Home » Uncategorized

Category Archives: Uncategorized

World without World Bank campaign commences | Press Release

Copy of World Bank and International Finance Legacy, Lessons and Current Struggles (Poster (Landscape))

A seminar on World Bank & International Finance: Legacy, Lessons & Current Struggles organized by Working Group on IFIs.

21st April 2022; New Delhi: A seminar was organised on the theme “World Bank & International Finance: Legacy, Lessons & Current Struggles” by the Working Group on IFIs and Financial Accountability Network as a part of the World Without World Bank Campaign at India International Centre, Delhi. The keynote address was  delivered by Medha Patkar, who highlighted on-ground concerns of the changing economic and cultural landscape for India’s marginalized communities.  She further added that, “This is due to the unregulated flow of international finance and capital flows, which are driven by a profit motive and not concerned with improving the lives of citizens.”

The three panels session provided several nuances and points of discussion on various aspects of international finance and ongoing struggles in the South Asian contexts. The session tilled titled Legacy of World Bank and MDB’s: Looking back at experiences from India saw Gajendra Bhai (Sarpanch Navinal Gram Panchayat), Vimal Bhai (Matu Jansangathan), Ram Wangkheirakpam (Indigenous Perspectives), R Shreedhar (Environics Trust) and Anuradha Munshi (Center for Financial Accountability) on the panel. They addressed specific International Finance projects like the Tata Mundra project, Sasan Ultra Mega Project and the Trans Asian Highway project, which have significantly displaced indigenous populations, destroyed aquatic life and fertile land. The projects lack any real grievance mechanisms and do not operate along the lines of transparency and accountability.

The second session, titled Legacy of World Bank and MDB’s: Looking back at global experiences was addressed by Kate Geary (Recourse, UK), Chiara Mariotti (Eurodad, Belgium), Andri Prasetiyo (Trend Asia, Indonesia) and Htet Aung Shine (IFI Watch, Myanmar). The panelists focussed on the current concerns and struggles particularly in relation to financial mechanisms and current struggles in Asia. Concerts were raised on how financial intermediary investments continue to support coal and fossil fuel based investments despite commitment to Paris Alignment. Another speaker focussed on how Development Policy Financing is enabling policy changes in developing nations in the name of prior actions. Other speakers shared about the struggles and challenges being faced in Indonesia and Myanmar through World Bank investments.

In the concluding session the panelists focussed on International finance in the current times: Looking forward. The panelists included Leo Saldanha (Environment Support Group), Swathi Seshadri (Center for Financial Accountability),  Krishnakant (Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti/NAPM), Gaurav Dwivedi (Center for Financial Accountability), Soumya Dutta (Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha/MAUSAM), and Sarath Cheloor (NAPM)l. They stressed the complexities of private financing and the difficulties in obtaining financial data. With case studies from the petrochemical industry, climate finance. Speakers also threw light on the projects like  and bullet train project in Ahmedabad and K-rail in Kerala, highlighting the significant role of private international finance and that of national governments in sustaining projects that create and perpetuate environmental, social and human rights violations.

The World Without World Bank campaign organised by the Working Group on IFIs which consists of numerous civil society organizations in India come together to try and expose the Bank, understand its agenda and investments  and to understand the wide-ranging impacts of World Bank financing  on India’s political economy.

World Bank & International Finance: Legacy, Lessons & Current Struggles

World Without World Bank 

Date: 21st April, 2022

Venue: Seminar Hall II, Kamla Devi Complex, India International Centre, New Delhi

Theme: World Bank & International Finance: Legacy, Lessons & Current Struggles

Register to attend: https://forms.gle/AfGiUHjVjZCXgGGz8

WWWB 2022


The World Bank and IMF are having their Spring Meetings virtually from the 22nd to 24th of April, 2022 where these institutions will go ahead and laud themselves for the achievement of dolling out billions of dollars for supporting economies through the pandemic and in rebuilding. Through these loans it is defining development and reshaping policies and economies and the questions of accountability of these institutions keep getting brushed under the carpet.

Since the past few years, the Working Group on IFIs (WGon IFIs) has been organizing the World Without World Bank campaign where civil society, activists, grassroots movements, trade unions come together to question and challenge Multilateral Development Banks, their influence, policies and investments which. For the past three years, WGonIFIs have been conducting social media campaigns and conducting online webinars questioning and challenging these institutions. Last year, we looked at the role of MDBs in pushing for farm laws(now repealed) and the role of the World Bank and IMF in pushing the  agenda of privatization, commodification and corporatization.

Theme: The World Without World Bank will be organized under the theme of World Bank & International Finance: Legacy, Lessons & Current Struggles. As MDBs in the past two years have redefined themselves, they have also used pandemic to bring in new investments and policy loans with very less deliberations on accountability considering the impact and scale of policy changes these investments bring. This exists along with project investments which bring in human rights violations, environmental and social degradation. Despite having accountability frameworks none of these accountability mechanisms have either provided relief or justice to the people. It is time we examine the newer complex ways in which these institutions operate and dodge accountability. This is also an opportunity to look beyond MDB’s and look at the new funding modalities like private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and more and look at the issues of accountability in context of these funds and also explore how we can look at the issues of accountability in context of these changing realities and of traditional project finance where failures and gaps within of accountability systems are more than evident.

As the Financial Accountability Network and Working Group on IFIs we have been addressing, questioning and challenging these developments collectively. This year we are organizing the three panel discussions under the banner of World Without World Bank as a physical event at IIC, Delhi.

On the 21st April, a one-day seminar (3 panels) on accountability in the context of MBDs and changing world of finance. Given the inflow of private funds, bilateral funding, pension funds and many others constantly changing the dynamics of financing and accountability, it’s important for us to collectively understand and strategize as to how we want to monitor and hold financiers accountable in this increasingly complex financing situation.

