81903 THE INSPECTION PANEL Annual Report JULY 1, 2012–JUNE 30, 2013 Contents 5 Letter of Transmittal Cases with Investigation Recommended 6 Foreword by the 22 REQUEST NO. 81 Dean of the Board India: Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project 8 Message from the Panel 25 REQUEST NO. 84 Kenya: Natural Resource Management Project 10 The Panel: Description 12 The Panel: Background and Cases with Pending Decisions Foundation 28 REQUEST NO. 82 14 The Panel: News and Ethiopia: Protection of Basic Services Phase II (Additional Financing) and Developments Promoting of Basic Services Phase III Projects 16 Panel Cases: Lessons of 30 REQUEST NO. 86 Institutional Significance Malawi: Second National Water Development Project (Additional Financing) Cases with No Investigation Recommended 34 REQUEST NO. 83 Afghanistan: Sustainable Development of Natural Resources (Additional Financing) and Sustainable Development of Natural Resources II Projects 36 REQUEST NO. 85 Egypt: Giza North Power Project Requests Received in Previous Fiscal Years and Completed Fiscal Year 2013 40 REQUEST NO. 71 Lebanon: Greater Beirut Water Supply Project 42 REQUEST NO. 78 Kosovo: Kosovo Power Project (Proposed) 44 REQUEST NO. 79 Kenya: Energy Sector Recovery Project 46 REQUEST NO. 80 India: Improving Rural Livelihoods through Carbon Sequestration 48 Awareness-Raising and Outreach Activities 52 Summary of Inspection Panel Cases (Table 1) 62 Geographical Distribution of Requests for Inspection (World Map as of June 30, 2013) 64 Figures Inspection Panel Process Requests Received as of June 2013 Policy-Related Issues Most Often Raised in Requests as of June Financing for Project Subject to Requests as of June 2013 Percentage of Requests Received per Region as of June 2013 Distribution of Requesters as of June 2013 Appendixes 68 Appendix I Biographies of the Panel Members and the Executive Secretary 70 Appendix II Guidance on How to Prepare a Request for Inspection 72 Appendix III The Inspection Panel Budget (July 1, 2012–June 30, 2013) Panel team meeting with affected people in Project area, Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project, India. 4 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Letter OF TRANSMITTAL The Annual Report of the Inspection Panel for the period July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, has been prepared for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA) in accordance with the 1993 Resolution establishing the Panel. It is being circulated to the President and to the Executive Directors of these institutions. The Panel wishes to thank the Executive Directors for their steadfast support for the Panel. The Panel also thanks Dr. Jim Kim, the President of the World Bank Group, and Senior Management for their continued professional interaction with the Panel as an essential element in ensuring accountability and transparency by the World Bank. The Panel is also grateful for the trust of civil society and for its efforts in promoting accountability and transparency. The Panel expresses special appreciation to Requesters and to Bank staff for their constructive engagement during the course of its work. INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 5 Foreword BY THE DEAN OF THE BOARD The late Ibrahim Shihata, one of the main architects the institution and affected people to participate more of the Inspection Panel, wrote: “No standing mech- effectively in the development process, it enables bet- anisms independent from the governing organs of ter outcomes for the broader mission of the Bank. such organizations have hitherto existed to hear and The Inspection Panel is an important element of investigate complaints by private entities or groups managing risks that inevitably materialize as a func- affected by their activities regarding deviation from tion of Bank operations. A development institution their established policies and procedures—not, that whose mission is to reduce global poverty needs to is, until the World Bank established an independent take risk in a manner that does not lose sight of its inspection panel in 1993.” policy aspirations. That is, the Panel appreciates the The World Bank Board of Executive Directors estab- importance of taking appropriate risks that comple- lished the Inspection Panel on September 22, 1993, as ment innovation and the Bank’s development goals. a citizen-driven accountability mechanism. The World Bank was the Indeed, by providing effective access to recourse, the Panel con- first international financial institution to be explicitly accountable tributes to these efforts by mitigating the risk borne by the most to its intended beneficiaries. A new doctrine in international law vulnerable parties. was established to contest the decisions of an international orga- The late Lewis Preston, President of the World Bank Group, nization through a clear and independently administered process. said, “The Inspection Panel is part of the Bank’s evolving policy Almost twenty years later, the Inspection Panel continues to of improving its effectiveness, strengthening accountability, and work for and complement the Board and Bank Management’s deci- increasing openness—all of which augment the Bank’s capacity sion-making process by providing them with independent opinion to fulfill its goal of helping to improve peoples’ living standards about compliance with the Bank’s policies and procedures. It offers throughout the world.” a checks-and-balances mechanism for the Board. Additionally, this As our President Dr. Jim Kim is embarking on a new era of “one process provides an opportunity for the Bank to learn about prob- World Bank Group” with a new vision of growth and shared prosper- lems and mistakes it has made and initiate subsequent remedial ity for all, the Inspection Panel remains an important independent action. In essence, the Inspection Panel process can lead to better accountability mechanism. There is much to learn from the work and projects through responsive actions to prevent, mitigate, or com- investigations of the Panel. It will continue to operate and develop pensate for harms; it can also catalyze opportunities for broader as an important accountability mechanism that supports the institu- institutional reform that would affect future project decisions by tion as a whole and the countries and peoples with which it operates. drawing on lessons learned from the collaborations among all par- ties involved. More generally, the Inspection Panel plays an important role in Mr. Merza Hasan supporting the Bank’s mission of fighting poverty and promoting Dean of the Board of Executive Directors sustainable and inclusive development. By providing a platform for World Bank Group 6 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Panel team with Sengwer people in Embobut Forest, Natural Resource Management Project, Kenya. INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 7 Message FROM THE PANEL Changing to Preserve In September 1993—twenty years ago—the Executive Board of Part of this is finding what works best for people. No doubt, griev- the World Bank took its landmark decision to establish an in- ances will be many, and being responsive to community concerns dependent mechanism to address complaints against projects is essential to the Bank’s mission. Citizen-driven accountability is financed by the Bank. This established a new doctrine for inter- also part and parcel of the participatory development that the national development institutions: giving the right to citizens and Bank espouses. communities to also have recourse, in addition to member state The Panel is a small, but certainly not insignificant, part of this governments. The idea was simple: harm caused by projects may development landscape. The underlying idea that led to its cre- relate to lack of compliance by the Bank with its own policies and ation is as valid today as it was twenty years ago. The right of affect- standards. The Bank had developed a core body of operational ed communities to hold the Bank accountable must be preserved, policies—commonly referred to as the Safeguard Policies—with and it must remain easy for people to exercise this fundamental the explicit intent of minimizing, mitigating, or, in the best-case right. At the same time, we are equally convinced that unless we scenario, avoiding adverse impacts on communities and the are prepared to adapt the Panel process to the changing context, environment. The Board agreed that the Bank can be held ac- this right may lose value for complainants as well as for the institu- countable for upholding these policies. The Inspection Panel and tion. The effectiveness of the Panel process has to be judged by its the Panel process outlined in the Board Resolution thus became outcomes in terms of redress for affected communities and lessons the new mechanism for responding to concerns from affected learned for the institution. communities. To this effect, the Panel has pursued a number of initiatives over The twentieth year of the Panel’s operation gives us an oppor- the year in review. The systematic consultations that were conduct- tune moment to reflect on the past as well as ponder the future. ed externally and internally in connection with the updating of its But 2013 is more than an anniversary year for the Panel. It is also Operating Procedures provided the Panel with invaluable insight a year of change for the Bank. Simultaneously, we are in a time of into areas of our work that need strengthening. Many also argued major changes in the international development architecture com- that the Procedures themselves are legalistic, complicated, inac- pounded by global economic uncertainties, multipolar political cessible, and antiquated. forces, and new civil society movements challenging the powers The Panel recognizes the need for improving the interaction that be in unforeseen ways. The Bank has reaffirmed that its core with Management. While it is in the nature of a Request for In- mandate is to eradicate poverty and share prosperity, while fully spection that Bank Management is viewed as part of the problem, acknowledging that there is no quick fix. The road ahead will prove Management also has to be part of a solution as well as part of challenging, and the roadmap will have to be continually revisited. any learning. The Panel has consistently encouraged a proactive 8 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 and constructive, rather than a defensive, response from Manage- also form part of the Panel’s initial contribution to the safeguards ment. This is reflected in the way the Panel formulates the Notice review. of Registration, which triggers a response by Management. The While we contributed actively, where appropriate, to ongoing Panel is also seeking ways to encourage early problem solving change processes of the Bank, including the safeguards review, during the Panel process. We have to realize that a compliance our core work continues to lie in responding to requests. In the review by the Panel through an investigation is not always the fiscal year 2012–13 we received and registered six new Requests best nor the only means of accountability. This has implied that for investigation, and submitted Reports on eight Requests to the the Panel has taken steps to strengthen its own assessment of Board, in which we recommended two investigations. complaints at the early stages of the Panel process, including ear- Reflecting back over this caseload, we see that infrastructure lier and more substantive consultations with Requesters, to better and natural resources management continue to be significant. This understand the issues being raised. The update of the Operating is important, with the Bank positioning itself for more investment in Procedures to be concluded in 2013 will reflect these changes. In large infrastructure, not least for energy development, and a great- addition, the Panel will pilot a new approach to respond to cases er focus on climate change. The Panel this year for the first time that are limited in scope and less contentious in a simpler way, received a complaint related to a climate change financing mech- provided there is interest on the part of all key stakeholders to anism being administered by the Bank, where the Panel noted the seek opportunities for early solutions. challenge for the Bank in undertaking supervision and implemen- The Panel appreciates the strong interest expressed by Board tation support where procedures are defined by external entities. members and many external stakeholders to find more effective The Panel itself also experienced some changes. In November ways to distill and disseminate lessons from Panel cases. This has 2012, Zeinab Elbakri replaced Roberto Lenton as Panel member, been emphasized, in particular, in the context of the ongoing re- and in May 2013 Eimi Watanabe took over from Alf Jerve as Chair. view of the Bank’s Safeguard Policies. The Bank wants to become a At the initiative of the Board, the Panel this year started piloting better learning institution. This means also learning from the cases with two full-time members for the purpose of increasing efficiency that people bring to the Panel. We believe that bringing down and effectiveness. some of the tension and adversarial nature of the Panel process will Last, but by no means least, the Panel would like to express its create a better learning environment. In October 2012, the Panel appreciation to all those who have worked with us during the past together with Management presented lessons from Panel cases to year—the Executive Directors and their staff, Requesters, Bank a well-attended Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) Management and staff, and civil society organizations—for the seminar open to all Board members and their staff. These lessons constructive ways in which you engaged with us. Eimi Watanabe Alf Jerve Zeinab Elbakri June 30, 2013 INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 9 THE PANEL Description Who We Are What We Do The Inspection Panel is an independent complaints mechanism for In response to complaints from project-affected people, we have a people and communities who believe that they have been, or are mandate to review projects funded by the Word Bank through the likely to be, adversely affected by a World Bank–funded project. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and Board of Executive Directors created the Inspection Panel in 1993 to International Development Association (IDA). The Panel assesses ensure that people have access to an independent body to express allegations of harm to people or the environment and reviews their concerns and seek recourse. whether the Bank followed its Operational Policies and Procedures. The Panel is an independent and impartial fact-finding body. The This often includes issues such as Panel’s structure and operations further safeguard this indepen- • Adverse effects on people and livelihoods as a consequence of dence from the World Bank management and staff. The Panel re- displacement and resettlement related to infrastructure projects, ports directly to the Board. In addition, Panel members are prohibit- such as dams, roads, pipelines, mines, and landfills; ed from working for the Bank after their terms end. The Inspection Panel process aims to promote accountability at the World Bank, • Risks to people and the environment related to dam safety, use give affected people a greater voice in activities supported by the of pesticides, and other indirect effects of investments; World Bank that impact their rights and interests, and foster redress • Risks to Indigenous Peoples, their culture, traditions, lands ten- when warranted. ure, and development rights; • Adverse effects on physical cultural heritage, including sacred places; and • Adverse effects on natural habitats, including protected areas, such as wetlands, forests, and water bodies. Complaints related to the projects supported by other agencies of the World Bank Group—the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)—are dealt with by the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). 