Suchergebnisse

Focusing on supporting "reformers" - those with a genuine commitment to reforms - is a way of trying to start on auspicious footing by targeting those with an existing interest in seeing good governance of extractive industries take root. While providing resources to bolster the technical capacity of these actors will be a critical aspect of their prospects for success, another is helping them to more effectively interact with their political contexts. Indeed, for the potential of reformers to drive and sustain relevant policy and institutional changes to be realized, the incentive and power dynamics that can impede these actors must be better understood and more effectively addressed. CCSI has been carrying out research on some of the main political challenges facing actors within governments committed to advancing governance reforms for the extractive industries in their countries and developing ideas for how these might be addressed more effectively. To read some of the highlights of this work, please see the think piece, Unlocking the Power of Reformers to Achieve Better Progress on Extractives Governance. Key findings are also summarized in this presentation.

Meaningful progress on improving the governance of extractive industries requires actors who have a strong interest in bringing this progress about, "reformers", and who have the power to do so. However, reformers in government often face an uphill battle that can involve major personal, professional and political risks coming from powerful actors who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. To address these risks and help improve the prospects of reformers driving real change on the ground, CCSI has been exploring opportunities for global actors working on EI governance to play a more active role in Empowering and Incentivizing Reformers. In a new think piece, Unlocking the Power of Reformers to Achieve Better Progress on Extractives Governance, we share some key findings on the political challenges facing reformers and ideas for more actively supporting them in addressing these. This piece draws on the input of dozens of experts, including numerous past and present government officials, working on EI governance as well as on insights derived from CCSI's broader activities focused on the Politics of Extractive Industries.

The extractive industries (EI) are at a critical juncture. A period of significant commodity price volatility is intersecting with the global energy transition and, more recently, the major social, political, and economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic – a combination of forces creating both uncertainty and potentially major shifts in how EI are developed and governed. As EI governance practitioners grapple with these shifts, and the challenges and opportunities they bring, transparency will be an essential tool. However, practitioners need to think—and work—more politically as they develop and deploy this tool moving forward to make the most of its potential. This discussion piece is one aggregation of perspectives, ideas, and questions coming out of several years of expert consultations, meetings, and interviews undertaken as part of the Executive Session on the Politics of Extractive Industries convened by the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. The piece focuses on the ways in which political realities can shape the efficacy and impact of efforts to advance various goals through transparency of extractive industries (EI transparency). The authors suggest that more systematic integration of political considerations into the design and implementation of these efforts may minimize risks of "zombie transparency," and reinforce ultimate positive impacts. It should help those seeking to use EI data for specific purposes, such as to reduce corruption and enhance benefit sharing; unpack monolithic terms; account for incentives along the transparency lifecycle; and realize yet more of the potential of information disclosures. This is an introductory piece intended to catalyze and provoke critical thinking, debate, further investigation, and, ultimately, practical experimentation. It will be accompanied by a series of blog posts authored by different members of the Executive Session and other EI experts to explore some of the themes touched on below in greater detail, e.g. through country- or sector-specific lenses.

Indigenous and tribal peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent has transformative potential: potential to safeguard a variety of rights specific to indigenous and tribal peoples and potential to transform the power relations between peoples, governments, and extractives companies. Yet, this potential is far from being realized in the countries studied for this report. This gap between intention and reality is no coincidence. The most powerful entities within governments, when it comes to the fate of these issues, are those with the mandates to attract and develop the extractives sectors. It is these entities that are calling the shots on whether and how the state recognizes FPIC. They, in turn, appear to be driven in part by what they perceive to be the interests and preferences of extractives investors (which in the extreme version can resemble a capture dynamic). Within extractives companies, the most influential actors seem to be those whose interests are not well-aligned with the spirit of FPIC, further stacking the odds against recognition and operationalization of FPIC. Fears of projects being delayed, costs increasing or deals collapsing generate disincentives, which are not adequately counterbalanced by incentives for compliance from legal requirements or perceived benefits. As a result, prior consultation processes are being implemented in place of recognizing FPIC and operationalizing FPIC processes. Even these prior consultation processes are carried out in ways that diminish the potential for meaningful indigenous participation in decision-making, clearly skewed toward advancing the interests of powerful actors in government and the private sector. To the extent to which there are some occasional benefits being realized by those being consulted, these consultations tend to typically reflect male perspectives and lead to gendered outcomes.260 Thus, multiple layers of political realities converge to significantly limit the breadth and depth of efforts to advance FPIC and prior consultation processes. There is growing recognition in the broader development fields focusing on governance that politics matters. This report, and the project in which it is situated, was conceived to shed light on the ways that political realities impact the governance of extractive industries in order to offer practical insights, strategies, and tangible guidance for practitioners focused on addressing implementation gaps, which can be explained in no small part by political realities. This project highlights the importance of politics in the context of FPIC specifically, but some lessons drawn from the research are equally applicable to the field of extractives governance more broadly.

