On
a Short Fuse:
A
Revised World Bank Indigenous Peoples Policy Awaits Public Comment
Ted Downing
Published in the
Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter, Fall 2001.
If we had a Richter scale to measure
changes in international indigenous peoples policy, a near 7.5 quake just
occurred. On 5 July, The World Bank
quietly uploaded its long anticipated, new indigenous peoples policy for public
comment (Operational Policy 4.10 and its associated Bank Procedures 4.10). The
revision began in 1998 with a worldwide consultation on the Banks Approach Paper. One of
ten regional consultations took place in
Orissa (about 8m tribals in 2001), attended by 25 people. The
The Bank states that its
revision is being carried out to clarify
ambiguities and processing requirements, facilitate implementation,
incorporating lessons learned from implementing its indigenous peoples policy
over the last two decades. Translated, this means that someone in the Banks management, staff, private sector
clients, and/or member governments is dissatisfied with the current
policy. Complaints from indigenous
peoples about the current policy (Operational Directive 4.20 from 1991) have
been limited and focused on questions of compliance rather than the policy
itself. Few are even aware that there is a global indigenous policy concerning
those who are in-the-way-of-development.
Tectonic political forces are
working in several directions. Rather
than conspiracy, this means a conflict among stakeholders with unequal power both inside and outside the Bank. Demystified, The World Bank is a very large
credit union, consisting of member nations whose power is roughly proportionate
to their financial contributions. It is
managed by almost autonomous Beltway staffs that come from many cultures and
disciplines, but mostly from the upper and upper-middle class SES strata. This creates a special mix of knowledge,
ignorance, and ambivalence about poor indigenous people. There is also a small beachhead of
pro-indigenous rights advocates working inside the Bank, albeit in rather
powerless positions. Given the sensitive nature of indigenous and tribal
peoples status in many countries, it can be anticipated that government
stakeholders will view the emergence of an international standard as an affront
to national sovereignty, unless it strengthens governmental control of their indigenous people and their lands.
Activists and NGOs fighting
for indigenous peoples rights are also ambivalent about the indigenous policy.
Many prefer to focus on issues of systematic non-compliance with the existing
indigenous policy. While they see the
advantage in an international standard that strengthens the notoriously weak
positions of indigenous peoples within their own nation-states, they are also
skeptical that any international guidelines will be reflected in a more just,
due process at home.
An alternative theory,
espoused by some of the Bank staff is that the policys release is not such a big deal. The Bank is simply releasing new draft
guidelines for its management and staff to follow when they prepare loans. From this perspective, the draft policy
applies only to indigenous peoples who find themselves in the way of
development projects financed by the Bank not to all indigenous people. In sum, The World Bank is not launching a
global standard (who named this institution in the first place?).
In other forums, the Bank has
argued that its policies set a global standard for the obligations and
responsibilities of financial institutions and their borrowers to indigenous
people who are in the path of their projects. Compared to international
declarations and resolutions, these standards have some teeth, since they are
one item on a long checklist that must be completed in order for a project to
access capital. The World Bank
participates in only a small fraction of worlds development projects; nonetheless it has developed some of
the most stringent international environmental and social standards among
global financial organizations. Project
financiers and promoters who are working on sensitive environmental and social
projects take pride in claiming their projects include participation of The
World Bank or meet its guidelines.
Changes in this standard will have powerful downstream
repercussions.
Why are these standards so
important? An interesting financial
twist works in favor of indigenous peoples and underscores the significance of
commenting on the Banks
revised draft of its policy. Members
of syndicates who finance large projects usually have distinct environmental
and social policies. To maintain the integrity of the investment group and keep
the project moving forward, the syndicateas a groupis
restricted by the most stringent policy of any one of its members. This
may turn out to be a minority shareholder. International lenders, including The
World Bank Group, hold such positions.
The failure of a borrower to adhere to a lenders policy may force the lender to pull out
of the project. A lenders withdrawal from a project may raise
doubts over the viability of a project within the financial community. No financing, no project. This means that
close attention should be paid to the environmental and social requirements of
project investorsespecially those with the most stringent
policies. In the case of indigenous
peoples policies, this turns out to be The World Bank.
