Box 1: New infrastructure-related institutions
Home » Posts tagged '“international financial institutions”'
The Inspection Panel is completing 25 years in its role, as an accountability mechanism of the World Bank. As you are aware, the Bank’s failure to comply with its operating policies was seen by the entire world in the Bank’s financing with the Sardar Sarovar Dam project on River Narmada. The tenacity of massive grass-roots uprisings from our communities in the 80’s and the sustained hard work of our social movements along with our resoluteness to link it with international coalitions to question the hegemony of the Bank, subsequently led the Bank, for the first time, to commission an independent review of its project. The Independent Review Committee (Morse Committee) constituted by the Bank in 1991 to review the social and environmental costs and benefits of the dam, after years of consistent struggle by Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save Narmada Movement) and its allies led to a demand from the civil society around the globe for the creation of a grievance redressal system for project-affected communities, which ultimately pressurized the Bank to constitute the Inspection Panel in 1993. We expected this might be a crucial backstop and an opportunity for us to raise our issues of livelihoods, economic loss, displacement from our lands, alienation from natural resources, destruction of environment and threat to our biodiversity and cultural hotspots, where Bank invested in large, supposedly ‘development’ projects like mega dams, energy and other infrastructure projects. Yet, the outcome we expected rarely delivered sufficient remedy for the harm and losses people have experienced over the years.
A number of accountability mechanisms over the next couple of decades in several development finance institutions were formed following the model of World Bank, commonly known as ‘Independent Accountability Mechanisms’[IAMs]. Each year the number of complaints rise which is an indication of the increasing number of grievous projects happening around the world. While IAMs of most MDBs are advertised to provide strong and just processes, many of our experiences imply that the banks are accommodating practices which suit their own needs and their clients, which are borrowing countries and agencies, and not the people for whom the IAMs were built to serve.
Many a time, we have been disappointed by these mechanisms, since these are designed by the banks who are lending for disastrous projects in our lands. And as a result, the already existing narrow mandate of IAMs is further restricted.
In our efforts to hold the lending bank accountable, the communities are always presented with the arduous process of learning the complex formalities and detailed procedures to initially approach the IAMs and get our grievances registered. Our many years’ time and energy then is channelised into seeing through the various cycles of these complaint handling mechanisms, that our entire efforts go into this process, and often our complaint gets dropped off in midst of the procedural rules of the IAMs. People are made to wait many months to clear procedural levels and our cases with the IAMs get highly unpredictable. Further, we face intimidation and reprisals from the state and project agencies for having contacted the IAMs who themselves do not possess any authority to address the violations hurled out to us when we seek dignity, fair treatment and justice from them. There are many of us who feel a loss of morale after long years of struggling with lenders when we fail to see concrete benefits or changes in our circumstances, by which time considerable irreplaceable harm is already done to our lives, environment and livelihoods.
In this manner, our immediate and larger goal of holding banks for their failure to consult with and obtain consent from communities before devising action plans for our lands, water and forests is deflected in the pretext of problem-solving and grievance hearing offered to us in the name of IAMs.
With over 50 registered complaints sent to different IAMS from India in the past 25 years, many more left unregistered due to technical reasons and only a few got investigated, assessed and monitored at different levels, we have a baggage of mixed experiences with the IAMs. A few of the prominent cases from India apart from Narmada project are Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project [WB’s IP], Tata Mega Ultra-01/Mundra and Anjar [IFC’s CAO & ADB’s CRP], India Infrastructure Fund-01/Dhenkanal District [IFC’s CAO], Allain Duhangan Hydro Power Limited-01/Himachal Pradesh [IFC’s CAO] and Mumbai Urban Transport Project (2009) [WB’s IP].
As we now know, what is being witnessed recently is an influx of approved and proposed investments majorly in energy, transport, steel, roads, urban projects, bullet trains, industrial zones/corridors, smart cities, water privatization and other mega projects in India. This has been financed from different multilateral and bilateral sources, foreign corporations, private banks as well as Export-Import Banks (ExIm Banks). It has become a brutal challenge for communities, social movements and CSOs, with lenders and governments constantly shutting their eyes and ears to us who demand accountability for their actions. A compelling and timely need has arisen among diverse groups amongst us to gather together and critically analyze the various trajectories of our engagements with accountability mechanisms of MDBs in order to bring together past 25 years’ learning, insights and reflections of various actors of this accountability process. This urging demand is also an attempt to define the collective experiences in India among our social movements, projected-affected communities and CSOs with IAMs and lending banks, especially appropriating the global political opportunity of Inspection Panel celebrating its 25 years this year.
The schedule and list of speakers will be shared soon.
