Africans join civil society groups condemning World Bank
Published by MAC on 2004-11-30
The ongoing dispute between a large number of civil society organisation and the IFC over their poor attempts at engaging civil society to update their safeguard policies has led to a boycott of the process by many civil society organisations. Recent events in African and France have strengthened this 'boycott'.
Position Statement of African Civil Society Organisations for the IFC Safeguard Policy Review Consultation in Africa, November 29-30, 2004
We, the undersigned African civil society organizations Working on and interested in extractive sector issues have decided not to officially participate in the IFC consultative process for Africa, held on November 29 and 30, 2004 in Nairobi, Kenya because of insufficient time and information on the process.
In September this year (2004) African Civil Society organisations together with their colleagues from around the world sent a letter to the IFC raising fundamental concerns and proposals about the proposed consultation process. The response from IFC to the concerns and proposals was so inadequate that it did not address majority of the fundamental flaws associated with the process. Among the issues raised in the letter was the need for a more transparent, informative, and inclusive process.
Again, African civil society organisations and their colleagues participating in the annual meetings of the World Bank Group/International Monetary Fund (WBG/IMF) in October 2004 in Washington DC, USA, wrote a statement to the IFC requesting it to give the process "more time, more outreach, more translation, more information and more engagement than the current process allows". To date we are yet to receive any concrete response from IFC to the request.
Unfortunately IFC chose to ignore these proposals and is rushing the process over many right holders. We observe with grave concern that even for the Africa regional consultative process on November 29th and 30th, 2004 there is clearly insufficient timeframe for consultation among various right holder groups, inadequate spread of background information materials, and totally lack of clarity on their outreach and feedback strategy on the consultation in Africa.
Much as we are desirous for any review that will ensure accountability and transparency in the IFC environmental and safeguard policies, we find it extremely difficult to spend time, energy, and resources to participate in a process that is not transparent. We cannot participate from an informed position without the essential information, and also without an understanding of the rules of engagement. We believe that the IFC could have improved upon the process by:
a. Giving sufficient and adequate timeframe for consultation by various right holder groups including civil society groups in the continent.
b. Defining clearly to participating organisations its outreach and feedback strategies for the consultation
c. Making available in advance in the public domain various background documents particularly a concept note that spells out clearly areas to be reviewed, the reasons for the review, and the procedure to be followed.
Our long experience working with communities affected by extractive projects including those supported by the World Bank Group has shown that large scale extractive sector investments by the World Bank Group and in particular the IFC have done little to contribute to poverty reduction through sustainable development on the continent. To the contrary, these investments have contributed significantly to the destruction of community livelihood sources, human rights violations and abuse of power, created social conflicts and systemic corruption, degraded the diversity of the environment and undermined democracy in many respects. The final report of the World Bank Group sponsored extractive industries review affirmed this. And it is precisely so because the framework for the Bank's involvement in Africa's extractives has been inadequate and unbalanced to meet the developmental priorities and needs of the people and communities.
We noted also with concern that the existing environmental and social safeguard policies of the IFC have been decidedly weak to protect community rights, the environment, and ensure development effectiveness. The existing policies lack definitive criteria for measuring impacts and decision-making process that allow IFC to determine adequate compliance by companies, and also fair and equitable benefits by communities. The IFC has been suffering from serious and systemic problems with implementation of its already weak environmental and social safeguard policies. It is therefore not surprising that IFC supported projects are among the most controversial and contested projects in Africa. The Bulyanhulu mines in Tanzania and the Tchad-Cameroun pipeline project are but clear examples.
It is in view of the foregoing that we would welcome any review that seeks to correct the fundamental imbalances inherent in extractive sector activity in Africa by adopting extractive sector policy frameworks that protect the interests and rights of communities, and promote environmental diversity and national development.
We believe that this can be achieved through policy formulating process that is transparent, informative and inclusive. The IFC chose the contrary in its review process. We feel strongly that by this choice IFC has subordinated public interest to corporate interest and we feel obliged to spend our time, energy and resources in alternative important endeavours rather than participating in a process whose outcome is already pre-determined. Endorsed by:
1. Third World Network-Africa (TWN-Africa), Ghana
2. Friends of the Earth, Ghana
3. Centre for Public Interest Law (CEPIL), Ghana
4. Wassa Association of Communities Affected by Mining (WACAM), Ghana
5. Green Earth Organization, Ghana
6. ABANTU for Development, Ghana
7. Friends Of The Nation, Ghana
8. Environmental Rights Action (ERA)/ Friends of the Earth, Nigeria
9. African Citizens Development Foundation (ACDF), Nigeria
10. National Union of Ogoni Students International (NUOS Int'l) of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Nigeria
11. Nigeria Network of NGOs (NNNGO), Nigeria
12. Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), Zambia
13. Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Tanzania
14. Yonge Nawe Environmental Action Group, Swaziland
15. Highlands Church Solidarity and Action Centre, Lesotho
16. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, South Africa
17. groundwork/Friends of the Earth, South Africa
18. Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF), South Africa
19. IMF & World Bank Wanted For Fraud Campaign
20. Planet Survey Environnement et Développement Durable (PSEDD), Cameroon
21. Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), Malawi
22. Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN), Malawi
23. KAMOTA Amédée et Kalimba Zéphyrin, Rwanda
24. CAURWA ( Communauté des Autochtones Rwandais), Rwanda
25. CENADEP (Centre National D'Affaire un Development et a la Participation Populaire), Congo DR
26. Livaningo (Forum for a Bettter Environment), Mozambique
27. GreenDev. (Reserach Group in Economic, Environment and Development), Madagascar
28. Network Movement for Justice and Development, Sierra Leone
29. MWENGO, Zimbabwe
African NGOs Boycott World Bank Meeting
Press Release (FoE Ghana and Third World Network-Africa, Ghana)
November 30, 2004
Accra - Today, organisations from across the African continent are boycotting a consultation meeting in Nairobi organized by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group. The organisations claim that the consultation is ill-prepared, rushed and untransparent, and will not provide a meaningful venue for input. Civil society demanded more time, more outreach, more translation, more information and more engagement, but did not get an adequate response.
