UN mechanisms address "inaccurate statement" made by World Bank on concept of 'broad community support'

Credit: World Bank

As part of the so-called Third Phase of consultations on the revisions to its environmental and social safeguard policies, the World Bank held a meeting in February 2016 in Addis Ababa on its proposed indigenous peoples policy, known as ESS7. The meeting was attended by representatives from several governments, including South Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania, as well as UN mechanisms on indigenous peoples and two civil society organizations.

Following the meeting, the Bank drafted a summary document of what was discussed, claiming expressions of "broad acceptance" among the participants in regard to a few different issues. One of these issues was free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). According to the Bank, there was "broad acceptance that the outcome of the FPIC process needed to be operationally defined consistent with the current approach under OP 4.10 where the outcome is broad community support."

On 20 May 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (collectively the UN Mechanisms) wrote a letter to Bank President Jim Kim clarifying that the summary document was inaccurate. The UN Mechanisms noted that "it was never the objective of the [meeting] to generate interpretive comments on international standards. … Hence, it cannot be concluded that there was 'broad acceptance' among the participants of defining the outcome of FPIC as 'broad community support'" (emphasis in original).

Although the clarification is an embarrassing one for the Bank, the letter does more than simply correct a mistake. The UN Mechanisms express serious concern regarding the use of the term "broad community support", or BCS, in ESS7 in regard to FPIC. They note that BCS "is an ambiguous concept with no legal basis under international law" and that the Bank's own internal review on the implementation of its existing indigenous peoples policy shows that BCS "has failed to ensure good faith consultation leading to outcomes" that guarantee respect for indigenous peoples' rights. The letter notes a number of additional problems with the concept of BCS and discusses the principle of FPIC more broadly. It calls on the Bank to "adhere to its international responsibilities and support FPIC over BCS in the final version of ESS7."

The letter by the UN Mechanisms come as the final draft of the new environmental and social safeguard policies goes to the Bank Board of Directors for review and approval. It is anticipated that the new safeguard policies will be approved later in 2016.

UN Human Rights Experts Reject World Bank's Proposed Replacement of Safeguard Policies

Anyone following the ongoing update to the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies (safeguard policies) would do well to read the 12 December 2014 letter to Bank president Jim Yong Kim from the special procedures mandate-holders of the United Nations Human Rights Council (special procedures). According to the special procedures, contrary to President Kim's repeated reassurances, the draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is a dilution of the safeguard policies they are supposed to replace.

While the special procedures address several issues, they make three critical points:

First, the special procedures note that while the international community has accepted that development must respect human rights, the Bank is "an increasingly isolated outlier" in failing to commit to human rights requirements in the draft ESF. Second, they refute the Bank's oft-repeated claim that taking human rights considerations seriously will put the Bank at a competitive disadvantage. Not only does the Bank's view accelerate a race to the bottom, it is also irrelevant given that human rights are a matter of legal obligation. This relates to the special procedures' third point, which is that not only is the Bank bound by international law; so too are the Bank's 188 member states, all of which have ratified at least one of the core international human rights treaties. The Bank has a "due diligence responsibility" not to be complicit in states' violations of their human rights obligations.

13th Session of UNPFII: African Caucus responds to the World Bank on the Safeguard review process

Mr Kanyinke Sena delivers the African Caucus' response

The African Caucus would like to raise the following two issues of concern in regards to Indigenous peoples of Africa.

First, Indigenous peoples in Africa are alarmed with new developments unfolding in the World Bank safeguard review process. Recent statements made by Mark King, Head of Safeguard Review, suggest that the World Bank is reluctant in applying its ‘Stand- alone policy for Indigenous peoples’ in Africa due to the concerns raised by a few governments in relation to the term ‘Indigenous’.

Community Rights and REDD+

Recent publications have highlighted the importance of community rights in reducing deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) a mitigation policy under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

A Special Feature in Ecology and Society on Beyond Carbon: enabling justice and equity in REDD+ across levels of governance, examines the complex landscape of justice and equity in REDD+ and the multiple levels of governance in which they play out. The papers illustrate the need for a greater integration of the human rights discourse in REDD+ as a means to improve equity outcomes, and disturbingly none provide evidence of a significant re-distribution of material benefits as a result of REDD+ initiatives. Interestingly, an analysis of Indigenous Peoples engagement in the UNFCCC REDD+ processes demonstrates that some indigenous actors have managed to ‘import power’ from human rights discourse to strengthen their influence over REDD+ decision-making.

Natural Justice Attends Events at World Bank Headquarters Addressing Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions

On 27 September 2013, the World Bank hosted the Tenth Annual Meeting of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) at its headquarters in Washington, DC. The World Bank created the first IAM twenty years ago when it established the World Bank Inspection Panel to handle the grievances of people affected by its projects. Today, nearly every international financial institution (IFI) has an IAM to provide: 1) a forum for dispute resolution between project-affected people and those implementing the project; and/or 2) a mechanism to ensure that the IFI is complying with its own policies and procedures in regard to specific projects. 

