Background

​​​

In the name of ‘de-risking’ the energy transition for the private sector, multilateral development banks (MDBs) such as the World Bank Group (WBG) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are scaling up financing of risky, large-scale projects in the sector, especially mineral extraction and utility-scale greenfield hydropower projects. This raises critical questions related to human rights due diligence, access to remedy, and irreparable ecological harm, particularly because project siting is taking place at a time across the region when there is a notable uptick in restrictions on civic space, militarization, and escalating threats of reprisals against communities, allied environmental and human rights defenders and civil society organizations. Accordingly, communities and civil society advocates are the primary actors faced with bearing the negative burden of risks and harmful impacts of such projects. As a result, there is a need to open space for deeper conversations, with particular attention to on-the-ground ground realities, on the long term implications of such investment practices by MDBs, including causing and exacerbating human rights violations, undermining access to remedy, and sidelining ecological sustainability. 

 

This session will provide a space to discuss site specific experiences from the perspectives of civil society organizations working alongside communities affected by dams and mining ventures that are bolstered by support from MDBs. It will then wrap up with forward looking recommendations and collective calls from civil society to challenge public development banks’ ongoing investments in not only destructive energy projects, but also in the case of the mining sector, propping up multinational corporations with appalling human rights records and multi-billion dollar profit margins.

​

Key Objectives

​​​​

• Amplify experiences of communities and allied civil society groups in monitoring harm and pursuing accountability on critical mining and hydropower projects financed by the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank 

• Advance evidence based examples that illustrate the need for stronger mechanisms for redress and accountability in relation to MDB financing (for both direct and indirect project financing), responsible exit from harmful projects, and a genuine prioritization of the precautionary approach and to do no harm

• Examine the critical role of MDBs in contexts of closed civic space and conflict areas through an approach based on current case examples, including the necessity of effective protocols to prevent, mitigate, and respond to reprisals, especially in the context of shrinking civic space

​

Guiding Questions

​​​​

• What are the practical human rights implications when MDBs provide financing for ‘de-risking’ large scale hydropower and mining projects, especially in the context of closed civic space?

• What are steps that should be taken by MDBs to avoid harm, develop context sensitive practices to prevent situations that involve grave risk of reprisals, while also proactively addressing harms and reprisals as and when they are raised by community members and/or allied civil society groups?

• Given that MDB financing is continuing/increasing in the mining and hydropower sectors,  what no-go zones/types of investment should be avoided in these two particular sectors (i.e. are non-negotiable due to risks of human rights and environmental violations)?

​

Format

• Case in Point

​

Session Partners