The IFC is meeting in Nairobi today to discuss new social and environmental standards. The institution is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group, providing financial support for large corporations, including AngloGold Ashanti in Ghana. Many of IFC's projects around the world have polluted rivers, displaced people, increased corruption, abused human rights and contributed to climate change. Benefits are rarely shared with the communities that are affected.
African NGOs including Friends of the Earth, Third World Network and CIVICUS claim in a statement that 'the framework for the Bank's involvement in Africa's extractives has been inadequate and unbalanced to meet the developmental priorities and needs of the people and communities.'
Under pressure of transnational corporations, the IFC plans to weaken its standards, thereby endangering people and the environment even further. Noble Wadzah of Friends of the Earth Ghana said: "IFC's new standards for social and environmental matters will not be binding upon corporations. While the current policies are weak already, and implementation is problematic, voluntary codes are unacceptable. It would imply that foreign corporations can ruin our resources and livelihoods as they please, while not being accountable. What do we stand to gain? It is time that the World Bank Group reconsiders the way it is doing business and starts to protect people instead of profit."
The statement, signed by 29 African non-governmental organisations, reads: 'We would welcome any review that seeks to correct the fundamental imbalances inherent in extractive sector activity in Africa by adopting extractive sector policy frameworks that protect the interests and rights of communities, and promote environmental diversity and national development ... The IFC chose the contrary in its review process. We feel strongly that by this choice IFC has subordinated public interest to corporate interest and we feel obliged to spend our time, energy and resources in alternative important endeavours.'
The African statement follows boycotts of consultations of the IFC review in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Manila (Philippines) and London (United Kingdom). Later this week, groups will be protesting outside the IFC consultation meeting in Paris, France.
For more information, contact:
Noble Wadzah, Friends of the Earth Ghana: 0233 51 23 12
Abdulai Darimani, Third World Network: 0233 50 36 69
Groups Attack World Bank Standards
Press Release - Friends of the Earth International & Bretton Woods Project
Immediate release: Thursday 2nd December
PARIS (FRANCE), December 2, 2004 -- More than 200 civil society organisations and socially responsible investors called on the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, to protect the interests of the poorest and the public when setting rules governing global private investment.
The “Platform for Rights, Rules and Responsibilities” – which has been endorsed by more than one thousand groups in fifty three nations - was released as groups boycott the IFC’s latest public consultation on its “safeguard policy review” in Paris. The consultation is seen as ill-prepared, rushed and untransparent,
“The revision process has no credibility and we do not wish to participate in such a flawed consultation here in Paris. Friends of the Earth and other groups boycotted this process worldwide over the past few months, including in Brasil, in the Philippines, in the US, in the UK, in Germany and in Ghana,” said Sebastien Godinot of Friends of the Earth France.
The IFC is in the midst of a major revision of its environmental, social and disclosure policies, moving from binding rules to flexible and subjective standards. The IFC process has been criticized for both the direction of the new policies and the problems with the consultation process by civil society, investors, and even industry. Delegates representing hundreds of organizations have chosen to boycott and walk out of the consultations in protest.
Friends of the Earth International Financial Institutions Campaigner Hannah Ellis said: “More flexibility is another way to avoid commitments. As a development institution, the World Bank has an obligation to protect the interests of local people and their environment. We want to see stronger rules dedicated to the protection of people and the environment, not “flexible” standards dedicated to the protection of big business interests.”
The revision process will have significant impact on global finances. The IFC invested $23.5 billion in the developing world through 2004. The IFC’s standards are also increasingly being adopted by other major financial institutions. The Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Citibank, and more than 20 other commercial banks called the “Equator Principles Banks” (which cumulatively arranged for over 75% of global international project finance) have agreed to follow the existing IFC environmental and social standards. In addition, some export credit agencies have agreed to benchmark their standards against those of the IFC.
Groups endorsing the Platform called upon IFC to:
• Meet the highest environmental and social standards and ensure that corporations respect international human rights, labour rights and environmental law as conditions for access to IFC loans;
• Commit and hold itself accountable to deliver on its stated mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development;
• Establish clear mechanisms for making the policies more enforceable and accountable and reject the proposal for self-monitoring by corporations;
• Screen all companies for their past performance on environmental, human rights and labour issues;
• Ensure that conditions are in place for meaningful and respectful engagement with affected communities, and recognise and respect indigenous peoples’ rights.
• Ensure that information is disclosed in appropriate languages in a timely and predictable way throughout the project cycle;
The IFC is currently consulting on its proposed policies, but the consultation process has been widely criticized by many stakeholders, including civil society and some in industry, for being rushed and for not being fully prepared. For instance, significant details of the policies are still not available publicly in spite of the fact that the public comment period is nearly over.
For a full list of endorsements, the full Platform text and other the regional statements, go to: www.grrr-now.org
For more information contact
IN PARIS Sebastien Godinot, Friends of the Earth +33-6.68.98.83.41 or finance@amisdelaterre.org
IN LONDON Hannah Ellis, Friends of the Earth Tel +44-20 207 566 1601 or +44-7952876929 (m) or hannahe@foe.co.uk
Lucy Baker, Bretton Woods Project Tel +44-20 7561 7610