·        4 June 2000: to Clare Short, re: concerns over the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline

·        no reply

·        10 July 2000: to Stephen Pickford, re: Chad-Cameroon Pipeline

·        no reply

·        23 August 2000: to Stephen Pickford, re: FPP Report on implementation of World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy

·        no reply, nor acknowledgment

·        8 January 2001: to Stephen Pickford, re: Civil Society concerns over lack of transparency and limited public participation in the conversion of the World Bank’s Resettlement Policy

·        no reply

·        23 January 2001: to the Clerk of the IDC, re: DFID’s Globalisation White Paper

·        receipt acknowledged by IDC and FPP memorandum published in full in IDC first report on the Globalisation White Paper, House of Commons, 6 March 2001

·        15 February 2001: email to Stephen Pickford, re: lack of response

·        reply by email from UKED (06/03/01) advising that queries and concerns had been passed on to WB external relations office

·        2 March 2001: to Stephen Pickford, re: Concerns about the weakening of World Bank Safeguard Policies

·        reply by email from UKED (16/03/01) advising FPP to raise concerns directly with DFID.  Written reply from DFID dated 04/06/01, noting concerns, asserting that DFID does not recognise safeguard policies as international standards and emphasising that DFID considers that there is a need for a new approach to social and environmental concerns in the operations of development organisations such as the WB.  DFID stressed in particular the need to adapt safeguard policies to programmatic aid, and invited NGOs to participate in further dialogue on these issues.

·        19 March 2001: to Clare Short, re: DFID’s Globalisation White Paper

·        Brief one-page written reply received from DFID (10/04/01) advising FPP to read all its policy and country strategy papers to understand UK policy (all DFID’s documents were included as enclosures).

·        19 March 2001: to DFID staff re: NGO concerns over the weakening of WB safeguard policies

·        No written reply, but invitation to meeting at DfID on 22nd March in which DFID clarified it does not have a firm view on safeguard policies and that it is “at an early stage of thinking” on these topics.  DFID asserted its concordance with the Bank position that due diligence for social and environmental work should be gradually passed to Borrowers. DFID advised NGOs that they are undertaking an internal study on safeguard issues.  DFID highlighted the concerns of Borrowers that safeguard policies make WB loans unattractive, particularly as regards their high transaction costs for their effective implementation.  NGOS again invited for continuing dialogue.

·        29 March 2001: to Stephen Pickford, re: Concerns over draft Involuntary Resettlement Policy

·        No reply from UKED.  Partial acknowledgement in letter of 04/06/01 from DFID noting that the letter on the Resettlement Policy from FPP provides useful recommendations, but without any clear response to concerns raised about the draft policy.

·        Meeting at DFID on 29/06/01, in which DFID staff stated seemingly contradictory positions. On the one hand, they asserted that “universal global standards are not the way forward” but on the other, they acknowledged there is a need to set a clear framework to link development to international human rights standards (which are universal?). DFID again voiced concern that the high cost of implementing safeguard policies may reduce the scale of borrowing from IBRD by middle-income countries from and consequently reduce the amount of concessional funds available to IDA.  DFID reemphasised its priority on promoting the reform the safeguard policies to address programmatic aid.

·        29 June 2001: follow-up letter to DFID, re: World Bank Safeguards in Perspective