Register to attend: https://forms.gle/AfGiUHjVjZCXgGGz8

Screenshot (142)

To join virtually:

Join Zoom Meeting


Meeting ID: 892 8556 4286

Passcode: 138460

People’s Summit on BRICS from 18th to 22nd October, 2021

Register here to participate in the online summit: 


As the 13th BRICS Summit was recently held and chaired by India, the People’s Forum on BRICS (a network of people’s movements, progressive civil society organizations, and trade unions) is convening a 5-day online People’s Summit on BRICS from 18th to 22nd October, 2021.

The People’s forum on BRICS in response to the official summit which failed in living upto the principles of people’s issues and their participation, will create a space where a network of people’s movements, progressive civil society organizations, and trade unions from across the BRICS nations to discuss, analyze, question, and seek alternatives to the agendas that are being undemocratically pushed in our countries and to discuss and challenge the positions that BRICS grouping is placing at international forum. The Forum is being held in India for the second time, the first being in 2016 in Goa, when the official Summit was held in Goa. But due to COVID, the forum has been moved online.

The People’s Forum will attempt to raise critical voices from marginalised sections on social, ecological, political and economic concerns that are often ignored at inter-governmental processes such as BRICS. The focus is to build solidarities across borders among social movements, progressive civil society organizations and to advance an alternative model of development that puts people before profit.

The BRICS bloc, initially envisioned as an association of emerging economies to challenge the economic & financial clout of developed western economies, of the dollar supremacy, and developmental suzerainty of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, has over time done very little to disrupt the status quo. The nations in the bloc are characterized by complex socio-political realities, supremacist ideologies, ethno-nationalist compulsions, divergent economic and political trajectories, profound inequalities, in the wider background of the climate crisis. These diversities have stymied rather than strengthened the resolve of BRICS’ mandate of transforming global economic governance based on principles of equitability by being more receptive to the interests of developing nations. In other words, it is seemingly mirroring the very global actors it had purportedly stood up to challenge.

Through the 5 days there will be discussions on seven broad thematic areas in the context of BRICS nations including Pandemic and Disaster Resilience; Geo-economics & Economic Partnership; Geo-politics, Gender, Energy, Climate Change and Natural Resources, Labour Rights and Social Justice.

The Inaugural Plenary will take place on 18th October, 2021 and the thematic sessions will take place on 19th, 20th, 21st October, 2021 and the forum will draw to a close with the Closing Plenary happening on 22nd October, 2021. The schedule for all the sessions with joining and registration details can be found on the official website (https://peoplesbrics.wordpress.com/). The events are open for all the members of the public. Those interested can register on this link for all the sessions (tinyurl.com/peoplesbrics-2021-register) and can register for individual sessions on the website.

Link to the Program Schedule:

Peoples’ Forum on BRICS

Website: https://peoplesbrics.wordpress.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peoplesbrics/?ref=bookmarks

Twitter: @PeoplesBrics

People’s Forum on BRICS: Call for participation & registration of panels

18th -22nd October, 2021; India

Register for organising panels  on various thematic areas by 24th of September, 2021. 

The People’s BRICS Forum 2021 is being convened  to articulate people’s agenda and learn from each other. As the People’s BRICS  will be organised online, we encourage various progressive civil society organisations people’s movements and, trade unions across BRICS nations to come onboard to organize panels under the following overarching thematic areas –

  • BRICS, Pandemic, and Disaster Resilience  ( health policy, vaccine policy, Intellectual property rights- vaccine & treatment, employment, disaster resilience)
  • BRICS Geo-economics &  Economic Partnerships (Upcoming WTO negotiations, SDR and Debt issues, Global Value chains, Finance and Banking , Trade, Taxation, International Financial Institutions)
  • Geo-politics and BRICS (Cooperation among nations, debating the BRICS geopolitical system, maritime infrastructure, coastal governance)
  • BRICS, Energy, Climate change and Natural Resources (Climate change, just transitions, questions of energy, renewables, fossil fuels, energy poverty, climate change finance, biodiversity finance, natural asset valuation)
  • BRICS and Gender (women and economic empowerment, access to productive resources, women and IFIs, sustainable work and decent livelihoods, discrimination and violence)
  • BRICS and Labour Rights (future of work, question of labor value, informality and precarity, social security, pension fund, fair wages, migration, basic income debate, employment)
  • BRICS and Social Justice (race, class, caste, sexual minorities, disability and other vulnerable groups)

Please submit  your proposal  or expression of interest to hold panels under the aegis/banner of People’s BRICS Forum 2021 either individually or as a collective of organisations. 

  • Consider hosting and co-hosting a panel on the themes mentioned above. Please fill out the form for organising panels(link above) to collaborate on organising sessions by 24th of September, 2021. 
  • Write for us at peoplesforumonbrics@gmail.com – In the spirit of having a diverse set of progressive voices, we welcome you or a group from your organisation to write position papers, issue papers, briefing notes, literature reviews, background papers and blog for us. This could be done individually or collectively. The submissions can be made in any language. 

Important dates:

Announcement for People’s BRICS Forum10th September, 2021
Call for Participation and Registration of Panels Open 14th September, 2021
Deadline for Panel Proposals 24th September, 2021
Finalisation of proposals 27th-30th September, 2021
Announcement  of programme 3rd October, 2021

BRICS Summit: People’s Forum calls it “lost opportunity” 

Civil Society Groups to hold People’s Forum on BRICS in October 2021

New Delhi, September 10:

The 13th BRICS Summit, chaired by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and attended by Brazil President Jair Bolsanaro, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping was held in a virtual format yesterday. While the summit’s focus was on the pandemic, multilaterliam and counter terrorism, activists state that the summit was exclusionary, failing to address complex issues facing the world today and BRICS countries.

As a response to the official summit which failed in living upto the principles of people’s issues and their participation, the People’s Forum on BRICS is organising a week-long online people’s summit, to discuss the concerns and challenges facing the BRICS nations and its people in October, 2021.

