Global experts on Involuntary Resettlement critically review proposed Bank policy changes
The International Network on Displacement and Resettlement (INDR) convened 12 well-attended scientific sessions at its annual meeting at the 75th Annual Society for Applied Anthropology meeting in Pittsburgh in March 2015 (see program and abstracts ). Scholarly debate focused on The World Bank’s proposal to downgrade its existing safeguard policies to, what consensus held, was a lowering of current international standards on involuntary resettlement and on indigenous populations. Anthropologists, sociologists, and environmentalists were the proponents and writers of these policies in the late 1970s and 1980s which have been replicated and adopted much beyond the World Bank itself by all public regional development banks (ADB, AFDB, IDB, EBRD), by over 80 private sector transnational investment-finance banks (the “Equator Principles” banks), by all bilateral aid agencies and export credit agencies of OECD countries, and some national governments. Bank’s Management made an early commitment in 2012 to revise and update, but not dilute existing policies. The consensus of the participants was the update needs significant redrafting to avoid a policy framework that licenses Bank financing to unnecessarily creating new poverty and social risks.
The World Bank President Kim Unexpectedly Acknowledges Shortcomings in Resettlement Projects, Announces Action Plan to Fix Problems (WB Press Release – unedited)
March 4, 2015
Three reports, which reviewed over two decades of World Bank projects involving possible resettlements, found that oversight of those projects often had poor or no documentation, lacked follow through to ensure that protection measures were implemented, and some projects were not sufficiently identified as high-risk for populations living in the vicinity.
“We took a hard look at ourselves on resettlement and what we found caused me deep concern,” said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. “We found several major problems. One is that we haven’t done a good enough job in overseeing projects involving resettlement; two, we haven’t implemented those plans well enough; and three, we haven’t put in place strong tracking systems to make sure that our policies were being followed. We must and will do better.”
The action plan released Wednesday proposes to strengthen systems, staffing, and policy implementation. The plan focuses on improving preparation, supervision and implementation of resettlement, given the disruptive impact it can have on the lives of the people.
The plan is aligned with the World Bank’s ongoing safeguards review process, and is largely based on recommendations from three reports: a 2014 Internal Audit Department (IAD) Advisory Review of the Bank’s Environmental and Social Risk Management; and two internal draft working papers – Involuntary Resettlement Portfolio Review Phase l and Phase ll.
Since late 2012, the World Bank has been consulting with stakeholders on strengthening its environmental and social safeguard policies, including its policies regarding land acquisition and resettlement. On March 1, the World Bank concluded the second phase of consultations on the proposed Environmental and Social Framework, which would strengthen, update and clarify our existing safeguard policies.
On resettlement, World Bank operational teams are already implementing many of the measures identified in the action plan released today, including a comprehensive review of its current policies, additional staff guidance, a systematic risk management framework, and strengthened accreditation of specialist staff.
The plan also includes the use of a new Tracking Social Performance (TSP) Database, in response to a weakness found in two of the reviews that information on the scale and scope of project impacts is difficult to obtain in World Bank systems. This database was developed to better track resettlement issues for all Bank-funded projects with involuntary resettlement, and enable resettlement reports to be generated in real time. A similar tracking system is also now in place for environmental issues.
“Our policy is that if we resettle someone from their home, we will assist efforts to improve, or at least to restore, their incomes and living standards,” Kim said. “Strong policies like ours require strong execution and it requires properly funding reviews and empowering those who work on safeguards. That will change with our action plan.”
What is involuntary resettlement?
Involuntary Resettlement refers to two distinct but related processes. Displacement is a process by which development projects cause people to lose land or other assets, or access to resources. This may result in physical dislocation, loss of income, or other adverse impacts. Resettlement or rehabilitation is a process by which those adversely affected are assisted in their efforts to improve, or at least to restore, their incomes and living standards.
The World Bank rejects meeting with Global involuntary resettlement technical experts and their professional association*
* Update. In light of the 4 March release of Bank wide and a sample survey showing serious problems in the Bank’s tracking and execution of it involuntary resettlement policies – information that was NOT shared with either the World Bank’s Board or the commentators on the proposed new Environmental and Social Framework’s Involuntary Resettlement Standards (ESS7) – INDR is appealing the earlier rejection. INDR is offering President Kim and Senior Bank Management assistance from its international experts.
The International Network on Displacement and Resettlement requested a specific, technical consultation(s) on the proposed changes to its involuntary resettlement policies (response below)
From: “Downing, Theodore E – (downing)” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Hang Thi Thu Doan <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: 2014/15 Consultation on the Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Invitation to an Expert Focus Group on “Managing Social Risk” – The proposed Environmental and Social Framework
Date: February 13, 2015 at 12:37:09 PM MST
Greetings Mark King,
Thank you for inviting me, as President of the International Network on Displacement and Resettlement (INDR www.displacement.net), to attend the workshop on the draft Environmental and Social Framework on February 18. The INDR is deeply concerned for the lack of a specific technical consultation on involuntary resettlement (ESS5) with the internationally recognized specialists and their professional association.
Now 15 years old, the INDR is the only global professional association working in development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR). Its members include all the pioneer theoreticians and practitioners in this field. They have helped develop laws and policies, design, appraise, supervise, monitor, research and develop the leading theories on the resettlement effect. Some have over 30 years of experience with the World Bank and its sister financial intermediaries, with experience in more than 100 member countries of the World Bank in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia.
At the 2014 Annual Meeting’s safeguards forum, following my testimony, you committed to work with our Network on involuntary resettlement, which your team has recognized as a difficult component in the ESS elements. We welcome the challenge to find ways to avoid and mitigate the multifaceted, impoverishment risks unleashed by forced displacement. Development that creates new poverty is not development – a fundamental contradiction to the Bank’s purpose. This contradiction begins to be resolved by resettlements being treated as development projects in their own right and benefits accrue to the affected populations. Toward this end, I am pleased to report that the INDR is convening over 50 international experts for four days to specifically analyze the proposed ESS5 involuntary resettlement policy next month.
