WRI Stories Feed: Governance & Access

Following the Money in an International Climate Agreement

Maria Athena Ballesteros — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:18:35 -0500

Athena Ballesteros explains how international climate finance could make or break a deal in Copenhagen.

WRI has released a new paper on climate finance. What is climate finance and why is it important in climate negotiations?

In order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world will have to act quickly and at scale. Developing countries have indicated their readiness to act, alongside the industrialized nations. But to do so, they will need significant financial support. Such assistance is necessary to help developing countries deal with climate change by: adapting to its destructive impacts, such as stronger storms, droughts, and sea level rises; reducing greenhouse gases by switching to cleaner fuels and energy sources; and building capacity so that they have the expertise and institutions to make the necessary changes.

This support will come in a range of forms – private investment and carbon markets, but also public finance. Though there is increasing agreement about the amount of finance required to satisfactorily tackle climate change, there is still no consensus on how this money will be actually be delivered.

Traditionally, aid has been managed by existing institutions like the World Bank, which in turn have been controlled by the developed, donor countries. The climate issue is different. It is not only about giving aid but also about jointly solving a common problem. Therefore, a new global agreement on climate finance is likely to significantly redistribute power, responsibility, and accountability between traditional donor and recipient countries. This is both long overdue and necessary.

Why is climate finance being described as a deal breaker in Copenhagen?

Climate finance is one of the most contentious issues in the ongoing negotiations among the 192 member countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Whichever finance mechanism they choose will mobilize and then allocate funds, prepare and approve projects, provide technical advice, set standards for performance, and then monitor projects to ensure that they are held accountable. It is a huge task, so it is no wonder that its design and governance has been a sticking point in the negotiations between developed and developing countries.

The key point of contention is whether this job should be done by existing institutions, which are traditionally dominated by developed countries, or by creating reformed or new institutions that would provide a greater voice for developing countries. There is also heated debate over whether money should be administered and distributed by one large, centralized institution, or through a decentralized approach, one that would incorporate international, regional, and national institutions.

How does a new publication from WRI inform the negotiations?

Power, Responsibility, and Accountability: Rethinking the Legitimacy of Institutions of Climate Finance is meant to draw lessons for negotiators. We reviewed the governance structures, operational procedures, and records of 11 international and national climate funds to see what has been most effective to date. This is the first publication to move beyond the issue of “which institution will we use?” and explore an equally important issue: “what will it take for these institutions to have legitimacy?”

What do you mean by “legitimacy?”

No matter what institutions are eventually charged with managing these new flows of climate finance, they will only be successful if both donor and recipient countries see them as legitimate. The key elements we identified as required for legitimacy are power, responsibility, and accountability.

Power: To be legitimate, the distribution of power within the governing body of the financial institution has to be balanced. We examined whether developed and developing countries have an equal say in how existing funds are managed and operated. Looking ahead, if existing institutions are to meet evolving standards of legitimacy, then their fundamental governance structures, operational procedures, and institutional capacities will need to be reformed.
Responsibility: Efforts to address climate change must be “country-driven” and reflect national priorities and circumstances in order to be successful, rather than being mandated by donor countries. Direct access to climate funds is important in enabling developing countries to take direct responsibility at the country level without having to rely on implementing agencies such as the World Bank or the UN Development Program (UNDP), or having to navigate layers of donor conditionality.
Accountability: Strong provisions for accountability are needed to ensure that money is managed well, to promote good governance, and to manage potential environmental and social impacts. If done well, the institutional re-designs that shift power and responsibility towards developing countries will also entail more accountability for how the money is spent.

Can existing institutions follow this framework for legitimacy?

Our research finds that relying on existing institutions could work if significant reforms are put in place. For example, if the World Bank wants to continue to play a role, it needs to demonstrate to both member countries and civil society that it is willing to embrace fundamental changes in its governance structures and operational procedures in order to give greater voice to developing countries. This would include (through the guidance and authority of the Parties to the UNFCCC) taking advice from civil society, technical experts, and the private sector.

To be viewed as legitimate, the Bank’s “business as usual” practices – including its support for fossil fuel projects in developing countries, and its minimal attention to climate change and low-carbon development strategies – will need to change.

What are some of the critical elements of a climate finance agreement in Copenhagen?

First, we need an agreement on a fund that can put money towards a range of urgent purposes, such as adaptation to the impacts of climate change, technology transfer, and greenhouse gas reduction measures, including reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). In addition, a climate fund must be able to trigger new, additional and predictable climate funding from many other sources, including the private sector, carbon markets, and national public and private finance sources.

The fund must have a governing body that will oversee its operations under the guidance and authority of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, with equitable and balanced representation from both developed and developing countries, and with input from civil society and technical experts.

The international community must also de-link the source of finance from the power and influence traditionally exerted by donor countries, for example by adopting new levies such as those on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. Also essential is agreement to scale up existing climate financing. Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC chief, recently estimated that funding needed “both to curb emissions and help people adapt to changes such as droughts or floods could total $250 billion per year in 2020.” Whatever financing is agreed in Copenhagen should include immediate mobilization of at least 10 billion dollars. This ‘start-up’ fund is urgently needed to help the poorest countries to build capacity to design and implement adaptation and low carbon development plans.

WRI and RDI Launch New Initiative to Communicate Property Rights Lessons in Africa

Jessica Forres — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:49:50 -0400

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Rural Development Institute (RDI) are launching a new initiative that will improve the livelihoods of farmers by creating a system of Web-based multimedia tools to illustrate and communicate complex property rights issues in Africa. The initiative is funded with a grant to WRI from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bread for the WorldIn many parts of Africa, there is a great divide between property rights granted under formal law and customary land rights from traditional authorities, such as village chiefs. These differences and contradictions often lead to insecure property rights and can result in conflicts, poor agricultural productivity, and poverty. “In the absence, people lack incentives to invest in their land, and poor communities are vulnerable to losing their land altogether,” said Peter Veit, a WRI senior fellow and director of the project.

