payments from farmers for each generation of seeds they use, over a period of 20 to 25 years. According to seed companies such as Syngenta and Bayer, without these payments they will be unable to invest in research.
This same system is now rapidly gaining ground in Africa, potentially upsetting relationships between citizens within members states, and even between the member states themselves.
Article 8 of the draft protocol addresses this issue. It stipulates that state parties shall provide protection for new plant varieties through a legal system that includes farmers’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and rules on access and benefit sharing “as appropriate”.
Furthermore, it adds that states shall comply with “additional obligations” set out in an annex to be developed once the protocol is adopted. Upon adoption, this annex, along with the annexes on traditional knowledge and genetic resources, will have the same legal value as the protocol (article 41 of the protocol).
Our analysis of these provisions seeks to address the following questions: What does this protocol mean for African countries? How will they implement it? What impact will it have on farmers and food sovereignty in Africa?
The meaning of the protocol
Spurred on by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and under pressure from other bodies, half of all African countries have already introduced an intellectual property rights system on seeds. The vast majority follow the model of the 1991 convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). (See graph.)
This system is highly criticised for promoting genetic uniformity of crops and preventing peasants from reusing seeds. The question now is whether the AfCFTA protocol will challenge this dominant system. The final draft text suggests that the answer is ‘no’.
Despite progressive-sounding references to farmers’ rights and benefit sharing, the protocol sets out the same requirements as the WTO, i.e., states must set up a plant variety protection system. Given that half the African countries already adhere to the UPOV model, it is highly likely that the AfCFTA protocol will simply reinforce, or even accelerate, this trend.
The protocol’s approach, consisting of requiring both the protection of breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights, as well as rules on access to genetic resources, is a ploy in the sense that the use of “as appropriate” strips it of all relevance. Presented in this way, the provision becomes more of a guideline, with member states left to apply this article in their own territories as they see fit.
Naturally, it will be implemented in line with their existing obligations, whether these stem from the WTO, the African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI) or the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO). This “fait accompli”, with half the states already bound to UPOV to varying degrees, makes it difficult, or even impossible, to deviate from the status quo.
UPOV in conflict with all other agreements
As UPOV does not recognise farmers’ rights, whether derived from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture or the UN Declaration, it enters into direct conflict with these agreements. UPOV refuses to include rules on access to resources and benefit sharing, as set out in the Convention on Biological Diversity or, once again, the FAO Treaty. Since they are not “suitable” for UPOV, these additional elements will not materialise.
The conflict goes further still. In articles 18 and 20, the AfCFTA protocol requires states to oblige breeders to respect three conditions before they are granted a right to a new variety. These three conditions are: (i) to state the source of traditional knowledge or resources utilised in developing the new variety, (ii) to provide proof of free, prior and informed consent from the competent authorities under the relevant national regime, and (iii) to demonstrate proof of fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from the use of such resources or knowledge under the relevant national regime.[1] Yet these conditions do not correspond to UPOV rules, so what is the likely outcome?
It is highly likely that the African countries that conform with UPOV will continue to do so, even if they hardly benefit from it. It may be the case that those who wish to go further will do so, by applying additional conditions. However, we cannot see how governments will change the conditions for granting plant variety rights in UPOV member countries. In these countries, there is a risk that the protocol’s provisions will go unheeded.
It is hard to see how the draft protocol could achieve its objective of promoting coherence and harmonising intellectual property rules and principles in Africa if all AfCFTA member countries are given free rein to implement the protocol’s requirements as they see fit. Perhaps the annexes, which are still being negotiated, will shed light on this.
Conflicting farming models
The draft protocol to the AfCFTA agreement comes at a crucial time for Africa. The continent is divided in two on how it views the future of agriculture in Africa and the role of farmers. Some advocate and adhere to the idea of agribusiness taking a lead, with or without the involvement of small farmers. Others are seeking to strengthen family, peasant and autonomous farming and agroecology. These two rather opposing approaches are based on completely different seed systems and discussions about rights.
Across a number of countries, the industrial system promoted by UPOV is coming under fire. This can be seen in Benin, where farmers’ organisations are taking a stand against the government’s proposal to join UPOV. This is also evident in Kenya and Ghana, where legal proceedings are underway to amend or declare unconstitutional UPOV-based plant variety laws. Furthermore, in Southern Africa, a campaign to block alignment with UPOV, precisely because of the threats it poses to family farming in the sub-region, is slowing down progress on the ARIPO project. It can be seen in Tunisia and Mali, where civil society organisations are promoting a completely different approach to seed laws, based on the demands and criteria of the farming communities themselves. Lastly, it is apparent from the many initiatives and caravans run by local communities in alliance with others, lobbying local authorities and raising public awareness to call for an end to UPOV in favour of fundamental respect for farmers’ rights.
This conflict between production models and rights systems is reflected in the field of animal farming. The government of Burkina Faso was recently granted an exclusive right to the term “poulet bicyclette” (“bicycle chicken”, a common term for native chicken). It is a registered trademark and applies to live chickens, chicken meat and veterinary products for chickens. This exclusive right is effective in all 17-member countries of OAPI for a period of 10 years. However, the term “bicycle chicken” has been used across Western and Central Africa for a very long time to refer to local breeds, peasant breeds. It represents a collective heritage and is central to many agroecology projects. Benin has now banned the sale of frozen chickens, known as “morgue chickens”, across its territory in order to promote the farming of native chicken breeds, i.e., “their” bicycle chickens. Will the government of Burkina Faso exercise its veto or monopoly rights against this policy? Even the AfCFTA protocol supports this approach.
Original Source: Grain