The proposed forum on the 18th of February is too broad and unfocused to permit meaningful, expert consultations on over three dozen technical areas that need attention. These include setting of objectives, planning, timing, meaningful participation of affected people and informed choices regarding settlement locations, livelihood and socio-cultural impacts, compensation, income restoration and improvement, policy consistency, integration of hosts and the resettled, grievances, human rights violation risks, vulnerable groups, accountability of various agencies involved, benefit-sharing, impoverishment avoidance, monitoring and evaluation. Nor would a follow up of written comments offer your team a chance to work through possible solutions with the key global experts in this field.
INDR’s participation in the 18 February meeting might be misinterpreted as a meaningful, technical consultation on involuntary resettlement. For that reason, I will delay my Washington trip until we have scheduled the long overdue consultation specifically on involuntary resettlement with Bank senior management, drawing upon the findings of our March scientific forum. Would the Bank’s Vice President convene a consultation specifically on involuntary resettlement with eight to ten of the INDR’s key global experts?
Recognizing that this might disrupt the schedule, an alternative might be to set the ESS5 element aside from the overall framework for additional enhancement. Over the past four decades, thousands of staff days have been spent dealing with this issue in so many projects, including multiple, high profile Inspection Panel complaints. A prudent, ounce of delay on this element will save extensive time and Bank resources downstream.
We look forward to mutual cooperation.
The International Network on Displacement and Resettlement
cc. Hartwig Schafer
Dr. Kim, President
Vice-President Hartwig Schafer’s Rejection
From: Hartwig Schafer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “Stefan G. Koeberle” <email@example.com>, Mark Alan King <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Anne-Katrin Arnold <email@example.com>, Juri Oka <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: February 19, 2015 at 4:34:54 PM MST
Subject: On resettlement
Thank you for your note and your engagement with the World Bank’s review of its safeguard policies. We agree that resettlement is among the core issues of this review. This is why the proposed standard on Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement (ESS5) introduces a range of suggestions to improve protections for people that are affected by resettlement in World Bank-financed projects.
As you know, consultations close on March 1. Over the past seven months, we consulted with stakeholders from more than 60 countries in the largest consultation effort the World Bank has ever hosted. We had productive discussions with a wide range of stakeholders on resettlement. Two dedicated consultations on land issues have been held just before the Annual Meetings in Washington, DC and in Berlin on November 13. More than 100 organizations and experts participated in both events, which were widely advertised and open to all experts interested in attending. The Expert Roundtable in Washington resulted in an impressive recommendation document that will be crucial for our revisions of the framework. Resettlement has also been specifically addressed in the context of our consultations with Indigenous Peoples and on non-discrimination.
At this point, I hope that you can submit your comments in writing to us. Comments from your organization would be important when we start revising the proposed framework based on stakeholder feedback as soon as consultations are closed.
Operations Policy & Country Services
INDR Joins 313 Organizations in Protesting the Attempt to Stop Dilution of The World Bank Safeguards
The International Network on Displacement and Resettlement, a 14 year old professional associations supports a global civil society protest to The World Bank sudden decision to abandon the core principles of its safeguard policies. The statement says:
Civil society statement on World Bank safeguards
We, the undersigned organisations, strongly object to the World Bank’s safeguards draft since it falls far short of the rules needed to protect the environment and respect the rights of affected communities, workers and indigenous peoples. The draft derogates from well-established international standards and would effectively dismantle 30 years of policy evolution, setting a dangerous precedent among national, regional and global actors. The draft represents a massive dilution of current Bank policy that undermines momentum for the upward harmonization of social and environmental standards and their alignment with universal human rights.
By eliminating key protections at a time when it has announced its intentions to expand lending to riskier infrastructure, large dams and mega-project schemes, the Bank fails to recognize that strong safeguards are essential to ensuring that project benefits are fairly shared and that the costs are not borne by the poor and marginalised. Weakening the existing safeguard policies would make the Bank’s goals of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity impossible to achieve.
We fundamentally reject the way in which the review and update of the safeguard policies has been conducted to date, which has been marked by exclusion and a lack of transparency. Crucially, the revision process has failed to meaningfully incorporate the comprehensive inputs by civil society organisations, independent experts and scholars, indigenous peoples, labour unions, and project-affected communities.
The “Review and Update” exercise was expected to take as its basis the existing World Bank policies, which form the social and environmental contract of the World Bank with the world we live in. Consistent with this contract, this “Review and Update” was expected to incorporate additional and better provisions where needed, to correct or eliminate out-dated or unnecessary elements, and replace them — in a transparent manner — with alternative formulations that are subject to subsequent public discussion. Instead, the existing policy texts were discarded and replaced with entirely different texts with vague resemblance to the existing policies. No opportunity was offered during the first phase for a candid discussion about the fundamental changes that have been incorporated in the draft.
A meaningful process of multi-stakeholder consultation on how to operationalize and effectively implement international standards is urgently needed. This process must take the time that is needed to solicit and build on successful models of safeguards that are predicated upon decades of empirical research about how to ensure that development does no harm. It must be based on the understanding that human rights and sustainability are fundamental components of development, which are essential to achieving the Bank’s goals of eliminating extreme poverty and increase shared prosperity.
A revised set of safeguard policies must, at a minimum, address the flaws in the draft that are set out in the annex to this statement.
The draft Environmental and Social Framework:
Undermines the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Allowing borrowers to “opt out” of implementing the proposed Indigenous Peoples standard would directly undermine successive and hard-fought battles by indigenous peoples at the national, regional and international levels to have their rights recognized and respected, and thus contradict their rights to self-determination and collective ownership of lands, territories and resources. This would constitute a massive dilution of current World Bank safeguard protections and undermine the credibility of the world’s most prominent development finance institution.
Fails to protect the rights of workers. The proposed labour standard would have almost no impact in protecting the rights of workers because, by excluding third party contractors and civil servants, it would apply to only a small fraction of those who work on Bank-financed projects. In addition—unlike other development institutions—it fails to reference or live up to the ILO conventions and Core Labour Standards that must be the cornerstone of a credible labour policy. By needlessly narrowing who the standard applies to, the World Bank will perpetuate instances of unsafe working conditions, child labour, unpaid wages and denial of freedom of association.
