A review of the Environment and Social Safeguards with the aim to provide a more holistic approach to the range of possible risks is welcome. To state the obvious there is hardly any point in the World Bank creating development projects whose risks and impacts can negate the benefits that are being achieved. Moreover, implementation of the safeguards can be an opportunity to create greater development benefits to achieve the Bank´s goal of poverty alleviation. Perhaps this is an opportunity not to be missed. This article describes very well the challenges of creating a system that can meet the needs of the diversity of situations in which an organization like the World Bank operates. The new emphasis on social assessments may be a way to better understand the diversity of contexts, but such an assessment to be useful must look not only at correlations but also at cause-effect relationships. Understanding these relationships would enable the identification of sustainable mitigation measures and this is perhaps where issues such as non-discrimination become pertinent.
Tasneeem Salam: socio-economic development consultant; contemporary art gallery director
Colin Scott reports on the World Bank’s impressive undertaking to revamp its existing safeguard policies, and develop a “new set of modernized environmental and social standards.” As Scott notes, these new policies aim to strengthen the Bank’s commitment to human rights principles, protect disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, improve grievance mechanisms, and enhance stakeholder engagement.
Below are responses to two particular points in the report. They are offered as constructive criticism with the aim of strengthening this welcome effort:
ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
STRENGTHS: The “intense global consultation process” outlined in the report (and detailed in Safeguard Policies Review Update: Consultation Phase 1, Feedback Summary) is indeed a heartening demonstration of the World Bank’s efforts to establish policies that are attentive to affected communities. The resulting guidelines address a complex set of concerns, and do so in a nuanced and thoughtful manner that will undoubtedly lead to more culturally sensitive projects.
Among the strengths, one that is not described explicitly—but that is worth mentioning—is that greater input from affected communities will result in a broader definition of what counts as a “successful” project. Members of indigenous and marginalized communities will have increased opportunities to self-define desirable outcomes, including outcomes that may not be quantifiable or that could seem elusive to World Bank representatives.
WEAKNESSES: Despite consultation with a large number of stakeholders, only slim representation of “everyday” stakeholders from affected communities have actually contributed their input to the proposed Safeguards revisions. Safeguard Policies Review Update: Consultation Phase 1, Feedback Summary describes “approximately 240 representatives of Indigenous Peoples participated in the dialogue [with the World Bank]” (p. 192).
RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to (or even instead of) formalized “National/Regional Dialogues” in capital cities where only a select few “Indigenous Peoples representatives” travel to meet representatives of the World Bank, a more effective strategy would be to send World Bank representatives to indigenous communities where they can solicit feedback from a broader demographic, and achieve a deeper understanding of community members’ response to existing Safeguards and projects.
“FREE, PRIOR, & INFORMED CONSENT”
STRENGTHS: World Bank’s commitment to solicit “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) echoes a similar trend within the social sciences. This is an important process designed to protect the legal rights of indigenous and vulnerable communities when they enter into sustained relationships with groups having significantly more access to social, political, and economic resources (e.g., World Bank, academic researchers, etc.).
Informed consent could potentially give recourse to members of affected communities when they feel their best interests are not being served. It also requires the various parties working on a World Bank project to give meaningful consideration to the non-quantifiable impact a project may have on community members.
WEAKNESSES: Drawing on experience from the academic universe, there are several drawbacks to the implementation of Informed Consent:
1. What counts as “free” or “informed” consent shifts dramatically from one cultural context to another. How might a child in the Gaza Strip give FPIC, when her primary encounter with outsiders is anything but free, and whose age alone challenges how “informed” her consent can be? How can an LGBT person in Jamaica give FPIC, when such consent puts him at significant risk of bodily harm? In anthropology, for example, researchers often find it impossible to obtain authentic legally standing FPIC. Instead, they seek informal, personal consent that is not—and cannot be—documented without endangering their participants.
2. While intended to protect vulnerable participants, Informed Consent ironically often ends up protecting the institution sponsoring the project. This is because a legal form that documents a participant’s “consent” effectively acts to protect institutions from culpability in projects whose outcomes are not beneficial or even harmful to participants.
