CIEL/International Rivers Network Letter to James Wolfensohn
February 22, 2001
Mr. James Wolfensohn, President
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Dear President Wolfensohn:
We are writing to express serious reservations with the ongoing revisions to the World Bank’s resettlement policy. While World Bank staff have stated that this process will not lead to substantive changes in the policy and that there is no need for ongoing public transparency, we are aware that major substantive changes have been made to the draft policy that have the effect of weakening the rights of persons who lose their homes or livelihoods as a result of Bank-financed projects. Because there are significant substantive changes, the policy should be fully evaluated by both the interested outside public and the Board, so that there can be a full understanding of the implications of the proposed changes.
It is a fact that millions of people have been forced from their lands or suffered from lost livelihoods as a result of World Bank projects; perhaps tens of millions have suffered the devastating consequences of failed resettlement. Internal Bank studies have consistently shown poor performance and compliance problems regarding the Involuntary Resettlement policy, problems which translate on the ground into impoverishment and increasing disillusionment with the World Bank by project-affected people. Changes thus far in the revision process will have the effect of curtailing the rights of project-affected people and significantly weakening the existing policy.
Such setbacks are especially untenable given the clear direction recently given by the World Commission on Dams, whose final report calls for more protections to ensure that displaced people are not left worse off by development projects. As a sponsor of the World Commission on Dams, any revision of the World Bank’s resettlement policy must be informed by the recommendations in the Commission’s Report. These recommendations are based on a recognition of the rights of affected people and an assessment of risks to those rights. A decision-making process which upholds these two principles must be reflected in a policy that requires negotiated agreements with affected communities. Such an approach not only protects the interests of affected people and thereby lessens the risk of conflict, it also reduces overall project costs.
The following is a brief summary of some of the most problematic aspects of the revised draft policy, though there are also many other areas of concern:
Weakening of Protections for Vulnerable Groups
We understand that the revised policy as currently drafted will lead to the further disempowerment of people lacking legal title to land. The existing OD notes that “Vulnerable groups at particular risk are indigenous people, the landless and semi-landless, and households headed by females who, though displaced, may not be protected through national land compensation legislation. The resettlement plan must include land allocation or culturally acceptable alternative income-generating strategies to protect the livelihood of these people.”
In contrast, the draft OP does not recognize the vulnerability of those who are not protected by national land compensation legislation. 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 project purposes. Those who do not have a claim to legal rights under the national land legislation are “not entitled to compensation for loss of land under this policy”; they are entitled only to undefined “resettlement assistance.” In fact, those who lack land title are characterized in the Bank’s draft policy as “occupying land in violation of the laws of the country.” This is unnecessarily pejorative. It also fails to recognize the reality of land titling issues in many countries, where the poor and dispossessed face massive hurdles to gaining legal title to land that they have traditionally occupied.
This change signals a serious reversal in the protection afforded to the most vulnerable populations who are displaced by Bank-financed projects. This change will be especially damaging for ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. The World Commission on Dams report has noted that “failing to give compensation to those lacking legal title will disproportionately affect indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, as they may lack citizenship, tenancy, or land tenure papers.” The WCD report also notes that “The rights of indigenous peoples are often poorly enshrined in the national legal framework, and consequently their entitlements have lacked effective protection.” Both the World Commission on Dams and the Inter-American Development Bank recognize the special importance of land to indigenous communities, and both have called for the prior informed consent of indigenous peoples before they can be resettled.
The Bank is falling behind emerging international standards that recognize the unique position of indigenous peoples in the context of resettlement. We urge that the damaging changes noted above be removed, allowing the language of the current OD to stand. We further call on the Bank to adopt a standard of prior informed consent for indigenous communities and ethnic minorities, drawing on the language reflected in the IDB policy and the recommendations of the WCD.