Fails to guarantee critical human rights protections. The draft safeguard policy fails to articulate how it will operationalize its stated commitments to human rights, which must underpin an effective safeguard system. The protection of human rights is necessary to attaining the goals of development. The safeguard policy must explicitly identify how the Bank will adequately identify risks to human rights for activities it intends to support through a robust human rights due diligence process. This is crucial if the Bank is to succeed in its stated goals of eliminating extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity.
Does not meaningfully address climate change. Despite the Bank’s prominence in warning of the dangers that a warming world poses to development, the draft includes only sporadic mention of climate change. The draft does not ensure that projects are in-line with national climate plans, nor does it have clear requirements for assessing and managing the impacts of climate change on the viability of projects or the resilience of ecosystems or local communities in project areas. At the same time, the draft fails to require assessments of greenhouse gas emissions for all high-emission projects or to take steps to reduce emissions.
Tramples the rights and threatens the welfare of communities subject to forced displacement. The draft eliminates the fundamental development objective of the resettlement policy and the key measures essential to preventing impoverishment and protecting the rights of people uprooted from their homes, lands, productive activities and jobs to make way for Bank projects. The draft allows the Bank to finance projects that entail the physical and economic displacement of communities without first ensuring that there is a reconstruction plan and budget available to ensure adequate compensation, sound physical resettlement, economic recovery and improvement. This would be an unconscionable regression in Bank policy that will result in the large-scale impoverishment of affected people and exacerbate inequality, in flagrant contradiction of the Bank’s mandate and goals. The draft also fails to ensure a transparent accounting at project completion that no displaced people end up worse off than without the Bank project.
Lacks adequate protections to prevent deprivations in childhood. Despite an important new requirement to assess impacts on children among other vulnerable groups, the draft lacks critical requirements to address the unique risks to children. As such, Bank projects could continue to have the potential to employ child labour, resettle children far from educational opportunities, and result in the exploitation or trafficking of children, among other risks. Such negative impacts can result in long-term, irreversible deprivations that cause lifelong damage, preventing children from reaching their full potential while perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Eliminates protections for forests and forest-dependent peoples. The newly rebranded biodiversity standard establishes a single-minded focus on species biodiversity at the expense of ecological integrity and the local communities dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods and cultural survival. Far from safeguarding forests and other natural habitats, the biodiversity standard permits projects in previous ‘no-go’ areas and provides loopholes for logging, while the standard’s heavy reliance on biodiversity offsetting leaves no natural areas off the table for destructive interventions. The draft must strengthen protections for the natural resources that the majority of people living in extreme poverty depend on.
Leaves out persons with disabilities as a distinct group often differently impacted by projects. While the draft does include persons with disabilities for the first time, it does not guarantee that the unique and differentiated impacts of World Bank projects on persons with disabilities will be assessed. Therefore, it does not provide adequate opportunity for persons with disabilities to proportionately share in project benefits and leaves open the possibility that persons with disabilities could be harmed by World Bank projects. Ultimately, persons with disabilities have unique needs that must be addressed throughout the draft.
Lacks protections for gender and SOGIE. By listing women, girls, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) within a string of ‘vulnerable groups’, the draft fails to fully grasp the unique impacts on each of these groups. The next draft must systematically address gender and SOGIE throughout the standards, and add a freestanding mandatory gender and SOGIE standard, which is long overdue. This is necessary to explicitly prevent and proactively address the negative impacts of gender and SOGIE-exclusion from project planning and benefits. It will be impossible to end poverty and boost shared prosperity without explicitly addressing gender and SOGIE issues.
Fails to protect and promote land rights. Despite the growing land-grabbing crisis displacing countless indigenous communities, small farmers, fisher-folk and pastoralists throughout the Global South, the draft fails to incorporate any serious protections to prevent Bank funds from supporting land-grabs. While the Bank pledged that the new safeguards would be informed by the Committee for World Food
Security’s ‘Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure of Land, Forests and Fisheries’, the draft fails to strengthen protection of the land rights of poor and vulnerable groups. Instead, it undermines them in many ways, such as by excluding the application of the land and resettlement standard to projects concerning land titling and land use planning.
Excludes nearly half of the Bank’s portfolio. The narrow application of the proposed safeguards to traditional investment projects would exclude the growing share of Bank lending channelled through other lending instruments, which account for nearly half of Bank lending, increasing the fractured nature of safeguards in the World Bank. This will lead to further weakening of a safeguard system that is already underfunded and lacking in independence, effective supervision and support for borrowers during implementation and genuine monitoring of impacts on the ground.
Abdicates Bank responsibility and riddled with loopholes. While there are positive new elements in the framework, including the recognition of free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples and an expanded scope for social assessments, these are undermined by: the clear attempt to institutionalize much greater discretion, loopholes which eliminate procedural protections, and a greater reliance on borrower systems without clear identification of when that option is appropriate or how minimum standards would be assured. At the same time, the draft outsources implementation and monitoring of safeguards to borrowers, which represents an unconscionable abdication of responsibility by the Bank.
Threatens to set off a race to the bottom. Ultimately, the policy proposals not only fail to protect the rights of communities impacted by Bank projects and the ecosystems that underpin sustainable development, they also lower the bar for development finance institutions that look to the World Bank to actually set the standards. The World Bank has fallen far short of its goal of setting a new global standard when it comes to protecting the rights of the poor and the environment. Instead, it risks setting off a race to the bottom that is likely to have negative consequences for social and environmental standards globally. The Bank should rather be focused on ensuring, at a minimum, upward harmonization with the strongest existing safeguards and surpassing these protections in order to deliver sustainable development results for the poorest with a focus on promoting global public goods, rather than competing for market share. The Bank should develop its stewardship role in support of principles of sustainability, human rights standards, international laws and their corresponding obligations.
