NGOs Call on World Bank to Step Back From Weaking Resettlement Policy

 

For Immediate Release

 

April 9, 2001

---

CONTACT: 

• Tom Griffiths, Forest Peoples Programme, UK: Tel 44 1608 652893, Email:
  tom@fppwrm.gn.apc.org

• Center for International Environmental Law, 1 202 785 8700, Email info@ciel.org

---

Millions of people face the loss of their homes and livelihoods as a result of World Bank-financed projects. The Bank has historically failed to meet the terms of its involuntary resettlement policy, often resulting in impoverishment for affected communities.  The Bank is now in the process of rewriting its standards, and its efforts to push through a controversial new resettlement policy have unleashed a storm of controversy both inside and outside the Bank.

• Non-governmental organizations claim that the proposed policy[1] is flawed because it:

• weakens the existing Bank policy on resettlement and introduces changes that fail to meet international human rights standards.

• enables the forcible relocation of indigenous peoples even where such displacement will threaten their ‘cultural survival.’

• discriminates against poor and vulnerable groups who lack recognised legal rights to land and livelihoods resources. Such discrimination threatens to seriously undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable people whose property rights are often not secure under national legislation.

• establishes differential treatment for people adversely affected by national parks and protected areas, and fails to provide guidance for the new “resettlement instrument” for these people.

• lacks a Good Practices (GP) sourcebook; introduces and fails to define controversial and damaging new terminology; and lacks explanation for new processes and instruments.

Ever since the proposed new policy was posted on the World Bank website last month, the Bank has been flooded with thousands of letters expressing concern about provisions that substantially weaken the rights of millions of people who are threatened with forced relocation due to World Bank-assisted projects. Feeling the pressure, Vice President Ian Johnson on Thursday circulated a statement insisting that there would “be absolutely no dilution of the existing standards.” This followed a speech given a week ago by President James Wolfensohn to the German Bundestag, in which he pledged the Bank’s commitment to its social and environmental policy framework.

NGOs familiar with the process argue that if these assurances are to be taken at face value, the Bank must withdraw the March 6 draft resettlement policy from consideration. “Our analysis shows that the proposed changes contain serious policy reversals, which will have dire consequences for local communities that are displaced by Bank-financed projects,” said Dana Clark of the Center for International Environmental Law. 

In addition, the draft policy ignores recommendations made by citizens’ groups, NGOs, implementing agencies, anthropologists, indigenous peoples and even the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department about ways to improve the existing policy. All of these groups called for the Bank to require that people who are displaced be provided with an improved standard of living. This recommendation is based on evidence that the Bank’s “restoration” baseline in practice frequently leads to impoverishment for displaced communities. The Bank has also ignored calls for an “impoverishment risk assessment” early in project planning.

Outside observers condemn the failure to learn from past mistakes and to ensure that the policy, which has not been revised since 1990, is brought into harmony with existing and emergent international human rights and development standards, including those recently recommended by the Bank-supported World Commission on Dams. “We are pressing the Bank to ensure that its resettlement policy meets international human rights standards for everyone affected by Bank projects. Campaigners are mounting a last-minute effort to urge the Bank’s President and Board of Directors to reject the latest draft resettlement policy because we believe it would constitute a significant step backwards,” said Thomas Griffiths of the Forest Peoples Programme.

---

NOTES FOR EDITORS:

1. Bank’s appalling record on forced resettlement:

World Bank studies have consistently shown a pattern of non-compliance with the resettlement policy. A comprehensive Bankwide review of resettlement published in 1994 found that out of 192 projects involving involuntary resettlement, only one project had satisfactorily compensated and rehabilitated resettled communities (and that conclusion is disputed by the affected community). A 1998 study of involuntary resettlement in six large dam projects by the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED) found that many borrowing governments show marked “disinterest” in properly supervising resettlement activities, and that this negligent attitude is “undisguised and tolerated by the Bank.”  More than 3.2 million people are being displaced by current World Bank projects.  Problems with implementation of this policy have also been documented in the report of the Morse Commission (the 1992 report of the independent investigation into the Sardar Sarovar dam project) and in the findings of the Inspection Panel.

2.  Wider Concerns over Bank Policy Reforms.

All Bank operational policies, including its ten so-called “safeguard” policies,[2] have been undergoing revision as part of a Bank-wide “conversion” process that intends to standardise and clarify guidelines for staff and borrowers. The purpose of these policies is to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the environment and vulnerable social groups affected by Bank-financed operations. Despite assurances from Bank policy-makers that policies are simply being reformatted, NGOs have detected serious negative changes to key policies undergoing revision. A recent letter co-signed by 70 NGOs from 32 different countries warned that “eroded policies will further undermine the already limited accountability of the World Bank Group and will widen the growing gap between emerging international human rights and environmental standards and the policies of the World Bank” (NGO letter to UK Executive Director to the World Bank Group, Mr. Stephen Pickford, 02 March 2001).  Both the Indigenous Peoples Policy and the Forest Policy review have brought the Bank into conflict with civil society organizations concerned about weakening of the policies and breakdown of World Bank commitments to transparent processes.

3. World Commission on Dams

The World Commission on Dams was a multi-stakeholder exercise that was created, with World Bank support, in 1997. The WCD issued its comprehensive consensus report in November 2000 that contained multiple recommendations for improved standards for resettlement. These recommendations have particular relevance for the World Bank's policies on Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples, both of which are currently being revised. However, the Bank is refusing to incorporate the WCD findings into these policies. See www.dams.org.

Return to Involuntary Resettlement Page