Civil Society Calls the Bluff of World Bank Accountability

For Immediate Release

New Delhi: December 17, 2013

Civil Society Calls the Bluff of World Bank Accountability

“Response of World Bank President Jim Kim is evasive and does not even recognize the finding of the report on Tata Mundra,” noted social activist Medha Patkar said. She was speaking at a discussion yesterday on the World Bank and its accountability in the context of the recent reports on Tata Mundra project. “The current stalemate is that of the president versus the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), as he has not given any heed to the findings of CAO,” she said.

Member of Parliament Mani Shankar Aiyer said “Development without consideration for environment and people is pointless.” He decried government policies which give big corporations tax concessions, which is glorified in the name of stimulus, while the same done to the farmers and marginalised is called subsidies.

The meeting was held in the context of the recent report by World Bank’s accountability mechanism, which reported Bank’s own policy violations by its private sector arm, International Finance Corporation (IFC) which financing the Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd (CGPL – Tata Mundra) project.

CAO in its report said that Environmental and Social risks and impacts of the project were not considered and addressed; There is no social baseline data; IFC’s policies for land acquisition not applied, despite physical and economic displacement; Inadequate attention paid to the requirement of biodiversity conservation; IFC failed in its review and supervision of the impacts on airshed & marine environment; and IFC failed to examine the cumulative impact of projects around Tata Mundra.

Earlier speaking about the inequity which is promoted by the World Bank, noted economist Prof Arun Kumar said “World Bank does not have one line of operation but have one underlying principle, i.e., marketization of natural resources.” He further said, “the notion that private efficient and hence market needs preference puts the question of equity secondary. The questions of efficiency and equity are opposing. Rationality is dominated by profits and greed is justified.”

Energy expert Soumya Dutta, local community leaders Ayub Haji and Bharat Patel also spoke at the meeting.

MASS Responds to Dr. Kim’s statement

Responding to the statement issued by Dr. Kim MASS said, “By not standing firm behind your accountability mechanisms and their findings, you are undermining their legitimacy and playing into the hands of the ones inside the Bank and outside who find these mechanisms to be a distraction for their smooth running of business.” Drawing parallels between the Morse Committee Report on Narmada dam (Sardar Sarovar) and of CAO on Tata Mundra, the statement from MASS said that the president is “following the same strategy which the then President Lewis Preston, who constituted Morse Committee followed – pretending that you have not seen the findings.”

IFC & World Bank President Evading Responsibility

Not once but twice now, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) has shown leniency in coming to terms with Compliance Advisor Ombudsman’s (CAO) audit report on TATA Mundra. After the CAO pointed that IFC has violated its social and environmental guidelines in its financing the project, the private arm of the World Bank rejected the audit report findings. The rejection was subsequently endorsed by the World Bank Group President, Dr. Jim Yong Kim, who did not prescribe any remedial action for IFC to take.

When the pressure started to mount with International and National Organizations coming together to question this inaction on Dr. Kim’s part, the President instructed his senior staff to have a forward looking statement from the IFC on the issue. This statement turned out to be a damp squib, a non-starter, non-committal, and non-serious. Written in an evasive language, it only breeds confusion, keeping the community’s concerns at bay and undermining CAO’s findings. What is striking in the statement is the noticeable absence of IFC’s roles and responsibilities, with the major chunk of these delegated to Costal Gujarat Power Limited, the TATA subsidiary running the project.

Silence of the President of the WBG goes on to prove that he is either helping IFC absolve itself from responsibilities, or is unable to do anything more than undermine the credibility of internal mechanisms like the CAO. Either ways, the legitimacy of his tall claims of renewable energy could be jeopardized if he continues to remain silent on a thermal project that is not only environmentally fragile, but financially in woes.

