Contribute Information
Can you contribute information about this project?
Contact the EWS Team
The Government of India has initiated the National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP) with World Bank assistance with a view to address the cyclone risks in the country. The project identified 13 cyclone prone states and Union Territories (UTs) with varying levels of vulnerability.
The project was designed as a horizontal Adaptable Program Loan (APL) in three phases. Phase I (called NCRMP-I) is currently under implementation in the states of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. This phase of the project (NCRMP II) is proposed to include the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Kerala on the west coast, and West Bengal on the east coast. Remaining coastal states will be covered under the third phase III (NCRMP III).
The Bank states that the The NCRMP-II is multi-state and multi-sectoral project and is spread over a wide geography with a large number of direct beneficiaries. It additionally notes that the project will be developed under a multi-sector framework with investment activities aimed at reducing risk and enhancing mitigation along coastal Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal.
The Project will have five key components: A) Early Warning Dissemination System (EWDS) and Capacity building for coastal communities; B) Cyclone Risk Mitigation Infrastructure; C) Technical Assistance for Strengthening Capacity towards disaster risk mitigation; D) Project Management and Implementation Support; and (E) Emergency Contingent Financing.
RISK CATEGORIZATION: Category A
This project is considered category A due to its potential impact on the environment. According to the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), these impacts could result from "poor sub-project location and/or design; work site safety management, including occupational health and safety of construction workers; drainage; impact on local flora and fauna and; construction materials management, including source handling and transportation would require attention."
APPLICABLE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS:
--Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01
--Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04
--Forests OP/BP 4.36 (to be determined)
--Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11
--Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 (to be determined)
--Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ASSESSMENT:
Right to a Healthy Environment
While the bank states that "proposed project interventions are not likely to cause significant conversion or damage to natural habitats," OP 4.04 is triggered as some of the sub-projects "are likely to fall within/very close critical natural habitat (owing to the fact that the coast line is dotted with several ecologically sensitive areas) as defined under Bank's policy. According to the Bank, the project should have long-term positive impacts in terms of disaster preparedness, but does identify that there could be some potential adverse impacts. It continues by stating that planning and construction would require, "avoidance/mitigation measures to ensure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized and properly managed."
As exact project sites have not been identified within Bank documentation, it is unknown to what extent potential impacts to the environment might be. To ensure that the health and quality of the forest is not adversely impacted by the proposed works, measures may be needed during the planning/design and implementation stages of the project. The Bank indicates that information on specific environmental impacts will be updated in the Appraisal stage Integrated Safeguards Datasheet.
The Bank goes on to state that most environmental concerns are in the avoidance of critical natural habitat and ecologically sensitive areas (including mangrove forests), which, according to The Bank, can be avoided by proper management measures, particularly diligence in appropriate site selection during the construction stage. It's important to note that the Bank will be following lessons learned and guidance from NCRMP Phase I with regards to screening mechanisms, management measures, consultation, and other key aspects of the project. In project documentation for NCRMP Phase I, the Bank stated that in the past there have been challenges in working with the Borrowers (for Phase I the borrowers are the States of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha) in terms of staff training and turnover, which could affect the overall value and efficiency of mechanisms to ensure a healthy environment. As this project is the second phase of the APL, it's highly important to confirm that these problems have been addressed and all appropriate changes to project frameworks and institutional arrangements also be changed accordingly.
Furthermore, the Bank acknowledges that the safeguard and management capacity of the NDMA is "still in the process of being strengthened, adequate implementation and support mechanisms would be required for the project. The capacities also vary from state to state for example - West Bengal may require more support compared to other states. The proposed project would require regular/periodic training programmes on the safeguard aspects to ensure that the comprehensive safeguard instruments developed for the project are effectively and uniformly used in the field. Specific capacity strengthening support will be necessary, as assessed during the updating of the ESMF."
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
Right to Culture
According to the Bank's ESMF, All utilities and common property resources likely to be affected due to the project will be relocated with prior approval of the concerned agencies before start of construction. Similarly, cultural properties whose structure is likely to get affected, will be relocated at suitable locations, as desired by the community before construction starts. The Bank additionally notes that, Local community need to be contacted and discuss relocation aspects, siting as well as their maintenance. All necessary and adequate care shall be taken to minimize impact on cultural properties (which includes cultural sites and remains, places of worship including temples, mosques, churches and shrines, etc., graveyards, monuments and any other important structures as identified during design and all properties/sites/remains notified under the Ancient Sites and Remains Act. No work shall spill-over to these properties, premises and precincts.
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Although exact project locations have not yet been identified, the Bank identifies project areas within three of the four states (project areas were not identified in Kerala):
Gujarat: The coastal areas and districts of Ahmedabad, Amreli, Anand, Bharuch, Bhavnagar, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Kachchh, Navsari, Porbandar, Rajkot, Surat, Vadodara and Valsad.
