| Concerns
about the weakening of World Bank Safeguard Policies: Letter to the World Bank |
|
Stephen Pickford Dear Mr. Pickford, Concerns about the Weakening of World Bank Safeguard Policies By means of this letter we, the undersigned NGOs, want to inform you that we are concerned that the Bank’s policy “conversion” programme is weakening its safeguard policies. We present concrete evidence that the safeguard policies are being undermined and explain why any such weakening is unacceptable to civil society. The purpose of this letter is to urge you to oppose any weakening of the Bank’s operational policies and request your support for a rights-based approach to development. The importance of the World Bank’s safeguard policies Environmental and human rights groups from both “developed” and “developing” countries have campaigned for years for improvements in the social and environmental performance of the World Bank. Although current operational guidelines still feature problems, the Bank is to be congratulated for responding to the concerns of civil society by adopting a set of ten so-called safeguard policies designed to protect the environment and vulnerable social groups from the adverse effects of Bank-financed operations. Since adopting these safeguards, the Bank has come to be seen as a major standard-setting body by the international development community. Indeed, the Bank asserts that it “has blazed the trail of social and environmental standard setting in the multilateral development system”. [1] NGOs like the Forest Peoples Programme have noticed that it is not only donors and development agencies that aspire to the World Bank’s development standards. Crucially, large corporations and other private sector actors also look to the World Bank to take the lead on social and environmental standards for commercial operations and investments in developing countries. It is therefore essential that the World Bank Group maintain its leadership role in setting international standards for sustainable development. We want to emphasise that strong, unambiguous and mandatory safeguard policies are important to civil society because they constitute the only mechanism (albeit a weak one) available to citizens and project beneficiaries to hold the World Bank and its clients accountable for their operations. The safeguard policies are also the principal instruments the World Bank has to ensure that its projects and programmes are consistent with international human rights and environmental law. Revision of the safeguard policies As you will be aware, all Bank operational policies including its safeguard policies, have been undergoing revision as part of a Bank-wide “conversion” process that intends to standardise and clarify guidelines for staff and borrowers. The revision programme intends to make policies less rigid and more amenable to decentralisation, country “ownership” and the Bank’s new “learning approach” to development. [2] Bank policy makers assert that conversion is based on the premise that clearer and more flexible guidelines will raise the standard of policy implementation and so improve development effectiveness. Concerns about weakening safeguards Although we acknowledge and welcome some positive elements in revised policies, especially provisions on participation and local monitoring, we are seriously concerned that some of the Bank’s key safeguard policies are being undermined. In short, we have observed that, in the name of “clarity” and “flexibility”, the Bank’s policies are, as Bank staff put it, being made “panel-proof”. In other words, policies are being made so flexible that staff or borrowers can never be accused of having contravened them and therefore never held to account for problems and failures in implementation. Careful examination of safeguard policies undergoing conversion reveals that binding language is being removed and replaced by statements of “process” and expectation rather than “requirements” and preconditions for loan approval. In this way, compliance with once binding social and environmental provisions is now being left to the discretion and willingness of borrowers. [3] Evidence of this type of erosion of standards exists in the current conversion of the Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OD4.30) and the Indigenous Peoples Policy (OD4.20). For example, OD4.30 treats customary and formal rights as equal in an effort to protect all vulnerable peoples affected by resettlement (para.3b). OD4.30 thus makes all displaced peoples eligible for compensation (para.17). In contrast, the revised July 2000 Draft OP4.12 only acknowledges the rights of affected peoples that are recognised by the Borrower’s domestic legislation (para.14a). The draft policy denies “people without legal title to land” compensation for the adverse affects of resettlement (para.14b). This discriminatory approach is also extended to communities whose livelihoods are adversely affected by parks and protected areas who, according to the draft policy, do not have to be consulted until project implementation (OP4.12: para.3b, para.7). The draft resettlement policy also fails to address the indirect impacts of resettlement, lacks a proper definition of “voluntary” relocation and disregards public recommendations for stronger safeguards and “improved” life quality for the resettled as a minimum standard. [4] In the case of the Indigenous Peoples Policy, the existing safeguards require an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan or an indigenous peoples “component” as a precondition for project appraisal for all Bank assisted operations affecting indigenous peoples (OD4.20, paras. 