THE REQUESTS
In November and December 2018, the Inspection Panel received two Requests for Inspection regarding the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project for Low-Income States, and after registering them, chose to process them jointly. These Requests came from two villages in the state of Jharkhand, India—submitted by 104 Santhal tribal community members of one village, followed by 130 Santhal and Ho tribal community members of a second. The Requesters asked the Panel to keep their identities confidential.
The first Request concerned construction of a water treatment plant (WTP) for the Bagbera multi-village scheme financed under the Project. The Requesters claimed it was built on community land that was the site of an ancestral sacred grove and burial grounds that had tribal historical and cultural significance. They complained about losing access to important community resources, in particular medicinal plants. They questioned the WTP’s environmental and social impacts and the Project’s failure to analyze alternatives. They claimed the Project neglected to consult them or disclose Project information in local languages. They also feared retaliation for opposing the Project.
The second Request concerned construction of an elevated storage reservoir (ESR) as part of the Chhotagovindpur multi-village scheme financed under the Project. The Requesters alleged that the ESR was being built near a site honoring community martyrs of the struggle for Jharkhand statehood and thus held significant cultural and historical value. The Requesters claimed that the ESR’s construction would cause the loss of free access to water and impose water payments that would impoverish them. They raised concerns about the lack of a social assessment to evaluate the scheme’s impact on indigenous peoples and the Project’s failure to consider alternatives that could mitigate environmental impact. They also alleged that there was no consultation or disclosure of project information.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
In its Response, Bank Management acknowledged shortcomings in complying with the Bank’s safeguard policy requirements for the implementation of the Project component for the construction of the WTP and the ESR near the Requesters’ habitations. In both cases Management attributed these shortcomings to “weaknesses in design and supervision, the conduct and documentation of consultations, the disclosure of key scheme-specific documents, non-objection to the initiation of works ahead of an approved EMP [Environmental Management Plan], and failure to apply the Bank’s policy on Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11).”
In responding to the first Request, Management stated that it was not feasible to stop the works since many members of the community had expressed interest in benefiting from the clean water supply that the Project had promised to deliver. However, Management identified several actions to address community concerns and correct Project shortcomings. These actions included working with the Government to hold community consultations supported by experts in anthropology and cultural heritage, outreach to understand community concerns better, and appropriate compensatory measures. Management committed to additional consultations on the updated EMPs and to ensuring that executive summaries of safeguard documents would be translated into Hindi. Management also explained that the Project would be restructured and that OP/BP 4.11 would apply to it.
Regarding the second Request, Management stated that the Requesters’ demand to stop construction and remove the scheme was impracticable, since the ESR was virtually completed and operational trial runs were ongoing. Management added that the strong demand by associated communities for piped water could risk retaliation against those opposing the scheme. However, Management agreed with the Borrower to consult the Requesters on possible remedial measures, update Project-related information and communication materials, providing versions in Santhali and Ho, and consult on and disclose the EMP.
PANEL RECOMMENDATION/BOARD APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
A Panel team visited India from December 13–19, 2018, to inform its decision on whether to recommend an investigation in this case. The team met in Delhi with representatives of the World Bank Country Office, as well as officials from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, and the National Project Management Unit (PMU). The team traveled to Ranchi, Jharkhand, and met with officials from the State Project Management Unit (SPMU), the State Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, and the State Department of Social Welfare. In Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, the team met with officials from the District Project Management Units (DPMU) and the District Administration. The team also visited the Project sites of both Requests and met with community members affected by the Bagbera and Chhotagovindpur multi-village water schemes.
The Panel submitted its Report and Recommendation to the Board of Executive Directors on February 12, 2019, recommending an investigation of the Project. The Panel had determined that the Requesters and the Requests met the technical eligibility criteria set forth in the Panel Resolution. The Panel considered the alleged harms mentioned in the Requests to be linked to the Project, and that the Requests raised important issues of harm and policy non-compliance. The Board approved the Recommendation on March 1, 2019.
PANEL INVESTIGATION
The Panel Investigation determined that the Bagbera WTP and the ESR near Purani Basti were in areas customarily used by tribal communities. It found that Management had failed to ensure preparation of site-specific Tribal Development Plans, which led to significant harm to the culture, religion, and way of life of tribal communities adjacent to these sites. The Panel noted that the Project’s Social Assessment and Tribal Development Plans for Jharkhand had not adequately assessed the customary use of natural resources, religious practices, and cultural festivals of the Santhal and Ho tribes, and were therefore not in compliance with Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10). The Panel also found that Management had not ensured a process of free, prior, and informed consultations with affected tribal communities, and that the works had proceeded without first securing broad community support. Additionally, there were shortcomings in the disclosure of key safeguard documents in Hindi and tribal languages.
The Investigation also found that the site selections for the WTP and the ESR had not been approved by the Gram Sabha(s) (village councils) as required by the tribal decision-making process. Bank Management failed to ensure analysis of the potential environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the schemes, or preparation of mitigation measures. The Panel determined that sites were selected without considering their social and cultural importance, and Management did not ensure the identification and mitigation of the impact on customary use of land, resources, and sites of importance to affected tribal people. Management failed to address environmental and health risks related to open disposal of household wastewater in the 2019 retrofitted EMPs, despite it being an important part of the project. The Panel noted the absence of a functioning Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) for affected communities and inadequate implementation support prior to the Requests, as required by Bank policies on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) and Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10).
The Panel found that Management was in non-compliance with Bank Policies on Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10), Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11), and Investment Project Financing (OP/BP 10.00). This contributed to the significant harm suffered by the Santhal and Ho indigenous peoples of Giddhi Jhopri and Purani Basti. However, the Panel’s Investigation Report noted that the Project’s designation as an environmental Category B complied with OP/BP 4.01, as did Management’s consideration of hydrology, water quality, and sludge management in both the Project’s design and implementation, as well as in the 2019 EMPs.
The Panel submitted its Investigation Report to the Board on January 15, 2020. The Panel shared a copy of its Report with the Requesters so they could participate more effectively in the Bank Management consultations on the preparation of the action plan responding to the Panel’s findings.
MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
In response to the findings of the Investigation Report, Management submitted a MAP to the Board on December 21, 2022. (Management explained that COVID-19-related travel restrictions had delayed community consultations on the MAP until October 2022.)
The MAP included updating and finalizing the EMPs, sludge and water quality testing, conservation of a sacred tree and hillock in Giddhi Jhopri, restructuring the GRM, and ensuring creation of information and education initiatives.
Management agreed with the Requesters that the Government should help communities develop a pilot project to enhance livelihoods by cultivating bamboo, lemongrass, and other medicinal plants, and should confirm in writing that police cases against protestors among the tribal peoples were now dropped.
The Board discussed the Panel’s Investigation Report and approved the MAP on March 2, 2022. Management committed to reporting annually to the Board on its progress in implementing the MAP.
Learn more about the case here.