Your statement--"World Bank safeguards for Indigenous Peoples require a process of 'free, prior, and informed consultations' rather than free, prior and informed consent-- is, AFAIK, not quite right.
The Bank's Environmental and Social Standards: Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities Safeguards (revised in 2016 after a long internal fight; link is chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/Environmental-and-Social-Framework.pdf) do require consent (paras 24-28) while admitting the truth that "There is no universally accepted definition of consent".
That said, the most recent (May 2024 & December 2024) Bank supervision reports (known as ISRs; chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099120624060035668/pdf/P166244-e5964158-18fe-4f86-b798-6d7abf21052c.pdf) say nothing about safeguards or a grievance process (beyond re-stating the obvious fact that it is a high risk project). To skip mention of safeguards in the disclosable ISRs on a high risk project is unacceptable and the Bank Country Director (Carolyn Turk) and VP (Manuela Ferro) for Indonesia (unnamed in the disclosable ISRs for the usual reasons) should be ashamed.
Thanks for this John. That statement came from the REDD+ Alert report, which was referring to the 2005 (revised in 2013) Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10. The REDD+ Alert report states:
"World Bank safeguards for indigenous peoples do not require Free, Prior and Informed Consent as established by international human rights laws but instead require 'a process of free, prior, and informed consultations with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities at each stage of the project, and particularly during project preparation, to fully identify their views and ascertain their broad community support for the project'."
But you're right - the 2016 Environmental and Social Framework supersedes the Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10 as the Bank's website makes clear: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples.
There was an attempt to impose a rigid definition of “consent” (unanimous and to be reached outside domestic laws) on the Bank’s procedures while expanding the notion of “indigenous peoples” to almost anyone in Africa. Basically this was the North European NGOs, acting through their Board members in the Bank and with the collusion of Bank managers who viewed safeguards as their way to the top (and for one of the Nordics, this has indeed paid off richly); the goal was to prevent the Bank from doing anything on hydro or forests in sub-Saharan Africa by providing veto power on most projects to the safeguards people/anthropologists’ lobby in the Bank and outside too. The language of the 2016 document is the resulting compromise.
The intent of many Bank safeguards people (and the external anthropologists’ lobby) was to prevent the Bank from working on hydro, forests, and land use. (Yes, there must be very strict safeguards including consultations with everyone affected and compensation of people who are resettled, eg in areas adjacent to dams). But if people dont want the Bank to be involved in such projects, then what will they get ? They will get the Chinese companies with no consultation, no labor standards, no compensation for resettlement, and no respect for the rights of IPs.
The corollary of this argument is that there is no project that is too bad for the World Bank to get involved in. And the Bank hasn't really had much impact on China's Belt and Road Initiative one way or the other, has it?
Meanwhile, Walden Bello argues that the World Bank and the IMF should be DOGE's next targets:
"The IMF and the World Bank are monuments to misguided economic thinking and policies that have brought much misery to the peoples of the Global South. They are institutions that no longer serve any purpose except to perpetuate and enlarge themselves. If Elon Musk and Donald Trump are really serious about radically downsizing bloated bureaucracies, they could not have better targets than the Bretton Woods twins."
My thoughts about Musk and Trump demolishing the Bank and IMF are similar to my thoughts about what they did to USAID - I think a complete overhaul of how the World Bank and IMF operates is long overdue (and I should probably point out that I took part in the 50 years is enough protests at the Bank/IMF meeting in Madrid in 1994). But this should be a process based on careful discussions, rather than Musk wielding a wood chipper:
I guarantee from personal experience that there were many projects too bad for Bank involvement. Bank simply refused them. Will comment separately to Walden Bello but the short version is — he has no idea what he is talking about, on DOGE or on the Bank.
Do the people ACTUALLY have rights of refusal? Maybe it’s all the legalese, but it sounds like indigenous folk are losing standing. Am I misunderstanding?
The people probably dont have rights of refusal, given the flexible definition of “consent”. They can (and definitely should) make noise during the consultations / consent process. If the project goes ahead (which most carbon market projects should not because they dont save any carbon) then the people should file grievances and IP cases. Now, one thing that could be done is to hold referendums (a quantitative form of project consultation) on bond issuances / project loans as we do in California.
Please write to the Canadian ED about this Indonesia project. (US doesnt have one for now). Ask why there is no grievance process for this operation and if the Inspection Panel has received a request for inspection that it is quietly ignoring because of pressure from the govt of Indonesia and from the regional VP (Ferro) who doesnt want one of her star green projects to be found out.
The World Bank is a colonialist financial-control hub located in Washington DC. These carbon projects operators work exactly like urban city-planners, simply just rezone the little people away from building your dreams. Again, they've called these projects "emissions reduction" when they merely, in an ideal world, offset ongoing emissions elsewhere, if at all. All financializations of Nature are part of the neo-liberal agenda to have The Market supposedly enhance the environment since doing this by regulations limits "economic freedom."
Well done.
Your statement--"World Bank safeguards for Indigenous Peoples require a process of 'free, prior, and informed consultations' rather than free, prior and informed consent-- is, AFAIK, not quite right.