Using interactive maps, charts and other attention-grabbing media tools, the WRI-RDI project will share country experiences and lessons learned in compelling ways designed to educate and engage the development assistance community, including government officials, land tenure experts and agricultural specialists.

The Web-based project will provide this audience with a thorough understanding of tenure issues in six target countries-Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Ghana and Mali. Users, who currently lack access to the information they need to strengthen tenure and improve agricultural production, will be able to download the project material and tailor it to their specific educational needs.

“Development initiatives that fail to understand the importance and complexities of land rights can risk threatening local livelihoods and unintentionally inflict harm,” said Tim Hanstad, president and CEO of RDI. “Addressing the knowledge deficit can help ensure that governments and development agencies are well-informed and have a stronger understanding of land tenure issues before they design new initiatives and projects.”

“Having access to clear, accurate and easy-to-understand information on land tenure and property rights in Africa is important to help stakeholders design projects and policies that support the needs of small farmers,” said Diana Grusczynski, associate program officer in the Agricultural Development initiative at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “We are pleased to support this project, which we hope will ultimately play a role in helping small farmers lift themselves out of hunger and poverty.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant totals $485,000 and the project will be implemented over the next 18 months. The grant is part of the foundation’s Agricultural Development initiative, which is working with a wide range of partners to provide millions of small farmers in the developing world with tools and opportunities to boost their yields, increase their incomes, and build better lives for themselves and their families.

The foundation is working to strengthen the entire agricultural value chain-from seeds and soil to farm management and market access-so that progress against hunger and poverty is sustainable over the long term.

MEDIA ADVISORY: WRI Experts Available for Interviews on World Bank and International Monetary Fund Meeting

Jessica Forres — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:21:21 -0400

WHAT:

Experts from the World Resources Institute (WRI) will participate in four panel discussions during the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) annual meeting in Istanbul, Turkey.

The panel discussions are part of the Civil Society Policy Forum, which will bring together bank staff, civil society representatives, government officials and academics to discuss important topics, such as integrating human rights into WBG operations; financing climate change adaptation in developing countries; financing forest conservation to combat global warming; and transforming transportation in cities. WRI experts appearing on these panels will be available for interviews.

WHEN:

October 3, 2009, 9:00a.m.-10:30am
Panel: Integrating Human Rights into the World Bank Group

October 5, 16:00-5:30p.m.
Panel: Climate Change, Finance and the Multilateral Development Banks

October 6, 11:30a.m.-1:00p.m
Panel: Financing Forest Conservation to Combat Global Warming: Keys to Success

October 7, 9:00a.m.-10:30a.m.
Panel: Transforming Transportation in Cities

WHERE:

Istanbul Congress Center (ICC)
CSO Center, floor 5B
Congress Valley, 34267 Harbiye, Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey

RSVP: Jessica Forres, WRI media officer, +1(202) 729-7736, jforres@wri.org

PANEL DISCUSSIONS:

Integrating Human Rights into the World Bank Group
Date: Saturday, October 3, 9:00-10:30
Location: Istanbul Congress Center (ICC), CSO Center, floor 5B, CSO Room A
Organizers: World Resources Institute (WRI), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Indian Law Resource Center (ILRC), and Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA).
Speakers: Juan Martin Carballo, attorney at Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente, Leonardo Crippa, attorney at Indian Law Resource Center, Kristen Genovese, attorney at Center for International Environmental Law, Kirk Herbertson, associate at WRI.
Description: The global financial crisis, climate change, and food shortages are driving millions of people into extreme poverty. As the WBG responds to these global crises, its legitimacy depends on avoiding harm to - and providing benefits for - the world’s most vulnerable people. There has been internal and external pressure on the WBG to integrate human rights into its operations. While human rights outcomes have been implicit in many of its operations, in many cases the WBG has had an inconsistent record. This panel will discuss the following issues:

What is the value added of integrating human rights into the WBG’s operations?
What are the gaps in the World Bank’s and IFC’s coverage of human rights?
What are the obstacles for incorporating human rights into WBG policies and operations?
What steps can be taken to clarify the WBG’s legal obligations under international human rights laws

Climate Chage, Finance and the Multilateral Development Banks
Date: Monday, October 5, 16:00-17:30
Location: Istanbul Congress Center (ICC), CSO Center, floor 5B, CSO Room A
Organizers: WRI, Bank Information Center (BIC), and the Heinrich Boell Foundation (HBF)
Speakers: Athena Ballesteros, a senior associate at WRI, Manish Bapna, managing director at WRI, Renato Redentor Constantino, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, Ama Marston, policy officer at Bretton Woods Project, Liane Schalatek, associate director at Heinrich Boell Foundation, David Wheeler, senior fellow at Center for Global Development. Keynote and panel remarks to be given by Michele DeNevers, senior manager of the World Bank’s Environment Department, World Bank Group.
Description: In 2008, the WBG launched the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), a set of international investment instruments designed to provide interim, scaled-up funding to help developing countries in their efforts to mitigate increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change. Funding for the CIF’s sunset once a new UNFCCC financial architecture is effective. As the CIFs become operational over the coming year, the results of this program are likely to inform the post-2012 financial agreement. There are many lessons learned from the development and design of these so-called ‘live experiments’. One key challenge remains: What role should the WBG and the Regional Development Banks play in financing climate change in developing countries in a post-2012 agreement? The panel will discuss:

What roles might the World Bank and Regional Development Banks play in facilitating, and monitoring international climate-related financial flows?
What can the Bretton Woods institution do to help developing countries get the support and finance they need to address climate change as a development issue?
What governance reforms might give the Bretton Woods institutions greater legitimacy as honest brokers in global efforts to address climate change?
What organizational changes - including management structures and staff incentives - would prompt attention to the implications of climate change for development choices?
What lessons can be taken from the recent experience with the World Bank-administered Climate Investment Funds?