3. FPIC is, of course, an extremely Western and legally-oriented construct. Members of affected communities often share neither of these characteristics. As a result, the process of obtaining FPIC often results either in the mutual confusion and frustration of both sides, or worse: project workers who believe they obtained “free and informed” consent, and community members who may be happy to appease their guests, but are generally confounded by the procedure.
RECOMMENDATIONS: While the weaknesses outlined are real, ensuring that projects are sensitive to the needs and desires of affected communities is of critical importance. One lesson still being learned in academic circles is that while Informed Consent is a moving target, Informed Project Workers does need not be. A number of alternative and complementary measures can be built into WB projects to mitigate these issues, including:
1. While Project designers are working with affected communities to determine the contours of the project, they should also determine locally-appropriate ways to obtain consent for its components. This knowledge might come through discussion with community representatives, ethnographic literature on the topic, and anthropologists who have worked in the area.
2. During the planning stages, a meaningful database of knowledge about the local culture should be gathered and made available to project workers, particularly those who have direct contact with members of the affected communities;
3. In addition to the database, the project design should include information sessions in which project workers can be in dialogue with cultural “insiders” and deepen their understanding of local practices and customs; these sessions should specifically address the question of how consent is requested and received in this cultural context;
4. Regular information exchanges should be built into the project design, where members of local communities will have ongoing opportunities to clarify and offer input on the project objectives. This process should be separate from the Grievance procedures outlined in the First Draft of the Environmental and Social Framework.
These suggestions are respectfully submitted with the intention of improving the current revision of safeguard policies.
The article summarizes the challenges of the process really well. It is not surprise that the process has become a lightning rod for “single issue” activists, because this is very much the main opportunity they will get to have their suggestions heard in a long time. It is beneficial for the Bank staff to hear inputs from outside, as well as criticism of its past work. The process is also useful for the countries where the face to face consultations are taking place, as the Governments are forced to realize the diversity of its constituents.
COMMENTS
BY Tasneem Salam
ON March 29, 2015 11:35 AM
A review of the Environment and Social Safeguards with the aim to provide a more holistic approach to the range of possible risks is welcome. To state the obvious there is hardly any point in the World Bank creating development projects whose risks and impacts can negate the benefits that are being achieved. Moreover, implementation of the safeguards can be an opportunity to create greater development benefits to achieve the Bank´s goal of poverty alleviation. Perhaps this is an opportunity not to be missed. This article describes very well the challenges of creating a system that can meet the needs of the diversity of situations in which an organization like the World Bank operates. The new emphasis on social assessments may be a way to better understand the diversity of contexts, but such an assessment to be useful must look not only at correlations but also at cause-effect relationships. Understanding these relationships would enable the identification of sustainable mitigation measures and this is perhaps where issues such as non-discrimination become pertinent.
Tasneeem Salam: socio-economic development consultant; contemporary art gallery director
BY Mieka Polanco
ON March 30, 2015 07:57 PM
Colin Scott reports on the World Bank’s impressive undertaking to revamp its existing safeguard policies, and develop a “new set of modernized environmental and social standards.” As Scott notes, these new policies aim to strengthen the Bank’s commitment to human rights principles, protect disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, improve grievance mechanisms, and enhance stakeholder engagement.
Below are responses to two particular points in the report. They are offered as constructive criticism with the aim of strengthening this welcome effort:
ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
STRENGTHS: The “intense global consultation process” outlined in the report (and detailed in Safeguard Policies Review Update: Consultation Phase 1, Feedback Summary) is indeed a heartening demonstration of the World Bank’s efforts to establish policies that are attentive to affected communities. The resulting guidelines address a complex set of concerns, and do so in a nuanced and thoughtful manner that will undoubtedly lead to more culturally sensitive projects.
Among the strengths, one that is not described explicitly—but that is worth mentioning—is that greater input from affected communities will result in a broader definition of what counts as a “successful” project. Members of indigenous and marginalized communities will have increased opportunities to self-define desirable outcomes, including outcomes that may not be quantifiable or that could seem elusive to World Bank representatives.
