Suchergebnisse

Transparency is often seen as a means of improving governance and accountability of investment, but its potential to do so is hindered by vague definitions and failures to focus on the needs of key local actors. In this new report focusing on agribusiness, forestry, and renewable energy projects ("land investments"), CCSI grounds transparency in the needs of project-affected communities and other local actors. Transparency efforts that seek to inform and empower communities can also help governments, companies, and other actors to more effectively manage operational risk linked to social conflict. Troublingly, the report finds that: Disclosures around land investments continue to fall short Communities struggle to access disclosed information More action is needed to enable communities to understand available information; and Communities face barriers to using information and to participating in open decision-making processes. Taking a politically informed approach that considers the incentives of powerful actors, the report proposes seven strategies to advance land investment transparency: Driving agendas with community-led processes, such as protocols, bylaws, and development plans Increasing technical support for communities Empowering good faith regulators Implementing multi-stakeholder and participatory processes, when appropriate Factoring community-generated information into investment-related decisions Initiating domestic mechanisms to increase public access to information Extending community participation beyond individual projects to the policy level.

Communities affected by agricultural, forestry, and other resource investments urgently need increased funding for legal and technical support. Without support, communities risk losing access to critical land and resources, suffering human rights violations, or missing opportunities to benefit from investments. A lack of community support can also lead to conflict and challenges that are damaging for companies and host governments. Donors and support providers have found ways to finance support for communities, but such efforts can only extend so far. Promising new opportunities exist for filling the financing gap, yet they will require sustained efforts by a range of actors. This report presents a call to action to help communities secure the support they so crucially need. The report explores options for tapping new funding sources for community support. These include: Government marshaling of funding from companies and others, through taxes, fees, and penalties Basket funds, operated by independent, trusted entities and funded by contributions from multiple actors Market-based impact investments and social impact bonds Direct company funding Third party funding Other solutions for increasing funding or reducing costs, including crowdfunding, generating profits from social enterprises, affordable user fees or in-kind services, contingency and uplift fees, and court-ordered fee shifting. The report also presents overarching considerations for developing a new financing initiative. These include: the initiative's likely cost, efficiency and financial sustainability, political complexity and obstacles, political economy implications, the importance of strong governance mechanisms, and the logistics required to link funding, communities and support providers.

The last decade saw a spike in the acquisition of land in low-income countries by investors seeking to carry out agricultural or forestry projects. In many of these countries, agricultural and forestry concessions are granted through investment contracts between the government and the company. These are seldom made available to the public, despite their important implications for public policy. In some circumstances, they can even change the way domestic laws apply to the investment. OpenLandContracts.org is a new tool that makes agricultural and forestry contracts easier to access and understand. This offers a range of benefits, including the encouragement of more sustainable land-use practices and fresh opportunities for public participation in decision-making on such investments.

Transitional justice programs traditionally focused on breaches of civil and political rights and violations of bodily integrity, largely ignoring violations of economic and social rights (ESRs) and relegating socioeconomic issues to the category of 'background' or context. This approach is becoming increasingly untenable given that ESRs articulate binding and increasingly justiciable legal obligations. Considering past ESR violations can also provide crucial insight into the causes of past conflict, and addressing socioeconomic grievances can help to reduce the chances of future rights violations or civil unrest. This Article sets out when transitional justice ought concern itself with breaches of ESRs using the 'respect, protect, fulfill' framework of state obligations. Drawing on past examples, the Article argues that failures to respect and protect ESRs are usually discrete enough to be included in the mandates of truth commissions, reparations schemes, and, in some cases, criminal prosecutions. Decentralization programs and the vetting of corrupt economic actors can also effectively address past ESR violations and lead to socioeconomic improvements. Addressing state failures to fulfill ESRs is a more complicated question, although there are occasions where such violations should be included in transitional justice mandates. Ultimately, transitional justice can no longer ignore that ESRs articulate non-negotiable and clearly defined standards, which often hold the key to stable and sustainable political transitions.

