View previous stories
	Raising the bar on Human Rights in Public Development Banking by FORUS, Rights in Development, agencies   Nov. 2020   It is time public development banks put their money where our future lies, by Iara Pietricovsky de Oliveira, Eleonore Morel & Tasneem Essop | International Forum of NGO Platforms (FORUS)   The world faces the gravest global health crisis in a century, intertwined with the rising social and economic inequality, the sixth mass extinction of species and record-breaking ecological and climate disasters. Against this backdrop of global upheaval, we call on public development banks meeting this week for the Finance in Common Summit to become part of the solution towards building a just, equitable, inclusive and sustainable world.   To do so, they must commit to devoting their considerable financial resources and influence to achieving a safe, healthy and prosperous future for all. That is why today more than 320 civil society organisations signed a joint letter urging the public development banks gathered at the summit to transform their financing models.   The COVID-19 pandemic is only the latest example of the multi-faceted crises our societies are confronted with and which could push 150 million more people into extreme poverty by 2021. It is time to address the root cause of such systemic crises, otherwise we risk dramatically increasing the plight faced by billions of people.   Women and girls, as well as those experiencing the cumulative impacts of various vulnerabilities, are affected the most and worst. Whatever the duration of this pandemic, the challenges the world is facing deserve global answers to meet the needs of local communities.   Public development banks should not repeat the mistakes of the past. They must seize the opportunity of the Finance in Common Summit to initiate a deep and rapid shift in the way they operate and place democracy, inclusiveness, equality, solidarity, and the common good at the core of their actions.   Public money should only be spent to promote the wellbeing of people and the planet. Not a single penny can go towards the violation of human rights, economic, social and cultural rights, or the rights of Indigenous Peoples, nor should it allow for the destruction of nature.   It is time public banks take a collective stand to stop money going towards fossil fuels and other sectors that fuel the climate and biodiversity crisis. We believe that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, limiting global warming to 1.5°C by fully implementing the Paris Agreement and protecting nature should be the key drivers of action over the coming decade.   Through a rights-based approach and strong mechanisms for meaningful participation of civil society at all stages, from the development of policies to the evaluation of their impacts, public development banks should enhance the respect of human rights and promote community-led development.   Their direct and indirect operations should promote resilience-building and the development of essential and qualitative public services, support anti-corruption and anti-tax-avoidance efforts, and adhere to a “do-no-harm” principle so that their financing does not undermine climate and environmental objectives, increase the burden of debt, or expand inequalities.   To ensure accountability, the highest transparency standards, reporting guidelines, and risk and impact assessment methodologies must be applied by all public development banks and their intermediaries.   The current context is dire and highlights yet again the urgency of rethinking development finance. It requires thinking one step ahead; it's not only about how public money is being spent, it also means addressing the largely negative impacts that public-private partnerships have on communities.   These efforts must be supported by countries providing the right mandate, policies, measures and the necessary resources to public financial institutions.   The public development banks gathered at the summit should act immediately to transform their financing models, by adopting the commitments set out in our joint letter. Their public interest mandate must be clear, their governance transparent and accountable.   Civil society will continue to play its part to ensure that the response to the current global economic crisis brings economic, social and ecological transformation. If not now, when?   * Iara Pietricovsky de Oliveira, is president of the International Forum of NGO Platforms (FORUS), Eleonore Morel, chief executive officer of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Tasneem Essop, is executive director of the Climate Action Network.   * Joint CSO Statement: http://forus-international.org/en/resources/193   Nov. 2020   Joint global response to the outcome of the Finance in Common Summit. (Eurodad)   Today the first Finance in Common Summit (FiC) - which brought together 450 Public Development Banks (PDBs) - concluded with an official declaration. The summit aimed to align PDB activities with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and advance commitments towards delivering global public goods, including universal healthcare. As recognised in the official statement “combined, the volume of funding invested by the community of all PDBs amounts to about USD 2.3 trillion annually”.   