By Nancy Alexander
This year, the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Meeting on October 12-13 overlapped with the IMF-World Bank annual meeting on October 13-15 in Washington, DC.
As of December 1, 2017, Argentina becomes G20 President with the past and future Presidents (Germany and Japan, respectively) as part of the G20 Troika. At the October G20 meeting, Argentina announced that it’s two key G20 Finance Track priorities will be the Future of Work (shared with the Sherpa Track and possibly looking at automation, education, and womens’ entrepreneurship as well) and Infrastructure Financing, especially through financialising infrastructure as an asset class. The priorities of the Argentine Sherpa Track will be announced at the final German Sherpa Meeting on 9-10 November in Berlin.
The individual G20 member countries hold the overwhelming majority of votesat the IMF and World Bank, so it is not surprising that G20 priorities are often identical to those of the institutions they dominate. For example, infrastructure financing has been a G20 development theme since 2010 and a powerful Finance Track theme since 2014, except under Germany, when infrastructure issues were dealt with by the Sustainability Working Group and under the Compact with Africa.
Since 2010, the G20 has focused urging the Multilateral Development Banks to standardize, scale-up, and replicate mega-projects, especially public-private partnerships (PPPs) in emerging and developing countries. Indeed, the G20 encouraged the strengthening of existing and start-up of new Project Preparation Facilities (PPFs) with the capability of accelerating mega-project preparation — especially for trade facilitation in the energy, water, transportation and ICT sectors. In each geographical region and subregion, Master Plans for Infrastructure in these four sectors have already been designed.
Especially since 2014, the G20 has tried to solve the problem of how countries can attract private investors, particularly long-term institutional investors (pension and insurance and mutual funds and sovereign wealth funds) which hold over $100 trillion in savings. While the G20 and the MDBs have not succeeded in mobilizing much additional financing for PPPs from investors, efforts to overcome remaining obstacles are described in Boxes 1 and 2.
Until the German Presidency, there was no effort to promote infrastructure that would be environmentally and socially sustainable. Even under the German Presidency, the officials leading the powerful Finance Track said that sustainability is the job of the (less powerful) Sherpa track. Infrastructure contributes approximately 60% of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted to the atmosphere; therefore, it is crucial that urgent steps be taken to curtail infrastructure that locks-in carbon-intense technology and ensure that infrastructure meet criteria for mitigation of GHG and adaptation to the effects of global warming. At present, all such criteria are voluntary whereas the rights of investors are legally protected in trade/investment agreements and the PPP contracts that include investment provisions.
Box 1: New infrastructure-related institutions
The G20 has directed each multilateral development bank to expand infrastructure financing for years, especially by “crowding in” the private sector. At the Hamburg G20 Summit in July, Leaders adopted principles to achieve this. These principles underpin the theme presented at the IMF/World Bank annual meetings — namely “Maximizing Finance for Development” (also known as the “Cascade” or “billions to trillions”). The October 14 Communique of the Development Committee emphasizes this theme, which is actually a relatively new paradigm for financing infrastructure.The IMF and World Bank’s two papersfor the Development Committee meeting describe this paradigm and its implementation.
While the World Bank is tasked with expanding private investment in infrastructure, the IMF’s Infrastructure Policy Support Initiative provides tools to help countries assess the macroeconomic and financial implications of various investment programs and improve their institutional capacity.
The gist of the “Maximizing Finance for Development” paradigm is that nothing should be publicly financed if it can be commercially financed AND that if commercial financing is NOT forthcoming for a project, a country must promote a more investment-friendly environment and/or private sector guarantees, risk insurance and other inducements should be provided. My blog criticizes the paradigm, which relies heavily on expanding the launch of PPPs, including by packaging them in portfolios for trading.
There are Cascade pilots in nine countries (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal and Vietnam) which are intended to introduce private sector solutions in energy, transportation, and other infrastructure sectors. The pilots will gradually expand to include other sectors and countries.
The “Maximizing Finance for Development” paradigm responds to the G20 interest in attracting private investors, especially long-term institutional investors such as pension and insurance and mutual funds as well as sovereign wealth funds. As it is, OECD pension funds ($30 trillion) and insurance funds face staggering gaps and potential insolvency unless they can get higher yields on their savings. Many long-term institutional investors, such as pension funds, will work with hedge funds and private equity funds to deploy their assets under management (AUM) in infrastructure portfolios for these higher yields.
The idea of this paradigm is for the public sector to take high risks at the early stages of project identification, design and construction and the long-term investors to take a revenue stream over 20 or 30 years. To counter this agenda, a Global Campaign Manifesto on PPPswas launched by 152 national, regional and international civil society organisations, trade unions and citizens’ organisations from 45 countries to “sound the alarm on dangerous PPPs.
