Institute for Policy Studies and Amazon Watch were invited by the Machiguenga Council of the Urubamba River (COMARU) to be present as independent observers at the Inter-American Development Bank’s Public Consultation on Peru’s Camisea Gas Project held in the community of Camisea on August 12, 2002. As observers, neither NGO took part in the consultation. The following evaluation represents a summary of observations documented.
As there are no formal IDB policies on procedures surrounding public consultation, criteria to evaluate the IDB consultation were drawn principally from the 1996 IDB paper: “Community Consultation, Sustainable Development and the Inter-American Development Bank. A Concept Paper”, by Norman Schwartz and Anne Deruyttere. This document, posted on the IDB website, presents a framework for discussing community consultation in the context of Bank financed operations. Other evaluative criteria were drawn from World Bank and IFC documents.
Key observations include:
· No prior information about consultation reached communities;
· No culturally appropriate mechanisms for participation;
· The taking of photographs by company sponsors of all participants who asked questions contributed to an atmosphere lacking in trust and confidence;
· No clear dissociation between the IDB and project sponsors;
· No mechanisms for evaluation or feedback about the consultation;
· No maintenance of communication with local communities after consultation;
· No clear indication of how the IDB would integrate community concerns into the Bank’s decision-making process.
1) Lack of Prior Information and Preparation
Adequate efforts to ensure that information reached local communities in Lower Urubamba prior to the consultation were not in evidence.
Schwartz and Deruyttere state that information sharing is an important first step in the consultation process – “consultation presumes dialogue, and productive dialogue is based on access to relevant information” (1996:6). Yet, local communities was supplied with relevant information:
· The document “Plan de Consulta y Participación Pública Como Parte del Análisis Ambiental y Social del Proyecto Camisea Por Parte del BID y la CAF”, disseminated electronically in early July to Peruvian NGOs and indigenous organizations outside the project area, was not distributed in the Lower Urubamba area where there is no access to the internet.
· Institute for Policy Studies and Amazon Watch visited 5 communities in the Lower Urubamba region prior to consultation (8-12 August). Only one of these 5 communities – Shivankoreni – possessed a document by the IDB informing them about the public consultation, which was received on August 11, 2002, one day before the event.
There was no evidence that the IDB took necessary steps to ensure that local communities were on an equal footing to Bank representatives in terms of preparedness.
· Communities of the Lower Urubamba region had no prior experience of engagement with a multi-lateral development bank before the IDB consultation in the area, yet no preparation was given by the IDB to build the capacity of communities to participate meaningfully in the Bank consultation. The IDB did not ensure that independent advisors or consultants were available to local communities prior, during and following the consultation to strengthen their engagement with the Bank.
2) Impediments to Open Dialogue
A two-way, meaningful dialogue between the Bank and local communities was not established during the consultation. Effective, culturally appropriate mechanisms for participation were not employed and a clear dissociation between the IDB and project sponsors was not achieved. Photographing and filming by Pluspetrol of each participant were not conducive to establishing trust.
· The question and answer format used prevented any spontaneous exchange of views that could have led to open dialogue. Questions were answered in groups, and space was not given to participants to respond to answers given to their questions. The moderator did not ensure that all questions were answered and initially allowed written questions to be passed directly from participants to IDB staff, allowing them to delegate questions to project sponsors’ or the government. No techniques were used for enhancing community participation as recommended by Schwartz and Deruyttere.
· Contrary to direction provided by Schwartz and Deruyttere on the need for clarity of roles during consultations, the role of project sponsors and their relationship with the IDB were ill-defined. The project sponsors’ function in organizing logistics, accommodation and refreshments for the Bank’s consultation was problematic and prevented a much-needed dissociation between the IDB and the companies. By working together with project sponsors in the organization and realization of the consultation, the Bank undermined the independence of its own stance vis-à-vis the communities and thus impeded open dialogue with local stakeholders.
· By deferring to the project sponsors or Peruvian government representatives for responses to issues raised by community members, the Bank did not adequately assume its responsibility to provide stakeholders with information about the IDB’s specific and independent role in the project. Lengthy presentations and responses by companies and the Peruvian government limited time for community input.
· Although the vast majority of participants were indigenous, Bank staff did not make use of any culturally appropriate communication or participative techniques beyond the presence of a Machiguenga interpreter. Bank staff impeded indigenous participation by not taking into account either traditional means of transmitting knowledge and opinions or historical mistrust of outsiders. Hence an atmosphere that might have permitted indigenous participants to dialogue openly with the Bank was never achieved. As stated by Schwartz and Deruyttere (1996:12), without adequate social-cultural analysis, community consultation is apt to be mere rhetoric.
· The taking of close-up photographs by a Pluspetrol representative of each participant who verbally asked a question and the prolonged zooming and panning techniques and evasive camera angles of a Pluspetrol videographer prevented an atmosphere of trust and confidence from being established. In Peru – a country with a recent history of human rights violations – such practices warrant particular concern.
3) Need for Ongoing Communication Ignored
Evidence was not present of either formal Bank mechanisms or informal efforts by Bank staff to maintain open two-way channels of communication with local communities.
Shwartz and Deruyttere state that continuous open dialogue with affected communities is essential (1996:6) to achieve meaningful consultation. Yet, channels for continued two-way communication between the Bank and Urubamba communities were not identified during the consultation in Camisea.
· Contact details for the IDB were not divulged;
· None of the IDB staff present identified themselves as a point of contact within the Bank should communities have further questions or require information from the IDB;
· No reference was made to any future consultation by the Bank in the Urubamba area or of any return visit to the area by Bank staff;
· The Bank did not take advantage of mechanisms such as community advisory panels to ensure a steady flow of information from local communities.
4) Absence of Mechanisms for Evaluation
IDB staff did not identify mechanisms for evaluation or feedback about the consultation from participants.
5) Failure to Identify Mechanisms for Integrating Community Concern into Bank Decision-Making Process
No indication was given of how the IDB will take community concerns into account in the Bank’s decision-making process. Bank staff failed to explain adequately the Bank’s project evaluation process.
Appendix, October 2002
Almost three months after the IDB consultation in Camisea, the local indigenous organization COMARU and indigenous advocacy organization CEDIA both active in the project area and present at the consultations have received no communication from the IDB since August.
For further information, contact:
Janet Lloyd, Ph.D., Anthropologist, Amazon Watch
Tel: (310) 456-9158
Nadia Martinez, Institute for Policy Studies
Tel: (202) 234 9382
