|
The World
Bank's broken promises on its forest policy review
The World Bank's Forest Policy
Implementation Review and Strategy process (FPIRS) is entering its final
stages. After having received input from numerous stakeholders throughout
the world, the Bank suddenly appears to be less willing to share its draft
new policy for meaningful input from all those engaged in the process,
before presenting the policy to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors for
its final approval.
This situation has generated great
concern among a large number of NGOs. After learning that the World Bank
would not release its draft strategy and policy until it has already been
sent to Senior Management, some 84 NGOs wrote to the IUCN, which was
facilitating the consultation process, urging it to demand that the World
Bank change the process. Another letter was then sent to the World Bank's
Vice President Ian Johnson. After expressing that the regional consultations
implemented by the Bank "were promising steps towards a strengthened
new Forest Policy", the letter noted that "the follow-up to these
positive steps raises disturbing questions about the World Bank’s good
faith in seriously consulting with civil society organizations. There has
been little feedback and communication from the World Bank on the Forest
Policy once the regional consultations were completed."
The NGO letter further stated that
the World Bank publicly committed itself "to prepare a draft Forest
strategy document which would be widely disseminated and discussed with
stakeholders . . . before being presented to World Bank management. This
promise appears to have been broken. On Christmas eve, a draft discussion
strategy paper was sent to members of the Technical Advisory Group for their
January meeting with the request not to make it public."
According to the letter, "it
was only after strong concerns were voiced by NGOs as well as IUCN at a
meeting with the World Bank’s Environment Department on January 16, 2001
that the draft discussion document on a strategy was placed on the World
Bank’s website. However, we have not been given any assurances that
revisions to the Forest Policy and Strategy will be made publicly available
before their presentation to the World Bank’s Board of Executive
Directors. At present, it is even unclear if World Bank staff is preparing a
non-binding Forest Strategy or a new cross-sectoral Operational Policy on
Forests."
The NGO letters were followed on
29 January by a letter from IUCN's Acting Director General Simon N. Stuart
to Ian Johnson. Stuart reminded him about the major aim of the forest policy
consultation process: "It is important to remember --he said-- that the
objective of the FPIRS process is not just to get a new policy formally
adopted by the Board. Rather, the objective of the entire process underlying
the FPIRS has been to build consensus on a forest policy and strategy that
will have wide acceptance inside and outside that Bank so that it will stand
a better chance of being well implemented than the 1991 policy/strategy. The
proposed new strategy relies heavily on building partnerships both inside
and outside the Bank in order to capitalize on the World Bank’s
comparative advantage and accomplish more than it could on its own. Those
external partnerships will not materialize if the Bank becomes too
introverted in the later phase of the policy/strategy development
process.".
IUCN’s Director also reminded
the Bank that "the original Consultation Process document on FPIRS web
site, which was agreed to with IUCN, indicates that the World Bank would
share a copy of the strategy draft with all concerned stakeholders before
its approval by World Bank senior management. During each of the regional
consultations, the World Bank staff also indicated a clear intention to
re-engage with the participants of the regional consultations and share a
draft for their review and comment."
Ian Johnson from the World Bank
responded to IUCN, and the NGOs which had appealed to it, on February 7 and
what follow are his remarks to IUCN's recommendations:
1. IUCN recommends that the World
Bank publicly release a complete draft text of any revised Operational
Policy on forests.
"The Bank remains committed
to posting the revised version of Annex 5C (recommended revisions to OP 4.36
Forestry) on the FPIRS website as soon as this document is ready. We agree
that it is important for various stakeholders to evaluate and provide
feedback on these recommended revisions. A revised Annex 5C will be posted
shortly."
2. IUCN recommends that the FPIRS
team should extend the deadline for feedback beyond February 15th.
"We are encouraging
interested individuals to send their comments as early as possible, with a
suggested date of February 15, so that comments can be fully taken into
account in the revisions currently underway. However, comments and feedback
on the documents posted on the website are welcome at any time in the
process and will be given serious consideration at all times."
3. IUCN recommends that the FPIRS
team compile a registry documenting each of the comments received, how they
are or are not reflected in the revisions, and the rationale for that
decision.
"We will continue to track
and compile all feedback being received by e-mail and comments sent for
posting in the FPIRS Discussion Forum. We have been and continue to compile
a registry of comments received and how they are reflected in the revisions
being made to the documents. We will post a registry, or summary, of
comments on the FPIRS website."
4. If the Bank does all these
things, it should meet the expectations that it created in the original
consultation process design and the regional consultations. Nevertheless,
the World Bank should go one step further…IUCN recommends…that the FPIRS
team release the revised strategy and policy after they have gone to CODE
and before they go to the Board.
"It is our intention to make
a revised strategy and policy available before the Board presentation."
With regard to Ian Johnson
response on the first point, the fact is that the revised version of Annex 5
C is as yet (19 February) not available in the Bank's web site. IUCN's
second recommendation is obviously linked to the first one. People need to
read and study the revised version before making suggestions. The deadline
should be changed and it's not enough to say that "comments and
feedback on the documents posted on the website are welcome at any time in
the process and will be given serious consideration at all times." Ian
Johnson's response to IUCN's very precise 4th recommendation
("release the revised strategy and policy after they have gone to CODE
and before they go to the Board") is so vague that it raises a huge
question mark on whether the revised strategy will be open for discussion
before its Board presentation or if the Bank's "intention" is to
simply inform NGOs without providing a meaninful opportunity for comment.
It appears that, unless something
changes, the Bank will again have missed another opportunity --as IUCN's
Director says-- "to build consensus on a forest policy and strategy
that will have wide acceptance inside and outside that Bank so that it will
stand a better chance of being well implemented than the 1991
policy/strategy."
Source: WRM's bulletin Nº 43,
February 2001
top
|
