CIEL Letter to Maninder Gill Regarding Involuntary Resettlement

 

March 30, 2000

Mr. Maninder Gill, Coordinator
Resettlement Thematic Group
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433

RE: Voluntary Resettlement

Dear Mr. Gill:

The Center for International Environmental Law submitted comments on the proposed revisions to the Involuntary Resettlement policy, which is being converted from OD 4.30 to OP/BP 4.12. CIEL’s comments were extensive and covered a range of issues. One of those issues is the treatment of voluntary resettlement, and we are writing together with partner organizations to raise more detailed concerns about this issue. The proposed revisions to the policy now make explicitly clear that those persons who are "voluntarily" resettled are not entitled to protections under the resettlement policy. Recent experience with the China Western Poverty Reduction Project (CWPRP) has illustrated the risks inherent in this approach to resettlement, and we would like to share our experience and concerns with you as you continue to refine the changes to the resettlement policy.

The CWPRP, as you know, involves both voluntary and involuntary resettlement – approximately 58,000 Chinese farmers would be "voluntarily" shifted into Tibetan and Mongolian territories, displacing/involuntarily resettling 4,000 people in the move-in area. Despite intense interest in this project, and the Bank’s claim that the resettlement program is geared towards poverty reduction for the voluntary settlers, the Bank has not made public any information that would allow the public to assess the resettlement program. The only information made available in the InfoShop is a 5-page document, which although titled an "Involuntary Resettlement Plan" is completely lacking in substance and is in patent violation of OD 4.30. The involuntary resettlement plan is dated May, 1999, six months after project appraisal, in further violation of the policy.

The project documentation also makes reference to a Voluntary Settlement Implementation Plan, but despite repeated requests by NGOs, that plan was never made publicly available. Julian Schweitzer, Acting Regional Vice President, in a July 21, 1999

letter to the Bank Information Center, CIEL, and the International Campaign for Tibet, explained that documents we had requested, including those relating to voluntary

resettlement, were the property of the Chinese government. He stated "[it] is certainly true that we have a ‘presumption of disclosure,’ but we must also honor our commitments to our borrowers that their documents can only be disclosed with their agreement. In this case, that agreement has not been granted despite our requests." Given that 90% of voluntary resettlement is taking place in China, the government’s refusal to release this information raises serious questions for all "voluntary" resettlement programs in this important borrowing country. In terms of information disclosure, project information that would be publicly available for involuntary resettlement should also be made publicly available when the project involves voluntary resettlement.

Voluntarily resettled persons have no procedural or substantive rights under the draft Bank policy. They are simply ignored. We believe that this is unacceptable and must be addressed before the revisions to the policy are completed. The Bank has an obligation to provide equivalent policy protections for communities that are affected by voluntary resettlement. This includes not only those who are being moved, but also the recipient communities. In the CWPRP, 4,000 local people, including Tibetan and Mongol herders, would be involuntarily displaced by the influx of voluntary settlers. No indigenous peoples’ development plan was prepared for those people, nor was there an involuntary resettlement plan (discussed above). Instead, they were presumed to benefit from the project. From what we know, based on the scant public information about this project, the involuntarily resettled people are expected to take advantage of the same package of benefits that is being offered to the incoming voluntary settlers, without consideration of the cultural impacts or evidence of an informed basis of choice.

As drafted, the policy creates an incentive for project planners to characterize resettlement as voluntary, and it simultaneously insulates Bank staff from accountability.

For instance, the lack of policy protection for voluntary resettlement reduces the steps required of Bank staff and borrowers, and eliminates the possibility of accountability since there will presumably be no World Bank oversight, no public scrutiny (since the public has no right to information) and no accountability via the Inspection Panel (since these people are excluded from the Bank policy). Under these circumstances, the proposed draft policy will allow the Bank to avoid its responsibilities to the affected people.