At the meeting, Eimi Watanabe, the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel, made introductory remarks and introduced former Congressman Barney Frank, who worked to create the Inspection Panel, and Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group. In his remarks, Mr. Kim noted that the World Bank needed to work to put people first in financing projects around the world. Afterward, a panel made up of World Bank management, top IAM staff, NGO staff, and two community members who had filed complaints with the Inspection Panel addressed issues 

Natural Justice Submits Letter to US Secretary of the Treasury Regarding World Bank Safeguard Policies

Natural Justice, along with several other organizations, endorsed a July 1, 2013 letter to US Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew regarding the ongoing review and update of the World Bank safeguard policies. The letter asks Secretary Lew, who is responsible for the management of the United States’ interests in the World Bank, to support four threshold issues during an upcoming World Bank Board meeting on July 23, 2013 where the safeguards review will be addressed. These threshold issues include: The safeguard policies and procedures, to avoid weakening, must continue to be based on mandatory, detailed, enforceable, time-bound requirements; the Bank’s Board needs an informed basis for making decisions on the scope of application of the safeguard policies; the review must continue to focus attention on the emerging areas identified by the Bank; and the updated safeguards must be accompanied by a detailed implementation plan.

Report on CT REDD+ Dialogue

The outcomes of the Rights-based REDD+ dialogue held in Cape Town in November 2012 have been released in a new report. The dialogue was hosted by Natural Justice with the support of the Heinrich Boell Foundation for Southern Africa and the Open Society Iniative for Southern Africa. Issues of concern regarding Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) activities on the African continent included the limited participation of forest-dependent communities, lack of appropriate REDD+ information, the diversity and complexity of safeguard standards which could increase communities reliance upon outsiders and experts, insufficient or lacking grievance and compliance mechanisms, limited gender awareness, that communities may not be aware of their rights, and that existing rights may not be enforced. 

Participants felt that REDD+ could offer opportunities to Indigenous peoples and local communities including enhanced participation and representation, the chance to call for greater rights especially regarding land tenure, and to seek independent monitoring of REDD+. A post-dialogue analysis of the potential of biocultural community protocols (BCPs) to address rights-based concerns within REDD+ raised during the dialogue suggests that BCPs may have the potential to address some of the key REDD+ challenges faced by forest-dependent communities. While BCPs are no panacea, they could enhance the capacity of communities to articulate their values, customs, and rights if they decide to engage with the REDD+ mechanism. 

The report can be downloaded here.

UNFCCC COP 18

Via unfccc.int

The 18th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 18) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is taking place from 26 November to 7 December, 2012 in Doha, Qatar. 

On Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), COP 18 will consider financing options for results-based REDD+ activities, seek to clarify the links between REDD+ and climate change mitigation actions, consider the timing and frequency of summary information that REDD+ countries will provide on how REDD+ safeguards are being addressed and respected, provide guidance on national forest monitoring systems, offer guidance on establishing forest reference emission levels, and open discussions around land use, land use change and forestry and the impact upon REDD+. 

Find out more about COP 18, including schedules, reports and decisions, here. Live webcasts from COP 18 can be accessed here. The International Institute for Sustainable Development's daily coverage of COP 18 can be found here. 

Dialogue on Rights-based REDD+ Held in Cape Town

Cath Traynor (Natural Justice Associate) presenting on

REDD+ Safeguards.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is one of the key mitigation mechanisms under negotiation within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). If well-designed and implemented, REDD+ could offer many potential benefits but there are also numerous risks particularly to forest-dependent communities. The current UNFCCC REDD+ text outlines that when undertaking REDD+ activities, particular safeguards must be addressed and respected. These safeguards are guiding policies and measures to address the impacts of REDD+ on communities and ecosystems.

Natural Justice, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa co-hosted a Rights-Based REDD+ Dialogue from 11-12 November in Cape Town, South Africa. Over twenty civil society organisations (CSOs) and government and multilateral representatives from seven different African countries participated. Dialogue sessions included contextualising REDD+, safeguards, regional and national REDD+ readiness activities, CSO perspectives, synergising links between the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity, a REDD+ role play scenario, and biocultural community protocols. Discussions were intense and key issues raised included the roles and responsibilities of REDD+ stakeholders, who benefits from REDD+ and how, effective participation, the need for independent REDD+ knowledge brokers and advisors, local level capacity building, complexities, variations and overlaps of safeguards, lack of safeguard compliance and grievance mechanisms, and the need for independent monitoring.

Looking ahead, Natural Justice will produce a report of the dialogue, outcomes of which we hope to share at the forthcoming 18th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Doha. We will also develop an e-learning module on REDD+ Safeguards to complement the current introductory module on REDD+.

The final report on the dialogue can be accessed here.