Suits and Savages
Script
31’37
Jan 2001
Part One
10’00’07
Pt. 1 v/o 1:
The Bengal Tiger is being driven to extinction in the wild.
It’s clear that radical conservation measures are needed if they are to survive outside of zoos.
Public pressure is growing to change the way international development is shaped by agencies like the World Bank. In response, governments have poured billions of dollars into a little known aid fund called the Global Environment Facility, or GEF. It funds projects that are meant to be at the cutting edge of conservation, made in partnership with local communities, and that provide an example for the World Bank to follow.
To see how such global ideals relate to local realities, we travelled from a tiger conservation project called Ecodevelopment in the forests of southern India, to Washington DC where the GEF works from inside the World Bank headquarters.
The journey starts as we show the GEF’s promotional video in one of 58 indigenous settlements inside Nagarhole National Park,
01’20
GEF Video Soundtrack:
‘Poverty causes millions to over-exploit nature,
while uncontrolled growth sometimes ignores environmental safeguards.
Our air and water are poisoned,
Animals and plants face extinction
We must therefore take up the challenge,
fight climate change,
protect our plants and animals.
The future health of the world depends on every one of us.
The Global Environment Facility,
Caring for the Planet.
01’53
Kenchaiah:
This is like a drama.
It’s not real.
Not real like life,
growing up free in the forests.
Title:
Suits and Savages
02’23
Kenchaiah:
From the time the government got money from the GEF
They told us we’d get many things when we leave this place.
02’33
Somayamma:
The government men said
“if you don’t leave the forest,
we’ll throw you out,
we’ll shoot you down.”
02’45
Kenchaiah:
We have not utilised any Ecodevelopment money.
02’55
PK Sen:
There is a competition
here in India
between human being and tiger.
Human population has doubled in the past 25 years.
Therefore something has to be given to the villagers
For their own sustenance
which reduces their pressure on the forests.
That was the concept of Ecodevelopment.
03’11
Pt 1 v/o 2:
The basic idea of the project is to keep animals inside the park
and people outside.
03’23
Balachandra:
Some of the people in the village
They’ll be selling the forest produce to far off places,
and making their livelihood.
If at all we provide them with an alternative livelihood,
Using these funds
03’42
Cheloraj:
India Ecodevelopment project,
1997-98
03’50
Balachandra:
It is they alone have to tell us
what is good for them,
and how they can benefit,
and what is the role of the people to be played
in the protection of the National Park
He is the president, not chairman
of the India Ecodevelopment project
of this village.
So these people will sit together and decide
Who should get what.
04’18
See this is the plan of this village, got it.
This plan was approved from Washington.
So we’ll go to the shopkeeper now.
We have financed him 1,800 rupees,
To purchase these commodities
.
So by that his economic standard has increased now.
We have a lot of influence on the minds of the people.
We can tell them to say ‘don’t go inside the park.’
04’53
Pt1 v/o 3:
Out of earshot of the officials, some landless women in the village took a different view of Ecodevelopment.
Other woman:
Out of 40 families,
One woman got a sewing machine.
Sidamma:
Welfare schemes only benefit the powerful people in the village.
Government men don’t let us in the forest.
They offer us benefits instead
for one year, two years, five years,
but what do we do after that?
05’30
Other man:
At that side of the road is the park
Cheloraj:
This side is the village
Balachandra:
I’ll show you, we are going.
We will be improving the tourism facilities for the people,
and we want that tribal people should be involved in tourism also
People in the park, basically, they are deprived of the basic amenities.
As and when they come out to the periphery of the park,
they’ll eligible for getting all the benefits of the Ecodevelopment Project.
06’07
Kenchaiah:
They just say they’ll do things for us.
They never do.
My name is Kenchaiah.
I’m an activist for a human rights group here in Nagarhole.
Just as the forest has grown here
We have grown here.
We’re not from the cities.
We used to eat roots, fruits and greens more than rice.
This is sollehannu
You can eat this fruit.
