Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Happy thanksgiving 001
Happy thanksgiving 001
Loading in …3
×
1 of 7

Making use of grievance mechanisms for redress and accountability in agricultural and other natural resource investments

0

Share

Download to read offline

How can remote communities with little formal education hold investors to account and seek redress when their rights to land and resources are threatened?

In November 2014, an IIED webinar examined the role of grievance mechanisms, which included this presentation on 'Making use of grievance mechanisms for redress and accountability in agricultural and other natural resource investments'

More details: http://bit.ly/1Fn4GXX

More Related Content

You Might Also Like

Making use of grievance mechanisms for redress and accountability in agricultural and other natural resource investments

  1. 1. 1 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Author name Date Date: 26/11/2014 A Legal Tools Webinar Making use of grievance mechanisms for redress and accountability in agricultural and other natural resource investments
  2. 2. 2 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Why this topic, why now?  Investments in agriculture – have become a major issue of social and environmental concern over the last decade – set to continue  Some improvements in practice have been seen as a result of public concern and scrutiny and international efforts  Yet many disputes still unresolved or being triggered  Many limitations relate to the model of investment, however much is also to do with the approach / implementation process – many disputes still arising
  3. 3. 3 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Cont…  Proliferation of international standards and guidance on governance of land and agricultural investments  Most guidelines stress the importance of access to justice and a need for an accessible complaints procedure by the company and the government at the level of the project  Many of these channels do not exist in reality  Affected communities and those supporting them use a diverse range of approaches to seek accountability to local people and redress  The extent of non-judicial accountability mechanisms available depend on the project and any 3rd party that offers mandatory principles and standards and a grievance mechanism– these might offer the greatest chances of action and remedy
  4. 4. 4 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Examples of mechanisms by type of institution:  Finance (lenders): IFIs – IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsmen, WB Inspection Panel, ADB Complaints Receiving Officer, AfDB’s Independent Review Mechanism (IRM)  Certifiers (commodity based): RSPO Complaints and Dispute Settlement Procedure  Regional (Int Orgs): OECD’s National Contact Point NOTE: Many other certifiers, lenders and guidelines require that their members or clients have a company-led mechanism at the project level (e.g. FSC) but do not operate one themselves. APPLICATION: Increasing number of cases of these mechanisms being used in response to agricultural investments. E.g.:  IFC CAO: WILMAR landmark case  RSPO – considerable numbers relating to concerns over impacts to land and livelihood impacts as well as conservation and failures to comply with RSPO standards on consultation and consent  French NCP re. Bollore Group investments in Cameroon rubber enterprise  WB IP – Smallholder Oil Palm initiative in Papua New Guinea
  5. 5. 5 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE LEARNING!  Diverse set of mechanisms but few systematic assessments  Extensive guidance on founding principles and implementation of effective grievance mechanisms exists  “An effective human-rights compatible grievance mechanism can provide a channel through which communities impacted by company operations can gain recognition for legitimate concerns, engage in a process to secure acceptable solutions, and share the ownership of that process” (Hill, 2010, 6; cited in Wilson & Blackmore 2013; 34)  Ruggie process - 8 principles: Legitimate, Accessible, Predictable, Equitable, Transparent, Rights-compatible, A source of continuous learning, Based on engagement and dialogue (Ruggie, 2008)  But how are 3rd party mechanisms fairing?  How accessible are they and what can we expect in terms of outcomes and how to measure success?  Importantly: how can legal empowerment practitioners ensure ‘continuous learning’ from our experiences?
  6. 6. 6 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Cont…  Capitalise on experience and learn from each other on the practical and technical issues associated with making use of the mechanisms and what this tells us about their potential and the requisite capacities and reforms  Reliance on intermediaries or support organisations  Considerations:  Who is a legitimate complainant, who has the requisite capacity, who has funding to pursue the complaint over a significant period of time, who should be leading parallel advocacy work, who is in control of the process….?  To what extent are the mechanisms contributing to accountability Is this diverting attention from strengthening governance and legal frameworks at the state level?
  7. 7. 7 Date: 26/11/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE Questions

×