The World Bank continues to soak up a lot of NGO effort as environmental and human rights groups try to keep track of the multiple initiatives and policy processes being undertaken by this huge institution. These include the continued revisions of the indigenous peoples policy, involuntary resettlement policy, forest policy and other operational directives including those on information disclosure and structural adjustment. The Bank is also commencing work on a long-awaited and much-needed policy on social assessment. At the same time, the Bank is involved in drawing up an environmental strategy and has invited comments from civil society.

All these processes have become bogged down in internal struggles within the Bank about which standards to use and how to apply them. On the one hand the Bank is being pushed by powerful Southern borrower governments like China to relax its standards while key Board members, notably those from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia - after being lobbied hard by NGOs - are seeking to raise the bar. However, in line with the Bank’s new emphasis on decentralisation and “country ownership”, there are indications of a shift in power in the Bank’s Board whereby Part II members (Borrowers) have more influence. While this sounds more just, in practice it means that developing country governments are demanding easy money with weaker provisions for human rights and the environment. There is therefore a need for NGOs to reassess their advocacy strategies to take account of these major shifts in the dynamics of the World Bank Group.

It is equally important to note that there is a consensus emerging in the Bank that the whole question of operational standards needs to be revisited to take account of the way the Bank now operates (i.e., with more partnerships with the private sector and more structural adjustment lending). In short, the Bank is rethinking its whole approach and in the coming years it will be vital that NGOs make a firm input to this debate and demand that the Bank applies standards that are consistent with international human rights and sustainable development standards (CBD,UNCED, Agenda 21, Forest Principles etc.).

In March 2001, a sign on letter endorsed by 72 NGOs, North and South, from 32 countries was sent to all the Bank EDs urging the Bank to ensure that its policies are not weakened in the name of flexibility and cost-effectiveness. The letter appealed to the Bank to guarantee that its policies meet international standards and are consistent with human rights law. The Bank is also urged to adopt a rights-based approach to development.

As well as this general debate about development standards, NGOs are addressing immediate policies issues where instruments are soon to be finalised:

A. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (see also FPP briefing # 1)

Given the turmoil in the Bank over standards, the latest draft IP policy that was about to be launched in March has again been delayed. The Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) has viewed the latest February 2001 draft and is disappointed to see it is weaker than the existing policy as it now make no requirements on borrowers to take action to secure indigenous land and resource rights. The policy also fails to incorporate many key recommendations made by IPs in 1998 during the first round of external consultations held by the Bank in the six regions where it operates. At the same time, the Bank’s own quality control arm, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) is belatedly starting in April 2001 its own review of the quality of implementation of the Bank’s IP policy - something NGOs have been demanding for years. FPP and other NGOs are now pressing the Bank to delay the finalisation of its IP policy in order to take account of this review.

B. INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY

The revision of this policy had started in an open way in 1997-1999, but in 2000 it closed up as commitments to post a matrix showing how public comments had been incorporated were not honoured by senior management. Repeated criticisms for the failure to fulfil commitments (with letters to the Bank’s president and country EDs) eventually resulted in the matrix being posted in March 2001 (after a year of complaints).

A draft policy was then posted on March 16 2001 that revealed offensive and serious loopholes that would enable borrowers to relocate indigenous peoples even where this would result in ethnocide. The draft also introduced controversial unexplained terminology and established a discriminatory approach for communities adversely affected by parks and protected areas. A storm of protest was unleashed by the international community spearheaded by FPP and the Centre for International Environmental Law. In just one week in early April, the head of the Environment Department at the Bank received over 1000 emails and hundreds of faxes sent by activists clogged up Bank communications for days.

While the Bank denies it is weakening its policy, it has now agreed to change the draft “in response to public comments”. In short, NGOs have gained more time and intense pressure seems to have at least opened the process up again. Nevertheless, the Bank is stubbornly refusing to incorporate the standards recommended by the World Commission on Dams - here is the crux of the debate over standards that is raging at the moment: does the Bank just revise its policies according to its own criteria or does take on board public concerns and make them consistent with existing and emerging international standards?

NGOs are demanding the latter though the Bank is torn between competing demands.  It concedes that NGO concerns are valid, but argues it must also consider the concerns of its borrowers who claim that such standards are unreasonable and too expensive to implement. In the meantime, there is no clear information about how or when the Bank will produce a revised version of its controversial March 2001 draft. Nor is it clear if the Bank will allow further comments. Campaigners are pressuring the Bank not to rush through the policy, but to delay the process to try and get it right - or at least ensure that retrograde and offensive provisions that threaten the rights of indigenous peoples are removed.

