> 我们的工作 > 项目领域 > 中国与发展中国家 > 新闻

民间组织致信亚投行行长金立群,呼吁披露和问责对金融中介机构的投资
分享到:0

尊敬的金行长,


作为民间组织的代表,我们写信提请您关注与亚洲基础设施投资银行(以下简称亚投行)通过金融中介机构进行的投资(包括基础设施基金)有关的问题。


我们注意到,亚投行已于2017年投资了3家金融中介机构,包括印度尼西亚区域基础设施发展基金(Indonesia Regional Infrastructure Development Fund)、印度基础设施基金(India Infrastructure Fund)和新兴亚洲基金(Emerging Asia Fund),并且有包括印度国家投资基础设施基金(India National Investment Infrastructure Fund)在内的更多金融中介机构已纳入亚投行拟议项目名单。此外,我们了解到,亚投行正在制定投资股权和基金的战略。这正是亚投行考虑从其他开发性金融机构吸取经验教训的合适时机,从而避免陷入与金融中介机构贷款相关的陷阱和声誉风险。


虽然向金融中介机构投资有助于调动资金,并且吸引私营资本用于经济发展,但这种第三方或称为不干涉”贷款的形式也可能带来巨大的风险,特别是在委托方对环境、社会保障有要求的情况下。近年来,国际金融公司(IFC)有超过一半的投资组合是通过金融中介机构开展,IFC逐渐认识到上述可能存在的风险并采取措施以规避这些风险。根据IFC的问责机制“合规顾问监察员(CAO)”以及民间组织的重要发现,IFC的首席执行官Philippe LeHouérou已经承诺减少通过金融中介机构进行的高风险贷款。他表示:“我们将减少对高风险金融中介机构的投资,并对这一类型的投资(包括股权投资)进行更广泛的选择。”


2017年3月,CAO发布了关于IFC金融部门投资组合的第三次监测报告。该报告考察了IFC的一些行动,这些行动的目的旨在回应CAO于2012年《IFC第三方金融中介投资样本审计报告》中提出的问题。CAO上述报告的发现之一是,“IFC缺乏系统化的测量工具,导致其对金融市场贷款带来的潜在环境或社会影响知之甚少”。


在2018年的更新中, CAO发现,“总体来说,IFC不具备评估金融中介客户是否符合其环境和社会要求的基础”,这一发现尤其令人担忧。正如CAO所述,在支持高风险项目的金融中介客户时,这是一个极为棘手的问题,并且IFC无法保证,金融中介客户能否在分包项目层面执行环境、社会绩效标准。


过去一年进行的独立研究佐证了上述发现。国际包容性发展组织(IDI)进行了一项财务调查,以跟踪IFC在金融中介方面的投资及资金最终的使用情况。这一研究仅在IFC金融中介投资组合中的700家金融机构和220家私募股权基金中选取了一小部分进行研究。IDI发现,20多家IFC金融中介机构支持的130多个项目和公司存在或可能造成严重的环境危害和侵犯人权的行为。这些项目位于24个国家,包括能源、工业农业、采矿业、运输业、基础设施甚至私人军事承包等一系列高风险行业。在这些项目里,IFC的环境和社会绩效标准显然并未被采用。 IDI与银行信息中心、Urgewald、11.11.11、Ulu基金会和问责委员会合作,开展了包含四个部分的系列调查,题为《外包发展:揭开世界银行集团通过金融中介机构贷款的面纱》的报告详细介绍了这些调查结果。


针对这些问题,IFC的首席执行官近期宣布,IFC已经将其高风险贷款从16个减少到5个,并且承诺通过金融中介机构更多支持类似减缓气候变化和妇女所有的中小企业等项目和机构。此外,IFC还承诺“跟踪金融中介客户的煤炭风险,并计划在所有新的金融中介客户的法律文件中纳入煤炭风险报告要求”。


