Southeast Asia

According to the governing policies of some of the IFI’s alternative lending instruments, the application of the respective safeguard policies of the World Bank, IFC, and ADB are often not mandatory, meaning that the responsibility for assessing the social and environmental impacts of a particular project is delegated to the borrower.

The Program for Results (PforR) pilot project in Vietnam underscores the risks of this approach in Southeast Asia. The PforR lending instrument, adopted by the Bank in 2012 in spite of deep concerns from civil society, works by providing general budget support for borrower programs (in this case Rural Water Supply and Sanitation) rather than financing for a specific project. The program does not require the application of the World Bank’s Environment and Social Safeguard Policies – instead a Program Action Plan is developed following staff assessment of the borrower’s Country Safeguards Systems (CSS) that includes measures to address identified weaknesses. Among the concerns raised by civil society groups is whether the World Bank’s disbursement requirements are a strong enough incentive to ensure that the government complies with these safeguard agreements.

BIC’s report on the Vietnam PforR project indicates that while the results-focused disbursement did drive project activities, it was often targeted in communities that were already better resourced, potentially leading to higher inequality in the long run. No appropriate sequencing of operational and capacity-building activities, lack of World Bank supervision and monitoring at all stages of program implementation, focus on quantitative rather than qualitative indicators, inconsistent risk identification and classification systems, and limited transparency and participation were also indicated as areas of concern. Without addressing these issues in upfront project preparation, future PforR projects could lead to serious harm in higher risk programs – especially when complex resettlement of ethnic minorities is being undertaken.

This trend towards using a client’s own systems, whether public or private sector, comes at a time when many borrowers still do not have substantial policy equivalence, lack institutional capacity, have poor transparency and accountability, and often dismiss any meaningful civil society and community engagement. Using a CSS that is not comparable to the WBG’s or ADB’s policies and that lacks government capacity (enforcement measures, budget, staff, incentive for compliance) presents real dangers to communities, especially when they deal with uninformed or uncooperative leadership and live in a politically constrained environment.

For more information about BIC’s global campaign on safeguards, including country systems, please visit BIC’s Enviromental and Social Assessment page.

As the vulnerable populations in Southeast Asia are increasingly exposed to the risks of climate change and expanding resource-based development associated with forest, agriculture and energy-based emissions, they are increasingly likely to lose access to water for irrigation or drinking or land for food and livelihood. In response to these impacts, there has been an increased flow of public and private sector funding from national and international sources to help address these needs. Unfortunately, the governance and the competing interests by those mobilizing these funds are problematic. While the Bank and the ADB remain arguably the leading standard setters in development and climate investments, their implementation has been feeble, resulting in some communities losing control of their land and livelihood sources while being constrained from accessing justice.

Forest governance programs in particular, typically funded by alternate lending instruments such as the Forest Investment Program (FIP) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), have remained problematic in many of the places where BIC has been active, such as Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Despite the high profile government commitments to protect forests as reflected in their climate mitigation plans and REDD+ strategies, recent trends in tropical countries suggests that progress in recognizing community land and resource rights is slowing.

The 2014 report from Rights and Resources Initiative reveals that the area of forestland secured for community ownership since 2008 is less than 20 percent of the area that was recognized in the previous six years. This trend has been associated with various forms of continuing resource grabs by local elites and corporations, aided by governments eager to give away land to investors on almost any terms, says the report. The consequence can be that promises to curb deforestation and forest degradation will remain unfulfilled, and efforts slowed down. BIC is connected with a wide network of community forestry practitioners and advocates who expressed support in elevating their community forestry agenda into the IFI’s REDD+ and other forest-related strategies.

For more information about BIC’s global forest campaign, including details about FIP and FCPF, please visit BIC’s Forest page.

The World Bank has sent signals that they are ready to re-engage in Cambodia after freezing lending operations in the country in 2011. The lending freeze had come on the heels of an Inspection Panel investigation into the Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP) in 2009, which had found that the Bank’s safeguard policies, especially those around involuntary resettlement and project monitoring, had been violated. The project, which was meant to help legalize land tenure rights for the urban population in Phnom Penh, instead led to massive land grabbing and the forced relocation of thousands of poor families, including those living near Boeung Kak Lake (BKL). When confronted with the Panel’s report, the Government of Cambodia refused to cooperate with the Bank to provide restitution to the 3,500+ families displaced from the BKL community and cut all ties with the institution.

Now, however, the Bank has resolved to revive its relationship with the government despite the fact that the BKL community has yet to see any form of compensation. As part of its re-engagement strategy, the World Bank is beginning the process of developing a short-term country strategy, or Country Engagement Note (CEN), formerly referred to as an Interim Strategy Note (ISN). The consultation process began with an online survey in December 2013 and face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were scheduled to start in February 2014, but were delayed until 2015. Consultations on the CEN were held from June 29 to July 13, 2015 in Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, Sihanoukville, and Phnom Penh with a number of stakeholders from government ministries, parliament, the private sector, and civil society.

The CEN, together with four new investment projects, including the Land Allocation for Social and Economic Development (LASED) II Project, was approved by the Bank Board of Directors on May 19, 2016. The project’s lead implementing agency – the Cambodian Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction — was also the lead implementing agency of LMAP, leading many to wonder whether the LASED II project will actually improve land tenure secu rity in Cambodia or simply perpetuate more of the same issues that plagued LMAP and the previous LASED project.

For more information about the World Bank’s new Country Partnership Framework, please see BIC’s CPF page.