10/29/14

Inspection Panel Investigation Report and Management’s Response to the Inspection Panel 

Investigation Report on “Kenya - Natural Resource Management Project”

October 29, 2014

U.S. Position

The United States welcomes this opportunity to discuss the Inspection Panel’s report on the 

Kenya Natural Resource Management Project and the Management Report and Recommendation 

(MRR). In light of the ongoing review of the World Bank’s safeguards policies, along with 

changes to the Bank’s operational structure with the shift to global practices, the United States 

takes the opportunity presented by this report to reaffirm our strong commitment to the Bank’s 

oversight and accountability mechanisms, which are integral for development effectiveness and 

giving voice to the most vulnerable. Over the last year, the Panel has worked to improve its 

engagement with Bank Management and it is critical that Management respond in kind by 

constructively addressing the Panel’s findings.

The United States supports the Panel’s findings of Management’s noncompliance with 

regard to institutional analysis, involuntary resettlement, and the customary rights of indigenous 

peoples. The United States appreciates the Panel’s finding that no evictions were directly 

supported as part of the Natural Resource Management Project, but also agree with the Panel that 

serious process and substantive breakdowns occurred during project design and implementation. 

The United States notes the Panel’s finding that the Bank did not fully appreciate the 

incongruity between the Kenyan Forestry Service’s (KFS) – and its predecessor’s – mission and 

certain aspects of the project’s development objectives. The introduction of forest comanagement practices with indigenous peoples, a goal of both the project and the KFS, required 

strong capacity building of the KFS in order to decrease the risks of evictions in these sensitive 

areas while working collaboratively with indigenous persons’ and strengthening the 

understanding of their rights. While the original project did include activities meant to build 

KFS’s capacity, a more thorough analysis during preparation could have highlighted the 

agency’s focus on compliance and enforcement, thereby allowing the Bank to foresee the 

possibility of involuntary resettlement and implement appropriate mitigating measures.

The United States also notes that the Panel highlighted the differences between project 

documents, which included frameworks to address eviction risks, and Management’s position 

that no resettlement was planned under the project. Even if it were the case that the Bank did not 

foresee resettlement as part of the project, this experience again points to the importance of 

strong project preparation as well as monitoring during implementation. The United States also 

questions the processes that allowed the Bank to enter into legal agreements without a proper 

understanding of its obligations. This is especially true concerning the ambitious indigenous 

peoples planning framework, which, among other things, necessitated the 2011 restructuring.

While the United States acknowledges the steps undertaken by the Bank to develop a 

process framework to protect the customary rights of indigenous peoples, the United States notes

the Panel’s finding of a lack of follow through in its implementation. Given the harms suffered 
10/29/14

by the requestors, the United States urges the Bank to continue to play a constructive role in 

developing an equitable and lasting solution. The United States believes that the proposed highlevel colloquium could be useful, but, by itself, is likely not sufficient to address this challenging 

situation. The United States encourages Management to explore additional ways in which it can 

play a supporting role in the ongoing discussions between the Government of Kenya and the 

Sengwer people.

Finally, as with the case of the Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project, the United 

States expects to see in each MRR a consolidated, detailed, time-bound action matrix, with 

clearly assigned responsibilities, as well as a detailed roadmap for periodic reporting to the 

Board on the progress of such actions. These elements of an MRR are critical for the clarity of 

the Panel process and for supporting the Board’s oversight role.