Global Policy Forum

Senior officials from the World Bank and NGO representatives use the Human Rights Forum to discuss the outlines of a "rights based approach" to poverty lending by the World Bank.

Two senior officials from the World Bank used a November 24 meeting of the Georgetown Human Rights Forum to defend the Bank's human rights record against NGO criticism, and asked for practical advice on what is meant by a "rights-based approach to development."

In a wide-ranging two-hour debate, which drew an audience of 300, Ian Johnson, Senior Vice President for the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network at the World Bank, insisted that the Bank has made a series of major changes which have enabled the Bank to become a central player in promoting the rights of the poor.

Mr. Johnson also said that the Bank's operations evaluation unit might consider undertaking human rights assessments of Bank projects, and that the Bank could provide support for the new UN Convention on the rights of migrant workers as part of its work on "human movement."

But Mr. Johnson also explained that promoters of human rights with the Bank have difficulty "selling" rights to their colleagues in operational departments, and to the Bank's 24-member Executive Board. He himself had looked at the policies of agencies like the UNDP and UNICEF, which have adopted a "rights-based approach," and found little practical difference in their operational programs from one day to the next.

Mr. Johnson heads an internal World Bank task force on human rights which is due to report to the Bank president, James Wolfensohn, so his views were listened to with considerable attention. Also appearing on the panel was, Judith Edstrom, Sector Manager for Social Development at the Bank and another member of the task force.

The NGO community was represented by Irungu Houghton, US Program Coordinator for ActionAid USA; and Mike Jendrzejczyk, Washington Director of the Asia Division for Human Rights Watch. Both gave practical examples of how the Bank could integrate human rights into its programs – not least by intervening on behalf of NGOs who work on key Bank programs, such as HIV/AIDS and the internet.

They also argued that an integrated policy on human rights would allow the Bank to play a "unique role" at the nexus of poverty and development, and that it had a responsibility not to lend to governments which violate their obligations under international human rights treaties.

The World Bank lends about $20 billion annually, and has immense power to shape the economies of smaller countries. Human rights NGOs have long complained that many Bank's projects and programs (particularly structural adjustment and large infrastructural loans) harm human rights, and urged the Bank to integrate human rights more into its lending. The Bank's standard response has been that formally embracing human rights would violate its articles of agreement, which forbid political interference in the domestic affairs of member governments. At the same time they maintain that many Bank loans, on education and health, make it possible to realize social and economic rights.

Mr. Johnson told the audience that the Bank's articles must be respected, as with any institution, but that they were being less "rigidly" interpreted than in previous years. He also noted a series of major changes at the Bank, which have allowed it to become an important partner in the fight against human rights:

• Defining poverty: The Bank's definition of poverty has evolved from per capita income to social exclusion and disenfranchisement, and even more broadly to "the extent to which people are fragile or vulnerable within the society." This makes it easier to define poverty in terms of human rights violations.

• Safeguard policies: The Bank has drawn up several policies aimed at cushioning those who are affected by Bank programs (i.e. indigenous peoples). These, said Mr. Johnson, are more stringent than any other comparable institution including credit export banks.

• The Bank has established a 3-person independent inspection panel (one of whom is a Georgetown professor) which hears complaints by individuals who have been adversely affected by Bank projects. The panel has heard 27 cases and occasionally forced the Bank to change direction.

• Mr. Johnson said he favored economic growth, but also conceded that economic inequality is growing. This, he said, was outside the Bank's control. He cited contributing factors like the "scandalous" OECD agricultural subsidies, which currently amount to about a billion dollars a day - equal to the combined GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa.

• Social and economic rights: The constraint on the Bank's ability to fund social programs, and so realize social rights such as the right to health, is not money or staff. In fact, the number of Bank officials working on health has grown quickly to 150. The real constraint is "demand" for such programs in the borrowing countries. This needs more promotion by the Bank.

• The Bank has decentralized its operations and appointed an NGO liaison officer in all of its country offices. This brings it more into contact with community needs and allows it to work directly with civil society.

• The Bank is increasingly supportive of rule of law programs – to the point where the Bank's Legal Department even provides technical assistance in areas like domestic abuse.

• The Bank has intervened discreetly on behalf of NGO leaders, and human rights defenders, who have been attacked or jailed by governments – where it feels this will likely succeed.

While commending the Bank for publicly engaging in the human rights debate – something that would have been unthinkable ten years ago – both NGO speakers said the Bank could do much more. Mr. Houghton said that the Bank had forced his own government, Kenya, to put the repayment of its debts before the rights of Kenyan citizens – and that this was even enshrined in the constitution. By promoting the downsizing of government and structural adjustment, he said, the Bank undercuts the rights of the poor and creates greater vulnerability.

According to one study by ActionAid, this had led to the lifting of price controls and the ending of food subsidies during a famine in Mali. The result was that hoarders held back food and "made a killing" on the market, while Malians actually died from starvation.

Mr. Jendrzejczyk, from Human Rights Watch, gave several practical examples of a "rights-based" approach. He commended the Bank for supporting rule of law programs, but urged it go further. In one example, he said, China was establishing legal aid centers in impoverished rural areas. The Bank should provide these centers with legal expertise, and make them better able to work on abuses such as the trafficking of women, which plague this "huge country in transition."

Mr. Jendrzejczyk also complained that the Bank's commitment to civil society was often "pro forma," and urged the Bank to intervene more actively on behalf of human rights defenders and NGOs which support for key Bank programs. For example, the Bank was investing heavily in the internet and committed to bridging the "digital divide." Yet it had failed to intervene when China arrested a computer programmer named Houng Qi who set up the first human rights website in China.

The Bank had also declined to press the Indian government to provide protection for victims of HIV/AIDS discrimination in India – even though ending discrimination could be key to the success of a massive Bank program to combat HIV/AIDS.

Both Mr. Houghton and Mr. Jendrzejczyk argued that the Bank could do itself a favor by integrating human rights more into its lending. Mr. Houghton said this would provide the Bank with a new "paradigm" for its lending, and also position the agency to play a unique role at the nexus between both branches of rights (civil/political and social/economic) and development. It would also ensure that the Bank does not get "left behind" by other agencies in the international system.

Once again, the real problem for Mr. Johnson was practical – how to get colleagues, borrowing governments and the Bank's Board to buy into such an approach. Unlike other UN agencies of bilateral aid agencies, he said, the Bank does not have a diplomatic arm which allows it to challenge governments, and that governments would not accept any challenge to their sovereignty. "It won't wash."

If the Bank wants to advance such arguments, said Mr. Johnson, it will need to use other allies in the international system with a more formal mandate for human rights. Even consultations with civil society had been difficult, he said. The Bank had organized 32 consultations with 1,000 indigenous representatives during the redrafting of a new Bank policy on indigenous peoples. Still, the indigenous felt dissatisfied and under-represented. This, he said, pointed to the need for new institutions better able to handle such consultations, or a radically new approach to consultations.

Mr. Johnson did, however, suggest that the Bank' Operations Evaluation Department might be an appropriate forum for conducting human rights assessments of Bank programs and projects. This has long been a demand of human rights organizations. One questioner, from Friends of the Earth (USA), said assessments would allow for much better engagement by civil society in the borrowing countries and also a more public appreciation of the trade-offs involved when the Bank makes a loan.

Mr. Johnson did not rule this out, although he said it would have to be acceptable to the Bank's Executive Board. "Would it (the Board) be interested? I don't know. I just don't know."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.