Dear Safeguard Policy team,

Comments on the World Bank’s Discussion Note on “Safeguard Policies: Framework for Improving Development Effectiveness”

The Forest Peoples Programme welcomes this opportunity to comment on the World Bank’s Discussion Note, “Safeguard Policies: Framework for Improving Development Effectiveness”. The main purpose of our comments below is to raise specific concerns about the Bank’s proposed new safeguard policy framework and to present a number of questions and queries to the safeguard policy team.

General response to the discussion note:

The discussion note identifies several important elements that require strengthening in the Bank’s safeguard framework, including the need for improved supervision of policy implementation, staff and borrower incentives, monitorable benchmarks and increased accountability for results (para. 16). In general, however, the document lacks clarity on the Bank’s precise plans for reforming its safeguard framework and leaves many questions unanswered. There is ambiguity over what exactly the Bank’s intentions are in the medium-to-long term. Is it intended that broad statements of principle on safeguard issues will eventually replace mandatory operational policies, complement existing policies or accompany yet further revised versions of the Bank’s OPs? This is not spelt out clearly in the document and it is therefore difficult to make substantive comments on the Bank’s plans (see below).

One glaring gap in the document is the absence of any balanced discussion of the Bank’s continuing systemic failure to apply safeguard policies on the ground – a problem confirmed by recent OED implementation reviews.[1] The discussion note itself acknowledges that despite numerous internal quality control initiatives, World Bank staff still tend to apply safeguard policies in a checklist manner on paper, but fail to ensure they are implemented in practice (para. 16).

Any comprehensive framework for making safeguards more effective must address this ongoing practical implementation problem and must ensure that the standards adopted in Bank operations are acceptable to its intended beneficiaries. Unless policy standards are improved and accountability mechanisms are strengthened to empower poor people, the Bank will continue to generate mistrust and receive criticism from citizens in the South. Unless the Bank listens to rights holders and citizens and incorporates their concerns in its social and environmental policies, no consensus will be reached on its proposed new approach to safeguards or on the wider issue of harmonisation of international development standards.

In common with several recent documents compiled by the World Bank Group on the topic of safeguard policies, the main weakness of the discussion note is an almost complete failure to acknowledge and address the priorities and concerns of civil society, rights holders and citizen’s in developing countries, who are affected by the Bank’s portfolio.[2]

Over the last eight years, the IBRD and IDA public consultations on the revision and reformatting of OPs has generated a wealth of information on the principal concerns and recommendations of civil society in relation to social and environmental policies and accountability issues (see, for example, technical inputs, position statements and declarations made by civil society and indigenous peoples in relation to the Bank’s policies on Environmental Assessment, Forests, Involuntary Resettlement, Indigenous Peoples and Structural Adjustment). Several of the completed and ongoing policy revision processes have been condemned by rights holders and external stakeholders as unacceptable because they have resulted in deficient, weakened and out-of-date safeguards.[3] Yet such policy revisions are treated as unproblematic and straightforward in the discussion note (para. 13, page 6).

In this regard, the discussion note is regrettably skewed towards the perspectives of the Bank’s clients, certain shareholders and Bank staff. The document fails to ask how the proposed framework might better meet the needs, priorities and difficulties faced by communities affected by Bank operations. Nowhere does the discussion note deal with the perspectives of civil society – other than noting that there is a risk that they might “misconceive” the Bank’s plans as a dilution of safeguards (para. 42). Unfortunately, as it stands, the document does little to allay fears about possible further weakening of the Bank’s safeguard policies.

Concerns regarding the proposed framework

Our principal concerns regarding the proposed safeguard framework relate to gaps and ambiguities in the ESSD and OPCS document that sets out the Bank’s step-wise approach to introducing the proposed framework. Scrutiny of the discussion note indicates that the main goals of the Bank’s plans to reform its safeguard framework are to develop broad safeguard principles acceptable to all Borrowers, and to delegate “decisions on how to achieve them” to the same clients – while building the capacity of governments to deal with social and environmental issues and take over safeguard work. The rationale for this approach is to make safeguard policies relevant to “client needs”, foster country “ownership”, increase reliance on “proven” capable national systems with the aim of reducing transaction costs and minimising “risk aversion” by clients and Bank staff (para.41).

Unclear relationship between safeguard principles and mandatory standards:

Mention is made of Bank work to develop “basic principles of safeguard policy and practice to which donors and clients can subscribe”. What is not clear is whether these general principles are intended to complement existing policies and their detailed binding operational requirements, or if such overarching statements would replace them.

If the latter scenario is the case, then the Bank’s plans are not acceptable to the Forest Peoples Programme and are unlikely to be acceptable to many of its Southern Partners. Without binding standards and formal means of redress, World Bank managers and field staff can never be held to account for problems and failures in planning and implementation. General principles may set out laudable goals, but such guidelines risk becoming rhetorical statements if they are not backed up by binding standards. Without mandatory operational rules, general principles offer no framework for making Bank loan operations accountable to local people and their representative organisations.

Ambiguity on standards and accountability issues:

Although the document affirms that: “the Bank cannot delegate its responsibility for due diligence” for safeguard work (para. 35), it is not clear what social and environmental standards and requirements will be applied under the new framework. At the same time, though the Bank is developing a Statement of Due Diligence to clarify accountabilities between the borrower and the Bank (para.26), there is no discussion about how future Bank lending operations will be made more accountable to affected citizens. Nor is it clear how results-orientated “benchmarks” for effective safeguard implementation are to be formulated and agreed between the Bank, borrowers and external rights holders and civil society.