We get honey for 3 months of the year.
That’s why we’re called the Jenu Kuruba (Honey Gatherers)
The forest animals’ relation to us is divine, godly.
They are not frightened of us
We are not frightened of them
07’41
Somayamma:
My name is Somayamma
I work for the Council here in the village.
I live here with my family.
My daughter’s family lives opposite.
We have to struggle to live here
Government men tell us ‘don’t go inside the forest, you are robbing it.’
But they are frightened that we will see what is happening there.
Had we been doing this robbery from the time of our forefathers
How would this forest still exist?
08’24
Kenchaiah:
We used to live 30km further inside the forest.
That place is called Kai Mara.
Forest officials work there now.
Since we came out of the forest,
modernisation means traditions are not being followed.
For example our Kolata dances don’t take place so regularly.
Since we came to this place we are forced to work as coolies,
And whenever we get money we buy rice and rations to eat.
09’35
Somayamma:
The adivasi (indigenous) people are impoverished
While those forestry people are living here
Making more money.
That’s why they chase poor people like us out!
09’58
Balachandra:
Most of them are addicted to alcohol
Cheap rate of alcohol
Spirit.
And they don’t save anything; this is the main thing,
tribals don’t have a habit of saving anything.
Government is very much concerned with the improvement of the tribals
This why we have another project
A rehabilitation project also
Culture, tradition and all,
Can be maintained.
10’26
Here we are in a construction site now
We’ve been constructing 50 tribal houses
This is the living room-cum-hall.
Here is the bedroom,
And this is the bathroom.
Still the doors have to be fixed now.
These people should also be enjoying the benefits,
and enter the mainstream of the society,
should become decision makers
should become policy makers
they have been exposed to the mainstream of the society
so they are not adivasis (indigenous people)
you cannot call them adivasis
what is adivasi?
You can call some tribes in Andaman as adivasi
Who have not seen the light of the development
Got it?
11’18
Somayamma:
We came together and organised ourselves,
we said, ‘we’re not going to give away this place
whatever happens.’
11’32
Kenchaiah:
They told us not to keep animals,
But they are driving around in big vehicles
We went to Delhi to talk about these things.
Part 2
11’47
Pt 2 v/o 1:
Kenchaiah was one of 3 adivasi from Nagarhole forest who made the 2 day train journey to Delhi for the Global Environment Facility’s first Participants’ Assembly.
12’00
Before the big meetings began there was a day of consultations where activists could challenge the World Bank and the GEF directly over their backing for projects like Ecodevelopment.
Kenchaiah:
The city looked very nice
But only for one day
The environment there is not like ours.
I couldn’t eat the food.
There was so much smoke from the cars,
My nose got blocked.
It was good that I went to the meeting.
It was about the World Bank
12’45
Passing woman:
Hey, how are you!
Pt. 2 v/o 2:
With $2.7 billion of new money pledged, and 128 governments represented,
the Assembly was the GEF’s chance to establish its place on the international stage.
13’01
Kenchaiah:
Those big people spoke among themselves
We didn’t understand.
After we left the meeting some things were explained to us.
Neena Singh:
They all talk in jargon
Which is very familiar to each other
But totally incomprehensible to outside
But maybe that’s the agenda.
13’20
Hutton Archer:
Since the NGOs are such an important part of the body of the GEF,
Then we all listen
13’33
Supriya Akerkar:
‘Listening to local communities’
that’s a procedure by itself that the GEF follows.
Now, here we have people from a project site
Who are saying that this is not our project,
we have not been consulted,
this project is going against our basic livelihoods.
13’46
Robin Broadfield:
This is not going to be an easy issue to deal with,
However much we prepare it
however much we consult in the process.
This was one of the most expensive and participatory projects,
in terms of preparation,
that the Bank and/or the GEF have ever been involved in.
Hutton Archer:
Sunita Narain
14’18
Sunita Narain:
You talk about participation without giving people control.