Related posts:

Pan African countries urged not to infringe on female human rights African governments are giving in to corporate pressure and undermining local seed systems – report African bishops demand end to ‘land grabs’ by private companies Finnfund invests US$15m in African agri supply chain business ETG African Faith Communities Tell Gates Foundation, “Big Farming is No Solution for Africa

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

World Bank Project Cancelled in a Landmark Victory for Tanzanian Villagers

Published

2 days ago

on

January 22, 2025

By

—FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—

January 21, 2025; 9:00 AM PST

Media Contact: amittal@oaklandinstitute.org, +1 510-469-5228

  • In a major victory for Tanzanian pastoralists and farmers, the World Bank funded REGROW project, which enabled extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, livelihood restrictions and forced evictions to expand Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA) is cancelled.
  • Amidst an ongoing investigation by the independent Inspection Panel, the Bank first suspended the project in April 2024, citing the Tanzanian government’s noncompliance with safeguards for resettlement and grievance mechanisms.
  • The cancellation comes after nine United Nations Special Rapporteurs expressed their concerns and demands to the Tanzanian government and the World Bank around forced evictions and human rights abuses linked to the project.
  • Over 84,000 people in 28 villages remain at risk of eviction, abuses, and livelihood restrictions. Impacted communities call on the World Bank and the government of Tanzania to cancel the park expansion so they can remain on their lands and reclaim their lives.

Oakland, CA – The World Bank’s US$150 million Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth (REGROW) project in Tanzania is cancelled. The decision came after 16 months of advocacy by the Oakland Institute to hold the Bank accountable for enabling the expansion of RUNAPA and supporting TANAPA, the paramilitary Tanzania National Parks Authority. Its rangers are responsible for egregious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and crippling livelihood restrictions that have terrorized farmer and pastoralist communities in the Mbarali District. The expansion of the Park from one to over two million hectares threatens over 84,000 people.

“This landmark decision is a major victory for the villagers who courageously stood up to stop the project,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “Though forced to stop funding the terror it unleashed, the Bank must now urgently address the serious harms it has enabled and respond to the demands of the communities whose lives are on hold.”

