Original disclosure @ WB website
Updated in EWS Mar 5, 2018
Disclosed by Bank Aug 1, 2009
Can you contribute information about this project?
Contact the EWS Team
The National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project I (P092217, Credit 4772-IN) has been the first phase of an Adaptable Program Loan (APL) designed to assist the Government of India and the vulnerable coastal states in mitigating cyclone related risks by focusing on ex-ante risk mitigation interventions as part of a strategy to integrate disaster risk mitigation into the longer-term national development process.
The Project would provide additional financing for the India National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (Phase 1), located in the States of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. The original project was approved by the World Bank on June 22, 2010 and has been in the implementation phase for two and a half years. The total project is expected to have three phases. Phase I includes the states of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. Phase II will focus on West Bengal, Maharashtra, Kerala and Gujarat. The remaining coastal states will be covered under Phase III. This report and additional financing only focuses on Phase I (herein referred to as "the project), which consists of four components:
Component A: Early Warning Dissemination System (EWDS) and Capacity building for Coastal Communities. This component reduces the vulnerability of coastal communities by addressing the existing gap in dissemination of warning to the communities. The component supports: (i) installation and operation of EWDS allowing the state and/or district/subdistrict level control centre to send communication directly to the villages; and (ii) strengthening the capacity of communities in disaster preparedness and response by preparing disaster management plans and arranging mock drills.
Component B: Cyclone Risk Mitigation Infrastructure. This component improves access to emergency shelter, evacuation and protection against cyclone and other hydro meteorlogical hazards such as wind storms, flooding and storm surge in high risk areas. Each of the states reviewed the existing system and gaps and developed a risk mitigation infrastructure portfolio. For emergency shelters, identification mechanism included assessment of total requirement, available shelters including other government and private buildings and the gap. The portfolio includes a broad set of measures such as investments in multipurpose emergency shelters, up-grading of existing roads and providing bridges suitable for evacuation, drainage improvement measures and repair and upgrading of existing embankments, and creation of corpus funds for operation and maintenance of cyclone shelters.
Component C: Technical Assistance for National and State Level Capacity Building and Knowledge Creation. This component provides assistance to help understand risk and vulnerabilities better, and prepare the key institutions for addressing them effectively across all coastal states and Union Territories. This component consists of studies, assessments, training and capacity building activities related to risk and damage assessments, development of training modules and action plans and implementing them through identified partner agencies.
Component D: Project Management and Implementation Support. This component provides support for project management by financing incremental operating costs for the Project Management Unit (PMU), Project Implementation Units (PIUs), nodal units in Line Department and National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM), office equipment, training and exposure visits and consulting services for specialist activities.
The additional financing would be to add further risk mitigation works to component B. Specifically, financing would be used for the construction of 162 additional multipurpose cyclone shelters with related 185 Km of evacuation roads and bridges in Odisha and 150 additional shelters and 270 Km of evacuation roads and bridges in Andhra Pradesh.
CATEGORIZATION: Category A
The project is categorized as Category A due to potential environmental impacts during the construction phase of component B (see project summary for description) and potential social impacts(such as land take, partial/full displacement, livelihood disturbances).
APPLICABLE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS:
RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT:
According to the Bank, the project should have long-term positive impacts in terms of disaster preparedness, but the Bank does identify that there could be some potential adverse impacts. Specifically, specific interventions envisaged under the project such as upgrading/expansion of access/local roads if designed without adequate drainage provisions or due to poor siting of cyclone shelters may have some potential adverse environmental impacts in the local context. On the whole, such impacts may include: (i) direct/indirect impacts resulting due to poor site selection for sub-projects; (ii) impact on the drainage pattern of the area; (iii) felling of trees and clearance of vegetation for sub-project construction; (iv) impacts on water resources used by the people such as ponds, river/streams, canals and hand pumps; (v) occupational health and safety concerns during the construction stage: (vi) impacts due to construction material (such as sand. water. earth. aggregate) sourcing and transportation and: (vii) issues associated with improper disposal of debris and construction wastes.
The Bank goes on to note that most environmental concerns are in the avoidance of highly sensitive ecological areas (including mangrove forests), which, according to the Bank, can be avoided by the proper usage of screening mechanisms (including GIS). It is important to note that although the Bank states that negative impacts can be avoided through screening mechanisms and integration of appropriate approaches into the over-all decision making process, they have also noted that in the past there have been challenges in working with the Borrowers in terms of staff training and turnover, which could affect the overall value and efficiency of screening mechanisms in terms of ensuring a healthy environment.
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
RIGHT TO CULTURE:
The World Bank states that, the implementation of the project/program is not likely to affect religious structures of local significance or other physical cultural resources. Impacts, if any, would be addressed through design interventions. Chance-found cultural properties, if any, will be addressed through contract requirements and [the] project's due diligence process set forth in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF).
