THE REQUEST
On June 17, 2021, Witness Radio Uganda (WRU)—a non-profit, non-partisan, registered advocacy organization for the protection and promotion of human rights in development—submitted the Request for Inspection on behalf of 24 community members and representatives living in the Project area. The Requesters authorized WRU to represent them during the Panel process and asked the Panel to keep their identities confidential. Accountability Counsel—a legal non-profit organization that seeks to protect the human rights and environments of communities around the world—supported the Request. The Panel further received the signatures of seven local council leaders supporting the Request.
The Requesters raised concerns about works on the Lubigi Primary Drainage Channel. They alleged that the Project’s resettlement and compensation program failed to include their community. They claimed that during the reduced supervision imposed by the COVID-19 lockdown, Project authorities attempted to evict project-affected persons(PAPs) forcibly, without compensation, and in violation of the Bank’s safeguard policies. According to the Request, following interventions from PAP advocates and the local council, the Requesters were hastily resettled without due process and in a threatening and coercive manner. The Requesters said that they were willing to move, but required fair and adequate compensation and resettlement assistance to sustain their livelihoods. The Request said that the Project caused the loss and disturbance of family remains and burial sites, risked food shortages, increased school dropouts, and adversely affected the safety and welfare of children and women. The Requesters also complained about inadequate disclosure of information, the absence of meaningful consultation and participation, and the failure to establish an adequate GRM.
The Requesters claimed that several problems arising from the First Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP-1) were never addressed—including damage to structures and crops taken by force, increased flooding, and health and safety issues. They said that although community members had been informed that issues left unaddressed under KIIDP-1 would be resolved under the Second Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP-2), this did not happen.
The Requesters contended that the harm caused to them had been exacerbated by the Kampala Northern Bypass Highway Project and the Lubigi Sewage Treatment Plant—both funded by other financial institutions—which they alleged also forcibly displaced residents. The Panel issued a Notice of Receipt for the Request on July 2, 2021, and registered the Request on July 26, 2021.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management provided its Response on August 24, 2021, stating that it had carefully reviewed the allegations raised in the Request and claiming that most of them were being addressed by the Project Implementation Unit as part of its regular implementation activities.
Regarding the alleged exclusion of community members from the Project’s resettlement and compensation program, the Response explained that the Kawaala-Hoima Section is in an officially designated wetland area that had been uninhabited and unused by nearby communities when the 2017 RAP was prepared. The PAPs who subsequently moved into the Project area were therefore not identified as part of the resettlement process. However, a Supplementary RAP being prepared would include these new communities in the resettlement program. Management believed this Supplementary RAP will preserve community relations, avoid potentially lengthy legal procedures, and ensure smooth Project implementation. The Response claimed the resettlement process was inclusive and covered all PAPs, including absentee landlords. Management stated that—contrary to the Requesters’ allegations—the Supplementary RAP process was not rushed, and its timing reflected a deliberative and professional approach commensurate with the geographic scope of the affected area and number of people potentially affected.
Management said that no eviction notices had been issued in connection with the Project, and that the Project had never deployed police against the affected community. While Management held that the consultations so far had been adequate from the perspective of Bank policy, it recognized that community outreach and consultations should be improved, particularly given the confusion caused by other activities in the same Project area, the fact that some PAPs had not been included in the Project’s original engagement, and the limitations imposed by COVID-19 on public gatherings. The Response added that the Project had a grievance redress process and a three-level Grievance Redress Committee with clear appeal procedures.
The Management Response noted that the Northern Bypass Highway Project and the Lubigi Sewage Treatment Plant were not supported by the Bank, and were not needed to achieve the objectives of KIIDP-2. The Response explained that the ESIA for priority drainage systems for Kampala, which included the Lubigi channel, had considered the impact of such projects, including the cumulative risks of flooding.
The Response concluded by committing to work with the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) to strengthen RAP implementation, which Management believed will address the Request’s key concerns.
PANEL RECOMMENDATION/BOARD APPROVAL/REFERRAL TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the Panel could not conduct a field visit during its eligibility assessment. Instead, the Panel adopted a virtual format to gather information for its Recommendation, conducted virtual meetings with the Bank’s Project team, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, KCCA, and the National Environment Management Authority. The Panel also met virtually with the Requesters, their representatives, and other affected community members.
In its October 4, 2021 Report and Recommendation to the Board, the Panel recommended an investigation. The Panel recognized that Management was taking steps to address some of the alleged harm. However, the Panel noted the conflicting assertions between the Requesters and Management as to whether the Project caused the alleged harm the Requesters had suffered or were likely to suffer and whether the Bank had violated its operational policies and procedures. The Panel noted that these assertions and the Bank’s compliance or non-compliance with applicable policies and procedures could only be determined through an investigation.
The Board approved the Panel’s Recommendation on October 20, 2021.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
On October 22, 2021, the AM Secretary offered the option of dispute resolution to the Requesters and Borrower. In accordance with AM procedures, the parties were given 30 days to decide whether to opt for dispute resolution. The parties accepted the offer, and this was reported to the Board on December 2, 2021, marking the start of the dispute resolution process. On December 1, 2022, at the request of both parties, the AM Secretary issued a six-month extension of the mediation process. On May 31, 2023, the parties signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement, which the signatories agreed to keep confidential. At the parties’ request, DRS is monitoring the implementation of the commitments undertaken as part of the mediation agreement. Learn more about the DRS process here.
PANEL CLOSING MEMORANDUM
Following the voluntary agreement between the Parties to pursue dispute resolution, the Panel held its compliance investigation process in abeyance until conclusion of the dispute resolution process in accordance with the Inspection Panel and Accountability Mechanism Resolutions.
On May 31, 2023, the AM Secretary issued a Notice of Dispute Resolution Agreement stating that the dispute resolution process had concluded with a signed Dispute Resolution Agreement between the Parties. According to the Notice, the signatories have stated that the agreement was reached in full and final settlement of their dispute. It added that the signatories agreed to keep the details of the settlement confidential. The Notice annexes an Outcome Report, which states that 15 elected community representatives and more than 100 other community members signed the final agreement. As per the Panel resolution, when the AM Secretary informs the Executive Directors that the Parties have reached agreement and signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement, the case shall be considered closed, and the Panel issues a memorandum closing the case and takes no further action with respect to the Request.
On June 5, 2023, given that the Parties had reached an agreement through dispute resolution, the Panel issued a memorandum closing the case.
Learn more about the case here.