|2||Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network (AEFJN)||International|
|3||African Biodiversity Network||International|
|4||Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA)||International|
|6||Congregation of Christian Brothers||International|
|7||Coordinación Grupo de Financiamiento Climática para América Latina y el Caribe (GFLAC)||International|
|8||Coordination Regionale des Usagers des Ressources Naturelles du Bassin du Niger (CRUBN)||International|
|9||Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee||International|
|10||International Accountability Project||International|
|11||International Network on Displacement and Resettlement||International|
|13||International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)||International|
|14||International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)||International|
|15||Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement||International|
|16||NGO Forum on ADB||International|
|18||Pacific Network on Globalisation||International|
|19||World Blind Union||International|
|20||World Rural Forum||International|
|21||World Wildlife Fund||International|
|22||Human Rights House in Albania||Albania|
|24||Federation Algerienne des Personnes Handicapées||Algeria|
|25||Entidades Representativas de las Personas con Discapacidad de la Republica (ENCIDIS)||Argentina|
|26||Foro ciudadano de participación por la justicia y los derechos humanos (FOCO INPADE)||Argentina|
|27||Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables (FUNDEPS)||Argentina|
|28||Grito de Alcorta||Argentina|
|30||Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center||Armenia|
|31||Centre for Ecology & Spirituality||Australia|
|32||Christian Brothers Oceania Province||Australia|
|33||Planet Wheeler Foundation||Australia|
|35||Oil-Workers’ Rights Protection Organization Public Union||Azerbaijan|
|36||Union of Disabled People Organisations||Azerbaijan|
|37||Bangladesh Krishok Federation||Bangladesh|
|38||Community Development Association (CDA)||Bangladesh|
|39||BARNOD-National Organization of the Disabled||Barbados|
|40||11.11.11- Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement||Belgium|
|42||Centre National de Coopération au Développement, CNCD-11.11.11||Belgium|
|43||DGCD – SPF Affaires étrangères||Belgium|
|47||Terre et eau ASBL||Belgium|
|48||Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Laboral y Agrario (CEDLA )||Bolivia|
|50||Organisation d’Appui à l’auto Promotion (OAP)||Burundi|
|51||Parole et Action pour le Réveil des Consciences et l’Evolution des mentalités (PARCEM)||Burundi|
|52||Union des Peuples Autochtones pour le Reveil au Developpement (UPARED)||Burundi|
|54||Global Network for Good Governance (GNGG)||Cameroon|
|55||Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA)||Cameroon|
|56||Réseau Camerounais des Organisations des Droiits de l’Homme (RECODH)||Cameroon|
|57||Social Justice Connection||Canada|
|58||Maison de l’Enfant et de la Femme Pygmées (MEFP)||Central African Republic|
|59||Beijing Gender Health Education Institute||China|
|62||Agrosolidaria Seccional Viani||Colombia|
|63||Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad||Colombia|
|64||Federacion Accion Campesina Colombiana||Colombia|
|66||Fundación Amazonia Sostenible||Colombia|
|67||Groupe de Recherche et de Plaidoyer sur les Industries Extractives (GRPIE)||Côte d’Ivoire|
|68||Forests of the World||Denmark|
|70||Action Communautaire pour la Promotion des Défavorisés Batwa (ACPROD-Batwa)||DRC|
|71||Action des Chrétiens Activistes des Droits de l’Homme à Shabunda (ACADHOSHA)||DRC|
|72||Action Paysanne contre la Faim APCF||DRC|
|73||Association des Victimes de Kilwa||DRC|
|74||Centre d’Appui à la Gestion Durable des Forêts Tropicales (CAGDFT)||DRC|
|75||Centre de Développement Communautaire (CEDECO)||DRC|
|76||Cercle pour la défense de l’environnement (CEDEN)||DRC|
|77||Coalition Réformes et Actions Publiques (CORAP)||DRC|
|78||Conseil régional des Organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement (CRONGD)||DRC|
|79||DRC Debt Coalition||DRC|
|80||Dynamique des Groupes des Peuples Autochtones (DGPA)||DRC|
|81||Etudes d’Impacts Et des Normes Environnementales (EIENE)||DRC|
|82||Foyer de Développement pour l’Autopromotion des Pygmées et Indigènes Défavorisés||DRC|
|83||Groupe d’Action pour Sauver l’Homme et son Environnement (GASHE)||DRC|
|84||Hope for indigenous peoples (FDAPID)||DRC|
|85||Jeunes Associés pour le Développement Intégral (JADI)||DRC|
|86||Justice Pour Tous||DRC|
|87||Kindu Maendeleo (KM)||DRC|
|88||Nouvelles dynamiques pour le developpement rural integral (NODRI)||DRC|
|89||Observatoire Gouvernance et Paix (OGP)||DRC|
|90||Organisation Congolaise des Ecologistes et Amis de la Nature (OCEAN)||DRC|
|92||Reseau Ressources Naturelles||DRC|
|93||Centro Andino para la Formación de Líderes Sociales (CAFOLIS)||Ecuador|
|94||Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales (CDES)||Ecuador|
|95||Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental||Ecuador|
|96||Federación Nacional de Ecuatorianos de Discapacidad Física (FENEDIF)||Ecuador|
|97||ُEgyptian Center for Civil and Legislative Reform||Egypt|
|98||Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights||Egypt|
|99||Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights||Egypt|
|100||Habitat International Coalition – Housing and Land Rights Network||Egypt|
|101||Seven Million Disabled||Egypt|
|102||Asociación salvadoreña de Transgeneras y Transexuales (ASTRANS)||El Salvador|
|103||COMCAVIS Trans||El Salvador|
|104||HT503 Generacion Hombres Trans||El Salvador|
|105||El Pueblo Indigena Bubi de la Isla de Bioko||Equatorial Guinea|
|106||Committee for IDAHO-T International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia||France|
|107||European Rivers Network (ERN)||France|
|108||Amis de la Nature-Culture et Environnement||Gabon|
|109||Association Gabonaise d’Assistance aux Femmes Indigènes et Indigentes (AGAFI)||Gabon|
|112||ONG – le Club de l’Amitié||Gabon|
|116||Interessenvertretung Selbstbestimmt Leben (ISL)||Germany|
|119||Ghana Federation of the Disabled||Ghana|
|122||Volta Basin Development Foundation||Ghana|
|123||Asociación pluriculturalidad jurídica de Guatemala (PLURIJUR)||Guatemala|
|124||Association des Jeunes Filles pour la Promotion de L’Espace Francophone||Guinea|
|125||Association Guinéenne pour la Transparence (AGT)||Guinea|
|126||Centre de Commerce International pour le Developpement (CECIDE)||Guinea|
|127||Guyana Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (GCCD)||Guyana|
|128||Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña (OFRANEH)||Honduras|