10 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Our Structure The Inspection Panel consists of three members ap- pointed by the Board of Executive Directors for a five- year, nonrenewable term. Members are selected on the basis of their ability to deal thoroughly and fairly with the complaints brought to them, their integrity and independence from Bank Management, and their exposure to developmental issues and living condi- tions in developing countries. Panel Members select the Chairperson of the Panel from among themselves. Current Members. The members of the Panel are Alf Jerve (member since November 2008), Eimi Wata- nabe (member since November 2009), and Zeinab El Bakri (member since September 2012). The members are required to select their Chairperson annually. The present Chairperson is Eimi Watanabe. The Panel Chairperson and From left to right. First row: Panel Members: Zeinab Bashir El Bakri, the most senior non-Chair Panel Member work full-time, while the Alf Jerve, and Eimi Watanabe. Second row: Secretariat staff: Dilya Zoirova, Dilek Barlas, Oriana Bolvaran, Serge Selwan, Peter Lallas, third Panel member works part-time, as the need arises. Tatiana Tassoni, Robert Dickerson, and Mishka Zaman. Former Members. Former members of the Panel are Richard Bissell (1994–97), Alvaro Umaña (1994–98), Ernst-Günther Bröder (1994–99), Jim MacNeill (1997–2002), Edward Ayensu (1998–2003), Maartje van Putten (1999–2004), Edith Brown Weiss (2002–07), Tongroj Onchan (2003–08), Werner Kiene (2004–09), and Roberto Lenton (2007–12). The Panel has a permanent Secretariat. It is headed by Executive Secretary Peter Lallas. The office also consists of Deputy Executive Secretary Dilek Barlas; Senior Operations Officers Mishka Zaman, Serge Selwan, and Tatiana Tassoni; Operations Analyst for Commu- nications and Research Dilya Zoirova; Senior Executive Assistant Ori- ana Bolvaran; and Team Assistant Robert Dickerson. The Secretariat provides operational and administrative support to the Chairperson and Panel members and assists the Panel in processing Requests, conducting investigations, and responding to queries from potential Requesters. The Secretariat also organizes and participates in out- reach activities, seminars, and other events; disseminates informa- tion about the Panel and its activities; and provides general research and logistical support to the Panel members. For its fact-finding and investigations, the Panel hires independent, internationally recog- nized experts to ensure objective and professional assessment of the issues under review. INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 11 THE PANEL r kgr Background dat F unda The Inspection Panel was established by identi- AND cal Resolutions of the Boards of Executive Direc- tors of IBRD and IDA in 1993. In response to MISSION, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITY, AND AREAS OF FOCUS complaints from Project-affected communities, The Panel serves as an independent forum to provide accountability and the Panel is an independent, “bottom-up” ac- recourse for communities affected by IBRD/IDA–financed projects, and to countability and recourse mechanism that inves- address harms resulting from policy non-compliance. The availability of the tigates IBRD/IDA–financed projects to deter- Panel promotes more inclusive and sustainable development by giving Project- mine whether the Bank has complied with its affected people, including those who are often poor and most vulnerable, operational policies and procedures (including greater voice in Bank-financed projects that affect them. social and environmental safeguards), and to Roles, Responsibility, and Areas of Focus assess related issues of harm. Independent fact-finding, accountability, and recourse. In response to com- The 1993 Resolution establishing the Inspec- plaints from Project-affected communities, the Panel independently investi- tion Panel and the subsequent 1996 and 1999 gates whether Bank Management has complied with its operational policies Clarifications to the Resolution can be found on and procedures in projects financed by IBRD/IDA, and whether harm has result- the Panel’s website at www.inspectionpanel.org. ed from non-compliance. Problem solving for affected people. In addition to the Panel’s role in assessing compliance, the Panel process as a whole plays a critical role in helping to re- solve problems facing Project-affected people. Problem solving may occur at various stages: preregistration (affected people must approach Management first); eligibility; investigation; and follow-up. The Panel process places respon- sibility and creates opportunities for Management to take effective responsive actions to address problems. Check and balance for the Board. The Panel provides an independent, techni- cally based check and balance for the Board on situation(s) relating to compli- ance and harm in project operations. Transparency and participation. The Panel promotes transparency in Bank oper- ations through publication of reports and findings, and by serving as the inde- pendent venue for affected people to raise concerns to the highest deci- sion-making levels of the Bank. 12 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 KEY OUTPUTS, PRACTICES, AND ENGAGEMENT WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Key Panel Outputs and Practices Report and Recommendation/Eligibility Reports. The Panel assesses the eligibility of the Request and provides a recommendation on whether to investigate the matters alleged in the Request. The “eligibility” stage includes an initial Manage- ment Response to the Request and yields opportunities for early problem solving. Investigation Reports. It includes the Panel’s independent investigation and fact-finding on Project-level policy compliance and related harm. Findings are reported directly to the Board. Bank Management Response and Action Plan. In response to Panel findings on compliance and harm, Bank Management prepares a Response, which includes actions to address findings. Panel and Management Reports are made available to Requesters, affected people, and the public. Systemic observations and corporate learning. Investigation Reports and Man- agement Responses include observations and lessons learned, which promote corporate learning and transparency through their publication. Public awareness. The Panel produces publications to inform the public of its activities and for outreach (Annual Report, press releases, etc.). Institutionwide incentives and impacts. The availability of the Panel creates incen- tives for the institution to comply with Policies and Procedures, including social and environmental safeguards; supports overall Bank mission to fight poverty; and helps the Bank avoid actions causing reputational risk. The Panel engages with the following internal and external stakeholders: The Board of Executive Directors Management Requesters Authorities of borrowing countries INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 13 THE PANEL News Developments AND New Member of the Inspection Panel: Selection of a New Panel Member to Join on Zeinab Bashir El Bakri November 1, 2013 Zeinab Bashir El Bakri was appointed as a new Member of the As this Annual Report goes to press, a Selection Committee headed Inspection Panel on September 1, 2012. She replaced Mr. Roberto by the Chair of CODE is in the process of identifying and selecting Lenton, whose five-year term expired on August 31, 2012. Ms. El candidates for the third Panel Member post, to be finalized by the Bakri was selected to this position through an international compet- WBG President. The new Member will replace Alf Jerve as of No- itive recruitment process. A short biography of Ms. El Bakri is avail- vember 1, 2013. able on p. 69 Alf Jerve has made major contributions to the Panel, not only as the Chairperson (February 2012 to April 2013) but also throughout Eimi Watanabe Chairs the World Bank Inspection Panel his five-year term. He has introduced greater development perspec- The Inspection Panel is pleased to announce that Eimi Watanabe is tive, as well as rigor and logic, in the way the Panel analyzes and the new Chairperson of the Inspection Panel, effective May 1, 2013, presents its findings and reports. Most important, his consistent em- for one year. Ms. Watanabe replaces Alf Jerve, whose term as Chair- phasis that the Inspection Panel was designed as a grievance redress person of the Inspection Panel ended on April 30, 2013. Mr. Jerve mechanism has influenced the conduct of Panel’s work and directed continues as a full-time Panel Member until October 31, 2013, when the updating of the Operating Procedures (see “Review of Panel his five-year appointment ends. A short biography of Ms. Watanabe Operating Procedures”). is available on p. 68 Test Model Piloted for the Most Senior Non-Chair Panel Member to Serve Full-Time Inspection Panel Member Eimi Watanabe joined the Panel office in Washington, DC, on a full-time basis on February 1, 2013, under a nine-month pilot to test a model of two Panel Members working full- time. Previously, only the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel served full-time while two other Panel Members were engaged based on operational needs. The pilot has been developed in consultation with the Committee on Development Effectiveness of the Board of Directors. Zeinab Bashir El Bakri Eimi Watanabe Alf Jerve The intent of the pilot is to enhance the efficiency and effective- ness of the Panel’s work through more frequent and effective inter- actions with all stakeholders, increased due diligence at the early stages of the Panel process, and reduced time for investigations. After the trial period, the Panel will evaluate the pilot and make fur- ther recommendations. 14 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Review of Panel Operating Procedures The Inspection Panel is reviewing and updating its Operating Proce- dures, which specify the Panel’s operations and practice within the ambit of its mandate. An important goal of the review is to make the procedures clearer and more user-friendly. The new procedures will help foster a Panel process that is focused on results, namely redress to affected communities when warranted and lessons for the institu- tion on application of policy. As a part of the initial review, the Panel conducted targeted consul- tations with Bank staff and Board members, and with various external stakeholders, such as former Requesters, civil society organizations, representatives of other Independent Accountability Mechanisms, members of the academic community, former Panel members, and technical experts who have worked on Panel investigations. The objective of this initial consultation process was to identify areas where the Panel has the opportunity to enhance the effective- ness and efficiency of its operations in the years to come, within its existing mandate. The new procedures will do the following: • Specify what the Panel looks at to determine whether to register a Request and receive a formal response from Bank Manage- ment. • Specify what factors the Panel will assess prior to making its rec- ommendation to the Board on whether an investigation is war- ranted. • Note the scope for solution-seeking by Bank Management built into the Panel process. • Describe how the Panel process fosters interaction among its dif- ferent stakeholders. • Describe ways in which outputs from the Panel process contrib- ute to institutional learning. • Outline measures that reduce the time the process may take. Currently, the Panel is engaged in a process of sharing the draft Oper- ating Procedures for further inputs from Management and CODE members before commencing a period of additional external consul- tations through posting the document on the Web for 60 days. PANEL CASES Lessons OF INSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE The Inspection Panel’s findings provide valuable insight into the ap- Policies. As the safeguard review process was set in motion, a num- plication of Bank policy in pursuit of positive development out- ber of internal and external stakeholders, including members of comes. The Panel works at the intersection of the rights of affected CODE, expressed interest in having the Panel contribute based on communities and the broader development objectives of the Bank, its experience from past investigations. On May 5, 2013, the Panel offering it a unique perspective on the management of environmen- submitted a written statement to the safeguard review and update tal and social risk within the complex environments in which the Bank process to convey relevant lessons learned (for more details see operates. The Panel hopes that its work will continue to contribute to statement here). institutional learning at the World Bank and further the Bank’s efforts The World Bank’s leadership is currently focusing on facilitating to fight poverty and promote shared prosperity. corporate learning across Bank institutions, and the Inspection Panel The Inspection Panel has taken additional steps in recent years to is active in contributing to these efforts. The Panel is uniquely situat- highlight lessons from its cases and work. In some of its investigation ed to offer insight into how accountability mechanisms can contrib- reports, for example, the Panel has included observations on sys- ute to the Bank’s mission and to help manage corresponding risks, temic factors behind its findings on issues of compliance and harm. especially to vulnerable communities and the environment. The fol- In this past year, it has made further efforts to disseminate lessons lowing include observations on general themes of accountability in learned within and outside the Bank. In October 2013, an informal Bank operations, as well as with respect to specific policy themes, meeting of the World Bank Executive Board’s CODE on Insights namely determination of a project’s area of influence, consultation from Inspection Panel Investigations on Systemic Issues was held, with affected communities, managing adverse impacts of land man- with the active participation of Management, Executive Directors, agement projects, and the Bank’s role in project supervision. and Advisors, following presentations by the Panel and Manage- ment. During the same month, the Panel gave presentations at the Civil Society Policy Forum under the World Bank/International Mon- General Lessons on Accountability etary Fund (IMF) Annual Meetings (see also “Awareness-Raising and Outreach Activities.”) The Panel’s work is a testament to the importance of the Bank’s Safe- It is important to note that, just as the interactive Panel process can guard Policies in both protecting the rights of people and the envi- deliver grievance redress through its various stages and not just as a ronment and improving development outcomes. Throughout its result of an investigation, corporate learning can also result from these nearly 20 years of work, the Panel has seen that Safeguard Policies earlier stages and, in particular, from the Panel’s Report and Recom- provide an anchor for these results, with multiple benefits—especial- mendation. While the Panel does not make definitive findings of harm ly for people who may be poor and vulnerable—that help make the and non-compliance at this stage, the Panel’s Observations often sug- World Bank the institution it aspires to be. gest potential issues that may require Management’s attention. Thus, The Panel’s experience illustrates the significance of safeguards the Panel process attempts to deliver results not only through investi- that both substantively and procedurally confirm key principles un- gation but also throughout its process of interaction with the Request- derpinning Bank operations. In line with the commitment of no dilu- ers, Management, and the Board of Executive Directors. tion of established standards, it is therefore important to identify and In addition, while the Panel does not play a formal advisory role acknowledge key principles in the current policy framework that are in formulating Bank policy, on some past occasions it has weighed in critical in recognizing, avoiding, and addressing social and environ- on accountability issues relevant to policy development, including in mental harms; managing risks; and protecting peoples’ legitimate the context of developing the Country Systems Policy and the Pro- rights and hopes in the context of development work. gram-for-Results financing instrument. In this past year, the Panel has Secondly, the Panel’s experience shows the need for clarity of contributed to the ongoing internal review of the Bank’s Safeguard requirements, both for Project-affected communities as well as for 16 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Bank staff. This is a key ingredient for effective policies and account- take into account the impacts of associated facilities. This was ability. To ensure that rights of accountability and recourse remain addressed in the Panel investigation of the South Africa Eskom fully available to affected people, core requirements and principles Project. The effects of induced activities “upstream” or “down- must appear in policy text and not in secondary guidance docu- stream” of the Bank-financed component were addressed in the ments. While the latter are important, they have less weight and investigation of the West Africa Gas Pipeline project. Finally, the visibility than the former. cumulative impacts of investments are not always fully assessed, Thirdly, the Panel notes the significance of active citizen partici- as evidenced by the 2006 investigation of the Pakistan National pation and voice in development processes supported by the Bank. Drainage Project. Panel cases demonstrate that people’s rights and access to informa- Increasing the clarity and scope of the definition of “area of influ- tion, to meaningful consultation, and to recourse, as enshrined in ence,” both in Bank policy documents and operations, will contrib- Bank policies, are fundamental building blocks of accountability. ute meaningfully to successful anticipation and mitigation of adverse Finally, the Panel recognizes that risk-taking is an essential part of consequences of Bank-financed projects. development work, and that the Bank needs the latitude to take the risks that come with innovation and high potential reward opportu- nities. Effective Safeguard Policies provide means to identify and Consultation manage risks, and citizen-driven accountability helps to enable risk-taking by providing a safety net for affected people in the event Several Bank policies contain requirements for consultations with that risks materialize and result in negative impacts. stakeholders affected by a Bank-financed project, and the prepara- tion and conduct of consultations are frequently the subjects of complaints received by the Panel. Panel investigations have found, Project Area of Influence however, that affected communities are sometimes left out of the consultation process. This issue has been particularly critical among The Panel has encountered several cases where the delineation of indigenous communities, leading to lack of recognition of custom- a project’s area of influence, required under Bank Policy on Envi- ary land rights. Consultations also sometimes fail to involve all rel- ronmental Assessment, was inadequate. The Panel has found the evant segments of the local community, such as traditional and in- definition of the project’s area of influence restrictive and narrow, formal leaders. Exacerbating these problems has been a lack of with a resulting inadequate assessment of environmental and so- documentation on the outcomes of consultations, which is espe- cial risks, and hence inadequate identification of ways to prevent, cially important in documenting community support among indig- minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts. The Panel enous groups, as well as inadequate efforts to provide information has noted that determination of a project’s area of influence must in local languages. “follow” impacts in the short-, medium- and long-term, and not In the Panel’s experience, local consultations are a critical tool to be guided by a limited geographical understanding of “physical identify and manage the unintended consequences of development footprint.” projects. Greater institutional emphasis and more robust execution Recent investigations have observed a number of important of these consultations, in turn, will not only raise the quality of the project impacts that have not been included in the delineation of Bank’s work but also allow it to better manage higher levels of risk. the area of influence. These include impacts in regions beyond Continued input from the local community can provide a safety net the area acquired for a project, such as buffer zones, and second- for vulnerable populations and should thus be regarded as a core ary impacts, such as changes in traffic flow and risks of flooding complement to innovation and risk-taking. caused by road embankments. Bank teams do not always fully INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 17 Panel team meeting with Sengwer people in one of the glades in Embobut forest, Natural Resource Management Project, Kenya. 