This post is also available in: Arabic
On March 14, 2011, the World Bank disclosed two documents related to the Inspection Panel case filed by 51 residents of the Greater Beirut area against the Greater Beirut Water Supply Project (GBWSP), a water project in Lebanon that is being financed by the Bank. The GBWSP aims to provide potable water for the citizens of the Greater Beirut area and the low-income neighborhoods of Southern Beirut from the Litani and Awali rivers.
A Request for Inspection of the Greater Beirut Water Supply Project (GBWSP) was submitted by a Lebanese citizen (Requesters’ Representative) representing himself and 50 other inhabitants (Requesters) of the Greater Beirut area to the Inspection Panel in November of 2010 claiming that they will be negatively affected by this project. The Requesters raised issues of project design, transparency, consultation, environmental risks and economic burdens associated with the project. The Inspection Panel is an independent recourse mechanism for citizens affected by Bank-funded projects.
As per the Inspection Panel process, Bank Management’s Response to the complaint was submitted on December 13, 2010. A team from the Panel was then sent to Lebanon in January 2011 to conduct a visit of the project site and meet with the Requesters and other concerned authorities. On January 20, 2011 the Panel submitted an Eligibility Report to the Board that outlined the main concerns around the project and included a recommendation to investigate the case further. Recommendations by the Panel are presented on a non-objection basis, meaning that the recommendation is deemed approved if no Board member rejects it or requests a meeting to discuss the case within 10 days from the date the report was distributed to the Board. In the case of the GBWSP, a Board member requested a meeting to discuss the case. The meeting was held on March 10, 2011 to discuss the Eligibility Report and Management’s concerns regarding the Request for Inspection. At the meeting, the Board asked the Panel to wait until July for the results of a water study commissioned by Management to inform the Board on whether or not an investigation would still be warranted in light of the study’s findings. The study will focus on the issues of water quality, availability and costs as these were identified by the Panel as the main causes for concern warranting investigation. Management’s Response and the Eligibility Report were made public on March 14, 2011 after the Board met to discuss the GBWSP case.
Management Response
In its response to the complaint against the project, Management makes the case against the investigation of the project based on the premise that the complaint demonstrates the Requesters’ dissatisfaction with the project design: the complaint mainly criticizes the choice of the water supply source and the Representative proposes an alternative project. In this sense, Management argues that the complaint is essentially not about the harms that would be caused by the GBWSP, potential harm being the main requirement for eligibility of an Inspection Panel complaint, but rather about the Requesters’ preference of project design. Management also questions the credibility of the Representative given the fact that this person proposed another water-source alternative (Damour Dam) in the complaint and offered his consultancy services in case the Bank considered this alternative project. As such, Management believes that the Representative is not an “affected party” for he appears to be trying to secure procurement for his project.
The other 50 Requesters were also not considered by Management to be “affected persons” because only 6 of them live in the project area as defined by Management, and regardless of whether the citizens lived inside or outside the project area, Management argues that they will not be affected or harmed by the project: under the project, there will be no increase in tariffs, water will be treated according to international standards , only one family will be relocated (not among the Requesters) and all previous expropriations for the purpose of the project have been done in accordance with Lebanese law with no involvement from the World Bank. According to Inspection Panel policy, parties affected by a project must show that they will be directly harmed by the project, and the panel has no jurisdiction over procurement-related decisions. Since Management believes that the Requesters fail to show harm caused by the project and that the complaint is procurement-related, it considers the case to be ineligible.
Management responded to the specific environmental and social claims made in the complaint as follows:
- In response to concerns about higher tariffs, Management states that no additional tariffs will be imposed as a result of the GBWSP since the existing tariff will be enough to cover the costs and that economic and social impacts related to the project will be mitigated.
- To counter the concern that citizens will be drinking toxic water, Management says that the water will be treated according to international standards.
- While the complainants argue that there are opportunity costs to this project since the water from the Litani river (GBWSP water source) could instead be used for irrigating the lands surrounding that river while an alternative water source could be used to provide potable water to Greater Beirut, Management dismisses this argument essentially saying that this is not an opportunity cost since the water used for the project does not go to the irrigation of those areas claimed in the request in the first place.
- In response to the claim by the Representative that his proposed project provides the least cost alternative, Management reiterates the fact that the GBWSP constitutes the lowest cost approach after the consideration of other project options and that the Requester’s cost analysis comparing different water sources was flawed.