|129||Centre for Research and Advocacy||India|
|130||Gujarat Forum On CDM||India|
|132||Manthan Adhyayan Kendra||India|
|133||Meghalaya Peoples Human Rights Council (MPHRC)||India|
|135||Puvidham Rural Development Trust||India|
|136||Zo Indigenous Forum||India|
|137||Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA)||Iran|
|138||Little People Association in Baghdad||Iraq|
|139||Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN)||Ireland|
|143||Ste.-Famille de Bordeaux||Italy|
|144||Society for International Development (SID)||Italy/Kenya|
|145||Combined Disabilities Association||Jamaica|
|146||Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES)||Japan|
|147||Disability Equality Society||Jordan|
|148||Lawyers for Defending Human Rights Society||Jordan|
|149||Phenix Center for Economics and Informatics Studies||Jordan|
|150||Rights and Development Center||Jordan|
|151||Indigenous Concerns Resource Center||Kenya|
|152||Jamaa Resource Initiatives||Kenya|
|153||Maa Civil Society Forum||Kenya|
|154||Natural Resource Alliance of Kenya (KeNRA)||Kenya|
|155||NGO Association of Parents of Disabled Children (APDC)||Kyrgyzstan|
|156||Disabled Peoples International-Arab Region||Lebanon|
|157||Lebanese Physical Handicapped Union||Lebanon|
|158||Middle East Advocacy and Research Center (MARC)||Lebanon|
|159||Human Concern (HUCON)||Liberia|
|160||Libyan Organization for the Rights of People with Disabilities||Libya|
|161||Citizens for Justice (CFJ)||Malawi|
|162||Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia (JOAS)||Malaysia|
|163||Partners of Community Organisations (PACOS) Trust||Malaysia|
|164||Federation Malienne des Associations de Personnes Handicapées (FEMAPH)||Mali|
|165||Institut de Recherche et de Promotion des Alternatives de Développement (IRPAD)||Mali|
|167||ONG Secours Net||Mauritania|
|168||The Mauritanian Association for the Coalition of Women with Disabilities||Mauritania|
|169||CIESAS Pacifico Sur||Mexico|
|170||Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible||Mexico|
|171||Fundación Paso a Paso A.C.||Mexico|
|172||Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación||Mexico|
|173||Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Former UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples||Mexico|
|174||Agencia Internacional de Prensa Indígena (AIPIN)||México|
|175||Centre of Legal Assistance for People with Disabilities||Moldova|
|177||Mongolian Environmental Civil Council||Mongolia|
|179||Steps Without Borders NGO||Mongolia|
|180||The Mongolian Remote sensing society||Mongolia|
|181||United Movement of Mongolian Rivers and Lakes||Mongolia|
|182||Association culturelle ASIDD||Morocco|
|183||Moroccans Coalition for Disabled People Organizations||Morocco|
|184||Disability Human Rights Promotion Societies||Nepal|
|185||Kirat Welfare Society||Nepal|
|187||Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples||Netherlands|
|188||Organising Committee CHT Campaign||Netherlands|
|189||Rutu Foundation for Intercultural Multilingual Education||Netherlands|
|190||Visiion Pacific Charitable Trust||New Zealand|
|191||Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos (UNAG)||Nicaragua|
|192||Association Tidawt à Agadez||Niger|
|193||Conseil pour l’Action et la Solidarite Paysannes au Niger (CASPANI)||Niger|
|194||Advocacy for Justice and Equality||Nigeria|
|195||Community Policing Partners||Nigeria|
|196||Foundation For Environmental Rights,Advocacy & Development (FENRAD)||Nigeria|
|197||Foundation for the Conservation of the Earth (FOCONE)||Nigeria|
|198||NGO Coalition for Environment (NGOCE)||Nigeria|
|199||Rainforest Foundation Norway||Norway|
|200||SLUG – Debt Justice Network Norway||Norway|
|202||Disabled Peoples International Pakistan||Pakistan|
|204||Disabled Without Borders Organization||Palestine|
|205||General Palestinian Union for People with Disabilities||Palestine|
|206||Asociación Indigena Ambiental||Panama|
|207||Center for Environmental Sustainability, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia||Peru|
|208||Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales||Peru|
|210||Federación Agraria Rumi Maki||Peru|
|212||Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance Against Mining)||Philippines|
|213||Ateneo School of Government||Philippines|
|214||Tebtebba – Indigenous Peoples International Centre for Policy Research and Education)||Philippines|
|215||Associação Portuguesa de Deficientes||Portugal|
|216||Quercus – ANCN||Portugal|
|217||OCDE-Congo||Republic of Congo|
|218||Association pour le Développement Global des Batwa au Rwanda (ADBR)||Rwanda|
|220||Nuanua O Le Alofa Samoa (National advocacy organisation of persons with disabilities)||Samoa|
|223||Lumiere Synergie pour le Developpement||Senegal|
|225||ALLAT Network||Sierra Leone|
|226||Disability Awareness Action Group||Sierra Leone|
|227||Green Scenery||Sierra Leone|
|228||BRICS from below||South Africa|
|229||Centre for Civil Society||South Africa|
|230||Earthlife Africa Jhb||South Africa|
|231||Institute for Economic Research on Innovation||South Africa|
|232||Jubilee South Africa||South Africa|
|233||Keep Left||South Africa|
|234||Media for Justice||South Africa|
|235||Mupo Foundation||South Africa|
|236||Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (OSISA)||South Africa|
|237||Southern Africa Resource watch||South Africa|
|238||The Bench Marks Foundation||South Africa|
|240||Asociación Camino de Fe y Esperanza||Spain|
|241||Ecologistas en Acción Palencia||Spain|
|243||Sri Lanka Foundation for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled||Sri Lanka|
|244||Sudanese National Union for People with Physical Disability||Sudan|
|245||International Federation of Hard of Hearing People||Sweden|
|246||Edmund Rice International||Switzerland|
|247||English in Richterswil||Switzerland|
|248||Friends of the Earth Switzerland / Pro Natura||Switzerland|
|249||Cultural Forum for people with special needs in Syria||Syria|
|250||Tanzania Federation of Disabled Peoples Organisations||Tanzania|
|252||The Gambia Federation of Disabled||The Gambia|
|254||Groupe d’Action et de Recherche en Environnement et Développement (GARED)||Togo|
|255||National Union of Domestic Employees||Trinidad and Tobago|
|256||Organisation Tunisienne de Défense des Droits de Personnes Handicapées||Tunisia|
|257||Tunisian Association of Transparency in Energy and Mines (ATTEM)||Tunisia|
|258||Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive||Turkey|
|259||Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO)||Uganda|
|260||Friends with Environment in Development||Uganda|
|261||Karamoja Development Forum||Uganda|
