As part of its outreach plan, the Business and Human Rights Working Group is seeking input from a variety of sectors. Perhaps it will inform its work; more likely it will inform it of the state of mind of those willing and able to supply input. These include the classes of actors that might have been directly asked, those who would have been invited, those who form part of cliques around highly motivated factions with specific agendas, and those with a supervisory role of the special procedures and their respective networks. That will be helpful, however limited or curated the pool of data sources.
Nonetheless, as usual in these types of efforts, the issue of input bias is always present. And that bias is in turn a reflection of skewing in which the universe of inputs is assumed to reflect the universe of opinion. Sometimes skewing is a useful strategy, especially where one is attempting through effective skewing but formal neutrality, to enhance the legitimacy of conclusions or choices--or to add weight to either. Sometimes skewing is most effective at the input level. Least helpful are efforts that effectively exclude voices that might be deemed threatening to the core agendas already embraced and that would, in that context, appear to get in the way of the forward march of objectives the trajectories of which are not subject to change. None of this matters, of course, except to the extent that what is produced from these inputs are then used as evidence of a consultation that accurately represents the positions of the universe of stakeholders, including those who voices are undervalued or which are nowhere to be found.
Sometimes skewing comes at the sorting and valuation of input stage.
Here it is up to the Working Group to consider and value input--and
transparency in the way that is done. That transparency might in turn extend to the metrics used (qualitative,
quantitative, political, social, representational, or whatever) might
add a useful bit of data for those inclined to assess the assessments
and conclusions produced by this highly influential and representative
body. traditionally this was unnecessary--the idea here is that the representatives are vested with the authority, on behalf of the institutions they serve, to exercise discretion which one expects ought to grounded in duties of loyalty, of care, and of transparently visible good faith.
This is also neither unusual nor problematic--it sounds in the sort of politics the cultures of which are now fairly well established especially in the operations of international public bodies and their instruments. In this case the Working Group continues its four tiered consultation harvesting framework--private meetings with selected states, business, and civil society,
Sessions of the Working Group are closed to the public, except for specific “public consultations”. For this session there will be no public consultation. The Working Group will convene separate meetings with different stakeholders:
9 February, 15:00-16:15: private meeting with States
9 February, 16:30-18:00 private meeting with Business
10 February, 15:00-16:30 private meeting with Civil Society
topped off by a general call for input. Or, in this case that call might eb made somewhat more problematic by the construction of a quite definitive territory the participants in which are specifically identified: "The Working Group seeks the input of all stakeholders (including international organisations, national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, research centres, academia, lawyers, law firms, DFIs, businesses, industry associations, trade unions, human rights defenders, and indigenous peoples) to some questions.
It is however, impossible to understand the hearts or minds the passions, ambitions, visions, and agendas, of human beings. And that is a natural risk of collective governance, as well as a reminder of those serving on behalf of others or in the service of an institutional collective whose objectives may not always align with personal desire, to be mindful of the all-to-human impulse of augment what aligns with the personal and resist or ignore that which does not. Indeed, it is to that effort that the Working Group explains the need for the general call: "In order to obtain a broad representation of views to inform the
thematic report, the Working Group is seeking written contributions from
all relevant actors through responses to a questionnaire." (Call for Inputs).
In that respect it may fall on the rest of us to aid our representative and influence responsive brothers and sisters in their efforts. To that end one can only add one's voice to those of others, including our friends on the Working Group and their staff (whose hard and essential work I acknowledge here with great thanks), whose input may make a difference, or may otherwise aid those who are more sensitive to skewing in assessing and therefore weighing the value of the report produced.
