Dear Friends,
The African Development Bank (AfDB) is nearing completion of its new set of environmental and social safeguard policies. The AfDB is currently the only multilateral development bank without a standalone safeguard policy on indigenous peoples, and the new environmental and social safeguards are not expected to change this. This is despite strong advocacy from indigenous peoples’ organisations in Africa, and despite the existing jurisprudence and standards on indigenous rights in the African human rights system. Read more
![Forest Peoples Programme logo]()
Tel: +44 (0)1608 652893 www.forestpeoples.org
Charity Registration Number: 1082158 A company limited by guarantee (England & Wales) Reg. No. 3868836
As multiple international agencies adopt and update their social
and environmental policies, this special edition Forest Peoples
Programme E-Newsletter reviews experiences of communities and civil
society with the safeguard policies of various international financial
institutions.
The E-Newsletter contains articles on indigenous peoples’
experiences with safeguards in Asia, Peru and Central Africa,
emphasising the importance of robust safeguard frameworks to ensure that
development finance does no harm to people and the environment. It also
features articles on safeguard issues at the World Bank; the Brazilian
Development Bank; the African Development Bank; in forest and climate
financing schemes and in the private sector.
We hope you find this special edition interesting and informative.
Best regards,
Forest Peoples Programme
Introduction: Why safeguards matter
So-called
“safeguard standards” for international finance institutions emerged as
a consequence of destructive forestry, agricultural colonisation and
extractive megaprojects financed by the World Bank in the Amazon,
Indonesia and India in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then many other
multilateral development banks and development agencies have adopted
their own safeguard policies and related complaints mechanisms. In
addition to the need to protect community rights from destructive
development investments, it is increasingly recognised that even
well-intentioned conservation and ‘community development’ projects can
cause damage and violate rights if
they are poorly designed and fail to protect human rights and fragile
habitats. Read more
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ EXPERIENCES WITH SAFEGUARDS:
The
experience of Asian indigenous peoples with the finance lending
policies of international financial institutions: A select overview
Projects
and programme interventions of multilateral development banks have a
record of systematic and widespread human rights violations for
indigenous peoples in Asia. In many countries, indigenous peoples have
been subjected to widespread displacement and irreversible loss of
traditional livelihoods. Behind these human rights violations is the
denial of indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands, territories and
resources and to their right to give their free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC) to projects and programme interventions, including those
in the name of sustainable development and human development. Among
them, the large infrastructure (dams and highway
construction) and environmental “conservation” projects have had the
most detrimental adverse impacts on indigenous peoples. Read more
The IDB, Camisea and Peru: A sorry, sorry safeguards story
The
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) played a catalytic role in the
development of the Camisea gas project in the Peruvian Amazon in
2002/2003 despite having no specific policy for projects impacting
indigenous peoples. When the Bank adopted one in 2006, a key provision
on isolated peoples was ignored when it made a US$400m loan the
following year. Meanwhile, attempts by the Bank to ‘protect’ a reserve
for indigenous peoples in ‘voluntary isolation’ directly impacted by the
Camisea project have proven almost entirely ineffective and are now
being further undermined by plans to expand operations within the
Reserve. The IDB is
required to approve these plans and could do so imminently. Read more
Experiences of indigenous peoples in Africa with safeguard policies: Examples from Cameroon and the Congo Basin