|262||National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE)||Uganda|
|263||Uganda Land Alliance||Uganda|
|264||Initiative to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities||Ukraine|
|265||Bretton Woods Project||United Kingdom|
|267||Forest Peoples Programme||United Kingdom|
|268||Global Witness||United Kingdom|
|270||Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks)||United Kingdom|
|271||Rainforest Foundation UK||United Kingdom|
|272||Trades Union Congress (TUC)||United Kingdom|
|273||U of Oxford||United Kingdom|
|276||American Jewish World Service||USA|
|277||Bank Information Center||USA|
|278||Center for International Environmental Law||USA|
|279||Due Process of Law Foundation/Fundacion para el Debido Proceso||USA|
|280||Environmental Investigation Agency||USA|
|282||Friends of the Earth – US||USA|
|284||Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights||USA|
|285||Heinrich Boell Foundation-North America||USA|
|286||Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Law||USA|
|287||Inclusive Development International||USA|
|288||Indigenous Environmental Network||USA|
|289||Institute for Policy Studies, Climate Policy Program||USA|
|290||International Development Exchange (IDEX)||USA|
|291||International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)||USA|
|292||JASS (Just Associates)||USA|
|293||Local Futures/International Society for Ecology and Culture||USA|
|296||Physicians for Social Responsibility||USA|
|297||Rainforest Foundation US||USA|
|298||ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation||USA|
|302||Diverlex Diversidad e Igualdad a Través de la Ley / World Trans Secretary of ILGA||Venezuela|
|303||Centre of Research and Development in Upland Area||Vietnam|
|305||Al Saeeda Society for the Care and Rehabilitation of Deaf girls in Yemen||Yemen|
|306||Min Haqqy – My Right Organization for Awareness and Development||Yemen|
|307||Transparency Center for Democratic Development and Human Rights||Yemen|
|308||Zambia Federation of disability Organisation (ZAFOD)||Zambia|
|309||Centre for Natural Resource Governance||Zimbabwe|
In a backroom move, The World Bank’s is attempting to substantially dilute, if not eviscerate, social and environmental protections that have evolved over the past thirty years. Under the guise of modernizing their “safeguard policies” and after a enigmatic global consultation with limited participation, a subcommittee of the Board of Directors, the Committee on Development Effectiveness – CODE) unexpectedly approved a heretofore secret draft of a new safeguard policy framework. The CODE cleared the draft for a brief 4 months of further consultation (Phase II). The brief draft and consultation program lacks plans for consultation with involuntary resettlement professional organizations. An initial review by David Pared and Natalie Bulgalski of Inclusive Development International discovered substantial changes in involuntary resettlement policy development. INDR members are conducting further analysis. We are discover a substantial downgrading and dilution of the new draft compared to the current Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement policy.
A Statement on Land Rights in Draft World Bank ESF is being prepared comparing the existing standard (Operational Policy 4.12) to the proposed new standard offers another preview of how serious this weakening is. The World Bank’s shamelessly announced that they are strengthening the standards?
A flood of protest is rising. Near the end of July, 111 NGOs, Professional Organizations, including the International Network on Displacement and Resettlement (www.displacement.net) asked The World Bank to scrape this dilution of its international standards (see letter). The Bank on Human Rights strongly reject the Bank on Human Rights Letter to the Executive Directors on CODE -7.28.14 and demand The Executive Director’s to roll back their committee’s decision. And the firestorm builds. The Bank Information Center (unaffiliated with The World Bank) is tracking scores of OpEds, press stories, CSO and public complaints not only to the proposed framework but the unorthodox manner the Bank intentionally avoided public consultation.
World Bank safeguards: Pushing more money out the door at the expense of the poor?
While over a hundred civil society groups, development practitioners and professional associations denounced the draft as a significant roll-back of standards, Devex reported last week how Kyle Peters, vice president for operations policy and country services, defended the proposed new rules because they “will uplift sustainable development” and represent “a strengthening of existing policies.”
However, after a careful analysis of the draft, we think that Peters’ assertions are wrong.
Let’s take the example of involuntary resettlement. Every year, some 15 million people are uprooted from their land and homes to make way for development projects around the world. The risks of displacement for poor families are well documented: homelessness, loss of livelihoods, food insecurity, psychological trauma, economic and cultural marginalization, to name a few. It is by now well established that in order to avoid these impacts, strong resettlement safeguards must be in place.
There’s a dearth of public information on the scale and impacts of displacement financed by the World Bank, or the effectiveness of its resettlement policy in achieving its objectives to date. Any credible policy review should be based on analysis of such information. But despite this, the bank is proposing to dismantle the fundamental architecture of its resettlement safeguards that has been in place since 1980 without presenting a shred of evidence that the changes will lead to better — and not worse — development outcomes.
Elimination of ‘front-end’ requirements
A hallmark of the bank’s proposed new Social and Environmental Framework is the elimination of “front-end” safeguard requirements to make it simpler, quicker and cheaper to get projects approved.
Gone is the 34-year old requirement that borrowers must submit a comprehensive resettlement plan before the bank commits to financing a project that causes displacement. The proposed new standards permit borrowers to submit resettlement plans at some undetermined point in time — but after financing has been approved. By that point, the bank will have lost the vast majority of its leverage to ensure that the plans are capable of preventing harms to displaced families. Affected communities would also be deprived of the opportunity to provide input into project designs and resettlement plans before funds are disbursed.
