| Indigenous Peoples and the World Bank: policy and development quality issues |
|
September 2001 Current issues of importance for indigenous peoples There are numerous World Bank policy processes and initiatives of concern to indigenous peoples. These include the ongoing revisions of the Bank’s “safeguard policies” such as the Indigenous Peoples, Involuntary Resettlement and Forest policies, as well as policies on Structural Adjustment (see other briefings). The revision of the IP policy is of crucial importance because it will determine how Bank staff and clients (governments) deal with indigenous peoples and communities affected by Bank-financed projects and programmes. Another process of special importance is the current evaluation of the Bank’s application of and compliance with the existing policy on Indigenous Peoples (OD4.20). If this evaluation takes proper account of the views of indigenous peoples, it has the potential to generate vital lessons about how to improve development standards in operations that affect indigenous peoples and their territories. This briefing focuses on issues surrounding the revision of the Bank’s IP policy and the OED implementation review of OD4.20. It highlights the present misgivings about the content of the latest draft of the IP policy and the Bank’s flawed plans for public consultation leading to its finalisation. The briefing ends with a summary of indigenous and civil society recommendations for improving the contents of the final IP policy and raising quality of implementation and compliance on the ground. Concerns about the World Bank’s 2001 draft revised Indigenous Peoples Policy After being hidden from public view for nearly two years, in mid-2001 the World Bank finally circulated its latest draft of its revised Indigenous Peoples policy known as OP/BP4.10. Indigenous peoples and support NGOs have expressed disappointment with the draft which they consider to be significantly weaker than the existing policy because provisions to address land tenure and institutional discrimination, which are mandatory in OD4.20, are now optional in the revised draft. Such safeguard activities are now only included “upon request from the borrower”. The Bank has therefore ignored the consistent message sent by indigenous peoples during the first round of public consultations in 1998/99 that any new policy must be stronger than the existing policy. 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: it does not recognise the right of prior informed consent, it falls below international human rights standards, it does not prohibit forcible resettlement of indigenous peoples, and it does not apply to structural adjustment operations. In a statement signed and sent to the World Bank by participants at the 19th session of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 2001, indigenous representatives affirm that, as it stands, the draft IP policy fails to build on the existing policy and does not provide improved development standards for dealing with indigenous peoples. Without a strong and clear mandatory IP policy, indigenous peoples will not be able to hold the World Bank and its clients accountable when Bank-financed operations adversely affect them. Binding provisions that respect indigenous rights are especially important because they provide indigenous peoples with firm grounds for raising issues of concern with Bank staff and, ultimately, for redress through the Bank’s only formal and independent complaints mechanism (Inspection Panel). Misgivings about the public consultation process As many of their key recommendations were disregarded after the first round of public consultations, indigenous peoples and civil society organisations are now sceptical about participating in the final consultations planned for October-December 2001. Doubts have increased after recent meetings where the Bank stated that inputs on matters of principle already excluded from the current draft, such as prior informed consent, land rights and self-determination, will not be considered in the final draft policy. NGOs are challenging these terms of engagement and pressing the Bank to give assurances that all issues, including issues of principle, will be taken seriously in the final revisions to the policy. Flawed procedures for finalising the policy Indigenous peoples and NGOs have been pressing the World Bank since 1995 to base its revision of the IP policy on a thorough participatory review of the existing directive. The World Bank eventually responded in May 2001 with the launch of a review, which is being carried out by the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and is due to be completed by December 2002. The review has been welcomed by indigenous peoples and support NGOs who plan to make inputs to the OED evaluation. However, these groups were dismayed to learn that the Bank team overseeing the revision of the IP policy plans to complete it by February 2002 - almost a year before OED finishes its implementation review. The Bank’s current plan to rush the adoption of the IP policy means that the revised policy requirements will fail to incorporate the full lessons learned on the ground, especially important issues related to improving compliance. Indigenous and civil society recommendations Indigenous peoples and NGOs continue to call on the Bank to ensure that the revision of the IP Policy results in a strengthened policy tool that is consistent with international human rights standards. They are now raising their concerns about the final stages of the revision procedure and urging the Bank to delay the finalisation of the IP Policy until the complete findings of the OED review are available. Specifically, they recommend that the current backward draft policy should be rectified through the inclusion of binding safeguard provisions that secure their full rights to land and natural resources and recognise their right to free and prior informed consent. They also urge the Bank to ensure that the revised policy applies to structural adjustment and programmatic lending as these can have severe direct and indirect impact on indigenous peoples. They also demand additional and more agile mechanisms of accountability that would enable the participation of indigenous peoples and their representative organisations in the development, governance, monitoring and evaluation of development projects and programmes as well as the negotiations for loan agreements and loan conditions. For further information
contact: |
