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’.

It is important for the Bank to note the following:

• The vast majority of African countries supported the adoption of the Declaration, with no objection raised to the term ‘Indigenous’;
• Several countries have taken legislative steps in recognizing Indigenous peoples on the continent;
• The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights recognizes the term ‘Indigenous’ and subsequently the collective rights of Indigenous peoples, including pastoralist and hunter-gatherer communities;
• Jurisprudence on the specific rights of Indigenous peoples have been developed in national and regional courts;
• All Heads of State of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) recently institutionalized, in an official manner, the recognition of pastoralists as Indigenous peoples.

The World Bank should therefore support what is today broadly accepted throughout Africa, rather than reversing the trend.

In the same line, the African Development Bank should also align its thinking with that of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and work more towards the recognition and respect of the rights of Indigenous peoples in Africa.

Second, Indigenous peoples of Africa have recently been made aware of what has been dubbed the Billion Dollar Map. In February 2014, the World Bank announced a $1 Billion Fund to map Africa’s mineral resources by using satellites and airborne surveys. The Bank has pledged $200 million toward the fund, and hopes that governments and mining companies will provide the remaining $800 million. Several developed countries have expressed initial interest in supporting the fund, and it is expected that eventually mining companies will contribute as well.

Despite the potentially profound ramifications of the project, little is currently known about the proposed fund beyond brief reports in several news outlets.

The impacts of extractive industries on Indigenous peoples are well documented. These include significant environmental, social and cultural effects leading to the loss of traditional livelihoods, threats of food security and cultural survival. These impacts can lead to severe conflicts with communities, up to and including war.

Despite these entrenched issues, there has been no mention of the creation of procedures for communities to be involved in the process of creating the Billion Dollar Map, nor how subsequent increases in mining would uphold social and environmental safeguards and international legal norms. Further, there are no indications that lands and waters traditionally used or occupied by communities will be marked on the map.

Recommendations:

• As Indigenous peoples of Africa, we call on the World Bank, African governments, investor governments and the private sector to end this lack of transparency and share all relevant information pertaining to the Billion Dollar Map;
• We would also like to know how commitments to international norms and standards, in relation to the rights of Indigenous peoples, will be recognized and respected;
• Given that most of the mineral wealth is found in Indigenous territories, Indigenous representatives need to be appropriately represented in the mapping process.

Finally, we would like to make our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world aware of the fact that similar mapping initiatives are likely to be launched in other parts of the world. Already Paolo de Sá, Manager of the Oil, Gas, and Mining Unit at the Bank stated that the obvious next step would be to create another fund to come up with an integrated map of South American mineral resources.

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.

Another recent publication Status of forest carbon rightsand implications for communities, the carbon trade, and REDD+ investments(Rights and Resources Initiative), examines the status of existing legal frameworks regarding community rights to trade carbon. Preliminary research in 23 countries implementing REDD+ indicates that it is generally extremely difficult for communities to assert rights to trade carbon sequestered in their customarily held forests. Furthermore, safeguards and institutional capacity are required for communities to claim and utilise rights were they do exist.

The authors also warn that REDD+ countries could choose to allocate all authority and rights to transfer emissions reductions to the state, which would reduce the states incentives to tackle land tenure reform. Key elements required to include communities in REDD+ include recognition of tenure rights, ensuring strong participation, clearly identifying communities as legal owners of carbon credits generated from their areas, and laws enabling communities to trade carbon.

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 

That afternoon, Accountability Counsel, along with several other NGOs, held an event at World Bank headquarters entitled "A Conversation With IAMs About the Promise of Remedy and Accountability". The event brought together many top staff of IAMs from a number of IFIs, including the Principal of the European Investment Bank Complaints Mechanism, the Vice President of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudman the Chair of the African Development Bank Independent Review Mechanism, other IAM staff, and several NGOs who work on IAM issues. One theme running throughout the meeting was an acknowledgment that IFIs are going through a period of transition, as institutions such as the World Bank see their roles reduced in proportion to an increasing amount of investment lending being handled by private banks. An additional change is the nature of IFI lending itself, as an increasing amount is directed toward non-project lending. For example, it was noted that half of World Bank lending, and two thirds of IFC lending go toward non-project investments, to which safeguard policies do not apply. 

The IAM meetings are especially important in light of the current update to the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies. One of the Inspection Panel's roles is to evaluate whether the World Bank is adhering to its policies, and although these policies may be applied in fewer instances due to increased non-project lending, they still set the standard for other IFIs worldwide. Natural Justice has submitted comments on these policies, and it is projected that the World Bank will release a draft for comment early in 2014. 

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.