International Finance Corporation’s “No Retaliation” policy faces — and is failing — its first test
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 30, 2018
NICARAGUA – From November 19-22, 2018, national police in full riot gear and carrying heavy weaponry descended upon communities opposing the Condor Gold Mining project in Santa Cruz de la India, Nicaragua, as they carried out a series of meetings during an official visit by the accountability office of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The IFC, the private lending arm of the World Bank, is a shareholder in British-owned Condor Gold plc, the company constructing the mine in Santa Cruz de la India. Its accountability office met with the community last week to assess whether the mining project was approved without the proper consultation of affected communities and without consideration for the human rights impacts of the project.
These communities are currently under siege, experiencing intense surveillance, intimidation, and death threats. The escalation of heavily-armed, militarized police forces in the area is further heightening tensions.
Notably, the police would leave when CAO officials were present and return when the officials left, suggesting the police did not want outsiders to witness these intimidating actions. After the CAO left at the end of the week, a death threat against a community leader was circulated on social media, including his name and a photograph pointing to his face. Multiple community members have had to leave their homes and temporarily live elsewhere for safety.
Just last month, in October 2018, the IFC published a no-tolerance policy for retaliation against those who voice their opinions about IFC-backed projects. Given the escalating situation in Nicaragua, it is time for the IFC to fulfill its commitment to ensuring that those who speak out against IFC projects are not the targets of reprisals. In doing so, they must support Nicaraguan community members who are using official channels to air their grievances and question the La India mining project.
“If the IFC and the World Bank are serious about their mission to create sustainable growth and eliminate poverty, they must act on their commitment to ensure that communities affected by their projects are able to express concerns in a safe environment,” says Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “That means responding quickly and effectively to the increasingly dangerous situation affecting hundreds of families around the La India mining project.
“Santa Cruz de la India is the first IFC-funded project to put the IFC’s ‘No Retaliation’ policy to the test. Members of the community who participated in the complaint to the IFC’s accountability office face direct, life-threatening danger for their involvement. The IFC must take urgent, meaningful steps to implement this policy to protect not only communities in Nicaragua, but everywhere it invests.”
The community has documented the criminalization and human rights violations they have faced in relation to the project, recording these in a complaint to the IFC’s accountability arm in July of this year. In its initial evaluation of the project, the IFC identified the mine would have few or limited social impacts.
“The IFC’s projects have profound human rights impacts on local communities. It’s high time for the IFC to prioritize these impacts when assessing the viability of an investment, not only the environmental risks,” says García Zendejas. “If ever there was a time when the IFC should start taking these risks seriously, it’s right now — before the death threats are acted upon.”
###
Notes for editors:
The IFC policy states: “IFC does not tolerate any action by an IFC client that amounts to retaliation – including threats, intimidation, harassment, or violence – against those who voice their opinion regarding the activities of IFC or our clients. We take seriously any credible allegations of reprisals.”
Furthermore, the policy explicitly states that the IFC will take appropriate action to address the threat of reprisals: “When complaints of this nature are raised with IFC, we work – within the scope of our mandate – with our clients or other appropriate parties to try to address them. In such instances, we raise our concerns directly with the client or relevant party, make our position against reprisals clear, and take follow up action as and where appropriate.”