Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) and Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) made a joint submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights on Monday for its forthcoming official country visit to Japan. The submission particularly focuses on the roles of Japanese institutions in providing assistance or financing projects that harm Indigenous Peoples in countries across Asia and the lack of accountability of those institutions to remedy such harms. It is based on our experiences of working with Indigenous communities that have faced or are facing human rights impacts due to energy and other projects reportedly or being (co-)financed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)¹ and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)².

The submission details the challenges that are faced in seeking accountability of these mechanisms and accordingly provides recommendations.

Information disclosure

The first challenge that we and the communities face in seeking accountability of Japanese institutions for harms caused by the projects with their assistance/financing is the lack of public or easily accessible information about such assistance/financing. For example, the JICA website in Nepal does not provide any information about its assistance for the Tanahu Hydropower Project, which impacts Indigenous Magar and other local communities in western Nepal. The impacted communities have been engaged in dispute resolution processes with the Project facilitated by the accountability mechanisms of other co-financiers of the Project – the Asian Development Bank and the European Investment Bank. In lack of public information about JICA’s involvement in the project, including on its website, the communities are unaware if the JICA has taken any action in consideration to the concerns they have raised in relation to the project.

Often, governmental, news and other reports suggest assistance of Japanese institutions such as JICA/JBIC in contentious projects. But comprehensive information about the projects is difficult to find on their websites (particularly for JBIC financed projects³) or even in communications with the institutions (for example, in the case of JICA loan for improvement of electricity distribution in Kathmandu, which has been raised concerns among communities⁴).

Hence, JICA and JBIC should improve their information disclosure to provide comprehensive information, such as environmental and social impact assessments, impact management plans, monitoring reports, etc., about the projects that they are involved in publicly, including on their websites – categorized by country and each project in line with or building on the information provided by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Safeguards and Accountability Mechanisms

It is welcome that JBIC and JICA have their Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations⁵ and their accountability mechanisms, namely the JBIC’s Office of Examiner for Environmental Guidelines (OEEG)⁶ and the JICA’s Secretariat of the Examiner for the Guidelines⁷. However, the almost identical Guidelines of JBIC and JICA and their accountability mechanisms are not well known. The Guidelines are very generic although they refer to the requirements and standards to comparable standards such as that of the World Bank. The guidelines and the accountability mechanisms can be considered very weak – even in comparison to the standards of international financial institutions. This is evident in the fact that there have not been many complaints to the mechanisms.

JBIC and JICA should thus significantly increase their outreach about their Guidelines and accountability mechanisms, including in collaboration with relevant civil society organizations and other stakeholders such as the accountability mechanisms of international financial institutions. Further, they should strengthen their Safeguards (the Guidelines) that apply to the projects they finance as per the international human rights standards as well as their accountability mechanisms in line with the good practices among such mechanisms of international financial institutions the iso as to encourage the communities impacted by those projects to engage with them.

Other matters

Further, Japan’s National Action Plan on Human Rights (2020-2025)⁸ launched in October 2020 and the subsequent Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains⁹ (September 2022) have significant rooms of improvement although they represent strong steps in the right direction. For example, the National Action Plan and the Guidelines recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the vulnerable groups/stakeholders that require particular attention – the latter even notes the need to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples for their relocation. However, both the National Action Plan and the Guidelines lack mandatory measures to address the rights of Indigenous Peoples, among other human rights, in business contexts.

Thus, in line with the advancements in other parts of the world (particularly Europe and the European Union) as well as the global level with the proposed treaty on business and human rights, the Government of Japan and other authorities should move towards mandatory human rights due diligence requirements on Japanese businesses and financial institutions such as JICA and JBIC so that communities if impacted by business or other operations with involvement of those Japanese entities can seek accountability within Japanese legal and judicial systems.

Click here for the PDF version of the submission.