Villagers mobilizing against World Bank-funded evictions in Tanzania

When initially informed of the abuses and violations of its own safeguards in April 2023, the World Bank failed to take action. In June, the Institute filed a request for inspection on behalf of the impacted villagers with the Bank’s Inspection Panel and followed up in September 2023 with a widely covered report, Unaccountable & Complicit.

As a result, the Inspection Panel launched an investigation in November 2023. Amidst the investigation, in a rare move, the World Bank suspended disbursements to the project in April 2024, citing(link is external) the Tanzanian government’s “non-compliance with their Environmental and Social (E&S) obligations… non-compliance related to involuntary resettlement planning activities taking place in RUNAPA,” as well as the absence of a grievance redress mechanism. Continued advocacy led to the project being eventually cancelled in November 2024.

Additional pressure(link is external) to hold the Tanzanian government and the World Bank accountable came from nine United Nations Special Rapporteurs who urged “all necessary interim measures … to prevent any irreparable harm” to affected villagers.

“The initiative of the UN experts is vital given the extent of abuses inflicted by paramilitary rangers on local communities in a country where there is no rule of law,” continued Mittal. “The government and the Bank must be held accountable for the harms caused by their disregard for basic human rights for the sole purpose of increasing tourism revenue,” she concluded.

Impacted communities are demanding the following actions:

  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.

“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

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

Campaign Victory: World Bank Suspends Funding for REGROW, a Conservation Project Responsible for Evictions & Human Rights Abuses in Tanzania URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government on a Rampage Against Indigenous People Justice Denied: East African Court of Justice Grants Tanzanian Government Impunity to Trample Human Rights of the Maasai World Bank extends the Lubigi drainage project dispute resolution process for another six months. CSOs call for meaningful changes in the World Bank’s Dispute Resolution Service to foster access to justice for project-affected communities.
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

West and Central African grassroots organisations reaffirm their commitment against tree monocultures and in defence of their ancestral lands and forests

Published

1 month ago

on

December 24, 2024

By

For almost 10 years, the Informal Alliance against the expansion of Industrial Monocultures in West and Central Africa has had an important role in connecting grassroots organisations and activists and strengthening the resistance against land grabbing and other attacks by oil palm and other plantation companies in the region.

Last November, community activists and grassroots organisations that are part of the Alliance, from 10 countries, gathered at their General Assembly to renew their commitment to the defence of ancestral lands and to keep resisting against neo colonial interests and the corporate takeover of communities’ lands.

See below the full declaration:

Gabon, November 2024

THE MOUILA DECLARATION
of the
Informal Alliance against the expansion o Industrial Monocultures

We, the 60 members gathered at the 6th General Assembly of the Informal Alliance against the expansion of Industrial Monoculture Plantations, in Mouila, Gabon from November 19 to 22, 2024, representing communities and organizations of Gabon, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Congo Brazaville, Liberia, Ghana, Congo Kinshasa, Ivory Coast and Uganda are deeply committed to the fight against land grabbing, particularly by tree plantation companies. LET US ADOPTE this Declaration which marks our conviction in the vital importance of the recognition and return to ancestral community land ownership in Africa, for the well-being of the first occupants.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT:

  • Ancestral lands are home to communities of people with traditional culture and knowledge of nature;
  • Women play a critical role in the defense of their ancestral lands and forests;
  • Community ancestral land in Africa has intrinsic worth and warrants respect regardless of it usefulness in habitants and humanity as a whole;
  • The natural wealth, rights and freedom to their land is being eroded this day at  a frantic and unprecedented  manner and rate because of delibrate harmful development policies clade in colonial legancy;
  • Ancestral community territories illegally occupied during colonial and post-colonial government regimes as concessions to corporations for business development violate the rights of the people and therefore, constitutes serious crimes against human, an illegality is an illegality regardless of the time they were committed;

WE FURTHER ACKNOWLEADGE THAT:

  • Post-colonial governments have failed in their responsibilities by giving true independence to the communities by prioritizing colonial interests by foreign agents by enacting neo-community laws to dislodged and robbed communities of their ancestral land using various opaque notions of national land and/or government land ownership;
  • The threats caused by the senseless acts of grabbing ancestral land and awarding them as concessions to business has brought untold hardship, violence and irreparable damage such loss of lives and biodiversity, entrenched poverty due loss of livelihoods and community property, early child pregnancy, and gender-based violence, etc.
  • African countries that got independence in the 1960s and 70s, today consider communities as belonging to the State and governments and sit in the comfort of their armchairs in faraway land to grant concessions to corporations without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the true of the ancestral landowners.