The problem with the project is World Bank and the Forest Department.
They are two partners, who are both extremely arrogant,
and they are two partners who treat forests as their fiefdoms.
14’22
Robin Broadfield:
That really is a gross misstatement
of the efforts that we have made to listen and to respond.
Villagers are not required to do anything under this project.
They are given the opportunity, if they wish to take it.
14’38
Sunita Narain:
The government believes,
and to a large extent I should imagine the World Bank believes
that they are doing something radically different.
I don’t believe so.
The approach was to say that people were the ‘biotic interference’
They were ‘not needed’ in the protected areas,
And therefore they needed to be removed.
Robin Broadfield:
Let me just remind you that the preparation of this project as actually conducted by an Indian NGO professional institute.
15’11
Shekhar Singh:
I was the person who the Government of India invited to prepare the India Ecodevelopment Project.
My institute and I, we did it.
You can’t sit in Delhi in air-conditioned comfort
and say no no no
but you must live in the jungle the way people have lived in jungles.
And if they want to change,
All you have to do is make sure that the transition process is as ecologically friendly as possible.
There was an ideologicical criticism of people who were opposed to institutions like the GEF and the World Bank
And I said to them that
‘look, I can get the World Bank to use some of its’ funds progressively’.
if it wasn’t used for Ecodevelopment
It’s a country committed fund,
it would go to build a dam.
15’49
William Appiah:
This is what the people are saying
That ‘in our community, the project is simply just not working
And therefore, something needs to be done’
And it is my hope that something will be done.
16’03
Robin Broadfield:
It is frankly ridiculous to say that the project is not working.
And we can’t possibly know, at this stage,
whether it’s working or not.
Sunita Narain:
You are creating a new process of alienation
And you’ve only made the words more sophisticated,
the actions don’t meet the words.
Thank you.
16’24
Neena Singh:
I think it was very clear that the agenda is very limited
It is to celebrate 5 years of the GEF,
not to change its framework
and think about where its really going wrong
and make bold decisions.
It was too much money wasted
on an event that was not so impactful.
16’45
Kenchaiah:
It’s not fair if they make decisions outside of here
that we have to give away the forests.
17’00
Neena Singh:
People in the local areas are the ones who are most concerned about their local environment.
It’s the bigger fishes who move from place to place
with no roots anywhere are the ones that are creating the problems.
17’14
Sunita Narain:
Increasingly it is a centralised, or a faraway bureaucracy
Which makes decisions
Which affect the lives of local communities.
They have the maximum stake in their environment
but they have the least amount of ability to make those decisions.
17’39
Shekhar Singh:
There is a total
Living in a different world.
Part 3
17’55
Pt. 3 v/o 1:
Across the world in Washington DC, it’s business as usual at the World Bank headquarters where the Global Environment Facility’s secretariat is based.
It was time to explore how 100s of projects across the world are funded from Washington in the name of the global environment, given the disparities between glossy project descriptions and realities experienced on the ground.
We went to DC with a video letter from the people of Nagarhole forest, addressed to the staff of the GEF and WB.
Despite promising to be completely open about their work, GEF secretariat staff were advised not to appear in this film. Others however, were less reticent.
18’37
Robin Broadfield:
I’m Robin Broadfield
I got embroiled in that debate, trying to defend the Bank
and get the facts on the table about the extensive consultations which we and the Indian authorities had in fact undertaken in the Nagarhole area,
but recognising perhaps that we hadn’t done as comprehensive a job of consultation with the communities as perhaps we could have done.
I’ve had quite a long career here in the Bank,
I’ve been a Bank staff person for almost 14 years now,
I’m a kind of middle person between the client and the GEF institutions.
But I do get to enjoy the very pleasant experience of living and working in Washington, here at the World Bank headquarters.
[on phone]: That’ll work fine. All right then.
You change the development path that countries follow
by offering the incentive of GEF financing
on top of a World Bank loan
to redesign a project in a way that is more globally environment friendly.