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES:
In its safeguards document, the Bank states that assessment on tribal population both in parent project and for Additional Financing indicates that there are no tribal populations with unique socio cultural identity vis-a-vis the main stream population in the sub-project locations. However, it then later states in its Resettlement Policy Framework that all sub-projects are being implemented in the rural areas which consist of SC / ST (scheduled tribe population). This inconsistency needs to be addressed and appropriate safeguard measures taken for those populations.
Additionally, within the Indigenous Peoples Plan, the Bank recognizes that there could be possible concerns within the project in the acquisition of small amounts of private lands, use of public lands, impact to non-title holders on public lands, resettlement of families, damages to standing crops and plantations, loss of livelihoods, and access restrictions to the land.
Some questions community members and local NGOs should consider asking:
RIGHT TO HOUSING AND PROPERTY:
The Bank does not foresee any specific land acquisitions in this project with the exception of a piece of private land that was required for an approach road in Andhra Pradesh. Although no additional land acquisition has been identified to date, the Bank acknowledges the possibility that acquisitions for sub-projects yet to be decided upon could be needed at a future time, and this safeguard has been triggered to allow required mechanisms to be put-in place in cases where land may be required in such exceptional circumstances.
It is important to note that specific sub-projects to be included within the project have not yet been identified or finalized, but will include the construction of: cyclone shelters, link roads/bridges and culverts, saline embankments, shelter-belt and mangrove plantations, and communications towers. Moreover, the Bank notes "there may be some proposals for development of infrastructure in regions inhabited by indigenous communities."
Bank documents state that the preferred method for acquiring land for sub-projects would be identification of vacant government land. In addition, "the lands belonging to temple trusts, Gram Panchayats, etc. will also be explored." Individuals, the bank suggests, "may also elect to voluntarily contribute land or assets [...]".
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."
As stated above, the World Bank Inspection Panel received numerous complaints on the Mumbia Urban Transport Project (P050668) with community members claiming their rights to participation and consultation were "effectively denied." These complaints specifically revolved around project procedures not being followed in regards to resettlement and rehabilitation. One complaint sent to the Panel in 2004 by the United Shop Owners Association states that there had been "failure of the World Bank to follow its operational policies and procedure with respect to [their] proper and convenient relocation, eviction and rehabilitation." Another complaint sent in 2009 by three brothers stated that the implementing agency, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) did not take action against grievances to claimed violations to their rights per Bank documentation and the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Overall, there were three formal requests (two in 2004 and one in 2009) sent to the Inspection Panel on the handling of resettlement procedures by the MMRDA. The Panel has since closed all cases by approving Management's remedial Action Plan in 2006 and reaching a compensation agreement with community members in 2009.
Although the Mumbai project and current project do not share an implementing agency, this does identify potential issues that could arise during the implementation process of this project in terms of monitoring and following procedures.
In addition, various organizations and scholars have cited alleged human rights abuses in India, especially in development-induced displacement of marginalized communities. According to a report by the Council for Social Development in 2008, between 1947 and 2004 there were 60 million persons displaced or considered project affected people. 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 that was enacted in 1894 does not recognize common property resources (CPR's), that is lands used by a community but with no individual landowner, as requiring compensation. Although many communities in India depend on CPR's, especially for agriculture, and have done so for centuries, they cannot claim ownership, and therefore are not recognized under the Act.
With this in mind, and according to the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, common property resources are not recognized as needing compensation, which could adversely affect communities that depend on this land, as they are not recognized as landowners. This can be seen in Bank documents where they define 'encroachers' (Persons who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying /using) and 'squatters' (A person who settles on public land without title or a person who takes unauthorized possession of unoccupied premises or person who gets right of pasturage from government on easy terms) as not covered under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Framework. Specifically, within the Indigenous People Framework, the Bank states that non-title holders (which would include common property resources) will receive no compensation for land but replacement cost for structures to the vulnerable groups (SC, ST, Women Headed Households and poor). Such assistance shall be given only to residential and commercial properties; encroachers/squatters will be notified a time in which to remove their assets.
Since the writing of Bank documentation, the Indian government has passed a new land acquisition act- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which took effect in January 2014. This act contains new policies and practices on resettlement and rehabilitation, specifically regarding the rights of non-landholders and CPR's. Although this project does not cite this new act, previous resettlement and rehabilitation plans as outlined in project documentation should be re-analyzed per the new 2013 land acquisition act as it is important that communities who have depended on potentially acquired land for their livelihoods be recognized and properly included and compensated within the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Framework.