Contact: Bharat Patel  - +91-9426469803

Background:

a.       CAO Audit Report: http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CAOAuditReportC-I-R6-Y12-F160.pdf

b.      IFC Response to CAO report: http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IFCresponsetoCAOAudit-CoastalGujaratPowerLimited.pdf

c.       Key findings and observations: http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Key-Observations-and-Findings.pdf

d.      Press note of MASS: http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MASS-Press-Release-10-24-131.pdf

e.      Indian organisations’ letter to World Bank President: http://www.bicusa.org/over-100-organizations-demand-world-bank-withdrawal-from-tata-mundra/

f.        International organisations’ letter to World Bank President: http://www.bicusa.org/groups-worldwide-join-indian-people-demanding-kim-pull-ifc-out-of-tata-coal-plant/

g.       Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wake-Up-Kim/677682028922900

h.      MASS letter to World Bank President Dr. Kim: http://www.bicusa.org/local-gujarati-group-sends-letter-to-dr-kim-urging-withdrawal-from-tata-mundra/

i.         World Bank President Dr.Jim Kim’s statement: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/12/09/statement-world-bank-group-jim-yong-kim-civil-society-private-sector-investments.print

j.        MASS’ reply to Dr. Jim Kim: http://masskutch.blogspot.in/2013_12_01_archive.html#2984461388647718201

MASS Replies to World Bank President Dr. Jim Kim's Statement

December 14, 2013

Dear Dr. Kim,

It was with great interest that we received your statement issued early this week, in response to the “concerns expressed by the CSOs about several projects supported by World Bank Group”. We hope one of those projects is the Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd (CGPL – Tata Mundra).

We make this assumption because we know that many prominent citizens from different parts of the world wrote to you, expressing concerns at your inaction on the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) report on Tata Mundra. Those include people representing 102 organisations from India, another 68 organisations from 28 countries, and host of emails and regular mail.

Since this was the first statement from you on a report made public by CAO six weeks back, we were expecting a much clearer statement, acknowledging the findings of CAO, laying out a road map for mitigation for the damages already caused and some bold measures, sending a clear message to the staff as well as clients, that you are serious about safeguard policies and there is zero tolerance for its violations. You disappointed us, again, Dr. Kim. Disappointment because you missed the point, chose to act weak and made a mockery of all that communities have been saying about impacts.

We will keep the discussion on how private corporations can contribute to “transformative projects” for another day. We have a very different experience and view from what you have on that. It may suffice to state that you can no longer fool anyone with hollow and empty rhetoric – “aligning our operations with our goals of ending extreme poverty by 2030”, “ boosting shared prosperity”, “help the poor lift themselves out of poverty”, “end extreme poverty” and “build shared prosperity”.

In your statement you have elucidated about Bank’s past experiences, claiming it to have benefitted the poor. Our experience in India is different. Particularly two projects, Narmada dam and Singrauli power project which the Bank financed some three decades back are worth mentioning. Bank’s financing undermined the national policies and statutory requirements (Bank approved funding for Narmada dam two years before the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave its clearance); displaced hundreds of thousands of people, a large majority of them are still awaiting rehabilitation; and in both cases, Bank rescued itself from any responsibility some years later, leaving the people high and dry. While the magnitude of damage of both environment and people were too high in these projects, the experience in other projects was not any different.

The first accountability mechanism of the Bank, the Inspection Panel was an outcome of a relentless struggle by the people of Narmada valley, along with their allies from different parts of the globe. You may know that in 1991 the Independent Review Committee (Morse Committee) was the first independent committee constituted by the Bank to review a project it financed. The findings of the committee were revealing. It said:

“The Bank and India both failed to carry out adequate assessments of human impacts of the Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) Project.

“There was virtually no basis, in 1985, on which to determine what the impacts were, that would have to be ameliorated.

“This inadequate understanding was compounded by a failure to consult the people potentially to be affected.

“…the Bank failed to take adequate account of the fact that a large proportion of those at risk from the development of the Sardar Sarovar Projects are tribal people.

“In these and other ways, the Bank failed to follow the principles and policies it set out…

“The Bank failed to consider the effects of the Projects on people living downstream of the dam.