Once the money is out the door, it’s much less likely that the voices of impacted communities will be heard.
The draft also discards the requirement for thorough baseline socio-economic studies to be conducted prior to displacement. These studies are crucial to designing effective resettlement programs and preventing impoverishment, and without them it’s impossible to measure the impacts of resettlement and whether the objective of improving — or at least restoring — affected people’s living standards has been met.
This tectonic policy shift is part of the move away from so-called “rules-based” safeguards to a more flexible approach.
The World Bank asserts that this will deliver better social and environmental outcomes, but provides no evidence to support this claim. In contrast, the bank’s Independent Evaluation Group has examined the evidence and found that rules-based safeguards have “helped to avoid or mitigate large-scale social and environmental risks financed by the bank.”
Gutting of monitoring and supervision requirements
While the bank has repeatedly claimed it wants to shift resources from project preparation to implementation, we find nothing in the draft that indicates more robust oversight and support for borrowers to ensure that safeguard objectives are met.
In fact, monitoring and supervision procedures have been gutted alongside the front-end safeguards.
The bank procedures currently in force recognize the “importance of close and frequent supervision to good resettlement outcomes” and include detailed supervision requirements during implementation through to completion. These detailed procedures have been removed, and the bank’s role has been reduced to little more than reviewing progress reports and self-evaluations submitted by borrowers.
For a borrower looking for a way to evade the safeguard requirements, the draft is littered with loopholes.
To name just a few, if the bank finances a project with multiple “sub-projects” that involve displacement, the resettlement safeguards only apply if the borrower classifies the sub-project as having a “high” social risk — a classification that is undefined in the draft. Sub-projects classified as having a “substantial risk” (also undefined) need only comply with national regulations. That may be fine for countries with their own strong land management laws and systems, but this is extremely rare among World Bank client countries.
If there is cofinancing with another agency — which is frequently the case for big projects that cause large-scale displacement — the borrower and financiers can agree on a “common approach” to managing risk. Rather than requiring the higher of the applicable standards, the draft ambiguously states that the common approach “will not materially deviate from the objectives” of the World Bank standards, allowing for considerable discretion with minimal accountability. The same loophole is available to financial intermediary clients, such as private banks and equity funds.
Also, to the outrage of indigenous peoples organizations and support groups, borrowers can also opt-out of applying the indigenous peoples safeguards in certain circumstances, a provision that undermines international human rights standards and is thus open to abuse.
Abdication of World Bank responsibility
Mark King, the bank’s chief environmental and social standards officer, said last week that “we’re trying to be clearer in knowing who’s responsible for doing what for our projects.”
But he didn’t mention that the proposed new framework eliminates the fundamental principle — long embedded in the bank’s safeguard policies — that the bank shares responsibility with the borrower for avoiding and mitigating the social and environmental risks of the projects it makes possible. The draft transfers all responsibility for compliance with the standards to the borrower, exonerating the World Bank from its obligations to the people displaced by its projects.
At the same time, the rules for the borrower are nebulous and elastic. Compliance has become an open-ended affair, required only “in a manner and time-frame acceptable to the bank” — which gives staff total discretion to decide when compliance is met and by what standard.
All of this would mean that, if the safeguards draft is adopted, the Inspection Panel would have no hard rules against which to hold the World Bank accountable. Communities displaced or otherwise harmed by bank projects would be left with little recourse.
We agree with Peters that the bank’s safeguards have not been “watered down” with this draft. They’ve been drowned to death.
Report on Railways Development Project in Cambodia
Something has gone dreadfully wrong with the forced population displacement and involuntary resettlement caused by a large Railways Development project in Cambodia. Co-financed by the Government of Cambodia, the Asia Development Bank (ADB) and by the bilateral Australian Aid Agency (AA), the project is expected to follow international involuntary resettlement standards. It does not…Read More.
Last Updated (Wednesday, 30 April 2014)
A KOSID-INDR Study Examines Mining-induced Involuntary Resettlement in Kosovo
INDR President Downing has completed a report on a proposed forced displacement by a proposed Kosovo lignite mine.
The Government of Kosovo is taking preparatory actions to involuntarily displace over 7000 people to make way for an open pit lignite mine as part of the Kosovo Power Project (KPP). Kosovo Civil Society (KOSID) invited Ted to determine whether this preparation complies with the international involuntary resettlement standards (OP 4.12, PS5, PR5, OECD, and Equator Principles) that must be met for the project to obtain international financing? Ted’s report finds it does not. The reasons why provide a good overview of the risks involved in a mining-induced displacement.
Last Updated (Monday, 28 April 2014)
Inter-American Development Bank Job Posting
The Inter-American Development Bank is seeking a Social Safeguards Lead Specialist (English and Spanish bilingual) for employment. Details on applying can be found on the American Anthropological Association website. Last Updated (Wednesday, 9 April 2014)
Comments Invitation on UNDP’s draft Social and Environmental Standards
UNDP is pleased to invite your comments on their draft Social and Environmental Standards by *May 2, 2014 (French and Spanish versions will be posted soon on the website). The objectives of the standards are to: (i) strengthen the social and environmental outcomes of UNDP’s programmes and projects; (ii) avoid adverse impacts to people and the environment; (iii) minimize, mitigate, and manage adverse impacts where avoidance is not possible; and (iv) strengthen capacities for managing social and environmental risks. For more on submissions.*the deadline for comments has been extended to May 2, 2014.