C.  FOREST POLICY

Like the resettlement policy revision, the review of the forest policy had started with a relatively open and transparent process during 1998 and 1999 with input from civil society during the OED implementation review and in external consultations early last year. In November, WRM sent a resolution to the Bank making clear that civil society expects a strong and clear safeguard policy on forests with an extension of the proscription of Bank financing of logging in tropical moist forests to all old growth forests, as well as strong measures to protect land rights and ensure participation by forest dwellers.

At the end of 2000 the whole public consultation procedure clammed up as even members of the select Technical Advisory Group were not party to ongoing developments in the Bank. Members of the TAG only received a draft discussion document on the draft forest strategy on Christmas Eve - just days before a meeting in early January. FPP and others including IUCN complained that the document included *no* draft revised forest policy and therefore had very little of substance to comment on.

In a reversal of its commitment to transparency, the Bank planned to produce the policy subsequently and send it to the Board without further public comment. A huge sign-on led by FPP persuaded the Bank to open the process back up again in early 2001 when they posted the discussion document on the web and requested further public comments with a promise to post the new draft policy in the near future. The draft policy has still not emerged. NGOs will have to be vigilant when it finally does see the light of day and carefully scrutinise the provisions to ensure they have incorporated public concerns.

D. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

The Bank is also revising its information disclosure policy. Campaigners point out that the Bank's current proposals to improve its information policy fall far short of standards set out in international law (current proposals mean the Bank can deny information to the public without any appeal mechanism). As a minimum, civil society groups demand that the Bank adhere to international standards on information disclosure. This has generated petitions by journalists, civil society and community-based organisations who are calling on the Bank to release more information to the public and the press. In particular, civil society groups demand that the Board of Executive Directors should stop governing in almost total secrecy. Other key recommendation include:

·        Key documentation, such as Environmental Impact Assessments and Resettlement Action Plans, should be made available in a language that local people can understand;

·        Key documents should be released prior to project approval so that affected populations can have effective input into decision-making;

·        The Bank should release information on structural adjustment lending;

·        The Bank should require the release of all Country Assistance Strategies (CASs);

It is still not clear how the policy will incorporate these demands. The World Bank has indicated that it intends to approve the policy prior to the end of financial year 2001 – meaning prior to July 1, 2001. It is possible that the finalisation of the policy could be delayed until before the Bank’s Annual Meetings in the autumn of 2001.

E. STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT

The World Bank is now in the process of revising its policy on structural adjustment (OD8.60). Structural adjustment now forms a large part of the World Bank portfolio and the signs are the amount of adjustment lending will continue to increase. Adjustment measures promoted and financed by the Bank have been criticised for exacerbating poverty and causing social unrest in many developing countries. NGOs and social movements are now pressing the Bank to open up the review process and accept that adjustment packages including privatisation, trade liberalisation and removal of state subsidies can have severe negative impacts on poor people and the environment. Campaigners are calling on the World Bank Group to listen to their concerns and develop a policy that guarantees civil society participation in its structural adjustment operations. The current indications are that the Bank will hold consultation meetings involving civil society. However, the format and schedule for these meetings has not yet been determined.

F. ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY

There have been some external consultations on this draft document which has been criticised for being vague and failing to tie the Bank to international standards on the environment. The document also makes almost no mention of national processes linked to the poverty and environment including National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSDs), National Forest programmes (NfPs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). Numerous NGO commentators including FPP have pointed these flaws. Again, the key advocacy approach is to convince the Bank that it must operate to agreed international standards which its borrowers have already signed up to in international fora and conventions (e.g., UNCED,CBD,CSD, RAMSAR, CITES). Here too the timeline for the finalisation of this strategy is continually slipping, though the Bank’s aim is to have the strategy ready before the next annual meetings in the autumn of 2001.

For more information on any of these World Bank Group policy processes, please contact:

Forest Peoples Programme
1c Fosseway Business Centre
Stratford Road, Moreton-in-Marsh
GL56 9NQ, England
Tel: + 44 1608 652893
Fax: + 44 1608 652878
Email: marcus@forestpeoples.org
Web: www.forestpeoples.org
The Forest Peoples Programme, together with FERN, acts as the Northern

Office of the World Rainforest Movement.http://www.wrm.org.uy