“There has been no comprehensive environmental assessment of the canal and water delivery system in the command area.

“We think the Sardar Sarovar Projects as they stand are flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation of all those displaced by the Projects is not possible under prevailing circumstances, and that environmental impacts of the Projects have not been properly considered or adequately addressed.

“Moreover we believe that the Bank shares responsibility with the borrower for the situation that has developed... it seems clear that engineering and economic imperatives have driven the Projects to the exclusion of human and environmental concerns... India and the states involved... have spent a great deal of money. No one wants to see this money wasted.

“But we caution that it may be more wasteful to proceed without full knowledge of the human and environmental costs. We have decided that it would be irresponsible for us to patch together a series of recommendations on implementation when the flaws in the Projects are as obvious as they seem to us.

“As a result, we think that the wisest course would be for the Bank to step back from the Projects and consider them afresh. The failure of the bank's incremental strategy should be acknowledged."

Dr. Kim, doesn’t it ring a bell when you read this? Didn’t CAO say something very similar, sans, recommendations, which it is not mandated to make? CAO after its audit on Tata Mundra said:

“The Complainants, who are from a religious minority and occupy a socially marginal position given their migrant traditions, were not adequately considered as the (Environmental and Social) E&S risks and impacts of the project were considered and addressed.

“There is no social baseline data in relation to the fisher people who reside seasonally in the fishing villages. In the absence of a baseline data IFC was not in a position to ensure the proper application of IFC’s policies related to land acquisition, despite indications that households living on the bunders have been displaced by the project (both physically and economically).

“IFC failed to ensure that its client’s E&S assessments adequately considered the risks and impacts of the project on these fisher people.

“IFC paid inadequate attention to the requirement of biodiversity conservation.

“Serious lapses in IFC’s review and supervision of the impacts of the project on the airshed and marine environment.

“ IFC has not ensured that its client correctly applied the World Bank’s Thermal Power: Guidelines (1998) in that the project airshed has not been defined as a degraded airshed—a classification that brings with it a requirement that there will be no net increase in the total emissions of particulates or sulphur dioxide within the airshed.

“IFC’s process of E&S review was not appropriate to the nature and scale of the project or commensurate to risk as required by the Sustainability Policy.

“IFC has not assured itself that the plant’s seawater cooling system will comply with applicable IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.

“IFC’s E&S review paid inadequate attention to ensuring that the project’s risks and impacts were “analyzed in the context of [its] area of influence,” as required by Performance Standard 1 (of IFC), including “areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts…from project-related developments that are realistically defined at the time the E&S assessment is undertaken.”

“IFC should have advised its client that third-party E&S risk emerging from the project’s proximity and relationship with Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone needed to be better assessed, with mitigation measures developed.”

Dr.Kim do you need more reasons from anybody on why you should take bold steps on Tata Mundra? If findings of your own mechanism are not convincing enough, what else on earth can convince you?

The statement and the so called action plan issued by IFC CEO Jin-Yong Cai shows only how non-serious IFC is about the findings of CAO. After rebutting all that CAO has reported, they issued this, which is nothing but to confuse the public, making a mockery of communities’ concerns and yet again, undermine CAO and its findings.

As we mentioned in a statement earlier, “While some of the action plan stated are listing of actions taken pre-CAO time, some other are just suggestions, resulting in nothing particular. There are no timeline, no specific targets or indicators. Significantly, the statement says that it will bank on the expertise of the company, whose violations are in question. The statement is silent on IFC’s violations of its own policies, listed by the CAO”.

By you not taking any action on the findings of CAO, you are sending out a message to your clients and staff that you are non-serious about safeguard policies. That any violation of the policies will not alter the course of IFC’s current financing, or future investments. If the purpose of it is only ornamental, why are you investing time and resources in reviewing the safeguard policies? If not to be acted upon, if there is no political will to implement them steadfastly, the policies and its review, both are a sham.