18 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Land Management Supervision Over recent years, a growing number of complaints related to land Under its supervision policy, the Bank is responsible for ensuring that use and management projects have revealed policy lacunae sur- borrowers comply with their obligations relating to the Bank’s Safe- rounding impacts from land management activities. The Bank’s Safe- guard Policies. While it is the responsibility of the borrower to imple- guards Policies do not clearly delineate how to address consequenc- ment World Bank–funded projects, the Bank remains accountable es for people’s livelihoods from changes in rights and access to land through its supervisory responsibilities. Many Panel investigations and land-based resources. Notably, Bank Management issued a have invoked the supervision policy because harm to communities Guidance Note on Land Use Planning stating that the Involuntary most often materializes during the project implementation stage. Resettlement Policy does not apply to such projects. Panel investiga- Panel investigations have found inadequate execution of super- tions indicate that this policy gap has led to problems in the field, visory responsibilities on the ground. Lack of compliance has been including inadequate assessments of social, political, institutional, evidenced by inattention to warning signs, lack of follow-up on and legal risks during preparation of projects that deal with land pre-identified problems, and failure to identify and adequately re- management (e.g., mapping, titling, classifying, zoning, and regulat- spond to issues as they emerge. ing land use). These failures appear to be exacerbated by a number of organi- Panel investigations point to actions that can be taken to address zational challenges that may be addressed to facilitate improved this issue. Broadly, these reports indicate the importance of paying project supervision. Lack of funds for supervision and insufficient greater attention to changing social, political, institutional, and legal safeguards or social specialists among the supervision teams often circumstances in land-related projects. More specifically, the Panel pose major obstacles. High staff turnover, inadequate coordination believes that such projects may warrant application of the policies between project management and supervision, and heavy work de- on Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples, given the im- mands on task team leaders negatively affect the quality of supervi- pacts they can have on local communities. Additionally, projects in- sion as well. The lack of Bank field presence often further compli- volving Indigenous Peoples merit more careful assessments of the cates efforts to effectively oversee projects on the ground. social and legal importance of collective titles for certain groups Addressing these organizational challenges within the context of the than has been observed in the field. The longer-term impacts of land Bank’s role as a supervisor may enable teams to more effectively titling for tenure security of poor and marginal communities warrant uphold Safeguard Policies, and in turn protect the rights and inter- more thorough consideration as well. ests of affected communities. INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 19 A view of the Alaknanda River in the Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project, India. Cases WITH INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED REQUEST NO. 81 India: Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project REQUEST NO. 84 Kenya: Natural Resources Management Project INDIA: VISHNUGAD PIPALKOTI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT REQUEST NO. 81 • IBRD LOAN NO. 8078-IN O THE REQUEST sustainable hydropower projects. VPHEP is an environmental cate- n July 23, 2012, the Inspection Panel received a gory A project. The Borrower is THDC Limited and the Guarantor is Request for Inspection concerning the Vishnugad the Government of India. Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project (VPHEP) which is being The major features of the VPHEP are a diversion dam, a 13.4 km constructed in Uttarakhand State on the Alaknanda River. headrace tunnel, an underground powerhouse and a 3 km tailrace The Request was submitted by residents of Chamoli and Tehri tunnel that will return the diverted water back to the Alaknanda District in Uttarakhand, some of whom have requested confidentiality. River. The Requesters stated that they do not want the river to be The Project is under implementation, but major construction ac- diverted or controlled in any way. They raised several social, cultural, tivities have not been undertaken as the contract for the main civil and environmental concerns regarding the project, and related is- works has yet to be awarded. However, some construction activity sues of compliance with Bank policies and procedures. The Request- and resettlement has taken place, and the Project has received its ers believe that the free flow of the Alaknanda River holds immense Stage II forest clearance from the Ministry of Environment and For- spiritual and aesthetic value for them, which, in their view, has not ests, thus clearing the way for the civil works contract award. been estimated by Project authorities. In addition to raising issues related to religious and cultural concerns, the Request expressed MANAGEMENT RESPONSE concerns about the impacts of the Project on local water sources Management submitted its Response to the Request on October and water quality, loss of biodiversity and other environmental 24, 2012. Management stated that the VPHEP is a “relatively mod- harms, impact on livelihoods and health, economic issues, and gen- erate risk project from an environmental and social perspective,” der concerns. Requesters also raised concerns about the lack of and that it believed the Bank followed the applicable Guidelines, transparency and consultations and the absence of adequate analyt- Policies, and Procedures. According to Management, the Project ical studies on the issues in question. involves a “low level” of resettlement comprising 265 families, mainly from the acquisition of privately owned land for road ac- THE PROJECT cess, project office space, switchyard, and quarry areas. Though The VPHEP is a proposed 444 megawatt run-of-the-river hydro proj- the reservoir will submerge 21 hectares of land, this will not cause ect on the Alaknanda River, which is a tributary of the Ganges River. any displacement as the reservoir will be situated in a deep gorge, The Project seeks to increase the supply of electricity to India’s na- and no houses, structures, agriculture land, or common infrastruc- tional grid through the addition of renewable, low-carbon energy. It ture will be affected. also aims to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Tehri Hydro Management stated that the Request for Inspection is largely Development Corporation (THDC) with respect to the preparation about the Requesters’ opinion on what they consider to be the and implementation of economically, environmentally, and socially real impact and value of large hydropower plant development in India. Management noted that while this is part of the important ongoing national debate in India, it goes beyond the underlying project and its compliance with Bank Policies and Procedures. PROJECT INFORMATION Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project Management further stated that a primary concern that has Region: South Asia emerged in the debate on hydropower development on the Gan- IBRD Loan: US$648m ga River and its tributaries is the issue of ensuring adequate envi- Board Approval Date: June 30, 2011 ronmental flows, which in the case of the Project has been raised Closing Date: December 31, 2017 from 3 cumecs to 15.65 cumecs after a Government-commis- sioned review proposed a revision. Management also stated that 22 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 A view of the Alaknanda River in the Project. the impacts referred to in the Request have been taken into INVESTIGATION account in the course of Project preparation and are being The Panel investigation is ongoing, and a Panel team visited India addressed through the appropriate mitigation measures. More- from April 22 to May 2, 2013. In addition to meeting relevant stake- over, Management noted that many of the construction-related holders and World Bank staff in Delhi, the Panel team spent most grievances raised in the Request cannot be related to the Project, of its time in the Project area in Chamoli District where it met with since project construction has not yet begun. Management stated the Requesters, other villagers, Project authorities, and other inter- it is committed to ensuring that the Project complies with relevant ested parties. environmental, health, and safety regulations of India, and the The Panel’s investigation is focusing on the key concerns of Bank’s Operational Policies and Procedures. local-level harm or potential harm raised in the Request and the ad- equacy of preventive and mitigatory measures outlined in Project THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION documents as required by Bank Operational Policies and Proce- A Panel team visited the Project area in November 2012 and issued dures. The investigation will also assess whether Bank Management its Report and Recommendation to the Board of Executive Directors complied with applicable policies and procedures during Project on November 26, 2012. The Panel determined that the Requesters preparation with respect to broader issues of potential harm as they and the Request met the technical eligibility criteria set forth in the relate to the analysis of the Project area of influence, cumulative im- Panel’s governing framework, and that the claims raised issues of pacts, and project externalities. The investigation will take into harm and non-compliance of a serious character. In light of these account any efforts made by Management to resolve outstanding concerns, the Panel recommended an investigation. resettlement related to the Project and concerns raised by the Re- On December 18, 2012, the Board of Executive Directors ap- questers in this regard. proved the Panel’s Report and Recommendation to investigate mat- ters of policy non-compliance and related harm. The Board decided An initial Investigation Plan has been posted on the Panel’s website. that the investigation would be effective as of March 15, 2013. The Panel intends to submit its Investigation Report by October 2013. CASES WITH INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED • 23 Panel team meeting with Sengwer people in one of the glades in Embobut forest. 24 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 KENYA: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT REQUEST NO. 84 • PROJECT NO. P095050 T THE REQUEST selected gazetted forests; support the effective implementation of a he Panel received the Request for Inspection re- Resettlement Policy Framework; and develop and implement Reset- garding the Kenya Natural Resource Management tlement Action Plans. A subsequent restructuring of the Project re- Project on January 14, 2013. Individuals from Sengwer moved resettlement-related activities from the project objectives communities who “live and represent others who live” in the but included a provision to update the safeguards instruments and four areas of the Cherangani Hills in the western highlands of Ken- documents and improve their implementation to respond to the ya, namely the Kapolet Forest (in Trans-Nzoia District), Talau and needs of Indigenous Peoples in the project areas. The Project as re- Kaipos (in West Pokot District), and Empoput Forest (in Marakwet structured supports preparation and implementation of what would District), sent the Request. The Requesters have asked for confi- be equivalent to Indigenous Peoples Plans, in Kenya, called Vulner- dentiality. able and Marginalized Group Plans. The Request raised a number of concerns relating to land use and access issues, including some concerning human rights viola- MANAGEMENT RESPONSE tions committed against Sengwer communities. The Requesters Management, in its Response, dated March 15, 2013, argued that indicated that they do not feel that they are in an equitable and the eviction described in the Request was not caused, nor sup- fair partnership with the Government of Kenya, nor are they prop- ported, by the Project and was related to issues beyond the Proj- erly involved in decision-making processes and implementation ect. It stated that the Bank helped to address issues raised by the activities. The Requesters claimed that their rights were violated Requesters in a very difficult context and worked with the stake- because they are not being recognized as Indigenous Peoples, holders to support a solution to such issues. Management, howev- but rather as a Vulnerable and Marginalized Group. They argued er, added that the original Project documentation, especially the that this decision was taken without carrying out free prior and Indigenous People Planning Framework, may have raised unreal- informed consultations with them. They also argued that there are istic expectations about the Project’s scope and its capacity to ad- plans to resettle the Sengwer families living in Empoput Forest in dress historic issues of land and the longstanding grievances of a manner that would violate Bank policy. the Sengwer community. THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE PROJECT In its Report and Recommendation, dated May 29, 2013, the Pan- The Management of Forest Resources component of the Project, el appreciated Management’s forthright approach in recognizing which is the subject of the Request, was originally conceived to iden- the Project’s limitations in dealing with the comprehensive resolu- tify partnership models for community participation and benefit tion to land and legacy issues; and the intention of continuing sharing in the forest sector; realign and demarcate boundaries in engagement on these issues; and Management’s responsiveness when reports of forced evictions and harassment began to emerge. However, the Panel determined that some serious issues remained with respect to the application of Bank Policies in rela- PROJECT INFORMATION Natural Resource Management Project tion to evictions and resettlement of affected Sengwer people; Region: Africa the consideration of customary rights of Sengwer people; and the IDA Credit: US$78m consultation of affected Sengwer communities. The Panel recom- Board Approval Date: March 27, 2007 mended therefore that an investigation be carried out. The Board Closing Date: June 30, 2013 of Executive Directors approved this recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Panel posted its Investigation Plan on its website on August 7, 2013. CASES WITH INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED • 25 Gorom refugee camp, South Sudan. Cases WITH PENDING DECISIONS REQUEST NO. 82 Ethiopia: Protection of Basic Services Phase II (Additional Financing) and Promoting of Basic Services Phase III Projects REQUEST NO. 86 Malawi: Second National Water Development Project (Additional Financing) ETHIOPIA: PROTECTION OF BASIC SERVICES PHASE II (ADDITIONAL FINANCING) AND PROMOTING OF BASIC SERVICES PHASE III PROJECTS REQUEST NO. 82 • LOAN NOS. P121727 AND P128891 O THE REQUEST salaries are paid under the PBS Program, have implemented the VP. n September 24, 2012, the Panel received a Request According to the Requesters, as part of the VP, Anuak people are for Inspection related to the Ethiopia: Protection of being forced to leave their ancestral lands through mass evictions Basic Services (PBS) Phase II Project (Additional Financ- under the pretext of providing better services and improving ing) and to the Promoting of Basic Services Phase III Proj- the livelihoods of communities. In reality, they claimed, in the new ect, which form part of the Government’s Protection of Basic sites where they were forcibly moved, the Requesters found infertile Services Program (PBS). land and no schools, clinics, or other basic services. The annex to The Request was submitted by two local representatives on be- the Request invokes Bank non-compliance with respect to the poli- half of 26 Anuak people from the Gambella region of Ethiopia who cies on Indigenous Peoples, Involuntary Resettlement, and Project currently live in refugee camps outside of Ethiopia. The local repre- Supervision. sentatives and the Requesters asked the Panel to keep their identi- ties confidential because of serious concerns about their personal THE PROJECT security and that of relatives in Ethiopia. Due to security concerns the The Project’s objective is to contribute to expanding access and Requesters appointed Inclusive Development International, a non- improving the quality of basic services delivered by subnational governmental organization, as their contact reference. The Request governments in five sectors—education, health, agriculture, water stated that the Requesters have been harmed by the Bank-support- supply and sanitation, and rural roads—while continuing to deep- ed PBS Program as a result of the World Bank’s non-compliance with en transparency and local accountability in service delivery. Sub- its policies and procedures because, in their view, the PBS Program is program A provides for Basic Service Block Grants for recurrent contributing directly to the Ethiopian Government’s Villagization expenditures (salaries, operations, and maintenance) in the five Program (VP) in the Gambella region, launched by the Government basic service sectors, which are disbursed from the federal level to in 2010. The Request maintained that Government workers, whose the regions and from the regions to the woredas (Districts). The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development is the overall re- sponsible agency for project implementation. PBS III is also sup- PROJECT INFORMATION ported by a number of Development Partners including the African Protection of Basic Services Phase II Project Development Bank, the United Kingdom’s Department for Interna- (Additional Financing) tional Development, the European Union, Austria, and Italy. Region: Africa IDA Credit: US$420m PANEL’S ELIGIBILITY PHASE Board Approval Date: February 22, 2011 The Panel received Management Response to the Request on Closing Date: January 7, 2013 November 19, 2012, and the Panel submitted its Report and Rec- ommendation to the Board of Executive Directors on February 8, Promoting of Basic Services Phase III Project Region: Africa 2013. At the closing of the fiscal year, the Board had yet to make a IDA Credit: US$600m decision on the Panel’s Recommendation and Management Re- Board Approval Date: September 25, 2012 sponse, and the Panel’s Report was still not publicly available. Closing Date: January 7, 2018 Gorom refugee camp, South Sudan. 