Financing Forest Conservation to Combat Global Warming: Keys to Success
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 11:30a.m. - 1:00p.m.
Location: Istanbul Congress Center (ICC), CSO Center, floor 5B, CSO Room B
Organizers: Center for Global Development (CGD), WRI
Speakers: Ulla Toernaes (Minister for Development Cooperation, Denmark), Vinod Thomas (Director-General and Senior Vice-President, Independent Evaluation Group, WBG), Manish Bapna (Managing Director, World Resources Institute), Kenneth Chomitz (Senior Advisor, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank Group), David Wheeler (Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development), Dan Hammer (Center for Global Development), Robin Kraft (Center for Global Development).

Description: Forest clearing in developing countries accounts for about 20% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. The Bali Action Plan seeks ways to reward countries for reducing these emissions through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Effective implementation of REDD is an intense topic of discussion in the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. Many observers envision developed countries paying developing countries billions of dollars per year to keep their forests intact. Substantial pilot efforts are already being sponsored by UN-REDD, the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), and the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative. Sustained international support for such enormous payment flows from developed countries to developing countries will hinge on the credibility of REDD programs. The panel will discuss and illustrate three components that are key to a successful international agreement on forest conservation:

Sustainable payment mechanisms and robust supporting institutions;
Evidence-based evaluation of forest program impacts, illustrated by a global analysis of the impact of strictly protected areas, multiple use conservation areas, and indigenous areas on deforestation; and
Transparent public monitoring of results; the rapidly-advancing potential for public oversight will be demonstrated using a new web-based system, FORMA (Forest Monitoring for Action).

Transforming Transportation in Cities
Date: October 7, 9:00a.m.-10:30a.m.
Location: Istanbul Congress Center (ICC), CSO Center, floor 5B,Room A
Organizer: EMBARQ’s Center for Sustainable Transport and Center for Sustainable Transport for Turkey or SUM Turkiye, projects of WRI.
Speakers: The panel will be moderated by Dr. Nancy Kete, Director of EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport. Invited panelists include Sibel Bulay, Director of SUM-Turkiye, a representative from the Asian Development Bank, which is leading the effort to mainstream transportation projects in the UNFCCC discussions, and a representative from the World Bank.
Description: Rapid urbanization and increasing rapid motorization rates in the developing world are resulting in congestion, pollution, noise, accidents, productivity losses, and degradation of the quality of life. Pioneering cities across the globe have discovered relatively low cost, highly effective strategies to tackle this suite of challenges in a financially sustainable way. Development banks, aid agencies, national policy makers and private investors all have a role in scaling up these proven strategies to a more sustainable urban transport sector. The panel will discuss successful pilot projects and how they can be taken to scale.

Caterpillar President, Experts in Clean Tech & Energy Markets Named Directors at WRI

Camilo Ramirez — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:36 -0400

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has elected three new members to its board of directors: Kathleen A. McGinty, a specialist in clean technologies and operating partner at Element LLC, Douglas R. Oberhelm, group president of sustainable development at Caterpillar, and Dr. Susan Tierney, an expert in energy policy and economics and a consultant at the Analysis Group, Inc.

The Honorable Kathleen A. McGinty is an operating partner at Element LLC, a private equity firm investing in early and mid-stage clean technology companies, and director of NRG Energy, Energy East, and Weston Solutions.

Previously, Ms. McGinty was Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Chair of the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority. During her tenure, she helped attract market-leading clean tech and renewable energy companies to Pennsylvania, bringing more than $1 billion in new investment and creating some 3,000 new jobs. Ms. McGinty was also President Clinton’s Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Legislative Assistant and Environmental Advisor to then-Senator Al Gore.

Douglas R. Oberhelman is a group president of Caterpillar, the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, and industrial gas turbines. He is responsible for the company’s human services and sustainable development functions as well as Caterpillar’s growing remanufacturing business. He also oversees worldwide manufacturing, marketing and support of industrial and large power systems, industrial gas turbines and Progress Rail Services. Caterpillar was recently named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the ninth consecutive year.

Mr. Oberhelman joined Caterpillar in 1975 and has held a variety of positions including managing director and vice general manager for strategic planning at Caterpillar Japan Ltd. He was elected group president and member of Caterpillar’s executive office in 2002.

Dr. Susan Tierney is managing principal at the Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting firm that provides economic, financial, and business strategy consulting to law firms, corporations, and government agencies. An expert on energy policy and economics, specializing in the electric and gas industries, she has consulted on energy markets, economic and environmental regulation and strategy, energy and renewables policy, and energy facility projects.

She is a former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy. In Massachusetts, Dr. Tierney was previously Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Chair of the Board of the Massachusetts Water Resources Agency, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, and executive director of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council.

“I have long admired the unique role that WRI has played on environmental issues, said Dr. Tierney. “I am honored to be part of an organization dedicated to high quality and relevant research and pragmatic solutions.”

These three members join a board that includes: Chairman James A. Harmon, Vice Chair Harriet (Hattie) Babbitt, Chairman Emeritus William D. Ruckelshaus, Vice-Chair Emeritus Alice (Tish) F. Emerson, Roberto Artavia, Gay Barclay, Frances Beinecke, Afsaneh Beschloss, Antony Burgmans, Fernando Henrique Carsdoso, Jessica Catto, Robin Chase, Jining Chen, Leslie Dach, Daniel L. Doctoroff, Jamshyd N. Godrej, Al Gore, Jonathan Lash, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, James W. Owens, Michael Polsky, C.K. Prahalad, Theodore Roosevelt IV, Stephen M. Ross, Alison Sander, James Gustave Speth, Lee M. Thomas, Todd S. Thomson, Diana H. Wall, and Daniel Weiss.

Stopping the Resource Wars in Africa

Peter Veit — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:54:00 -0400

Two upcoming Senate bills could have a big impact on the Democratic Republic of Congo, by exposing how its 10-year conflict is being funded.