在此背景下,我们敦促亚投行从IFC的金融中介投资组合中汲取经验教训,避免相关的社会、环境和声誉损失。亚投行可以通过制定健全的金融中介机构投资政策和制度来确保透明度、问责以及所有利益相关方沟通的有效渠道。在亚投行的政策、投资决策以及与金融中介客户的合同中,这些要求应该是强制性的,包括:


• 审查拟议金融中介客户现有的项目组合和渠道,以确保所有项目符合银行的政策和战略;

• 确保拟议金融中介委托人在投资获得批准前已建立健全的环境社会管理体系;

• 审查金融中介客户在应用环境社会框架过往表现记录并将该评估情况对公众公开;

• 确保金融中介客户要求子项目应用亚投行相关的环境社会标准,并在子项目不能达到这一标准并造成环境或社会危害时,采取补救行动;

• 监督拟议客户的社会和环境尽职调查并监督其投资;

• 确保金融中介机构的子项目中受影响社区能够通过包括亚投行问责机制在内的渠道获得赔偿。


此外,亚投行应通过合同要求金融中介客户公开披露其所有投资,并允许亚投行在其网站上披露信息,这一点至关重要。这将有助于确保,受影响的社区及其他利益相关方意识到,这些项目必须符合环境社会标准,并且这一举措可以在早期阶段提醒客户、亚投行及其董事会注意其子项目是否符合这些标准。要求披露金融中介机构子项目的条款应包含在亚投行即将出台的公共信息政策中。在这方面,亚投行可以将遵循亚洲开发银行的相关政策作为第一步,要求“那些金融中介机构投资的、有可能造成重大的环境或社会影响的子项目,应通过信贷额度、其他贷款,股权、担保或者其他金融工具等方式”提前120天公开披露环境和社会评估草案。


在任何情况下,投资基金都应周期性地披露其信息。例如,由亚洲开发银行、IFC和PT. SMI公司共同持股的金融中介机构——PT印度尼西亚基础设施金融公司(PT. Indonesia Infrastructure Finance)作为亚投行的区域基础设施发展基金的承接方,应公开其所有子项目以及环境和社会影响评估。其他基金也应周期性地披露一系列的信息。


此外,亚投行副行长DJ Pandian在济州岛亚投行年会期间告诉民间组织,他认为由私募股权基金支持的、高风险的亚投行子项目信息披露将不会受到阻碍。这些信息将使得董事会、银行管理层、民间组织和潜在的受影响社区监测亚投行的标准是否正确应用于这些投资。这将大大提高透明度,促进和激励亚投行金融部门投资组合对于环境、社会和治理问题进行更好的管理。


我们期待着您对这些关切的回应,以及您对于确保亚投行会吸取IFC在降低高风险的金融中介贷款的经验教训的承诺。


谨启,

Rayan Hassan, 亚洲开发银行民间组织论坛

谨代表:

Kindra Mohr, 问责委员会

Kate Geary, 银行信息中心(欧洲)

Elizabeth Summers, 银行信息中心

Anna van Ojik, 两端

Luiz Vieira, 布雷顿森林项目

Paolyel MP Onencan, 农村发展布里萨倡议组织(乌干达)

Sarah Wykes, 天主教国际发展慈善组织

Wawa Wang, 银行观察网络

Joe Athialy, 金融问责中心(印度)

Frances Witt, 基督徒互援会

Hasan Mehedi, 沿海生计与环境行动网络(孟加拉国)

Heinz Hödl, 奥地利主教国际发展与使命峰会协调办公室(奥地利)

Shalmali Guttal, 全球南方国家聚焦

Helen Tugendhat, 森林人类

Dr Eduardo Tadem, 零负债联盟  (菲律宾)

Katharine Lu, 地球之友(美国)

Manana Kochladze, 绿色选择

Calvin Quek, 绿色和平(东亚)

David Pred, 国际包容性发展

Karavali Karnataka Janabhivriddhi Vedike, 国际南亚论坛

Andi Muttaqien, 政策研究与倡导组织(印度尼西亚)

Jocelyn Soto Medallo, 国际问责项目

Kate Horner, 国际河流

Maurice Ouma Odhiambo, 贾玛资源倡议(肯尼亚)

Sukhgerel Dugersuren, OT观察及河流无国界(蒙古)

Nadia Daar, 乐施会

Eugene Simonov,河流无国界国际联盟

Thilak Kariyawasam, 斯里兰卡自然组织(斯里兰卡)

Stephanie Fried, Ulu基金会

Korinna Horta, Urgewald



此公开信有中、英文两版,以英文版内容为准。


Dear President Jin,


We write to you as representatives of civil society organizations to draw your attention to concerns associated with the AIIB’s investments via financial intermediaries (FIs), including infrastructure funds.


