Improving Service Delivery through Voice and Accountability
489
approximately 8,700 people were either rese led or lost assets for which they were entitled to compensation under the project. By the time the (first) Bujagali project was terminated, neither the affected people nor all the affected villages had received all the compensation and/or assistance under the action plan agreed to with the Bank. People affected by the construction of the dam and the rese lement operations submi ed a request in 2007,40 shortly before the Board discussion of a new IDA guarantee to support the (second) Bujagali project. The Panel carried out an investigation and found that many of the affected people had been left in limbo after the first a empt at the project halted, and key elements of the rese lement process to which they were entitled under Bank policy, such as livelihood and income restoration or community development initiatives, had not been provided. The Board discussion of the Panel’s investigation report and Management’s response resulted, among other things, in an agreement that Management would “develop guidance for staff on how to address environmental and social safeguard issues in legacy projects that suffer significant interruptions in implementation, to avoid situations such as the one described by the Panel in the Bujagali project.”41 A similar situation occurred in the Ghana: Second Urban Environment Sanitation Project (UESP II), a component of which was a proposed sanitary landfill at Kwabenya, a township located in the Accra metropolitan area. In 2007, the Panel received a request for inspection submi ed by a local NGO on behalf of the Agyemankata community, which lives in the Kwabenya area. The requesters claimed that the Kwabenya landfill, if constructed, would result in the involuntary displacement of much of the Agyemankata community and leave those who are outside the area of displacement but in proximity to the landfill at grave risk to their health. According to the requesters, the site for the Kwabenya landfill was based on a 1990 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) strategic plan for the greater Accra metropolitan area; although circumstances on the ground had substantially changed since 1990, the analytical studies underpinning the project and the related action plans had not reflected such changes. The Inspection Panel investigation report, dated 2009, noted that one of the Panel’s concerns related to legacy issues and the impacts of changing circumstances on the ground. The Panel found that the Kwabenya 2003 environmental and social assessment relied heavily on a siting study and environmental assessment from many years earlier sponsored by another financier, without properly taking into account the social and environmental reality in the
40
This was the second request related to the Bujagali project. The first request was submi ed in 2002; the Panel investigated that complaint. That investigation report is available at h p:// www.inspectionpanel.org.
41
News Release no. 2009/166/AFR, World Bank Board Discusses Investigation by the Independent Inspection Panel of Power Project in Uganda, h p://siteresources.worldbank.org /EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/Bujagali_Press_Release_Final_121208_Clean.pdf.