Since 1998, fighting in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has killed an estimated 5.4 million people and resulted in some of the most horrific sexual violence the world has ever seen. Almost a million internally-displaced people are still unable to return safely to their areas of origin. Despite the nine-year presence of the world’s largest United Nations peacekeeping operation, the Mission de l’Organisation des Nations-Unies au Congo (MONUC)—18,422 personnel in 2008 at an annual cost of $1.2 billion—rebel forces continue to terrorize innocent citizens in this large central African nation, creating a dire humanitarian crisis that rivals the tragedies in Darfur and Myanmar.

The armed groups in eastern DRC are funded by the region’s abundant natural resources, especially from the extraction of tin, tantalum, and tungsten used to make laptops, cell phones, digital cameras, iPods, and video recorders. As a result, U.S. and international electronic companies—and the consumers who purchase their products—are funding this war.

Two-thirds of the people living below the poverty line reside in nations rich with extractive resources. Yet they rarely receive any meaningful benefits from their country’s resource wealth.

Two bills are now in Congress—the Congo Conflict Minerals Act and the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act. These two bills would require companies listed on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to disclose new information in their financial reporting and help ensure that such minerals do not support the conflict.

The Congo Conflict Minerals Act, introduced by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), would require SEC-listed electronic companies, such as Apple, Nokia, and Nintendo, to disclose the exact location of the mines from which they receive their tin, tantalum, and tungsten in their regular reporting. By noting the source of their minerals, consumers will know whether the electronics they are buying are funding illegal armed groups in the DRC. As evident from the effective embargo on conflict timber from Liberia and blood diamonds from Sierra Leone, many U.S. and European consumers are sensitive to breaking the link between natural resources and conflict. Many U.S. and international companies are also concerned about their reputation and the financial risks associated with not being listed on the SEC (the SEC is a principal source of company information to potential investors).

Ending the conflict in DRC—often called “Africa’s World War” because the armies of nearly a dozen other African states have been drawn into the fighting—is a long-standing and high-priority U.S. policy objective. In October 2006, then-President George Bush argued that the conflict constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to our foreign policy and declared a national emergency. He issued an executive order to block the property of people and institutions contributing to the conflict in the DRC, including those who “have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support.” President Barack Obama’s administration has also made it clear that stopping the war in Congo a top priority of U.S. policy on Africa.

In addition to advancing U.S. interests, the Congo Conflict Minerals Act would contribute to the effective implementation of U.N. Resolution 1856. In December 2008, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1856—the latest in a series of resolutions on the DRC conflict—which links the “illicit trade in natural resources” with the “proliferation and trafficking of arms,” and places an embargo on illegally-exploited natural resources. It calls for the U.N. to heighten security around the mines and authorizes the peacekeeping forces to “seize or collect, as appropriate, the arms and any related material whose presence in the territory of the DRC” contributes to the conflict, including illegally-mined natural resources. Resolution 1856 also urged all countries to take appropriate steps to end the illicit trade in natural resources in the region.

The Congo Conflict Minerals Act is the most recent initiative out of Congress to break the link between natural resources and conflict. While the Act focuses on sourcing three minerals extracted from eastern DRC, another bill awaits action in Congress—the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act—which would have broader implications for the effective use of natural resource revenues around the world.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act was introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the summer of 2008. It was co-sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Tom Harkin (D-IA)and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The bill was referred to the Committee on Urban, Banking, and Housing Affairs, but never discussed on the floor. It is, however, expected to be reintroduced shortly by the same sponsors.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act would require all SEC-listed companies to fully disclose the amount of money paid to foreign governments for oil, gas, and minerals—collectively called extractive resources—in their required financial statements. Around two-thirds of the people living below the poverty line reside in nations rich with extractive resources yet they rarely receive any meaningful benefits from their country’s resource wealth. This Act is an important step in ensuring sound revenue management, promoting effective reinvestments and fighting the corruption that contributes to the disjuncture between resource wealth and economic growth.

In July, President Obama traveled to Ghana for his first presidential visit to sub-Saharan Africa because the country is an outpost of democracy—a model for good governance. Ghana, a bipartisan American favorite, is also one of our most trusted partners in Africa. In a speech to the parliament, President Obama highlighted the critical role that sound governance and civil society plays in promoting lasting development. While Ghana is well-known for its gold (the country is Africa’s second largest gold producer), significant quantities of oil have recently been found offshore. Tullow Oil, an Irish company list on the SEC, holds several of the most promising deep water blocks (Tullow also holds several proven blocks in Uganda, another major U.S. ally in Africa). The Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act would help ensure that some of our close allies in the continent—Africa’s new petro-states—use their oil riches in ways that promote development, not civil unrest and conflict.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act enjoys broad support from U.S. development professionals. Critics, however, point out that full disclosure of payments made by extractive industries to foreign governments alone will not ensure extractive resource revenues are invested in ways that support poverty reduction. Other pundits argue that the most corrupt and non-democratic regimes—those which the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act is targeting—will simply partner with companies from China, India and elsewhere and would not be affected by the Act. In fact, nearly all internationally-competitive oil, gas and mining companies are registered with the SEC and subject to the same regulations as U.S. companies.

