Sanema boy, Upper Erebato, South  Venezuela

home who we are what we do Forest Peoples Project
latest news publications and reports links donate to our charity

First phase of the OED review of implementation of
the World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OD4.20) – 1992 and 2001
Some key findings

Background:

Since 1995 indigenous peoples’ organisations have repeatedly called on the World Bank to ensure that any revision of its Indigenous Peoples Policy is informed by a thorough participatory implementation review of the existing policy (OD4.20). In April 2001, the Bank finally launched an implementation review of OD4.20. In January 2003, the OED published the first phase of the review based on a desk review of 234 Bank projects approved after January 1992 and closed prior to 31 May 2001. [2] The second phase of the review based on detailed field evaluations of 15 projects in seven countries, is due to be published in April or May 2003. The purpose of this briefing is to highlight some of the initial findings of the OED evaluation.

Initial findings of the review:

The first part of the OED review has confirmed the variable pattern and poor quality of policy implementation found by independent studies undertaken by indigenous peoples and NGOs. [3] Specifically the phase I OED implementation review found:

Failure to apply the policy when required:

  • The policy was not applied in 38% (34 of 89) projects which affected indigenous peoples, demonstrating a major failure in the application of the policy [para. 3.4]

Failure to prepare an indigenous peoples plan or component:

  • Only 53% (29) of the 55 projects where the policy was implemented featured an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) or partial elements of an IPDP [first para, page 2]
  • Only 32% (8 of 25) projects identified as having clear negative impacts on indigenous peoples included a self-standing IPDP or Indigenous Peoples Component [para. 3.6]

Poor quality implementation:

  • More than one quarter of projects that applied the policy (15 of 55) were assessed to have taken measures that were unsatisfactory [Table 3.3]
  • More than half (14 of 25) projects adversely affecting indigenous peoples were found to have “... inadequate measures to mitigate the adverse impact of the project activities” [paras.3.6 and 3.20]
  • One third of cases that applied the policy had failed to include a specific diagnosis of indigenous peoples issues as required under OD4.20
  • Measures to secure Borrower commitment to the policy were only reflected in project loan documents or covenants in 55% of the projects that had applied the policy [para. 3.20]
  • Indigenous peoples were only involved in the decision-making process relating to the project in half of projects – leading the OED review team to conclude that “even among the projects that applied the OD ... participation of indigenous peoples in decision making and in financial management is still low” [para. 3.21]
  • Only half of the projects that applied the OD had included capacity-building for indigenous organisations and their representatives [para. 3.22]
  • Just 20% of projects developed specific monitoring indicators as required under the policy, while 73% of loan agreements made no reference at all to the need to develop monitoring indicators
  • A mere 25% of Investment Completion Reports (ICR) made mention of outcomes for indigenous peoples [para. 3.28]

Improving policy coverage in the late 1990s?

The OED team note that in their assessment of 170 projects “active” in 2001, the coverage of OD4.20 has improved slightly with some 60% of projects having applied the policy. The review also found that the OD had been applied in 90% of projects that could have negative impacts on indigenous peoples [second para. Page 2]. However, the review did not assess the quality of implementation in these active projects.

[Note: Although the OED report makes frank observations on the poor quality of policy compliance, the review team has been strongly criticised for failing to formulate their initial recommendations in collaboration with indigenous organisations. As a result, some of the recommendations have proved highly controversial and have been rejected by indigenous representatives – see FPP’s summary report (83pp) pdf (1.5Mb)  of the World Bank Round Table Discussion of Indigenous Representatives and the World Bank on the Revision of the World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy,  17 and 18 October, 2002, Washington, DC]

– Summary compiled by FPP, April 2003 –



[1] Compiled by FPP, April 2003

[2] Operations Evaluation Department – OED (2003) Implementation of Operational Directive  4.20 on Indigenous Peoples: an independent desk review January 10, 2003, OED, Washington, DC
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/ 472DE0AEA1BA73A085256CAD005CF102/$file/IP_evaluation.pdf

[3] See, for example, Griffiths T and Colchester M (2000) Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the World Bank – a synthesis report FPP, Moreton-in-Marsh

 

Untitled Document