In a sense, one can understand these efforts in contemporary terms as a closed platform governance--meaning management model. That is, it represents the construction of a well curated space where producers and consumers of solicited data (information, opinions, 'facts', etc.) can be contained within a space from which it can be used both by the platform manager (the UN special procedures, in this case), and those others who might be granted access to some to all of the data (in this case for the general public as posted to the Working Group space on the UN-Geneva website). The platform operates on at least two levels, likely three. The most general level is that in which the general public may produce data and to some extent consume. The "private level" is limited to those invited to the private consultations. The third level would be limited to the special procedures themselves and those higher in the hierarchy whose consumption and production of data (the analytics and opinion formation serving as the textual foundation of conclusions and program suggestions to be articulated in text in the form of the generated report) is of a character different from the production-consumption function at the lower levels. The ability to assess consumption and production from the outside is at best quite limited--though it is to the outside that the product of these interactions is directed (eventually) though in the first instance to the bodies of responsible public and private players with authority to transpose the product into their own governance systems int he form of public and private hard and 'soft' law-rules-policies-expectations, etc. in accordance with the governance styles of the actors. Here, automated data analytics might be useful, though it cannot effectively reach the fundamental system challenge of skewing and the out-of-platform effects and practices of politics, capacity, social structures that contribute to the production and implementation of skewing.
The Inputs are expected by 3 March 2023.
Email address: hrc-wg-business@un.org
Email subject line: DFIs QUESTIONNAIRE
Word limit: Maximum of 2,500 words
File formats: Word, PDF
Accepted languages: English, Spanish, French
Postal address: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
United Nations Office at Geneva, CH 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
The text of the Informational materials posted to the Web Page:Call for inputs for the Working Group's report on development finance institutions and human rights (English) follows below.
Call for inputs for the Working Group's report on development finance institutions and human rights
Issued by
Special Procedures
Deadline
03 March 2023
Background
In its stocktaking exercise of the implementation of the UNGPs over the first decade since their adoption, the Working Group recognized that ‘financial actors have an unparalleled ability to influence companies and scale up on the implementation of the Guiding Principles1. With ‘financial actors’ understood here to include public DFIs as well as private sector finance institutions that often co-finance with other commercial banks and investors, these actors are central to pushing forward the realization of the UNGPs 10+ Roadmap for the next decade of business and human rights.
Considering the sustained attention that multilateral DFIs have received over the years, this report will primarily focus instead on national, sub-regional and regional DFIs, the nature of their financing of both public and private sector projects, as well as the breadth and depth of their impacts on human rights and the natural environment. In so doing, the report aims to provide practical guidance to States, DFIs, and other relevant actors on how to strengthen protection and respect for human rights through DFI financing, in line with the UNGPs.
Objectives
The report will examine the responsibility of Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) to respect human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).
The report will cover all three pillars of the UNGPs in the context of Development Finance Institutions and Human Rights: the duty of States to protect against human rights abuses by businesses, including when formally (or informally) linked to Institutions that provide support and services to businesses, in line with Guiding Principles 4 and 10; the responsibility of DFIs to ensure that their clients and the companies they invest in, as well as other business partners and entities in the value chain, respect human rights; and the role of DFIs in providing access to remedy to individuals and communities affected by DFI-funded projects that result in adverse human rights impacts.
This report will build on work previously undertaken by the Working Group and other organisations, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on DFIs2, as well as on relevant Working Group’s previous reports addressing issues such as the State as an economic actor3, the financial sector and human rights4, human rights due diligence5, policy coherence, and access to remedy.6
Key questions and types of input/comments sought
The Working Group seeks the input of all stakeholders (including international organisations, national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, research centres, academia, lawyers, law firms, DFIs, businesses, industry associations, trade unions, human rights defenders, and indigenous peoples) to some questions.
The questionnaire is available in English | Français | Español
How inputs will be used
In order to obtain a broad representation of views to inform the thematic report, the Working Group is seeking written contributions from all relevant actors through responses to a questionnaire.
1 A/HRC/47/39, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at 10: taking stock of the first decade’, Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, pp.15-16.
2 https://www.ohchr.org/en/development/development-finance-institutions; https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/policy-and-methodological-publications/remedy-development-finance
* * * .
