A/HRC/36/40 of chemical fertilizers, implement intellectual property rights in agriculture, 63 enable private seed companies to increase profits, or facilitate the marketing of industrial seeds as opposed to seeds produced and exchanged by farmers, which are cheaper, more diverse and readily available in developing countries. 52. Those indexes are followed by investors and used by the Bank and bilateral donors to guide their funding. The Bank’s Investment Climate department 64 provides advisory services to countries relying on the Doing Business scores. According to the Oakland Institute, “in many countries such interventions have assisted with the creation of ‘one-stop shop’ agencies to attract foreign direct investments, notably through offering cheap land leases, water access and tax breaks to corporations”. 65 Whereas no scientific evidence 66 supports the selection of benchmarking topics by the Doing Business and Enabling the Business of Agriculture projects, or proves their effectiveness in fighting poverty, the Bank leverages such indexes to influence policy reforms around the world. 53. It is not without significance that over 280 civil society organizations, farmers’ groups, unions and think tanks have endorsed the Oakland Institute’s “Our Land Our Business” campaign, which denounces the Bank’s imposition of normative, standardized sets of reforms.67 54. Ahead of the Bank’s release of the 2017 “Enabling the Business of Agriculture” report, 68 157 organizations and academics from around the world criticized “the Bank’s scheme to hijack farmers’ right to seeds, attack on food sovereignty and the environment”. 69 The statement decries the fact that “the EBA dictates so-called ‘good practices’ to regulate agriculture and scores countries on how well they implement its prescriptions”. In reality, however, as the Oakland Institute adds, “the EBA has become the latest tool, to push procorporate agricultural policies, notably in the seed sector”. G. Immunity of the World Bank from litigation in domestic courts? 55. Hitherto the World Bank has been shielded from liability for human rights abuses by virtue of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. 70 However, as international law evolves, and in a similar way as Head of State immunity was loosened since the Pinochet arrest warrant in 1998, 71 the time has come for international financial institutions to be made accountable for harm resulting from loan practices and lack of due diligence. 56. Earth Rights International, a non-governmental advocacy group focused on the environment, has filed two claims against IFC in United States federal courts, 72 in which it 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Alice Martin-Prével, “Down on the seed: the World Bank enables corporate takeover of seeds”, (Oakland, California, Oakland Institute, 2017). Available from www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/down-on-the-seed.pdf. See www.worldbank.org/en/topic/competitiveness/brief/investment-climate. Letter to the Independent Expert dated 6 March 2017. See T. Manuel et al., “Independent panel review of the Doing Business report” (2013). Available from http://hendrikwolff.com/web/Doing%20business%20review%20panel%20report%20with%20signatu res%20and%20Bibliography.pdf and www.socialwatch.org/sites/default/files/Joint-statement-Our-Land-Our-Business.pdf. See www.oaklandinstitute.org/our-land-our-business, www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank-fuels-land-grabs-africa-through-shadowy-financial-sectorinvestments and www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank-sides-agribusinesses-against-farmers-indigenous-communities. See http://eba.worldbank.org/. See www.oaklandinstitute.org/civil-society-denounces-world-banks-scheme-hijack-farmers-rightsseeds. See August Reinisch, ed., The Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations in Domestic Courts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013). See www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/29411.html. See www.earthrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/jam_v_ifc_-_appellant_reply_brief.pdf. 13