On the history of the evolution of international human rights law, see HumphreyJ., “The International Law of Human Rights in the Middle Twentieth Century,” in The Present State of International Law (International Law Association, 1973). For a useful introduction to some of the themes developed here, see V. Nanda, “Development and Human Rights: the Role of International Law and Organizations,” in Shepherd and Nanda (eds), Human Rights and Third World Development (1985); and Rural Development and Human Rights in South Asia, Report of a Seminar in Lucknow, India, 4–9 December 1982 (ICJ and Lucknow Human Rights Institute, 1984). For “evidence” of the growing awareness and human rights concerns of IDAs, see Winegard Report, For Whose Benefit, Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on Canada's Official Development Assistance Policies and Programs, May 1987; Simard-Hockin Report, Independence and Internationalism, Report of Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Canada's International Relations, June 1986; Norwegian White Paper No 36, “On Certain Major Questions Related to Norwegian Development Assistance;” H. Kjekshus, “Development Aid and Human Rights: Some Observations by the Norwegian Ministry of Development Cooperation,” 1987; and V. Tomasevski, “Human Rights Standards in Development Aid: Donor Policies,” Prepared for ICLD Seminar on International Development Agencies, Human Rights and Humane Development, (University of Windsor, May 1988). There has been surprisingly little attention to the development of strategies to adapt and use human rights law at grass-roots levels, as political and “legal resources,” empowering people who have been harmed, or put at risk, in very tangible ways by development programs. On this approach, see J. Paul and C. Dias, “Developing Law and Legal Resources for Alternative, People-Centered Development” in Bryde and Kubler (eds) Die Rolle des Rechts im Entwicklungrozess (1986); and J. Paul and C. Dias, “Developing Human Rights for Human-Needs-Centered Development,” Prepared for International Conference on Human Rights Education in Rural Environments, Lagos, 1985. Published in Hunger Notes (World Human Education Service, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1986). Much has been written about the “Human Right to Development”. For a recent instructive review, see P. Alston, “Making Space for New Human Rights: The Case of the Right to Development,” Harvard Human Right Yearbook Vol. 1, No. 3, 1988. Surprisingly few discussions have focussed carefully on the actual text and impact of the 1986 UN Declaration or the central thrust of the Secretary General's report on “The International Dimensions of the Right to Development as a Human Right” (E/CN: 4/1324) (January 2, 1979) which is an important part of the history of this “right”, or on “development” as a human right which (like all human rights) empowers people to exercise rights—in this case, rights in relation to specific development projects, and which obligates development agencies to respect and promote those rights.
2.
Many of the more notorious risk prone World Bank projects (e.g., Polonoreste, the Narmada basin dams, the Indonesian Resettlements) are vividly portrayed, and many human harms documented, by the camera in the film “Price of Progress”, produced under the auspices of Survival International (London) in 1987. S. Kothari, “Ecology vs. Development: The Struggle for Survival.” A chapter in Dembo et al (eds) The International Context of Rural Poverty in the Third World: Issues For Research and Actions (International Center for Law in Development, 1986); and Report of Seminars on Legal Services for the Rural Poor and Other Disadvantaged Groups, Jakarta, January 1987. Rajpipla, December 1987 (Geneva: ICJ, 1988). The long quote in the text is from C. Dias and J. Paul, “Developing Legal Strategies to Help Combat Rural Impoverishment: Using Human Rights and Legal Resources,” a chapter in Dembo et al (eds) op cit. On harms wrought by dams in the Philippines, see e.g., P.L. Bennagen. The quote is from R. Ayres, Banking on the Poor: The World Bank and World Poverty (1985). The impacts of Indonesia's “Transmigration Program” (projects to relocate thousands of landless Javanese people to the “outer islands”) are reported in The Ecologist, Vol. 16, No. 213, 1986. These projects have, without doubt, inflicted devastating harms on forests and environments, indigenous “tribal” peoples and the settlers themselves. They have been supported by the World Bank and other Western IDAs, and the failure to build human rights protections into project agreements has clearly contributed to serious violations of basic rights on a massive scale. A vast body of material has also chronicled the harms to people wrought by “green revolutions” and “modernization” of agriculture projects. On the Philippine experience, see C. Espiritu, “Transnational Agribusiness and Plantation Agriculture: The Philippine Agriculture,” in Dembo et al, op cit, E. Feder, Preverse Development (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1983). The report to the British Parliamentary Human Rights Group on the CDC financed plantation schemes is A. Dubs, and C. Moynihan, The CDC and Mindanao (London: Report for the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, 1983). This is an extensive, careful document which has been widely circulated but never published as far as we know. See also B.M. Rich, “Multilateral Development Banks, Environmental Policy and the United States,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1985 for discussion of the impacts of commercial tobacco production schemes in Africa on small farmers, environments, local food and household energy (firewood) supplies, and on women farmers generally. The Indian Express of February 3, 1988, contains a very grim story of the suicides of small farmers caught in hopeless debt as a result of being caught in a “putting out” type cotton growing scheme financed in part by IDAs. It illustrates the risks inherent in these projects. For harms to people created by some other kinds of “modernization” projects, see Hunger Notes (Newsletter of the World Hunger Educations Service) Vol. 13, No. 9–10, 1988, especially the impacts of cattle ranching in Botswana. The impacts of Nigerian “irrigated farming” projects are discussed in various papers in M. Watts, (ed), State, Oil and Agriculture in Nigeria, (1987). See also S. Reutlinger, “The Nutritional Impact of Agricultural Projects,” Chapter in J. Gittinger et al, (eds), Food Policy: Integrating Supply, Distribution and Consumption (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) on “food impacts” of various kinds of projects. Projects to aid “mechanization” of agricultural production and processing may often harm distinct groups of people: this is perceptively documented in World Bank “The Aga Khan Rural Support Program in Pakistan: An Interior Evaluation,” World Bank Operations Evaluation Study (1987) but, the “human rights” implications of the findings of that study are not discussed. Another interesting report by CGIAR deals with the “gender impacts” of the vast amount of high cost agricultural research supported by the Bank (and other donors) via the CGIAR network of international research institutes. The report shows the neglect of small farmer household production, particularly the food production which is usually the domain of women in Africa and parts of Asia. Again the “rights issue” implicitly raised are ignored. There has, however, been recognition in some quarters of the Bank of the need to provide legal protections to the victims of harms inevitably caused by high-risk projects (e.g., infrastructure and modernization projects. See M. Cernea “Non Governmental Organizations and Local Development,” paper prepared for International Symposium on Social Development Yokohama (March 1988); C. Escudero, “Involuntary Resettlement in Bank-Assisted Projects: An Introduction to Legal Issues,” World Bank Legal Department, 1988; and I. Shihata, “The World Bank and Human Rights: An Analysis of the Legal Issues and Record of Achievements,” paper prepared for International Third World Legal Studies Ass'n Panel on the World Bank and Human Rights, January 1988.
3.
Of course an immense body of literature (e.g., case studies, surveys) is available to study the difficulties and harms which so often attend “rural development,” “small farmer” and other projects aimed at communities of the rural poor. The need for “participation” is a theme repeatedly underlined. Several Bank sponsored studies document and illuminate the harms and frustrations which occur when “participation” is lacking, or when it is “cosmetic” rather than real: see M. Cernea, Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development (published by OUP for the World Bank, 1985); and J. Paul, “The World Bank, Human Rights and Development: Some Obligations of the Bank,” paper delivered at Annual Meeting of Canadian Association of African Studies, Edmunton, May 1987. For some other very useful studies of the various dynamics functions, roles and values of “participation,” see R. Chambers, Rural Development: Putting the Last First (London: 1984); D.C. Korten and R. Klauss, (eds) People-Centered Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, (1984); A.O. Hirschman, Getting Ahead Collectively: Grassroots Experience in Latin America (1984); and Md. A. Rahman, “The Roles and Significance Participatory Organizations of the Poor in Alternative Strategies of Development,” (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Third World Legal Studies.) For urban projects see L. Salmen, Listen to the People: Participant Observation of Development Projects (published by OUP for World Bank, 1987); and P. McAuslan, Urban Land and Shelter for the Poor, International Institute for Environment and Development, 1987. It is, perhaps, extraordinary that while so much attention has been paid to “participation,” so little has been paid to the rights of participation and to the obligations of developers to promote rights of participation through legal rules governing projects. The work of Cernea, for example, seems sensitive to these needs, but he is not a lawyer, and no one in the Bank has yet made the vital connections to law. The same observation can be attributed to numerous studies dealing with distinct kinds of rural or small farmer agricultural development projects. For example a Bank sponsored study by J. Gorse, and D. Steeds, “Desertification in the Sahelian and Sudanian Zones of West Africa,” World Bank Technical Paper No. 61, 1987 of strategies to promote community-based efforts to protect African environments threatened with degradation emphasizes the critical role of participatory “community control” over projects. So do Bank sponsored studies of experience with rural roads, see C. Cook, H.L. Beenhakker, and R.E. Hartwig, “Institutional Considerations in Rural Roads Projects” World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 748, 1985. So do studies of projects to provide credit to small farmers, see J.M. Lieberseon, A Synthesis of AID Experience: Small Farmer Credit, 1973–1985 (AID Evaluation Special Study. No. 41, 1985); technical assistance to small fisherman, R. Pollnac, “Social and Cultural Characteristics in Small Scale Fishery Development” in M. Cernea (ed) (1985); and irrigated farming projects, B. Bogadion, and F. Korten, “Developing Irrigators Organizations: A Learning Process Approach” M. Cernea, ibid. A number of World Bank financed studies have been directed towards the pathologies which regularly afflict the administration of rural development programs and usually result in harms to project affected people. The following is a familiar refrain: “As things stand, therefore, the bureaucracy [i.e., the national agencies managing projects] has no great need to take account of the rural poor in its procedures and decisions except to the extent they represent a political force. The poorer farmers’ experience with government is largely negative.” This study goes on to discuss the need for “participation” in project “procedures” including participation in control of: (1) “agendas”; (2) budget processes; (3) personnel review; (4) procurement priorities; and (5) access to information. Once again the rights of “poor farmers” to these procedures and, the legal implications of the recommendations urged, is completely ignored. For some graphic illustrations of the kinds of discrimination and corruption which result from lack of participatory procedures to impose accountability to poor farmers, see P. Clough, and G. Williams, “Decoding Berg: The World Bank in Rural Northern Nigeria,” in Watts op cit, note 3, reporting on the administration of a Bank-financed “fertilizer for farmers” projects in Northern Nigeria. The above are simply illustrative of phenomena which are surely well known to all who study IDA supported “rural development” projects. The lawless character of these projects—as far as “rights” are concerned—is simply the norm.
4.
While many IDAs now manifest a real interest in their human rights obligations, progress towards formulating meaningful policies and “law” governing agency projects has been slow. There appears to be a dearth of IDA sponsored literature concerned with analyzing experience and formulating concrete strategies to put projects under human rights law. The World Bank, for example, spends a tidy sum sponsoring much interesting research; many studies focus on projects and their administration; but none listed have any human rights focus, see “The Twelfth Annual Review of Project Performance Results,” A World Bank Operations Evaluation Study, 1987. A notable exception to the above is Escudero op cit, note 3, analyzing needs and legal strategies to protect rights in land by people put at risk by projects which produce displacement. See also Shihata op cit, note 3. The difficulties of changing patterns of behavior, processes and operations to reflect new concerns in a large organization like the Bank (or FAO, AID etc.) is interestingly discussed in J. Horberry, “The Accountability of Development Assistance Agencies: The Case of Environmental Policy,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1985, which focuses on the failure of IDAs to implement their own policy goals in respect to environmental concerns. The development of IDA standards, processes and accountability rules to reflect their human rights obligations is a virgin field. For a useful description of how the Bank develops, manages, audits and evaluates projects, see E. Baum, and S. Tolbert, Investing in Development: Lessons of World Bank Experience (OUP for World Bank, 1985). My text uses the environmental standards, procedures and guidelines set out in the Bank's operations manual as a basis for the human rights proposals offered. See also “Environmental Policies and Procedures of the World Bank,” Office of Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Projects Policy Dept, World Bank, May 1984. For good examples of the kinds of work which needs to be done in this field, see M. Cernea, “Social Issues in Involuntary Resettlement Processes: Policy Guidelines and Operational Procedures in World Bank Financed Projects,” World Bank, December 1987; and Escudero, op cit, note 3. On the crucial role of NGO relations to rural development projects, see Cernea, op cit. On the problems of mobilizing grass-roots NGOs, see Paul and Dias, op cit, note 1, and International Commission of Jurists, op cit, note 2.
5.
The questions considered here need more extended analysis. Mine disagrees (I think) with that of the Bank's distinguished General Counsel and Vice-President (see Shihata 1988). Dr. Shihata seems to admit the Bank's obligation to promote and protect “social and economic rights” but seems to argue that promoting “political” rights would constitute a form of “political interference” forbidden by the Bank's Charter. I believe this argument is flawed because it overlooks: (a) the indivisibility of human rights (one can never promote economic rights unless one recognizes political rights), and (b) when the Bank itself engages in (or abets) activities which affect the “political” rights of its particular people, their rights of “participation”, the Bank, like any other actor, is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of conduct which violates the rights of others; thus, while the Bank certainly should avoid any general effort to interfere with political or constitutional system of a country, it must insist that rights are respected in relation to the projects it agrees to fund; (c) I believe the Bank is aware of this need, now (see Cernea 1988), and I believe a careful reading of the historical context of the Bank's Charter plus an historical study of the ways in which—and the extent to which—the Bank has imposed conditions governing policies and procedures to be followed in respect to project loans will support my interpretation of the Bank's Charter—the Bank has generally demanded acceptance of all kinds of conditions as part of the loan agreement. For elaboration, see Paul (1987) (World Bank paper). It is clear that the Bank has, through its various policy statements, laid down standards, objectives and conditions to be followed in the design and implementation of rural projects. See its 1975 “Policy Statements” on “Rural Development” and on “Land Reform,” Land Reform, 1975; and Rural Development Sector Policy Report, 1975. More recently of course the Bank has joined the IMF in insisting on administrative reforms and other policy changes as a condition for aid in coping with debts and related problems. See also UNICEF, The State of the World's Children (UNICEF, 1988), the Bank is discussed here, but similar considerations apply to other IDAs.