Direct/Indirect Impacts
We also understand that the draft OP introduces a new standard on impacts, and says that only “direct” social and economic impacts are covered. The consequences of limiting the policy to direct impacts could be enormous. The draft policy fails to define direct or indirect impacts. Regardless of definition, it is unwise and unjustifiable for the Bank to remove its responsibility to compensate for the indirect impacts on land and livelihood associated with Bank-financed projects. This will have the effect of further externalizing the costs of projects, and will increase the suffering of locally affected communities. Again, the Bank is backsliding when compared to the WCD, which specifies that “Impact assessment includes all people in the reservoir, upstream, downstream and in catchment areas whose properties, livelihoods and non-material resources are affected. It also includes those affected by dam-related infrastructure such as canals, transmission lines and resettlement developments.”
“Voluntary” Resettlers
Another major problem with the current draft is the lack of protections for people classified as “voluntary” resettlers. The existing draft “clarifies” for the first time that the policy protections do not apply to people who are “voluntarily” resettled as a result of Bank-financed activities. There is no definition of voluntary. Recent experience, such as with the EcoDevelopment project in India and the China Western Poverty Reduction Project, should raise serious concern about the degree of “voluntariness” in certain projects as well as questions about adverse social and economic impacts. If resettlement is categorized as “voluntary,” under the draft policy there are no substantive or procedural protections for the local population. Voluntary resettlers affected by Bank-financed projects will have no right to informed participation or consultation. There will be no requirement for information disclosure to local communities or the InfoShop, no assurance that resettlers will have their standards of living improved, no grievance mechanisms, no reporting requirements, no oversight or monitoring.
This policy dichotomy is not justified, and in fact creates perverse incentives for project planners to characterize resettlement as voluntary and thereby avoid all of the policy protections. To guard against the abuse of this categorization, and to ensure that the local people have participatory and substantive rights, the OP should be adjusted to provide a comparable policy framework which at a minimum (1) defines “voluntary resettlement”; (2) defines the standards that World Bank staff must apply to determine whether or not a resettlement program is truly voluntary; (3) establishes that voluntary resettlers are entitled to development benefits and that their standards of living should be improved (see further comments below); (4) provides the standards for Bank supervision and monitoring throughout project implementation; and (5) requires the public release of information of documents relating to voluntary resettlement, including the resettlement plan, to both affected populations (in their language) and in the World Bank InfoShop prior to appraisal. A framework of rights for voluntary resettlement is also a necessary prerequisite for moving away from the failed model of forcible eviction and towards a model of negotiated settlements with local communities.
Improvement/Restoration of Livelihoods
Management has rejected public comments from across the spectrum — implementing agencies, anthropologists, NGOs, economists — that the Bank should abandon the restoration of income standard in favor of a more development-based objective of improving the lifestyles/livelihoods of project-affected people. It is clear that a restoration benchmark equals stagnation at best, and impoverishment at worst. The OP should support improvement as the benchmark. The World Bank claims to promote the right to development. At the very least, that right should be afforded to the millions of people whose homes and livelihoods are adversely affected by Bank-financed projects. The “improvement” standard would also be consistent with both the principle reflected in the policy that resettlement should be considered in the context of sustainable development, and the principle in the WCD guidelines which states that “adversely affected people are recognized as first among the beneficiaries of the project.”
People Affected by Protected Areas
The draft OP proposes a different process for those people whose livelihoods are adversely impacted by World Bank projects in conservation areas. In such cases, the communities are not to be consulted until project implementation, rather than during project preparation. Likewise, those whose livelihoods
are affected by protected areas are not assured the same basic protections in the OP as involuntary resettlers, such as being informed about their options and rights, being consulted about alternatives, provided with prompt compensation, ensured the timely sharing of information, infrastructural support, and provision of alternative livelihoods. Instead, these people are only offered assurances that the borrower, without any obligation to consult with the affected peoples, will provide a “draft process framework” during project appraisal, and, during project implementation, a plan “acceptable to the Bank” (but not necessarily to the peoples themselves) intended to “at least” restore their livelihoods “in real terms.” The artificial distinction being drawn by the World Bank appears intended to ‘panel proof’ the World Bank against further complaints to the Inspection Panel such as that made about the ‘Ecodevelopment’ project in India.
