Below you will find a chart and brief description of the claims that have been filed as of February 2000.  For more information contact: info@ciel.org.

Excerpted from CIEL's Citizen's Guide to the Inspection Panel of the World Bank

PENDING CLAIMS:
PRODEMINCA (Ecuador), filed in December 1999

LAKE VICTORIA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT (Kenya), filed in October 1999

CHINA WESTERN POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT (China-Tibet), filed in June 1999 

PAST CLAIMS:

SPECIAL STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT LOAN (Argentina), July 1999

LAND REFORM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION PILOT PROJECT (Brazil), filed in January and August 1999

LAGOS DRAINAGE AND SANITATION PROJECT (Nigeria), June 1998

ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT (India), April 1998

THE SINGRAULI CLAIM (INDIA), May 1997

On May 2, 1997 the residents of Singrauli, India filed a claim to the World Bank Inspection Panel, challenging the implementation of the 1993 National Thermal Power Project, in which the Bank loaned $400 million to the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). Although the most pressing concerns relate to inadequate resettlement and rehabilitation, the villagers are asking for a review of the World Bank's compliance with several policies, including Involuntary Resettlement, Environmental Assessment, Supervision and Monitoring, Indigenous Peoples, and Economic Evaluation of Investment Operations.

On May 25, 1997, the NTPC moved into an area covered by the claim with police force and heavy equipment to forcibly evict the villagers near the Vindhyachal ash dike. Not until two weeks later -- and only under pressure from NGOs -- did the Bank send a mission to the field to evaluate the extremely tense situation. Even the Bank mission acknowledged that abuses had occurred -- people had been beaten by the police, and one elderly widow was physically restrained as her house was bulldozed over her objections. The people complained of only having one day's notice to move, and objected to moving and having to reconstruct their homes during monsoon season.

Reports from the field indicated that the police presence has been withdrawn, but the people have been told that the police can be called back at any time. Meanwhile, construction of both Vindhyachal and Rihand ash dikes (the project works forcing the current wave of evictions) continues at an accelerated pace.

In the fall of 1997, the Board of Executive Directors reviewed the Panel’s preliminary report and recommendation for a full investigation, but due to political fighting at the Board level, the Board decided to allow only a "desk review" of the project by the Panel. The Panel released its final desk review in late December, which, despite its limited mandate contained a scathing critique of the Bank’s operations.

Because of the filing of the claim and CIEL’s continued attention on its human rights aspects, increased national and international attention is finally being focused on the Singrauli situation. The Panel’s report was leaked to the Financial Times, which wrote a major story about the Panel’s findings. The British Broadcasting Corporation is also now planning a documentary on Singrauli. Representatives of peoples’ movements had meetings with the Minister of Power and Minister of the Environment and demanded that the NTPC be responsive to the concerns of locally affected people. The National Human Rights Commission in Delhi has agreed to re-open an investigation into human rights violations, and Human Rights Watch/Asia is also planning to send a team to the area to investigate.

The Board of Executive Directors decided to delay the scheduled February 12 meeting to discuss the Panel's desk review and future steps in order to obtain further information.

THE ITAPARICA CLAIM (BRAZIL), March 97

In March 1997, 121 community leaders and a Brazilian organization called Polo Sindical do Submedio Sao Francisco filed an inspection panel claim into the Itaparica Resettlement and Irrigation Project in Brazil on behalf of local communities who have been adversely affected by the design and implementation of the project. The Itaparica claim is the first against a World Bank mitigation project.

The Itaparica Resettlement and Irrigation Project, which sought to provide compensation for the irreversible cultural, environmental, economic, and social losses caused by involuntary resettlement due to the construction of the Itaparica dam, has instead worsened the living conditions of the resettled communities. Almost ten years after the population’s involuntary resettlement, only 35% of the irrigation systems have been installed, and of the 35% in operation many fail to function properly. Therefore, some of the communities that have already been forced to resettle are unable to harvest crops due to the absence of irrigation systems.

The claimants allege that failures in project implementation have resulted in adverse social, ecological, and economic impacts. For example, as a result of poor implementation, resettled communities suffer from increased crime and unemployment rates and face excessive cases of alcoholism.

On June 24, 1997, the Inspection Panel recommended a full investigation of the Itaparica claim to the Board of Executive Directors. After a heated and highly politicized discussion and a rare vote by the Board, the Board narrowly rejected the Panel’s recommendation for an investigation. Instead, they accepted the Government of Brazil’s word that it would implement a $290 million Action Plan. The Panel was not allowed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Action Plan, nor were affected people allowed to participate in its development.