The Act would provide a powerful platform for U.S. development assistance to work with governments around the world to ensure revenues from natural resources contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction. Indeed, the passing of these two bills should be complemented by targeted investments by the Agency for International Development, Millennium Challenge Corporation and other agencies delivering U.S. government development assistance. Based on recent research by WRI and our local partner organizations in Africa, such support should emphasize investments in two areas:

Help Governments Establish Fair Distribution Policies. The distribution of environmental benefits (and costs) is determined largely by public policies and government practices. U.S. development assistance can work with governments to develop extractive resource revenue management and distribution policies that create economic, political and other incentives in support of poverty reduction, a priority national policy objective in most developing countries. Too often, public policies favor affluent people and regions, enriching a few powerful political and economic elites while passing disproportionately large social and environmental costs on to the poor disenfranchised majority. Poverty reduction—especially for the poorest—can be greatly enhanced through policies that promote fair distribution of natural resource benefits. In high-inequity, high-poverty countries, equitable access and fair distribution can be more effective than economic growth alone in reducing poverty. Such reforms are most effective in poor countries, where natural resources dominate local economies and natural capital is particularly significant in determining the overall distribution of wealth. Even small changes in these policies can have a large effect on building the assets of the poor and reducing poverty.
Strengthen Democratic Institutions and Support Good Governance. While it is important to work with governments, especially government reformers, to establish fair environmental distribution policies, U.S. development assistance must also strengthen other centers of power which can press for such reforms and check the authority of the executive branch. Among these other power centers are the legislature, civil society organizations and citizens. In many countries, even in those that have embraced multi-party politics and hold regular elections, policy reform processes remain closed and tightly controlled by a small circle of political elites. Small wonder that many public policies do not reflect the interest of the electoral majority—the rural poor. Strengthening the legislature and civil society organizations supports the democratic principal of separation of power, and promotes oversight and accountability. Working with the popular media to educate the public on policy processes can engage citizens in government matters. Accountability requires information on institutional performance, and the power to sanction poor decisions and discipline behavior. U.S. assistance can support performance monitoring and help these actors exercise their constitutional authorities and informal powers to press government on matters regarding the management of extractive resource revenues.

It is time for the U.S. to advance its national interests and support development around the world by passing both the Congo Conflict Minerals Act and the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act.

The Access Initiative: a Network in Action

Monika Kerdeman — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:07:44 -0400

Here is a quick summary of recent progress by Access Initiative partners working to strengthen civil society, increase participation, and improve environmental policy choices.

Over the past 10 years Access Initiative (TAI) partners from 50 different countries have played important roles in strengthening civil society and government capacity in order to build the foundations needed to move access rights forward. 2009 is proving to be no different. Partners from around the world are helping to open up the decision-making the processes for environmental issues, by widening the range of voices heard and improving the quality of policy choices available.

In the past year and a half, TAI partners have taken part in activities to reform transparency laws, train government officers to involve people in development planning, help build awareness among judges and media about the public’s ability to influence decisions that affect the environment. This work has lead to changes at the national and regional levels.

Some specific changes resulting from the work of TAI partners include:

Access to participation in decision-making enhances the ability of a government to be responsive to public concern and demands, to build consensus, and to improve acceptance of and compliance with environmental decisions.

Access to justice allows people to hold government agencies, companies and individuals accountable.

Meaningful participation requires access to information that forms the basis for decisions, the opportunity to voice opinions and the ability to influence choice among possible outcomes.

Voice and Choice: Opening the Door To Environmental Democracy

Indonesia enacted a new Freedom of Information Act, with the help from our TAI Indonesia partners.
The new constitution in Thailand ensures that the public has the right to receive information and participate in the decisions concerning new development projects that affect the environment.
The TAI network has expanded its work in Argentina, Benin, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, India, Republic of Macedonia and Zambia by undertaking regional or national assessments of environmental laws in regards to access to information, access to justice, public participation and capacity building.
TAI had its second annual Global Gathering of partners, hosted by our Irish partners at the Sligo Institute of Technology.
In Cameroon, TAI partner Foundation for Environment and Development (FEDEV) litigated and won, as the main plaintiff, three high court cases. The implications of these cases have significant impacts on fundamental human rights, access to environmental justice and law enforcement in Cameroon allowing the public to sue to protect human life and environment.
In Bolivia, partners helped advance access right (access to information, public participation access to justice and capacity building) to shape constitutional reform. The new Bolivian Constitution was approved by a referendum this year and now includes access to information, participation and tribunal for environmental issues, as well as other environmental provisions.
Ireland established the Fifth Pillar of Social Partnership, the Environmental Pillar. This ensures Environmental NGOs are treated as equal partners with the Trade Unions, Employers, Farmers and the (wider) Community and Voluntary Pillars in researching, developing and monitoring the implementation of national policies on all aspects of society. As a consequence of the new status, NGO’s now have the right to regular constructive contact with all government departments at the highest level; seats on the National Economic and Social Council; and established our right to nominate people to seats on the advisory bodies at all levels of governance, local, regional and national.
TAI Sri Lanka partner Public Interest Law Foundation has been working with Minister of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development to draft ministerial guidelines on information disclosure in the urban sector, as part of the recommendations from the TAI national assessment.

Here is a quick summary of the work already underway in 2009 for 22 TAI partner countries, as part of the work funded by the World Bank, Development Governance Grant:

Argentina: Center For Human Rights And Environment (CEDHA)

The Center for Human Rights and Environment is prioritizing reforms by conducting Argentina’s first national TAI assessment.

Bangladesh: Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA)

The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association is managing a regional exchange program for community leaders intended to develop a network of forest dwellers in South Asia and advance their capacity towards participatory governance. This includes a regional training workshop on access issues relating to the forest.

Benin: Eco-Ecolo

Eco Ecolo is prioritizing reforms by conducting Benin’s first national TAI assessment.

Bolivia: PRODENA - Bolivian Wildlife Society

PRODENA is developing the main indicators for the National System of Environmental Information (NSEI) recommended by the TAI assessment and advocating for its implementation. PRODENA is also advising the government environmental authority on how to organize the NSEI.

Cameroon: Bioresources Development And Conservation Programme (BPDC)

The Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme is working to create a task force to supervise public participation in the development of access and benefit sharing (ABS) policies. BPDC is also integrating civil society recommendations into a draft of the ABS policy framework.

Cameroon: Foundation For Environment And Development (FEDEV)

The Foundation for Environment and Development is organizing and conducting workshops to train judges, magistrates, and lawyers on environmental law and access rights.

