World Bank Action Alert

 

August 14, 2001

Dear friends and colleagues,

The Bank has now forwarded the revised draft resettlement policy to the full Board of Executive Directors for discussion and approval. Starting Monday, August 20th, Executive Directors will be returning to their offices from a two week recess, and we need to capture their attention immediately about the resettlement policy. We believe that it will be placed on their agenda shortly after the recess. We have one last chance to demand substantive changes in the resettlement policy before it is approved, by directly contacting our Executive Directors and asking them to champion certain changes.

Thanks to the strong public mobilization on earlier drafts of this policy, the Bank has responded to some concerns by defining more terms and removing some offensive language, but there are still many fundamental problems.

There are two key substantive areas where we must continue to push for change -- indigenous peoples and voluntary resettlement. The following action alert lays out the suggested language we would like Board members to support, and I've put in some detail so that all of the arguments are clear. (Apologies for length; feel free to summarize if you will be alerting other networks.)

(1) Indigenous Peoples. The draft policy has introduced new language, not found in the existing policy (OD 4.30), that is particularly damaging to indigenous peoples. This language was located in footnote 15 in the March version of the policy, which many people commented on. Now, it has been moved from a footnote to the main text, but the language has not otherwise been modified in the draft sent to the Board. Thus, draft OP paragraph 9 now reads:

"Bank experience has shown that resettlement of indigenous peoples with traditional land-based modes of production is particularly complex and may have significant adverse impacts on their cultural survival."

This first sentence is fine, and should stay. But the problem is in the next two sentences:

"For this reason, the Bank satisfies itself that the borrower has explored all viable alternative project designs to avoid physical displacement of these groups. Where it is not feasible to avoid such displacement, preference is given to land-based resettlement strategies for these groups that are compatible with their cultural preferences and are prepared in consultation with them."

Note that, read carefully, this language is implicitly permissive of the displacement of indigenous peoples, even if it threatens their cultural survival and even if replacement land is not offered. It is the antithesis of sustainable development. And, ironically, the Bank claims that this language was inserted in order to strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples, in response to Board and public concerns.

However, the Bank's new language doesn't add any value. It is a trojan horse. It requires nothing other than what is already called for under the policy: avoidance and striving for land-based alternatives. And it would constitute a very dangerous step backwards. This language departs from established and emerging principles of international development organizations and international law.

For example, this proposed language is much weaker than that used by the Inter-American Development Bank in similar situations, and is completely at odds with the findings and recommendations of the World Commission on Dams. (See note below)

The policy must not be approved with Paragraph 9 in its current form. Instead, we propose that the Bank strike the last two sentences of Paragraph 9 and replace them with the following language:

"For this reason, the Bank will finance projects involving the resettlement of indigenous peoples or other ethnic minority communities only if the Bank can ascertain that: (a) the resettlement will take place only after the indigenous peoples have given their free and informed consent; and (b) the compensation package includes land-based resettlement; and (c) the compensation package incorporates other culturally compatible social and economic benefits."

(Note: This proposed language is drawn from the IDB resettlement policy, the World Bank Indigenous Peoples policy, and the WCD report and recommendations; supporting language from those documents is quoted in full at the bottom of this alert.)

The paragraph should also require a social assessment to evaluate "the obligations of the country, pertaining to project activities, under relevant domestic and international law regarding indigenous peoples." It should further clarify that "The Bank does not finance projects that would contravene such country obligations, as identified during the social assessment." (This language is modeled onOP 4.01, Environmental Assessment)

Paragraph 9 should also have a footnote that makes reference to the WB's Indigenous Peoples' policy, OD 4.20.

(2) Voluntary Resettlement. People who are "voluntarily" resettled in World Bank projects have no rights under World Bank policy, if this draft goes through. No rights to participation, consultation, or information disclosure. No right to World Bank supervision, to receive development benefits, or to have their standard of living improved.

Recall that the notorious China Western Poverty Reduction Project which so embarrassed the Bank just last year involved the "voluntary" resettlement of 58,000 Chinese farmers, which would "involuntarily" displaced 4,000 Tibetan and Mongol herders and other local inhabitants. The Voluntary Settlement Implementation Plan, which provided the supposed poverty reduction rationale for the project, was never released to the public, because it was deemed government property.

The Board should take this opportunity to allow and give guidance for voluntary resettlement, thereby moving towards a model of negotiated settlements based on informed choice, rather than forcible evictions. The Board should include a framework of basic principles governing "voluntary" resettlement in the Annex while the policy is open for revision, before approval. The title of the Annex should be changed to "Resettlement Instruments." And voluntary resettlement should be included as one instrument.

In fact, by now clarifying that the policy only covers "involuntary" resettlement and offering no guidance whatsoever as to what constitutes "voluntary," the draft introduces a perverse incentive for project planners to characterize projects as voluntary and thereby avoid ALL policy requirements.

Solution: The draft policy should provide minimum standards for Bank-financed projects that involve voluntary resettlement,including the following:

1. Define "voluntary" resettlement in footnote seven. Management defined "voluntary resettlement" in their Q&A paper, but despite requests by the Board and the public, they refused to define it in the policy. The Q & A says: "Resettlement is voluntary only when the affected people have the option to refuse resettlement, and they nevertheless resettle based on informed consent." The Board should take the opportunity to correct this problem and include a definition of "voluntary" in footnote 7, and make reference to the OP Annex for guidance on voluntary resettlement.

