Special Evaluation Study on Indigenous Peoples Safeguards
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Evaluation Study Reference Number: SST: REG 2007-01 Special Evaluation Study February 2007 Indigenous Peoples Safeguards Operations Evaluation Department ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank ADSDPP – ancestral domain sustainable development protection plan CCO – chief compliance officer CEMMA – Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountain Areas Minorities DEC – Development Effectiveness Committee DMC – developing member country EA – executing agency EIA – environmental impact assessment EMDP – ethnic minority development plan FPIC – free, prior and informed consent IADB – Inter-American Development Bank ICC – indigenous cultural community IP – indigenous peoples IPDF – indigenous peoples development framework IPDP – indigenous peoples development plan IPP – indigenous peoples plan IPSA – initial poverty and social assessment IR – involuntary resettlement JFPR – Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction Lao PDR – Lao People’s Democratic Republic LNG – liquefied natural gas MRM – management review meeting NCIP – National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NGO – nongovernment organization OCR – ordinary capital resources OD – operational directive OED – Operations Evaluation Department OM – Operations Manual PCR – project completion report PPR – project performance report PRC – People’s Republic of China RP – resettlement plan RRP – report and recommendation of the President RSDD – Regional and Sustainable Development Department RSES – Environment and Social Safeguard Division, RSDD SDAP – social development action plan SES – special evaluation study SpA – indigenous peoples specific action SPRSS – summary poverty reduction and social strategy TA – technical assistance UN – United Nations NOTE (i) In this report, “$” refers to US dollars. Key Words adb indigenous peoples policy evaluation, adb social safeguards policy evaluation, asian ethnic minorities policy evaluation, indian social safeguards, vietnam viet nam vietnamese social safeguards, philippines social safeguards, china chinese social safeguards Director General B. Murray, Operations Evaluation Department (OED) Director R. K. Leonard, Operations Evaluation Division 1, OED Team leader W. Kolkma, Senior Evaluation Specialist, OED Team members A. Anabo, Senior Evaluation Officer, OED A. Alba, Operations Evaluation Assistant, OED Operations Evaluation Department, SS-72 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Need for the Study 1 B. Background 1 C. Current Issues 3 D. Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation 3 E. Organization of the Report 4 II. ADB AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SAFEGUARDS.......................................................5 A. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights 5 B. Indigenous Peoples and Infrastructure Projects 6 C. ADB’s IP Policy Framework: A Summary and Some Observations 7 D. Organizational Arrangements for IP Policy Enforcement 15 III. AN ANALYSIS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANS ....................................................17 A. Overview 17 B. IPDPs Analyzed 20 C. Issues in IPDPs 23 D. Analysis of Indigenous Peoples Development Frameworks 31 E. Analysis of Indigenous Peoples Specific Actions 33 IV. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................34 A. Performance Assessment Conducted by the World Bank 34 B. ADB’s Performance Assessments Prior to This Study 36 C. International NGOs 44 D. Staff Experience and Views 46 E. DMC Views and Experience 48 The guidelines adopted by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) for avoiding conflict of interest in its independent evaluations were observed in the preparation of this report. Consultants provided some inputs for the study. They may not necessarily agree with all the conclusions reported in the evaluation. A consultant (Jose Antonio League) had no prior involvement in social safeguard operations supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Others (Guoqing Shi, Shaojun Chen, Bingfang Zhong, and Arup Khan) did have some prior involvement, but not in the case study projects they were asked to review. Mary Grace Alindogan, Rasmiah Mayo-Malixi, and Maria Rosario Catalina Narciso did background research and administered the questionnaire surveys. Director General, OED had a long involvement in ADB's operations in the People's Republic of China (PRC). He did not review the detailed case studies undertaken in PRC. Although he (i) reviewed the report, (ii) made comments for inclusion in the main text, and (iii) approved the report, potential conflicts of interest are considered to have been adequately managed. The team leader of the study and his director had no prior involvement in ADB operations. To the knowledge of the management of OED, there were no conflicts of interest among the persons preparing this report. V. COUNTRY SAFEGUARD SYSTEMS AND CAPACITY BUILDING ...............................49 A. Review of Country IP Safeguard Systems 49 B. ADB’s TA and Trust Funds for Indigenous Peoples 52 VI. IMPACTS, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND ISSUES .......................................................55 A. Findings from Case Studies 55 B. Wider Positive Impacts of the IP Policy 57 C. Incremental Costs and Transaction Costs: Some Notes 58 VII. