Some of the Planet’s largest banks are still not fully implementing UN principles on human rights including those of indigenous peoples. This is according a recent BankTrack report which was quoted by the U.S.-based NGO Mongabay. The periodic survey, now in its fifth edition, examined the policies and practices of 50 major lending institutions by introducing for the first time three new criteria based on UN declarations related to the rights of activists, the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the right of human beings to a healthy environment.
BankTrack’s ranking
Native peoples face significant risks
According to the report, 82 percent of banks do not mention human rights activists and their prerogatives in their documents, while only 66 percent refer to FPIC without defining, however, verification processes to ensure compliance with this principle by customers and companies in which they invest. Only three banks – Banco Santander, ING and Bank of America – explicitly recognize environmental rights as human rights in their policy statements.
CHART – Banks do not protect human rights activists
The practical consequences are obvious. According to Giulia Barbos, BankTrack researcher and author of the report, in the absence of adequate measures indigenous peoples will continue to face disproportionate risks suffering in particular “the brunt of harmful projects and exploitative companies.” Examples in this regard include the case of the Achuar, Wampis and Kichwa native peoples in the Peruvian region of Loreto, who opposed in vain oil exploitation operations in their territory.
CHART – Only partial commitment on Free, Prior and Informed Consent
Self-regulation is not enough
Also according to Barbos, the source of the problem is related to the voluntary nature of banks’ commitments. Institutions, the report explains, should adopt policies that exclude the financing of projects that contribute to the violation of indigenous peoples’ rights under binding laws that also provide penalties for violations. In the absence of such laws, the regulatory framework today appears insufficient. Many institutions, for example, are signatories to the so-called Equator Principles designed to regulate the management of environmental and social risks. These principles, however, have been criticized for imprecise language and lack of a centralized complaint mechanism.
At the same time, however, the report mention a slight progress in human rights management policies and processes. There are now seven banks placed in the lowest category of the classification compared to 10 in the previous survey. With the addition of the new criteria, moreover, the average score of banks increased from 5.1 to 5.9 out of 15. Finally, four banks have developed or participated in accountability or grievance mechanisms.