Development movements from across the world - The Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), The African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD), The Latin American Network for Economic and Social Justice (Latindadd), Third World Network (TWN) and The European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) - have issued the following joint response:   'We are disappointed that the summit falls short of the expectation that it would contribute concrete actions in key areas that would make a substantial contribution to ‘build forward better’ for people and the planet. Despite these concerns, we do welcome some of the language on PDBs’ role in delivering a resilient, inclusive and sustainable recovery post Covid-19, including in advancing gender equality , women’s rights and delivering climate mitigation activities'.   These are our main concerns:   First, proposals by PDBs are the same old tried and failed recipes: a firm belief in capital market development and on the institutions’ capacity to leverage private financial flows, which have proved to not deliver in the public interest. No specific references are included on the need to build new ways to ensure accountability.   Second, no commitments have been made to strengthen public health systems or ensure high quality and universal public services by, for instance, ending the facilitation of privatisation. There are also no commitments to address ongoing losses and damages caused by climate change or to outline a timeline to end fossil fuel investment once and for all.   Third, the PDBs gathered at the Summit - and the G20 governments backing them - do not offer a concrete response to the current sovereign debt crisis that limits the capacity of developing countries to deal in an effective way with the multiple crises that they face: http://bit.ly/36p9Zsg   Nov. 2020   Raising the bar on Human Rights at the European Investment Bank. (Devex)   The European Investment Bank (EIB) has been called on to change how it assesses the human rights impact of its projects, as a report from two NGOs released Monday argues the multilateral lender must be “deeply reformed” if it is to live up to its development potential.   The report, by Counter Balance and Bankwatch, follows an open letter from 15 civil society organizations last month calling for EIB to beef up its rights framework for those affected by its work.   Around 10% of EIB financing — €7.9 billion ($9.38 billion) in 2019 — goes to projects outside the European Union, including exposure in 43 of 59 least-developed countries and fragile states.   Citing lending in countries such as Laos and China, as well as projects that the NGOs say have required resettling or displacing people in Senegal and India, the report’s authors ask whether “EIB services did not spot sufficient risks related to human rights in these projects to trigger a dedicated assessment. Or is it simply that there was no human rights screening performed at all?”   The NGOs want EIB to adopt a new human rights strategy, including dedicated human rights due diligence screening by the bank itself before every project goes ahead.   “There is also room for the European Commission and European External Action Service to play a more active role in the appraisal process at the EIB,” the report states.   “Before approving a project, the Commission should ensure that the EIB has properly assessed human rights risks early in the project cycle, and it should oppose the project when red flags emerge.”   The bank’s spokesperson emailed that “EIB has never stopped assessing the human rights aspects of its projects,” adding that the current method of considering the “likelihood, frequency, and severity of human rights impacts” as part of the environmental and social assessment allows for an “interrelated analysis.”   At the same time, the spokesperson wrote that “the question of using stand-alone human rights assessments will.. be considered in our forthcoming review of our Environmental and Social Framework,” expected in the first half of next year. The review is a chance to “clarify and strengthen” language on the bank’s human rights obligations, the spokesperson wrote.   In their report, the NGOs argue that other shortcomings on transparency and anti-money laundering, as well as too few staff in low-income countries, mean that EIB would have to be “deeply reformed” before becoming the EU’s preferred development bank — one option now under consideration by EU countries.   The report and open letter are timed to coincide with this week’s Finance in Common summit of the world’s 450 public development banks, which NGOs have criticized for neglecting the rights of Indigenous people, human rights defenders, climate change and biodiversity goals, tax avoidance and illict finance.   (Towards Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence: Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights companies have a responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence. However, 40% of the biggest companies in the world evaluated by the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark in 2018 failed to show any evidence of identifying or mitigating human rights issues in their supply chains. Until recently, legal developments have put an emphasis on promoting transparency, but there is growing momentum worldwide to require companies to undertake human rights due diligence).   http://www.devex.com/news/eib-eyes-human-rights-rethink-amid-criticism-98505 http://counter-balance.org/publications/ngos-urge-eib-to-raise-the-bar-on-human-rights-ahead-of-banks-summit http://bit.ly/3eKkEjC   Sep. 2020   Global development summit needs human rights focus, say 200 organizations from around the world. (Rights in Development)   In a letter addressed to the French Development Agency, over 200 organizations around the world are calling for the principles of a human rights-based and community-led development to be included and prioritized both in the agenda and in the outcomes of the Finance in Common Summit, a high-level gathering of all Public Development Banks, which will take place in Paris on 9-12 November.   