Chile: Participa

Participa is developing indicators to evaluate regional advocacy success. Participa is also prioritizing reforms by conducting Chile’s second national TAI assessment.

China (Guizhou): Center For Moutainous Resource Conservation And Development Study (CMCRDS)

The Center for Mountainous Resource Conservation and Development Study is prioritizing reforms by conducting the first regional Guizhou TAI assessment.

China (Yunnan): Centre For Montain Ecosytstem Studies (ICRAF-China)

TAI Yunnan partners are translating TAI indicator toolkit and concepts into Mandarin and conducting workshops to train Guizhou TAI coalition. TAI Yunnan is also advocating for public access to environmental information on water quality and pollution.

Ecuador: Coalicion Acesso And Centro Ecuatoriano De Derecho Ambiental (CEDA)

TAI Ecuador partners Coalicion Acesso and CEDA are conducting dialogues with government, civil society and the public to gather input on environmental concerns and access rights that can be used to draft a national strategy proposal for access to environmental information.

Gabon: Croissance Saine Environnement (CSE)

Croissance Saine Environnement is prioritizing reforms by leading Gabon’s first national TAI assessment.

India: Environics Trust

Environics Trust is prioritizing reforms by conducting India’s first national TAI assessment.

Macedonia: Florozon – Association For Protection Of Natural Environment And Sustainable Economic Development

TAI partner Florozon is organizing and conducting training workshops with government officials and civil society members as recommended by the 2008 TAI national assessment to increase attentiveness to access rights. Florozon is also launching a large media campaign to increase public awareness and demand for access rights.

Malawi: Centre For Environmental Policy And Advocacy (CEPA)

The Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy is working to strengthen and implement proposed environmental and access bills that would provide improvements in access rights. CEPA is also publicizing proposed legislation and holding workshops to advance public participation and capacity building.

Nepal: Pro Public

Pro Public is advocating for the inclusion of access rights and good environmental governance in the proposed Constitution of Nepal through capacity building measures including the training of the writers of the constitution, government officials, civil society members, and the public.

Paraguay: Instituto De Derecho Y Economia Ambiental (IDEA)

The Environmental Law and Economics Institute is working to revise access to information legislation and will present a final draft to government officials, civil society members, and the public through a series of workshops intended to integrate their comments on the legislation before formally submitting them to Congress.

Peru: Sociedad Peruana De Derecho Ambiental (SPDA)

The Peruvian Society for Environmental Law is working with Latin American partners to organize a regional meeting and conduct workshops intended to compile a set of practical advocacy tools, strengthen advocacy capacity, and train civil society members on access issues.

Philippines: Ateneo School Of Government

TAI member ATENEO is developing a single-volume reference ‘bench book’ intended to provide judges on the recently established environmental courts with complete answers to frequently raised questions. ATENEO is also advocating for the passage of the freedom of information bill via media briefings, videos, workshops, and a website.

Sri Lanka: Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF)

Lawyers from the Public Interest Law Foundation are working closely with government officials to draft and implement guidelines for information disclosure PILF is also conducting training workshops on the new guidelines for relevant officials.

Thailand: Thailand Environment Institute (TEI)

The Thailand Environment Institute is advocating for the amendment and implementation of Thailand’s Official Information Act of 1997 through a multi-stakeholder dialogue that will publish recommendations.

Turkey: Environmental Management And Law Association (EMLA)

The Environmental Management and Law Association is determining the capacities and receptiveness for a TAI assessment in Turkey. EMLA is conducting a workshop on TAI methodology for interested parties.

Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA)

Lawyers from Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association are working closely with the Ministry of Environment to develop and implement guidelines for how information is released to the public.

Whose Amazon Is It?

Ruth Nogueron — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:35:04 -0400

Following the recent violence over natural resource use, Peru has an opportunity to balance economic development with human rights protections.

The tension between natural resource development and the protection of human rights reached a breaking point in Peru this month. In early April, indigenous groups initiated nearly 50 days of protests as a public outcry for laws that violated their right to decide if and how large-scale development happens on their territory. Fatal violence erupted when police and the military attempted to break a road blockade near the city of Bagua, in the northern region of Amazonas and close to the border with Ecuador. The victim count remains controversial. The official death toll is 33, with 24 policemen and 9 civilians killed. Other estimates range from 40 to 250 indigenous people dead.

The government responded to the protests with heavy-handed tactics, calling a state of emergency and calling in the military and national police. (A move denounced by human rights organizations). Also, there has been a national and international outcry at the use of violence by both sides. Public demonstrations and strikes were held in Lima and other cities in Perú, with protests in other major cities around the world. The International Human Rights Commission, leaders of the Peruvian Catholic Church, as well as Peruvian and international NGOs, all made statements calling for investigations and a stop to the violence.

The ingredients for violent conflict have been simmering for several years. The Peruvian government’s aggressive economic development strategy centers on promoting private investment in the natural resources based sectors. Between 2004 and 2009, the oil and gas concessions in the Peruvian Amazon increased their coverage from 15% to 72%. The vast majority of these concessions overlap with indigenous people’s territories, including titled and demarcated communities, communities in process of being titled, territorial reserves and proposed reserves. However, the government did not consult with these indigenous communities before it drew the concession boundaries and awarded the concessions to oil and gas companies.

Adding fuel to the fire is the 2006 US-Perú Trade Promotion Agreement, the free trade agreement (FTA) signed by President George W. Bush and Peru’s President, Alan García. The FTA included a variety of groundbreaking provisions for labor, public participation and consultation, and forest management, which were included after the agreement was re-negotiated in 2007. These provisions were meant to improve forest sector governance and promote legal trade in timber products. The FTA also included language meant to prohibit the weakening of existing environmental laws in both countries.

To make sure the agreement could be certified before President Bush left office in January 2009, the Peruvian Congress granted Peru’s executive branch special powers to enact laws and regulations needed to be in compliance with the FTA. Between February and June 2008, the executive branch used these powers to pass a series of Legislative Decrees meant to attract and facilitate large-scale private investment in the extractive industries, forestry and agriculture in the Peruvian Amazon.