9 and 13). As part of this requirement, OD4.20 also requires detailed pre-appraisal baseline field studies to identify indigenous preferences and concerns (paras. 15b, 16). In this way, OD4.20 treats all indigenous people in an equitable way and applies the precautionary principle of undertaking pre-project studies to identify unforeseen problems and potential adverse impacts. In relation to land and resource rights, OD4.20 requires Borrowers to take special action to safeguard indigenous interests including their rights to land (paras. 2,9,15,17). We have examined a draft of the revised Indigenous Peoples policy (OP4.10) dated 6 February 2001. It is disappointing to see that the draft policy introduces differential treatment for indigenous peoples according to project type and community location. The draft policy only requires a social assessment and Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) where negative impacts are anticipated by project managers (BP4.10, paras. 6 and 7). It is only in these cases where detailed pre-project baseline studies are required as part of a social assessment (BP4.10, para 5, OP4.10 para. 5). In projects that are pre-judged to be benign, Borrowers are only expected to propose “special measures” to address indigenous needs (BP4.10, para 6). Like the aforementioned draft Resettlement Policy, where communities will be affected by parks and protected areas, the draft OP4.10 only expects Borrowers to introduce a “process…acceptable to the Bank” (para.15). Borrowers are not required to prepare a detailed plan or component in these latter cases. The most disturbing aspect of the new draft policy is that it lacks any requirements to secure indigenous land and resource rights. The policy simply expects the Borrower to pay “particular attention” to these issues and offers Bank assistance for regularising land tenure “upon request from the Borrower” (paras. 12,13,20e). This provision does not meet international human rights standards. [5] It also ignores the main request made by indigenous peoples during the Bank’s 1998 external consultations: that any revised policy should be stronger than OD4.20, particularly with regard to provisions for securing indigenous peoples’ customary rights to lands and resources. The draft Indigenous Peoples policy is also ambiguous about the operational procedure for deciding where the policy applies (compare para 5. versus para 8). It therefore disregards the recommendation made by indigenous peoples that self-identification be the fundamental criterion for application of the policy. Problems with transparency and interpretation Without a detailed framework for understanding the application of the Bank’s policies it is difficult for civil society to properly scrutinise proposed policy revisions. In the interests of transparency and common understanding, the Bank should therefore strive to release its draft sourcebooks in tandem with the public circulation of its proposed policy revisions. Once an operational policy enters the approval process, it should also be accompanied by a clear, easy to understand document detailing how a policy is to be interpreted and applied. Such a framework outlining the logic to be used by Bank staff, their clients and implementing agencies is needed to reinforce the Bank’s new accountability mechanisms like the Inspection Panel. Until such an interpretative document is developed, affected communities and civil society organisations will continue to find themselves in repeated disagreements with the World Bank over definitions of “compliance”. The need for strong social and environmental policies There are five basic reasons why the erosion of standards and disregard for public calls for stronger safeguards like those outlined above are of extreme concern to civil society. § First, enfeebled policies will limit the Bank’s capacity to avoid or mitigate adverse development impacts. § Second, eroded policies will further undermine the already limited accountability of the World Bank Group. § Third, diluted safeguards will widen the growing gap between emerging international human rights and environmental standards and the policies of the World Bank. [6] § Fourth, weaker policies will compromise the effectiveness of new accountability mechanisms like the Inspection Panel and Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit whose work is predicated on monitoring strong and clear safeguards. § Fifth, any weakening of the Bank’s safeguard policies will send the wrong signal to other development donors, development agencies and the private sector who view the content and application of its operational policies as examples of best practice to be adopted in their own operations. In view of the importance of these World Bank policies, we expect any revisions of their content and operation to result in strengthened safeguards for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Rather than reducing its development standards, we believe that timely action must be taken by the World Bank to strengthen its safeguard policies and adopt a rights-based approach to development. This