Open
* Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.
Case Description
Complaint
The complaint concerns a Project in Tunisia co-financed by the EIB, AFD, KfW and NIF; the Project concerns the construction of the first sections of two lines of the new suburban railway network in Tunis as well as the acquisition of the necessary rolling stock.
The Complainant, a local resident whose property had been partially expropriated because of the project, alleges:
i. irregularities in the expropriation, both in terms of insufficient compensation and unfair refusal to exchange the expropriated property,
ii. failure to protect cultural heritage,
iii. lack of stakeholder engagement, and
iv. non-compliance of the operation with the EIB standard on the Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Impacts and Risks.
EIB-CM Action
The EIB-CM analysed the correspondence received from the Complainant, the applicable regulatory framework as well as the project documentation attesting the EIB’s due diligence and monitoring. During its inquiry, the EIB-CM engaged with the Complainant, with the EIB competent services as well as with the Promoter.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Regarding the first allegation, the EIB-CM noted that in 2013 the EIB had decided to waive the condition for first disbursement requiring the Promoter to produce a satisfactory Resettlement Action Plan. This is within the discretion of EIB governing bodies. Under these circumstances, the allegation is ungrounded in the context of EIB’s obligations.
The inquiry of the EIB-CM also took note of a number of factors, which, if not addressed through a process of recalculation, were likely to negatively affect the adequacy and fairness of the compensation. Furthermore, based on its assessment of the EIB’s due diligence of the project, the EIB-CM concluded that, in breach of its standards, the EIB failed to interrupt negotiations to finalise the investment until it had received a satisfactory resettlement plan/framework.
The EIB-CM found that the allegations concerning the unfair refusal to expropriate the entire property or to compensate in kind were both ungrounded. A similar conclusion was reached with regard to the second allegation (alleged failure to protect cultural heritage).
Concerning the third allegation (alleged lack of public consultation), the EIB-CM found that there is a significant gap between national EIA law and EIB standards with regard to stakeholders’ engagement and that the public consultation carried out by the Promoter lacked the engagement with civil society and the public at large. The EIB-CM concluded that the allegation is grounded.
The EIB-CM also acknowledged the Promoter’s improvement in terms of stakeholders’ engagement. Furthermore, the EIB-CM noted that the Promoter’s decision to launch a study on the feasibility of an alternative proposal by the Municipality of Bardo has the potential to address the detected shortcomings insofar as it foresees a public consultation. The EIB-CM also concluded that the Promoter needs Technical Assistance to ensure that the necessary skills are in place and the process is managed to the satisfaction of the EIB.
Regarding the fourth allegation, the EIB-CM found that the Standard referred did not exist at the time of the approval of the operation. However, the Complainant’s concerns were addressed by the EIB-CM’s review of the other allegations.
Based on its conclusions, the EIB-CM recommended that:
- EIB services should engage with the promoter with a view to identify the potential gap between the amount allocated and the current indexed market price. Once this gap is clearly identified and documented, EIB services should engage with the promoter with a view to achieve an agreeable solution on how to bridge such a gap.
- EIB services should support/monitor the Promoter to ensure that a Stakeholders Engagement Plan, clearly containing initiatives of stakeholders engagement with Bardo residents and businesses, is established to the satisfaction of the Bank.
- The EIB should: (i) support the Promoter with reporting on social issues and (ii) support/monitor the public consultation process and the integration of its results in relation to the feasibility study. This could be done through the mobilisation of the necessary funds for an independent TA reporting to the EIB and operating at the Promoter’s headquarters. The TA could also be useful to support addressing all the recommendations of the EIB-CM.
The EIB services should report on the outcome of the above actions to the Management Committee during 2020; the implementation of the recommendations will be monitored by end of the 1st quarter of 2021.