We note that the AIIB has, in 2017 invested in three FIs - the Indonesia Regional Infrastructure Development Fund, the India Infrastructure Fund, and the Emerging Asia Fund - and that further FIs are on the proposed projects list, including the India National Investment Infrastructure Fund. In addition, we have learned that the AIIB is in the process of developing a strategy for investment in equity and funds.This is an opportune moment for the AIIB to consider the lessons learned from other development finance institutions to avoid the pitfalls and reputational risks associated with FI lending.


While investing in FIs can help mobilize funds and attract private capital for economic development, this form of third-party or ‘hands-off’ lending also comes with significant risks - in particular around clients’adherence to environmental and social (E&S) safeguards. In recent years, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) - over half of whose investment portfolio is channeled via FIs - has come to acknowledge these risks, and has taken some steps to address them. Following critical findings from both the IFC’s own accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) and from civil society, the IFC’s CEO, Philippe Le Houérou, has committed to reduce high-risk lending through FIs, saying “we will reduce IFC’s own exposure to higher risk FI activity and apply greater selectivity to these type of investments, including equity investments.”


In March 2017, the CAO released its third monitoring report on the IFC’s financial sector portfolio. The report examined actions taken by IFC to address the findings of the CAO’s 2012 Audit of a Sample of IFC Investments in Third Party Financial Intermediaries, in which the CAO found, among other things, that the “result of [IFC’s] lack of systematic measurement tools is that IFC knows very little about potential environmental or social impacts of its F[inancial] M[arkets] lending.” In this year’s update, it is of particular concern that the CAO found that the “IFC does not, in general, have a basis to assess FI clients’compliance with its E&S requirements.” As the CAO states, this is highly problematic in relation to FI clients that are supporting high-risk projects, and “where IFC does not have assurance that the development of a client’s ESMS [Environmental and Social Management System] is leading to implementation of the Performance Standards at the sub-project level.”


Independent research carried out over the last year has supported these findings. Inclusive Development International (IDI) conducted a financial investigation to track IFC’s investments in financial intermediaries to their end use. This research only examined the business of a tiny segment of the 700 financial institutions and 220 private equity funds in the IFC’s FI portfolio; however, IDI found more than 130 projects and companies funded by two dozens IFC intermediaries that are causing or are likely to cause serious environmental harms and human rights violations. The projects are located in 24 countries and come from a range of high-risk sectors, including energy, industrial agriculture, mining, transportation, infrastructure, and even private military contracting. In each of these cases it is apparent that IFC’s environmental and social Performance Standards are not being applied. IDI has detailed these findings, in collaboration with Bank Information Center, Urgewald, 11.11.11, Ulu Foundation and Accountability Counsel, in a four-part investigative series, entitled Outsourcing Development: Lifting the Veil on the World Bank Group’s Lending through Financial Intermediaries.


Responding to these problems, the IFC’s CEO recently announced that the IFC has cut its high-risk lending from 18 to just 5 investments5, and has committed to increase the number of FI investments ringfenced for such ends as climate mitigation and women-owned SMEs. In addition, the IFC has also begun “tracking FI clients’ exposure to coal, and plans to incorporate a reporting requirement on coal exposures in legal documents with all new FI clients”.