Much attention has been paid to two of the more contentious decrees–Legislative Decree 1064 and Legislative Decree 1020. Decree 1064 removes previous requirements for companies to negotiate with a community prior to moving in, and it reclassifies communal land rights as subordinate to individual and private ownerships, giving favor to individuals, companies, and settlers who invade indigenous territories. Decree 1020 outlines a plan to regulate investment in the Amazon, but protesters say it frees roughly 60 percent of Peru’s forests for potential development.

As with the oil and gas concession awarding process, indigenous communities were not consulted on the content of the decrees. This is despite the fact that Peru has signed onto several international conventions and declarations that commit the government to providing specific protections to indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent on development activities that would threaten their territory or way of life.

Community Engagement & Natural Resource Use

WRI’s 2009 report, Breaking Ground: Engaging Communities in Extractive and Infrastructure Projects recommends 7 principles to help companies adapt to the changing rules of natural resource extraction by more effectively involving communities in project decision-making:

Prepare communities before engaging.
Determine what level of engagement is needed.
Integrate community engagement into each phase of the project cycle.
Include traditionally excluded stakeholders.
Gain free, prior and informed consent.
Resolve community grievances through dialogue.
Promote participatory monitoring by local communities.

Read the full publication here.

Last year, after public protest and indigenous peoples’ demonstrations called the decrees into question, a special investigative Commission created by the Peruvian Congress found the decrees to be unconstitutional. When debate in the Congress on the Commission’s findings was blocked and formal spaces for dialogue appeared to be ineffective, indigenous communities took to the streets to protest.

Since the events in Bagua, the Congress has repealed the controversial decrees, and President Garcia has recognized the lack of consultation and declared that it is time to start over again.

The government has set up a national working group made up by members of the executive branch, the presidents of the regional governments of the Amazonian States, and 10 indigenous representatives. The working group is tasked to prepare a sustainable development plan for the Peruvian Amazon. While the Minister of Foreign Relations has said that Peru has the support of the U.S. Government and Congress to find negotiated solutions to improve the laws, the U.S. itself has said or done very little about the situation.

An unprecedented opportunity for Peru

The “new start” offers the government an unprecedented opportunity to put effective measures in place to protect all of its citizens from the unintended negative consequences of development, and make sure that they receive its full benefits through a participatory process.

At the national level, the government needs to make sure that laws and policies:

Provide information: Give citizens adequate access to clear and accurate information about planned development, and that citizens are given an opportunity to understand the full implications of development. The government should conduct analysis and provide maps that show the location of indigenous territories and the overlaps with possible conflicting land uses for example, oil and gas concessions or forest and mining concessions.
Allow citizen participation: Give citizens formal opportunities to participate in credible decision-making processes to ensure sure that their views and opinions are reflected in final decisions.
Provide access to justice: Give citizens access to effective forms of justice so that if they have a grievance, they don’t feel they need to take the law into their own hands.

Finally, companies operating on indigenous territory should also play their part. Since the majority of oil and gas concessions in the Peruvian Amazon overlap indigenous territories, those operating in these concessions should have a policy regarding indigenous peoples, and an effective policy on community engagement and free prior and informed consent.

Asian Development Bank Must Improve Climate, Energy Lending Policies

Paul Mackie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:48:05 -0400

As the Asia Clean Energy Forum kicks off next week, the Asian Development Bank and other multilateral development banks should do more to integrate climate change and clean energy considerations as a core part of their development assistance.

“As a major development institution, the Asian Development Bank has a critical role to play in channeling support towards low-carbon development and increasing protection from climate-related disasters in developing Asian countries,” said Maria Athena Ballesteros, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute (WRI), who will speak on a panel June 18 entitled “Finance Solutions for Clean Energy.”

“WRI’s independent analyses show that more than 60 percent of all development-bank financing for the energy sector over the past five years has not considered climate change at all. This needs to vastly improve.”

“The Asia Pacific region is facing serious challenges with threats from global climate change, the worsening financial crisis, and soaring food and fuel prices,” Ballesteros added. “The ADB and other development banks are in a position - and have the economic and moral responsibilities - to improve energy security, public health, and climate resilience. This can be accomplished through implementing policies to deliver electricity through a safe, affordable, and reliable infrastructure.”

More than 700 attendees are expected for the forum, which runs through next Friday. The forum highlights best practices in policy and finance and seeks to inspire actions that respond to Asia’s climate, access, and energy-security challenges.

Tracking Environmental Impact Assessment Rollbacks

Alisa Zomer — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:45:08 -0400

Financial stimulus plans could pose a threat to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) around the world.

The severe effects of economic recession have precipitated the need for governments to act quickly in structuring recovery plans to limit negative impacts. In several countries, the need for immediate action has led to proposed rollbacks or reductions of EIAs.

In Canada, for example, some EIA procedures have been suspended for two years in order to expedite stimulus spending. The proposed waiving of existing public participation and consultation mechanisms is significant in that it undermines efforts to integrate environmental initiatives into stimulus packages and limits transparency measures to influence and track how bailout money is spent.

EIAs were developed in the U.S. as an “action-forcing mechanism” to assess and mitigate the environmental and human impacts of government funded projects. Now adopted by over 100 countries worldwide, EIAs are considered an important tool for the inclusion of environmental decision-making and public participation in infrastructure development projects.

Recent U.S. experience stands in contrast with that of Canada. Following the passing of the second U.S. stimulus bill in February, Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) successfully halted Senator John Barrasso’s (R-WY) efforts to suspend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Boxer amendment was passed and served to strengthen NEPA procedures and protect EIA procedures.

At the G-20 summit in London last April, global economic leaders pledged $1.1 trillion to address the global financial crisis. This infusion of capital into the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came at critical time when the financial institution is preparing to revise lending conditions in order to enhance transactional transparency.

