14 December 2004
December 14 2004
To
James Wolfensohen
President, The World Bank
Washington
Michael Carter
India Country Director, The World Bank
New Delhi
cc: Zareen Thomas, Warren Waters, JodiLehner, S Lal
Dear Sir or Madam,
Some of us are in receipt of your invitation for the meeting on Issues in Using Country Systems in Bank Operations to be held in Delhi on Dec 14 2004 during 1500 hours to 1730 hours.
We find it unacceptable that a meeting on issues of such far reaching consequences is being held without providing basic information about the implications of such proposals in India (since the meeting in Delhi was supposed to be about Bank operations in India as it evident from the list of invitees), without providing the information in local languages to the affected communities, without involving the communities in the process, at such short notice and with so few of the civil society representatives. We also believe that it is an insult that two and a half hours is being allotted to a meeting of such importance. This only reinforces our feeling that the meeting is a mere formality and not an effort to substantively engage with civil society and community concerns.
Experience over the years suggests, as is supported by a number of Bank reports from OED, QAG and as is also supported by the actual experience with various WB funded projects, till as recently as in 2004 (e.g. the example of the IFC funding of the Allain Duhangan HEP in Himachal Pradesh in India. The case of the Sardar Sarovar is well known and the affected people in hundreds of thousands are still suffering the implications of the Bank supported Sardar Sarovar Project) that both the safeguards and the their implementation needs to be strengthened. The Bank, instead of taking steps to strengthen the implementation of its existing safeguards, is attempting to give up its responsibility by these proposals. The proposed changes, we believe would certainly weaken both the safeguards and their implementation, at least as far as India as concerned.
As the Operations Evaluation Department has documented, the World Bank has not mainstreamed social and environmental concerns in its business model. As a consequence, the Bank has repeatedly taken up unsustainable projects within which the objectives of the safeguard policies cannot be achieved. In such cases, the Bank often went through the motions of the safeguard policies at considerable length, but did not bring the projects in compliance with the policies. For example, the Bank hardly ever explores alternative options in any balanced way as part of the environmental assessments of projects. And people who are displaced by Bank projects invariably become poorer rather than becoming project beneficiaries.
The World Bank has decided to re-engage in high-risk projects, and to substantially increase its lending for infrastructure projects. Given these trends, it is even more important than so far that the Bank mainstream social and environmental concerns in its business model, and that the safeguard policies that are meant to avoid a repetition of past mistakes are strictly upheld. We are strongly opposed to any weakening of the Bank’s safeguard policies under the pretext of “country ownership”.
In a letter dated June 29, 2004, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn assured NGOs, “we are determined that this move toward using country systems will not weaken our existing safeguard policies, which our Board of Directors adopted on the basis of considerable experience and extensive consultation”. This commitment was confirmed by the Board of Directors at several occasions. As we will elaborate below, it is being seriously undermined by the Bank Management’s proposal.
The proposal will also weaken the accountability of the World Bank to its own standards, in that the point of reference for Inspection Panel investigations under the proposed new system will be the national policies, and not the Bank’s safeguard policies.
According to the proposal, the Bank will not only use the existing policies to measure the equivalency of national standards with Bank policies, but also planned improvements of these policies. This is based on wishful thinking. The contradiction in the Bank thinking is also revealed by this quote from the note sent by the Bank with the invitation of the letter. The note says in footnote 48, page 15, “Overall, there appears to be little experience across the development community in systematically using country systems, and particularly in basing such use on a rigorous and transparent process of assessing equivalence against accepted international good practices, objectives, and principles, or similar criteria.
According to the proposal, governments themselves, among other actors, can assess the equivalence of their safeguard systems with Bank policies, and the quality of their own compliance with national systems. This makes a mockery of assessing equivalency independently.
Some of the instances where the proposed changes will lead to weakening of the safeguards as noted by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and others include:
Environmental Assessment
§ Under OP 4.01, the Bank does not finance projects that contravene the country's obligations under international environmental agreements. This principle is dropped in Annex A.
§ OP 4.12 requires that, if adverse indirect social or economic impacts might result, a social assessment should be done and measures to minimize or mitigate such impacts implemented. These requirements are dropped.
§ Annex A drops the classification of proposed projects into categories based on severity of potential environmental impacts (A, B, C, and FI). As a result, all requirements that hinge on whether a project is in Category A or B are lost.
§ OP 4.01 requires sectoral and regional EAs if sectoral and regional impacts are likely to occur. These requirements are not mentioned in Annex A.
§ OP 4.01 favors the prevention of adverse impacts over mitigation and compensation. Annex A places these measures on the same level.
Natural Habitats
§ Annex A drops OP 4.04's expectation that borrowers apply a "precautionary approach to natural resource management".
§ OP 4.04 allows projects that adversely affect natural habitats only if a comprehensive analysis demonstrates that their overall benefits substantially outweigh their environmental costs. This precondition is dropped in Annex A.