I will reserve my full analysis
of the policy until later. There are some good ideas in the draft, but I want
to point out a few places that merit critical thinking. Despite the Banks claim that the revision of its indigenous policy is not
intended to alter the current policys key objectives, there are significant changes especially in defining who is eligible
for project benefits and safeguards.
The policy must, at minimum, provide an internationally applicable
definition of who are and are not indigenous peoples. The new policy language closely tracks the
current one. It defines indigenous
people by the presence, in varying degrees, of some of the following
distinctive characteristics 1) close attachment to ancestral territories and
the natural resources in them; (2) presence of customary social and political
institutions; (3) economic systems primarily oriented to subsistence
production; (4) an indigenous language, often different from the predominant
language; and (5) self-identification and identification by others as members
of a distinct cultural group.
The proposed policy
significantly and radically departs from current Bank policy by excluding from its provisions
those groups who (a) have left their communities of origin, (b) moved to urban
areas, (c) and/or migrated to obtain wage labor. Certainly the proposed policy is not a
product of indigenous thinking. If this language is adopted a waterfall of ugly
things are likely to happen to indigenous people. Impoverishment has led many
of the worlds indigenous people to leave their
communities, move to urban areas, and find temporary jobs as laborers. Although absent, many of these people
maintain close links with their communities, hold rights to ancestral lands,
and provide financial support for civil and cultural services. Such
is the case of tens of thousands of Oaxacan indigenous migrants who are working
in the
Unresolved issues await your
suggestions. What changes might resolve the serious, internal conflicts of
interest for Bank management, staff and borrowers including their setting the time line and ground rules for
consultation and information flow? What improvements might increase the
likelihood of opportune, informed consent and participation? Are provisions in
policy made to assure that indigenous people subjected to adverse project impacts
are beneficiaries and share in the profits of projects and are not simply
compensated for losses? Are provisions made to end the inherent human rights
violations that occur when the Bank and borrowers draw up secret
agreements over the future of indigenous groups without the informed consent of
either the indigenous group and government?
Building
on the comments made during the limited global consultation, why doesnt the draft
strengthen the protection of indigenous ancestral lands and resources that are
so critical to their cultural survival?
Why are the adverse impacts of structural adjustment operations to
indigenous peoples explicitly excluded form the policy? Why does the draft
policy open up a procedure for the involuntary resettlement of indigenous
peoples? Why doesnt the draft policy rank self-identification as the MAIN
criterion which triggers application of the policy as requested by indigenous
peoples and in accordance with ILO 169 and the Draft UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Why is there no requirement for
participatory monitoring and involvement of indigenous peoples in the
governance of projects and programs that affect them? And why does the policy
empower the borrower rather than the indigenous people with the right to
prepare an indigenous peoples development plan (see, for example, the quality
work of David Maybury-Lewis, Ian McIntosh, and so many more who are working
with Cultural Survival, including their Fall issue of Cultural Survival
Quarterly on the option called Plan B).
The Bank claims the revised
policy incorporates lessons learned from implementing the indigenous peoples
policy over the last two decades. What lessons are being incorporated? With the policy commentary deadline on 31
October, the World Bank's quality control arm, known as the Operations
Evaluations Department (OED), finally initiated a long delayed review of the
way Bank operations have affected indigenous peoples during the 1990s. This OED review that should put forth the lessons learned, will not be
released until one month after
public commentaries on the proposed indigenous policy is completed. How could the lessons learned be considered
in the commentary if the public review is not completed until after the
deadline for public commentary? Will the
Bank management dismiss critical commentaries claiming that new information
from their internal OED review overrides external public comments? Is this a bureaucratic inefficiency, a cruel
hoax, or cynical disregard for the public commentary process? Why not delay the deadline until after civil
society has had an opportunity to review the results of the Banks internal review?
The policy comes in two
pieces: Operational
Policies 4.10, for the borrower/bank agreements, and Bank
Procedures 4.10 intended for Bank management and staff. Rapid access to both these documents is
available by going to www.policykiosk.com.