From November 9th to 12th, 2020, the French Development Agency will convene the first global summit of all Public Development Banks (PDBs). Gathering PDBs from around the world, it is aimed to provide a collective response to global challenges, reconciling short-term responses to the Covid-19 crisis with sustainable recovery measures, redirecting financial flows towards sustainable development objectives.   The summit is highly relevant and timely, but for a truly comprehensive and inclusive dialogue, it should draw lessons from the past to shape the strongest future with full participation of the communities impacted by PDB projects and supporting civil society organizations.   In many instances, PDB supported activities have exacerbated poverty and inequality and human rights abuses such as reprisals against human rights defenders and forced evictions, without meaningful redress for affected communities.   The summit should include reflection and discussion on the importance of respecting international human rights standards in achieving sustainable recovery goals, including addressing human rights abuses widely documented in PDB supported investments and projects.   The summit should contend with the challenges of increased investment from PDBs lacking robust standards for human rights, social and environmental protection, climate change, and anti-corruption, or where those standards exist, how to address failures to follow them in practice.   The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted and aggravated the failures of the health, social, and economic systems, requiring a deep rethinking of the way governments, PDBs, and other actors operate.   Several grassroots community groups and organisations have been calling on PDBs to ensure that the funding and support they provide for the Covid-19 response, and during the economic recovery period, respects human rights and leads to economic, social and environmental justice for those who are most vulnerable.   New impetus in attaining the core principle of “leave no one behind” is needed.   We welcome the opportunity to engage with PDBs during the summit to better serve the principles and goals of international human rights standards, the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), transparency, and accountability.   To that end however, and as a matter of credibility and efficiency, it must be a priority to ensure human rights and community needs are explicitly discussed and part of the joint declaration foreseen at the end of the summit.   As stated by OHCHR last year: “with the most pivotal decade of SDG implementation ahead of us, human rights are not only the right way, but the smart way to accelerate progress for more equitable and sustainable development. Development is not just about changing the material conditions …. It is also about empowering people with voice … to be active participants in designing their own solutions and shaping development policy. … Empowering people means moving beyond purely technocratic solutions and treating people as passive objects of aid or charity. People are empowered when they are able to claim their rights and to shape the decisions, policies, rules and conditions that affect their lives.”   As SDGs are at the core of the summit, human rights and participation of communities are then key. That requires adapting the agenda and the expected outcomes. Our recommendations on ensuring an inclusive event follow:   1. Human Rights should be reflected in the core agenda of the summit, attendance and participation. As conceived, the research conference and summit do not appear to provide specific space to human rights defenders and community representatives. Commitment to public participation and protection of civil society space have long been recognised as essential to ensuring effective development.   Human rights and grassroots organizations, human rights defenders, and communities should guide the future of the development model, and therefore should be involved in organizing, contributing to the agenda, and participating in the summit. It is a matter of priority to have human rights defenders and communities directly impacted by PDB activities at the table.   2. The principles of a human rights-based and community-led development should be included and highlighted on the expected deliverables of the summit including research papers and collective statements. We encourage governments and PDBs to make a commitment to reinforce and strengthen the principles of human rights-based and community-led development in PDBs’ mandate and governance; policies and practices; internal culture and incentives; what projects and activities they support and invest in; and how they work with other PDBs, governments and key actors.   These commitments should lead to improvements, such as:   Full and free participation of directly affected communities in all PDB supported activities and projects, and free prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples.   Innovative approaches will have to be developed to address the closing space, risks and challenges for communities, human rights defenders and civil society to meaningfully participate in decisions that impact their lives, livelihoods, environment and resources. Zero tolerance policies against threats and reprisals by PDBs and their clients should be a basic requirement.   