|
|
|
|
|
TITLE: Stop World Bank Weakening Resettlement Policy |
AUTHOR: Aviva Imhof |
DATE: February 2, 2001 |
|
Sign-on letter to President of the World Bank To sign on, please send your name and organizational affiliation to aviva@irn.org by Monday, February 12, 2001 Dear friends For the past 4 years, the World Bank has been revising its resettlement policy. After a process that invited comments and participation from NGOs, in January Bank management tried to sneak the latest draft of the policy through the Board Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) without any additional public scrutiny. The most recent draft of the policy is weaker than the old policy in several key areas and will have the effect of curtailing the rights of project-affected people and causing further impoverishment for those displaced by World Bank projects. Such setbacks are especially unacceptable 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. Some of the major changes to the existing resettlement policy include: * Weakening of Protections for those people lacking legal title to land. 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 are entitled only to undefined "resettlement assistance." * only "direct" social and economic impacts are covered. "Direct" is not defined, but may have the effect of excluding those people who may have to move due to destruction of their livelihood. * lack of protections for voluntary resettlers. 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. * People Affected by Protected Areas. The draft policy 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 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. Please help to stop the World Bank from further impoverishing millions of people. Add your signature to the letter to President Wolfensohn. Please also write to your Executive Director at the World Bank and ask them not to approve the new policy draft as it stands. Send your name and organizational affiliation to aviva@irn.org by Monday, February 12, 2001 Thank you,
Aviva Imhof, International Rivers Network
To: James Wolfensohn, President, The World Bank
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 therefore 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 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 semilandless, 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. Are downstream impacts of a dam direct or indirect impacts? If your family has to move, not because your home was destroyed but rather because your livelihood was destroyed, is this a direct or indirect impact? The draft policy fails to define direct or indirect impacts. Regardless of definition, it is unwise and unjustifiable for the Bank to remove protection against the indirect impacts on land and livelihood. The Bank should instead follow the lead of 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. 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". 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 loss of 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. 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. These kinds of manipulations benefit no one in the long term and will do lasting harm to the credibility of the World Bank. 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 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, Director, Southeast Asia Program International Rivers Network 1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley CA 94703 USA Tel: 1 510 848 1155 (ext. 312), Fax: 1 510 848 1008 END |