Transcript The World Bank’s New Forest Policy

The World Bank’s New
Forest Policy
Putting the world’s forests and their
communities in danger
Background


WB: movement towards programmatic, upstream lending (to which the
WB safeguard framework is not applied)
Harmonisation of dvpt processes and standards – Rome Declaration
February 2003 – will safeguards be harmonised upwards or downwards?

Safeguard conversion process within the Bank (for the past 5 years):
systematic weakening and watering down of policies

Serious problems with implementation of policies, as demonstrated by the
OED review of the Indigenous Peoples Policy, and various independent
assessments – the WB’s staff incentive system does not encourage policy
implementation

The WB has now got a fat finger in the carbon credit pie (through the
Prototype Carbon Fund) – so a strong Forest Policy is necessary
The Bank’s Operational Policy on
Forests, OP 4.36

NGO demands




OP 4.36 to cover
structural adjustment
and programmatic
lending
OP 4.36 to be crosssectoral
OP 4.36 to apply to
all types of forest
OP 4.36 to be
applicable to all WB
bodies

The New Forest Policy
 It does not cover this
lending, but Executive
Directors and regional Vice
Presidents to take steps to
identify whether adjustment
lending may damage forests
 Very vague language
concerning Country
Assistance Strategies and
Economic Sector Work
 Policy applies to all types of
forest
 Policy does not apply to
MIGA and IFC.

NGO demands
 The WB to ban logging
on all old growth forests;
should not fund projects
that may negatively
impact old growth
forests


The WB should not fund
large scale industrial
monocrop plantations
Tenurial and other
human rights of forest
dependent peoples
should be secured

The New Forest Policy



WB finances logging if it does
not affect “critical” forests or
natural habitats; the Bank
prefers to avoid projects that
would involve “significant”
conversion or degradation of
critical forests or natural
habitats.
The Bank prefers to avoid
clearance of forests for
plantations, but the language
is very weak and amenable to
subjective interpretation
Tenure rights are secured in
Bank financed logging
projects, but not in plantation
schemes, protection schemes
and cross-sectoral projects

NGO demands

The New Forest Policy

National processes
related to forests must
be inclusive and
participatory


The Bank should
ensure that projects it
finances comply with
International Human
Rights and
Environmental
Standards

Participation required
for certification only or
for community
forestry, otherwise
participation is
determined by other
WB safeguard policies
The Bank will not
finance projects that
contravene applicable
international
environmental
agreements (no
mention of human
rights)
Concerning upshots

Already in the pipeline: ~71 projects, with costs estimated at >
US$ 2,7 million, which are likely to have implications for forests
– the Forest Policy and its implementation need to be clarified if
these projects are to go ahead

Old growth forest logging to be funded by the World Bank again
– very serious implications, both environmental and social.


What constitutes a ‘critical’ forest? Participatory processes are
not required for determining which areas are “critical”.
Oversight Panel determines what ‘critical’ means
What does “significant” conversion mean?


The rights of forest dwellers not secured in plantation
schemes, forest protection schemes, and cross
sectoral project impacts
The policy relies largely on the WB’s Natural
Habitats Policy to safeguard forests and forest
peoples, and yet there has been no implementation
review of this policy

What is the certification system to be used for timber
harvesting? What does ‘timber harvesting’ mean?

Participation in projects is not required by the policy,
unless the project is a community forests management
scheme



Policy does not apply to non-forestry projects that
may affect forests, unless in Country Assistance
Strategies if the impacts are likely to be “significant”,
in which case they will be “appropriately addressed”
The WB Forest Policy’s Oversight Panel: lack of
transparency over the nomination of the members, the
TORs, the meeting schedule, and no knowledge of
the extent of civil society input into its discussions
Prototype carbon fund and its consequences:
plantations (e.g. Plantar), erosion of forest
community’s rights in the face of market forces,
protected areas, etc
Next steps

To demand clarification on the vague language of the
policy (Letter to Pres. Wolfensohn – we have had
assurance that it will be responded to eventually)

To remain on the qui-vive concerning the pipeline
projects which can affect forests, to elaborate field-based
case studies on the forest policy in certain crucial
projects, and to use every opportunity to expose
malpractice and lack of implementation in such projects
(e.g. the DRC Economic Recovery Sector’s Forestry
Component, which is redrafting the Forestry Code)

To remain alert to the activities of the Oversight Panel,
and campaign for further transparency



To monitor the Prototype Carbon Fund and the Bio
Carbon Fund of the World Bank
To initiate a campaign targeting ‘friendly’ Executive
Directors, specifically the Dutch ED (Ad Melkert), in
order to have a voice on the Bank’s Board. Rietje
from IUCN has agreed to act as coordinator for the
campaign in Europe, bringing together the different
case studies and ensuring that there is continuous
follow-up with the Dutch ED
To target campaigns to southern EDs as well, who are
getting more powerful within the Bank Board

To ensure that an appropriate southern member is
nominated to the WB Inspection Panel, and use the
latter as a hook for denouncing non compliance with
the Forest Policy.

To clarify the certification scheme which will be used
for ‘timber harvesting’ by the WB, and to clarify what
exactly will be certified when the term ‘harvesting’ is
used (plantations? logging?)

To capture the opportunity of harmonisation to move
towards better standards for all development
agencies, and to use the Rome Declaration as an
opportunity to push for human rights standards and
accountability within development projects
Short note on the draft Indigenous
Peoples Policy, OP 4.10

The controversial conversion of the Operational Directive on
Indigenous Peoples 4.20 into the Operational Policy 4.10 is coming
to a close – indigenous movement has been very vocal concerning
the inadequate draft policy

In October 2002, a roundtable between indigenous human rights
lawyers and representatives and the WB was held: the indigenous
representatives held a very strong argument concerning the
international legal obligations of the WB, and the vice-president for
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development at the WB,
Ian Johnson, committed to look into expanding the legal discussion,
and redrafting the policy in line with some of the indigenous
demands (namely inclusion of the rights of Free Prior and Informed
Consent, protection from involuntary resettlement, and land tenure)


The revised OP 4.10 was supposed to be released this
month, but it has been pushed back, and the Bank
staff are asking the indigenous movement to accept
an interim policy, and to wait for issues such as free
prior and informed consent, land rights and protection
from involuntary resettlement to be addressed in the
future.
In “exchange” for such an acceptance, the WB would
support the funding of the UN Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, and would provide a small grants
facility for indigenous peoples capacity building. The
indigenous movement is not pleased.