Investment approval processes are the gateway through which governments set the agenda for their country's investment environment. Yet too often these processes fail to incorporate meaningful requirements regarding participation in decision-making by Indigenous and other affected communities, increasing the risk of under-performing and conflict-ridden investments. Enabling meaningful participation by rights holders and obtaining and maintaining their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) throughout different investment approval processes can help governments to fulfill their legal obligations, mitigate financial and political risk, and, ultimately, attract more sustainable land-based investments. Featuring concrete guidance and drawing on case studies from Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, and Sierra Leone, this briefing explains how governments can incorporate FPIC and meaningful consultation into each stage of the investment, namely: Creating an enabling environment and attracting the right investors Registration of intent and screening Community consultations and impact assessments Permits, contract negotiation, and approval Throughout the life of the project

Investor-state contracts are regularly used in low- and middle-income countries to grant concessions for land-based and natural resource investments, such as agricultural, extractive industry, forestry, or renewable energy projects. These contracts are rarely negotiated in the presence of, or with meaningful input from, the people who risk being adversely affected by the project. This practice will usually risk violating requirements for meaningful consultation, and, where applicable, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and is particularly concerning when the investor-state contract gives the investor company rights to lands or resources over which local communities have legitimate claims. This article explores how consultation and FPIC processes can be practically integrated into investor-state contract negotiations to better safeguard the land rights and human rights of members of project-affected communities. Based on a review of relevant international law standards and guidance documents, a close analysis of typical investor-state negotiations and of consultation and consent processes in other contexts, and a workshop with Indigenous and civil society representatives, the article provides three options for integrating consultation and consent processes into contract negotiations, the appropriateness of which will vary depending on local contexts and communities' resources and decision-making structures.

Investment approval processes are the gateway through which governments set the agenda for their country's investment environment. Yet too often these processes fail to incorporate meaningful requirements regarding participation in decision-making by Indigenous and other affected communities, increasing the risk of under-performing and conflict-ridden investments. Enabling meaningful participation by rights holders and obtaining and maintaining their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) throughout different investment approval processes can help governments to fulfill their legal obligations, mitigate financial and political risk, and, ultimately, attract more sustainable land-based investments. Featuring concrete guidance and drawing on case studies from Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, and Sierra Leone, this briefing explains how governments can incorporate FPIC and meaningful consultation into each stage of the investment, namely: 1. Creating an enabling environment and attracting the right investors 2. Registration of intent and screening 3. Community consultations and impact assessments 4. Permits, contract negotiation, and approval 5. Throughout the life of the project For further information on incorporating FPIC into contract negotiations, see our working paper on Mechanisms for Consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Negotiation of Investment Contracts.

Land contracts (also known as investor-state contracts, or concession agreements) show what commitments a forestry, farming or renewable energy company has made and what the government has said the company can do on the land. These promises define the positive and harmful effects the company's project could have on community members' livelihoods and human rights, and on the environment. Accessing land contracts is a crucial strategy for local organizations. This briefing note explains how local organizations can use land contracts and the Open Land Contracts repository (OpenLandContracts.org) to help communities to: Understand company and government obligations related to a company project Monitor whether those obligations are being fulfilled Hold companies and the government to account for bad contracts or for failing to deliver on commitments that are important to communities Organizations can also use OpenLandContracts.org to raise broader public awareness about government contracting practices, and to campaign for contract transparency. Here's what representatives from local organizations have to say about land contract transparency and OpenLandContracts.org: "Having open access to contracts has the potential to 'level the playing field' and address imbalances in knowledge. Knowledge is power!" —Justine Sylvester, Village Focus International, Laos "Sometimes people support concessions based on the assumption that they will benefit. However, once they understand the contract, they realize many of the benefits are uncertain. People learn how to ask better questions and demand a seat at the table." —Francis Colee, Green Advocates, Liberia "We use OpenLandContracts.org to review land contracts across the African continent in order to assess provisions that governments have included in their contracts, and to provide guidance on the types of provisions governments in this region should and should not include. It is incredibly useful to have all the contract information in the same place." —Samuel Nguiffo, Centre Pour l'Environnement et le Développement, Cameroon

Land contracts (also known as investor-state contracts, or concession agreements) show what commitments a forestry, farming or renewable energy company has made and what the government has said the company can do on the land. These promises define the positive and harmful effects the company's project could have on community members' livelihoods and human rights, and on the environment. Accessing land contracts is a crucial strategy for local organizations. This briefing note explains how local organizations can use land contracts and OpenLandContracts.org to help communities to: - Understand company and government obligations related to a company project - Monitor whether those obligations are being fulfilled - Hold companies and the government to account for bad contracts or for failing to deliver on commitments that are important to communities Organizations can also use OpenLandContracts.org to raise broader public awareness about government contracting practices, and to campaign for contract transparency.