approach would tie general operational and safeguard policies to accepted international human rights standards and ensure that Bank-funded projects are consistent with them. It is a simple fact that the vast majority of States in the World today have voluntarily ratified the core human rights instruments promulgated by the United Nations. By basing its own policies on these instruments, the Bank would merely be requiring that its borrowers comply with commitments they have already accepted and undertaken to abide by. It is obligatory practice that States may not invoke their sovereignty or domestic law as a means of avoiding human rights obligations and has been so since the inception of the United Nations in 1945; World Bank policies should also be consistent with this principle. In this context, we welcome President’s Wolfensohn’s assurances given in Prague last year that the importance of human rights will be further recognised by the World Bank. [7] Such a rights-based approach backed by stronger enforcement mechanisms, including clearer and enforceable legal covenants as part of loan conditions, would strengthen the World Bank’s ability to protect the environment and vulnerable social groups from the negative effects of its operations. A focus on human rights would bring the World Bank Group into step with the wider international development community that is increasingly adopting a rights-based approach to development. [8] Going backwards? Notwithstanding the evidence that certain safeguard policies are being undermined, the World Bank continues to assure the public that it intends to maintain its safeguard standards and that its social and environmental policies are essential to the quality of its loan operations. [9] We are therefore dismayed to learn that there seems to be a widespread idea in the Bank that the “rigid” and “unrealistic” safeguard policies are discouraging governments from borrowing from the World Bank Group. [10] It is especially worrying that a task force set up by the Bank to examine these issues recommends that the World Bank Group should “realign” its policies in accordance with the more “flexible” policies of other MDBs and the capacity of its Borrowers. [11] This smacks of lowering standards and going back on agreed commitments to improve the development effectiveness of World Bank operations. We are also alarmed by signs that the Bank is considering abdicating from its leadership role in setting standards for international development. We base our fears on the draft report of the task force mentioned above that recommends that the Bank should deal with the “compliance dilemma” by shifting: “from policy leadership to increased harmonisation with clients and Regional Development Banks”. [12] We, the undersigned NGOs, strongly oppose any lowering of Bank standards in order to “harmonise” them with the practices of other MDBs and borrower governments. We reject the argument that current safeguard policies are inflexible and unrealistic. First, the Bank’s safeguard standards emerged from practical lessons in loan operations learnt over several decades. Second, they were established in response to calls from civil society for improved development performance. The current safeguards thus constitute minimum standards that have been developed through actual experience. They are not idealised regulations, but rather essential preconditions for sustainable development. Rather than being over-stringent, the Bank’s policies are in danger of becoming out of step with existing and emerging international standards like those recently developed by the World Commission on Dams. The assertion that safeguards are too costly to implement and act as a disincentive to potential Borrowers is also questionable. Indeed, Bank staff admit that this assertion is based on “anecdotal evidence”. [13] Even if such evidence were forthcoming, the Bank should act on this by establishing adequate concessional funds for safeguard work. It must not use such evidence as an excuse for lowering standards. The reality is that Bank staff and managers require an increased budget and more incentives to properly supervise and implement the World Bank’s safeguard policies. The Bank must confront this fundamental resource challenge and resist any calls to join a “race to the bottom” in international development standards. The need for participatory and open dialogue on the Costs of Doing Business We believe that before the Bank and its clients make decisions about what are acceptable costs in “doing business”, there is a need for a thorough and open multistakeholder debate about the appropriate and practical ways to meet the transaction costs for sustainable development. We are concerned that the case for increasing budgets for effective implementation has not been properly examined. Indeed, some internal Bank assessments concede that the costs of not implementing safeguard policies properly are in fact greater in the long term. [14] Social and environmental movements world-wide have stressed that these costs fall unfairly and heavily on the poorest and most marginal social groups. To safeguard these interests, it is essential that the supervision of project and programme implementation is adequately resourced. NGOs and local communities point out that even where operational policies do have adequate safeguard standards, these are often not