WE ARE COMMITTED TO:

  • Promote and defend agroecological practices and food sovereignty as a form of resistance;
  • Facilitate the establishment of effective and efficient network of communities, activists and NGOs cooperating at local and international level to understand the strategies and tactics used by corporations to steal communities ancestral land and to develop further strategies and tactics to guide communities to stop land grabbing and recover previous illegal occupied land according to the Alliance objectives;
  • Develop mechanisms that permit all sectors of society, especially the longstanding local populations to nonviolently start the journey to assert their ancestral rights to land fondly referred to by some governments as national land and/or state own land, be partners in planning, establishment of initiative that add value to the ancestral land;
  • Strengthen nonviolent resistance education and provide training that will improve their ability to confront governments and corporations that want to take over their territories.
  • Strengthen education for nonviolent resistance and provide training that will improve their ability to confront governments and corporations that want to take over their territories.
  • Plead for the authorities to provide young people with access to land in rural areas, facilitate their training and support.

RECOGNIZING that action to protect the living riches and beauty of ancestral land depends, on the full commitment of the affected local people, WE PLEDGE OURSELVES to work wholeheartedly to implement the provisions of this Declaration.

EMPHASZING that the recognition of ancestral land is essential to sustaining human society and conserving our planet, WE INVITE THE MEMBERS AND FRIENDS OF THE ALLIANCE to convey this Declaration far and wide with the purpose of ensuring that the conclusions acre incorporated in daily activities.

Signatories:

• Community members from Gabon
• Musiru Divag de Fougamou Gabon
• Institute of sustainable Agriculture, Grand Bassa county, Jogba clan, Liberia
• Women’s Network Against Rural Plantations Injustice (WoNARPI), Sierra Leone
• Alliance Uganda Chapter
• Witness Radio, Uganda
• Nature Cameroon
• Synaparcam, Cameroon
• COPACO, DRC
• RADD, Cameroon
• Struggle to Economize Future Environment (SEFE), Mundemba, Cameroon
• CPPH, Cote d’Ivoire
• Collectif des Ressortissants et Écologistes des Plateaux Bateke, Gabon
• REFEB, Cote d’Ivoire
• YVE Ghana
• JVE Côte d’Ivoire
• Association Gulusenu du village Doubou, Gabon
• Muyissi Environnement, Gabon
• Komolo Agro Farmers Association Kiryandongo, Uganda
• Ndagize julius, East African, Uganda
• LOOK GREEN, CARE FOUNDATION, Nigeria
• Association les Rassembleurs du Village Mboukou, Gabon
• Joegba United Women Empowerment and Development Organization (JUWEDO), Liberia
• COLLECTIF ADIAKE. Cote d’Ivoire
• CNOP, Congo
• Maloa, Sierra Leone
• World Rainforest Movement
• GRAIN

Source: World Rainforest Movement

Related posts:

Breaking: West and Central African women meet in Senegal over the climate crisis. New publication: Promise, divide, intimidate, and coerce: Tactics palm oil companies use to grab community lands. Summary Edition African women unite on the frontlines of the Climate Crisis Forests Are Not Empty Spaces: To Save the Climate, Recognize Our Land Rights The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil explained: a primer for community organisations
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Urgent Call for Conditionalities on New IFC and EBRD Loan to Oyu Tolgoi Mine

Published

1 month ago

on

December 17, 2024

By

By Accountability Counsel and partners

Joint Statement

December 9, 2024

We, the undersigned civil society organizations (CSOs) and representatives of herders from Mongolia, strongly condemn the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in providing a $100 million loan each, to Oyu Tolgoi (OT). This decision blatantly disregards years of unresolved grievances, environmental harm, and the failure of OT to comply with IFC and EBRD’s safeguard standards, as well as widespread rejection from local herders, CSOs, and even the Mongolian government.