Voluntary resettlement is not defined in the draft policy, nor does the draft policy explain what rights or interests are protected in Bank-financed projects that involve voluntary resettlement. This must be corrected. Footnote 9 of the draft OP provides the following definition of involuntary:

For purposes of this policy "involuntary" means without the displaced person’s informed consent or power of choice, or where the consent or choice is being exercised in the absence of reasonable alternative options.

Past experience makes clear that project implementing authorities often require affected persons to sign statements waiving certain rights in order to gain compensation. In Singrauli, India, displaced people have reported that they were forced to sign a statement that they would not seek any further compensation for lost crops (bulldozed by the project authorities) or other assets, even though most of them were illiterate and could not read what they were signing. It is easy to conceive of a situation, encouraged by this definition, whereby project-affected people are required by the authorities to give their "consent" to resettlement in order to receive benefits. Their "consent" would, in turn, remove their right to protection under World Bank policy.

The failure to ensure the voluntariness of a program could easily lead to an abuse of local people’s rights. There must be mechanisms for establishing the basis for consent, and a process for explaining what rights the project-affected people have under the terms of the World Bank’s policy framework. The communities must be given choice from a range of options, and for the Bank should play a role in ensuring the integrity of that process. The Bank must establish adequate monitoring and supervision procedures. At the moment, the draft OP is dangerously silent on these issues, putting the displaced communities at risk.

The OP does not explain how the Bank will determine whether a decision is, in fact, voluntary and free from coercion. In the CWPRP, there were critical issues raised about the social assessments that were conducted, and the risks to local populations of speaking out against the project. The detention of independent researchers and their Tibetan translator in the project area serves as stark reminder of the repressive and hostile conditions faced by local people in Tibet and China who are affected by a "voluntary" resettlement project. This issue will be faced in all countries where it is illegal or inadvisable for local people to speak against the wishes of the authorities.

Finally, we note with approval the arguments put forth by International Rivers Network in their comments on the revisions to the resettlement policy, in which they encouraged the World Bank to refrain from involuntary resettlement/eviction of people from their lands and focus instead on negotiated settlements that involve prior informed consent of local communities. Given the Bank’s dismal history of policy failure in the context of involuntary resettlement, we believe that the Bank must move away from the forced eviction model and move towards a more negotiated, voluntary, consent-based system of dealing with affected people. This would ensure that development benefits are structured with the informed consent and participation of all project-affected people. In order for such negotiated settlements to be meaningful, the provisions of the Bank’s resettlement policy must apply equally to voluntary and involuntary resettlement.

Given the above concerns, we would encourage the Resettlement Thematic Group and the Operational Policy Committee to revise the draft OP to include strong policy protections for people who are being asked to give up their lands and livelihoods as a result of Bank-financed projects, regardless of whether they are voluntarily or involuntarily resettled. As it stands now, the draft policy is seriously flawed and will weaken the rights and interests of locally affected communities, which will have the inevitable effect of undermining the Bank’s mandate of poverty alleviation.

We understand that the process of policy revision is complicated and time-consuming, and we are committed to working with Bank staff to move forward in good faith towards the development of a resettlement policy framework that sets world class standards. However, we will oppose the issuance of a policy that backtracks on important issues or that leaves large numbers of people outside the scope of policy protections. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue.

Sincerely,

 

Dana Clark, Center for International Environmental Law

on behalf of:

Kay Treakle, Bank Information Center
Andrea Durbin, Friends of the Earth
Bhuchung Tsering, International Campaign for Tibet
Aviva Imhoff, International Rivers Network
J.C. Callender, The Milarepa Fund
Han Shan, The Ruckus Society
John Hocevar, Students for a Free Tibet
Sonam Wangdu, US Tibet Committee

cc: Ian Johnson, Vice President, ESSD
Jan Piercy, US Executive Director
Pieter Stek, Dutch Executive Director
Kristalina Georgieva, Director, Environment Department
Motoko Aizawa, Counsel, International Finance Corporation

---

Return to CIEL's World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Page