By not standing firm behind your accountability mechanisms and their findings, you are undermining their legitimacy and playing into the hands of the ones inside the Bank and outside who find these mechanisms to be a distraction for their smooth running of business. By ignoring the findings of CAO, Dr.Kim, how can “the CAO and the Inspection Panel enhance our impact and help us further improve our effectiveness?”

You seem to be following the same strategy which the then President Lewis Preston, who constituted Morse Committee followed – pretending that you have not seen the findings. However we are hopeful, since Preston withdrew financing after a year of the report, having faced the wrath of people around the globe.

In hope,

Bharat Patel,
General Secretary,
Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan

Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch[1]

(Forum for Protection of Rights in Mundra)      

Mundra Taluka, Kutch District, Gujarat

21^st November 2013

Shri Harshad Patel

District Collector, Kutch District

Bhuj, Gujarat

Subject:District Level Implementation of the critical clauses of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), 2011 notification.

Dear Shri Patel,

Greetings on World Fisheries day from the members of the Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch. We are a forum of affected people and mass based organisations who have been raising concerns related to large scale industrial expansion in the Mundra region of Kutch district of Gujarat. While we have been raising concerns at an individual level in our villages we have now come together as part of the Mundra Hitrakshak Manch.

As you are aware, the Kutch coast is not just a unique ecological hotspot but its vast inter-tidal zone and inland areas have support a variety of livelihoods. These include artisanal fishing, salt production, agriculture, animal husbandry (including pastoralists) and horticulture. We believe that it is only with our collective efforts and through active implementation of our existing laws and policies we will be able to ensure sustainable development along the Kutch coast. It is for this we look forward to your immediate and continued cooperation.

As you are aware, the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 in its Clause 6 (c ) has the specific provision for setting up District Level Coastal Committees (DLCC) to assist the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) of the state in enforcement and monitoring of the CRZ notification. The order of 14^th October 2013 by the CZMA lists out the possible composition of the DLCC and a wide range of functions for the same.

As Chairman of this DLCC, we do hope you would take the lead in setting up a vibrant and active DLCC for livelihood protection and conservation of the Kutch coast. The Manch and its members will be extremely happy to work on and with the DLCC in all its activities and we would like to extend our full support to the district administration for the same.

We would request you to call for a meeting of the DLCC as soon as possible and expand the scope of local participation in the same. While the CRZ notification, 2011 mandates that a minimum of three representatives from the fishing community should be part of the DLCC, we hope given the vastness and diversity of the Kutch coast, there would be a possibility to expand the scope of participation. We hope that the Kutch DLCC will be able to find representation of different occupations of the coastal people residing in CRZ areas as well as many more fishing community representatives, especially

those practicing artisanal fisheries.

We also hope that through your initiative, the DLCC will also be able to a play a significant and path-breaking role ensuring a leadership role for the DLCC in the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for Kutch. This will be crucial input into the state level CZMP being prepared by the Gujarat CZMA. We, the members of the Mundra Hit RakshakManch would be keen to participate actively in the preparation of the CZMP, which can become a vision document for the Kutch coast.

We would also like to share with you that we have recently been part of a day long training program and discussion on the CRZ notification, 2011 organised by UjjasMahilaSangathan in Mundra. Representatives from Namati-Centre for Policy Research Environment Justice Program who have put together simple and pictorial material on the CRZ notification were also part of this discussion. We take this opportunity to share copies of the Gujarati and English material with you, which we have found useful. We hope that as District Collector you can consider directing similar programs along the Kutch coast where we, and our network members knowledgeable about this law can actively participate.

We look forward to your response, cooperation and working together for the protection of local livelihoods and sustainable development of the Kutch coast.

Sincerely,

Harun Sale Kara                                                        Gajendrasinh Jadeja

Bhadreshwar  Village                                                 Navinal Village

Haji Ayub Osman Majalia                                         Haresh Shamji Mahraj

Bhadreshwar  Village                                                 Bhujpar Village

Ibrahim Manjaliya                                                     Sanjay Bapat

Bhadreshwar                                                              Mundra Village

Usmangani                                                                  Vimal Kalavadiya

Setu                                                                             Namati

                                               

Bharat Patel                                                               Abhu Kasu Manjaliya

MASS, Kutch                                                              Bhadreshwar Village

Encl:Legal Awareness material related to CRZ Notification, 2013

CC: 1. Hardik Shah, Member Secretary, Gujarat CZMA

        2. V. Rajagopalan, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests

        2. E. Thirunavukkarasu, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests

---

[1]Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch(Forum for Protection of Rights in Mundra) is an informal collective of villagers impacted by large scale land use change due to large scale industrial expansion in the Mundra region. These persons and organisations have been regularly raising concerns against the social and environmental impacts of these projects through memorandums and street action as well as through courts. The forum was organically formed in June 2012 during the discussions of the community-led ground truthing of violations by projects in Kutch.

Global NGOs unhappy over WB support to Tata's Mundra UMPP

Seek withdrawal of IFC funding from the Tata Power's 4,000 Mw power project in Gujarat

After Indian NGO, as many as 68 civil society groups from 28 countries have condemned the World Bank Group’s continued support for Tata Power's 4000 Mw ultra mega power plant (UMPP) in Mundra, Kutch, despite the Ombudsman for International Finance Corporation (IFC) finding serious lapses by IFC in supervision of the coal-base power project, impacting environment and livelihood of local fishing community there.

The global groups in an open letter to World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim, Friday last, have further demand that IFC be held accountable for the lapses by taking appropriate actions to address the findings of the Ombudsman, starting with development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Power's power project in Mundra.

The action by civil rights groups from across the world comes on the heels of a letter from over 100 civil society groups in India demanding that the World Bank Group’s IFC withdraw funding from the Tata Power's project in Gujarat.

In its audit report for the power project, released last month, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) for the IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank Group, had also held that IFC's review of project's environment and social assessments was not commensurate with project risk as required under its Sustainability Policy.

IFC had refuted the charges levied by CAO and justified its actions and funding to the power project operational under banner of Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), a fully owned company of Tata Power.

Commenting on open letter by global civil society groups spokesperson for Tata Group said, "CAO report reflects the observations on the internal processes of IFC & thus it will only be appropriate for IFC to respond. We are yet to read through the report & would discuss with IFC if there were any issues related to CGPL. As per initial information available with CGPL, MASS (the Association for Fish workers' Rights) has certain generic issues concerning the coastline of Gujarat. Mundra UMPP is just about 1% of Kutch coastline & we are more than responsive in our association with the community around our project & we remain committed to working with the community at all times."

"Mundra plant is fully compliant on all environmental and social norms and the same has been endorsed by MOEF and other statutory bodies and is committed to being a 'neighbour of choice'," the spokesperson further added.

In the open letter sent to Kim the global civil society groups have asked, "As concerned World Bank stakeholders and contributing taxpayers to our respective government’s official aid through the Bank, we are disturbed by your clearance of IFC response to the CAO report on the Tata Mundra coal power project. In solidarity with the Indian fishing communities, we demand an explanation why you rejected the CAO findings on IFC’s policy violations in funding the Tata Mundra coal power plant."

"Unless the findings from the World Bank Group’s internal watchdogs, like the CAO and the Inspection Panel, are taken seriously and acted upon, their role is in name only. This decision undermines the mandate of CAO while allowing staff and management to avoid culpability. Civil society around the world demand you hold the IFC accountable by taking hard but appropriate actionsto address the CAO findings, starting with the development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Mundra coal project," the groups demanded.

In its audit of Tata UMPP, the CAO had found "weaknesses in IFC’s environment and social (E&S) review of CGPL did not support the formation of a robust view as to whether the project could be expected to meet the requirements of the Performance Standards over a reasonable period of time, the threshold question in terms of IFC’s decision to invest."

"Weaknesses in IFC’s E&S review process also meant that required opportunities to consider alternative project designs to avoid or minimize E&S impact were missed," the CAO stated in its findings.

