| FPP
letter to the World Bank expressing concerns over draft Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12) |
|
Stephen
Pickford Dear Mr. Pickford, Concerns over draft Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12) Following our letter sent to you about general NGO concerns regarding the World Bank Group’s safeguard policies (2 March 2001), we now wish to follow this up by detailing our immediate worries that the current “conversion” of the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OD4.30) will result in a severely weakened policy that is substantially inconsistent with fundamental human rights guarantees. By means of this letter we urge you to ensure that the new Involuntary Resettlement Policy constitutes a strengthened instrument to protect the rights of people displaced by World Bank-assisted operations. As the policy nears its approval stage, we appeal to you as Executive Director to take every step possible to guarantee that the revised policy is consistent with international human rights law and international standards on resettlement like those set by the World Commission on Dams. Negative changes to the policy: On examining the latest draft of OP4.12 dated March 6 2001, we are alarmed that the proposed policy: § makes less secure provisions for people who lack recognised rights to land than the previous policy (compare OD4.30 paras 3b and 17 versus OP4.12 paras. 14a, 14b). § enables a procedure that will allow the borrower to exclude from compensation “persons engaged in illegal use of natural resources.” (OP4.12 para 7: fn 14). This provision risks excluding the millions of indigenous peoples in borrowing countries whose customary use of natural resources is not recognised by domestic legislation and is thus deemed to be “illegal”. § permits the involuntary resettlement of indigenous people even in situations where such resettlement would have “significant adverse effects” on their “cultural survival” of those people (OP4.12 para 8:fn 15). § applies a discriminatory approach to people and communities adversely affected by parks and protected areas who, according to the policy, do not have to be consulted until project implementation (OP4.12: paras. 3b and 7). Such affected communities are consequently excluded from the provisions of paragraph 6 that requires a resettlement plan that ensures access to information, prior consultation and prompt and effective compensation for displaced persons. They are also excluded from paragraph 12 that requires the provision of timely and relevant information and infrastructure and public services in ways that respect the patterns of community organisation of displaced communities. § does not require improvements to the livelihoods or standards of living of those displaced (see OP4.12 para.2(b)). § makes a questionable distinction between voluntary and involuntary resettlement. § introduces new terms and concepts which lack definition. These include “resettlement assistance,” “direct impacts”, “illegal use of natural resources,” “reasonable price” and “process framework.” § falls far below the standards set by the World Commission on Dams, notably with respect to the right of indigenous peoples to prior informed consent. Our analysis above shows that major substantive changes have been made to the policy that will result in lower standards for resettlement in Bank operations. Our evaluation demonstrates that while the draft policy mentions indigenous peoples’ customary rights to land and resources in a number of places, in practice it still contains loopholes that will seriously undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. In short, the policy allows a wide margin of discretion to exclude the holders of traditional and customary rights from proper consultation and compensation under the policy. We therefore note that the policy widens the gap between Bank requirements on staff and clients and agreed international human rights and sustainable development standards. Consequently, we find the latest draft policy unacceptable on both moral and legal grounds. This is especially the case for indigenous peoples. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Labour Organisation Convention 169 and the draft UN and OAS Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples all prohibit relocation of indigenous peoples’ without their prior, free and informed consent. These instruments also require that indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands and resources which they traditionally occupied and used be recognised and respected, not the least because they are fundamentally related to indigenous peoples’ cultural integrity and survival. Draft OP 4.12 is not only inconsistent with these standards, it is also retrograde - containing thinking about indigenous peoples’ rights dating from the 1950s. That the draft policy permits forcible relocation even in cases where this will have “significant adverse effects” on Indigenous peoples’ “cultural survival” is a flagrant violation of the right to cultural integrity, a human right protected as part of customary international law and therefore binding on all states. In this respect, the policy legitimates practices categorised by the international community as ethnocide. Recommendations: In view of the serious shortcomings of the draft OP4.12, we urge you to ensure that the policy is corrected at the earliest opportunity and subjected to further external review prior to its finalisation and approval. In particular, we urge that the policy: § is consistent with international human rights standards. § applies equal standards to all displaced persons (especially those affected by parks and protected areas, and people involved in “voluntary” relocation). § treats customary and formal legal rights as equal to protect all vulnerable peoples and communities affected by resettlement. § requires resettlement plans to address the indirect impacts of resettlement. § requires a poverty-risk assessment for all Bank operations likely to cause resettlement. § requires that displaced persons are provided with an improved life quality after relocation. § properly defines voluntary resettlement and sets clear standards for such operations. § properly defines new terms and concepts not found in the existing policy. § incorporates established principles on sustainable development like those contained in the recommendations made by the World Commission on Dams. We look forward to your response to our concerns and recommendations. Yours sincerely,
|