Amid the raging pandemic wrecking havoc to the lives and livelihoods of millions, the summit did not  address the systemic failures of the healthcare systems across countries. A transparent and scientific  process to understand further mutation of the virus to fight it was not mooted at the summit.

Activists stated that the official summit process has completely sidelined the people and their concerns. Madhuresh Kumar, National Convener of National Alliance for People’s Movements, India said; “In these times of climate and health crisis what we need is true people to people interaction and solidarity and genuine efforts at solving the world’s problems. BRICS countries together account for a significant mass of humanity and at this historical juncture unfortunately narrow politics is taking precedence over people’s lives and their democratic aspirations.”

As healthcare systems collapsed, economies took a huge hit too, barring China, every other BRICS country has gone into the negative terrain of growth. The pace of recovery remains sluggish although BRICS decided to strengthen its collective efforts to address the economic and financial slide. The absence of a concrete action plan has once again questioned if the original mandate of BRICS to challenge the western dominion of finance would actually be realizable.

 Patrick Bond,  scholar-activist based in Johannesburg said, “Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro favoured the restrictive World Trade Organisation rules protecting Big Pharma and intellectual property,  Russia’s Sputnik vaccine profit potential left Vladimir Putin quiet. As a bloc, the BRICS did not offer formal support to South Africa and India’s bid to waive intellectual property, and the supposed BRICS Vaccine Research and Development Centre announced at the 2018 summit in Johannesburg remains a myth.”

The process of Civil BRICS has also been a complete sham. Priti Darooka from the BRICS Feminist watch pointed out failures in engaging with the civil society. She stated, “India as the host this year for the BRICS Summit had the opportunity as the largest democracy to expand and build Civil BRICS as a platform for a true, meaningful and engaged participation of civil society — people to people — from BRICS.  Unfortunately, Civil BRICS this year was a total disappointment.  Firstly, it was the best kept secret that no one knew about. And secondly, it was shrunk to a panel with only a couple of civil society representatives from just one country and totally coordinated by the government.”

Responding to the official Summit Patrick Bond, said, “These BRICS are ‘spalling,’ which as any builder fears, signals that the masonry is deteriorating and chunks are falling off a wall. We’re in a time the world desperately needs a strong front against Western imperial powers, especially so as to combat the climate catastrophe and COVID-19 vaccine apartheid. There were no emissions-cut announcements and of the 7000 words, only a handful addressed the world’s most serious crisis: climate catastrophe.”

The People’s forum is being jointly organised by Trade Unions, Civil Society Organisations.  In 2016, the People’s Forum on BRICS took place in Goa prior to the official summit and was attended by more than 700 people including activists from various BRICS countries. There were similar peoples’ forums parallel to the official BRICS Summit in Durban in 2013, Fortaleza in 2014, Hong Kong in 2017, Johannesburg in 2018 and Brasilia in 2019.


For More Information Contact:

Anuradha Munshi: +919792411555

Sumedha Pal:+9711055753

Email: peoplesforumonbrics@gmail.com

G20 Research Fellowships- Call for Abstracts

Beginning in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis, G20 started convening as an informal group of economically significant countries, now accounting for 85 percent of the world economy, 75 percent of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population, including more than half of the world’s poor and marginalized. The G-20 has the mandate to promote global economic growth, international trade, and regulation of financial markets. G20 along with Multilateral Development Banks shape the global financial architecture, with G20 being in a position to dictate the direction taken by IMF and MDBs.

12 years on, and 13 summits later, in 2021, the world is at a juncture not very far away from the 2008 crisis but vulnerabilities ranging far beyond just the financial crisis and inequalities exacerbating further. The temporal factors concerning the G20 nations require critical examination on a number of fronts for India’s presidency in 2023. The G20  mandate of preserving financial stability and macroeconomic coordination cannot be tackled without diving into the questions of structural change on the global and domestic levels. As new agendas are set and more flagship issues emerge, year after year, we also see an increment in the G20 stakeholders, leading us to questions of international cooperation, governance structure, and legitimacy of the club. Critics have also questioned the efficacy of the club and its credibility to deal with pressing issues in comparison to other similar groupings, as a self-selected group of economically powerful countries. The coming together of such heavyweights also brings into question the legitimacy of other multilateral organizations and or G20’s collusion with World Bank and IMF agendas.

With this backdrop, the Centre for Financial Accountability welcomes applications for the G20 Research Fellowship through the call for abstracts from the research community delving into the critical and scholarly study of the  G20 convening.

Submitted abstracts that are accepted for publication will be eligible for the G20 Research fellowship of ₹25,000 each, guided towards developing the research article/paper of 5000-7000 word length. We are looking to publish 10 scholarly articles/research papers into an edited volume or compendium.

Submissions must contribute towards a critical understanding of the G20 framework.  The aim is to bring together researchers representing different disciplines and methodological approaches. Possible topics include agendas discussed in the G20 meetings like the global economic framework, infrastructure development, international taxation, international financial architecture;  or priority agendas like the pandemic, climate change, disaster resilience, gender, sustainable development, migration, debt, the culture of cooperation, sectoral learnings; and/or policy discussions around the institutional structures of club governance formats, the associated comparative analysis and the questions of legitimacy regarding such forums of cooperation. This list is not all-inclusive; authors are free to submit abstracts on other topics that may be of interest to the understanding of G20 grouping.


Fellowship is open to researchers from India and remains open for co-authorship.

Submission Requirements

All submissions are to be directed via email to [fellowship@cenfa.org] with the subject line “CFA_G20 Fellowships_Abstract Submission”.

Every submission must include two required elements, as part of the email body:

  • Author(s) bio/contact information – Include short biographical paragraphs (up to 150 words per author) that lists the current position, affiliation (if any), and qualifications.
  • Abstract – The abstracts should reveal the purpose, problem statement, conceptual framework of the work in question, approach, etc. including five (5) keywords, and should be a minimum of 500 words and up to 750 words (excluding references).