The Bank's Environmental and Social Standards: Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities Safeguards (revised in 2016 after a long internal fight; link is chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/Environmental-and-Social-Framework.pdf) do require consent (paras 24-28) while admitting the truth that "There is no universally accepted definition of consent".
That said, the most recent (May 2024 & December 2024) Bank supervision reports (known as ISRs; chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099120624060035668/pdf/P166244-e5964158-18fe-4f86-b798-6d7abf21052c.pdf) say nothing about safeguards or a grievance process (beyond re-stating the obvious fact that it is a high risk project). To skip mention of safeguards in the disclosable ISRs on a high risk project is unacceptable and the Bank Country Director (Carolyn Turk) and VP (Manuela Ferro) for Indonesia (unnamed in the disclosable ISRs for the usual reasons) should be ashamed.
Thanks for this John. That statement came from the REDD+ Alert report, which was referring to the 2005 (revised in 2013) Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10. The REDD+ Alert report states:
"World Bank safeguards for indigenous peoples do not require Free, Prior and Informed Consent as established by international human rights laws but instead require 'a process of free, prior, and informed consultations with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities at each stage of the project, and particularly during project preparation, to fully identify their views and ascertain their broad community support for the project'."
But you're right - the 2016 Environmental and Social Framework supersedes the Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10 as the Bank's website makes clear: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples.
Incidentally, the FCPF webpage on Indonesia also makes no mention (as far as I can see) about the complaint to the Grievance Redress Service (https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/country/indonesia).
There was an attempt to impose a rigid definition of “consent” (unanimous and to be reached outside domestic laws) on the Bank’s procedures while expanding the notion of “indigenous peoples” to almost anyone in Africa. Basically this was the North European NGOs, acting through their Board members in the Bank and with the collusion of Bank managers who viewed safeguards as their way to the top (and for one of the Nordics, this has indeed paid off richly); the goal was to prevent the Bank from doing anything on hydro or forests in sub-Saharan Africa by providing veto power on most projects to the safeguards people/anthropologists’ lobby in the Bank and outside too. The language of the 2016 document is the resulting compromise.
Ongoing empire-building by banks and billionaires rather than countries?
The intent of many Bank safeguards people (and the external anthropologists’ lobby) was to prevent the Bank from working on hydro, forests, and land use. (Yes, there must be very strict safeguards including consultations with everyone affected and compensation of people who are resettled, eg in areas adjacent to dams). But if people dont want the Bank to be involved in such projects, then what will they get ? They will get the Chinese companies with no consultation, no labor standards, no compensation for resettlement, and no respect for the rights of IPs.
The corollary of this argument is that there is no project that is too bad for the World Bank to get involved in. And the Bank hasn't really had much impact on China's Belt and Road Initiative one way or the other, has it?
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/belt-and-road-initiative
Meanwhile, Walden Bello argues that the World Bank and the IMF should be DOGE's next targets:
"The IMF and the World Bank are monuments to misguided economic thinking and policies that have brought much misery to the peoples of the Global South. They are institutions that no longer serve any purpose except to perpetuate and enlarge themselves. If Elon Musk and Donald Trump are really serious about radically downsizing bloated bureaucracies, they could not have better targets than the Bretton Woods twins."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/26/the-imf-and-world-bank-await-elon-musk/
My thoughts about Musk and Trump demolishing the Bank and IMF are similar to my thoughts about what they did to USAID - I think a complete overhaul of how the World Bank and IMF operates is long overdue (and I should probably point out that I took part in the 50 years is enough protests at the Bank/IMF meeting in Madrid in 1994). But this should be a process based on careful discussions, rather than Musk wielding a wood chipper:
https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-usaid
I guarantee from personal experience that there were many projects too bad for Bank involvement. Bank simply refused them. Will comment separately to Walden Bello but the short version is — he has no idea what he is talking about, on DOGE or on the Bank.
Do the people ACTUALLY have rights of refusal? Maybe it’s all the legalese, but it sounds like indigenous folk are losing standing. Am I misunderstanding?
The people probably dont have rights of refusal, given the flexible definition of “consent”. They can (and definitely should) make noise during the consultations / consent process. If the project goes ahead (which most carbon market projects should not because they dont save any carbon) then the people should file grievances and IP cases. Now, one thing that could be done is to hold referendums (a quantitative form of project consultation) on bond issuances / project loans as we do in California.
Should be fired.
Please write to the Canadian ED about this Indonesia project. (US doesnt have one for now). Ask why there is no grievance process for this operation and if the Inspection Panel has received a request for inspection that it is quietly ignoring because of pressure from the govt of Indonesia and from the regional VP (Ferro) who doesnt want one of her star green projects to be found out.
Would being Canadian be more valuable to write said letter?
If you are Canadian and write to the Canadian ED (your national representative) yes it should be more valuable.
The World Bank is a colonialist financial-control hub located in Washington DC. These carbon projects operators work exactly like urban city-planners, simply just rezone the little people away from building your dreams. Again, they've called these projects "emissions reduction" when they merely, in an ideal world, offset ongoing emissions elsewhere, if at all. All financializations of Nature are part of the neo-liberal agenda to have The Market supposedly enhance the environment since doing this by regulations limits "economic freedom."