[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l NGO Comments on WBank Involuntary Resettlement/LS
The following was sent to the World Bank, which is revising its Involuntary
Resettlement policy.
>November 17, 1999
>
>Maninder Gill
>Resettlement Thematic Group
>World Bank
>1818 H Street, NW
>Washington, DC 20433
>
>Fax 202 522 3247
>resettlement_help_desk@worldbank.org
>
>RE: Draft OP/BP 4.12: Involuntary Resettlement
>
>Dear Mr Gill
>
>We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed "conversion" of
>the World Bank's Involuntary Resettlement policy. Like many NGOs and
>people's movement around the world we are extremely disturbed by the
>large-scale abuses of economic and civil rights condoned and indeed
>encouraged by the World Bank under the rubric of Involuntary Resettlement.
>This policy conversion provides the Bank an opportunity to establish a
>framework for providing reparations to those who are still suffering the
>consequences of Bank-financed evictions, and to develop a policy which
>ensures that the Bank's disastrous record of the past in this area is not
>repeated.
>
>Unfortunately, Draft OP/BP 4.12 shows that this opportunity is being
>wasted. The adoption of this Draft would likely ensure that the impacts of
>Bank-financed evictions in the future would be no better than those of the
>past. As in the past, the only people certain to be better off due to
>Bank-funded involuntary resettlement under the new policy as drafted will
>be resettlement consultants.
>
>The overarching weakness with OP/BP 4.12 is that it is a policy on
>Involuntary Resettlement. The Bank certainly needs to have a Resettlement
>policy, but should not have one on Involuntary Resettlement. Footnote no. 9
>defines "involuntary" as "without the displaced person's informed consent
>or power of choice or choice is being exercised in the absence of
>reasonable alternative options". OP/BP 4.12 therefore condones and
>encourages forced eviction as a part of the Bank's business. The UN
>Commission on Human Rights states that "forced evictions are a gross
>violation of human rights" (UNCHR Sub-Commission on Prevention of
>Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Resolution 1993/41). It is
>hard to imagine any other area where the World Bank has a policy on how
>best to carry out gross human rights abuses.
>
>If the Bank is in any way serious about seeking to minimize the trauma of
>displacement it must do everything it can to ensure that no people are
>resettled without their freely given, prior and informed consent.
>Bank-financed resettlement should be voluntary and based on negotiated
>settlements with affected people to which project developers can be held
>accountable. If forced resettlement continues to be normal practice for the
>Bank, project-affected people and their allies will continue to mobilize
>against Bank projects.
>
>Important sectors of the dam industry now accept the principle of prior and
>informed consent. The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), for
>example, states that "water resources development projects . . . have to be
>planned, implemented and operated with the clear consent of the public
>concerned" (ICOLD Position Paper on Dams and the Environment, May 1997).
>Likewise dam-building utility Hydro-Quebec states that "local consent is
>now a pre-condition for all future projects" (Submission from Hydro-Quebec
>to the World Commission on Dams, August 1999).
>
>If resettlement can be done in such a way as to ensure that people's
>well-being is improved after project construction then there is no reason
>to believe that people would not give their consent. Draft OP/BP 4.12 does
>not require that people be better off after displacement, and is therefore
>weaker than the position of the International Commission on Large Dams
>which states that "For the population involved, resettlement must result in
>a clear improvement of their living standards, because the people directly
>affected by a project should always be the first to benefit" (ICOLD
>Position Paper on Dams and the Environment, May 1997).
>
>As has already been explained in previous comments on OP/BP 4.12 (e.g. by
>Thayer Scudder, July 28, 1999), requiring only that people are enabled to
>restore their pre-displacement livelihoods means in fact that the living
>standards of the majority of displaced people will be worsened by the
>project. It is hard to see how an institution with the stated aim of "A
>World Free of Poverty" can adopt a policy which seeks to make poor people
>even poorer.
>
>The principle of free, prior and informed consent will require a number of
>improvements in the way in which projects are planned and implemented.