19’45
Bob Watson:
The challenge is,
how can governments
get to grips with reducing our pressure on the global environment,
while continuing economic development
the GEF is actually a very important instrument.
It’s got a modest amount of money,
the current replenishment was $2.4 billion over a four year period,
to address issues of climate change and biodiversity
that are very very large in magnitude.
20’13
Robin Broadfield:
So I see the GEF as really a facilitator
in a locally managed process of consultation, negotiation,
hopefully reaching agreement
and then implementing a collaborative way of managing these natural resources.
20’32
Video Letter Title: ‘A Letter to the GEF and the World Bank’
Kenchaiah:
What we have to say is
We are the people who live in the forest
Somayamma:
If they get the money,
it’s like throwing rocks on our heads
20’52
Kenchaiah:
Because you are asking us to leave the forest,
and only then offering us help,
we don’t want any of your help.
Laxmi:
Even if we’re going to be killed
we’re not prepared to move from this place
21’12
Subramanian:
We don’t know what the World Bank will do next.
What we do next depends on that.
Somayamma:
Let us work together,
Us and the Forest Department
Then we can save the forests.
We want that duty!
21’32
Robin Broadfield:
Well, um, I think there’s a very heartfelt need
on the part of the people featured in the video here
to work with their local authority, their Forest Department
to find collaborative ways to better manage the forest resources.
And that’s exactly the philosophy that the GEF is encouraging.
22’02
Pt 3 v/o 2:
So why can’t scientists and bureaucrats working for the GEF bridge the gap between this philosophy and the reality of situations like that in Southern India?
22’13
Charles Chipato:
The GEF, at the moment
seems to be driven more by the donor community.
It is young,
and there has not been enough time
to penetrate its structures right up to the bottom.
Take the World Bank for instance.
It’s basically more tuned to address issues with big corporations…
22’33
Korinna Horta:
As soon as this idea of some kind of global fund came up
the World Bank readily offered itself
Having been so heavily criticised
for their environmental and social record
the Bank saw this as an opportunity
to actually obtain somewhat of a ‘green veneer’
by being the main player in the GEF
and it is the main player:
it is the administrator of the GEF Trust Fund
it is the main implementing agency
and it houses the GEF Secretariat.
23’13
They have to move money.
It has to make projects and approve them quickly
so that at next replenishment negotiations the GEF can ask for more money.
because should they ask for less,
that wouldn’t make it look good.
The gap between international policy makers
and local people who are directly affected by GEF projects
is enormously great.
23’39
Pt. 3 v/o 3:
As we saw in Delhi, some activists and NGOs do try to bridge that gap – not always successfully
Pt. 3 v/o 4:
So whose voice is heard at the global level,
in the GEF’s democratic governing Council?
23’57
Asda Jayanama:
It’s quite unique you know
it’s quite unique compared to the other organisations I’m used to.
During the time I’ve been here
I don’t think there has been one occasion when we had to have a vote,
So it’s more business-like and we want to move ahead and it’s more… more… more technical.
24’18
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen:
It is very attractive to individuals in search of a global role
Which may not actually change the world very much
but while you are acting there, you know,
you feel you’re somebody…
and you’re running the world.
In practice there’s a lot of politics going on
But it’s not admitted.
24’39
Pt3 v/o 5:
The GEF aspires to be ‘non-political’,
preferring to emphasise its scientific and technical expertise…
24’48
Robin Broadfield:
We’ve got a very wide range of technical skills we can draw on
and if we have a.. can present a sound rationale for the agreed incremental costs we’ve estimated
then the Secretariat and the Council are usually willing to endorse that.
25’03
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen:
These civil servants not only become politicians
They also have to defend these institutions
Their freedom of criticism,
and suggesting alternatives
Is pretty limited
25’19
Robin Broadfield:
The message I would send back is that
the World Bank has heard your concerns,
we fully understand them
we will respect them
in the way that we work with the Indian authorities in implementing the Ecodevelopment project.