Of these, OP 4.10 is the critical document, since it is likely to be
incorporated into legally binding loan agreements. A common move in Bank policy crafting is to
shift critical lines from the Operational Policies to such non-binding
documents such as the toothless Bank documents called Good Practices. While it might be great fun for late night
academic policy discussions
the Good Practices issues are irrelevant and detraction from binding policies
and agreements.
Anyone who claims an interest
in indigenous people should set aside some time to read the old and new
policies and answer the Banks
call. I highly recommend undergraduate, graduate and non-academic community
study groups deconstruct the policy and prepare comments to the Bank. The
comments are strongest when the policy is marked-up and annotated line by line
and includes constructive, alternative language and suggestions. I have tried this twice in class and the
student-citizens have produced high quality, substantive comments that have
nudged international policy.
The
website www.policykiosk.com provides
a quick connection to the current and proposed policies. Once at the Bank
website, you will discover The Banks electronic consultations are being carried out in at least
three languages: English, Spanish, French, and, it appears, other languages. No
translation is planned into any indigenous language. They provide a simple,
web-based form for feedback on the draft policy. I recommend people avoid using
their filling-in-the-box, on-line form.
It leaves no reliable political paper trail. A more effective way to make certain your
voice is heard is to submit an old fashion letter to the Bank, along with an
email and a copy to the members of your respective legislative oversight
committees, your local elected representatives, your national Executive
Director to The World Bank group, and the www.policykiosk.com. The kiosk publishes all commentaries as they
were mailed to The Bank.
Ted Downing ([email protected]) is
Past-President Society for Applied Anthropology, Chair, International Standards
Committee, Research Professor of Social Development,
Published in the Society for Applied
Anthropology Newsletter, Fall 2001
The World Banks
response
This is the World Bank's
response to Ted Downing's article "Why Comment on the World Bank's
Proposed Indigenous Peoples Policy,"
published in the Dec 2001
Anthropology News (pp 23-24).-Ed.
Downing was right to
challenge "all who claim an interest in indigenous people to set aside
three or four hours to read the old
and new policies"
that the World Bank has formulated for projects affecting indigenous peoples.
During the past several
months, the World Bank has placed its draft policy ("Draft Operational
Policy/Bank Procedures 4.10") on the Web
and has publicly invited
the entire global community to comment on this revised World Bank guideline. And we
continue to invite AAA
members to visit our
updated website (www.worldbank.org/indigenous); there you will find an overview
of the consultation process and
copies of the draft
policy in 13 languages. Other background documents include a matrix comparing
the old and new policies, a
schedule of the global
and regional consultation and updates on issues raised during consultations
held to date.
As anthropologists can
appreciate, policymaking is embedded in a process of institutional, political,
social and cultural negotiation;
hence, the more open the
process, the greater the likelihood of mutual understanding and of carrying the
process forward. In that
spirit, the World Bank
has embarked on a global round of consultations (the second since 1998) that
aims at open discussion
and the creation of
multivocal dialogue with governments, indigenous peoples organizations, NGOs,
international organizations and
academics. Consultations
already have been held in
Despite assumptions to
the contrary, the World Bank does frequently respond to grassroots and academic
advice/suggestions/pressures. Thus
Downing's invitation to
you makes sense to all of us at the World Bank who are concerned about the
place of indigenous peoples in the
development process.
Downing raised critical
questions that the policy addresses, and you may raise others. Space prevents
the discussion here of each in turn,
but we welcome the
opportunity to discuss any point in the draft policy with our colleagues. As
our website indicates, the process of
global consultation
extends through Feb 15. The more well-informed arguments we receive in response
to the consultations, the more we
will have the opportunity
to make changes to the draft. In fact, our specialists and management already
have met with some of your
colleagues in the Society
for Applied Anthropology's Public Policy Committee, and we look forward to
their written comments.
Finally, we wish to thank
Downing for his public acknowledgement that the World Bank, the first
international development institution with
a policy on indigenous
peoples (since 1982), continues to have
"the most stringent policies" in the international arena as regards
indigenous peoples.
Navin Rai
Indigenous Peoples
Policy Coordinator
The World Bank