This kind of discrimination is unacceptable on both moral and legal grounds. Experience shows that the distinction the policy seeks to draw between forced displacement and involuntarily “restricted access” is both unfair and unfounded. Detailed studies of peoples affected by protected areas show how imposed restrictions on their livelihoods and effective lossof their lands may inevitably force people to relocate because their lives become unviable. Frequently, peoples whose lands are designated as protected areas come from ethnic minorities, pastoral nomads and marginalized forest-dwelling groups, whose traditional systems of land use depend on their mobility over, and access to, large areas. Very often these peoples’ rights to their territories are not recognized by national laws. These peoples deserve the same consideration and concern as those whose lands and livelihoods are expropriated by any other imposed developments.
Conclusion
There have been many attempts by NGOs to engage constructively in the revision process, but these attempts have been met with a general failure on the part of Bank staff to respond to our concerns or to abide by the original commitment to transparency and participation. In addition to failing to post the matrix of public comments/Bank responses as promised, management has consistently refused to respond to correspondence about substantive issues including the issue of voluntary resettlement and the WCD process. This has seriously eroded the credibility of the process. There is a wealth of expertise and concern from people outside the Bank regarding the Bank’s resettlement policy and practice. This outside expertise should be included in the debate around the revisions to the resettlement policy. Instead, the process has been closed and non-responsive.
We are deeply concerned that the policy as currently drafted will result in the further disempowerment and risk of impoverishment of the people who make the deepest sacrifices in the name of development. We believe that the policy revisions reflected in the most recent draft constitute a significant weakening of the policy. We call on you to use your good offices to prevent this flawed policy from going to the Board, to bring transparency to this process by allowing civil society to review and comment on the next stages of policy revision, and to develop a process to incorporate the findings of the WCD report. Rather than weakening the policy, the revision process should be designed to ensure that the changes to the policy reflect the lessons of experience and emerging principles of international law and institutions.
Thank you for your time and attention. We feel that this policy is critically important to the success or failure of World Bank projects, and we hope that you can provide guidance and leadership in a situation that is becoming increasingly divisive.
Sincerely,
Dana Clark and Juliette Majot
Center for International Environmental Law and International Rivers
Network
1416 Peralta Avenue 1847 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94702 Berkeley, CA 94703
cc: Members of the Board of Executive Directors
Ian Johnson, Vice President, ESSD
Joanne Salop, Managing Director, OPS
Shengman Zhang, Managing Director
Robert Picciotto, OED
Maninder Gill, Coordinator, Resettlement Thematic Group
Carolyn Reynolds, External Affairs
On behalf of the following 125 organizations and 33 distinguished individuals
from 26 countries:
Argentina
Jorge Cappato
Fundacion PROTEGER / Rios Vivos
Australia
Melanie Gillbank
AID/WATCH
Domenica Settle
Friends of the Earth Australia.
