Resettlement Policy Update for Tuesday Group

 

As part of the policy conversion process, the Bank has for the past 2-3 years been revising its involuntary resettlement policy with the ostensible intent to make the policy clearer and more implementable for staff. As in other conversion processes, the new draft policy is in some ways weaker than the original (OD 4.30).

The process has been carried out in ESSD, and has followed other recent policy conversions in that it attempted to take into account the views of external stakeholders, including NGOs and affected people. There were, during 1999, consultations around the world. Interested members of the public were also given the opportunity to comment on a draft on the Bank's website, and the comments were posted.

As part of the consultation process, ESSD promised to produce a matrix that would illustrate how public comments were received by the Bank to essentially give the public a way to understand how their input was received, whether their concerns were accepted by the Bank in the next revision of the policy, and if not, there would be an explanation of why not. The promise was that the matrix would be posted last April.

Meanwhile, the Bank management engaged in an internal process of consultation, which took place during last year; and at the same time, the WCD came out with its report in November which made significant recommendations related to resettlement of dam-affected people which they and NGOs felt should have an impact on the Bank’s policy. Particularly key were recommendations regarding effective participation and consultation, and the provision of prior informed consent for dam-affected indigenous peoples. The Report also noted that dam-affected people should be recognized as “ first among beneficiaries of a project”.

The matrix was never posted, and there was no explanation of why. Repeated attempts by CIEL and the German ED’s office to get a response from the Bank went unanswered. While there was some acknowledgement by the Bank that the WCD recommendations could have an affect on the resettlement policy, there were no assurances that they actually would be taken into account.

In January, 2001, BIC found out that the policy was scheduled to go to CODE on January 22, to get clearance so that it could be forwarded to the Board for approval. Board members on CODE received the draft policy and were given a briefing scarcely a few days before their meeting; neither the policy nor the matrix were made available, and there was no time for the Directors to get any feedback.

NGOs received a leaked copy of the policy and the matrix right before the meeting and discovered that there were substantial weaknesses in the policy and that WCD recommendations. When CODE met, several Board members including the US and the Germans, were seriously concerned not only about the process issues but also about the substantive weaknesses in the policy. While Part I members expressed concerns about weakening the standards, several Part II’s -- including China believed that the policy goes too far and will be too expensive for them to implement.

The outcome of that meeting was that management withdrew the draft, and agreed to hold bilateral discussions with Board members to try and integrate feedback. The obvious problem with this is that the feedback from members is diametrically opposed. But management have agreed to try and get “consensus”, and the CODE members agreed to try and put together an ad hoc subcommittee. The aim is to have another draft to bring back to CODE sometime in March

So what’s wrong with the Policy? Briefly:

• The new draft weakens protection for vulnerable groups, particularly those who lack legal title to their land. For land allocation compensation, “only those who have formal legal rights to land or a claim to such legal rights are allowed compensation for loss of land or other assets taken for the project. Those who do not have legal claim are not entitled to compensation for loss of land, but instead are entitled only to resettlement assistance. In contrast, the WCD notes that “failing to give compensation to those lacking legal title will disproportionately affect indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities.
  
• The new draft only covers “direct’ social and economic impacts.
  
• The new draft does not cover those voluntarily displaced.
  
• It also doesn’t give adequate rights to those displaced by the establishment of parks and protected areas.
  
• Probably the most significant change is that management rejected the almost universal sentiment from those with whom it consulted as well as OED -- that the Bank policy should use resettlement projects as a means toward development in other words to try and improve the lives of those affected. It maintains the current standard to restore incomes to pre-project levels.

An NGO letter to Wolfensohn, coordinated by International Rivers Network 
and CIEL, will be sent to the President, Board, ESSD and OPS VPs next week.

---

Proceed to view the latest version of the World Bank's revision to the Resettlement Policy 

Return to CIEL's World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Page