28 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 REQUESTS RECEIVED IN FISCAL YEAR 2012 • 29 MALAWI: SECOND NATIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ADDITIONAL FINANCING) REQUEST NO. 86 • PROJECT NO. P124486 O THE REQUEST AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE n May 22, 2013, the Inspection Panel received a Request for Inspection raising concerns related to the Malawi: Second National Water Development Project (Additional Financing) (SNDWP). The Request was submitted by Citizens for Justice (CFJ) on be- half of other Malawian organizations and on behalf of a number of concerned, potential, and affected residents in areas where the Northern Region Water Board of Malawi has and will install prepaid water meters. Following the receipt of the Request, and at the closing of the Fiscal Year, the Inspection Panel was conducting its due diligence with the Requesters and Bank Management. The Panel is grateful for the cooperation that both parties have extended to the Panel during this period. 30 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Giza North Power Plant seen from one of the farms, Giza North Power Project, Egypt. Cases WITH NO INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED REQUEST NO. 83 Afghanistan: Sustainable Development of Natural Resources (Additional Financing) and Sustainable Development of Natural Resources II Projects REQUEST NO. 85 Egypt: Giza North Power Project AFGHANISTAN: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (ADDITIONAL FINANCING) AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES II PROJECTS REQUEST NO. 83 • LOAN NOS. P116651 AND P118925 O THE REQUEST communities, assessed environmental impacts, and surveyed ar- n December 3 and December 6, 2012, the Panel chaeological finds. received two Requests for Inspection related to the Afghanistan: Sustainable Development of Natural Re- THE PROJECT sources (Additional Financing) and Sustainable Develop- The SDNRP Projects are a part of a programmatic approach to oil, ment of Natural Resources II Projects (SDNRP) from an affected gas, and mining sector development in Afghanistan. The objectives community member and the Alliance for the Restoration of Cultural of both Projects are closely aligned. The Projects’ objectives include Heritage (ARCH). SDNRP aims to develop the Ministry of Mines’ ca- assisting the Ministry of Mines (MoM) and the National Environmen- pacity to regulate mining and hydrocarbon activities, and the Re- tal Protection Agency (NEPA) in “further improving their capacities questers brought complaints against a planned copper mining proj- to effectively regulate the [Government’s] mineral resource develop- ect in the Mes Aynak region of Logar Province. They raised concerns ment in a transparent and efficient manner, and foster private sector that the water usage and waste disposal of the mining operation development.” Project components include, among others, the could damage the water, air, and soil quality in the region, with dele- “completion of the Aynak copper deposit transaction” and strength- terious effects for local communities. In addition, they pointed to ening the capacity of MoM and NEPA for regulation and monitoring problems in the resettlement process, including allegations of land of operations, including implementation of a licensing system, in- value underestimation, incomplete resettlement payments, and poor spection, and contract compliance monitoring functions. In addition, access to and quality of replacement farming land. High levels of lo- SDNRP provides support toward the preservation of Mes Aynak an- cal poverty and a widespread reliance on agriculture contributed to tiquities and support for alternative livelihoods through sustainable concerns that the mining project would harm already vulnerable artisanal and small-scale mining. communities. Additionally, the Requesters were deeply concerned that the mining operation would destroy historic archaeological sites MANAGEMENT RESPONSE in the area, including a Buddhist monastic complex and town site. In its Response, submitted on February 8, 2013, Management clari- Exacerbating these fears were general concerns held by the Re- fied that it is supporting institutional capacity development at the questers that Management had not adequately consulted local Ministry of Mines through technical assistance but not directly financing the commercial mining activities slated to take place in the Mes Aynak region, stressing the need to distinguish between its PROJECT INFORMATION obligations and those of the Government of Afghanistan (GoA). Sustainable Development of Natural Resources Project Emphasizing the extremely difficult country context, including both (Additional Financing) limited government capacity and exceptional security challenges, Region: South Asia Management asserted that it is working to resolve the Requesters’ IDA Credit: US$10m concerns. It noted that the environmental and archaeological assess- Board Approval Date: June 11, 2009 ment processes are still ongoing. In addition, as mining operations Closing Date: May 31, 2013 are unlikely to begin before 2016, there will be sufficient time to Sustainable Development of Natural Resources II evaluate and account for these concerns within the framework of the Project project. Management also stated that GoA is making significant ef- Region: South Asia forts to protect the physical and cultural resources at Mes Aynak, IDA Credit: US$52m disagreeing with the Requesters’ assessment. Finally, Management Board Approval Date: May 31, 2011 recognized initial shortcomings in the land acquisition undertaken Closing Date: June 30, 2016 by GoA and the Mining Company but argued that these issues are being corrected following Bank advice. 34 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Panel team visiting Mes Aynak archeological site. THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION These include creating a standing committee of relevant project A Panel team visited Kabul, Afghanistan, in April 2013, to meet stakeholders in the mining, archaeology, and civil society sectors; with local stakeholders. The Panel noted that both Requesters and conducting a state-of-the art site survey of archaeological depos- Management share common concerns with regard to the mitiga- its; ensuring the quality of expert archeological staffing; and hold- tion of potential environmental harms, the preservation of the ing an advisory meeting of international archaeological and mining physical cultural heritage, and the resettlement of affected individ- experts. Given Management’s commitment, moving forward, to uals. While concerned about apparent gaps between the Bank’s address the Requesters’ concerns relating to resettlement, archeo- standards and the processes of resettlement, consultation, and dis- logical work in Mes Aynak, and mitigation of environmental im- closure of information that have taken place, as well as uncertain- pacts in the upcoming safeguard documents, the Panel did not ties regarding the manner in which the archaeological site will be recommend an investigation into the Project at this time, while not- preserved, the Panel recognized that the key social and environ- ing that this decision did not preclude the possibility of a future mental instruments that will guide project implementation are still claim relating to non-compliance and harm. The Panel submitted in the process of preparation. Following the site visit, the Panel its Report and Recommendation on April 23, 2013. The Board of discussed with ARCH the information it had received about a Proj- Executive Directors approved this decision on May 6, 2013. ect-supported Archaeological Management Plan. ARCH confirmed . that this plan may adequately cover concerns of harm to archaeo- logical finds from the project, with certain important provisions. CASES WITH NO INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED • 35 EGYPT: GIZA NORTH POWER PROJECT REQUEST NO. 85 • LOAN NO. P116194 O THE REQUEST national grid; and a gas pipeline for fuel supply. The plant will be n February 21, 2013, the Inspection Panel received owned and operated by the Cairo Electricity Production Company a Request for Inspection related to the Egypt Giza (CEPC), a subsidiary of the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company. North Power Project (GNPP). The Request was sub- The Project is classified as Category A. The Project includes co- mitted by the Egyptian Association for Collective Rights, financing for the investment component from the European Invest- along with seven other non-governmental organizations, on ment Bank and the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries Fund for behalf of farmers and agricultural laborers from the Alqata and Abu International Development. The Government of Egypt is also con- Ghalib villages in Giza Governorate. The Requesters raised a range tributing funds. of concerns, including allegations that dewatering undertaken for the construction of the power plant had led to a drop in groundwa- MANAGEMENT RESPONSE ter levels, causing wells to dry up and negatively impacting crop Management acknowledged that “limited harm occurred” but production; that the construction of a wall around the plant had stated that each issue raised in the Request is already being ad- interfered with a critical agricultural drainage canal and blocked dressed. Management described groundwater impacts as tempo- sunlight and airflow to their fields; and that tenant farmers who al- rary and narrow in scope. It added that the groundwater table was legedly occupied the plant site had been evicted without compen- completely restored by April 2013 and stated that mitigation mea- sation. The Requesters raised additional concerns about potential sures and compensation packages were offered to affected farm- future harm, fearing that untreated waste disposal would pollute ers. It argued that there is no evidence that the construction nega- irrigation water and harm fisheries, and that transmission line con- tively impacted the functionality of rural drainage canals or struction would result in loss of land. Finally, they complained that exposure to sufficient levels of sunlight of nearby farms. Further- Management had not conducted adequate community consulta- more, Management insisted that pollution levels are being closely tions. monitored, managed, and kept within acceptable Egyptian and Bank standards. Management also clarified that there were no THE PROJECT plans to discharge untreated waste into the Nile River and offered The Project includes development and construction of a 1,500 evidence that no tenant farmers were evicted from the land due to megawatt combined cycle gas turbine power plant using natural gas the project. Finally, Management pointed to significant increases in at Giza North near Cairo; a transmission line to link the plant to the supervision after receiving community complaints in May 2012 and noted that the Grievance Redress Mechanism has recently become fully functional and is positioned to address problems in the future. PROJECT INFORMATION THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Giza North Power Project In May 2013, a Panel team visited Egypt to meet with the Request- Region: Middle East and North Africa ers, and convened with approximately 100 potentially affected indi- IBRD Loan: US$840m viduals. The Panel team also met with other stakeholders, including Board Approval Date: June 8, 2010 government officials, officials from the electricity holding company, Closing Date: December 31, 2016 civil society organizations, and Bank Country Office staff. The Panel 36 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Fishermen community met with Panel team. recognized that the Request raises issues of a potentially serious their dialogue with the objective of arriving at mutually agreed solu- character, including the effects on groundwater from dewatering tions, the Panel did not recommend an investigation at this time. It and the duration and adequacy of remedial measures to prevent loss noted, however, the capacity constraints faced by the Project imple- of income for farmers. The Panel also noted that affected farmers menting unit, which requires urgent attention, notably weaknesses believe the groundwater level has not yet been fully restored and are in information dissemination, especially as regards the Grievance concerned about lack of water in the following season. The Panel Redress Mechanism. The Panel was of the view that the combined noted additional concerns regarding the issues of timely communi- efforts of CEPC Project management and Bank Management provid- cation, consultation, and dissemination of information about the ed sufficient confidence that the remaining issues of harm will be Project. At the same time, the Panel considered that the outstanding redressed in consultation with the affected farmers and communi- issues of harm are limited in scale and complexity, and that they ties. It also noted that its decision not to recommend an investiga- seem to be amenable to being addressed through the mitigation tion did not preclude the possibility of a future claim relating to plans and grievance redress system that are now in place. non-compliance and harm regarding this project. The Panel submit- Acknowledging Management’s recognition of some limited ted its Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2013. The Board of harms and efforts to redress them, and acknowledging that both Executive Directors approved the Panel’s recommendation on June Requesters and CEPC Project management are willing to continue 21, 2013. CASES WITH NO INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED • 37 Farmer community in the district of Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Requests RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST NO. 71 Lebanon: Greater Beirut Water Supply Project REQUEST NO. 78 Kosovo: Kosovo Power Project (Proposed) REQUEST NO. 79 Kenya: Energy Sector Recovery Project REQUEST NO. 80 India: Improving Rural Livelihoods through Carbon Sequestration LEBANON: GREATER BEIRUT WATER SUPPLY PROJECT REQUEST NO. 71 • PROJECT NO. P103063 O THE REQUEST MANAGEMENT RESPONSE n November 4, 2010, the Panel received a Request In its Response, Management acknowledged that it had an exten- for Inspection concerning the Greater Beirut Water sive exchange of information with the Requesters’ Representative on Supply Project (GBWSP) submitted by Mr. Fathi Chatila the issues raised by him prior to the submission of the Request for (the Requesters’ Representative) on behalf of himself and Inspection. Management disagreed, however, that the harmful con- 50 residents of the Greater Beirut area, who feared that alleged fail- sequences described in the Request will result from the Project. Ac- ures and omissions of the Bank in the design and preparation of the cording to Management’s Response, the water being delivered un- Project would likely cause them harm. The Requesters claimed that der the Project will be treated following national and international the raw water to be used by the Project is not fit as a source for po- quality standards and no water will be diverted away from irrigation. table water. With respect to the economic analysis, the Requesters Management further stated that the Project meets the least-cost ap- stated that it is not clear whether the Project is the least costly option proach and does not preclude other longer term measures for water because, in their view, certain investment costs, including the cost of supply that are under review. treating highly contaminated water, were not taken into consider- ation. The Request also argued that the Project, as designed, will THE PANEL’S FIRST REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION deprive farmers in the south of Lebanon and the Upper Litani River The Panel in its first Report and Recommendation, dated January 20, Basin of water for irrigation. The Requesters further claimed that the 2011, determined that the Request and the Requesters met the Qaraoun Lake is not storing enough water to meet the demands for technical eligibility criteria set forth in the Panel’s governing frame- both the Project and irrigation schemes under development. work, and recommended an investigation into issues of compliance and potential harm related to water quality, costs, and water avail- THE PROJECT ability. Members of the Board of Executive Directors requested a full The Project’s objective is to “increase the provision of potable water Board discussion of the Panel’s recommendation, and this Board to the residents in the project area [Greater Beirut] including those in meeting took place on March 8 and March 10, 2011. After the Panel the low-income neighborhoods of Southern Beirut, and to strength- had submitted its Report to the Board and a full Board discussion of en the capacity of the Beirut Mount Lebanon Water Authority in util- the Panel’s recommendations had been requested, Management ity operations.” This objective is to be achieved through building a commissioned an Independent Technical Review of Source Water water conveyor, a water treatment plant, storage reservoirs, and dis- Quality by the Water Institute of the University of North Carolina. tribution networks to deliver water from the Litani and Awali Rivers During the Board meeting on March 8, 2011, Management commit- to the Greater Beirut region. ted to expand the breadth of this study to cover also water availabil- ity and costs issues. At the conclusion of the Board meeting, the Board of Executive Directors determined that “acknowledging the PROJECT INFORMATION legitimacy of the Requesters’ concerns, the Board invited the In- Greater Beirut Water Supply Project spection Panel to return by July [2011] after considering and taking Region: Middle East and North Africa into account the analysis of the study commissioned by Manage- IBRD Loan: US$200m ment on the water quality, availability, and cost, in order to inform Board Approval Date: December 16, 2010 the Board on whether or not subsequent investigation is warranted, Closing Date: June 30, 2016 and if so, on its precise focus.” 