A/HRC/36/40 38. Similarly, an October 2016 briefing note by Oxfam states: Over the past six years, the International Finance Corporation has channelled over $50bn to the financial sector, and its long-term investments in financial intermediaries such as commercial banks and private equity funds have dramatically risen by 45 per cent …. However, the evidence continues to grow that … the World Bank Group has little control over how a great deal of this money is spent. This lack of accountability is having devastating impacts on many poor communities. 37 39. While some progress is being achieved, as Oxfam commented at the end of the 2017 World Bank and IMF meeting, still more could be done, “we’re encouraged by the IFC’s commitments to improve oversight and be more selective of its high-risk financial intermediary investments. … What we’re still waiting for, and which is key, is transparency from the IFC to show where their money is really ending up”. 38 D. Public-private partnerships 40. Many civil society organizations have protested the Bank’s apparent commitment to the promotion of public-private partnerships, notwithstanding the challenges they pose to the regulatory space of governments, especially in the fields of clean water and sanitation, health services and education. In fact, the year 2016 was characterized by an intensified push for megaprojects and public-private partnerships.39 41. However, experience shows that public-private partnerships have not served developing countries well. For example, it appears that the flagship health public-private partnership of IFC threatens to disrupt health-care programmes in Lesotho. In 1999, the Queen Mamohato Memorial Hospital, a new hospital run by the private sector and financed through an IFC loan, was built to replace the old main public hospital in Lesotho. Lesotho finds itself locked into an 18-year contract that is already consuming more than half of the country’s health budget, while producing high returns to the private partner. 40 That constitutes a dangerous diversion of scarce public funds from primary health-care services in rural areas, where three quarters of the population live. Not only are health public-private partnerships high risk and costly, they fail to advance the goal of universal and equitable health coverage. 42. In another case, in August 2016, the Minister of Education of Uganda announced the closure of 63 nursery and primary schools operated by Bridge International Academies, a private education services provider partly financed by IFC. The Minister stated that the decision was based on “danger from poor hygiene and sanitation on the life and safety of the innocent children”.41 43. Similarly, in its response to the questionnaire sent by the Independent Expert, Open Society, Armenia, observed that, despite spending more than $100 million to support the Armenian education system, almost no systemic impact or improvement was recorded from an education public-private partnership supported by the Bank. On the contrary, the loans served to increase unequal access to quality education. Elsewhere in Europe, after examining the use of public-private partnerships in Portugal, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned that public-private partnerships “should be chosen only when they represent good value for money, not because they allow the government to escape budget restrictions by building up off-balance sheet liabilities”.42 37 38 39 40 41 42 10 See www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bn-ifc-owning-outcomes-031016en_0.pdf. See www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/no-breakthrough-big-issues-spring-meetings. See www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2017/02/bank-imf-2016-year-review/ and www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2017/04/world-bank-undermines-right-universal-healthcare/. See www.oxfam.org/en/research/dangerous-diversion. Bretton Woods Observer, Autumn 2016, p. 2. Available from www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Observer_Sept_16_online.pdf. See www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-portugal-2012_eco_surveys-prt-2012en, p. 26.