enforced in Bank-assisted operations. Poor compliance with standards is due to inadequate staff knowledge of policy requirements and a lack of incentives for staff and implementing agencies to adhere to safeguard provisions. [15] In view of the above concerns, we urge you to exercise your influence as Executive Director to ensure that: § the World Bank Group develops and maintains strong safeguards that are consistent with international law and the Bank’s mandate of poverty alleviation and sustainable development. § revised safeguard policies incorporate established principles on sustainable development like those contained in the recommendations made by the World Commission on Dams. § the Bank’s safeguards policies are strengthened and not weakened under its policy conversion programme, particularly the Involuntary Resettlement, Indigenous Peoples and Forest policies that are still undergoing revision. § the revision of these safeguard policies and other operational policies like the Information Disclosure policy and the Structural Adjustment policy are undertaken in a participatory manner and result in strengthened mechanisms of accountability and participation. § the World Bank publishes a clear, easy to understand guide on how to interpret and assess compliance with its safeguard policies. § appropriate resources are secured for supervising the implementation of the Bank’s safeguards and operational policies, including adequate resources to cover the transaction costs of sustainable development. § appropriate incentive structures are established to encourage Bank staff and clients to adhere to safeguard policies in conjunction with enforcement mechanisms to hold them accountable for compliance quality. § safeguard policy coverage is expanded to cover full structural adjustment and PRSP loans. Finally, we ask you to lend your support to civil society’s growing calls for the Bank to adopt a human rights-based approach to development. We shall look forward to your response to the issues raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, Thomas Griffiths On behalf of the following 70 organisations and distinguished individuals from 32 countries: Ameer
H.C., IEDS-Friends of the Earth-Bangladesh [1] CODE (2000) Safeguard Policy Framework: OED comments on systemic issues Audit Committee on Development Effectiveness, CODE [2] 1999 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness OED, Washington DC [3] See also, p331: Kingsbury B (1999) “Operational Policies of International Institutions as Part of the Law-Making Process: the World Bank and indigenous peoples” pp.323-342 in Goodwin-Gill G S and Talmon S (Eds) The Reality of International Law Clarendon Press, Oxford [4] CIEL (2000) Comments on Draft OP/BP 4.12 21 January, 2001; FPP (2001) New World Bank Resettlement Policy is Flawed , FPP briefing, 30 January, 2001 [5] See, for example, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that states-parties are obligated to, inter alia, prohibit discrimination with regard to the right “to own property alone as well as in association with others.” In a 1997 General Recommendation, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination elaborated on this and called upon states-parties to “recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources and, where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used without their free and informed consent, to take steps to return these lands and territories.” [6] On Indigenous peoples, for instance, see, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s General Recommendation XXIII (51) concerning Indigenous Peoples (1997), and the 1998 European Union Council of Ministers’ Resolution, Indigenous Peoples within the framework of the development cooperation of the Community and Member States (1998), both of which require that Indigenous peoples' territorial and other rights be recognized and respected and that activities that may affect them do not take place without their free and informed consent. See also, page 112: World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development: a new framework for decision-making Earthscan, London. [7] Tuesday Group Report IV(9):8 BIC, Washington DC [8] UNDP (2000) Human Rights and Development UNDP, New York; Secretary of State for International Development (1997) Eliminating World Poverty HMSO, London p.17; DFID (2000) Realising human rights for poor people, DFID London [9] See for example, Lintner S (2000) “Environmental and social safeguard policies” Environment Matters Annual Review 2000: 19-21. [10] World Bank (2000b) Cost of Doing Business: fiduciary and safeguard policies and compliance Draft, 26 December 2000: Section C, page 14. See also, World Bank (2000c) A Review of the World Bank’s Forest Strategy and its Implementation: Volume I - main report OED, World Bank, Washington DC [11] World Bank (2000b) op.cit.:3, 22,25 [12] cf.: page 22, Cost of Doing Business, World Bank, Draft Internal Report, December 2000. [13] World Bank (2000b) op.cit.:13 [14] World Bank (2000b) op. cit.:15, Box 3 [15] See Griffiths T and Colchester M (2000) Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the World Bank FPP-BIC, Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh. See also, Lee, C. et al., 2001 (forthcoming), Guide to Monitoring the World Bank's Pest Management Policy, Pesticide Action Network North America, San Francisco. |
