World Bank project complaints plagued by fear of reprisal

Some of the bravest people Ramanie Kunanayagam has encountered in her job with the World Bank’s internal watchdog are the everyday folks who push aside threats and intimidation to lodge complaints about bank-funded development projects. Those coming forward are seeing their communities being uprooted to make way for things like new roads, dams, and power plants. They are often powerless compared to those who have a financial stake in the projects’ success. And so, they come to the independent Inspection Panel at the Washington-based lender, often after having exhausted all other options, hoping for some remedy. “Almost every request we have now, requesters want confidentiality. There is a real fear of reprisals for coming,” said Kunanayagam, who heads the Inspection Panel. She sees protecting their identities as a key part of her job — one that is getting tougher as the space for dissent shrinks. The three-member panel was established in 1993 to investigate complaints by people and communities that have been wronged by the bank’s lending to governments, generally for large infrastructure projects. These harms range from lost property and lost access to water to the desecration of land deemed sacred to Indigenous people. As Kunanayagam’s team marks the panel’s 30th anniversary this year, it is giving her a chance to reflect on the past and what needs to be done better. Top of mind is the concern that people are facing increased restrictions on their right to dissent, and this could hamstring people from being able to come forward to launch complaints. Another key concern is ensuring remedies are actually delivered to those the panel has found to have been harmed. The panel itself cannot make decisions on compensation — that remains up to the bank’s management. How the panel works The panel was a unique innovation and the first of its kind at a global lending institution. It is designed to uphold the bank’s own environmental and social policies and procedures, which is all it has the remit to investigate. The unit works by taking in complaints from people in the countries where the bank works, and investigating whether they have merit — and, if so, it conducts a full investigation, often with field visits to where bank-funded projects are underway. After concluding a probe, the panel makes recommendations to the bank’s leadership on remedies for harmed communities. Ultimately, these can lead to changes to projects, such as the rerouting of roads and bridges, or compensation, like in the case of a bridge in Bangladesh, in which a complex web of grants were given to a local community. Kunanayagam has a background in both the private and public sectors. An anthropologist by training, she brings to the panel a strong human rights focus, which comes out in her emphasis on the people at the heart of her work. “We are a public good — and if you are a public good, you are publicly accountable as well and you have to be open to public criticism.” --— Ramanie Kunanayagam, chairperson, World Bank Inspection Panel She is especially concerned for complainants and advocates in parts of the world where protections are few, and where national or local authorities may intimidate or punish those who complain about projects. After all, the bank lends to governments, who often do not like criticism. A panel report from 2021 listed numerous cases of reprisals against communities who spoke up against World Bank-funded projects and warned of shrinking public space for dissent. “They take a huge risk in coming to the panel,” she said in an interview from her office in Washington. “And this makes the redress very important.” The Inspection Panel is “not a tool” of the bank’s management, she noted. Rather, it answers only to the bank’s board of directors, which allows it to be free in its criticism and findings of wrongdoing by the bank. A model for multilateral institutions The panel has become a model that is being replicated in many other major multilateral organizations around the world. For example, the World Bank’s approach to ending gender-based violence among contractors and its decision to ban violators from working with it has been hailed as a landmark move. It stems from the Inspection Panel’s work on two cases, one in the Democratic Republic of Congo and another in Uganda. The former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said in 2020 that the panel’s investigations in those cases and bank’s subsequent policy changes were “significant” and should be an inspiration for U.N. agencies. The panel has also won the respect of legal and policy groups that bring complaints before it on behalf of marginalized communities who have found no other avenue for recourse. “The Inspection Panel was groundbreaking at its start, and it continues to be a leader among independent accountability mechanisms,” according to Margaux Day, policy director of the Accountability Counsel, an advocacy group that has brought five cases to the panel. However, one area in need of reform is the panel’s inability to offer redress, Day said. The bank’s management is “more willing to learn for the future than correct the past,” she said. In short, the bank would rather implement changes and policy reforms that pay out compensation to communities harmed. Day called for the bank’s board to create a dedicated fund for remedies. This would ensure a ready pot that management could tap to offer compensation. “It comes down to financing. It comes down to paying for remedy,” Day said. Kunanayagam is well aware of this criticism, and she, too, seems irked by the limited power. “The only way we retain our credibility is if they respect our decision,” she said of the bank’s management. This is why her staff make sure every report they produce from their findings is bulletproof. “We cannot afford a factual error in any of our reports,” she said. “Even a tiny one destroys the credibility of the report.” Justice denied? Kunanayagam admits that this rigor comes at a cost — and that is time. Years can pass between a project causing harm to a community and any form of acknowledgment from the bank, let alone financial compensation. “Justice delayed is justice denied. We can do better on responsiveness, let me be clear,” she said. Panel members are selected by the board for five-year terms, which are not renewable. Her own time on the job is winding down this year. “This is not a stepping stone or a career-building job,” Kunanayagam says, noting that after serving, a member can never again work for the bank. Future members need to work on a quicker remediation process, while also not thinking of themselves as above the fray, she said. “We are a public good — and if you are a public good, you are publicly accountable as well and you have to be open to public criticism,” she said. Thin-skinned people need not apply.