Identifying investments that are aligned with international human rights, climate protection, and SDGs, and reorienting investments towards sustainable development that respects these standards, while ensuring that the priorities and needs of marginalised persons are met.   Improving social and environmental requirements through inclusion of human rights standards. PDBs and their clients should adhere to human rights principles and standards enshrined in international conventions. Safeguard policies and procedures should ensure that activities financed directly or indirectly by PDBs, respect human rights, do not contribute to human rights abuse, and contribute to equitable, inclusive development that benefits all persons.   Developing and improving transparency, monitoring, oversight, grievance and accountability mechanisms to actively prevent PDB activities and investments from undermining human rights.   Ensuring private sector clients or partners also adopt high human rights and environmental standards, and do not avoid or evade taxes.   Development of common guidance by PDBs on ex ante human rights due diligence and impact assessments in project investments and in support for economic reform policies or programs. This includes identification of contextual and specific risks, prevention and mitigation strategies, and remedy in line with international human rights norms. Ensure that these assessments are developed in close consultation with affected communities, and are updated iteratively based on changing conditions and new information.   Developing coordinated approaches to ensure that PDB supported activities do not exacerbate debt or contribute to cutbacks in public expenditure that will negatively impact human rights or access to essential services for the most vulnerable.   As reiterated by the OHCHR, effective governance for sustainable development requires non-discriminatory, inclusive, participatory, and accountable governance.   With the most pivotal decade of SDG implementation ahead of us — and in the context of intersecting health, environmental, economic and social crises building greater integration and coherence between the development and human rights agendas will be key: “Human rights are not only a guide on the right way to achieve SDG implementation, but the smart way to accelerate more sustainable and equitable development”.   PDBs should open channels for the meaningful participation of communities, human rights defenders, and civil society groups in the appraisal, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of their projects and activities, as well as in their decision-making processes.   For these reasons, the agenda and the deliverable of the summit should duly reflect the centrality of human rights and community-led development to effective and sustainable development.   http://rightsindevelopment.org/news/letter-finance-in-common-summit-human-rights/ http://rightsindevelopment.org/human-rights-abuses-development-finance-reports/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/finance-in-common-summit-global-south-movements-require-public-financial-institution-to-stop-funding-harmful-projects-for-communities-and-the-environment/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/european-companies-should-stop-putting-profit-over-people-and-planet/ http://news.trust.org/item/20200908135525-kty7l http://news.trust.org/item/20211007093207-0e1m8/   * Access the joint civil society letter via the link below. Visit the related web page
	The OECD has not delivered. The world needs an answer now, not further delays by Joseph Stiglitz Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT)   Oct. 2020   In the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was tasked in 2013 with stopping global corporations from shifting profits to tax havens and ending the race to the bottom in corporate tax rates. Seven years later, as the world suffers the consequences of the worst recession in nine decades, the OECD has not delivered, as demonstrated by its latest announcement.   The misplaced sense that national interest is served by protecting multinationals has prevailed over genuine, global public interest with the result that multinationals continue to dodge taxes that could help pay for public expenditure to support health, incomes and employment.   The current proposals have not obtained agreement, despite having sacrificed all ambition and simplicity in the search for support of the dominant OECD member countries.   And the process is unlikely to succeed as long as it continues to promote only marginal reform and excludes most countries from real equal participation, while allowing a few to protect ‘their’ multinationals at the expense of public services and economic recovery everywhere.   What is needed is an inclusive process, global leadership and proposals for fundamental reform in the public – rather than corporate - interest.   In the midst of a pandemic, countries cannot afford to wait. Governments should move unilaterally to introduce interim measures to ensure that profitable companies, in particular those in the tech sector, can contribute to a just recovery.   Such unilateral measures can bring effective pressure to bear on the international community for genuinely fair, international tax reforms. It can also support greater revenue raising for as long as wider reforms are blocked by leading OECD members.   