Appel à contributions pour le rapport du Groupe de travail sur les institutions financières de développement et les droits de l'homme
Publié par
Special Procedures
Échéance
03 mars 2023
Contexte
Dans son bilan de la mise en œuvre des Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme (Principes directeurs) au cours de la première décennie qui a suivi leur adoption, le Groupe de travail a reconnu que "les acteurs financiers disposent d’une capacité sans équivalent d’influencer les entreprises et d’accélérer les progrès de la mise en œuvre des Principes directeurs" 1. Les "acteurs financiers" comprennent ici les institutions financières de développement (IFD ) publiques ainsi que les institutions financières du secteur privé qui participent souvent au cofinancement avec d'autres banques commerciales et investisseurs. Ces acteurs sont essentiels pour faire progresser la concrétisation de la feuille de route 10+ des Principes directeurs pour la prochaine décennie des entreprises et des droits de l'homme.
Compte tenu de l'attention soutenue dont les IFD multilatérales ont fait l'objet au fil des années, ce rapport se concentrera plutôt sur les IFD nationales, sous-régionales et régionales, sur la nature de leur financement de projets du secteur public et privé, ainsi que sur l'ampleur et la profondeur de leurs impacts sur les droits de l'homme et l'environnement. Ce faisant, le rapport vise à fournir des conseils pratiques aux États, aux IFD et aux autres acteurs concernés sur la manière de renforcer la protection et le respect des droits de l'homme par le biais du financement des IFD, conformément aux Principes directeurs.
Objectifs
Le rapport examinera la responsabilité des IFD en matière de respect des droits de l'homme, conformément aux Principes directeurs des Nations unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l'homme (principes directeurs).
Le rapport traitera les trois piliers des Principes directeurs dans le contexte des IFD et les droits de l'homme: le devoir des États de protéger lorsque les entreprises portent atteinte aux droits de l'homme, y compris lorsque ces atteintes sont formellement (ou informellement) liées à des institutions qui fournissent un soutien et des services aux entreprises, conformément aux principes directeurs 4 et 10; la responsabilité des IFD de veiller à ce que leurs clients et les entreprises dans lesquelles ils investissent, ainsi que d'autres partenaires commerciaux et entités dans la chaîne de valeur, respectent les droits de l'homme; et le rôle des IFD dans l'accès à des voies de recours pour les personnes et les communautés touchées par des projets financés par les IFD qui ont des effets négatifs sur les droits de l'homme.
Ce rapport reposera sur les travaux menés précédemment par le Groupe de travail (l'État en tant qu'acteur économique 2, le secteur financier et les droits de l'homme 3, la diligence raisonnable en matière de droits de l'homme 4, la cohérence des politiques et l'accès aux voies de recours 5 ), ainsi que par d'autres organisations telles que le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme (HCDH) sur les IFD 6.
Questions clés et types de contributions/commentaires souhaités
Le Groupe de travail sollicite la contribution de toutes les parties prenantes (y compris les organisations internationales, les institutions nationales des droits de l'homme, les organisations de la société civile, les centres de recherche, les universités, les avocats, les cabinets juridiques, les IFD, les entreprises, les associations industrielles, les syndicats, les défenseurs des droits de l'homme et les peuples autochtones) aux questions du questionnaire.
Le questionnaire est disponible en anglais | français | espagnol.
Comment les contributions seront utilisées
Afin d'obtenir une large représentation des points de vue pour alimenter le rapport thématique, le Groupe de travail sollicite des contributions écrites de tous les acteurs concernés en répondant au questionnaire.
1 A/HRC/47/39, ‘Dixième anniversaire des Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme : bilan de la première décennie d’application’, Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la question des droits de l’homme et des sociétés transnationales et autres entreprises, pp.18-19.
2 HCDH | Institutions de financement du développement (ohchr.org); OHCHR | Remedy in Development Finance: Guidance and Practice (en anglais)
No comments:
Post a Comment