Last Updated (Monday, 28 April 2014)
Call for Papers on Urban Renewal and Resettlement Workshop 2014
Prof. Dolores Koenig, American University, Washington, DC, email@example.com is convening a workshop on Planning for Renewal and Resettlement: Contested Visions at the Annual Conference of the Commission on Urban Anthropology [CUA-IUAES] on Dreamed/planned cities and experienced cities. Conference to be held at the University Jean Monnet, St Etienne, France, 8-10 July 2014. Her workshop seeks contributions that look at the particular clashes that occur when governments and private organizations propose development and change that involve the destruction of existing neighborhoods and the relocation of their residents. To what extent do politicians and urban planners justify these plans by visions of urban growth or quality of urban life? How do the potentially relocated respond? Under what conditions do they create alternative visions? When do they negotiate or collaborate with planners? What sorts of activism do they undertake? For more information on submissions. Last Updated (Monday, 31 March 2014)
Forced Displacement, Reparation, and a US ban on financing international hydro-development… policy ramifications of new US law
“The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States executive director of each international financial institution
to seek to ensure that each such institution responds to the findings
and recommendations of its accountability mechanisms by providing
just compensation or other appropriate redress to individuals and
communities that suffer violations of human rights, including forced
displacement, resulting from any loan, grant, strategy or policy
of such institution.” United States Consolidated Appropriations Act 2014.
Barbara Rose Johnston, Center for Political Ecology firstname.lastname@example.org
In January 2014, the United States Congress passed compromise legislation on the annual budget. Buried within its’ 1500+ pages is specific and far-reaching language that clarifies US obligations and related policy with regards to public funds invested in foreign contexts, including US investment in international financial institutions (see Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014). Specifically, international financial institutions (IFIs) must ensure that a negotiated reparation agreement between the Government of Guatemala and communities affected by Chixoy Dam construction, forced displacements, and related violence is fully implemented; take demonstrative measures to ensure similar compliance to reparation agreements between residents of Boeung Kak lake in Cambodia and the Cambodian government; and, oppose financing for any activities that involve forced evictions or other violations of human rights in Ethiopia. This law also requires US representatives at IFIs to vote against “any financing to support or promote the expansion of industrial scale logging or any other industrial scale extractive activity into areas that were primary/intact tropical forest as of December 30, 2013” and any loan, grant, strategy or policy of such institution to support the construction of any large hydroelectric dam (as defined in “Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making (World Commission on Dams, 2000).” IFIs are also required to undertake independent outside evaluations of all of its lending to ensure that each institution “responds to the findings and recommendations of its accountability mechanisms by providing just compensation or other appropriate redress to individuals and communities that suffer violations of human rights.” This language was originally introduced as part of the Foreign Appropriations bill adopted by the Senate in the spring 0f 2013, following a series of meetings with representatives of affected communities, IFI staff, civil society advocates, and input from independent experts such as myself. Documentary evidence submitted in support of Senate deliberations demonstrated IFI failures to attend to the recommendations of internal and external compliance mechanisms and, thus, an unmet IFI obligation with regards to continuing human rights abuse.
The case of the forced displacement at Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam played an important role in garnering public attention ….
FOR MORE INFORMATION Last Updated (Monday, 31 March 2014)
Resettlement News Issue #29
Hari Mohan has released our latest issue for January 2014, containing the following headlines:
- U.S. Pushes for Outside Oversight of World Bank, Opposes Push Forward ‘Big Hydro’
- A Victory Over 30 Years in Coming Reparations for the Victims of Chixoy Dam in Guatemala
- Under Pressure from Human Rights Groups ADB Admits Fault in Rail Project, Pledges Compensation
- Doing Dams Differently Can Mean Development for All
- International Consultation on Climate Change and Population Resettlement in San Remo, Italy, 12-14 March 2014
- Raising the Profile of Displacement/Resettlement NZASIA Conference, Auckland, November 2013
- Social Impact Assessment of Resource Projects Canberra
- Foreclosing the Future: The World Bank and the Politics of Environmental Destruction
Last Updated (Wednesday, 26 February 2014)
INDR names Jessie Connell as new Hot Issues editor on Environment and Climate Change-Related Displacement
How might decades of research about development-forced displacement and resettlement (DFDR) help inform responses to environment and climate change-related displacement? See Editor Connell’s introduction to the new hot issue and join in this critical dialogue.
Last Updated (Wednesday, 26 February 2014)
India Enacts New Legislation to Protect Those Internally Displaced by Development Projects
INDR’s own Michael Cernea reviews in an OPED article on the Brookings Institution website on the new Act just adopted by India’s Parliament, entitled The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act”(LARR) 2013. The new law repeals and replaces India’s 119 year-old, colonial Land Acquisition Act (LAA) of 1894, empowering farming families with the right of prior consent to land acquisition for some sub-categories of development projects, too narrowly defined, and increasing compensation rates for land up to four times the market value of land in rural area, and of up to two times the market value of land in urban areas. Importantly, the new Land Act legislates the mandatory incorporation of a resettlement and rehabilitation plan in each main project causing displacement. Additional comments on critical issues of policy and human rights are forthcoming in a second part of this two parts article.
Last Updated (29, Oct 2013)
Ad Hoc Committee on Mining and Sustainable Development
Critique of the Model Mining Development Agreement Project
How are, or should, the rights and lives of local people be considered when governments and mining companies negotiate secret agreements, granting companies access to the subsoil beneath them?
Such agreements are usually secret – non-disclosed to those “in the way” but they may threaten the existence of groups with ill-defined property rights. Tribal and indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable since Government may have an adversarial role with them before the mining deal is negotiated.
In 2009, the Mining Law Committee of the International Bar Association collected and analyzed over 50 existing mine development agreements to prepare a Model Mining Development Agreement (MMDA) as a tool, or set of tools, that can be used by mining companies and host governments for mining projects. As a compilation of existing agreements, the resulting protocol did not pay attention to critical social and local economic issues that are increasingly being considered by the sector, particularly when they seek financial guarantees form international lenders.
INDR President Ted Downing appointed a talented committee, an Ad Hoc Committee on Mining and Sustainable Development, to critically review the draft protocol. On 11 April 2013, the INDR Committee presented their preliminary findings to Luke Danielson, a member of the Mining Law Committee and their revised version will be published shortly on this page.
Learn more about mining and forced displacement:
Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Theodore Downing 2002. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Mining and Indigenous Peoples: Stakeholder Strategies and Tactics. Indigenous Peoples and Mining. Theodore Downing, Carmen Garcia-Downing, Jerry Moles and Ian McIntosh. 2003 IN Finding Common Ground:Indigenous Peoples and their Association with the Mining Sector. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK). P. 11-46.
Last Updated (Monday, 8 April 2013)