The notion of indigenous people has sometimes been controversial in Africa. There are some opinions that consider all Africans as indigenous people liberated from colonial powers, while others simply stress that it is very difficult to determine who is indigenous in Africa. The setting up in 2001 by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) of a Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities and the Group’s report submitted to and adopted by the ACHPR in 2003 have brought a new perspective to this problem. In this report for the first time there was a unanimous acceptance of the existence of indigenous peoples in Africa and this kicked off discussions on how countries could begin to integrate the rights of these peoples into the human rights mainstream. Read more
The notion of indigenous people has sometimes been controversial in Africa. There are some opinions that consider all Africans as indigenous people liberated from colonial powers, while others simply stress that it is very difficult to determine who is indigenous in Africa. The setting up in 2001 by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) of a Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities and the Group’s report submitted to and adopted by the ACHPR in 2003 have brought a new perspective to this problem. In this report for the first time there was a unanimous acceptance of the existence of indigenous peoples in Africa and this kicked off discussions on how countries could begin to integrate the rights of these peoples into the human rights mainstream. Read more
SAFEGUARDS AT THE WORLD BANK:
Forwards or backwards? The World Bank’s safeguard review and update (2012-14)
The
World Bank is currently undertaking a two-year “review and update” of
eight of its ten social and environmental safeguard policies. NGOs have
highlighted how the World Bank must use the review as an opportunity to
upgrade its standards and bolster implementation and compliance systems
to increase Bank accountability and deliver sustainable development
outcomes. At the same time, they have raised concerns that the Bank’s
plan to “consolidate” its policies, with greater emphasis on the use of
country systems to address safeguard issues, could end up in weakened
standards and less accountability of the Bank and borrower governments
to affected
communities and the public. Read more
The World Bank’s Palm Oil Policy
In 2011, the World Bank Group (WBG) adopted a Framework and Strategy for investment in the palm oil sector. The new approach was adopted on the instructions of former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, after a damning audit by International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) semi-independent Compliance Advisory Ombudsman (CAO) had shown that IFC staff were financing the palm oil giant, Wilmar, without due diligence and contrary to the IFC’s Performance Standards. Wilmar is the world’s largest palm oil trader, supplying no less than 45% of globally traded palm oil. The audit, carried out in response to a series of detailed complaints from Forest Peoples Programme and partners, vindicated many of our concerns that Wilmar was expanding its operations in Indonesia in violation of legal requirements, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) standards and IFC norms and procedures. Almost immediately after the audit was triggered, IFC divested itself of its numerous other palm oil investments in Southeast Asia. Read more
In 2011, the World Bank Group (WBG) adopted a Framework and Strategy for investment in the palm oil sector. The new approach was adopted on the instructions of former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, after a damning audit by International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) semi-independent Compliance Advisory Ombudsman (CAO) had shown that IFC staff were financing the palm oil giant, Wilmar, without due diligence and contrary to the IFC’s Performance Standards. Wilmar is the world’s largest palm oil trader, supplying no less than 45% of globally traded palm oil. The audit, carried out in response to a series of detailed complaints from Forest Peoples Programme and partners, vindicated many of our concerns that Wilmar was expanding its operations in Indonesia in violation of legal requirements, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) standards and IFC norms and procedures. Almost immediately after the audit was triggered, IFC divested itself of its numerous other palm oil investments in Southeast Asia. Read more
The World Bank’s Forest Policy
As the World Bank
reviews its environmental and social standards, a major opportunity to
overhaul World Bank approach to forests must not be missed.