If you have any questions, please write to [fellowship@cenfa.org] with the subject line “CFA_G20 Fellowships_Query”.

Important Dates

Abstract Submission Deadline: 30 June 2021

Announcement of the Accepted Submissions: 15 July 2021

First Draft of the Manuscript Deadline: 25 August 2021

Full Manuscript Submission Deadline: 15 September 2021

Procedures for World Bank’s new accountability mechanism lacks transparency and inclusivity

In a press release issued early last week, the World Bank has announced that the review of its independent accountability mechanism, the Inspection Panel, has been completed and that a few major reforms were added to the Inspection Panel. Accordingly, a new accountability mechanism – an “expanded” one as the Bank says, called World Bank Accountability Mechanism’ will be in place from September 2020 and will constitute two separate roles – the Inspection Panel (IPN) will focus on the review of compliances of projects with Bank’s operational policies and a separate Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRS) will resolve the grievances of affected communities, in a time bound manner, instead of compliance review. While housed under one umbrella, the DRS will organisationally be separate from the IPN to ensure its effectiveness and to avoid conflict of interests.

New Roles, Governance Structure

Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) of Multilateral Development Banks have different governance structures and varied roles with assigned functions. It is necessary to see the new reforms of WB’s IPN in comparison to the previously established roles of both Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Accountability Mechanism (AM) of Asian Development Bank (ADB), since most of the complaints from Indian communities have been registered with these IAMs.

There were only four IAMs that offered both compliance review and dispute resolution services – namely CAO of IFC, the Complaints Mechanism (CM) of European Investment Bank (EIB), AM of ADB, and Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) of African Development Bank (AfDB). Now WB’s new IAM will also offer both compliance review and dispute resolution.

The CAO reports to the President of the World Bank Group, while the dispute resolution component or ‘problem solving function’– the Office of the Special Project Facilitator in ADB’s AM report to the Bank President, and the compliance review component – Compliance Review Panel in AM report to the Board of Directors.  The new IAM of WB will be governed by an ‘Accountability Mechanism Secretary’ (AM Secretary) who will be appointed by and report directly to the Bank’s Executive Directors. While administratively integrated in this new mechanism, the IPN members will remain fully independent and continue to report directly to the Board on all compliance investigation matters. Which effectively means, the DRS staff will report to the AM Secretary who then will report to the Board, whereas the IPN will directly report to the Board (Whereas, the CAO staff along with its three functions – dispute resolution, compliance and advisory- report to the CAO Vice President).

Organisationally in the new IAM, the IPN will have no role in DRS.  The IPN will continue to be constituted and operate as established in the IPN Resolution.

Operationally, the new IAM will apply the existing eligibility criteria of IPN for compliance for its dispute resolution function. There will be no change to the current practice of recommending eligibility, when a complaint is registered, based on the IPN’s current eligibility criteria. During the eligibility phase, the IPN recommends eligibility for compliance. After the Board has approved the eligibility for compliance, the AM Secretary will offer an opportunity for dispute resolution to the parties. If Borrower and Requesters voluntarily agree to go for a dispute resolution, the case will be referred by the AM Secretary to the DRS. The AM Secretary will inform the Board, the IPN and Management of the parties’ decision. In case the parties agree to use the DR process, the compliance process of the IPN will remain in abeyance. If the parties do not agree, the AM Secretary will inform the Board, the IPN and Management and the case will be taken up by the IPN for a compliance investigation. The Parties to the DR process would be the Requesters and the Borrower’s relevant project implementing agency.

While ADB’s AM has a slightly different approach – one can approach its problem solving function office – the Office of the Special Project Facilitator and file a complaint regardless of whether ADB operational policies and procedures have been violated ( this mandate is required only if one is approaching the Office of the Compliance Review Panel).

Meanwhile, the CAO’s Ombudsman function responds to dispute resolution complaints and if they are not solved, they are transferred to the compliance review function.

Extended Eligibility time limit for Requesters to file Complaints

Except the IPN, almost all other IAMs had established their own mechanisms much earlier. They all have longer eligibility time periods for complaints registrations than the IPN. Yet, In the case of the CAO, the eligibility ends when the institution’s engagement with the client or the project ends. Whereas for AM, the latest date by which a complaint can be filed is 2 years after the loan or grant closing date. This date is known in advance, disclosed to the public, and can be found on the ADB website. Their brochure also shows the timeline in which a complaint is processed and responded to.

For IPN, this time requirement will be changed so that any request filed up to fifteen months after the closing date of the loan financing the project can be accepted by the IPN. This requirement will be applicable only to new projects approved by the Board after these changes take effect.

Formal recognition of the Inspection Panel’s advisory role

Advisory services focus primarily on the lessons that the IAMs learn about the functioning of MDB operational policies. The advice can be given as recommendations in specific compliance reports, lessons learned sections in annual reports and in other publications. The CAO has a robust advisory policy, where the CAO provides independent advice to the President of the World Bank Group and management of IFC and MIGA.  CAO advice focuses on broader social and environmental concerns, policies, procedures, strategic issues, and trends. CAO’s focus is on preventing future harm and improving IFC/MIGA’s performance systemically as their policy states,

The IPN did not have explicit advisory authority. The IPN does provide informal advice through statements in its compliance reports and its publications, including its annual report and Emerging Lessons series. The press release states that this advisory role has been formalised from 2018.

Formalization of the Inspection Panel’s practice of coordinating with co-financiers’ accountability mechanisms on joint complaints

The World Bank engages in co-financing arrangements with other MDBs. In these cases, requesters could file requests for investigations regarding the same set of issues with the IAMs at two institutions. This always led to two challenges. The first challenge arises when one IAM receives a request regarding a project whose agreements stipulate that the policies of another institution govern the project, like the case is with Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The second arises from differences in the procedures of the two IAMs, such as different time limits for eligibility and different rules on sharing draft reports with the requesters. None of the IAMs have developed any explicit policies or practices on how to deal with these situations. Instead, they have dealt with these situations by signing a case-specific MOU detailing how they will cooperate in investigating the same project. The World Bank is yet to clearly state whether these challenges have been addressed or they remain the same, irrespective of formalising arrangements with co-financiers’ IAMs.