40 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 MANAGEMENT AND PANEL FOLLOW-UP REPORTS of Bank missions had been carried out since October 2011. The In June 2011, Management provided the Panel with the final reports Bank also retained experts to reinforce project supervision and to of the three studies it had commissioned: an Independent Technical review design and tender documents. It further hired an internation- Review of Source Water Quality; an Independent Technical Review al water quality expert to review the water quality monitoring results of Source Water Quantity; and a Study of Project Cost Estimates, and the bid specifications for the Project’s water treatment plant. In Financial, and Economic Analyses. addition, Management noted that it monitored other Government In July 29, 2011, the Panel issued its Report, “Follow-Up to Board projects, including the Canal 800 Irrigation Project and the Business Decision of March 20, 2011,” where it stated that in light of recent Plan for Combating Pollution of the Litani River. actions proposed by Management to address key issues and risks, the Panel decided to await further developments before deciding THE PANEL’S FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on whether an investigation was warranted. Management submitted The Panel issued its Final Report and Recommendation on April 8, its Progress Report on the Implementation of Management’s Action 2013. In light of the information included in the Progress Report, Plan in January 2013. additional responses by Management, new planning documents, in- The Management Progress Report, dated January 31, 2013, indi- formation received from the Requesters, and the review of an inde- cated that the GBWSP’s implementation was delayed due to politi- pendent expert commissioned by the Panel, the Panel was of the cal and security events in Lebanon. The Project was declared effec- view that Management had taken actions aimed at addressing the tive only in December 2012, but in the meantime, under the Requesters’ concerns and had provided sufficient information to retroactive financing clause of the Loan Agreement, efforts were demonstrate compliance with the relevant Bank Policies and Proce- carried out to hire technical and institutional experts for the Project dures, with respect to the three issues under review: (1) availability of Management Unit to advance the preparation of the bidding pro- water for the Project and impacts on other users; (2) water quality and cesses and to continue the water quality monitoring of the Project the financial strength of BMLWE; and (3) potential effects on water source waters. In addition, the Progress Report noted that a number tariffs. The Panel concluded that an investigation was not warranted. Qaraoun dam REQUESTS RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 • 41 KOSOVO: KOSOVO POWER PROJECT (PROPOSED) REQUEST NO. 78 • PROJECT NO. P118287 O THE REQUEST MANAGEMENT RESPONSE n March 29, 2012, the Inspection Panel received a Management submitted its Response on May 21, 2012 (after re- Request for Inspection concerning two Projects: ceiving an extension for the submission). Management stated that the proposed Kosovo Power Project (KPP) and the the Project is presently at a concept stage and that major parts of Lignite Power Technical Assistance Project (LPTAP). The Project assessment are yet to be completed. Therefore, according Request was submitted by representatives of the villages of to Management, it would not be able to decide for another year Dardhishte, Lajthishte/Sibovc, Palaj/Cerna Vidoca, Hade of Obiliq whether to propose the Kosovo Power Project for Board consider- Municipality, and the town of Obiliq in Kosovo; by the Kosovo En- ation. Management asserted that because the Project was at this ergy Corporation’s independent Kosovo Energy Trade Union; and early stage, no violation of Bank Operational Policies and Proce- by three Kosovar civil society organizations: the Institute for Devel- dures has occurred to cause harm to the Requesters. Management opment Policy (INDEP), the Institute of Advanced Studies, and the stated that it is aware of the severe adverse environmental legacy Forum for Civic Initiative. and ongoing environmental concerns associated with the existing The Requesters stated that they were concerned about the Kosovo A and B power plants, which have caused significant dete- “very serious” social, economic, and environmental impacts relat- rioration of air, soil, and water quality in their vicinity, and that a ed to KPP and LPTAP and that they have “already felt the impacts comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of these projects and are worried about what will happen after KPP (ESIA) will be undertaken for the proposed Project, which will meet has been built.” The Requesters also raised concerns about the all requirements of OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment). already-high level of environmental degradation in the Project area. They also were concerned about loss of jobs related to the THE PANEL’S ELIGIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION proposed privatization of energy generation and mining. The Pan- A Panel team visited Kosovo from May 31 to June 2, 2012, and el registered the Request on April 12, 2012, noting that the IDA submitted its eligibility Report to the Board of Directors on June grants for the LPTAP closed on December 31, 2011, and in accor- 20, 2012. The Panel noted that the Request raises a diverse set of dance with Paragraph 14 (c) of the Resolution, the Panel’s registra- issues and that different groups represented in the Request have tion did not cover LPTAP. distinct concerns. The Panel met with all the groups to understand whether a causal link is likely between the harms alleged and the proposed Project and the Bank’s lack of follow-up of its Operation- PROJECT INFORMATION al Policies. Kosovo Power Project (Proposed) The Panel recognized the legitimacy and significance of the Re- Region: Europe & Central Asia questers’ concerns about the potential future impacts of the pro- Product Line: Guarantees posed Project, and noted that non-compliance with Bank Policies, if Board Approval Date: N/A it were to occur, could potentially contribute to the harms of the type Closing Date: N/A specified in the Request and noted in the Panel Report. The Panel Report stated that important analytical work, such as the Environ- mental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), the Resettlement Ac- tion Plans (RAPs) for villages that may be resettled, and a proposed labor study, has yet to begin. The Panel also noted Bank Manage- 42 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 ment’s explanation that it intends to ensure that all analytical and relevant preparatory work will comply with Bank Policies and Proce- dures moving forward. The Panel understands that this commitment also implies ensuring that ongoing and future resettlement will be implemented in accordance with Bank policy and provisions, as laid out in the respective RAPs and land acquisition and compensation agreements with the affected households. Taking this into consider- ation, the Panel’s assessment was that, at this early stage in the Proj- ect preparation process and prior to the start of the ESIA, there were no key World Bank activities or decisions relevant to the concerns raised in the Request that the Panel can review as a matter of policy compliance. The Panel therefore did not recommend an investiga- tion of whether the Bank has complied with its Operational Policies and Procedures. The Panel noted that affected people will have re- course to the Panel at a later stage in the Project cycle if they wish. The Board of Directors approved the Panel’s recommendation on a no-objection basis on July 6, 2012. Kosovo Power Plant REQUESTS RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 • 43 KENYA: ENERGY SECTOR RECOVERY PROJECT REQUEST NO. 79 • PROJECT NO. P083131 O THE REQUEST n May 10, 2012, the Inspection Panel received a Bank Operational Policies and Procedures. Management acknowl- Request for Inspection relating to the Kenya: Ener- edged that development in an urban environment, while serving the gy Sector Recovery Project and its subsequent addi- entire community, may adversely impact some residents more than tional financing. The Request was sent by Mr. Peter Ush- others. However, Management argued that mitigation and safety er on behalf of the Njumbi Road Residents’ Association. The measures addressed appropriately the Requesters’ concerns. Man- Request raised a number of concerns relating to the construction agement added that the concerns associated with the substation’s of an electric power substation in Lavington, Nairobi. The Request- proximity to the Requesters’ residences illustrate the challenges of ers alleged that this substation poses risks to their health and safe- supporting development of essential infrastructure in a densely pop- ty. In addition, they stated that their properties have lost value be- ulated urban setting. Nevertheless, in order to improve Project im- cause of the construction. They also noted that they had filed a plementation and assure the effectiveness of mitigation measures lawsuit at the National Environmental Tribunal (NET) over the sub- spelled out in the Environmental Management Plan, Management station and that the NET had issued a “Stop Order” of its construc- recommended a series of steps to mitigate and monitor potential tion but the construction had continued. impacts of the substation. These address a range of issues, including fire risk, safety, security, noise, monitoring of radiation and public THE PROJECT reporting, and visual appearance/landscaping. Management stated The Project’s objectives include the increase in access to electricity that the implementing entity agreed with these recommendations. in urban and peri-urban areas while improving the efficiency, reliabil- ity, and quality of service to customers. For that purpose, the Project THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION would finance the construction of six priority transformer substations In June 2012, a Panel team undertook a site visit and met with all in industrial and residential areas of Nairobi that are experiencing stakeholders. On July 25, 2012, the Panel submitted its Report to high electricity demand growth. The construction of the Lavington the Board of Executive Directors, in which it did not recommend an substation is one of them. The European Investment Bank, the investigation. It noted that the Requesters were mainly concerned Agence Française de Développement, and the Nordic Develop- with the legitimacy of the process that led to the siting and construc- ment Fund also support the Project as co-financiers. The Borrower is tion of the substation and that they were seeking its removal and the Ministry of Energy. consideration of alternative sites. The Panel noted that the issue of conformity with national laws and regulations of the process leading MANAGEMENT RESPONSE up to the siting and construction of the Lavington substation was On June 25, 2012, Management submitted its Response to the Re- subject to an ongoing process at the National Environmental Tribu- quest for Inspection. It stated that the Requesters’ rights and inter- nal. The Panel also noted that Management acknowledged certain ests have not been directly or adversely affected by any violation of shortcomings in relation to the process that led to the siting and construction of the substation and made a number of additional commitments to mitigate environmental impacts of the substation. PROJECT INFORMATION The Board approved the Panel’s recommendation on August 6, Energy Sector Recovery Project 2012. Subsequently, on March 8, 2013, Mr. Peter Usher informed Region: Africa the Panel that the National Environmental Tribunal ruled in favor of IDA Credit: US$80m the Njumbi Road Residents’ Association and ordered the revoca- Board Approval Date: April 2, 2009 tion of the environmental license for the substation and directed its Closing Date: September 30, 2013 relocation to a suitable site. 44 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 View from the Lavington substation. REQUESTS RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 • 45 INDIA: IMPROVING RURAL LIVELIHOODS THROUGH CARBON SEQUESTRATION REQUEST NO. 80 • PROJECT NO. P095901 O THE REQUEST n April 23, 2012, the Panel received a Request for ment. This Project is officially registered under the United Nations Inspection related to the India: Improving Rural Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Clean Development Livelihoods through Carbon Sequestration Project, Mechanism (CDM, Registration No. 4531). The BioCarbon Fund is a supported by the BioCarbon Fund. Farmers, many of public/private initiative established as a trust fund administered by them belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes from the World Bank for carbon sequestration projects in forestry and districts in the states of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, submitted the agro-ecosystems. Request. The Request stated that though farmers have raised plantations MANAGEMENT RESPONSE on their degraded lands under an agreement initiated by the Proj- Management in its Response to the Request, dated September 18, ect, the carbon revenue accrued by such plantations would be giv- 2012, noted that the Bank had promptly made the payments pay- en only to farmers whose plantations were still standing at the time able to the Project entities required under the Project’s legal agree- the Project’s verification audit took place, while those who had to ment, following audits completed under the CDM framework rules. harvest and sell their trees before would not be receiving carbon Project entities were in turn responsible to pay the farmers their revenues. According to the Request, delays in Project execution by share of carbon revenue. Management indicated that it had trans- the Bank delayed the verification activities. In the meantime some ferred the carbon revenue to the escrow account held by the two farmers had decided to harvest and sell trees that had reached entities in April 2012, but the entities had yet to release the pay- their maturity. Hence, the Requesters claimed that the delay ments to the farmers. caused harm to some farmers by depriving them of their revenue. THE PANEL’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE PROJECT The Panel reviewed the Request, Management Response, and rele- The Project, supported by the BioCarbon Fund, assists participating vant documents related to the CDM Framework. A Panel team also farmers in raising plantations of fast-growing tree species with high met with, and listened to, farmers who submitted the Request, the rates of carbon sequestration (mainly eucalyptus and casuarina spe- Project entities, and Bank staff in the New Delhi country office. The cies) on fallow land on their properties. Once trees are harvested— Panel determined in its Report and Recommendation, dated Octo- normally between five and seven years after planting—the farmers ber 17, 2012, that the Request and the Requesters met the technical sell the timber to one of the Project entities, J .K. Paper Limited pa- eligibility criteria under the Panel’s governing framework, but con- per company, on a buyback guarantee. In addition, the farmers re- cluded that there were no indications of policy non-compliance on ceive revenue from selling emission reductions through a second the part of Management with regard to the payment of carbon rev- Project entity, Vanitha Empowerment, Development and Advance- enue being withheld from the farmers, as the Panel understood that the funds were transferred into the escrow account without delay in April 2012. The Panel also verified that Management communicated PROJECT INFORMATION and followed up with the Project entities to expedite the payment to Improving Rural Livelihoods through Carbon the farmers. On October 30, 2012, the Board of Executive Directors Sequestration approved the Panel’s recommendation that an investigation was not Region: South Asia warranted. BioCarbon Trust Fund: US$1.1m Board Approval Date: May 8, 2007 Closing Date: December 31, 2018 46 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Panel Chairperson meets with farmers participating in the Project. REQUESTS RECEIVED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 • 47 Awareness-Raising AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES The Panel recognizes a critical need to build aware- WORKSHOP ON “ACCOUNTABILITY, INTEGRITY AND ness about its availability, so that affected people are ANTI-CORRUPTION: THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK’S APPROACH,” LOMÉ, TOGO, JULY 17–18, 2012 informed of, and can exercise, their right to access an In July 2012, the Independent Recourse Mechanism of the African independent accountability mechanism reporting to Development Bank invited the Panel to present its work and expe- the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank, rience at a two-day workshop in Togo. The workshop was held un- if they believe that they have been or are likely to der the title of “Accountability, Integrity and Anti-Corruption: The African Development Bank’s Approach.” Panel Senior Operations be adversely affected by a World Bank–supported Officer Serge Selwan presented the Panel experience and lessons operation. For this reason, the Panel conducts broad learned from its work as an example of a citizen-driven accountabil- outreach to civil society, academia, development ity mechanism available for people affected by Projects, which the practitioners, and other groups. To facilitate this, the World Bank finances in part or in total. The Panel’s work in Africa Inspection Panel joined Facebook in March 2013. To and its contribution to principles of citizen-driven accountability were extensively discussed at the workshop. get the very latest on the Panel and its work, inter- ested parties can now follow the Panel on Facebook. FIFTEENTH MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP OF THE To meet the needs of multilingual audiences, the PARTIES TO THE AARHUS CONVENTION, UNITED NATIONS, Panel has a brochure explaining its mission and pro- GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 3–5, 2012 In September 2012, at the invitation of the Aarhus Convention, the viding guidance on filing a Request for Inspection, Panel took part at the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group of which can be found in 12 languages on its website: the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Par- www.inspectionpanel.org. ticipation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmen- The outreach activities and events carried out this tal Matters (Aarhus Convention). At the meeting, Parties reaffirmed their binding commitment to promote the principles of the Con- fiscal year are summarized in this section. vention in international forums and identified key areas, including new processes, for targeted action. Civil society urged Parties to contact their representatives of the boards of International Finan- cial Institutions to make them aware of their obligation to promote the Aarhus Convention’s principles in International Financial Insti- tutions’ processes. Panel Deputy Executive Secretary Dilek Barlas participated in the meeting and shared the Panel experiences on access to information, transparency, and consultations. 