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................59 A. Assessment of the Indigenous Peoples Policy 59 B. Recommendations 64 APPENDIXES 1. Indigenous Peoples Policy 1998: Relevant Paragraphs on the Definition 67 of Indigenous Peoples 2. Indigenous Peoples Policies in Other Organizations 69 3. Description of Indigenous Peoples Development Plans, by Sector 71 4. Thirty-one Indigenous Peoples Development Plans Approved Over the Period 77 1998–2005; Some Statistics 5. Projects with Indigenous Peoples Development Plans Approved from 1998 79 to 2005, with Numbers of Beneficiaries and Indigenous Peoples 6. Indigenous Peoples Development Plans from 1998 to 2006 82 7. Nature of Risks Identified in All 22 Indigenous Peoples Development Plans 83 with Risks 8. Summary of Consultations Held for 31 Indigenous Peoples Development Plans 85 9. Consultation Processes for the Indigenous Peoples Development Plans for the 89 Tangguh Liquefied Natural Gas and Nam Theun II Hydroelectric Projects 10. World Bank Evaluation Findings regarding Impacts of Indigenous Peoples 92 Projects: Lessons Learned 11. Inter-American Development Bank Evaluation Findings regarding Projects with 94 Indigenous Peoples as Beneficiaries 12. Assessments by Project Completion Reports 95 13. List of Projects Campaigned on Grounds of Safeguard Issues by NGO Forum 99 on ADB in 2005 and 2006 14. Quantitative Results of Executing Agency Questionnaire 100 15. Asian Development Bank Technical Assistance Provided for 107 Indigenous Peoples 16. Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction Grants with Indigenous Peoples Involvement 112 17. Case Study Summaries 113 SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIXES (available upon request) A. Main Statements in the Reports and Recommendations of the President and the Assessments Made in the Project Completion Reports B. Project Risks, Mitigation, and Enhancement, By Sector EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of a special evaluation study (SES) of the Policy on Indigenous Peoples (IP) (1998) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The evaluation was one of three that were included in the 2006 work program of the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) at the request of the Development Effectiveness Committee (DEC) of ADB’s Board of Directors. The other two evaluations concerned (i) involuntary resettlement safeguards, and (ii) environmental safeguards. The studies were done to provide DEC with an independent assessment of, and to contribute to ADB’s safeguard policy review, which will lead to a proposal by Management to the Board for consideration of a policy update in 2007. This SES report (i) provides an overview of the scale and nature of IP safeguards in ADB operations; (ii) examines the extent of application of the IP policy; (iii) reviews trends; (iv) makes some comparisons with other multilateral banks; (v) gives OED’s assessment of the IP policy’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability on the basis of evidence gathered; and (vi) provides recommendations that should be considered in the update of the safeguard policies. Given the need to complete the evaluation in time to feed into the safeguard policy update, the study had to be completed within a tight time frame. The amount of field work and consultations that could be undertaken was therefore limited. Nature of the Indigenous Peoples Policy. The 1998 IP Policy required that a series of safeguard principles be upheld in preparing and implementing ADB-supported projects in areas with IP: (i) ensure that development interventions are compatible in substance and structure with the affected IP’s social, cultural, and economic institutions, and that the interventions are consistent with the needs and aspirations of those peoples; (ii) design and implement projects to ensure that IP and populations are at least as well-off as they would have been without development interventions; and (iii) ensure that IP benefit from interventions. Fixed procedures were to be followed; these included screening, consultation, in certain cases the preparation of IP plans (IPPs) before the appraisal of the loan, and the establishment of monitoring and evaluation arrangements during project implementation. The procedures were set in motion when a mandatory initial social assessment identified IP that might be adversely and significantly affected. Expanded