Sharing IPN report with requesters before consideration of the Board

This procedure came into effect from 2018, but is officially declared now under the enhancements for IPN. Earlier, IPN’s investigation report was not shared with the requesters until after the Board had approved it. The requesters maintain that this had created two problems. First, the practice was unfair because requesters were being treated differently from Management. Second, requesters lack the knowledge to engage effectively with Management about the action plan.

Independent and proportionate risk-based verification of Management Action Plans

All the IAMs, except the IPN, are expressly authorized to monitor the implementation of the management action plans (MAPs) developed to address the IAMs findings of non-compliance and the outcomes of dispute resolution procedures. All IAMs that engage in dispute resolution have authority to monitor the implementation of the outcomes of the dispute resolution if the parties so request. In addition, the IAMs including CAO and those at the AfDB, ADB, EIB, EBRD and IDB have authority to monitor the implementation of management action plans developed in response to findings of noncompliance. The authority of the IAMs does vary. In some cases, the IAMs are authorized to monitor all cases in which they have made findings of non-compliance. This is the case with CAO and ADB’s CRP.  In the case of the AfDB’s IRM and the IDB’s MICI this authority requires prior Board authorization. It is usually given at the time the board approves the IAM findings on compliance and is based on a recommendation from the relevant IAM.

From September 2020, the IPN can now verify MAPs in those cases where proportion and risk criteria will include (i) urgency of redress, (ii) risk of repetitive harms, (iii) number and vulnerability. The IPN recommendation, generally, will be made after substantial implementation of the MAP or, if the monitoring report indicates lack of implementation, at any stage of implementation. In exceptional cases, upon IPN recommendation, with input from Group Internal Audit, the Board can discuss and assign verification at the stage of approval of the MAP or shortly after. This process will avoid an automatic “one-size-fits-all” approach. The benefit of this option is that the Board would be assured of receiving independent reports on the adequacy of the management action plans, but restricted to few cases only.

How the procedures fell short

The World Bank’s Inspection Panel was the first accountability mechanism (1993) of its kind for the development finance institutions, which was established as a result of people’s struggles against the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project on river Narmada in India. The tenacious campaign around this project led to the formation of the Morse Commission, which strongly criticized the World Bank’s performance in the areas of environment and resettlement of people displaced by the construction of energy projects. Over the years, the Panel has played a major role in trying to adhere to accountability at the Bank and attempting to secure redress of grievances in some cases. Though established as an independent mechanism from the Bank management, the Panel majorly reported the eligibility of the complaint to the Board of Directors of the Bank and did not possess strong recommendatory powers.

When the review of IPN was first announced officially in 2017, Indian peoples movements, civil society and affected communities had called out to the Bank to keenly call forth to strengthen the IPN mandate. While appreciating the World Bank on this effort for a review on the occasion of Inspection Panel’s 25th Anniversary, the CSOs criticised the Bank for giving less than a fortnight to seek comments on this issue. They demanded to extend the deadline by at least two months in the interest of the sanctity of the process. They further stressed that wider publicity should be given to ensure better participation in the process. “The current consultation is designed and carried out to exclude affected communities, for whom the Inspection Panel is established,” the signatories said with much disappointment.

During the deliberations in a symposium organised in India at the 25th year of IPN, in which both the Inspection Panel and Compliance Ombudsman Advisor (CAO) participated remotely, the inadequacy of IAMs in functioning independently and efficiently; lack of capacity and powers to promote and ensure accountability; failure in intervening timely to ensure that the voices of the affected people are adequately heard, addressed and issues resolved; and lack of powers to stay the progress of project construction in cases of extreme violations, were highlighted.

A brief look into the newly released report of the Bank,  ‘Report And Recommendations On The Inspection Panel’s Toolkit Review’ (March 05, 2020) shows that the external review “did not  make recommendations but provided options in seven areas: (i) advisory services, (ii) Bank Executed Trust Funds (BETFs), (iii) co-financing, (iv) sharing findings with Requesters, (v) problem solving/dispute resolution, (vi) time limit on eligibility for requests and (vii) monitoring of Management Action Plans (MAPs)”. And that subsequently, a Working Group of the Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) that included members from all Executive Directors’ offices, was established to consider the areas identified by the Review.

When the Bank announced in 2018 that CODE was inviting submissions from relevant stake holders, the Indian civil society had strongly asked for transparent and wider consultative processes with extended time period for affected communities. Opening up the process; adhering to the principle of free, informed and prior consent; adequate time; holding consultations widely and not in national capitals/metros alone; unmasking the ritual format of such processes; IPN having suo moto powers; IPN having suo moto powers for timely intervention – even during the early stages of project appraisal; IPN having a pro-active role even to delay the progress of any project until the violations of the project have been comprehensively corrected and compensated; IPN having monitoring function; IPN having punitive powers and measures for demanding for a fresh Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) wherever erroneous ESIA have been found, were the recommendations from the Indian groups.

During both times, the Bank did not acknowledge the receipt of the submissions from India. Despite the recorded exhaustive measures which were being adopted by the Bank to see through this review, this process has been quite the opposite in nature– opaque, extremely limited opportunities for concerned civil society stakeholders and especially for the affected communities to share relevant inputs. The information available in the public domain was restricting in its scope and the final draft proposal was not shared, despite requests being sent by concerned groups from outside India to the Bank. This was a striking drawback, especially in the wake of IFC having faced defeat at the United States Supreme Court on the Immunity Verdict last year, on the case filed by Indian farmers and fishworkers on serious violations caused by IFC-funded Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in Gujarat India.