>Among the most important of these improvements will be:
>
>- the provision of all relevant project information in a timely manner and
>in a form and in languages intelligible to affected communities. This would
>include information on: all expected costs and benefits; the assessment of
>the range of technical and locational options to achieve project goals; the
>rationale for the selection of the project option involving displacement;
>and full details of communities and areas to be affected and the precise
>nature of the impacts upon them.
>
>- acceptance of the right of communities to say no to displacement free of
>the risk of any form of intimidation, punishment or sanction from the state
>or developers.
>
>- the involvement of community representatives in the process of proposing
>and assessing alternative project options.
>
>- negotiations between affected communities and developers (including
>funders) which result in mutually agreed, formal and legally enforceable
>settlements (these settlements should not require the surrender of any of
>the affected people's rights).
>
>- mutually accepted processes for the resolution of grievances arising
>after a settlement has been reached.
>
>- where necessary, project proponents may have to assist in building the
>capacity of communities, community institutions and community
>representatives to engage in negotiations on a free and informed basis.
>Hydro-Quebec, for example, states in its submission to the WCD that
>"Capacity-building is often a requirement for more effective participation.
>By 'capacity-building' we mean the strengthening of indigenous peoples'
>institutions and technical knowledge to ensure that both parties are at
>level (sic)." The same would also apply to non-indigenous communities.
>Capacity-building will likely work best by giving communities the time,
>political space and, where appropriate, resources to organize themselves,
>secure legal representation, form political alliances etc.
>
>One important reason why past resettlement plans have invariably been
>failures is that monitoring has been weak or non-existent. The provisions
>in Draft OP/BP 4.12 are unlikely to change this situation. OP/BP 4.12
>should insist that monitoring bodies (including "expert panels") include
>meaningful representation from affected communities and that they have the
>legal authority to halt project construction if delays or other problems
>are experienced with resettlement.
>
>Another vital issue which is missing from Draft OP/BP 4.12 is the need for
>the Bank to develop guidelines for the provision of reparations to the
>millions of people who were displaced by Bank-funded projects in the past
>and are still suffering the consequences. The Bank has made some faltering
>steps toward addressing this major issue, for example at Chixoy and Kariba
>dams, and should now take the opportunity of the "conversion" of OP/BP 4.12
>to develop policy guidelines on reparations. The principles of free, prior
>and informed consent, negotiated settlements, participatory monitoring,
>capacity building etc. should also be applied in reparations projects.
>Before resettling any more people, the Bank should ensure that people
>harmed by past Bank-funded resettlement have been as far as possible
>compensated for their losses.
>
>As you are aware, a major task of the Bank-sponsored World Commission on
>Dams is to develop policy recommendations on resettlement and reparations.
>The WCD's thematic review on resettlement should be finalized by early next
>year and its final report and recommendations available by August 2000. As
>the World Bank itself has been one of the sponsors of the WCD it is
>illogical for the Bank to finalize a new policy on one of the major issues
>under investigation by the WCD only months before the WCD reports. It is
>also hard to see why there should be such a rush to complete this policy
>conversion when the Bank's existing Involuntary Resettlement policy remains
>in force, and when this conversion has already been ongoing for several
>years. The Bank should therefore await finalization of this "conversion"
>until it has been able to consider the recommendations of the WCD.
>
>We look forward to hearing from you on how you will take the above comments
>into account.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>
>Patrick McCully
>International Rivers Network
>
>endorsed by
>
>Sadi Baron
>Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens, Brazil
>
>Shripad Dharmadhikary
>Narmada Bachao Andolan, India
>
>Shalmali Guttal
>Focus on the Global South
>
>Naeem Iqbal
>Pakistan Network for Rivers, Dams and People
>
>Chainarong Srettachau
>Director, South East Asia River Network
>
>Himanshu Thakker
>South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People
>
>Chotanagpur Adivasi Sewa Samiti, India
>
>Prerana Resource Centre, Bihar, India
>
>
>
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Patrick McCully
>Campaigns Coordinator
>International Rivers Network
>1847 Berkeley Way
>Berkeley, CA 94703, USA
>Tel. +1 510 848 1155
>Fax. +1 510 848 1008
>www.irn.org
>