Monday, November 1, 2004

BOYCOTT OF LONDON IFC/ CIVIL SOCIETY MEETING

On the IFC’s update of its Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies and Information Disclosure Policy Review

UK NGOs have decided to boycott this meeting because of serious concerns regarding both the process and substance of the IFC’s revision of its safeguard policies, as well as its information disclosure policy. The decision not to attend forms part of a series of boycotts by many NGOs, social movements and people’s organizations from all over the world of other IFC civil society consultations that have already taken place in Rio de Janeiro, Washington DC, Tokyo and Manila. Further boycotts are also planned for consultations in Istanbul and Nairobi.

lacking any acceptable level of credibility

NGOs, including WWF, RSPB, Friends of the Earth, Bretton Woods Project, Forest People’s Programme, War on Want and World Development Movement, believe that at present, the process is fundamentally flawed. The limited timeframe will exclude and marginalise the participation of civil society groups, especially those most affected by the proposed substantial changes. It allows only a little over four months for a proposed worldwide debate on the IFC’s plans to replace the entire set of its existing safeguards. This is a grossly inadequate period to re-assess policies and standards which took years to formulate.

As the IFC itself acknowledges, its proposals could become a global benchmark for international investment for both public and private financiers. NGOs globally are alarmed that the first consultation drafts (dated 12 August 2004) imply a major shift from a mandatory and compliance-based approach to a mainly discretionary approach. Such a shift would dilute the responsibilities of a public institution and undermine its accountability to affected communities.

The substantial proposed revisions to the policies largely ignore the priorities and concerns expressed by rights-holders and civil society organisations in numerous previous Bank consultations on its safeguard policies. The proposals likewise disregard many key recommendations and lessons emerging from the safeguard policy review undertaken by the Compliance Advisor and Ombudsman (CAO) and the recently completed Extractive Industries Review (EIR).

Concerns regarding the process were expressed in depth by over 180 international development, human rights, environmental and indigenous peoples’ organisations, and concerned individuals, in a letter sent to Peter Woicke of the IFC and James Wolfensohn on 16 September. The letter set out the minimum changes to the consultation process – and its agenda – that civil society would expect to see before being willing to participate. The response to this letter was disappointing, making only concessionary changes to the consultation process.

As the letter of 16th September stated: “Unless the minimum preconditions for meaningful and informed consultation are put in place, we do not see how we can participate in this process, as we fear it will be lacking any acceptable level of credibility.”

The letter is available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/content/NGO