Despite the setback at the Board level, the claimants believe the Panel’s preliminary investigation vindicated their allegations and this process has mobilized broader and more effective campaigns in the project area.

THE JUTE CLAIM (BANGLADESH), November 1996

In August 1996, a group of shareholders and CEOs of Private sector Jute mills in Bangladesh filed a claim against the World Bank’s Jute Sector Adjustment Credit project (JSAC). The claimants allege that the Bank violated its policies and procedures, as well as, the loan conditions and agreed design of the JSAC project. The claim questions the Bank’s lack of support for the private sector Jute industry and an unwillingness to address private sector concerns as those of an affected party, in violation of general Bank policies which mandate the promotion of the private sector, removal of Government-induced market distortion, and involvement of affected parties in the design and implementation of Bank-financed projects.

With regard to the violation of project design and implementation, the claimants allege that the JSAC project has discriminated against private sector mills by offering public mills favorable capitalization and debt restructuring mechanisms. The claimants contend that the Bank has failed to enforce the conditionalities of the agreement, demonstrating a willingness to modify the content, scope, and time frame of public mill closings, public downsizing, privatization plans, wage policy reform, and technical assistance training.

The claimants assert that the result of project violations include production losses to both private and public sector mills, stagnant output capacity, and an absence of privatization in the four years since the JSAC agreement. Consequently, the JSAC project has failed to realize the export forecasts established by the Bank and has resulted in private mill closings, reduced revenue, and financial losses.

In April 1997, the Board accepted the Inspection Panel's recommendation that an investigation into JSAC was not warranted. IDA Management informed the Board that an upcoming Jute mission will evaluate the Government's success in achieving privatization of the jute mills. If such evaluation concludes that no progress has been achieved, the June 1997 closing date of the project will not be extended.

THE YACYRETA CLAIM (ARGENTINA/PARAGUAY), September 1996
For the claim in Spanish, click here

On October 1, 1996, Sobrevivencia, a Paraguayan NGO, filed a joint claim to the World Bank Inspection Panel and the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) Investigation Mechanism. This was the first claim ever filed to the IDB’s Investigation Mechanism, and it has played an important role in highlighting some of the weaknesses of that process and in catalyzing a momentum for reform of the mechanism. The claim filed by Sobrevivencia on its own behalf and on behalf of anonymous affected fishers, artisans and brickmakers, alleged a series of policy violations in the design and implementation of the Yacyreta Hydroelectric Project on the Rio Parana between Argentina and Paraguay.

In December, the final reports of the World Bank Inspection Panel and the IDB Investigation Mechanism were completed and submitted to the Boards of Directors of the World Bank and the IDB. The reports demonstrated serious policy violations and made recommendations for further implementation of action plans that had been developed by the Bank management and the borrower. The Board of Directors has not ruled on any of the Panel recommendations, but has instead instructed Management to continue implementation of the action plans. Further measures are pending. Perhaps more importantly, filing the claim has helped to focus local, national and international attention on the failure to mitigate the social environmental impacts of this massive dam project, and Argentina and Paraguay have begun to take steps to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to mitigate the damage. Community-based organizations have mobilized and organized to articulate their concerns and demands, and local governments have supported the claims to the Inspection Panels. Some of the affected people have also taken the unprecedented step of suing the Bank and the government of Argentina in Argentine courts.

THE JAMUNA CLAIM (BANGLADESH), August 1996

On August 23, 1996 the Jamuna Char Integrated Development Project filed a claim in relation to the Jamuna Bridge Project. The claimants allege violation of IDA environmental assessment, environmental action plans, involuntary resettlement, and involvement of NGOs in Bank supported activities policies. The Panel, after receiving Management’s response, decided it needed an additional thirty days to accurately analyze the situation and make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Directors. Following this preliminary assessment, the Panel recommended in December 1996 that the Board authorize the implementation of Management's Action Plan and commit to a six-month review of the project, rather than recommend a full investigation. In April 1997, the Board accepted the Inspection Panel's recommendation that an investigation into Jamuna was not warranted at the present time. Management was asked to submit a progress report on their Action Plan to compensate the char dwellers in April 1998.

