Bank – unwilling to address incentive issue – however has stated that senior management has repeatedly expressed importance of ESS work. Two new leads will assume responsibility for ESS.
Concept of resettlement plan remains unchanged, if language remains a work in progress…
Much of the analysis and identification of issues will be undertaken in country strategy.
CSO – must be provided with detailed directives if that is where the operational details are contained.
When are they expected? How long will consultation process take?
Bank – have posted annexes on the web.
Resettlement numbers are famously inaccurate and difficult to gauge – difficult to assess and increase funds at mid-term of the project. Thus a budget is necessary in advance.
Cambodia – Dragon Capital / HAGL
Robber plantation. Customary land tenure.
No free, prior and informed consent. No information about impact assessment.
Police interfered with community access. Substantial communal losses found by the study. Massive reduction in number of people able to collect resources/ non-timber from the forest.
No compensation paid by company to a significant number of HHs. 90% dissatisfied. Felt compelled, told that the company would take land regardless…
Impact on Right to Food
While opportunities for salaried work have increased, this is not preferred option for indigenous population, who prefer to work in farm/ forest.
Theme – various HHs accepted compensation/ to move under duress.
February 2014 – complaint taken to CAO. Most HHs stated that they would like their land back.
IFC project, however much can be learned vis-à-vis use of FIs. Eg, CAO report on FIs and CAO audit on Ficohsa. – analogous to proposed WB safeguard.
SG – only requires compliance if FI classifies projects as high risk. All other projects must comply ‘solely’ with national law.
Therefore FI would reply on assessment of borrower. HAGL would have likely have told FI that land had been provided legitimate, etc. FI has little incentive to raise issues, given likely impact on profit/ earnings.
For the sake of argument, is HAGL did raise issues and ESS applied… likely argue that area is degraded forest, thus plantation goes ahead.
However, given indigenous communities are present – ESS7 applies. Unrealistic to expect companies to comply with FPIC requirements.
ESS7 – attempts to mitigate impact.. does not apply to non-indigenous communities (ESS5). In Cambodia case no alternatives exist. Credit access, etc not adequate/ appropriate. Also compensation is not appropriate given communal attachment to land.
To exacerbate issue – the agency responsible for ensuring rights are safeguarded by a profit-seeking FI.
WB should not support high or significant risk projects – Bank should not be involved in lending through FI to these types of projects.
Project once again highlights needs for land acquisition safeguard (ESS5 footnote only) – how voluntary are land transactions?
Former consultant with Bank.
Guatemala Land Administration Programme. Board approval May 1998.
Justified as part of peace accord – land a key issue… Focus on district with legislative system able to root process.
Project triggered several OPs. Environmental Assessment, social assessment (report PAD annex) Local community Participation and support plan.
Social assessment was not known to consultant.
Indigenous population did not understand system and highlighted conflict with Ladino community .
Community Participation and Support Plan:
No discussion of conflict identified in Social Assessment. No specific consultations on issue, perhaps given peace accord consultations at the national level.
No attempt to include indigenous knowledge into approach.
78% of conflicts ‘resolved’. This seems doubtful. Only 9% of rural land titled.
IEG – Unsatisfactory. CSO – likely to rate it highly unsatisfactory – claiming mass land acquisition, etc.
2011 – Inter-disciplinary Study –
46% of community members forced to sale land.
Customary land tenure system – serves as safety net for economic and social value. Not communal land – also notion of private land that runs in parallel. Forced/ voluntary sales created a negative impact on those who had initially not chosen to sell.
Clear lack of meaningful consultation. No IPDP
Dominance of technical approach – no attention to community governance – priority given to mapping land holdings. Also lack of integration with rural development plan.
Continuation of efforts to ‘depolitise’ development. Question of reparations remain.
Need for more balance relationship – who sets agenda, time, etc… again, the nature of consultation is key.
OP 4.10 vs. ESS7 – again, the protections seems diluted.
Long-term engagement – not a few bad apples…
UNHCHR – letter to President Kim… broader constituency. What is being done in revision of safeguards to ensure that Bank is not complicit in HR violations.
Strategic country diagnostic – guidelines predominantly growth focused. Guidelines to country staff did not provide guidance to staff on political and other risks. As per Mark’s comments, these issues must be integrated into the country diagnostics.
See some improvement in ESS7 – however concerned about the number of avenues for exceptions – potentially the exclusion of a majority of projects.
Hassan – NGO Forum monitoring the ADB
Some progress in inclusion in language of some key concerns. Eg, Environmental assessment has 120-day consultation requirement.