Unresolved Harms and Non-Compliance

OT has failed to address critical issues, including its commitments under the 2017 Herders Complaint Resolution Agreements and IFC and EBRD’s social and environmental safeguards. Longstanding issues include:

  1. Failures in completing Resolution Agreements: Herders continue to struggle to sustain their livelihoods and protect the environment, as the agreements resulting from CAO complaints remain incomplete. The Tripartite Council (TPC), tasked with implementing the 2017 Agreements, has failed to ensure meaningful involvement of herders in safeguarding their rights and livelihoods.
  2. Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) Seepage: Despite implementing a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) as required by lenders to address the seepage from tailings cell 1 (TC1), OT has neither adequately mitigated the seepage nor transparently disclosed its full extent. Recent data reveals worsening water quality, with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels rising dramatically downstream.
  3. Pasture and Water Scarcity: The mine’s expansion plans threaten vital grazing lands and water resources. Springs that once supported herders’ livelihoods have dried up, forcing herders to compete for limited resources. Moreover, the Dugat-Khaliv river, a key water source for herders, has been diverted around TC2 in a diversion channel without capacity to convey flood-level flows during rainy periods, leading to significant water loss for downstream herders.
  4. Environmental Failures: OT consistently fails to meet the design goal of 64% tailings solid content, resulting in inevitable seepage from the additional pressure exerted by excess water in the tailings cell. This and other design inefficiencies directly lead to massive water wastage estimated at up to $1.46 million per year.
  5. Inadequate Community Engagement: Herders were not meaningfully consulted about the RAP or OT’s expansion plans, violating IFC and EBRD principles of transparency and participation.

Water Mismanagement and Wastage

OT’s operations exacerbate water scarcity through inefficient tailings management. Water wasted due to tailings solids being below design criteria results in significant financial and environmental costs:

  • From 2013-2017, OT achieved 56% solids (8% below design standard), wasting $1.46 million worth of water annually. From 2018-2024, OT achieved nearly 60% solids (4% below design standard) on average, meaning OT wastes $730,000 annually on replacement water. OT has approximately wasted $12.41 million since 2017 from losing 248.2 million liters of water.
  • Oyu Tolgoi (OT) must attain the highest percentage of solid content as specified by its design criteria, 64%, to effectively prevent water scarcity in the South Gobi Desert and ensure improved water access for herders. While lenders argue that the 60-64% range meets the standard, 2012 ESIA states that “Final concentrate will be thickened to 65% solids” which proves otherwise. The TSF operating consistently below 60% results in excessive water waste, posing severe risks to the fragile desert ecosystem and the livelihoods of herders who rely on limited freshwater resources. Achieving the 64% target is not merely an option but a critical necessity to minimize environmental harm, optimize resource use, and uphold OT’s responsibility to local communities.
  • This inefficiency compounds the structural weakness of tailings dams, necessitating costly redesigns and increasing the risk of catastrophic failure. Concerns Over Project Categorization and Political Risks We are deeply concerned that IFC and EBRD categorized OT’s expansion as a Category B project, despite its significant and irreversible impacts on herders and the environment. This misclassification downplays the scale of the risks, undermining proper oversight. Additionally, the Mongolian government is in a disagreement on additional financing that will add more debt, and the Mongolian Parliament Resolution #103 requires an independent audit of underground mine cost overrun which has not been disclosed. Approving new financing in such a contentious political and social environment poses significant risks to the project’s viability.