48 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 CIVICUS WORLD ASSEMBLY, MONTREAL, CANADA, SEPTEMBER 5–7, 2012 The Panel, jointly with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), took part at the Civicus World Assembly. This global event brought together over 900 civil society organizations from throughout the world and generated lively discussions on how to achieve more transparent and accountable global governance. The key theme of the World Assembly was “Defining a New Social Contract—Mak- ing the Future Together.” Panel Operations Analyst and Communi- cation Specialist Dilya Zoirova presented at the Assembly session on “Regional Institutions—an Inclusive Governance Framework: Failures, Possibilities, Solutions.” The Panel and CAO cohosted an information booth for Assembly participants. NINTH MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS, LUXEMBOURG, SEPTEMBER 25–27 The Inspection Panel participated in the Ninth Meeting of Inde- pendent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) of international fi- nancial institutions and development organizations hosted by the Complaints Mechanism of the European Investment Bank (EIB). A symposium on “IAMs and Public Sector Accountability” held on September 25 at the University of Luxembourg preceded the IAMs meeting. The symposium’s objective was to stimulate debate on the accountability of International Financial Institutions and their capacity to monitor the impact of projects on human rights. The work of IAMs in assessment of social impacts of projects, establish- ment of corrective measures mitigating social impact, and monitor- ing of such measures was presented. Alf Jerve, Chairperson of the Top: Information booth of the Inspection Panel and CAO at the Inspection Panel, gave a presentation on environmental rights issues Civicus World Assembly, Montreal, Canada, September 6, 2012. comparing the Aarhus Convention Framework and safeguard poli- Bottom: Panel of speakers at the International Right to Know Day, cies and accountability of the World Bank. EU Parliament, Brussels, September 28, 2012. The two-day IAMs meeting started on September 26 with open- ing remarks by EIB President Werner Hoyer and the European Om- INTERNATIONAL RIGHT TO KNOW DAY—TRANSPARENCY budsman Nikiforos Diamandouros. The main goals of the meeting AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT were to: identify current accountability trends; contribute to institu- BANKS, EU PARLIAMENT, BRUSSELS, SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 tional capacity building; identify good practices and knowledge, The Panel and other Independent Accountability Mechanisms at the share experiences, lessons learnt, and challenges ahead; and, ex- International Financial Institutions took part in the International Right plore the possibility of greater harmonization among IAMs’ practic- to Know Day at the European Union Parliament in Brussels. The es. The meeting Panel contributed to deliberations with a presenta- event was organized by the European Ombudsman in cooperation tion by Alf Jerve on the outcomes of the IAMs work in the context of with the Complaints Mechanism of the European Investment Bank. the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Alf Jerve, the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel, presented at the (RIO+20), a presentation by Peter Lallas, the Panel’s Executive Secre- session on the role of Independent Accountability Mechanisms in tary, on “IAMs/Grievances’ Mechanisms in Co-Financed Projects— ensuring accountability of International Financial Institutions. How It Works?” and the Panel’s perspective at the session “From The International Right to Know Day, celebrated each year on coordination to greater harmonization—Hints for a global IAMs September 28, was established in 2003 by access to information Memorandum of Understanding.” advocates from around the world. AWARENESS-RAISING AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES • 49 Inspection Panel-hosted session as part of the Civil Society Policy Forum at the WB/IMF Spring Meetings, World Bank HQ, Washington, D.C., April 18, 2013. WORLD BANK/INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ANNUAL In October 2012, at an event entitled “Independent Accountabil- MEETINGS, TOKYO, JAPAN, OCTOBER 10–13, 2012 ity in International Development: Perspectives from International Fi- The Inspection Panel and Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) nancial Institutions,” organized by the Society for International De- cohosted a session on “Citizen-Led Accountability at the World velopment, Mr. Lallas made a presentation on the Inspection Panel Bank Group: Experiences of Independent Recourse Mechanisms” and accountability. The event was attended by a wide variety of ex- at the World Bank–IMF Annual Meetings Civil Society Policy Forum perts in the field of international development. in Tokyo on October 12, 2012. The session provided an overview In April 2013, at a panel session under the Annual Meetings of of the Inspection Panel and CAO. Alf Jerve, Chairperson of the the American Society of International Law, Mr. Lallas was invited to Inspection Panel, and Meg Taylor, Vice-President and CAO, dis- speak on accountability in the context of international development. cussed their processes, trends, and lessons learnt since the estab- The event brought together legal and other specialists from around lishment of both Mechanisms. the world on the theme of international law in a multipolar world. On October 13, 2012, Mr. Jerve, presented at the session orga- nized by the Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Soci- WORLD BANK/INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND SPRING ety and by the Bank Information Center. The panel discussion cen- MEETINGS, WASHINGTON D.C.—APRIL 17–20, 2013 tered on the possible policy lessons for the safeguard review, which On April 17, 2013, as part of the World Bank/International Mon- is undertaken by the World Bank. It provided opportunity to discuss etary Fund Spring Meetings, the Inspection Panel welcomed the cases of non-compliance with the Bank’s Safeguard Policies, particu- Civil Society Policy Forum participants to its traditional Open larly with regards to environmental assessment, involuntary resettle- House. Guests met with Panel Members and Secretariat staff, ment, and indigenous peoples. learned about Panel operations, and exchanged views with the Panel in an informal setting. CONFERENCES ON DEVELOPMENT AND In addition, on April 18, 2013, the Panel hosted a session entitled INTERNATIONAL LAW “Defining the Boundaries of a Project: Where Does Bank Account- Panel Executive Secretary Peter Lallas took part in two conferences ability Stop?” as part of the Civil Society Policy Forum. The Panel, in in Washington, D.C., to discuss the topic of citizen-driven account- many cases, found that the area of influence of a Project had been ability in international development and the role of Independent too narrowly defined, and as a consequence some potential impacts Accountability Mechanisms. had been overlooked. 50 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 the International Land Coalition in Antigua, Guatemala. Ms. Tassoni presented the Inspection Panel, history, functioning and operations at the session on “Transparency, Accountability and Open Develop- ment on Land.” The Inspection Panel’s work in relation to land man- agement issues was the focus of her presentation. The Panel’s work was also showcased at the Forum’s Marketplace of Ideas. 12TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES, UN HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK—MAY 23–24, 2013 On May 23 and May 24, 2013, Panel Senior Operations Officer Serge Selwan and, Panel Operations Analyst and Communication Panel of speakers at the side event organized by the Indian Law Specialist Dilya Zoirova attended the 12th Session of the United Resource Center under the 12th Session of the UN Permanent Forum Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. On May 23, at on Indigenous Issues, UN HQ, New York, May 23, 2013. the side event organized by the Indian Law Resource Center and entitled “Holes in the Safety Net: Real Impacts of the World Bank’s GLOBAL LAND FORUM 2013: INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE Indigenous Peoples Policy,” Mr. Selwan presented the Inspection TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE FOR FOOD SECURITY, Panel’s work on complaints raised in relation to non-compliance ANTIGUA, GUATEMALA—APRIL 23–26, 2013 with the Bank’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples. The event was at- From April 23 to 26, 2013, Panel Senior Operations Officer Tatiana tended by indigenous leaders and experts from many parts of the Tassoni participated at the Global Land Forum 2013 on Inclusive and world to discuss the World Bank’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples Sustainable Territorial Governance for Food Security organized by and ways to strengthen it. AWARENESS-RAISING AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES • 51 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES June 30, 2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 1. Nepal: Arun III Proposed October 24, 1994 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Economic evaluation of investment Hydroelectric Project Yes Investigation operations (OP/BP 10.04) and Restructuring of Report Disclosure of operational information IDA Credit (BP 17.50) Outline for a project information document (BP 10.00, Annex A) Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) 2. Ethiopia: Compensation May 2, 1995 No — — Dispute over defaults on external debt, for Expropriation and expropriation, and breach of contract Extension of IDA Credits — (OMS 1.28) to Ethiopia 3. Tanzania: Power VI Project May 16, 1995 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Article V Section 1(c), IDA Articles of Yes Agreement Article V Section 1(d), IDA Articles of Agreement Article V Section 1(g), IDA Articles of Agreement Environmental aspects of Bank work (OMS 2.36) Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) 4. Brazil: Rondônia Natural June 16, 1995 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Project supervision (OD 13.05) Resources Management No Additional Review Report Forestry (OP 4.36) Project Review of Progress Wildlands (OPN 11.02) in Implementation Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Involving nongovernmental organizations in Bank-supported activities (GP 14.70) Project monitoring and evaluation (OD 10.70) Investment lending—identification to the Board presentation (BP 10.00) Suspension of disbursements (OD 13.40) Accounting, financial reporting, and auditing (OD 10.60) Procurement (OD 11.00) Use of consultants (OD 11.10) Borrower compliance with audit covenants (OD 13.10) 5. Chile: Financing of November 17, 1995 No — — Environmental policy for dam and Hydroelectric Dams in reservoir project, Annex B (OD 4.00) the Bío-Bío River Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Wildlands (OPN 11.02) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 52 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 6. Bangladesh: Jamuna August 23, 1996 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Multipurpose Bridge Yes Report on Progress Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Project on Implementation of Involving nongovernmental Action Plan organizations in Bank-supported activities (GP 14.70) 7. Argentina/Paraguay: September 30, 1996 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental policy for dam and Yacyretá Hydroelectric No Review of Present reservoir projects (OD 4.00, Annex B) Project (1996) Project Problems and Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Assessment of Action Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Plans Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Project monitoring and evaluation (OD 10.70) Project supervision (OD 13.05) Wildlands (OPN 11.02) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Environmental aspects of Bank work (OMS 2.36) Suspension of disbursements (OD 13.40) 8. Bangladesh: Jute November 13, 1996 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Adjustment lending policy (OD 8.60) Sector Adjustment Credit Yes Project supervision (OP 13.05) Suspension of disbursements (OP 13.40) 9. Brazil: Itaparica March 12, 1997 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental policy for dam and Resettlement and No Action Plan Review reservoir projects (OD 4.00, Annex B) Irrigation Project Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 10. India: NTPC Power May 1, 1997 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Economic evaluation of investment Generation Project Yes Report on Desk operations (OD 10.04) Investigation Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 11. India: April 2, 1998 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Ecodevelopment Project No Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Forestry (OP 4.36) 12. Lesotho/South Africa: May 6, 1998 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental policy for dam and Phase 1B of Lesotho Yes reservoir projects (OD 4.00, Annex B) Highlands Water Project Economic evaluation of investment (1998) operations (OD 10.04) Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Water resources and management (OP 4.07) 13. Nigeria: Lagos Drainage June 17, 1998 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) and Sanitation Project Yes Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Gender dimensions of development (OD 4.20) Project monitoring and evaluation (OD 10.70) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP/BP 10.04) Article V, Section 1(g), IDA Articles of Agreement SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES • 53 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 14. Brazil: Land Reform December 14, 1998 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Poverty Alleviation Project Yes Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Involving nongovernmental organizations in Bank-supported activities (GP 14.70) 15. Lesotho: Highlands April 26, 1999 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Disputes over defaults on external debt, Water Project (1999) Yes expropriation, and breach of contract (OP/BP 7.40) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 16. China: Western Poverty June 18, 1999 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Disclosure of operational information Reduction Project Yes Investigation Report (BP 17.50) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Pest management (OP 4.09) Safety of dams (OP/BP 4.37) Retroactive financing (OD 12.10) Investment lending (OD 10.00) 17. Argentina: Special July 26, 1999 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Project supervision (OD 13.05) Structural Adjustment Loan Yes Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Project monitoring and evaluation (OP/BP 10.70) Suspension of disbursements (OP/BP 13.40) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 18. Brazil: Land Reform September 14, 1999 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Poverty Alleviation Yes Project supervision (OD 13.50) Project, Second Request Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 19. Kenya: Lake Victoria October 12, 1999 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Environmental Yes Investigation Report Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Management Project Economic evaluation of investment projects (OP 10.04) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 20. Ecuador: Mining December 13, 1999 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Development and Yes Investigation Report Wildlands (OPN 11.02) Environmental Control Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Technical Assistance Project supervision (OD 13.05) Project 21. India: NTPC Power November 27, 2000 No — — Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Generation Project, Project supervision (OD 13.05) Second Request Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) 22. Chad: Petroleum March 22, 2001 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Development and Pipeline Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Project, Management of Pest management (OP 4.09) the Petroleum Economy Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Project, and Petroleum Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Sector Management Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Capacity Building Project Forestry (OP 4.36) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP 10.04) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 54 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 23. India: Coal Sector June 21, 2001 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Environmental and Social Yes Investigation Report Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Mitigation Project and Coal Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Sector Rehabilitation Project Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 24. Uganda: Third Power July 27, 2001 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD/OP 4.01) Project, Fourth Power Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP 4.04) Project, and proposed Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Bujagali Hydropower Project Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Safety of dams (OP 4.37) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP 10.04) Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) Project monitoring and evaluation (OD 10.70) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 25. Papua New Guinea: December 6, 2001 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Forestry (OP 4.36) Governance Promotion Yes Adjustment lending policy (OD 8.60) Adjustment Loan Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) 26. Paraguay/Argentina: May 17, 2002 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental policy for dam and Reform Project for the Water Yes Investigation Report reservoir projects (OD 4.00, Annex B) and Telecommunication Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Sectors, SEGBA V Power Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Distribution Project Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) (Yacyretá 2002) Project monitoring and evaluation (OD 10.70) Suspension of disbursements (OD 13.40) 27. Cameroon: September 25, 2002 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Petroleum Development Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) and Pipeline Project, and Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Petroleum Environment Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Capacity Enhancement Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Project Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) Project supervision (OD 13.05) 28. Philippines: Manila September 26, 2003 Yes No recommendation, Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Second Sewerage as the Requesters failed to Economic evaluation of investment Project (MSSP) satisfy a procedural criterion operations (OP 10.04) —that is, that the Requesters Disclosure of operational information had brought the subject matter to (BP 17.50) Management’s attention and that, Project supervision (OD 13.05) in the Requester’s view, Management failed to respond adequately. Yes 29. Cameroon: Petroleum November 26, 2003 No — — Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Development and Pipeline Project 30. Mexico: Indigenous January 26, 2004 Yes In fairness to all parties Eligibility Report Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) and Community concerned, the Panel could Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) Biodiversity Project not take a position on whether (COINBIO) the Request merits an investigation and awaits further developments. Yes SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES • 55 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 31. Colombia: Cartagena April 20, 2004 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Water Supply, Sewerage, Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) and Environmental Water resources management (OD 4.07) Management Project Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Financial management (OD 10.02) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP 10.04) Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) 32. India: Mumbai April 28, 2004 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) 33. Urban Transport Project Yes Investigation Report Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) June 29, 2004 Yes Disclosure of information (January 2002) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 34. Burundi: Public Works September 17, 2004 No — — Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) and Employment Natural habitats (OP 4.04) Creation Project Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) 35. Pakistan: National September 10, 2004 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Drainage Program Project Yes Investigation Report Procurement (OP/BP 11.00) 36. Cambodia: Forest January 28, 2005 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Concession Management Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats—1995 (OP/BP 4.04) and Control Pilot Project Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Forestry (OP/BP 4.36) Technical assistance (OP/BP 8.40) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 37. Democratic Republic November 19, 2005 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) of Congo: Transitional Yes Investigation Report Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Support for Economic Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Recovery Grant and Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Emergency Economic Forestry (OP/BP 4.36) and Social Reunification Emergency recovery assistance Support Project (OP/BP 8.50) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Disclosure of information (January 2002) 38. Honduras: Land January 3, 2006 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Administration Project Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Tribal people in Bank-financed projects (OMS 2.34) Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 56 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 39. Romania: Mine Closure January 6, 2006 Yes In fairness to all parties Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) concerned, the Panel Inspection Panel Project supervision (OD/OP/BP 13.05) could not take a position Recommendation Disclosure of information (January 2002) on whether the Request merited an investigation. Later the Panel closed the Request and Requesters indicated their problems were satisfactorily resolved. Yes 40. Nigeria: West African April 27, 2006 Yes Investigation First Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Gas Pipeline Project Yes Final Eligibility Report Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Investigation Report Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP/BP 10.04) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Disclosure of information (January 2002) 41. Brazil: Paraná July 10, 2006 Yes No investigation First Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Biodiversity Project Yes Final Eligibility Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forestry—1993 (OP/BP 4.36) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 42. Argentina: Santa Fe August 28, 2006 Yes No recommendation, Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) 43. Infrastructure Project and as the Requesters failed to Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Provincial Road satisfy a procedural criterion Disclosure of information (January 2002) Infrastructure Project —that is, that the Requesters September 21, 2006 Yes had brought the subject matter to Management’s attention and that, in the Requester’s view, Management failed to respond adequately. Yes 44. Uganda: Private Power March 5, 2007 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Generation Project Yes Investigation Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Environmental action plans (OP 4.02) Water resource management (OP 4.07) Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Physical cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of dams (OP 4.37) Projects on international waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP/BP 10.04) Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) Disclosure of information (January 2002) 45. India: Uttaranchal March 7, 2007 Yes In fairness to all parties Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Decentralized Watershed concerned, the Panel Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Development Project could not take a position Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) on whether the Request merits Forests (OP/BP 4.36) an investigation and awaits Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) further developments. Yes SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES • 57 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 46. Albania: Power Sector April 30, 2007 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Generation and Yes Investigation Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Restructuring Project Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP/BP 10.04) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 47. Albania: Integrated July 30, 2007 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Investigation Report 48. Coastal Zone Management Yes Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) and Clean-Up Project Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) August 13, 2007 Yes Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Management of cultural property in Bank-financed projects (OPN 11.03) 49. Ghana: Second Urban August 16, 2007 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Environment Sanitation Yes Investigation Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Project (UESP II) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 50. Cameroon: Urban September 5, 2007 No — — Environmental assessment (OD 4.01) Development Project and Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Second Urban Project Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary resettlement (OD 4.30) Project supervision (OD 13.05) Disclosure of operational information (BP 17.50) 51. Argentina: Santa Fe September 13, 2007 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) Infrastructure Project Yes Investigation Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) and Provincial Road Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Infrastructure Project Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Disclosure of information (January 2002) 52. Colombia: Bogotá October 30, 2007 Yes No recommendation, as Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Urban Services Project the Requesters failed to Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) satisfy a procedural criterion— Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) that is, that the Requesters had brought the subject matter to Management’s attention and that, in the Requester’s view, Management failed to respond adequately. Yes 53. Panama: Land February 25, 2009 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) 56. Administration Project Yes Investigation Report Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) March 17, 2009 Yes Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) Bank financing (OP/BP 6.00) Financing severance pay in public sector reform operations (OpMemo) 54. Democratic Republic February 25, 2009 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OD 4.15) 55. of Congo: Private Yes Second Eligibility Report Bank financing (OP/BP 6.00) 63. Sector Development Third and Final Financing severance pay in public sector and Competitiveness March 13, 2009 Yes Eligibility Report reform operations (OpMemo) Project Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) December 15, 2009 Yes Indigenous peoples (OD 4.20) 57. Yemen: Institutional April 13, 2009 Yes No investigation First Eligibility Report Development policy lending (OP/BP 8.60) Reform Development Yes Final Eligibility Report World Bank policy on disclosure of Policy Financing information (June 2002) 58. India: Mumbai Urban May 29, 2009 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Involuntary resettlement (OP 4.30) Transport Project Yes Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 58 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 59. Kenya: Export April 21, 2009 No — — Environmental assessment (OP/BP4.01) Development Project Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 60. Cambodia: Land September 4, 2009 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Involuntary resettlement (OP 4.30) Management and Yes Final Eligibility Report Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Administration Project Investigation Report 61. Peru: Lima Transport October 1, 2009 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Project Yes Investigation Ongoing Physical cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 62. Papua New Guinea: December 17, 2009 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) Smallholder Agriculture Yes Investigation Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP4.01) Development Project Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Investment lending (OP/BP 10.00) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 64. Pakistan: Tax December 22, 2009 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Administration Reform Yes Investment lending (OP/BP 10.00) Project Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 65. South Africa: Eskom April 6, 2010 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) Investment Support Yes Investigation Report Piloting the use of borrower systems to Project address environmental and social safeguard issues in bank supported projects (OP/PB 4.00) Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Physical cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Projects on international waterways (OP/BP 7.50) 66. Kazakhstan: April 24, 2010 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) South-West Roads: Yes Physical cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11) Western Europe- Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Western China Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) International Transit World Bank policy on disclosure of Corridor information (June 2002) 67. Chile: Quilleco May 26, 2010 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Hydropower Project Yes Final Eligibility Report Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10, OD 4.20) Safety of dams (OP/BP 4.37) Cultural property (OP/BP 4.11, OPN 11.03) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 68. Poland: Third June 14, 2010 No __ __ Disputes over defaults on external debt, Employment, expropriation, and breach of contract Entrepreneurship and (OP/BP 7.40) Human Capital Development policy lending Development Policy Loan (OP/BP 8.60) 69. Liberia: Development September 24, 2010 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Forestry Sector Yes Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Management Project Forestry (OP 4.36) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES • 59 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 70. Uzbekistan: Energy Loss October 8, 2010 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Reduction Project Yes Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) (Rogun HPP, Tajikistan) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of dams (OP/BP 4.37) Projects on international waterways (OP/BP 7.50) 71. Lebanon: Greater Beirut November 4, 2010 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Water Supply Project No Inspection Panel Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Following Board Report—Follow-up Economic evaluation of investment discussion and the to Board Decision operations (OP/BP 10.04) commissioning by Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Management of specific studies, The World Bank Policy on Access the Panel was called by to Information (July 2010) the Board to review its recommendation. The Panel determined to await further developments. 