Maharashtra: The districts of Thane, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Raigad, Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban.
West Bengal: The coastal areas of Purba Medinipur district, North and South 24 Parganas, better known as the Sunderbans.
Regarding impacts on Indigenous People, the Bank acknowleges that at the time the Integrated Safeguards Datasheet (ISDS) was released, the nature and quantum of impacts, if any [was] not known and would be updated in the Appraisal stage ISDS, which was scheduled to be released in July 2013. It should be noted that the Integrated Safeguards Datasheet was approved in February 2014 and to date, a Project Appraisal stage ISDS is not publicly available.
As information regarding impacts to the Rights of Indigenous People have not yet been fully assessed, the Bank categorized this safeguard measure as to be determined. Furthermore, the ESMF states that potential impacts on the environment and people will vary depending on the local geographical and environmental setting, socio-economic characteristics of the area in question and the scale of proposed project activities.
The Bank and implementing agencies must do a full assessment of potential impacts to Indigenous People, taking into consideration differences in socio-economic characteristics prior to any project implementation. Additionally, if impacts are identified, the Bank and implementing agency should create an Indigenous Peoples Framework per procedures used within NCRMP Phase I, including proper consultation and notification.
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
Rights to Housing and Property
According to the Bank's Integrated Safeguards Datasheet, Some investments proposed under Component B [Cyclone Risk Management Infrastructure] may require additional land than that is in possession with the line with concerned departments. Also, the project may displace squatters and encroachers, which may lead to loss of shelter, livelihood or sources of livelihood.
In terms of involuntary resettlement, the project ESMF states that, It needs to be ensured that all Relocation and Resettlement activities must be completed before construction activity starts, and that suitable locations for resettlement are to be identified within consultation with project affected peoples.
Although not all specific project areas have been identified, within the ESMF the Bank states that a Resettlement Policy along with an Entitlement Matrix have been put in place within the four states. The Banks notes that, The entitlement matrix needs to be adapted to the project initiatives to arrive at appropriate entitlements for identified impacts. These entitlements should have special privileges to vulnerable people affected by the project. As resettlement impacts in the NCRMP may also be on encroachers and squatters, they need to be assisted following the entitlement matrix.
The entitlement matrix lists compensation measures per the new The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which took effect in January, 2014. The ESMF additionally mentions that the new act will supersede all the previous act of Land Acquisition (LA) of 1894 amended in 1985 and National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007.
The acquisition of private land," will be made through private negotiations or using the land acquisition process. Based on the above support principles, the individual entitlements will be proposed and included in the RP. In case of acquisition of private lands, the compensation rates will be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with the prevailing market rates."
Various organizations and scholars have cited alleged human rights violations in India, especially in regards to development-induced displacement of marginalized communities. According to a 2008 report by the Council for Social Development, between 1947 and 2004 there were 60 million persons displaced or otherwise adversely impacted by development projects. Moreover, and specific to the project area, Fernandes reports as part of the same study that within seven states (including Kerala, Gujarat and West Bengal) only 17.94% were actually resettled. The report goes on to add that although Indigenous peoples constitute only 8.6% of the Indian population, they constitute 40% of displaced persons.
Much of this is due to the fact that the Indian Land Acquisition Act from 1894 that was in effect until January 2014, according to Fernandes, did not recognize common property resources (CPRs), that is lands used by a community but with no individual landowner, as requiring compensation. Although many communities in India depend on CPRs, especially for agriculture, and have done so for centuries, they could not claim ownership, and therefore were not recognized under the Act. Due to this past history, it is important to ensure all the project states follow the new land acquisition act and fully relocate and resettle any displaced people according to the stated entitlement matrix.
It is also important to note that the project document applying the Bank's Resettlement Policy Framework states that sub-projects that will affect more than 200 people due to land acquisition and/or physical relocation would require a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and a full Resettlement Plan RP) and sub-projects that will affect less than 200 people will require an abbreviated Resettlement Plan.
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
The total cost of the project is expected to be USD $320 million. Of this amount, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), an institution of the World Bank Group, has committed US $250 million with the remaining US $70 financed by the Government of India Department of Economic Affairs.
The project is designed as an Adaptable Program Loan (APL). An APL is a specific type of loan that provides phased support over time for long-term development projects. APLs are a series of loans that build on the lessons learned from the previous loan(s) in the series. These types of loans are typically used for phased, long-term developments where subsequent loans are based on satisfactory progress of the project. As this is Phase II of the project, the Bank states that "the project proposes to use the institutional arrangements (both at the central and state levels) and a safeguards framework similar to that followed for Phase I of the project, which was originally approved by the Bank on June 22, 2010.
Project funds will be allocated in the following manner:
The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), will manage the project and will have overall responsibility for implementation. NDMA is currently providing guidance to the four proposed States under NCRMP-II and the Bank states that all four states have developed the required investment proposals. Model Development Policy Reviews have been created and first-year investments have been/are being identified in each of these four states.