Geoff Evans
Mineral Policy Institute
Bangladesh
Pär Lindqvist
The Swallows India-Bangladesh section
Brazil
Maurício Galinkin
Fundação CEBRAC, Brasilia
Sadi Baron
Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB)
Kusum Verônica Toledo
SPVS – Sociedade de Pesquisa em Vida Selvagem e Educação Ambiental, Curitiba
Kênia Itacaramby
Ministério Público Federal
Bolivia
Rosa Maria Ruiz
Fundación Eco Bolivia
Cameroon
Edith Abilogo
Bubinga
Robinson Djeukam
Cameroonian Association of Environmental Lawyers
Samuel Nguiffo
Center for Environment & Development
Benoit Ndamdeu
Friends of the Earth Cameroon
Koueda Koung Jean
Global Village Cameroon
Francois Abessolo
Oilwatch Cameroon
Canada
Thubten Samdup, President
Canada Tibet Committee, National Office
Lidia Pavez-Diaz
Centre for Socialist Education, Vancouver
Pamela Foster
Halifax Initiative Coalition
Kevan Hudson
The Ogoni Solidarity Network (OSN), Vancouver, BC
John Bennett
Sierra Club of Canada
Rev. Russell Daye
United Church of Canada
France
Helene Connor
HELIO International
Germany
Dr. Manfred Westermayer
Asocio de Verduloj Esperantistaj (AVE)
Association of Greens using Esperanto
Michael Musil
BUND-Westerwald
Julia Ratzmann
Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Bavaria
Stephan Doempke
People and Nature e.V.
Dario Jana
Red Internacional de Apoyo al Pueblo Pehuenche – RIAP
Heffa Schuecking
Urgewald
Miriam Walther
W E E D (World Economy, Ecology & Development)
Carsten Hübner, MP (Member of the PDS parliamentary group in the German
Bundestag and Spokesperson on international solidarity and human rights)
Dr Hannelore Küchler, B.A.soc.,
Dipl.Soziologin
freie Wissenschaftsjournalistin
India
Mashood.P.K.
Association For India’s Development
Bangalore Chapter
Shankar Gopalakrishnan
Bard College Student Action Collective
Bela Bhatia
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
Bina Stanis
Chotanagpur Adivasi Sewa Samiti
Gulab Prajapati
Chotanagpur Paryavaran Chetna Kendra
Bineet Mundu
Delhi Forum
Leo Saldanha
Environment Support Group, Bangalore
Subramanya Sastry
Friends of River Narmada
Sharachchandra Lele
Institute for Social & Economic Change, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore
Nityand Jayaraman
Independent Journalist
Ishwar Soren
Jharkhand Society
Ajay Kumar
Kaimut Kshetra Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti
Ashish Kothari
Kalpavriksh Environment Support Group
Ganesh Ganjhu
Koyla Kshetra Visthapin Manch
Kumar Nochur
The Maha Vishnu Seva Foundation
B.T. Venkalish, Xavier Dias
Mines, Minerals & PEOPLE
Madhu Kohli, Roma
National Forum of Forest Workers & Forest People
Sujit Patwardhan
Hon. Secretary, Parisar, Yamuna
Ira Roy
SACHETAN
Himanshu Thakkar
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People
Ashish Fernandes
Sanctuary Magazine
Indonesia
Budi Kruniawan
West Sumatera Peasant Farmers Union
Anto Sangaji
Yayasan Tanah Merdeka
Italy
Daniela Colombo
AIDOS (Associazione Italiana Donne per lo Sviluppo)
Laura Radiconcini
Amici della Terra (Friends of the Earth Italy)
Antonio Peratoner
Rete Radié Resch of International Solidarity
Dr. Roberto Romizi
Associazione Medici per l’Ambiente – International Society of Doctors
for the Environment
Japan
Tokihavu Okazaki
Friends of the Earth-Japan
Sonoko Kawakami
Japan NGO Network on Indonesia (JANNI)
Masahito Ujiie
National Dam Opposition Network-Japan
Miki Furuya
World Wildlife Fund Japan
Malaysia
S.M Mohammed Idris
Friends of the Earth Malaysia and Consumers’ Association of Penang
Antares (Kit Leee)
MAGICK RIVER
Dr Kua Kia Soong
SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)
Sam Hui
SOS Selangor (Save Our Sungai Selangor)