In this context, we urge the AIIB to learn from the IFC’s problematic experience with its financial intermediary portfolio and act to avoid the associated social, environmental and reputational damage. The AIIB can do so by putting in place robust policies and systems around financial intermediary investments to ensure transparency, accountability and efficient channels of communication with all stakeholders. These requirements, in AIIB’s policies, investment decision-making and contracts with FI clients should be mandatory and include:

 •  Scrutinising the existing project portfolio and pipeline of proposed FI clients to ensure that all projects are in line with the bank’s policies and strategies;

 •  Ensuring that the proposed FI client has in place a robust environmental and social management system before the investment is approved;

•  Reviewing the track record of the FI client in applying the environmental and social framework and making this assessment public;

Ensuring that FI clients require sub-projects to apply AIIB’s relevant environmental and social standards and take remedial actions should they fail to do so and cause environmental or social harms;

Monitoring the proposed client’s social and environmental due diligence and supervision of its investment; and

•  Ensuring FI sub-project affected communities have access to redress, including through the AIIB’s accountability mechanism.


In addition, it is crucial that the AIIB contractually require the FI client to disclose publicly all of its investments and permit the AIIB to disclose the information on its website. This will help ensure that affected communities and other stakeholders are aware that the sub-projects must comply with environmental and social standards and can alert the client, the AIIB, and its Board at early stages if those standards are not being met. A provision requiring this disclosure of FI sub-projects should be included in the AIIB’s forthcoming Public Information Policy. In this regard, as a first step, the AIIB could follow the ADB’s policy requiring 120-day public disclosure of draft environmental and social assessments “where the subprojects financed by the FI … through either credit-line, other loans, equity, guarantee, or other financing instruments, have potential for significant environmental or social impacts.”


In any case, funds routinely disclose a range of information. For example, PT. Indonesia Infrastructure Finance, a financial intermediary with equity held by the ADB, the IFC, and PT. SMI where the AIIB’s Regional Infrastructure Development Fund will be housed, discloses all subprojects and discloses environmental and social impact assessments.9 Other funds, routinely disclose a range of information.


In addition, DJ Pandian told NGOs in Jeju during the AIIB AGM that he can see no obstacle to disclosing publicly high risk AIIB sub-projects supported by private equity funds. Such information would enable the Board, bank management, civil society and potentially affected communities to monitor whether the AIIB’s standards are appropriately applied to these investments, greatly increasing transparency and facilitating and incentivising better management of environment, social, and governance issues across AIIB’s financial sector portfolio.


We look forward to your response to these concerns and your commitment to ensuring that the AIIB takes on the lessons learned at IFC to reduce high risk FI lending.


Yours sincerely,


Rayyan Hassan, NGO Forum on ADB


on behalf of:

Kindra Mohr, Accountability Counsel

Kate Geary, Bank Information Center-Europe

Elizabeth Summers, Bank Information Center

Anna van Ojik, BothEnds

Luiz Vieira, Bretton Woods Project

Paolyel MP Onencan, Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organization (BIRUDO) Uganda

Sarah Wykes, CAFOD

Wawa Wang, CEE Bankwatch Network

Joe Athialy, Center for Financial Accountability, India

Frances Witt, Christian Aid

Hasan Mehedi, Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network, Khulna, Bangladesh

Heinz Hödl, Coordination Office of the Austrian Bishop’s Conference for International Development and

Mission (KOO), Austria

Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the Global South

Helen Tugendhat, Forest People (FPP)

Dr Eduardo Tadem, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines

Katharine Lu, Friends of the Earth, USA

Manana Kochladze, Green Alternative

Calvin Quek, Greenpeace East Asia

David Pred, Inclusive Development International

Karavali Karnataka Janabhivriddhi Vedike, INSAF

Andi Muttaqien, Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Indonesia

Jocelyn Soto Medallo, International Accountability Project

Kate Horner, International Rivers

Maurice Ouma Odhiambo, Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya

Sukhgerel Dugersuren, OT Watch and Rivers without Boundaries, Mongolia

Nadia Daar, Oxfam

Eugene Simonov, Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition

Thilak Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka Nature Group

Stephanie Fried, Ulu Foundation

Korinna Horta, Urgewald



返回页首