With the assistance of the IPN and Management, CODE identified eleven projects whose stakeholders had experience in the IPN process within the last seven years to provide feedback. The selected projects took into consideration regional representation and included projects that had gone through all the different steps of the IPN process. The procedures for arriving at this decision and who all were the stakeholders from these eleven projects is not in the public domain. This tunnel vision and consequent decision making is flawed.

The entire process lacked transparency and inclusivity.

It is further stated in the recommendations that the new Mechanism will be headed by an “Accountability Mechanism Secretary” (AM Secretary) who will be appointed by and report directly to the Bank’s Executive Directors. The AM Secretary will be responsible for planning and overseeing the processes of the Accountability Mechanism in line with agreed procedures and will be responsible for keeping the records of the AM proceedings. She/He will also oversee the Dispute Resolution Service. All staff of the Accountability Mechanism will report to the Accountability Mechanism Secretary with the exception of the Inspection Panel members, who will continue reporting to the Board of Directors. The DR process would have a one-year time limit in order to provide assurance that the process is not prolonged and incentivize the parties to reach an agreement. This administrative challenge is going to present problems with the affected communities who would find it challenging – in the first place to finish the eligibility process of their complaint in English language, the wait during delayed timeline of these complex processes and now having to identify whether they need a compliance review or a dispute resolution.

While it is appreciated that requesters of complaint can submit their grievances beyond project closure (for new projects with effect to the new change in IPN), a distinct DRS will be operational in six months, and an independent and proportionate risk-based verification of Management Action Plans would be established as an additional assurance, they still do not address the fundamental questions ever posed at the Bank by the communities. Will these changes impact the affected people in any positive way? The tight schedules and methodologies lacked a genuine effort for meaningful consultation. Currently, the onus of identifying Bank’s lending to a particular project, understanding the Bank Operational/Safeguard Policies, knowing about the existence of IPN and developing a complaint in a manner acceptable to IPN is on affected communities. This structure disempowers the communities for they are never consulted in advance with full disclosure of impacts, lenders and of compensation/rehabilitation for their losses in most of the projects. Hence in projects, IPN has knowledge about serious impacts, it should have powers to take suo moto investigation as well as actions. Particularly in cases of high risk or ‘Category A’ projects, knowing the potential irreparable consequences, the IPN should proactively look out for the involvement of the potentially affected communities and facilitate their observations/complaints. Sadly, none of these reflect in the “enhancements” mentioned in the review report for the mechanism which boasts of 27 years’ wealth of documented information and engagement with affected communities and civil societies all around the world.

A Case which made World Bank Legally Accountable

On February 27, a year has passed since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 7-1 judgment that World Bank does not enjoy absolute immunity. The judgment shook the foundations of the financial world, which hitherto enjoyed absolute immunity for whatever consequences their lending led to. It’s not business as usual for them anymore.

It empowered the communities around the world, who have always been at the receiving end of lending to big projects – be it big dams, mining, plantations, energy or infrastructure projects. Already two cases – one from Honduras against the private sector arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and another from China against the World Bank – are currently being considered by different courts in the US.

First, a recap of the case, which led to this landmark judgment.

IFC lend $450 million to Tata Mundra (Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd) – a coal-based thermal power project in Kutch, Gujarat in 2007. The fishworkers, who are severely affected by the project construction as well as the effluence from the project, were not even considered as project-affected, let alone any compensation for their loss. Not just the fishworkers, thousands of farmers, salt pan workers and cattle herders were neither considered, nor compensated.

The affected communities, under the aegis of Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan, approached the accountability mechanism of IFC, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) in 2011. After two years of investigation into the violations of IFC’s policies, CAO confirmed nearly all concerns raised by the people in their complaint, holding IFC responsible for the violations and oversight.

Instead of taking it as an opportunity for course correction, IFC chose to ignore the findings first, when pressure was mounted on them from far and wide, they engaged different agencies to conduct a series of studies, which should have done before the project was approved. The findings of those studies were never made public.

The Government of India allowed CAO to visit the project site only once post the report. Their requests for permission to visit the project to monitor the progress of compliance of the policies where declined time and again. Sab ka saath, Sab ka vikas slogan is preserved for the privileged. Riding on the immunity claim of IFC and a government that loathes any independent assessments of projects or situations like in Kashmir, the company continues to ignore people’s concerns.

Having given the project in a platter by the government in 2006 under the newly planned Ultra Mega Power Projects, this project every sop, until Indonesia, from where the coal was procured, revised their coal tariffs. It took the financial viability of the project for a tailspin. In January this year, the company wrote to the Power Ministry that they could not run the project beyond the end of February because of losses. Earlier this week, they wrote to the states who have a Power Purchasing Agreement with them – Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Maharashtra – that they won’t supply power to them unless the tariffs are revised.

While the company is keen to mitigate the loss by all means, the loss of the people and of many generations, caused because of their project, continued to be meted with indifference and arrogance.

In 2015, the fishworkers and farmers approached the US court – the DC Circuit Court, to hold IFC liable for the livelihood loss their lending caused. IFC claimed immunity from court cases. The Circuit Court and thereafter, the Appeals Court upheld IFC’s claim. Finally, the Supreme Court took it up for an oral hearing and ruled that IFC and its parent body, the World Bank, do not enjoy absolute immunity.

The judgment was meted with disbelief by both sides – obviously for different reasons! Having engaged the best legal batteries to lose the case was beyond IFC’s comprehension. That the Davids can take on the Goliaths even today was a revelation to the communities in Mundra, and around the world.

Having settled the immunity issue, the case in US returned to the DC Circuit Court for hearing on the original petition of IFC’s liability. Again, trying to dodge responsibility for the damages they caused, IFC raised issues of jurisdiction and other legal technicalities. A week before the first anniversary of the immunity case, the Circuit Court ruled in favour of IFC, opening up the road for a long legal battle.

Meanwhile, the condition of the people on the ground went from bad to worse. Because of the effluence, the fish catch went down drastically. Fly ash and coal dust falling on the crops and grazing land made agriculture difficult and animals sick. The intake channel and the continuous dredging of it, expanded the land affected by sea ingress, turning large tracts of agricultural land barren.

