Invest in Kenya: Focus Kisumu

This guide offers a brief description of investment opportunities in the Kisumu area, supplemented by a description of the investment climate and of the broader context of Kenya and East Africa

220+ Law and Economics Professors Sign Letter Opposing ISDS in the TPP

CCSI helped launch a letter joined by over 220 law and economics professors calling on Congress to oppose the final Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because that treaty includes the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. As the letter notes, the ISDS mechanism “threatens to dilute constitutional protections, weaken the judicial branch and outsource our domestic legal system to a system of private arbitration that is isolated from essential checks and balances.” Despite the Obama administration’s claims to have addressed growing concerns about the ISDS system, the final TPP would instead vastly expand the ISDS threat to the rule of law and U.S. democratic institutions. This letter served as the model for a similar letter published in October 2017 urging President Trump to remove ISDS provisions from NAFTA

Community Development Funds and Agreements in Guinea Under the New Mining Code

Guinea’s 2011 Mining Code introduced a large number of reforms directed to increasing transparency and the contribution of the mining sector to development, including requirements for the establishment of a local development fund and for community development agreements between mining companies and local communities. As part of the legal and fiscal analysis of the gold mining investments in Guinea, CCSI examined how these provisions could be implemented effectively. CCSI produced a report that makes recommendations as to how the Government, mining companies, civil society and communities can work together to maximize the benefits of local development funding in the Guinean context. The report analyzes the legal framework that has been in place in Guinea to date, focusing in particular on the experiences of the stakeholders around the Société AngloGold Ashanti de Guinée mine in Siguiri, assesses the improvements and remaining weaknesses in the draft regulations (as compared to the previous legal framework) and provides a comparative analysis of models and good practices of community development agreements and local development funds globally. The report provides recommendations on: The definition of multi-stakeholder revenue management bodies The definition of the local communities that are to benefit from community funding The allocation of mining revenue among communities affected by or around the mine Revenue management and volatility The selection of development projects under the local development fund Management of projects funded by the local development fund The process for entering into community development agreements Institutional arrangements to implement the requirements of the community development agreement

Submission Re: Criminalization and attacks against indigenous peoples defending their rights: proposals for action to prevent and protect

The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) is grateful for the opportunity to provide this input to the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. As a joint center of Columbia Law School and the Earth Institute, we focus on international investment and its impacts on sustainable development. In this context, we are increasingly concerned about the repression and criminalization of human rights defenders, including indigenous rights defenders, in the context of investment projects—a situation that unfortunately seems to show no sign of abating. Our input focuses on one specific topic that we believe may be overlooked in general discussions about human rights defenders: the possibility that the international investment law regime, comprised of thousands of bilateral and multilateral treaties, may in a causal way exacerbate the potential for repression and criminalization of human rights defenders. This concern was raised at a one-day roundtable hosted by CCSI and the UN Working Group for Business and Human Rights in October 2017,1 and we believe it merits further exploration

Comments on the World Bank’s Draft Guidance Note for Borrowers ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement

In December 2017, CCSI sent comments to the World Bank regarding its Draft Guidance Note for Borrowers ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement. CCSI’s overarching comments on the Guidance Note were that: Its description of affected persons and their rights contradicts and undermines international consensus on land governance supported by the Bank It fails to provide any guidance on when involuntary resettlement should be considered unavoidable or how Borrowers can prioritize project designs that actually minimize displacement or other harms It fails to put rights-holders (or “affected stakeholders”) at the center of solutions Its discussion of retroactive applicability is wholly unsatisfactory, and risks the Bank condoning actions that completely fail to meet requirements of the Safeguards It could do more to explain how forced evictions will be avoided through the application of ESS

Public Consultation on a Multilateral Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement

In March 2017 CCSI made a submission to the European Commission (EC) in response to its “Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute settlement.” CCSI’s submission consisted of a response to the form questionnaire created by the EC and a supplementary “Position Paper” to explain in greater depth CCSI’s views on the EC’s proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). In its Position Paper, CCSI emphasizes the importance of international investment and international law to sustainable development objectives. The submission stresses, however, that the EC’s proposed MIC does not address, and therefore does not remedy, the most problematic aspects of the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system and thus represents a missed opportunity for true reform. CCSI analyzes the frequently cited objectives of ISDS, on which the MIC is based, and explaines the reasons for which these are not the correct objectives from a sustainable development perspective. CCSI’s position is that the MIC will serve to further entrench and expand a broken dispute resolution system. CCSI concludes with the importance of developing an inclusive investment dispute resolution system and notes that CCSI and other partners are engaged in discussions of what this kind of reform should look like

Transparency in Land-Based Investment: Key Questions and Next Steps

Large-scale investments in agriculture and forestry are often shrouded in secrecy. In many cases, they are negotiated without the involvement of affected communities, approved through opaque decision-making procedures, and governed by legal agreements that are difficult both to access and to understand. This systemic lack of transparency impedes accountability and exacerbates ongoing disagreements about the real costs and benefits for investors, host countries, and their citizens. Jointly authored by CCSI and the Open Contracting Partnership, this briefing note examines why contract disclosure and a contracting process that is open, accessible, and inclusive are important; what such transparency entails; and how various stakeholders can work towards achieving it

Input to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights regarding guidance on human rights defenders and the role of business

The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) is grateful for the opportunity to provide input to the Working Group regarding elements for guidance on human rights defenders and the role of business. As a joint center of Columbia Law School and the Earth Institute, we focus on international investment and its impacts on sustainable development. In this context, we are increasingly concerned about the repression and criminalization of human rights defenders in the context of investment projects—a situation that unfortunately seems to show no sign of abating. Our input focuses on one specific topic that we believe may be overlooked in general discussions about human rights defenders: the possibility that the international investment law regime, comprised of thousands of bilateral and multilateral treaties, may actually exacerbate the potential for repression and criminalization of human rights defenders. This concern was raised at a one-day roundtable hosted by CCSI and the Working Group in October 2017, 1 and we believe it merits further exploration

230+ Law and Economics Professors Urge President to Remove ISDS from NAFTA

CCSI helped launch a letter signed by over 230 law and economics professors urging President Trump to remove ISDS provisions from NAFTA. As the letter notes, the ISDS mechanism “undermines the important roles of our domestic and democratic institutions, threatens domestic sovereignty, and weakens the rule of law.” The letter builds upon the center’s past work, including a similar letter published last year calling on Congress to reject the Trans Pacific Partnership for its inclusion of ISDS, and broader analyses of both the threat that ISDS poses to domestic US law and of the ISDS provisions that were included in the TPP

Outcome Report of Roundtable on Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) of Large-Scale Foreign Investments

CCSI, the Sciences Po Law School Clinic, and the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute recently published an outcome document of a one-day roundtable focused on the opportunities and challenges presented by human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) of large-scale foreign investments. The roundtable, which was held in April 2014 at Columbia University, provided an opportunity for collaborative reflection on the development of HRIAs, as well as on ways to enhance HRIAs as a framework and tool for both human rights advocacy and human rights risk management in respect of foreign investments. By sharing the outcomes of the roundtable, this document aims to support HRIA practitioners, company officials, civil society representatives, and other stakeholders focused on human rights and foreign investment in further reflection on the objectives and methods of HRIAs. The roundtable examined the various practices comprising HRIAs, and the discussion underscored that many of the challenges associated with carrying out an HRIA are common to multiple stakeholders, albeit borne out in different ways. This outcome document describes some of the primary ways in which HRIAs are undertaken and outlines the salient issues and key challenges that practitioners have identified