Konklusionen på en intern undersøgelse af Verdensbankens støtte til honduransk palmeolieproducent er blandt de mest fordømmende nogensinde, men reaktionen på anklagerne er meget vag, hvilket kritiseres skarpt af en lang række NGOer i fælles udtalelse.
Verdensbanken fik fredag d. 10. januar massiv kritik for manglende omhu i forbindelse med et lån til det honduranske firma Dinant Corporation, der dyrker palmeolie i en konfliktregion i det mellemamerikanske land.
Kritikken kom fra bankens egen klageinstans, Compliance Adviser/Ombudsman (CAO), og var rettet mod bankens gren for udlån til den private sektor, International Finance Corporation (IFC).
Dinant Corporation har i adskillige år været involveret i en blodig konflikt om land med småbønder. Virksomheden beskyldes for alvorlige menneskrettighedskrænkelser. Alligevel har IFC støttet Dinant Corporation med foreløbigt 15 millioner dollars.
Læs mere om CAO-undersøgelsen og baggrunden for konflikten her: http://www.u-landsnyt.dk/nyhed/12-01-14/honduras-verdensbankens-egen-vagthund-kritiserer-s
IFCs har offentliggjort en pressemeddelelse i forbindelse med kritikken, men en lang række NGOer mener ikke, at reaktionen tyder på, at IFC har lært noget af kritikken.
Læs IFCs pressemeddelelse her: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/REGION__EXT_Content/Regions/Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean/Strategy/Corporacion_Dinant
Det følgende er en fælles erklæring fra en lang række honduranske og internationale civilsamfundsorganisationer, heriblandt ActionAid International, Oxfam og Global Witness.
The investigation is one of the most damning ever issued by the internal watchdog and concludes that the Bank’s private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation:
- Failed to adhere to its own policies meant to protect local communities, and continued to allow the company to breach those safeguards over the past five years to the present;
- Either failed to spot or deliberately ignored the serious social, political and human rights context in which this company is operating or where it did, failed to act effectively on the information;
- Failed to disclose vital project information, consult with local communities, or to identify the project as a high-risk investment, despite public information that was widely available at the time the investment was made.
The CAO found that these failures arose, in part, from staff incentives “to overlook, fail to articulate, or even conceal potential environmental, social and conflict risk”, and that staff felt pressured to “get money out the door” and discouraged from “making waves”.
The CAO investigation reveals one of the most egregious investments in the IFC’s history.
Such findings should rightly provoke shockwaves at the institution, and an admission of fault, a commitment to root and branch investigation and reform, and apology and remedy to affected communities who have suffered at the hands of IFC’s client.
However, despite the CAO’s evidence of serious and sustained failures in IFC’s handling of the case, the IFC’s official response is superficial and its proposed actions totally inadequate.
In the face of CAO-compiled evidence which points to systemic problems and could indicate malpractice on its part, the IFC not only refuses to address these systemic issues, but compounds them with further attempts to cover up its wrongdoings.
In its response, the IFC rejects some of the CAO’s findings, without specifying which ones or providing evidence to support this rejection. IFC also states that the Action Plan is contingent on Dinant’s agreement.
Of grave concern is that the IFC continues to deny that human rights abuses may have been committed by its client in the Aguán Valley, and to deny that the root cause of these abuses is a long standing conflict over land.
Læs resten af udtalelsen på Grains hjemmeside: http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4854-cso-response-to-the-cao-investigation-into-ifc-investment-in-corporacion-dinant-honduras#sdfootnote1sym