A part of what IFC has been paying to its lawyers for defending and covering up their violations would have helped restore people’s livelihood. World Bank Group, a leader amongst the multilateral development banks across the globe, has failed in this case to ensure that people are not left to perish while pushing “prosperity for all”.

Joe Athialy is a social activist based in New Delhi

US Federal Court Rules in Favour of IFC in Tata Mundra Case: Fishworkers and Farmers to Challenge Decision.

IFC hides it shame & guilt behind technicalities of jurisdiction

Kutch, Gujarat / New Delhi: The fishworkers and farmers of Mundra affected by the Tata Mundra Power project will challenge the ruling from a federal judge in the District of Columbia, United States, that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – part of the World Bank Group – is immune from being sued for damages inflicted as the commercial activity was not carried on in the United States. IFC has been granted immunity for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In a long legal battle to hold IFC liable for the social and environmental damages caused by the Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd (Tata Mundra) co-financed by IFC, which started in 2015, the community won a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court last year that the IFC does not have “absolute” immunity to all lawsuits. On Friday evening, United States District Judge John D. Bates again granted the IFC’s motion to dismiss, finding that the IFC is immune under the facts of this case.

The court took a narrow view stating that, “the mere fact that someone in the United States approved a letter that defended IFC’s approach to environmental and social risk management for the Tata Mundra project and announced that IFC will consider certain suggestions raised by the CAO is not sufficient to establish that plaintiffs’ complaint is based upon conduct carried on in the United States”.

It is not only unfortunate but also unethical and legally liable, that in spite of causing irreversible damage to the fragile ecosystem of Mundra coast, destroying the livelihood of thousand of fishworkers, farmers, saltpan workers and cattle grazers IFC gets to hide behind the technicalities of law. When there is growing documentation on IFC’s failure in upholding their own safeguard policies, which was confirmed by its own accountability mechanism – the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the courts have provided immunity on technical grounds.

Budha Ismail Jam, a plaintiff in the case said,  “We are disappointed by the decision, but are determined to take this fight ahead. To save our livelihoods and protect our environment for future generations, we do not see any other way. We know we are up against a wealthy and powerful institution, but we are determined to make our voices heard. We will continue to seek justice.”

“The IFC refuses to be held accountable for the damages this plant is inflicting upon farmers and fishers in Gujarat, but no institution is above the law,” added Richard Herz, Senior Litigation Attorney at EarthRights, who pleaded the case. “Even the IFC’s own accountability mechanism criticized the IFC’s role in the project, finding myriad failures. The IFC has not denied causing harm, and it is unconscionable that it would claim immunity when it harms local people.”

Tata Mundra Power project has been a complete failure. Recently, Tata power had announced to the Union Ministry of Power that Tata Power might be forced to stop operating its imported coal-based Mundra ultra-mega power project. From the violation of national laws to the failure to apply the environmental and social safeguards, from environmental and social destruction to financial disaster, to failed policies of energy security, this project is a case study of what should not be done. IFC has been an active participant in this story of financial failure and environmental and social damage by rejecting the findings of its own compliance mechanism. Instead of hiding behind the safety of technical aspects of law, IFC’s focus should be on using its resources to restore the environment and livelihoods of those negatively affected by this power plant.

Download judgment: https://www.cenfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Jam-Opinion-granting-2019-MTD.pdf

For background & more information: https://www.cenfa.org/projects-in-focus/tata-mundra-ultra-mega-project/


Dr Bharat Patel
Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan
+ 91 94264 69803

Joe Athialy
Centre for Financial Accountability
+91 98711 53775

Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project: A decade of disemPOWERing communities

Almost a decade after the construction for the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project and eight years since the operations of the project started, a revisit to Mundra tells the story of the destruction of livelihoods, environment and disempowered communities. The project was envisaged as India’s first ultra mega power project that would add two percent to total generation capacity in India and provides power to 16 million people in five states. It would also supply cost-competitive power to manufacturing industries and services. What was not assessed was how the project would impact the most marginalized communities in Mundra whose life and livelihood were based on Mundra’s unique biodiversity and ecology.

The Project:

The Project is a 4000 megawatt (MW) power station, comprising five 800MW units, in Gujarat, India. The plant was commissioned in 2012-2013 as part of the Government of India’s ambition to develop large capacity projects at the national level of 4,000 MW capacity each under tariff-based competitive bidding route using super critical technology on build, own and operate basis. A consortium of Banks including multilateral agencies and Exim Banks invested in this project, which costs US $4.14billion. Both the International Finance Corporation(IFC) and the Asian Development Bank(ADB) have put US$ 450 million each. The project since its inception has been marred with environmental and social concerns.


In 2011 the fishworkers affected by the project filed a complaint with the accountability mechanism of IFC regarding the violation of IFC’s operational guidelines. A similar complaint was filed with the accountability mechanism of ADB in 2013. Despite reports by accountability mechanisms confirming the concerns of the community of largescale social and environmental damages due to the project, largely the management rejected the reports and a flawed remedial action plan was drafted; which till now has not been implemented properly. In April 2015 the fishhworkers, represented by Earth Rights International, filed a suit against IFC in federal court in Washington D.C., where the IFC is headquartered. In July 2015, the IFC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that it is entitled to “absolute immunity” from suit in US courts under the International Organization Immunities Act(IOIA). In February 2019, in a historic 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that international organizations like the World Bank Group do not enjoy absolute immunity, giving hope to the community to go ahead in their fight to hold IFC responsible for the damage caused to them.

 The Decade:

Ten years since the project’s construction was started, and after eight years of its operations, the fishworkers of Tragadi bandar (harbor), Kothadi bander, and Navinal, (who were impacted by the in-take and outtake channels of the project) are left on the verge of poverty. With the consistent decline in fish catch due to hot water discharge from the outlet channel, destruction of mangroves and creeks, the fishworkers are now finding it very difficult to maintain their basic living standard. During a conversation with fishworkers on Tragadi gaon, most fisworkers complained of the debt cycles they were caught in. One of the fishworkers, Jam Buddhabhai said, “We used to take loans earlier as well from the merchants who come to buy our fish but we were able to pay the loans in one fishing cycle (9 months) but for the past 3 years the cycle has been unending.” Most fishworkers have also started looking for daily wage work on days they are not fishing which is difficult for them to find as their skill and knowledge both are is of the world of the sea. mundra6-2

Another important change has been the death of pagadia (on foot) fishing. With creeks blocked and mangroves destroyed the fish closer to the sea have almost become negligible. Most of pagadia fishworkers have started working either as wage labour worker for people who own boats. Prawns and lobsters, which were found close in the creeks and mangroves, have declined drastically. Even for fishworkers who had been fishing on boats now don’t find much fish catch near the coast. They recall that in 2010 they would catch fish to capacity in a boat twice and did not have to go beyond 2 to 3 kilometers in the sea. Today, they have to venture at least 8 to10 kilometers in the sea to find fish. This has increased the input costs and the risk they have to endure for fishing. From increase in diesel cost, to having to stay put on the boat for days and not come back to save costs of fuel, risk of fishing gear damage by ships, with endless wait to find the fish catch, past ten years have left the fishworkers struggling to make their ends meet.


Women, the Most Affected:

This decline in fish catch has left the women from fishing families in a worse condition. Women were mostly engaged in sorting, grading and drying fish once men bring the fish catch. They would also sell the certain small fish in the local market, which would contribute to their personal income. This has totally stopped. With the decline in fish catch, there is just enough for household consumption and selling to the merchants who sell for export. In Tragadi village, the fishworkers families traditionally went to Kotadi bander to stay during the fishing season. Once the in-take channel of the project was built the access route to the bander became longer. They no longer accompany menfolk to the bander now. With an increase in travel costs, the decline in fish catch and men having to be in the sea for days together to catch fish, it became difficult for women to stay at bunder. In a conversation with fishworker women in Tragadi village they feel helpless that they can’t contribute to the work or income and keep sitting at home the entire day. The quality of life, personal expenditure, movement and economic independence have all been affected. One of the girls form the community who is now 18 years old, Asifa told us, “we remember a time our mother gave us money when they would come back from markets. We all had piggy banks and our small savings, it’s been long since I have seen that in any home now.”

Farmers & herders:

The situation of the farmers and cattle rearing community is not any better. The years of operation of the plant, with in-take channel bringing seawater deeper into the land has resulted in the drastic increase in the salinity of water. This has severely affected the agriculture in the area. In our conversation with farmers from Navinal, Mota Kandagara and Siracha, with the groundwater turning saline, the farmers have to rely on rains as bore well water is no longer fit for irrigation and where people are still using bore well water for irrigation, the quality of crop has turned bad. This has not only made farming unpredictable because of uncertainty of rains but has also changed the traditional agricultural. Crops like peanuts and chiku can longer be grown. Even for crops, which are grown traditionally like cotton, dates, bajra the production has reduced and the quality deteriorated. Many farmers have just left farming, as it is no longer bringing any income. Many have just left their fields unattended and now seek daily wage labour work. Apart from that the coal dust and fly ash that settles on the crop deteriorates its quality specially cotton which becomes black in colour and dates (coal dust and fly ash allow water to settle on it which ruins the fruit). This has resulted in a steep decline in the market value of these crops. The farmers in Navinal said that, “Once our cotton crop used to fetch the same value in the market as Bhuj cotton but today, the story is different. We are paid less than half of what Bhuj farmers will get for cotton but its understandable ours is black in colour.”mundra4-4

The situation of the cattle rearing community is no different. With grazing grounds having been acquired for the project, they are left with no other option but to buy fodder for their cattle. Tata and Adani (both having acquired land for the power projects) both are providing some fodder daily for cattle but that is much less than what is required. Most of the fodder has to be purchased. Also, whatever little grazing land is available has become barren due to increase in salinity of ground water. Also, fodder which is bought from local farmers and a few grazing lands are covered with coal dust which when eaten is resulting in increased cases of cattle falling sick. Premature births, increase in mortality rate and skin infections in cattle have become common. Now in desperate situations, cattle rearers have started migrating with their cattle to other talukas (blocks) in Kutch for grazing.

Air Pollution & Effluents:

The operations of the project and the conveyor belt have resulted in increase in air pollution in the region. Respiratory disorders have become common. The air pollutant display machine outside the plant is always switched off in spite of it being mandatory for them to display pollution levels at all times. Fishworkes also have to face severe skin infections. Chemical water discharge from outlet channel has caused severe skin infections in fishworkers due to long exposure chemical hot water discharge. Salinity increase has also impacted the drinking water, which has also become saline. Even though Tata provides tankers at Tragadi bander and an RO plant in Navinal village, this is not sufficient. Most people have to buy water from tankers or if they cannot afford it they mix ground water with little drinking water that is provided to meet the water requirement. Cases of kidney stones and joint pains have become common among the population consuming water with such high salinity levels. mundra2-5

Given this situation of the communities impacted by the project, it is only ironic that on its official page, IFC states that, “CGPL’s community outreach initiatives focus on improving education and healthcare, increasing access to safe drinking water and energy, natural resource management, and infrastructure improvement. The initiatives also focus on improving income generation and livelihood opportunities, empowering women, enabling access to government development schemes, and strengthening community based institutions.”

After pushing people to poverty, depleting and destroying their livelihood, damaging the marine environment, being responsible for increased pollution levels and taking away the economic independence of women these claims seem nothing but disingenuous. This project is a classic example of a failed due diligence and economic assessment with the project also running into losses. With enough measures for the rescue to the company, it is the project-affected community that has been at the receiving end of the forced development.