Quotes of ICRICT commissioners (please feel free to use them):   José Antonio Ocampo, Professor at Columbia University and ICRICT Chair:   “The OECD's announcement is bad news for multilateralism. It is time for powerful countries to consider global interest rather than protecting their own multinationals to deliver ambitious and comprehensive reforms. But if global reforms are hard to come by, it is time for countries to move unilaterally or at regional level to introduce interim measures. This will both deliver desperately needed resources now and create the necessary pressure to force change"   Joseph Stiglitz, Professor at Columbia University and ICRICT commissioner:   “The proposals at the OECD are simply not adequate, they really represent the capture of this agenda by the multinational corporations and the countries that are closely allied with those multinational corporations. The old system of taxation is not fit for purpose. We have to shift to a formulaic principle where you allocate profits in proportion to sales, employment, capital stock.   Eva Joly, ex-Member of the European Parliament, ICRICT commissioner:   “It is a terrible disappointment that in these Coronavirus times, with the States needing so desperately to get more tax revenues, the OECD has once more only the interests of the multinational companies in focus. We expected the OECD to come forward with a minimum taxation rate to stop the endless race to the bottom.   From now on, we know that the only hope for citizens are in the European Union. The reform is ready to be able to tax in a more equal way the multinational companies, adopted by the parliament, but blocked in Council due to the unanimity rule. Ursula von Leyden has promised she will use the art 116 of the treaty to get out of the unanimity rule and take the reform to a majority vote. She will do so, now that the OECD has failed”   Jayati Ghosh, former Professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University and ICRICT commissioner:   “Developing countries are facing existential threats from the health pandemic and climate change. Thus far, the global community has failed to enable governments in these countries to undertake the required increases in public spending. The most recent—and major—failure is of minimal international tax cooperation to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of taxes, without shifting profits to low tax jurisdictions.   The OECD process offered only marginal changes, but now even those have not been delivered. If the majority of the world’s population is not to suffer untold damage because of inadequate public spending in the face of such huge challenges, governments must now take action on their own and form coalitions that push through changes that introduce unitary taxation based on shares of sales/users and employment in different countries”.   Irene Ovonju-Odida is a member of the South Centre Tax steering committee and ICRICT commissioner:   “New rules should equitably reflect and account for the labor, natural resources, infrastructure and consumption developing countries contribute to profit margins of multinational corporations, much of which is lost through illicit financial flows. It is time for developing countries to require evidence, based on data, of the projected impact of the OECD proposals under BEPS 2.0 on their domestic revenues.   Ultimately, the UN is the only truly inclusive legitimate negotiating forum for developing countries to achieve fair rules on new taxing rights based on where economic activities that add value take place”.   Leonce Ndikumana, Director of the African Development Policy Program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and ICRICT commissioner:   “The announcements of the OECD, which promotes the interests of multinationals over those of the most disadvantaged populations, leave no doubt: African countries can no longer wait. They must begin to introduce unilateral measures, such as to require the digital giants, that have been at the forefront of tax avoidance, to pay their fair share of taxes. Ironically, digital multinationals have been the big winners from the pandemic.”   KEY FIGURES:   * Globally, tax avoidance diverts 40% of foreign profits to tax havens, according to ICRICT commissioner Gabriel Zucman. You can explore the world map to see how much profit and tax revenue your country loses (or attracts) here.   * IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department estimates annual total corporate tax losses associated with profit shifting at more than $500bn, with $400bn for OECD member states and around $200bn for developing countries per annum.   * Africa is losing nearly $89bn a year in illicit financial flows equivalent to 3,7% of the continent’s GDP, amounting to more than it receives in development aid, a new United Nation study shows.   * American multinationals alone have been estimated to cause the EU to lose nearly 25 billion euros in corporate taxes annually.   * Illicit financial activity has already, and is expected to, increase during the COVID-19 crisis, with developing countries set to suffer the most from the instability and shifted attention.   * Developing countries rely relatively more on corporate tax income as a source of government revenues. Corporate tax represents 15% of total tax revenues in Africa and in Latin America, compared to 9% in OECD countries.   * Because of the pandemic, global tax revenues will probably fall in an even in a stronger way than the 11.5% decline they experienced from 2007 to 2009. Visit the related web page
	View more stories