·        Aknowledgement by email from DFID and invitation to a further meeting on safeguard policy issues on 04/09/01 where DFID again emphasised that it is interested in a new “ex ante” and “upstream” approach to social and environmental issues in international development operations, and advised NGOs that in DFID’s view, the current mandatory safeguard framework of the WB is overly prescriptive and that safeguards need to be “simplified” and the number of mandatory rules minimised, and that DFID considers that rule-based compliance is not an effective approach for promoting higher development standards.  Pressed on specific questions regarding the Bank’s Indigenous Peoples, Involuntary Resettlement and Forestry policies, DFID gave no clear responses, but did acknowledge that some public concerns about the weakening of these policies are justified.  Nor were any clear positions indicated on more general, fundamental questions about the need for new accountability mechanisms in WB loan operations, nor the UK position on the role of human rights standards in development. The same issues of programmatic lending and transaction costs were again raised by DFID, which reiterated its priorities to promote an incremental, upstream approach to achieving development standards.  NGOs advised that the UK government will not take the issues further until the WB revision on structural adjustment (OD 8.60) has been completed.  Follow-up letter from DFID dated 11/09/01 advised FPP of staff changes and to follow up any further dialogue on safeguard policy issues with the new staff.

·        3 August 2001: to Stephen Pickford, re: Board Discussion of Resettlement Policy

·        No reply

·        14 August 2001: to Stephen Pickford, re: Revision of the World Bank’s Policy on Information Disclosure

·        Written reply from UKED (10/09/01) affirming that the UK has “consistently argued” for further improvements in the Bank’s Disclosure Policy and the UK believes that the policy revision “does not go far enough” but clarifying that the UK applies an incremental approach to policy reform, so it endorsed the draft revised policy presented to the board without recommending further amendments.

·        11 September 2001: to Clare Short, re: Copy of joint letter from 218 organisations and individuals from 58 countries calling for a strong and clear WB safeguard policy on forests (copied by fax to Clare Short, and by email to DFID staff and UKDEL)

·        No acknowledgement of receipt

·        20 September 2001: to Clare Short, re: Request for UK support for amendments to WB draft Policy on Involuntary Resettlement

·        Written reply from DFID (07/11/01).  The reply did not address specific issues on human rights and international law, but rather informed FPP that UKDEL did not request amendments to the policy but had raised some concerns at the Board when the draft policy was being discussed: that it had argued that the policy should go further as regards the informed consent of Indigenous Peoples, and that it could be brought more in line with the standards of the IADB.  DFID confirmed that it had approved the policy but had at the same time supported the Board request for a review of implementation of the new policy in 2003.  DFID noted the Bank staff position that the policy conversions technically speaking are only aimed to clarify policies and not introduce new provisions.

·        11 December 2001: to DFID staff and UKDEL, re: Copy of letter to WB Policy Team: detailed comments highlighting flaws and weaknesses in the WB’s draft revised Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10), with multiple technical recommendations for strengthening the policy to make it consistent with international standards on the rights of indigenous peoples.

·        No acknowledgement of receipt

·        14 May 2002: to all 24 WB EDs, re: concerns over WB Draft OP/BP 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples and flawed plans for its finalisation, including multiple enclosures with copies of indigenous peoples’ and NGOs’ letters to the WB calling for a strong and clear safeguard policy, and an in-depth article by FPP’s lawyer demonstrating that the draft OP/BP 4.10 does not meet international human rights standards of indigenous peoples.

·        No reply or acknowledgement received.

·        15 May 2002: to Clare Short, copied to DFID staff and UKDEL, re: concerns over WB Draft OP/BP 4.10 on Indigenous People and its plans for finalisation

·        No acknowledgement of receipt, however FPP was invited to a meeting with the UKED on 22/05/02.  In the meeting FPP again put fundamental questions to DFID and UKDEL regarding the UK position on WB safeguard policies and their relations to international human rights standards.  Specific concerns were again reiterated regarding the indigenous peoples policy.  The UKED acknowledged that these were legitimate concerns but clarified that UKDEL has no clear position on these issues and again advised FPP to talk to specialised DFID staff.

·        June 2002: to DFID staff, re: copies of detailed letters from FPP to the WB calling for strong revised Forestry Policy.

·        Emails acknowledging receipt but no substantive reply.  However further invitation received to meeting with UKED and DfID staff on 10/09/02, where FPP was advised that DFID is still developing its substantive position on specific policies.  DFID repeated its offer of continuing the dialogue on these issues.