Chee Yoke Ling
Third World Network
Mexico
David Barkin
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana / Unidad Xochimilco
Jacinta Palerm Viqueira
Colegio de Postgraduados
Scott Robinson
Universidad Metropolitana
The Netherlands
Sjef Langeveld
Both ENDS
Janneke Bruil
Friends of the Earth – International
Han van Putten
Habitat International Coalition
Karen Brouwer
Transnational Institute
Norway
Ingrid Nesheim
FIVAS
Tore Braend
Norges Naturvernforbund/Friends of the Earth Norway
Jorn Stave
NorWatch/Future in Our Hands
Pakistan
Aly Ercelawn and Muhammad Nauman
creed alliance, Karachi
Naeem Iqbal
Pakistan Network of Rivers Dams and People
Philippines
Joan Carling
Cordillera Peoples Alliance
Takahiro Nanri
NGO Forum on the ADB
Ramon F. Sales
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
Taiwan
Chang Cheng-Yang
Meinung People’s Association
Spain
AEMS-RIOS CON VIDA
1998 National Environmental Award, Madrid
Sri Lanka
Hemantha Withanage
Environment Foundation
Sweden
Klas Ronnback
Miljoforbundet Jordens Vanner (Friends of the earth Sweden)
Göran Eklöf
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
Switzerland
Gertrud Ochsner
Aktion Finanzplatz Schweiz (Independent Network Monitoring the Swiss Financial
System)
Peter Bosshard
Berne Declaration
Marina Widmer
Frauenrat für Aussenpolitik (Women’s Network for Foreign Policies)
Brigitte Anderegg
SOLIFONDS
United Kingdom
Alex Wilks
Bretton Woods Project
Matilda Lee
Fondation de Sauve
Dr. Marcus Colchester
Forest Peoples Programme
Kate Geary
Ilisu Dam Campaign
Dr. Shirwan Al Mufti
Kurdish Aid Wales (KAW) U.K.
Kerim Yilidiz
Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP)
Rachel Roche
People and Planet
Angie Zelter
Reforest the Earth
Chris Woodford
UK Rivers Network
USA
Atossa Soltani
Amazon Watch
Tom Dickerman
American Hydrogen Association
Rebecca Fontaine
Amnesty International – University of North Carolina at Asheville Chapter
Shailabh Nagar
Association for India’s Development (AID), State College Chapter
Ravishankar Arunachalam
Association for India’s Development, Texas
Martha London
BankBusters, Boston
Kay Treakle
Bank Information Center
Richard Kamp
Border Ecology Project
Prashant Inamti
Boston Global Action Network
Ernest Goitein and Claire Feder
Californians for Radioactive Safeguards
Barbara Grant
Central Vermont Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Vivian Stockman
Concerned Citizens’ Coalition, Spencer, West Virginia
Charles Wyrostok
Concerned Citizens Coalition, Roane, Calhoun & Gilmer Counties, West
Virginia
Ann Oestreich
Congregation Justice Committee-Sisters of the Holy Cross
Amit Srivastava
Corporate Watch
Vickery J. Prongay
Earth Day Network
Dan Silver
Endangered Habitats League
Bruce Rich
Environmental Defense
Soren Ambrose
50 Years Is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice
Juliette Beck
Global Exchange
Kevin Murray
Grassroots International
Dorinda Moreno
Hitec Aztec Communications Network
Bhuchung K. Tsering
International Campaign for Tibet
Pat Rasmussen
Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest
Josh Schrei
Milarepa Fund
Roy Morrison
N.H. Consumers Utility Cooperative
Diana Bohn
Nicaragua Center for Community Action
Katherine Hoyt
Nicaragua Network
Ravi Khanna, Director
1world communication
Doug Norlen
Pacific Environment
Elizabeth Solomon
Planet Vox
Allison Dinsmore
RESULTS Philadelphia
Han Shan
The Ruckus Society
Marty Bergoffen
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project
John Hocevar
Students for a Free Tibet
Cecilia R. Vinas
Swarthmore Presbyterian Church
Maria Lya Ramos
Washington Peace Center
Steve Milwaukee
Wisconsin Fair Trade Campaign