Indonesia – Ecological Justice Indonesia:
New law has been enacted to decrease in land categorisation law period from 25 to 5 years… with important consequences in terms of ‘flexibility’ in light of potential investments.
New draft represents dilution rather than needed strengthening.
Questions of displacement/ resettlement challenges Bank’s capacity. Community must be sympathetic to Bank’s constraints.
Effects of Wolfowitz – abolished vice-presidency for social impact/ resettlement. Departure from the Bank of key staff. Policy centre within the Bank has disappeared.
Why not call them Policy Standards? What is wrong with the term safeguards?
IEG reported that Bank does not know the number of people displaced by projects. In fact it knows very little… difficult to take corrective action in light of the lack of knowledge. Also the Bank does not know how many people are worst off…
No single study in DEC to analyse displacement and resettlement. Imminent domain is in all jurisdictions accepted.
Risk of externalities in ESS5 are high… a paragraph must be included to that effect.
Clarification that risks identified relate to the people not to the Bank.
Recommends the re-inclusion of OP 4.0 language regarding use of unavoidable resettlement as opportunity for development and improvement of livelihoods.
Suggest Bank commits to fund up to 80% for resettlement. Need for economic feasibility analysis of Resettlement Action Plan.
Ethiopia – civil society absent… No safeguards… What are the Bank’s strategies to deal with these issues? Modern Berlin Conference (good analogy…)
FIs, Bank can determine whether FI has capacity to assess impact… Normally MDB has a seat at the Board of the FI and can speak up. ESS 9 34-47 paragraphs.
Oversight mechanism is independent of operational departments.
ESS1 is to capture the contextual analysis …eg, project must address social and economic sustainability. New focus on human security, disability, etc.
WB – Guatemala project objective – to support ‘open market’ for land, with significant negative consequences.
New safeguards for the 21st century. Specific land rights and resettlement policy.
Positive – involuntary evictions. Better compensation. Free prior consent included – SS7 – bottom line demand. Also included in borrower assessment,
However many loopholes. Dilution, much weaker and less accountable.
Opt out clause – for governments that don’t recognize right to self determination to opt out.
Dismantled involuntary resettlement cast aside for aspirational language – too much flexibility. Gone are due diligence requirements. No more requirement for baseline survey. Reduced to vague requirements. Gone are due diligence to avoid displacement. Increases possibility for badly designed projects.
Risk or sub projects left to borrowers with poor record. Or private equity and commercial banks. Countries lack legislation. Also exclude ‘market transaction’ – major issue in regards to land grab. All that is asked is that borrowers take ‘care’ not to violate rights. Only when feasible….
Should support only projects that boosts land rights, particularly of the poor.
Abandonment of up front requirements, focus on quick dispersion, too much staff flexibility and delegation of authority. Where is the evidence that this shift will be better at doing no harm. Body of anecdotal evidence from IFC that it does not work… Open ended compliance where safeguards staff are already marginalized.
Renewed partnerships with borrowers…. Rooted in Commitment to sustainability, etc. need to legal and contractual impetus for compliance. Focus on political economy and staff incentives.
Mark King/ Lindsey – WB SG team.
Learning experience… Long journey. Consultation took place in abstract. Attention to disability, diversity of opinions, including 181 countries. Represents a consensus. Only first draft. Draft will be revised later this year or early next year – will go back to CODE.
Framework thus far only a glimpse of what will come. 10 standards, other documents, such as directives will be produced. Directives are mandatory – gender, climate change directives will be produced. Procedures also will be developed.
Requested new land rights and resettlement – don’t think that a policy is required. Some stack holders are disappointed at lack of any positive said.
Differences of opinion – WB feels that SG has been strengthened. ESS 1 describes in greater detail requirements for borrowers.
Involuntary resettlement – have clarified language and specifics ESS1 and 10 – outlines requirements of social and environmental standards and addressed broad set of issues. First priority is to avoid impacts…. Eventual mitigation and off setting.
Many organisations require policies, managing systems, etc. simplify language to commitment of plan. Plan is legally biding. By negotiations will have a clear plan. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment as document will be public. Outcomes based approach – i.e. shift from planning to Implementation – will require more resources to monitoring. Sub project – all projects that require resettlement will be considered high risk.
Pilot projects not particularly successful. E.g., Kenya to assess adequacy of country frameworks and will be included in Board discussions. Pressure from some countries to acknowledge existing country systems – see what works.
Technically and financially feasible – must assess borrower capacity… Incremental approach….
Discretion of bank staff – internal checks and balances. Can improve and will do.
Jorge Munoz – head of bank land department
Informal tenure – guidelines – states should require acknowledge existing formal rights.
Current draft – ensures/ requires compensation even if no formal rights. Hotly disputed as states are very leery to open the door to this discussion.
Peter Kitaly / IPP
Kenyan visitors unable to get visas.
Kenya – 2007 / 20011
Water towers are priorities for both govt and WB. 33000 inhabitants.
Compensation as enticement to resettlement. Evictions often used.
Bank – natural resource management project. Institutional capacity and improve livelihood.
Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework – OP 4.0 comply with international standards. 4.10 – support was deemed to be agreed.
Project manager – must focus on achievable goals. Would not be able to address land issues/ rights. No more land restitution, economic revitalization. Bank foregone application of 4.0.
Inspection panel request in 200?… Entire community evicted. Greatest failure – Bank failed to assess risks and compliance by Kenya.
Panel supportive – more attention to ensuring more caution to evictions and live hoods. Management largely watered down panels suggestions.
ESS 7 if applied than would require FPIC… However current ESS 7 would rely on Kenya. Opt out – while recognized that indigenous people are particularly vulnerable, would give responsibility to government of Kenya.
ESS1 too much discretion, not in line with UN DRIP.
ESS5 – does not provide protection in accordance with IL to avoid eviction of people from their lands.
Peter on line from Kenya:
Evictions continue…75% of the community people have returned. Hopeful for WB/ GK solutions…
ESS5 – does not comply with HRL. Would not have avoided evictions – exclusion of natural resource management. Need for single standard for customary land tenure systems.
Discussion last week with indigenous leaders in NYC. Much concerns. It has been applied only in exceptional circumstances. Cameroon, SA, it has been applied. Consultations with IP must be present and must be presented to the board.
No uniform point of view by governments on the issue.
Transparent process – request will be in public domain. Bank will trigger evaluation of anthropologists, etc,
What can be done about cases such as Ethiopia – where there is no freedom of expression. Vast majority of population fall under guidelines – Ethiopians are undertaking social assessments – good process. Policy is triggered.
Some positives/ however government does not recognise indigenous people. Bank document will not implement policy because government does not recognise people. Compensation – no longer useful. Rather reparations.
Nam Theum 2 flagship. Sombath… Approved 2005/ completed 2010
Repressive, undemocratic regime. No avenue for protest.
Mostly energy for export – poverty alleviation through proceeds from sales.
5000 people resettled. Downstream – 100,000 people depend for livelihoods.
Independent panel of experts (POE).
ADB, Bank – claiming success – control the narrative due to lack of voice by CSOs. Promoted as model – Bank has stated that it will get involved in more large scale projects.
(POE) – expert has come out against it… In the press – Dr. Scutter. True of entire panel….
There have been some infra improvements however much to do in livelihoods. Improvements have been at expense of conservation. POE has called for dismantlement.
Bank initially focused on downstream impact, however funds have ended – 2013… bank and ADB supportive and flagged issue. Complete disconnect between Bank narrative and recent study/ visit. Catch and loss of rice field. No subsidy for electricity.
People dissatisfied with compensation. Through rural development projects… Loans projects…
Impossible to create an island of accountability … Self congratulation was premature.
Major omission – no requirement that Bank proves social benefit of project. Public interest must be considered as part of due diligence. Weigh costs and benefits – political economy analysis… Ie, 150,000 people displacement, lack of consultation, danger to people. Bank does not go out of the way to look into HR given big project.
Current framework – borrower unlikely to provide true assessments.
No requirement for resettlement – deferred appraisal approach. How will Bank deal with lack of resettlement given once disbursement begins Bank not keen to suspend.
Cost externalisation – resettlement costs must be costed and included in total project. If project not feasible because of costs, than not feasible.
Resettlement as development opportunity is gone. Benefit sharing should be included – as in this case billions could be used to support communities.
New framework – will cover by assessment that will evaluate all impacts. Bank is involved in Assessment – not at mercy of the borrower. Will decide whether information is adequate.
Deferral appraisal – no free hand to borrower. Rationale for deferral will be provided and will be public.
Any resettlement costs are internalized within the project.
Previously PO must be triggered. Now integrated.
Egypt – Habitat – extent of compliance and use of HRL… Safeguards really about HR.
What about inclusive growth? ADB – looking as competitive advantage.
Two functional elements – ESS oversight team. Extensive review process. Will not discuss the incentive issue.
Raised the game on stakeholder engagement. Three mechanisms of grievances.
World Bank does not adjudicate rights. Bank gathers information from all relevant stakeholders and presents info to Board.