EIAs vary widely in scope and depth from country to country, and the new lending terms of IMF stimulus loans have great power to strengthen or diminish existing procedures. Preliminary findings from The Access Initiative partners in nearly 20 countries, suggest that there is a need to champion EIAs as a mechanism to increase public participation and improve transparency (see Table).

In countries like Hungary, India, and Sri Lanka, recent attempts to rollback EIAs have resulted in the removal of public participation requirements in environmental decision-making. Additional campaigns in Mexico and Nigeria could result in similar rollbacks.

As international fiscal stimulus measures take form, the IMF and other international financial institutions ideally should adopt lending conditions that strengthen public participation and external consultation in environmental decision-making. Meanwhile, it is increasingly important to monitor and report on simultaneous actions to rollback back EIAs, so that proposed green stimulus initiatives are realized in the structuring as well as the implementation of fiscal stimulus plans.

NOTE: The table below presents the results of an informal survey by members of The Access Initiative Network. WRI serves as the secretariat of the Access Initiative.

Country	Fiscal Stimulus (B$US)	IMF Loan	EA rolled back	Proposed rollback of EA and/or public participation in active legislation or regulation	No reported rollbacks	EA safeguarded as part of stimulus
Argentina	13			X
Canada	7		X	X
Chile	4				X
China		X
Colombia					X
Costa Rica					X
Dominican Republic					X
Hungary	7			X
India	4			X
Indonesia	5				X
Mexico	54			X
Nepal					X
Nigeria				X
Paraguay					X
Peru			X
Phillippines	6				X
Sri Lanka		2.9 (requested)		X
Uganda					X
U.S.	787					X
Venezuela					X
Zimbabwe					X

Darwin's Lessons for the Extractive Industry

Kirk Herbertson — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:04:31 -0400

Environmental and social performance is shaping a new breed of oil, gas, and mining companies.

This week, shareholders at Chevron’s annual meeting in California will vote on a resolution urging management to assess the company’s compliance with the environmental laws of every country in which it operates. The vote has been triggered by pension fund investors anxious over the oil giant’s liabilities in an environmental disaster dubbed the “Amazon Chernobyl.” (Update: Shareholders rejected the resolution on Wednesday, May 27. Read more here.)

Chevron inherited a lawsuit for ecological damages and human health impacts caused by massive oil spills in the species-rich rainforests of eastern Ecuador when it bought the company responsible, Texaco, in 2001. An Ecuadorean court judgment is due later this year, with Chevron facing damages that may dwarf the $3.9 billion paid by ExxonMobil for the infamous 1989 Alaskan oil spill.

The lesson in all this is one that is being learned not only by Chevron, but by the broader extractive industry: in our modern world of instant communications, Darwin’s theory of evolution applies not only to animals and plants, but also to companies.

A Survival Road Map for Extractive Industries

Prepare communities before engaging.
Determine what level of engagement is needed.
Integrate community engagement into each phase of the project cycle.
Include traditionally excluded stakeholders.
Gain free, prior and informed consent.
Resolve community grievances through dialogue.
Promote participatory monitoring by local communities.

Read the full publication here.

Survival depends on being able to adapt to a changing environment. Oil, gas, and mineral reserves have been depleted, and the extractive industry increasingly competes for access to resources in remote corners of developing countries. In these new environments, companies face challenges that go well beyond engineering, including fragile ecosystems, impoverished communities, and weak local governance.

In earlier times, they might have been able to ignore such issues. But today, business-as-usual approaches will no longer suffice.

The world has become a global fish bowl. Modern information and communication technologies, combined with increasingly sophisticated and networked NGOs and local activists, subject companies to a level of scrutiny and accountability unimaginable even a decade ago. The voices of communities in the remotest corners of the globe can reach the ears of politicians and journalists worldwide in just a few hours. Campaigns have also grown in sophistication. Some NGOs directly support communities impacted on the ground. Others, like the BankTrack network in the Netherlands, focus on extractive companies’ financiers, campaigning against banks to remove harmful project financing lifelines.

Banks, in turn, are requiring their clients to demonstrate stronger environmental and social commitments. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private financing arm of the World Bank, has developed a set of “Performance Standards” that clients must meet before receiving financing. Other banks, such as the private financial institutions who have signed up to the Equator Principles, voluntarily commit to apply the IFC’s Performance Standards to their investments. John Ruggie, the UN Special Rapporteur on business and human rights, has explicitly recognized this new playing field, emphasizing the importance of the “court of public opinion“— regardless of what a developing country’s laws require.

On the frontline of extractive development, communities are increasingly intolerant of mining companies that sacrifice the environment for short-term economic benefits. In addition to the Chevron case, communities from the Peruvian Amazon have brought a lawsuit in California against Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), alleging that the company discharged oil wastewater into communities’ water sources, and Shell is facing a lawsuit in New York for its alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria in the 1990s. Both Ecuador and Peru have also seen massive social protests in the past year against controversial mining policies.

While a company like Chevron or Shell may survive a multi-billion dollar judgment, the reputational damage of legal settlements is increasingly likely to result in governments, banks, and communities hesitating to do business with such companies in the future. President Correa of Ecuador, for example, took a public stance against Chevron, and the company will almost certainly not be able to operate in the country for several decades.

In true Darwinian fashion, the most successful extractive companies are adapting to these forces of change, investing in improvements to their environmental and social management systems. Thriving in this new competitive environment, however, is not simply about corporate charity or token consultations with communities. It entails making environmental and social management, and respect for human rights, central to companies’ business model. Communities must be engaged at all stages of operations, from exploration through to restoration, and must have the opportunity to participate in key decisions.

Community consent, and the reputational benefits in the wider world that it brings, will likely be the prize of those companies that manage to ground their operations in a longer-term development process that is sustainable beyond the life of a project. Skills in effective community development may soon be an extractive company’s most competitive trait.

It may even make the difference between extinction and survival.