| Summary of issues and concerns regarding the Revision of the World Bank's Indigenous Peoples Policy |
|
July 2001 A. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: proposed changes threaten to weaken the Bank’s policy After being hidden from public view for nearly two years, in early July 2001 the World Bank finally circulated its latest draft of its revised Indigenous Peoples policy known as OP/BP4.10. This proposed new safeguard policy is of crucial importance to indigenous peoples because it will determine how Bank staff and its clients (governments) deal with indigenous communities affected by its development projects and programmes. Bank staff and technicians overseeing the policy revision claim that their proposed changes are intended to make things clearer for their staff and clients to improve the quality of implementation. However, scrutiny of the contents in the draft reveals that the Bank plans to make major negative changes to the policy. It is very disappointing to see that the draft is significantly weaker than the existing policy (OD4.20) because: · It is now split into two parts: Part 1 is mandatory and Part 2 is optional. Special action by the borrower and Bank to address indigenous land rights is now in the optional part of the policy; · Bank staff and borrowers are only now required to pay “particular attention” to indigenous land and resource issues. They are not required to do anything about them. · Provisions to address legal and institutional issues, which were mandatory in the previous policy, are now optional. Such components are now only included “upon request from the borrower”. · It introduces a different and unexplained “process approach” for people adversely affected by parks and protected areas; The Bank has therefore ignored the consistent message sent by indigenous peoples during the first round of public consultations in 1998/99 i.e., that any new policy must be stronger than the existing policy. The draft shows that the World Bank has not listened to this central message. As well as ignoring the indigenous request for stronger provisions on land and resource security, other key indigenous recommendations have been disregarded in the draft policy OP/BP4.10 which: · does not recognise the right of prior informed consent; · does not meet existing international human rights standards and emergent standards contained in the Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; · does not use self-identification as the principle criterion for the application of the policy; · does not prohibit the involuntary resettlement of indigenous peoples; · confuses “consultation” with “participation” · does not require indigenous monitoring and tracking of World Bank operations; · does not require baseline studies with an environmental audit; · lacks any requirement to agree fair “mitigation” with affected indigenous communities and their representative organisations; · does not enable indigenous involvement in negotiations between the Bank and governments; The World Bank has not explained why these recommendations have been disregarded. Nor has it explained how input from indigenous peoples and their supporters made during the numerous public consultations in 1998/99 have affected the latest draft of the policy. B. PROCEDURAL ISSUES: World Bank attempts to push through new policy The World Bank proposes to rush through this policy by early 2002. The proposed schedule on the Bank’s web site is as follows:
The schedule and background materials provided by the Bank lack useful information because they : · do not explain why specific changes to the existing policy have been introduced in the draft; · do not give any guarantees nor explanations about how indigenous peoples’ inputs will affect the final policy; · give no information on the number, location or format for public consultations. The need to delay the finalisation of the policy For years indigenous peoples’ organisations and support NGOs have argued that any revision of the Bank’s IP policy must be based on a thorough review of implementation, which learns lessons from the experience of indigenous peoples themselves. The Bank eventually launched such a review in April 2001. The Bank’s review team is separate from the one undertaking the policy revision. The review team has stated it is open to written inputs from indigenous peoples and NGOs in Phase I. In Phase II, the review team will undertake participatory assessment in a few selected countries including Peru, Guatemala and India. Phase II is due to be completed by December 2002. The above rushed schedule for the policy revision therefore raises serious concerns because it: · will not take account of the full finding of the implementation review. The Bank proposes to finalise and approve the new policy almost a year before the implementation review is completed. This seems a waste of valuable lessons learned through experience on the ground; · leaves limited time for the prior circulation of information to IPs regarding proposed changes to the existing policy; C. Suggestions of key issues that need addressing: · How can indigenous peoples best express their concern over the proposed changes to the policy and underline their expectations of any new World Bank instrument(s) to safeguard indigenous rights and territories? Should a statement or declaration be made to the World Bank? · How will (or won’t) input by indigenous peoples and other civil society affect the contents and provisions of the final policy? The World Bank must provide a clear answer to this question. · Should the Bank delay finalisation of the policy until the full findings are available from the implementation review? · What are the minimum criteria for an effective consultation on the proposed new policy? What are the terms that must be met before indigenous peoples agree to participate in the Bank’s public consultation process? |
