Having obtained and analysed a draft of proposed new World Bank social and economic policies, my colleagues at Inclusive Development International (full disclosure – I am on the IDI Advisory Board) have circulated a petition demanding that the Bank follow its own first principles in this matter – in that the draft submitted for upcoming consultations should provide for conditions “no worse off” than those that prevailed under the old policy.
There are alarming indications that the current draft standard fails to meet even this minimum threshold. The full text of the petition setting out these concerns can be downloaded here, and I have reprinted IDI’s summary version below. Concerned individuals and organizations are welcome to join the petition anytime before Monday at 12 pm (EST) by sending an email to IDI Managing Director David Pred (firstname.lastname@example.org).
As many of you will have already heard (depending on which lists you’re on), the World Bank has presented to its Board an appalling draft of its new social and environmental safeguards policies. The Board Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) will be meeting on July 30th to decide whether the draft is “fit for purpose” and should be opened up for public consultations.
A leaked version of the draft Social and Environmental Framework that we have reviewed effectively turns back the clock 30 years to the days before people and the environment were protected from harm by binding Bank policies. At the same time, the Bank is proposing to significantly scale up its lending and get back in the business of high-risk mega-projects. All this while slashing its operational budget and the resources available for project due diligence, monitoring and supervision. Remember the Chixoy dam in Guatemala? The Sobradinho dam in Brazil? Narmada in India? We’ll be seeing plenty more of these human rights disasters if the Bank moves forward with this draft.
For those of us concerned about the global land grabbing crisis, this draft opens the floodgates to more massive land grabs, forced evictions, and dispossession of poor communities – financed with our public purse.
Some of the most alarming proposed changes include:
- An ‘opt out’ option for governments that decide they don’t want to apply the Indigenous People’s policy.
- Major dilutions of the Bank’s current standards on “involuntary resettlement,” including the requirement for borrowers to submit and the Bank to review and approve – prior to project approval – a comprehensive resettlement plan that ensures affected people are not harmed and have an opportunity to share in the benefits of the project.
- Exclusion of land titling projects from the coverage of the resettlement policy, leaving people like Cambodia’s Boeung Kak Lake community whose homes were demolished after they were determined not to have ownership rights by a Bank titling project completely unprotected from forced eviction.
- Totally inadequate protections against land-grabbing, despite an alarming reference indicating that Bank projects could involve large-scale transfers of land for agricultural investment.
- The elimination of essential appraisal and supervision requirements, which made the Bank itself accountable for non-compliance with the policies.
The World Bank released a statement last year pledging that its new safeguards would be informed by the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure and that “additional efforts must be made to build capacity and safeguards related to land rights.” This commitment, which we welcomed at the time, has translated into one vague line in the draft framework about assessing risks or impacts associated with land tenure, which fails to articulate any policy objectives related to access to land or security of tenure, while many of the protections in the current Bank policies have been eviscerated as outlined above.
We have drafted the attached statement on land rights to send to CODE by Monday morning with the message that this draft is a non-starter for consultation and must be sent back for major revisions. It has been endorsed so far by Asian Indigenous People’s Pact, Forest Peoples Program, Ulu Foundation, Urgewald (Germany), Friends of the Earth (US), Indigenous Peoples Links, Jamaa Resource Initiative (Kenya), Institute for Policy Studies, Center on International and Environmental Law, Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (Senegal) and Inclusive Development International.
Will you add your voice to the global outcry? Please consider signing on as an organization or an individual and sharing this with anyone else you think would want to join.
David and Natalie
Inclusive Development International