Megaprojects and PPPs are not inherently dangerous, but when their design fails to produce adequate social and environmental co-benefits and heap risk on governments, they become so. When risk is heaped onto governments, PPPs tend to increase inequality by privatizing gains and socializinglosses. The World Bank “Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions” proves how heavily the World Bank proposes heaping risk on governments as well as introducing “stabilization” procedures that would inhibit the right to regulate/legislate in the public interest. Motoko Aizawa summarizes key critical pointson the Guidance and links to the legal analysisof the Guidance by the firm Foley Hoag. Despite major problems with the “Guidance” – it will be launched in Cape Town, Kuala Lumpur, and possibly Abidjan — unless the process is stopped in order to radically revise it.
|In Africa, the “Compact with Africa” report by the Africa Development Bank, World Bank, and IMF (March 2017, Baden Baden) describes how public utilities would be taken “off balance sheet” and user fees and domestic resources would be mobilized, along with aid, to shoulder public risks and, meanwhile, development banks would offer guarantees and liquidity facilities to offset risks to the private sector.
The heavy policy conditionalities proposed by the G7/G20 for each African country participating in the “Compact” include requirements that governments use the World Bank’s “Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions” which would impose enormous risks on governments while hobbling their capacity to protect the public interest. The conditions also require that governments develop Systematic Investor Response Mechanisms (SIRMs) to satisfy investor grievances before they reach international tribunals (Investor-State Dispute Settlement). Concerns for investors are not matched by concerns for citizens who often lack even basic information about the development of projects that will affect their lives.
In light of the heavier push for financialising infrastructure, we have a recent NEPAD announcement which calls for African asset owners to raise the percentage of assets under management for infrastructure from 1.5% to 5%. This strategy is aggressively promoted by Africa’s Continental Business Network (CBN), which issued a communique in September calling for the adoption of this strategy at the AU Summit in January 2018 with a roadmap presented to the African Finance Ministers meeting in March 2018 as well as the G7 and G20 Summits later in the year.
Box 2: G20 compact with Africa
The G20 will measure the performance of each MDB by the extent to which it leverages private investmentand, in turn, the MDBs will measure the performance of many countries by how effectively they leverage private investment.
In conclusion, the “Maximizing Finance for Development” approach would create greater reliance on commercial financing and reduce the need for World Bank lending to governments, as would the Trump/Mnuchin push to reduce World Bank lending operations to creditworthy countries (See FT 10/13/17 “US Demands China loan rethink as condition of World Bank cash”). If these approaches are implemented, the World Bank could shrink as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (and others) expand. Potentially the finance available for public goods (stable finance, sustainable development and climate goals, urban infrastructure such as sanitation…) would become even more scarce. Privatization and deregulation would give market players, even the predators, freer rein.
~ Maju Varghese
Every year, India pays an enormous amount of money as commitment charges to the multilateral institutions for not utilising the loans sanctioned by them. Investopedia defines commitment charges as the fee charged by the lender to a borrower for an unused or un-disbursed loan since it has set aside the funds for the borrower and cannot yet charge interest.
According to the CAG, between 2009-2015 India paid commitment charges up to 602 crores to the external lenders. In 2014-15 itself, India was holding Rs. 2,10,099 crores of unutilised funds thus inviting a commitment charge of Rs. 110 crores. Finance Ministry had found that between 1991 and 2009, the government had paid approximately Rs 1,400 crores as the commitment charges for loans not utilised.
The commitment charges are coupled with interest while reporting by the ministry of finance which makes it difficult to understand the charges paid to different agencies in a fiscal year. The CAG observed that putting commitment charges under the head “interest obligation” is misleading as it does not reflect the nature of expenses.
Arun Jaitley, the Indian Finance Minister minister of India, has been raising the issue of commitment charges. In the 94th development committee of the World Bank, he raised the issue of commitment charges which is highest among multilateral development Banks and demanded its withdrawal. This was again repeated when the demand when the CEO of World Bank visited the country and met the Finance Minister. India is among the countries which are graduating from a low-income country to lower middle-income country resulting in loss of concessional finance from IDA loans.
World Bank charges a commitment charge of 0.25 per cent per annum on un-disbursed loans even if they are committed to be drawn in subsequent years. This is in addition to a front-end fee, a fee paid by the borrower to the lender before the loan offtakes, of 0.25 per cent on loan agreement amount (applicable on current loans). These commitment charges begin accruing 60 days after the loan agreement is signed. Despite resistance from the countries, the World Bank has stated that it will not be able to remove commitment charges due to its cost recovery guidelines.