Recommendations and Conditionalities

IFC and EBRD must impose strict conditionalities on OT before any disbursements begin and ensure the conditionalities are placed in the lending agreement, including:

  1. Fulfillment of Past Commitments:
    • Include the 2017 Herders Complaint Resolution Agreements (HCRAs) in lenders’ compliance requirements and fully implement them.
    • Amend the RAP to include routine medical assessments for herders and their animals impacted by the contaminated water from the TSF seepage, and update Stakeholder Engagement Plan to involve the wider herder community impacted by the seepage.
    • Disclose all the important data from the attachments and annexes of the RAP.
  2. Water and Tailings Management Improvements:
    • Achieve the 64% as the highest solid content target for tailings as per the original ESIA.
    • Disclose the full extent of TSF seepage impacts, including chemical contamination and health risks.
  3. Protection of Herders’ Livelihoods:
    • Permanently halt land acquisitions that displace herders and prioritize using existing lease areas for future tailings cells.
    • Construct a permanent Dugat-Khaliv diversion channel based on maximum flood probabilities.
  4. Transparency and Meaningful Engagement:
    • Disclose all environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) for expansion plans, implementation of the ESAP from the initial OT project loan, and OT Green Investment Plan.
    • Take actions to strengthen TPC functions through assessing TPC Charter and the implementation of the HCRAs
    • Ensure meaningful consultation with affected communities on all project aspects. This includes consultations on the expansion plans, environmental and social assessment related documents and strengthening of the Tripartite Council with valid herder representation as the body responsible to address herders’ concerns around the OT project.

The approval of new financing to OT without addressing these critical issues perpetuates harm to herders and the environment while eroding public trust in IFC’s and EBRD’s commitment to sustainable development. We call on IFC and EBRD to uphold their safeguards and suspend agreement signing and financing until OT achieves full compliance and fulfills its obligations to herders and the environment.

(Link to full statement in English and Mongolian)

Contact Information:
Sukhgerel Dugersuren, Oyu Tolgoi Watch, 976-99185828, otwatch@gmail.com
Battsengel Lkhamdoorov, Gobi Soil, 976-88705595, tsengel_5595@yahoo.com
Julio Castor Achmadi, Accountability Counsel, julio@accountabilitycounsel.org
Nina Lesikhina, Bankwatch Network, ninalesikhina@bankwatch.org

Signatories:
Gobi Soil, Mongolia
Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia
Center for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia
AFE, Mongolia
APPDO, Mongolia
CA NGO, Mongolia
GFS, Mongolia
MFSW, Mongolia
RwB Mongolia
SR NGO, Mongolia
SWA, Mongolia
SWB NGO, Mongolia
Accountability Counsel
CEE Bankwatch Network, Regional
Bank Climate Advocates, USA
Bank Information Center, USA
Both ENDS, the Netherlands
Center for Community Mobilization and Support, Armenia
Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur, India
Earth Thrive, UK/Serbia
Friends with Environment in Development (FED), Uganda
GAIA, Regional
Gender Action, USA
Green Advocates
Initiative for Right View (IRV), Bangladesh
International Accountability Project
INWOLAG
Kazakhstan International bureau for human rights, Kazakhstan
London Mining Network
LSD, Senegal
NGO Forum on ADB, Regional
Peace Point Development Foundation-PDF, Nigeria
Recourse
Samata & mm&P, India
Sinergia Animal, Brazil
Urgewald, Germany
Witness Radio, Uganda.

Source: Accountability Counsel.

Related posts:

EBRD launches new agribusiness strategy Statement: The Energy Sector Strategy 2024–2028 Must Mark the End of the EBRD’s Support to Fossil Fuels URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government on a Rampage Against Indigenous People URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government Resorts to Cattle Seizures to Further Restrict Livelihoods of Maasai Pastoralists UNCCD COP16: NGOs issue a stark warning and call for urgent actions to deal with the escalating threats of desertification, land degradation, and drought.
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter