Indigenous Peoples fall backwards in the Realigned IDB

Realignment: Gender and Diversity Unit

In the realignment of the Inter-American Development Bank, what was known as the Indigenous Peoples and Community Development Unit was repackaged and folded into a new Gender and Diversity Unit (GDU). In the detailed IDB organization chart (published July 2007) the Unit is invisible.  Civil society pressed for the IP Unit to be reinforced as a fourth Division within the Social Sector, but instead indigenous issues are now demoted and mixed within a Bank that touts its credentials for social inclusion[1]. This is only the first of several indicators demonstrating the lack of importance given to indigenous peoples’ issues, following the realignment.

Since October 2007, the GDU has been headed by Maddalena Pezzotti. Originally from Italy, Pezzotti comes with a strong background in gender issues. Prior to joining the IDB she worked in Kosovo with the United Nations’ Peacekeeping Operations. Anne Deruyttere, her predecessor was an indigenous people’s expert and for Pezzotti it is her first experience working at the IDB. A woman with a strong, solid background in gender issues faces significant challenges, as she explains “one of our biggest challenges is to create a cohesive team that can work together”. The GDU consists of nine staff; including indigenous peoples, afrodescendants and disabilities related-issues experts. Under the new IDB structure, there are four indigenous specialists and two part time including regional and headquarters staff that have been folded into the overall GDU. Gender is a new component to the GDU, and so far, unlike indigenous peoples’ issues, the IDB has yet to develop a gender strategy or policy. In contrast, there already exists a developed strategy and operational policy on indigenous peoples, which legitimizes the argument for promoting indigenous peoples to either its own unit, or at the very least, providing adequate staff and resources to effectively implement the already established policies and strategies.

The realigned IDB that has emphasized empowering the regional offices and a reflection of this is the presence of the Bank in Peru, and soon to be present indigenous peoples consultants in Guatemala and Brazil.

A source close to the IDB’s Indigenous Peoples work explains that the “new Bank” has realigned the social issues by undercutting the overall budget for indigenous peoples from 1.5 million to 200.000 which has led to a new prioritization of the objectives of the indigenous projects. This shows a weakening commitment to the Indigenous Peoples work.

Operational Policy

“It’s a beautiful creation but in order to create the conditions the approval of the Policy is not enough: we need financial and human resources that today do not exist”[2]. Pezzotti is fully aware of the fact that in order to implement a potentially successful tool, the necessary resources and conditions need to be put into place. The Operational Policy was approved over two years ago, in October of 2006, and is a tool that has been available, but barely used by the Bank  According to Perafan, “it was a long and complicated process that lasted over two years, multiple consultations were carried out and it was difficult to reach an agreement, the indigenous peoples were not happy with the end result but for them it’s never enough”

Pezzotti believes the Operational Policy is an excellent tool created with good intentions. However, she admits that “with two staff people on indigenous peoples it cannot be implemented, this policy needs to be mainstreamed into the Bank and we need to have people on the ground.” The lack of human resources seems to be a recurring obstacle for the GDU.

Rigoberta Menchú, Premio Nóbel de la Paz y candidata presidencial indígena y Luis Alberto Moreno, presidente del BID

Although “social inclusion” was the focus of the IDB’s flagship economic report in 2007, the Bank has worked harder at orchestrating the symbolism of indigenous rights rather than investing in them.  Few heard much if anything about these features of the IDB’s relationship with Guatemala (past or present) from Rigoberta Menchú, Nobel laureate and indigenous Presidential candidate, as an invited speaker in a staged dialogue with President Moreno on the first day of the 2007 Annual Meeting in Guatemala.  Even when prompted with direct questions about the hypocrisy of IFI double standards for indigenous people, Menchú said little to clarify the relationship between the country’s tragic treatment of indigenous people and sustained IDB loans.  In many ways, Menchú avoided the opportunity to challenge the IDB and push the Bank to live up to its rhetoric on indigenous people.  Conveniently for the IDB, the dialogue was empty of any substantive discussion of indigenous rights and mirrors a somewhat similar discussion of inclusion within the Bank[3].

The 2007 portfolio of indigenous-related projects suggest that the total amount lent or granted by the IDB, according to the figures on its website, amounts to less US$50 million, an insignificant percentage compared to the $9.6 billion the Bank lent overall for that same year. During Moreno’s tenure as President of the IDB (since Oct. 2005), the Bank has approved less than $150 million in operations designed to address indigenous issues (or less than 1% of the total approved operations during this period[4].

The vast majority of IDB operations favoring indigenous people (also labeled social inclusion, cultural tourism, identity protection, ethnic trade, etc.) are small grants.  Fewer than ten loans out of approximately 200 were approved by the IDB that fully or partially address indigenous issues under President Moreno. 

Why is the IDB mapping Indigenous Peoples?

Photo: Asociación Civil Labor

Impactos en la biodiversidad y tierras indígenas, Camisea, Perú

In the IDB portfolio there is one project that stands out. Though accounting for only $US150, 000, it has the potential to have significant, positive or negative impacts on indigenous peoples.The Socio-Cultural Assessment and Mapping for Indigenous Peoples and IIRSA was approved in 2006 and the IDB went through difficult negotiations with the Istituto Socio Ambiental (ISA) of Brazil to reach a contractual agreement to execute the project[5]. It was not until January of 2008 that ISA started working on this project that presumably seeks to map of indigenous peoples that could potentially be affected by the IIRSA projects.  The stated objective of the project is “the development of a GIS mapping of indigenous peoples, territories, issues, and opportunities, as well as the development of a proposed methodology for socio-cultural assessment, impact mitigation and development opportunities for indigenous peoples potentially impacted by IIRSA projects.” This project marks a precedent for the IDB given that for the first time in its history, another organization (and in this case a regional non-governmental organization) will be co-owner of the end result. 

With IIRSA almost 40% implemented, a comprehensive study of the impact on indigenous people should have been done prior to the infrastructure initiative’s launch.  The project profile that should be made available upon Bank approval according to IDB Policy, the document has so far been made public.

There is little doubt that the indigenous mapping project is a potentially positive response to critics of IIRSA, yet raises certain questions about the Bank’s role in light of the realignment and recent violation of indigenous rights in recent infrastructure projects such as Camiseas, Peru LNG, Santa Cruz-Puerto Suarez Highway, and others.  Will this indigenous mapping exercise serve indigenous defense of their collective rights or inform investors about potential social and political risk?