Chart comparing existing to proposed policies

Some Examples of Weakening of the World Banks Safeguard Policiesa

Existing/old policy
Safeguards (paragraphs)

Negative changes (paragraphs)

Environmental Assessment OD4.01 [October 1991]



- clearly *requires* EA prior to project appraisal (1,15)
- values and recommends use of regional and sectoral EAs (5,6,7)
- advises analysis of cumulative impacts (6)
- places responsibility for carrying out a valid EA on both Bank staff and the Borrower (15)

Assessment OP4.01 [January 1999][1]


- only states that EA “is initiated as early as possible in project processing” (3)
- only refers to sectoral EAs as just one in a a range of EA types and methodologies (7)
- minimal reference to the need to assess aggregate impacts across different projects
- devolves ultimate EA responsibility to Borrower and implementing agencies (4,9 fn 14).

Involuntary Resettlement OD4.30 [June 1990] 
- treats customary and formal rights as equal in order to protect vulnerable peoples (17)
- all displaced peoples are  eligible for compensation (17)
- treats all displaced people in an equal manner (3b)
- advises cash compensation alone is inadequate (4)

[July 2000][2]

- only recognises those rights of affected peoples that are enshrined in the Borrower’s domestic legislation (14a)
- people without “legal title to land and other assets” are not eligible for compensation (14b)
- does not require consultation with affected people whose livelihoods are restricted by parks and protected areas during preparation (7)
- allows the involuntary displacement of  people by parks and protected areas (3)
- lacks an adequate distinction between voluntary and involuntary resettlement (fn 7)
- allows for cash only compensation (11)
- disregards multiple public recommendations for stronger safeguards and “improved” life quality for the resettled as a minimum standard

Indigenous Peoples OD4.20 [September 91]
- Requires Borrower commitment to the policy (16,20)
- *requires* the Borrowers to take  special action to safeguard indigenous land rights etc. (2,9,15,17)
- advises against displacement of indigenous peoples (10,fn.2)
- requires pre-appraisal baseline studies (14a,14d,15b, 16)
- makes requirements of staff & Borrowers at each stage of the project cycle (9,16,17,18,20)
[March 2000][3]
- does not require commitment and leaves  it up to the Borrower to decide where the policy applies (5)
- Bank only offers assistance on land rights and legal issues “upon request from the Borrower” (8,22)
- permits involuntary relocation of indigenous peoples from parks and protected areas (20)
- loses requirement for pre-appraisal baseline studies
- discards preconditions tied to the project cycle. Uses a “process” approach where plans are produced as a project is implemented (20)
- only incorporates 5 of a total of 20 key recommendations made by indigenous peoples during public consultations in 1998

Agricultural Pest Management OD4.03 [July 1992]
- applied through Environmental Assessment and mitigation plans (5,7)
- embraces Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and reduced chemical use as key policy goal (IPM) (4,5,7)
- recommends strong supervision and local monitoring of implementation (19,24)
[December 98][4]
- derogations exclude certain pesticides from EA requirements and mitigation measures BP.4.01, fn 2).
- limits reference to IPM. A shift in emphasis towards the use of “safe” and approved pesticides (4, fn.4, 6 (a)-(d))
- Limited discussion of the need for monitoring and evaluating implementation

Due to the constraints of space, the matrix does not contain an exhaustive list of examples of actual and potential policy weakening. The table also omits the list of public recommendations that have been excluded from the provisions of revised policies.

[1] Analysis by the Bank Information Center (BIC)
[2] CIEL (2000) Comments on Draft OP/BP 4.12  21 January, 2001; FPP (2001) New World Bank Resettlement Policy is Flawed , FPP briefing, 30 January, 2001
[3] Analysis by the Forest Peoples Programme [4] BIC analysis