A/HRC/45/28 environmental human rights defenders, through recognition of their legitimate role in decision-making (A/71/281, para. 66). 22. The Independent Expert notes that all international financial institutions have adopted environmental and social safeguards that address stakeholder engagement, and that some institutions, such as the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and EBRD, have adopted specific standards on the subject, requiring borrowers to engage in an open and transparent manner with stakeholders affected by the project. 10 These are important standards, whose aim must always be the meaningful participation of stakeholders. To this end, the Independent Expert refers to the emerging good practices among development finance institutions regarding requirements on participation, as identified by OHCHR, with a view to these institutions strengthening their existing safeguard provisions and practices. These requirements include the following: a participation plan, supported by resources, that establishes a systematic approach to stakeholder engagement across the project life cycle, starting at the earliest possible stage; an overarching objective of obtaining broad community support for all projects; mapping of the different types of stakeholders to identify the people who have human rights entitlements related to a project; representativeness and equitable participation, and accessibility and the inclusion of disadvantaged groups and others who may be discriminated against, ensuring that women’s perspectives are obtained and taken into account; and targeted capacity-building and/or other assistance to empower the individuals and communities affected.11 The Independent Expert also refers to the guidelines and recommendations on the practical implementation of the right to development, developed by the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, which stress the importance of meaningful participation in setting development priorities and enjoying development benefits, including where development banks are concerned (A/HRC/42/38, paras. 50–51). 23. However, despite these overall sound safeguards, stakeholder engagement at the project level reportedly remains a regular problem in many countries, which is of serious concern to the Independent Expert. These experiences have been documented in many reports by civil society 12 and by independent accountability mechanisms in charge of receiving grievances from stakeholders about projects funded by international financial institutions. It is reported that 57 per cent of complaints received by such mechanisms up to 2015 dealt with infrastructure projects, and one of the most commonly raised concerns was about inadequate consultation and disclosure. 13 Importantly, the requirements of international financial institutions for consultations fail to address the inherent power imbalances that exist between the borrower and the communities affected by the project. This is all the more problematic as the responsibility to carry out consultations lies with the borrower, including the public sector.14 24. Another hurdle to the effective public participation of communities is the extensive use by international financial institutions of financial intermediaries, such as equity funds and commercial banks. Civil society actors have complained to the Independent Expert that they have little to no information on the identity of the financial beneficiaries (whether company or project), and public participation is therefore impossible. While the international financial institutions require their financial intermediaries to abide by their 10 11 12 13 14 6 See www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/environmental-and-socialframework/brief/environmental-and-social-standards, www.eib.org/en/publications/environmentaland-social-standards-overview.htm and www.ebrd.com/who-we-are/our-values/environmental-andsocial-policy/performance-requirements.html. OHCHR, “Benchmarking study”, draft study report, p. 41. See, for instance, International Accountability Project, Back to Development: A Call for What Development Could Be (2015). Available at https://accountabilityproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/IAP-Back-to-Development-Report.pdf. Caitlin Daniel and others, eds., Glass Half Full? The State of Accountability in Development Finance (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, Amsterdam, 2016), p. 17. Submission received from the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.