WEAKNESSES: Despite consultation with a large number of stakeholders, only slim representation of “everyday” stakeholders from affected communities have actually contributed their input to the proposed Safeguards revisions. Safeguard Policies Review Update: Consultation Phase 1, Feedback Summary describes “approximately 240 representatives of Indigenous Peoples participated in the dialogue [with the World Bank]” (p. 192).
RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to (or even instead of) formalized “National/Regional Dialogues” in capital cities where only a select few “Indigenous Peoples representatives” travel to meet representatives of the World Bank, a more effective strategy would be to send World Bank representatives to indigenous communities where they can solicit feedback from a broader demographic, and achieve a deeper understanding of community members’ response to existing Safeguards and projects.
“FREE, PRIOR, & INFORMED CONSENT”
STRENGTHS: World Bank’s commitment to solicit “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) echoes a similar trend within the social sciences. This is an important process designed to protect the legal rights of indigenous and vulnerable communities when they enter into sustained relationships with groups having significantly more access to social, political, and economic resources (e.g., World Bank, academic researchers, etc.).
Informed consent could potentially give recourse to members of affected communities when they feel their best interests are not being served. It also requires the various parties working on a World Bank project to give meaningful consideration to the non-quantifiable impact a project may have on community members.
WEAKNESSES: Drawing on experience from the academic universe, there are several drawbacks to the implementation of Informed Consent:
1. What counts as “free” or “informed” consent shifts dramatically from one cultural context to another. How might a child in the Gaza Strip give FPIC, when her primary encounter with outsiders is anything but free, and whose age alone challenges how “informed” her consent can be? How can an LGBT person in Jamaica give FPIC, when such consent puts him at significant risk of bodily harm? In anthropology, for example, researchers often find it impossible to obtain authentic legally standing FPIC. Instead, they seek informal, personal consent that is not—and cannot be—documented without endangering their participants.
2. While intended to protect vulnerable participants, Informed Consent ironically often ends up protecting the institution sponsoring the project. This is because a legal form that documents a participant’s “consent” effectively acts to protect institutions from culpability in projects whose outcomes are not beneficial or even harmful to participants.
3. FPIC is, of course, an extremely Western and legally-oriented construct. Members of affected communities often share neither of these characteristics. As a result, the process of obtaining FPIC often results either in the mutual confusion and frustration of both sides, or worse: project workers who believe they obtained “free and informed” consent, and community members who may be happy to appease their guests, but are generally confounded by the procedure.
RECOMMENDATIONS: While the weaknesses outlined are real, ensuring that projects are sensitive to the needs and desires of affected communities is of critical importance. One lesson still being learned in academic circles is that while Informed Consent is a moving target, Informed Project Workers does need not be. A number of alternative and complementary measures can be built into WB projects to mitigate these issues, including:
1. While Project designers are working with affected communities to determine the contours of the project, they should also determine locally-appropriate ways to obtain consent for its components. This knowledge might come through discussion with community representatives, ethnographic literature on the topic, and anthropologists who have worked in the area.
2. During the planning stages, a meaningful database of knowledge about the local culture should be gathered and made available to project workers, particularly those who have direct contact with members of the affected communities;
3. In addition to the database, the project design should include information sessions in which project workers can be in dialogue with cultural “insiders” and deepen their understanding of local practices and customs; these sessions should specifically address the question of how consent is requested and received in this cultural context;
4. Regular information exchanges should be built into the project design, where members of local communities will have ongoing opportunities to clarify and offer input on the project objectives. This process should be separate from the Grievance procedures outlined in the First Draft of the Environmental and Social Framework.
These suggestions are respectfully submitted with the intention of improving the current revision of safeguard policies.
BY Zuzana Boehmova
ON April 24, 2015 03:29 PM
The article summarizes the challenges of the process really well. It is not surprise that the process has become a lightning rod for “single issue” activists, because this is very much the main opportunity they will get to have their suggestions heard in a long time. It is beneficial for the Bank staff to hear inputs from outside, as well as criticism of its past work. The process is also useful for the countries where the face to face consultations are taking place, as the Governments are forced to realize the diversity of its constituents.