IFC has invested $450 million of its own capital in this project, which it has classified as a category A project, signifying that it believes there are potentially significant adverse social and environmental impacts that may be diverse or irreversible. IFC was also considering investing up to $50 million in equity as part of its exposure to the project and syndicating up to about $300 million in loans

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/global-ngos-unhappy-over-wb-support-to-tata-s-mundra-umpp-113111100401_1.html

Top US, European groups oppose World Bank support to Tatas' power project at Mundra, call it "deadly"

Top US, European groups oppose World Bank support to Tatas' power project at Mundra, call it "deadly"

Fishing activity next to Tatas' power plant

By Our Representative

As many as 68 groups from 28 countries across six continents have sent a letter to World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim condemning the World Bank Group’s continued support for “a deadly coal project in Gujarat, India”. A statement from Washington by Dan Byrnes of the Sierra Club, which has chapters throughout the United States and Canada that offer opportunities for local involvement, activism and outings, says, “This action comes on the heels of a letter from over 100 groups in India demanding that the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation withdraw funding from the project, Tata Power’s 4,000-MW Mundra coal-fired ultra mega power plant (UMPP).

The “open letter” to Dr Kim from civil society groups opposing World Bank, while disagreeing with the rejection of Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) findings on the Tata Coal Plant, says, “As concerned World Bank stakeholders and contributing taxpayers to our respective government’s official aid through the Bank, we are disturbed by your clearance of International Finance Corporation (IFC) response to the CAO report on the Tata Mundra coal power project.” Significantly, most of the NGOs which signed the letter are from the US and European countries.

The letter says, “In solidarity with the Indian fishing communities, we demand an explanation why you rejected the CAO findings on IFC’s policy violations in funding the Tata Mundra coal power plant. What actions will you take to mitigate the adverse impacts and end your financing of the deadly coal project? Following a complaint from Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS, Association for the Struggle for Fishworkers’ Rights), an organization of fishing families impacted by the IFC financed 4,000 megawatt Tata Mundra UMPP in Kutch, Gujarat, the CAO issued a report showing that the IFC committed serious violations of its mandatory safeguards.”

The letter points out, “The CAO found that ‘IFC weaknesses in reviewing the client’s risk assessment and mitigation did not support the formation of a robust view that the project met the IFC’s policy requirements, that IFC did not consider alternative project design to avoid or minimize impacts, and that IFC has not treated complainants’ concerns as compliance issues.’ However, the IFC rejected the expert findings and issued no remedial action, choosing instead to defend the project decision and client.”

The letter further says, “Even more troubling, despite your work in public health and calls for urgent action to address climate change, your office cleared the response after a month of silence. Your decision means thousands of fishing and fishworker families will continue suffering from air pollution, contaminated water, and destroyed marine resources that CAO found to be directly linked with the construction and operation of the Tata coal plant.”

It adds, “This decision contradicts your decades of public health advocacy and speeches on moving the Bank away from funding fossil fuels. Mr President, you must show that you are serious about your statements at previous WB/IMF annual meetings on climate, accountability and learning from past mistakes. The CAO found massive shortfalls at the IFC, showing that the mechanisms to uncover such issues are working.”

The letter insists, “However, while the Tata Mundra project provided an opportunity to prove your commitment to learning from these failures, your clearance of the IFC response continues the lack of public accountability within the IFC. Unless the findings from the World Bank Group’s internal watchdogs, like the CAO and the Inspection Panel, are taken seriously and acted upon, their role is in name only. This decision undermines the mandate of CAO while allowing staff and management to avoid culpability. Civil society around the world demand you hold the IFC accountable by taking hard but appropriate actions to address the CAO findings, starting with the development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Mundra coal project.