We simply have to sit down
with the various interest groups in our client countries
and try to find a way forward.
25’43
Bob Watson:
I do believe what we’re seeing in the World Bank is an evolution
Where the clients themselves are starting to want cleaner projects.
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen:
A lot of international bodies are looking for new tasks
And the environment being an important global one
Is starting to attract all international organisations
They all want to have part of the environmental cake, if you like
As globalisation continues,
And as more responsibility is handed in some areas
to these international bureaucracies,
We’re going to have to have a closer look at them.
How many countries have the power
To exclude these global interests?
Not too many countries left I think…
Part 4
26’33
Pt 4 v/o 1
The World Bank‘s Independent Inspection Panel investigates disputed projects. It is the last legal recourse for affected communities.
26’45
Jim McNeill:
We received a request
from a group of tribal people in Nagarhole
who claimed that the Bank had violated a number of its policies.
We went out to the field
And we did our own assessment
27’09
Kenchaiah:
They were nice people.
We invited them here to this settlement.
27’20
Jim McNeill:
We broadly found merit in the complaints.
Kenchaiah:
They said ‘you stay here’
The government is wrong to be forcing you out’
27’42
Jim McNeill:
Lack of consultation, prior consultation with the tribals,
Failure to develop and indigenous peoples’ plan
which is required by Bank policy,
the absence of choice
as to whether tribals can remain in the park or not…
28’00
Pt. 4 v/o 2:
Despite this damning report, the Bank’s governing Board has decided not to act. In fact, most Inspection Panel reports are rejected, and Bank policy on indigenous peoples is being watered down to avoid it being broken so often.
28’15
Neena Singh:
There are lots of people inside the World Bank
who are keen to change the way things happen
Some feel helpless
I think some feel helpless because a large part of the World Bank is dominated by economists who don’t want to change the way things work
28’28
Korinna Horta:
As long as you do not change these institutional cultures
Even if you have a number of you know, sympathetic social scientists on board
will in the end not do you much good.
28’40
Somayamma:
Now they tell us ‘we have come for the development of your people’
They should come and consult our leaders, our gods, and our people
About using the money
Then it will be useful to us.
28’58
Neena Singh:
I think that’s the way GEF should be moving towards
Less bureaucracy, less paperwork, less institutional arrangements
More direct responsibility and resources to the people
29’11
Pt. 4 v/o 3:
Decentralising control to local communities would make global conservation fairer, but such democracy would challenge the very power structures underlying the Global Environment Facility.
29’23
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen:
To disguise political decisions as non-political is not only dishonest
but it will also alienate many people
and in the end will reduce the credibility of these international organisations
29’42
Title:
Since this film was shot,
activists have been arrested and
some adivasi have been violently evicted from Nagarhole forest,
the Ecodevelopment project continues,
and the tiger population remains in decline.
29’50
Eshoda’s Song:
The forest is like my own child
Whoever comes, whatever comes, I will guard it
The land which is full of brave and courageous people
I will live with the same courage
I will live with the same courage forever.. forever…
30’21
(titles) Credits:
Made By: Dylan Howitt and Zoe Young
Additional Camera/Sound: Paul Durman, Steve Phillips
Additional Editing: Steve Phillips,
Graphics: Jes Benstock, Jonathan Cocking
Translation: Samuel Jesupathan, Madhu, Anitha.
Eshoda’s Song:
Whatever comes, whoever comes, we will face it
30’59
(Titles) Thanks to:
Kazimuddin Ahmed
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Buddhakattu Krishikara Sangha
Centre for Science and Environment
Coorg Organisation for Rural Development
DEED
Equations
Korinna Horta
Kusum Karnik
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Parivarthana
Simone Parrish
Alister Scott
Neena Singh
And everyone else who helped along the way
(Title) Made with financial assistance from:
Economic and Social Research Council –
Global Environmental Change Programme
31’25
Title:
Copyright Conscious Cinema, 2000.
www.consciouscinema.co.uk