Indigenous and Tribal peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has transformative potential. Yet, there is a considerable gap between the theory and what happens in practice. Global actors supporting recognition of FPIC and effective prior consultation processes usually focus on normative standards and best practices. They concentrate much less on addressing the political challenges and opportunities that shape how these processes unfold. With funding from the Ford Foundation, we looked at the politics of FPIC in Latin America, analyzing how the power and interests of the key players–across governments, companies and indigenous peoples–can determine the fate of FPIC and consultation processes in practice. This research focused on Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, and provides practical options to address key political challenges in hopes of improving outcomes for indigenous and tribal peoples. In addition, we are partnering with Dejusticia and the multi-stakeholder Dialogue Group for Mining in Colombia (GDIAM) to explore further the political impediments to meaningful mining consultation processes in that country, and to field ideas for navigating these more effectively in the future.

Indigenous and Tribal peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has transformative potential. Yet, there is a considerable gap between the theory and what happens in practice. Global actors supporting recognition of FPIC and effective prior consultation processes usually focus on normative standards and best practices. They concentrate much less on addressing the political challenges and opportunities that shape how these processes unfold. With funding from the Ford Foundation, we looked at the politics of FPIC in Latin America, analyzing how the power and interests of the key players–across governments, companies and indigenous peoples–can determine the fate of FPIC and consultation processes in practice. This research focused on Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, and provides practical options to address key political challenges in hopes of improving outcomes for indigenous and tribal peoples. In addition, we are partnering with Dejusticia and the multi-stakeholder Dialogue Group for Mining in Colombia (GDIAM) to explore further the political impediments to meaningful mining consultation processes in that country, and to field ideas for navigating these more effectively in the future.

Background: Investigating the position of restorative justice in the Iranian police system and assessing the limits of police authority in appealing to the principles of restorative justice in victim prevention; Objective: In order to quantify the need for the Iranian police to use the data of the Institution of Restorative Justice in preventing casualties; And the need to amend procedures and laws in this area, taking into account the experiences of other countries; Method: The use of library resources, in the form of a descriptive-analytical research and through phishing, the problem and pathology of the existing authorities are examined. Findings: The findings indicate the weakness of the powers of the Iranian police in using the institution of restorative justice to prevent casualties. However, there are signs of it in the practice of small police units and rural checkpoints. The basis for the need to use this institution by the police is: the need to reduce the vertical intervention of the criminal justice system and the police in the prevention of victimization, the impossibility of compensating all the damages caused by the crime and that prevention is better than repression. Results: It is necessary that the criminal justice system, at the level of legislation and implementation, using the experiences of other countries, expand the appropriate authority to try to meet the right of individuals to security against crime and victimization, and to protect their right to attack. ; Because the potential of the police to use the capacity of restorative justice to prevent casualties has been largely neglected.

Land-based investment in agriculture, forestry, renewable energy, mining, and other natural resources can contribute to sustainable development, but positive outcomes are neither inevitable nor easy to achieve. Responsible land-based investment (RLBI) requires good governance (through laws and policies) as well as good practice. This document focuses on how government officials can improve the governance and practice of RLBI by building stronger political support. Government officials confront complicated political realities on a daily basis. In many places, obstacles to RLBI are not due to a lack of technical expertise or resources, but rather are linked to low levels of commitment from key actors who have influence over relevant outcomes. In other words, government officials who aim to advance RLBI may have the "ability to implement" good policies and practices, but still be stymied by a lack of desire to implement among the powerful. Why is this? Ideas about good practices are processed and implemented through institutions. Institutions are ultimately shaped by people, interests, and the systems and structures within which they operate. Changes in policy or practice, even if technically sound, require the support of powerful actors to take hold.