According to the CAG, India had a total outstanding debt of 51,04,675 crores as on March 31, 2015. This increased to around 57,021,582 crores on August 15, 2016, which means a per capita debt of Rs 44,032. This comes to around 41 per cent of the GDP. To service this massive debt, India pays about 36,318 crores as interest payment every year. CAG further reports that in 2014-15, 77 per cent of the long-term internal borrowings and 73 per cent of the external borrowings were utilised for debt servicing, implying that a larger percentage of debt was being used for paying the existing debts. This, in turn, meant the lower percentage of debt was available for meeting developmental expenditure to promote growth.
Swatch Bharat and commitment charges
The World Bank had approved a US$1.5 billion loan for Swachh Bharat Mission-Gramin (SBM-G), Modi government’s much-hyped flag-ship campaign on Sanitation to support the government’s efforts to ensure all citizens in rural areas have access to improved sanitation. The loan sanctioned in 2015 is the Bank’s biggest lending in the social sector.
The mission has provision for incentivizing states on their performance in the Swachh Bharat Mission. The performance of the States will be gauged through an independent survey based measurement of certain performance indicators, called the Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs). However, due to lack of independent verification of results, India missed the first disbursement of the loan. According to the media reports, India is likely to miss the second tranche too. Despite not receiving a single paisa, India has paid the commitment charge, interest, and front-end fees of USD 15.40 million so far.
The payment of commitment charges to the multilateral agencies because of governmental inability to plan and implement shows a lack of seriousness in using public money. CAG has mapped and pointed out the inefficiency of governments in utilising funds. The money that we pay as fine and commitment charges are a waste of public resources as pointed out by CAG in the reports from time to time. The proposal to set up a public debt and management agency for proper planning of external debt is still pending in spite of various statements by the finance minister.
Multiple CAG reports on debt need to be taken on a priority basis, and an oversight mechanism should be created within the parliament of India through a standing committee to look into external debt and also its investments abroad and making it transparent and accountable to the citizens of the country.
Netindia123.com: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 9, 2017)
Webindia123.com: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 9, 2017)
The Statesman: Call for nationwide protests against ADB’s projects in India
(May 8, 2017)
Business Standard: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 8, 2017)
Eenadu: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 8, 2017)
Sify.com: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 8, 2017)
The CEO Magazine: Medha Patkar demands more transparency in ADB projects
(May 8, 2017)
Orrisadiary.com: ADB’s 50 years greeted with mass protest at Bhubaneswar, Odisha
(May 8, 2017)
Sambad: ଏସିଆ ବିକାଶ ବାଙ୍କ ବିରୋଧରେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ (May 7, 2017)
The Shillong Times: ADB’s 50 years greeted with nationwide protests (May 6, 2017)
Navratnanews.com: 50 years of Asian Development Bank Destruction, Displacement and Exploitation of Natural resources (May 6, 2017)
Mumbainewsnetwork: ADB’s 50 years greeted with nationwide protests (May 5, 2017)
Daily O: ADB celebrates 50 years, but there’s a problem with development institutions (May 5, 2017)
The Ecologist: Asian Development Bank must end its 50 year addiction to coal!
(May 4, 2017)
The Telegraph: Protests against ADB projects (May 4, 2017)
Emaatimes.com: पटना: टुकड़ों में बंट कर रह गयी बिजली कंपनियां, गरीबों से दूर हो गयी बिजली
(May 3, 2017)
Janjosh.com: अगेंस्ट ADB की बैठक हुई सम्पन्न (May 3, 2017)
TwoCircles.net: Marking Asian Development Bank’s 50 years, protests to take place in over 100 places in India this week (May 2, 2017)
MattersIndia.com: ADB’s 50 years: Protests to take place in several places (May 2, 2017)
National News Analysis: Marking Adb’s 50 Years, Protest Actions To Take Place In Over 100 Places In India This Week (May 2, 2017)
Governance Now: ADB’s 50th anniversary, civil society’s 100 protests (May 2, 2017)
Counterview.org: Anti-ADB protests begin across India: Planks include loss of livelihood of indigenous people, eco-destruction (May 1, 2017)
Ecologise.in: ADB@50, Resistance@50 (April 28, 2017)
Counterview.org: 50 actions of resistance in India at 50 places against ADB’s 50 year of inequitable policies
(April 28, 2017)
(07 May 2017) Jhabua: Protest in Meghnagar, Jhabua against ADB and other IFIs
(May 6, 2017) Bilaspur: ADB Stop Violating Human Rights and Rights of Indigenous, tribal and forest communities: Stop Supporting Militarisation of our Territories
(May 5, 2017) Nagpur: Workers and Hawkers Stages Protests Against Privatisation of Civic Services
(May 5, 2017) New Delhi: ADB’s 50 years greeted with nationwide protests