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

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
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
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
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
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
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
Date: 26/11/2014
DOCUMENT TITLE
Questions