72. India: Madhya Pradesh August 31, 2010 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) 75. Water Sector Yes Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Restructuring Project Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) July 26, 2011 Yes Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 73. Argentina: Second Norte May 4, 2011 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Grande Water Yes Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Infrastructure Project The World Bank Policy on Access to Information (July 2010) 74. Kazakhstan: South-West August 17, 2011 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Roads: Western Europe- Yes Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Western China International Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Transit Corridor Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) World Bank Policy on Access to Information, July 1, 2010 76. West Bank/Gaza: Red June 24, 2011 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Sea—Dead Sea Water Yes Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Conveyance Study Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Program Projects on international waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in disputed areas (OP/BP 7.60) The World Bank Policy on Access to Information, July 1, 2010 77. Argentina: Santa Fe September 6, 2011 No — — Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Infrastructure Project and Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Provincial Road Infrastructure 78. Kosovo: March 29, 2012 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Kosovo Power Project Yes Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) (Proposed) Economic evaluation (OP/BP 10.04) Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 79. Kenya: Energy Sector May 10, 2012 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Recovery Project Yes Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 80. India: Improving Rural April 23, 2012 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Livelihoods through Yes Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Carbon Sequestration Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Trust funds (OP/BP 14.40) 60 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Inspection Panel Recommendation Policies and Procedures Request Request and Its Approval Panel’s Raised by the Request Received Registered by the Board Activity Request for Inspection 81. India: Vishnugad Pipalkoti July 23, 2012 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Physical cultural resources Hydro Electric Project Yes (OP/BP 4.11) Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Safety of dams (OP/BP 4.37) Economic evaluation of investment operations (OP/BP 10.04) Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) 82. Ethiopia: Protection of September 24, 2012 Yes — Eligibility Report Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Basic Services Program Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Phase II (Additional Economic evaluation of investment Financing) and Promoting operations (OP/BP 10.04) Basic Services Phase III Project appraisal (OMS 2.20) Project Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) 83. Afghanistan: Sustainable December 3, 2012 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Project supervision (OP/BP 13.05) Development of Natural Yes Rapid response to crises and Resources (Additional December 6, 2012 emergencies (OP 8.00) Financing) and Sustainable Involving non-governmental Development of Natural organizations in Bank-supported Resources II Projects activities (GP 14.70) World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information (June 2002) Environmental assessment (OP 4.01) Environmental action plans (OP 4.02) Natural habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Projects on international waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Water resources management (OP 4.07) Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Projects in disputed areas (OP/BP 7.60) Physical cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11) 84. Kenya: Natural Resource January 14, 2013 Yes Investigation Eligibility Report Indigenous peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Management Project Yes Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 85. Egypt: Giza North February 21, 2013 Yes No investigation Eligibility Report Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Power Project Yes Involuntary resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 86. Malawi: Second National May 22, 2013 No — — Poverty reduction (OP 1.00) Water Development Environmental assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Project—Additional Water resources management (OP 4.07) Financing Environmental action plans (OP 4.02) Gender and Development (OP 4.20) SUMMARY OF INSPECTION PANEL CASES • 61 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION MEXICO 1 HONDURAS 1 PANAMA 2 COLOMBIA ECUADOR 2 1 PERU BRAZIL 1 5 PARAGUAY CHILE ARGENTINA 2 6 2 Requests submitted on joint projects in This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. Paraguay and Argentina The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 62 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 POLAND 1 KAZAKHSTAN ROMANIA 1 2 1 KOSOVO UZBEKISTAN 3 ALBANIA 1 CHINA 1 LEBANON Request AFGHANISTAN 1 1 West Bank & Gaza concerning 1 PAKISTAN NEPAL 1 a project in Tajikistan 2 1 A.R. OF EGYPT INDIA 11 BANGLADESH CHAD REP. OF YEMEN 1 2 CAMBODIA PHILIPPINES NIGERIA 1 2 ETHIOPIA 2 1 CAMEROON 2 UGANDA LIBERIA GHANA 3 KENYA 1 DEM. REP. 2 1 OF CONGO 4 BURUNDI 1 4 TANZANIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1 2 1 MALAWI SOUTH LESOTHO 1 AFRICA 1 1 Request concerned the territory of both Lesotho and South Africa INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 63 FIGURES Inspection Panel Process Registration, Eligibility, Recommendation Investigation Panel receives Request for Inspection. If Board authorizes an investigation Archives Is the Request frivolous or clearly Chairperson appoints one or more lead outside the Panel’s mandate? Inspectors. Panel initiates headquarters if YES work, including selection of experts and consultants; collection of official and unofficial documents; and interviews with if NOT staff and consultants. Panel registers Request, sends Request to Bank Management, and informs Board. Panel conducts fact-finding in Project Area. Panel receives Management Response to Panel deliberates and determines facts. Request within 21 working days. Panel submits Investigation Report Panel determines eligibility of Requesters and to the Board and the Bank’s President. Request. Evaluates Management Response. Bank Management has six weeks to Panel visits Project area. submit its Recommendations in response to the Panel’s findings. Panel issues Eligibility Report within 21 working days, including a recommendation Board meets to discuss Panel findings on whether to investigate. and Management Recommendations and makes decision. Board authorizes/does not authorize an investigation on no-objection basis. Panel’s Investigation Report, Management’s Recommendations, and content of Board decision are made public. Panel’s Eligibility Report, Management Response, Request, and content of Board decision are made public. 64 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Requests Received Policy-Related Issues Most Often Financing for Projects As of June 2013 Raised in Requests Subject to Requests 90 As of June 2013 As of June 2013 85 60 80 55 54 35 75 70 31 70 50 30 28 60 41 40 25 50 20 30 30 28 40 33 15 22 30 29 20 20 19 17 16 15 10 20 16 12 6 10 5 4 10 6 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 IBRD IDA IBRD & IDA IFC/MIGA IDA & IFC/MIGA IBRD, IDA & IFC/MIGA GEF IBRD & GEF IDA & GEF Bank Managed Trust Funds Formal requests received Requests registered Recommendations approved Concerns addressed during eligibility phase Investigations recommended Investigations approved Environmental assessment Project supervision Involuntary resettlement Indigenous peoples Disclosure of information Poverty reduction Natural habitats Water management & dams Cultural resources Economic evaluation Project appraisal Forests Policy lending Suspension of disbursements Financial management Pest management Severance pay Gender dimensions Piloting the use of borrower systems Percentage of Requests Received per Region Description of Requestors As of June 2013 As of June 2013 Mixed—NGO representing Note: Mixed = The Request Middle East and North Africa affected communities/separate was made by an NGO on behalf Europe and community members of some of the affected community. 3% East Asia and Affected Central Asia 12% Unrepresented individuals were 10% the Pacific communities also part of the Request. 8% 40% NGOs Representing Affected South Asia Communities = The Request was 18% made by an NGO on behalf of the affected community. Affected Communities = The Request was brought directly Sub-Saharan by members of the affected Africa community. 31% NGOs Representing Latin America affected and the Caribbean communities 30% 47% INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 • 65 A view of the Alaknanda River in the Chamoli district, Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project, India. Appendixes APPENDIX I Biographies of the Panel Members and the Executive Secretary APPENDIX II Guidance on How to Prepare a Request for Inspection APPENDIX III The Inspection Panel Budget (July 1, 2012–June 30, 2013) APPENDIX I BIOGRAPHIES OF THE PANEL MEMBERS AND THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Ms. Eimi Watanabe, a Japanese national, Mr. Alf Jerve joined the Panel in November was appointed to the Inspection Panel in 2008 and assumed the responsibility of November 2009 and assumed the responsi- Chairperson of the Inspection Panel from bility of Chairperson of the Inspection Panel February 1, 2012, to April 30, 2013. A na- on May 1, 2013, succeeding Mr. Alf Jerve. tional of Norway, Alf Jerve brings to the Pan- Ms. Watanabe brings to the Panel more than el close to three decades of work in the field 30 years of experience in the field of devel- of development. As a social anthropologist opment. Throughout her career, Ms. Wata- by training, he has engaged in a wide range nabe has demonstrated a commitment to of development activities, including exten- applying analytical participatory approaches sive field research in Africa and Asia. Among to development programs, and she has a his assignments was a three-year posting to strong record of experience in working col- Tanzania with the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation as laboratively with civil society organizations, governments, and other de- coordinator of a rural development program. From 1993 to 1995 he was velopment organizations. A sociologist by training, she has been involved responsible for resettlement and rehabilitation issues with projects in in a wide range of substantive areas—at the project and policy levels— Bangladesh, during an assignment with the World Bank. In 1995 he be- including poverty reduction, gender, child health and nutrition, gover- came Assistant Director, and served as Director in 2005 and 2006, at the nance, capacity development, the environment, and migration. From Christian Michelsen Institute in Norway, an internationally recognized de- 1998 to 2001 she served as Assistant Secretary General and Director of velopment research institution. There he also devoted his energies and the UNDP’s Bureau for Development Policy. Prior to that position she was expertise to research and analysis of policy and program issues affecting UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Bangla- people in developing countries. Over the years, Mr. Jerve also has led desh, and UNICEF Representative in India. Recently she has served as a and participated in numerous independent evaluations commissioned by member of the Strategic and Audit Advisory Committee of the United bilateral and multilateral development agencies and served as a Member Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). Ms. Watanabe earned a PhD of the Roster of Experts for the Asian Development Bank’s Inspection from the London School of Economics and received her BA in sociology Function. He earned his magister degree in social anthropology from the from the International Christian University in Tokyo. University of Bergen, and his bachelor’s degree is in the areas of environ- mental science and biology. His publications have focused on rural devel- opment, decentralization, and poverty reduction, and most recently on issues of ownership in development aid cooperation. 68 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 Ms. Zeinab Bashir El Bakri was appointed Mr. Peter Louis Lallas, a United States na- as a new Member of the Inspection Panel tional, became the Inspection Panel’s Exec- on September 1, 2012. She replaced Mr. utive Secretary in January 2007, following Roberto Lenton, whose five-year term ex- the retirement of longtime Executive Secre- pired on August 31, 2012. Ms. El Bakri, a tary Mr. Eduardo Abbott. Mr. Lallas has over national of Sudan, brings to the Panel more two decades of experience in the fields of than 20 years of development experience. international cooperation, law, and devel- She built a distinguished and broad career opment, working in a variety of institutions, at the African Development Bank (AfDB), settings, and countries. He has held the po- where her last position was Vice President sition of legal adviser on international law of Operations from 2006 to 2009. In addi- and organizations in the United Nations tion, between 1991 and 2005, she served in Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in a number of positions at AfDB spanning multiple regions of Africa. She Rome. He was also the Director of the International Environmental Law focused on portfolios that included social development, gender, agricul- Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in Washing- ture and agro-industry, climate change, and governance, gaining exper- ton, D.C. Before that he worked in the European Commission in Brussels; tise in policy development and operations. After leaving AfDB, she was and in a Brussels practice in international law, trade law, and European appointed Director of the Delivery Unit for the Office of His Highness the Community law. Mr. Lallas served as the Inspection Panel’s Deputy Exec- Prime Minister of Kuwait, responsible for ensuring delivery of reform ini- utive Secretary prior to becoming Executive Secretary. He holds a JD tiatives. She holds a PhD in sociology and anthropology from Hull Uni- from Harvard University Law School (1986) and a BA in economics with versity and received her MA and BA in sociology from the American distinction and honors from Stanford University (1981). Over the years, University in Cairo. Mr. Lallas has taught on international law and policy issues, including as an adjunct professor on international environmental policy in the Mas- ters of Science Program of Georgetown University. He has written and cowritten a number of publications on international law, cooperation, and sustainable development. APPENDIXES • 69 APPENDIX II GUIDANCE ON HOW TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR INSPECTION The Inspection Panel needs some basic information in order to 4. Are you familiar with Bank policies and procedures that apply process a Request for Inspection: to this type of project? How do you believe the Bank may have violated them? Knowledge of Bank Policies and Procedures is 1. Name, contact address, and telephone number of the group or not a requirement. people making the request (or their representatives). 5. Has the Bank been contacted about the project in regards to 2. Name and description of the Bank project. the issues raised? Please provide information about all such 3. Adverse effects of the Bank project. known contacts, and the responses, if any. The issues raised in the Request must have been raised with Bank Management 4. If you are a representative of affected people please attach an before a Request for Inspection is filed. affidavit authorizing you to act on their behalf (a simple hand- written document is sufficient). 6. If you know that the Panel has dealt with this matter before, do you have any new facts or evidence to submit? The Inspection Panel will need answers to the following basic key questions: Please provide a summary of this information. Attach to the Re- quest for Inspection any additional documentation you believe is 1. Is this Request being submitted with confidentiality attached? necessary. Please list these attachments in your summary. Are any signatories of the Request requesting confidentiality? You may wish to use the attached model form. 2. What is the nature and extent of the damage caused by the project to you or those you represent? 3. In what way would the Bank’s actions or omissions, in the con- text of the project, affect you adversely? How can this be deter- mined? 70 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 MODEL FORM: REQUEST FOR INSPECTION To: Executive Secretary, The Inspection Panel 1818 H Street NW, MSN 10-1007, Washington, DC 20433, USA Fax No.: 202-522-0916; Email: ipanel@WorldBank.org or The appropriate World Bank Country/Regional Office 1. We [insert names] live and/or represent others who live in the area known as [insert name of area]. Our addresses are attached. (We [do/do not] authorize you to disclose our identities.). 2. We have suffered, or are likely to suffer, harm as a result of the World Bank’s failures or omissions in the [insert name and/or brief description of the project or program] located in [insert location/country]. 3. [Describe the damage or harm you are suffering or are likely to suffer from the project or program.] 4. [List (if known) the World Bank’s operational polices you believe have not been observed.] 5. Our complaints have been raised with World Bank staff on the following occasions [list dates] by [explain how the complaint was made]. No response was received, [or] we believe that the response received is not satisfactory as it does not answer or solve our problems for the following reasons: 6. We request that the Inspection Panel recommend to the World Bank’s Executive Directors that an investigation of these matters be carried out. Signatures:_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Date:______________________ Contact address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of attachments We [do/do not] authorize you to disclose our identities. APPENDIXES REQUESTS RECEIVED IN FISCAL YEAR 2012 • 71 APPENDIX III THE INSPECTION PANEL BUDGET JULY 1, 2012–JUNE 30, 2013 Salaries (a) $1,347,229 Benefits (a) 673,467 Communications and IT Services 108,480 Office Occupancy 180,072 Equipment and Building Services 13,330 Temporaries 31,966 Consultants (b) 377,416 Travel 400,611 Representation and Hospitality 3,929 Publications 80,097 Contractual Services 39,276 Other Expenses 5,866 Total Budget Spent $3,261,739 Total Budget Received $3,556,091 Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. (a) Includes salaries and benefits for Chairperson and five-months full-time Panel Member (b) Includes one Panel Member fees for entire fiscal year and another Panel Member (until position became full-time) 72 • INSPECTION PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2012–2013 © 2013 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpreta- tions, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Design: Naylor Design, Inc.