2. The Bank should also include minimum standards for voluntary resettlement in the Annex to OP 4.12. A new section, covering "Voluntary Resettlement," should:

a. define the standards that World Bank staff must apply to determine whether or not a resettlement program is truly voluntary;

b. require the public release of documents relating to voluntary resettlement, including the resettlement instrument, to affected populations (in a language and manner that is understandable to them) and in the World Bank InfoShop prior to appraisal;

c. establish that voluntary resettlers are entitled to development benefits and that their standard of living should be improved;

d. provide rights of participation and consultation for voluntary resettlers in the design and implementation of the voluntary resettlement plan;

e. include provisions to evaluate the impact of voluntary resettlers on host populations and their environment; and

f. provide standards for Bank supervision and monitoring throughout project implementation.

Such a minimum framework of rights for voluntary resettlement would provide guidance to project planners for structuring voluntary resettlement programs, and would create harmonization in terms of disclosure, consultation, and access to development benefits between voluntary and involuntary resettlers.

There are many other problems with the draft policy besides the two identified above.The July 2001 version of OP 4.12 (still dated March 6, but with revisions from the March 6 draft shown in redline) has not been released to the public but it can be found at CIEL's website, http://www.ciel.org/Intl_Financial_Inst/wbinvolresettle.html, along with other background info. However, if you don't have time to analyze the draft policy, I encourage you to draw from the analysis above.

Either way, please take time during the next two weeks, starting August 20th, to contact your executive directors by telephone, fax and email to convey your concerns about the revisions to the resettlement policy.

See below for language from WCD, IDB and WB that supports the arguments made above. And please see the attachment for contact information for your Executive Director. (For those of you contacting the US ED, please note that Jan Piercy is leaving, being replaced by Carole Brookins, who is expected to start August 20th.) And be sure to copy Ian Johnson, Vice President, and James Wolfensohn, President, on all of your correspondence to EDs. Johnson's email is ijohnson@worldbank.org; his fax number is 202.522.7122. We don't have an email for Wolfensohn, but his fax # is 202.522.3031.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Peace,

Dana

---

Supporting Language re: Indigenous Peoples/Resettlement: quotations from relevant international sources:

The World Bank's own Indigenous Peoples policy states that: "the objective at the center of this directive is to ensure that indigenous people do not suffer adverse effects during the development process, particularly from Bank-financed projects, and that they receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits." (para. 6) Barring forcible resettlement of indigenous peoples is therefore consistent with existing Bank policy, because it helps to ensure the accomplishment of the Bank's policy directive on Indigenous Peoples.

The Inter-American Development Bank's Resettlement Policy, OP 710, http://www.iadb.org/cont/poli/OP-710E.htm states:

"Indigenous Communities. Those indigenous and other low income ethnic minority communities whose identity is based on the territory they have traditionally occupied are particularly vulnerable to the disruptive and impoverishing effects of resettlement. They often lack formal property rights to the areas on which they depend for their subsistence, and find themselves at a disadvantage in pressing their claims for compensation and rehabilitation. The Bank will, therefore, only support operations that involve the displacement of indigenous communities or other low income ethnic minority communities, if the Bank can ascertain that: (i) the resettlement component will result in direct benefits to the affected community relative to their prior situation; (ii) customary rights will be fully recognized and fairly compensated; (iii) compensation options will include land-based resettlement; and (iv) the people affected have given their informed consent to the resettlement and compensation measures."

The World Commission on Dams, after two years of study and analysis, found that:
"Empowering people, particularly the economically and socially marginalized, by respecting their rights and ensuring that resettlement with development becomes a process governed by negotiated agreements is critical to positive resettlement and rehabilitation." Chapter 4. Introducing a requirement of prior informed consent for indigenous peoples enhances the negotiating strength of affected communities, and puts the burden on the project developer to come up with an package of conditions that is acceptable to the local communities.

The WCD database revealed that "indigenous and tribal peoples have suffered disproportionately from the negative impacts of large dams, while often being excluded in sharing in the benefits." (p. 110, WCD report) "In general, development planning and implementation have inadequately addressed the special needs and vulnerabilitites of indigenous and tribal peoples." (p. 110-111). The WCD concludes after reviewing international law that "the principle of free, prior and informed consent to development projects and plans affecting these groups has emerged as a standard to be applied in protecting and promoting their rights in development projects." (p. 112). The WCD report, Dams & Development, a New Framework for Decision-Making, is available at www.dams.org.

---

Regarding voluntary resettlement, it is important to remember the flawed China Western Poverty Reduction Project, where the voluntary resettlement plan was considered the property of the Chinese government and was never publicly released despite the fact that poverty reduction through voluntary resettlement constituted the primary justification for the project. That projects highlights the need for some Bank standards to be applied to voluntary resettlement, so that local people and the public have access to information, and the people have basic guarantees of development benefits and participation for these Bank-financed projects.

In the matrix of responses to comments, the Bank explained the difference between voluntary and involuntary as follows: "Any resettlement where the affected people do not have the option to say "no" to the project, is, by definition, considered 'involuntary.'" See Matrix, Box #43 (available on CIEL website). This language should be either in the definition (in footnote 7), or in the Annex to help guide project planners in making the determination between voluntary and involuntary.