Deficient treatment of social safeguards:

The Bank reports that it is working with other multilateral financial institutions (MFI) under the MFI harmonization process to clarify how social issues should be dealt with in Environmental Assessment policies and practice. At the country level, for those countries with PRSPs, the Bank is evaluating the potential for using specific social assessment, social analysis and poverty assessments to identify social impacts (para. 27). However, the discussion note does not explain the future role of the Bank’s proposed social analysis policy (para. 4), nor at which level this will new policy will apply. More disturbing still are indications that the future social policy will not be a binding operational instrument, but rather just good practice guidance for staff and borrowers.[4]

The Forest Peoples Programme believes that a specific new safeguard policy on Social Assessment containing binding provisions and covering all of the latter aspects should be developed, with full civil society participation. This policy should not just apply upstream impact analysis, but crucially should specify operational standards and participatory assessment methodologies to be applied at the level of individual loan projects or programmes.

It is noteworthy that the harmonization process in which the Bank is engaged is dealing with issues of fundamental concern to civil society. However, this process is relatively closed. Greater clarity is needed on the aims and objectives of the harmonization process, and more direct civil society participation is fundamental in order to foster an open debate on streamlining international development standards.

Lack of information on initiatives to pilot the proposed framework:

The document states that: “any changes to policies in the medium-to-long-term would be made only after careful and transparent pilots are undertaken and evaluated” (page iii and para. 36) and that such pilots will be publicised in the Bank’s Monthly Operational Summary (para. 43(b)). The Bank also proposes a dialogue with borrowers and other stakeholders to help “...build a common understanding of opportunities and constraints”. A search of the MOS and project database on the Bank’s public web pages has failed to reveal any pilot projects or initiatives and no update on the pilot framework is available.

Forest Peoples Programme recommends that full and effective public participation is ensured in all aspects of initiatives to pilot a new safeguard framework. In particular, full disclosure of specific named investments will be essential to enable independent scrutiny by affected communities and civil society organisations.

Recommendations:

Any reform of the Bank’s safeguard policy framework must:

q       Ensure it is acceptable to poor people, communities and civil society organisations affected by the Bank’s lending (i.e., a framework that addresses their principal concerns, priorities and recommendations);

q       Act on the existing views of external rights holders and stakeholders on safeguard issues as already recorded in the Bank’s public consultations on the revision of its safeguard policies from the mid-1990s until the present;

q       Adopt a rights-based framework to better address the needs and entitlements of poor people and empower affected citizens and other rights holders;

q       Maintain binding operational standards and update these to ensure they are consistent with international human rights, environmental and sustainable development standards;

q       Make Bank funding conditional on borrower countries adherence to international human rights treaties they have already ratified;

q       Include a new mandatory safeguard policy on Social Assessment to evaluate the potential social impacts of Bank lending and avoid, reduce or mitigate negative social impacts at the project and programme levels;

q       Include a specific formal and mandatory public policy on accountability and appeals standards for Bank loan operations;

q       Establish standards, monitorable benchmarks and performance-based indicators with the full participation and agreement of intended beneficiaries i.e., poor people, ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups;

q       Back up safeguard policies with improved procedures for complaints and redress that include field or country-level accountability, appeals and monitoring arrangements established through mutual agreements with affected communities and their organisations;

q       Involve civil society and affected communities in monitoring, evaluating and reviewing implementation of pilot initiatives;

q       Delay the implementation of any further pilot initiatives to implement the proposed new safeguard framework until ongoing Bank revisions of its existing safeguard policies have been completed e.g., IBRD and IDA policies on Indigenous Peoples and Structural Adjustment, the IFC safeguard policy review etc.

Queries for ESSD and OPCS:

As noted above, there are several gaps and emerging questions that arise from the October 2002 Discussion document. In this context, the Forest Peoples Programme would be grateful if the safeguard policy team could provide a timely response to the following questions:

1.       What is the perceived role of mandatory minimum standards and binding requirements in existing OPs in the new safeguard framework?

2.       How will the views, priorities and recommendations of poor people, rights holders and communities be taken into account in any new safeguard framework?

3.       What is the status of the Bank’s Social Analysis Policy? Are field trials of the policy being tested in specific loan operations? If so which ones? When will the draft social analysis policy be available for public comment?

4.       Is the Statement of Due Diligence completed (para 27)? If so, is it in the public domain? Does the Statement deal with accountabilities of the Bank to rights holders and citizens in borrower countries?

5.       Has the guidance for staff on procedures for applying innovative pilot approaches been completed (para. 28.d)? If so, is this available for public scrutiny?

6.       How is the approval of civil society to be sought for the application of new safeguard approaches in lending operations that affect them?

7.       Is a draft of the integrated statement on safeguard principle complete? When will this statement be made available for public comment?

8.       How would the proposed single “Simple, Unified Policy” (para. 30) relate to the statement of principles for specific safeguard policies? Does the proposed application of this single policy to a broad spectrum of lending operations mean that some loan operations will only be covered by this Unified Policy?

9.       How will rights holders and civil society be involved in the formulation and agreement of criteria and benchmarks for effective safeguard policy implementation?

10.   Is the report on third party verification of borrower social and environmental capacity (para. 37) complete? If so, is this report public?

11.   Are any pilot initiatives for innovative approaches to safeguards in the planning or implementation stage? If so, what are these initiatives and how can affected communities and civil society be involved in monitoring these pilots?

12.   How can civil society make substantive inputs and recommendations to the work of the Multilateral Financial Institutions Working Group on Environment (MFI-WGE) and the harmonisation debate generally?

We look forward to your replies to these queries. In the meantime, we hope you find the comments and recommendations in this submission useful.

Tom Griffiths, IFI programme Co-ordinator
Emily Caruso, Campaigns Assistant
Forest Peoples Programme