Involuntary Resettlement
§ OP 4.12 sets up a hierarchy of improving livelihoods before restoring them. Annex A gives improvement and restoration the same priority.
§ Under OP 4.12, resettlement activities must be done as sustainable development programs if it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, enabling the displaced persons to share in the project benefits. This requirement is dropped in Annex A
§ Under OP 4.12, displaced persons are consulted on more than just the eligibility and grievance procedures-they have opportunities for consultation and participation in planning, implementing, and monitoring the whole resettlement program. These opportunities are not provided by Annex A.
§ Unlike OP 4.12, Annex A no longer requires that displaced persons, their communities and host communities are provided timely and relevant information.
§ OP 4.12 includes detailed provisions on the obligations of borrowers, for example to implement socioeconomic surveys, analyze legal and institutional frameworks, and take measures to mitigate the impact of resettlement on host communities. Annex A doesn't contain such provisions.
§ Unlike OP 4.12, Annex A doesn't require borrowers to inform potentially displaced persons at an early stage and take their views into account in the design of projects.
§ BP 4.12 explicitly states that a project is not considered complete until resettlement measures have been implemented. Annex A doesn't say this.
Indigenous Peoples
§ OD 4.20 requires an assessment of the legal status of indigenous peoples groups, and describes measures to be taken if local legislation needs to be strengthened. Annex A doesn't require this.
§ Annex A does not require an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan. The IPDP is a major requirement of OD 4.20 and includes the planned implementation of special project components such as developing a strategy for local participation, gathering baseline data, and providing technical identification of mitigation activities.
Various policies
§ The current Bank policies on environmental assessment, natural habitats, pest management, involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, forests, cultural property, and safety of dams are much more explicit than Annex A on the specific roles and obligations of Bank staff in Bank projects. The role of Bank staff under these policies is unclear in Annex A.
We would like to remind the World Bank that:
In a broad sense, Indian social and environmental safeguard policies and implementation discipline is significantly weaker than existing Bank safeguards. The implementation of the proposal would only lead to greater disasters both for the communities and for the environment. In India the process of policy making in recent cases of National Tribal Policy, National Resettlement & Rehabilitation policy and the National Environment Policy have themselves evoked very strong response in terms of lack of consultation, transparency, decision making and content of the drafts which have been prepared either by bureaucrats or consultants and the same being rejected by the civil society groups. The policies are being pushed through in most undemocratic and unaccountable manner with little regard to the careful critiques offered by academia and civil society groups. This is relevant as these policies are expected to be followed in the Bank funded projects if the Bank proposals are accepted.
Under the circumstances, if the Bank is serious about consultations and transparency, it must minimally do the following:
- Hold widespread consultations about the Bank’s India Country Assistance Strategy and parts thereof including its decision to resume funding to large hydro projects.
- Commission through a credible independent agency a report about the implications of the country systems proposals in India, by comparing the existing Indian policies and their implementation, with what would be case if the Bank policies were sincerely implemented in letter and spirit.
- Provide this and all relevant material in local languages and make the same available to the communities affected by Bank projects in India.
- Hold widespread consultations involving local communities and other concerned organisations and individuals in all these processes, to be conducted by an independent agency with senior Bank participation.
- Define a Mechanism that would ensure compliance with the safeguards and international human rights standards in all bank-supported activities.
We would request you that this letter be read at the meeting, circulated to all the participants, taken on record of the meeting, circulated to others concerned on the issue in India and elsewhere. We would also request you to record the protest action (in form of walk out from the meeting in protest after explaining the reasons for the same and in the form of this letter) of the undersigned on the issue. We will be mailing a copy of this letter to the Prime Minister of India, relevant ministers, members of parliament and the press.
We will look forward to your responses.
Thanking you for your attention,
SIGNATORIES:
Name (email address), Organisation (where applicable), Place
Sanjay Basu Mallick ()
Jharkhand Jungle Bachao Andolan
Ranchi
Ashish Kothari ()
Kalpavriksh
Delhi/ Pune
Ramananda Wangkheirakpam ()
Citizens' Concern for Dams and Development (CCDD)
Manipur
Dr Laifungbam S Roy.
CORE
Manipur ()
Ravindranath.
Rural Volunteers Centre
Assam ()
Zakir Kibria
Brahmaputra Barak Watch
Arup saikia
River Basin Friends
Assam ()
Leo Saldhana ()
Environment Support Group
Bangalore
Ms. Anita Cheria ()
Bangalore
Shalmali Guttal ()
Focus on Global South
Bangalore
Souparno Lahiri ()
Delhi Forum
New Delhi
Dunu Roy ()
The Other Media
New Delhi
Smitu Kothari ()
Lokayan
Delhi
Vimalbhai ()
Matu Jansangathan,
Delhi
Himanshu Thakkar ()
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People
Delhi