Among the organizations which have signed the letter include several important NGOs in US such as Sierra Club, Accountability Counsel, Bank Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Earth Day Network, Feminist Task Force, Friends of the Earth US, Inclusive Development International, Institute for Policy Studies, Climate Policy Program, Oil Change International, Pacific Environment and World Team Now. Prominent multinational NGOs which signed the letter are Greenpeace International , Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, Kyoto2, and NGO Forum on ADB, Asia-Pacific.

From Britain, the NGOs which signed the letter are Bretton Woods Project, Climate and Health Council, Forest Peoples Programme, Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks), the Corner House, and World Development Movement. Then, there were Jubilee and Market Forces from Australia, Carbon Market Watch and Centre national de coopération au développement from Belgium, Les Amis de la Terre from France; Urgewald from Germany, Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) from Japan, BankTrack from the Netherlands, Quercus – Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza from Portugal, Earthlife Africa Jhb from South Africa, Taiwan Environmental Protection Union from Taiwan and Re:Common from Italy.

NGOs from several other countries also signed the letter in large numbers. The countries represented include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tanzania, Kosovo, Ghana, Nepal, Colombia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Mongolia, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam, among others.

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/11/grassroots-activists-across-the-globe-condemn-world-bank-presidents-continued-support-of-tata-mundra.html

http://tcktcktck.org/2013/11/groups-tell-world-bank-dont-finance-tata-coal-india/58671

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/08/world-bank-chief-condemned-for-backing-4000mw-india-coal-plant/#sthash.cRmYYG0L.uxfs

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/ryVntvnGNF6JCgtVFkwWpM/Tata-Power-seeks-to-add-1600MW-at-Mundra-plant.html

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2150198/world_banks_support_of_tata_mundra_coal_plant_condemned.html

http://napm-india.org/content/over-hundred-organisations-demand-world-bank-withdrawal-tata-mundra

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/interview-it-s-a-shame-that-situation-now-is-not-conducive-to-investment-anil-sardana-1911969

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/ifc-erred-funding-tata-mundra-power-project-says-its-compliance-advisor-ombudsman#.Um5S7wwCeKE.twitter

MachimarAdhikarSangharshSangathan

Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat

Press Statement |October 24, 2013

World Bank President Dr. Kim shies away from taking action despite investigations find social & environmental violations at Tata Mundra

The recourse mechanism of International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) in its report released yesterday found serious social and environmental policy non-compliance by IFC and Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), the promoters of Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in Kutch, Gujarat. Despite the significant findings, the World Bank Group President, Dr. Jim Kim shied from taking any actions to check or minimise the negative impacts on the people and environment.

Stopping short of calling for IFC’s withdrawal from financing Tata Mundra project, the CAO said in its report, “…IFC’s Environment & Social review of CGPL did not support the formation of a robust view as to whether the project could be expected to meet the requirements of the Performance Standards over a reasonable period of time, the threshold question in terms of IFC’s decision to invest.”

MachimarAdhikarSangharshSangathan (MASS) welcomes the report and its findings.  MASS is the local organisation of fishworkers affected by power projects including Tata Mundra, Adani, OPG power projects, Mundra port and Special Economic Zone.

“The findings reiterate and reconfirmthe concerns raised by the communities since long,” Bharat Patel, General Secretary of MASS said. “The findings, based on scientific studies, are indeed a shot in the arm for the people struggling to protect the livelihoods of thousands of fisherfolk in Kutch coast.”

MASS had lodged the complaint with CAO in June 2011.

Key Findings

·         The Complainants, who are from a religious minority and occupy a socially marginal position given their migrant traditions, were not adequately considered as the (Environmental and Social) E&S risks and impacts of the project were considered and addressed.

·         There is no social baseline data in relation to the fisher people who reside seasonally in the fishing villages. In the absence of a baseline data IFC was not in a position to ensure the proper application of IFC’s policies related to land acquisition, despite indications that households living on the bundershave been displaced by the project (both physically and economically).

·         IFC failed to ensure that its client’s (Tata) E&S assessments adequately considered the risks and impacts of the project on these fisher people.

·         IFC paid inadequate attention to the requirementof biodiversity conservation.