The
negative impacts of World Bank-financed projects on tropical forests
have been an issue of concern for civil society and forest peoples for
decades. In the 1980s, World Bank megaprojects in the Amazon and in
Indonesia in support for infrastructure projects, agricultural
colonisation and transmigration generated major criticism from the
public. This in turn generated the political pressure that was a key
factor in leading the World Bank Group to adopt mandatory social and
environmental standards, known as safeguards, to demonstrate its
commitment to preventing harm to people and the environment. Read more
OTHER INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARD STANDARDS:
The lack of an effective safeguards policy at the Brazilian Development Bank
Despite the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) being a signatory of the Green Protocol, which ties favourable lending rates and terms to the adoption of social and environmental standards, and the Bank’s initiative to develop a specific policy for the cattle sector, the Bank’s environmental policy is still very vague and lacks transparency and concrete criteria. Read more
African Development Bank set to introduce Indigenous Peoples standards for the first timeDespite the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) being a signatory of the Green Protocol, which ties favourable lending rates and terms to the adoption of social and environmental standards, and the Bank’s initiative to develop a specific policy for the cattle sector, the Bank’s environmental policy is still very vague and lacks transparency and concrete criteria. Read more
The African Development Bank (AfDB) is nearing completion of its new set of environmental and social safeguard policies. The AfDB is currently the only multilateral development bank without a standalone safeguard policy on indigenous peoples, and the new environmental and social safeguards are not expected to change this. This is despite strong advocacy from indigenous peoples’ organisations in Africa, and despite the existing jurisprudence and standards on indigenous rights in the African human rights system. Read more
Safeguards in REDD+ financing schemes
Among the many aspects of REDD+ under close scrutiny by indigenous peoples and civil society organisations, the issue of safeguards and their implementation is the one that continues to attract the most concern. This is particularly true now in the current debate on REDD+ and its degree of implementation and operationalisation. Since 2010, when the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted its decision on REDD+ and related safeguards, a continuous process of elaborations, negotiations, and adjustments has taken place at various levels. The debate on safeguards has become both an opportunity for indigenous peoples and civil society to further enhance their calls for respect of internationally recognised rights and standards, and a leverage opportunity for donors to seek compliance for the use of funds transferred to REDD+ countries. Read more
Among the many aspects of REDD+ under close scrutiny by indigenous peoples and civil society organisations, the issue of safeguards and their implementation is the one that continues to attract the most concern. This is particularly true now in the current debate on REDD+ and its degree of implementation and operationalisation. Since 2010, when the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted its decision on REDD+ and related safeguards, a continuous process of elaborations, negotiations, and adjustments has taken place at various levels. The debate on safeguards has become both an opportunity for indigenous peoples and civil society to further enhance their calls for respect of internationally recognised rights and standards, and a leverage opportunity for donors to seek compliance for the use of funds transferred to REDD+ countries. Read more
Safeguards and the Private Sector: Emerging lessons from voluntary standards and commodity roundtables
Public indignation about the depredations of ill-regulated business has led to a growing recognition of the responsibilities of businesses to respect human rights, as well as the need for stronger regulations to improve the way products are made and ensure that environments and peoples’ rights are respected and protected. There is now greater awareness that what is urgently needed is strengthened environmental stewardship and land governance, reforms of land tenure, and improved enforcement of revised and just laws. Such reforms have been slow to take effect, so consumers and buyers have pressed for faster change. This has given rise to standard-setting by the private sector for the regulation of commodity production and processing to respect rights, secure favourable and sustainable livelihoods and divert pressure away from areas crucial to local livelihoods and of high conservation value. Read more
Public indignation about the depredations of ill-regulated business has led to a growing recognition of the responsibilities of businesses to respect human rights, as well as the need for stronger regulations to improve the way products are made and ensure that environments and peoples’ rights are respected and protected. There is now greater awareness that what is urgently needed is strengthened environmental stewardship and land governance, reforms of land tenure, and improved enforcement of revised and just laws. Such reforms have been slow to take effect, so consumers and buyers have pressed for faster change. This has given rise to standard-setting by the private sector for the regulation of commodity production and processing to respect rights, secure favourable and sustainable livelihoods and divert pressure away from areas crucial to local livelihoods and of high conservation value. Read more
Since 1990 Forest Peoples Programme has supported the rights of forest peoples throughout the world. To make a donation towards our work please click here
We hope
that you have enjoyed this issue of the Forest Peoples Programme
newsletter. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please email ForestPeoplesProgramme@
Forest Peoples Programme
1c Fosseway Business Centre
Stratford Road
Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire GL56 9NQ
United Kingdom
Stratford Road
Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire GL56 9NQ
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1608 652893 www.forestpeoples.org
Charity Registration Number: 1082158 A company limited by guarantee (England & Wales) Reg. No. 3868836
No comments:
Post a Comment