THE PLANAFLORO CLAIM (BRAZIL), June 1995

The second major claim was filed with the assistance of Rachel Biderman (AU LL.M. 1992) in Brazil on behalf of 25 organizations representing indigenous peoples, traditional forest users, and environmental NGOs in the Western Brazilian Amazon. The claim challenged the $167 million Planafloro project, alleging that the Bank failed to enforce its policies and loan conditions in its agreement with Brazil and the state of Rondonia. As a result, critical elements of the Planafloro project were being neglected -- most significantly, the demarcation and protection of lands for indigenous peoples and rubber tappers. The Bank's Executive Directors rejected the claim in January 1996. Nonetheless, the claim led to increased Bank supervision of the project and a commitment to allow the Panel to review project implementation in six months. More importantly, the project is getting back on track; more than one million hectares of Amazonian rainforest have been protected as rubber tapper reserves since the claim was filed.

As part of the January 1996 decision the Board required the Bank to implement an action plan for improving implementation and committed to a six-month review of the project by the inspection panel. Management submitted this action plan in March 1996.

In January 1997, the Inspection Panel was asked to review the 18 month progress on Management's Action Plan and in April 1997 submitted their report to the Board. Subsequently, the Board accepted the Panel's findings in full. The Panel's report recognizes the difficulty in executing such a complex project in the remote forests of the Amazon and acknowledges the progress achieved with regards to Bank oversight and administration. However, the report states that deforestation continues at an alarmingly rate, nearly 450,000 hectares annually, and emphasizes the need for stronger border enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore it identifies little progress in the implementation of a sustainable health program for the indigenous people.

THE ARUN CLAIM (NEPAL), October 1994

The first claim was brought by Gopal Siwakoti (AU LL.M. 1994) in Nepal on behalf of the Arun Concerned Group of Citizens and two individuals from the Arun River Valley. The claim opposed a $746 million hydroelectric dam on the Arun River and the dam's 122 kilometer access road. Claimants suggested a more environmentally appropriate strategy, one that incorporated small hydro and energy conservation. The Arun claim alleged violations of environmental assessment, resettlement and other policies in the siting of the controversial Arun III hydroelectric dam.

Following the Board's authorization of an investigation into the Arun claim, the Inspection Panel completed a full inspection into the alleged violations. (Click here for more information.)

In August of 1995, the World Bank announced that it would not approve funds for the dam and would instead study energy conservation and small-scale hydro power, an incredible victory for citizens of the Arun River Valley.

The World Bank's Progress Report for Arun provides updated information regarding the Arun Project.

CLAIMS DISMISSED BY THE PANEL

Lesotho Highlands Water Project Diamond Mines (Lesotho/South Africa), May 1999

Proposed Phase 1B of Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Lesotho/South Africa), May 1998

Pangue/Ralco Complex of Hydroelectric Dams, Chile, November 1995
In November 1995, the Panel received a Request from a Chilean NGO representing people living in the project area. They alleged that IFC's participation in the construction of the Pangue/Ralco complex of hydroelectric dams on the upper BioBio River is in violation of a number of IFC and World Bank policies. The Panel informed the Requesters and Executive Directors of IBRD, IDA and IFC that the Request was inadmissible since the Resolutions establishing the Panel restrict its mandate to the review of alleged violations of operational policies and procedures related to the design, approval or implementation of projects financed by only the IBRD or IDA. (Adapted from the World Bank Inspection Panel "September 1997 Update.")

For further discussion of the BioBio project, click here.

Emergency Power Project, Tanzania, May 1995
On June 16, 1995 a Request relating to the purchase and installation of emergency power generation uits was registered. The Requesters claimed that there was no need for IDA financing since there was private sector financing available on reasonable terms (from the firm they owned and worked for). The Panel did not recommend an investigation because it found that the Management had considered the alternative financing and adequately reported to the Executive Directors about it prior to their approval of IDA's financing. The Requesters also alleged violation of environmental policies. The Panel found that the Requesters were not eligible to file such a claim since they could not possibly suffer any adverse effects from the alleged violation. (Adapted from the World Bank Inspection Panel "September 1997 Update.")

Compensation for Expropriation of Foreign Assets, Ethiopia, April 1995
In April 1995 the Panel received a Request alleging that IDA violated provisions of Operational Manual Statement 1.28 by having extended credits to Ethiopia and now was negotiating more financial assistance with the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, even though it had refused to deal with the Requesters' claim for compensation for a previous government's expropriation of their assets and blocking of their bank accounts. The Panel did not accept this Request because the Requester had not exhausted local remedies and failed to establish how this lack of compensation was the consequence of any alleged acts or omissions by IDA. (Adapted from the World Bank Inspection Panel "September 1997 Update.")

• Return to the World Bank Inspection Panel Page