·         Serious lapses in IFC’s review and supervision of the impacts of the project on the airshed and marine environment.

·         IFC has not ensured that its client correctly applied the World Bank’s Thermal Power: Guidelines (1998) in that the project airshed has notbeen defined as a degraded airshed—a classification that brings with it a requirement that there will be no net increase in the total emissions of particulates or sulphur dioxide within the airshed.

·         IFC’s process of E&S review was not appropriate to the nature and scale of the project or commensurate to risk as required by the Sustainability Policy (of IFC).

·         IFC has not assured itself that the plant’s seawater cooling system will comply with applicable IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.

·         IFC’s E&S review paid inadequate attention to ensuring that the project’s risks and impacts were “analyzed in the context of [its] area of influence,” as required by Performance Standard 1 (of IFC), including “areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts…from project-related developments that are realistically defined at the time the E&S assessment is undertaken.”

·         IFC should have advised its client that third-party E&S risk emerging from the project’s proximity and relationship with Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone needed to be better assessed, with mitigation measures developed.

 IFC’s response& conflict of interest

 IFC put its credibility at risk, by rebutting all the findings of CAO and going out of the way to defend its client, CGPL and its parent company, Tata. IFC’s response to the CAO findings smacks of arrogance, refusal to learn lessons and disregard to people and their rights.

 The fact that the company has commissioned Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) to undertake biodiversity mapping of the zone to be impacted by the thermal plume, that BNHS corroborated the findings of Marine Environment Impact Assessment (which was questioned by CAO) and engaged BNHS to carry out turtle monitoring program is used in IFC’s management response to discredit the CAO findings and to support the company. However, BNHS is a partner of Tata Power, the parent company of CGPL, according to their annual report 2009-2010. The current president of BNHSMr.HomiKhusrokhan is a former Managing Director of Tata companies. Despite having such an umbilical cord between the two, how can BNHS findings be independent and impartial is anybody’s guess. IFC hoodwinks the public on the conflict of interest.

 President Kim shies away from walking the talk

 Despite alarming findings by CAO, President Kim did not acknowledge even one of the findings and supported blindly the IFC management response, making himself and IFC complicit to the violations at Tata Mundra.

 By clearing IFC response, the message President Kim is sending is that he supports his staff’s denial of science, of expert findings and endorses management’s avoidance of accountability. People in and out of the institution will see this move a form of hypocrisy. He endorses management’s response that the coal plant does not cause public health concerns (when it’s been high in the President’s past and present advocacy). It then contradicts the President’s energy directions paper and pronouncements on moving the institution from coal financing. His tall talk on climate change is proving to be a charade.

 Undermining the mandate of CAO

 After considering the CAO findings and IFC management response for 5 weeks, by not recognising even one finding of CAO, Dr. Kim sends a strong and damaging signal that Bank’s internal watchdogs like CAO and Inspection Panel are more for namesake and that despite their findings its business as usual for the Bank.

 “We wonder why an institution like CAO exists if their findings are not given any value and no action is taken upon it,” said SoumyaDutta, coordinator of the Independent Fact Finding Team whose report Real Cost of Powerdocumented the violations of the company in June 2012. “If President Kim is serious about the accountability that he talks about, and about learning from the Bank’s mistakes to prevent them from occurring again, he should not hesitate to take bold decisions based on the findings.”

 Communities demand the World Bank President stop pretending that he can take people for a ride and take bold actions based on the CAO findings. “Now that World Bank’s own investigations found such serious lapses, it is time for the Bank to sit up and take appropriate and immediate actions. We will not agree on anything short of IFC withdrawing financing from the project,” Bharat Patel said.

CAO Audit Report:http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/TermsofReference_CGPLAudit_October242012.pdf

IFC Response to CAO Audit report:  http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/IFCresponsetoCAOAudit-CoastalGujaratPowerLimited.pdf

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ngos-demand-world-bank-withdrawal-from-tata-s-mundra-umpp-113110400736_1.html