The Bank does states that, wherever appropriate, the better and enhanced provisions of the new Act -Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act (RFCT-LARRA), 2013 will be followed for the Project. It is critical to note that the new Act, though it has become effective, it will have to be adopted formally by Project States (Andhra Pradesh and Odisha) by forming appropriate rules and regulations. As previously stated, the Government of India and the states of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have been cited for alleged human rights violations, specifically with regard to land alienation and displacement of marginalized communities. For this, it is important to ensure the two states do formally adopt and enforce RFCT-LARRA.
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 original credit in the amount of US $255 million was approved by the Board of Executive Directors on June 22, 2010 and became effective on March 30, 2011. This Project is for additional financing for the India National Cyclone Risk Management Project (Phase I) that is designed as an Adaptable Program Loan (APL). An APL loan 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.
Project funds will be allocated in the following manner:
-Component A: Early Warning Dissemination to Coastal Communities ($15 million)
-Component B: Cyclone Risk Management Infrastructure ($379 million)
-Component C: Technical assistance for Strengthening Capacity towards Disaster Risk Management ($6 million)
-Component D: Project Management and Implementation Support ($29 million)
According to the Bank, "[A]dditional financing would expand activities under component B (Cyclone risk Mitigation Infrastructure)." The additional financing is for $137 million USD. The International Development Association (IDA), a lending group of the World Bank has committed to providing a loan of $105 million USD with the borrower providing an additional $32 million USD. The borrowers for this project include the Government of India (providing 80%) and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha (providing 20%).
The borrowers for this project include the Government of India and the State governments of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. The Bank currently has one other active project in the State of Odisha and six other active projects in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
According to the Bank, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) will provide technical and monitoring support and will coordinate the over-all program. Additionally, the preparation and implementation of safeguard documents will be the responsibility of each State's Project Implementation Unit (PIU).
It should be noted that the Bank does acknowledge challenges in working with the Project's borrowers, specifically the National Government and the State government of Andhra Pradesh. The Bank states that "The most pertinent issue was related to the staffing deployment and continuity...required for systematic planning, integration and execution of environmental management measures as part of the over-all engineering works."
In addition, a review of the World Bank Inspection Panel found at least three complaints filed for projects where the Government of India was listed as the borrower. Some of the complaints that were brought to the Inspection Panel included concerns related to proper monitoring and management of the project (Uttaranchal Decentralized Watershed Development Project), lack of project supervision (Madhya Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project), and lack of proper participation and consultation with community members (Mumbai Urban Transport Project). Although current project states and the NDMA were not part of implementation, it is still important to note these complaints as it raises concerns about potential challenges in working with the Government of India as a borrower.
PAST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Within Andhra Pradesh, the "India Human Rights Report 2008," published by the Asian Centre for Human Rights, alleged that the State of Andra Pradesh of numerous human rights violations. These allegations included, but were not limited to, freedom of press, suppression of human rights activists, violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, and land alienation.
The State of Odisha has also been alleged of human rights violations. One such example is the proposed POSCO-India project, which according to the International Human Rights Clinic, "would require more than 12,000 acres of land, including approximately 4,000 acres for an integrated steel plant and captive port in an area that is home to forest-dwelling communities and a vibrant and sustainable local economy centered around betel leaf cultivation." Communities have been fighting this project as it threatens to displace over 22,000 people, predominately of marginalized communities, in the Jagatsinghpur District, a region that has a sustainable local economy centered around betel leaf cultivation. To date, affected communities have been able to stall the project through peaceful opposition and in 2013, the UN urged POSCO to halt the project due to human rights concerns.
Saurabh Suresh Dani
World Bank Team Lead
Sr. Disaster Risk Management Specialist and Task Team Leader
Mr. S.P. Vasudeva
Project Director, National Disaster Management Authority
According to the Bank, the consultation process has included "a state level workshop that was organized (both in Odisha and Andhra Pradesh) to obtain inputs on the draft ESMF [Environmental and Social Management Framework] and to seek views...towards minimization/mitigation of potential negative impacts on people and the environmental resources." The Bank continues that, "The public consultation process for the parent project was designed in a way that: (i) affected people are included in the decision making process; (ii) public awareness and information sharing on project alternatives and benefits are promoted; and (iii) views on designs and solutions from the communities are solicited." The Bank states that this process as described for the parent project will be followed in the sub-projects.
According to the Bank, "during the preparation of the ESMF for the parent project and planning of sub-projects, extensive consultation have been carried out with communities, intended beneficiaries, implementing departments, experts (as needed), local NGOs and other stakeholders. The outcomes of these consultations have been integrated in the ESMF and are also documented in the screening reports."
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 email@example.com. You can learn more about the Inspection Panel and how to file a complaint at: http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx.