- Melanie Robinson, Executive Director for the United Kingdom (moderator)
- Gonzalo Castro de la Mata, Chairman, World Bank Inspection Panel
- Albert Barume, Chairperson/President UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- Maninder Gill, Director, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice, World Bank
Gonzalo Castro de la Mata
- for Gonzalo Castro de la Mata’s contributions see video
- A lot of incorrect assumptions are made about communication with indigenous groups, such as sending a letter will inform people of projects, to discover the recipients have never received a letter. To consult meaningfully in a way communities understand, is a huge challenge, so we should start early, and be mindful. I don’t think you can ever be an indigenous peoples expert as communications depends on context.
- Make sure land rights are acknowledged.
- The report talks about being flexible and adaptive, currently our Bank instruments don’t allow that. The report is well written, clear. How do we create an environment where these instruments are more flexible? We can only succeed if we co-produce projects with indigenous colleagues, counterparts. We do need to comply with these policies, we need to bring our indigenous colleagues into the kitchen, FIPC. Where we follow the model we came up with great solutions.
- IP exercise was useful to guide the practice, as it enabled by its mandate.
- Small comment on the IP report, the issue is the capacity, the second point is on a rights based approach, lastly, some sort of legacy, the new DS7.
- The report says how government officials and WB staff how they are grabbling with the concept of indigenous peoples; indigenous are not the poor guy without access to education, to shelter, health, sanitation and work, not just that. What makes the claim particular is beyond that. Of what went wrong in many cases, are some historical things. About certain lifeviews: this way of traditionally occupying and using land, where not seen as good enough and therefore not protected, not legislated. You will find people that are landless, but not everyone is. If you just put them in the big basket of all the poor, you may be missing the point.
- For example in Kenya, in situation where of all communities involved in a project not all where claiming indigenous rights, and those who didn’t took the offer on the land (resettlement), but the indigenous people didn’t, as the land they are living on is important to them.
- What is important is a rights based approach, as oppose to anthropological approach. The last 15 years the indigenous peoples claims have become into sole rights. Understanding the rights (education, health etc), what makes it unique for indigenous peoples. To take a human rights bases approach is to understand that indigenous people are rights holders, on those lands they have rights.
- Need to shift away from the charity approach, and the expectation that indigenous people just need to take what has been given to them.
- OP4.10 has a good legacy, because we have had people in president’s office, hearing for the first time the concept of indigenous people. It has triggered interests in development policies. That legacy will have to move on and continue.
Q. from Peru, [indigenous people representatives] have engaged for three years in the safeguard reviews, because it’s a crucial theme; do we include or do we not include informed consent.
What is the plan to include informed consent, what is the mechanism and the strategies that will be implemented? We have been engaged; what will be next, will the engagement be continued?
Q. from Chile, this is a typical World Bank presentation, convincing, articulate. What one wonders is, all this sounds very project focussed and process oriented, and very labour intensive. To take a broader view; what is necessary for countries to respond to these issues in a less labour intensive way and to build up responsiveness to the local population?
Q. from Kenya, I have seen a lot of improvement about is coming out of the IP. There have to be indigenous experts, not just someone that goes in with Western, Eurocentric focus from the World Bank. There are project affected communities in Kenya, these where identified by IP, yet the World Bank still funds these projects. What you say is wrong, it is still funded.
Q. What is a definition for indigenous people, in relation to land rights? Someone sells their acre for a bridge for their community. How is livelihood tracking after displacement a year on done?
Q. from Brazil, in the Amazon, there is a document of statement of indigenous communities that they agree with the project. Is this still required?
- on FPIC: we are working on this now. We have had discussions with indigenous friends, we will have discussions with them on if the guidelines are implementable and make sense. To guide us on operationalizing, what else can we do to promote more indigenous people focused and people centric development?
- Complex implementation: if you consult with people and you talk to them, co-designed can be more informal process. Two, if the institutions are weak, then why not focus on capacity building to improve the institutions as a development objective.
- At the WB we figure out the contours of the project, and then we do the consultations.
- who is indigenous? There is no quick definition as its complex, there is a concept from 2005, African Commission website. In the last 15 years the concept has been attached with a protective regime and mechanisms, and a set of rights principles, aimed to address specific historic happenings.
Gonzalo Castro de la Mata
- Higher level approach to development, IP responds to project specific complaints. A methodology, it’s a frequency analysis, how often do these issues come up. As they are project basis they are not being fed back into the development process and happen again.
- As Kim said, when the bank makes mistake, we learn from it and don’t do it again. The development series is trying to help the bank to not do it again.
Q. It would be valuable to add a questionnaire to the report, for example: What instruments have you put in place to address issue 5? When the anwser is none, we know there is no instrument in place, we know this will be an issue. Another question could be; What customary land rights have you noticed in the area? The answers to the questions will be easy to supervise.
Q. from Kenya, thank the IP for their work and recommendation for the bank to actually have a dialogue with the forest community. We have had the session. The observation happened last year March and that was the end of it. That is not a process. Who was meant to lead to process? Nothing else happened until July this year. The bank should take a leading role to make sure it achieves the goals it set out to achieve. The dialogue process have not facilitated any meetings, due to a lack of financial support of the bank. The bank needs to build the capacity of the indigenous community. Maasai don’t have the capacity to engage in the process. Lastly, the bank needs to support meetings with the communities, government and company. The situation has become worse, people are not allowed into the forest, we are not living in the forest.
Gonzalo Castro de la Mata
- the Kenya case illustrates the issues in the process. Some procedures are being put in place, lets hope they resolve them. It’s a long term issue and shows the limitations.
- please send any documents to us via email (mgill[at]worldbank.org) and we will look into it.