The NDMA will be the central coordinating agency for this project, and according to the Bank is familiar with the Bank's safeguard requirements through its involvement in NCRMP-I. The Bank states that, "on the environment and social management aspects, the Authority has gained basic familiarity with regard to the Bank's safeguard requirements through the said on-going project." The Bank additionally mentions that "the state governments too, particularly those of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Kerala are generally aware of environmental issues and management requirements of the Bank on account of their involvement in Bank projects. NDMA will strengthen their existing PMU, headed by a Project Director and supported by technical experts and management staff. The current Project Management Unit (PMU) set-up has one specialist each to handle environment and social aspects."
As in NCRMP-I, the NDMA will provide technical and monitoring support and will coordinate the over-all program. Implementation of the ESMF (including sub-project specific Environmental Management Plans and Resettlement Action Plans in cases) will be the responsibility of the State Project Implementation Units (PIUs).
At the state level, the existing nodal agency for disaster management (e.g., State Disaster Management Authorities or Revenue/Relief Departments) would be responsible for managing the project. Within this department/agency, State Project Implementation Units (SPIU) will be created to play the coordination/project management role. The proposed set-up is similar to the one that has been adopted for NCRMP-I states.
According to the World Bank project database, the only other project the National Disaster Management Authority is working on with the Bank is Phase I of this project.
PAST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Gujarat:
The state of Gujarat has been accused of violations of human rights in terms of rights of minorities, rights of indigenous peoples and forced displacement without adequate resettlement. Specifically, in a 2012 report, Human Rights Watch accused authorities in Gujarat of "subverting justice, protecting perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability" after the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people in 2002.
The Human Rights Watch report continues to state that Gujarat officials, at the time led by the Chief Minister Norenda Modi, "failed to conduct serious investigations and obstructed justice" in response to anti-Muslim violence and acted rapidly in response to anti-Hindu violence.
A report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights states that as of 2007, "4,545 Muslim families comprising around 30,000 persons who were displaced by the post-Godhra communal riots were still living in miserable conditions in 81 relief colonies in Gujarat." According to the report, none of these colonies were being assisted by the state government and additionally faced food and security scarcities.
The Centre additionally notes that, "the National Crime Records Bureau recorded a total of 164 cases of crime against the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Gujarat which included six cases of murder, 23 cases of rape, eight cases of abduction, 53 cases registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, among others during 2006. While the charge-sheeting rate for crimes against the STs in Gujarat was 99.4%, the conviction rate was only 3.3%, which was one of the lowest in India during 2006. Out of total 152 cases in which trials were completed during 2006 only in five cases the accused were convicted."
West Bengal:
West Bengal was accused of having some of India's worst human rights violations by the Asian Centre for Human Rights in 2007. The Centre specifically named state agencies as violators. Particularly, tribal peoples suffered from hunger, denial to the right to health, housing and other social, economic and cultural rights.
Maharashtra:
According to the Asian Centre for Human Rights, crime against tribals in Maharashtra was the highest in India in 2006. The report states that one crime was committed against the tribals everyday in 2006 and that these crimes included, "56 rape cases, three abduction cases, eight arson cases and 58 cases registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, among others."
The report also mentions that 54% of tribals in Maharashtra are concentrated within six districts. One of the districts mentioned, Thane, is also one of the project areas identified within this project.
| Private Actor 1 | Private Actor 1 Role | Private Actor 1 Sector | Relation | Private Actor 2 | Private Actor 2 Role | Private Actor 2 Sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - | National Disaster Management Authority | Client | - |
Saurabh Suresh Dani
World Bank Team Leader
CONSULTATION PROCESS:
The Bank does not identify that any consultation has occurred at this time. It does, however, outline in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) how consultation will be handled for this project. Following the main project and the National Cyclone Risk Management Project Phase I as a guideline, the ESMF for this project states that, "Consultation with public, particularly the beneficiary groups and likely to be impacted people/communities will be carried out during various stages of the project preparation. This includes consultations and seeking consensus on site identification and selection; designs; infrastructure provision and; for understanding any specific social-economic needs of the community." The Bank continues by noting that "all such proceedings, decisions/community consents and resolutions will be properly documented, including written and visual means."
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM OF WORLD BANK
The World Bank Inspection Panel is the independent complaint mechanism and fact-finding body for people who believe they are likely to be, or have been, adversely affected by a World Bank-financed project. If you submit a complaint to the Inspection Panel, they may investigate to assess whether the World Bank is following its own policies and procedures for preventing harm to people or the environment. You can contact the Inspection Panel or submit a complaint by emailing ipanel@worldbank.org. You can learn more about the Inspection Panel and how to file a complaint at: http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx.