- While the Requesters argue that the Bank also needed to consider the effects of the Bisri Dam, which many argue is directly dependent on the implementation of the GBWSP, Management clarifies that the Bisri Dam constitutes an independent project from the GBWSP and that the Bank has neither received an official request nor has it committed to funding the Bisri Dam and therefore does not find it necessary to consider in this context. However, the choice of the GBWSP to satisfy the short-term water needs of the Greater Beirut area does not preclude other projects like the Damour Dam, Bisri Dam and Janna Dam that will be considered as part of Greater Beirut’s water strategy in the long term.
Management did admit to delays and oversight in the disclosure of certain important documents as claimed in the request. However, after receiving the complaint, it corrected these shortcomings and made these documents available. Going forward, Management has agreed with the Government of Lebanon (GoL) to conduct a Strategic Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (SESIA) to study the different project alternatives for long-term water supply to Greater Beirut and their associated costs. This, Management says, will address the Representative’s concerns related to alternative projects. Management has also committed to disclosing project documents in a timely and effective way especially within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. According to Management’s response, MENA Management at the Bank has sent a memorandum to its departments on the subject of Disclosure Compliance to ensure that the different departments abide by the Bank’s disclosure policies.
Eligibility Report
After conducting its visit to Lebanon, the Panel submitted its Eligibility Report in which it determines the eligibility of the request and makes a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the case ought to be investigated. In response to Management’s comments on the eligibility of the request, the Panel explains that the request satisfies all six of the Panel’s eligibility requirements including the “affected persons” criterion. The Panel states that the defined project area should include, beyond the sites where infrastructure works for the project will take place, all those areas that will be receiving water from the project. Therefore, all the citizens represented in the complaint are considered “affected persons.”
Moreover, in response to Management’s argument about procurement issues, the Panel argues that the Requesters’ issues of concern are not about procurement and that Management’s argument that it falls outside of the Panel’s jurisdiction is therefore moot. While the Panel recognizes the fact that the Representative might be seen as having an interest in an alternative project, his proposal to be consulted on the development of the Damour Dam project does not relate to the GBWSP and should not prevent the Panel from investigating the harms related to the project in question. The request therefore is eligible for investigation.
While the Panel supported the project’s objective of meeting the urgent needs for potable water in Greater Beirut, it points to three important issues of potential harm that the Panel argues are worth investigating further. The Panel questions whether treatment of the water will be effective enough to bring it to international standards, especially that there is no clear conclusion on the origin and seasonal variability of pollutants. The second issue is related to water tariffs where the Requesters raise concerns about additional costs. The Panel agrees that the Requesters’ concerns are legitimate and questions whether it is realistic to assume that no additional tariffs will be imposed. The Panel also notes that the conveyor tunnel that constitutes a part of the project will be constructed such that it will accommodate additional water from the proposed Bisri Dam, and this will inevitably lead to additional costs in the form of tariffs unaccounted for in the assessment of the project. Lastly, the Panel raises the concern over water availability in the Litani River and the Qaraoun Lake, the principal source of water for the project, particularly in the dry season and compounded by the fact that Lebanon has been experiencing lower annual rainfall and is projected to continue doing so.
For these reasons, the Panel recommended to the Board that an investigation of the GBWSP is warranted. Given the Board meeting conclusions of March 10th 2011 though, no final decision will be taken by the Board on whether or not the Panel can investigate until the final results of the water study commissioned by Management are ready in July 2011. In case the Board agrees that an investigation is still warranted at that point, the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel stated that the Panel will be able to complete its work by the end of 2011, in an effort not to delay the implementation of the project.
Missing Analysis
An important shortcoming in Management’s Response that pertains to the issue of analysis of alternatives raised in the complaint was unaddressed by the Inspection Panel in its report. The Response states that other alternatives like the Janna Dam, Bisri Dam and Damour Dam were considered for supplying water to Greater Beirut in the long term, but it was determined that the GBWSP was the optimal short-term solution. However, a proper analysis of alternatives requires the government to consider several alternatives even for the short term. The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), as noted by the Representative, did not include alternative water sources as short term solutions. The Representative’s concern then – that the Bank has possibly violated its operational policies – remains unaddressed.
Further Resources
World Bank’s project page for the Greater Beirut Water Supply Project (World Bank website)Request for Inspection, Fathi Chatila, November 2, 2010 (Inspection Panel website)
Management Response to the Request for Inspection, December 13, 2010 (Inspection Panel website)
Eligibility Report and Chairperson Statement, Inspection Panel, March 8, 2011 (Inspection Panel website)
Press Release: World Bank Board discusses Request for Inspection in Lebanon, World Bank Management and Inspection Panel, March 10, 2011 (Inspection Panel website)