PositionPaperon

WorldBankFundedFeasibilityStudiesontheChittagong-ThegamukhConnectivityProjectandthe

ViolationoftheBank’sSafeguardPolicies

September2016

AsiaIndigenousPeoplesPact(AIPP)CHTHeadmanNetworkKapaeengFoundation

BangladeshIndigenousPeoples’ForumChittagongHillTractsCitizen’sCommittee

BangladeshIndigenousWomen’sNetwork(BIWN)

Position Paper on World Bank Funded Feasibility Studies on the Chittagong-ThegamukhConnectivityProjectandtheViolationoftheBank’sSafeguardPoliciesPolicyAdviserRajaDevasishRoyChief,ChakmaCircle,ChittagongHillTracts&ViceChair,UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues(UNPFII)PublishedSeptember2016Contact:AsiaIndigenousPeoplesPact(AIPP)08,Moo5,T.Sanpranate,A.Sansai,ChiangMai,50210,ThailandPhone;+66(0)53380168Fax:+66(0)53380752Email:aippmail@aippnet.orgWebsite:www.aippnet.orgKapaeengFoundationHouse#23/25,SalmaGardenApartment,Road#4,PCCultureHousing,Block#B,Mohammadpur,Dhaka-1207Tel:+88(0)28190801E-mail:kapaeeng.foundation@gmail.comWebsite:www.kapaeeng.org

1

Position Paper on World Bank Funded Feasibility Studies on the Chittagong-Thegamukh Connectivity Project and the Violation of the Bank’s SafeguardPoliciesI. ProjectDescription1.1. TheWorldBank’sChittagong-ThegamukhConnectivityProjectThe project concerned is the Chittagong-Thegamukh Connectivity Project (hereafter“project”) in the central and north-central part of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT)regionofBangladesh(hereafter“projectarea”).Themainpurposeof theproject is forthe World Bank to support the Government of Bangladesh to connect the remoteThegamukh area in east-central CHT, currently inaccessible by road, and borderingMizoramStateofIndia,withitsmainportcity,Chittagong,throughRangamatitownandsub-districtcentreswithintheRangamatidistrictoftheCHT.Thegamukh is navigable by shallow to mid-range draft river craft year round fromRangamati,KaptaiandotherCHTtowns,whichareconnectedbyall-weathermetalledroadstoChittagongport.Theessentialelementsoftheproject,accordingtotheBank’sdocuments, consist of “feasibility study of route options to connect Thegamukh andChittagongPort,includingenvironmentalandsocialscreeningandalternativeanalysis,followedbydetaileddesignsofselectedoption”.1The project is part of the larger project named “Bangladesh Trade and TransportFacilitationStudiesRETFproject”(ProjectID:P1488810;hereafter“RETFproject”).TheRETF project is in turn part of the larger region-based programme called the Bank-ExecutedSouthAsiaEasternCorridorProgrammaticTradeandTransportFacilitationTA(P147957),which isamajorcomponentof theagreementsbetween theBankand theGovernmentofBangladeshthatfacilitateNonLendingTechnicalAssistanceProgrammes(NLTA)toBangladesh.Apart from the Chittagong-Thegamukh project, the RETF-Bangladesh project includesstudieson(a)DredgingofInlandWaterways(includingintheCHT);(b)ImprovementofSea Ports (including construction of the proposed new Karnafuli Container Terminal(KCT) at Chittagong port); (c) Establishment/Development of Land Customs Stations(LCS)(includingatThegamukh);and(d)SupporttoaProjectManagementUnit(PMU)1.2. TheBank’sInvolvementintheProjectThe Bank’smajor involvement at this stage is to support the Government to conductstudies and related appraisals, including economic, social and environmental scopingstudies for the project. TheGovernment’s concerneddepartment or agency related tothe project, namely Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) under theMinistry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, has in turncommissionedprivateconsultantfirmstoassistit.ThefinalFeasibilityStudyReportbytheGovernment–basedon theconsultants’ reports–will reportedlybe submitted totheBankinAugustorSeptemberof2016.ThesereportsaretohelptheBankdetermine,whetheritwill financetheprojectorpartof it,asrequestedbytheGovernment.Moredetailed studieswill then have to done, by theBank itself and by theGovernment, intermsoftherelevantWorldBankpoliciesand/ornationallawsandpolicies.

1Houtte(2014).

2

1.3. ProjectComponentsDocumentsrelatedtotheprojectthathavebeenmadeavailabletothepublic,includingthe Project Summary prepared by the consultant firms commissioned by theGovernment (SAIConsultingEngineersPvt Ltd, India&BETSConsulting ServicesLtd,Bangladesh),otherdocumentssharedbytheLGEDandothergovernmentagenciesandthoseoftheBank,statethattheconsultantfirmiscurrentlydealingonlywithPhaseIoftheconsultancy.Thisconsistslargelyof“screening”;includingenvironmentalandsocialscreening and alternative analysis of all eight routes, and feasibilitystudyofoneroadoption and a multimodal route for connectivity between Thegamukh and ChittagongPort”.2PhaseIIoftheprojectconsultancyistoincludesurvey,design,costestimates,biddocuments,etc.3ThescopeoftheFeasibilitystudyisdescribedasfollows:

“The objective of the consulting service is to carry out the study to identifymostviabletransportationroutesfromChittagongPorttoremoteareaofChittagongHillTracts Districts of Bangladesh that may lead to the development of cross-bordertransitcorridorstoNorthEasternstatesof India,particularly throughThegamukh.Theidentificationoftheroutesshallbebasedontechnical,environmentalandsocialscreeningoftheprobableroutesinordertoselectthepreferredroadalignmentandcombinationofwaterwaysandroads,leadingtothedetailedfeasibilitystudyofoneroadoptionandonemultimodaloption.”4

It has been reliably learned that a Detailed (Final) Feasibility Report on the project,basedonsurveysdonebytheconsultantfirms,wasconcludedbytheLGEDinJune2016and submitted by the Government to theWorld Bank, soon afterwards.However, thegeneral public, including the affected communities and their leaders, are not awareabout it. Parts of the report have been shared with the public at a few formal andinformal consultations, and hence all references to the information alluded to theGovernment (including the LGED and its consultants) are based on the PowerPointpresentationsshared ina fewformalconsultationsand informationmadeavailablebythe Bank in its website and through othermeans. Thegeneralpublicandtheaffectedcommunities are not aware of the details of the Feasibility Report submitted by theGovernment.Thusthisreportisundeniablybasedonimperfectinformation,butthisalsounequivocallydemonstrates the point that the Government has been less than transparent aboutdisclosingdetailedinformationabouttheproject,andtheWorldBanktoohas,vicariouslyandotherwise,failedinitsdutyandresponsibilitytodisclosedetailedinformationontheproject,particularlyonthebasisofitssafeguardspolicies,includingOP/BP4.10,toensurethat “broadcommunity support” is there,aspartof the rightandprincipleof free,priorandinformedconsent(FPIC).1.4. TheProjectAreaExtracts from the consultant firms’ preliminary study states that theGovernmenthadprovisionally identified eight routes, including both waterways and roads, to providemotorized connectivity toChittagong, fourbeing solely land routesand the remaining

2Hasan(2016).3Hasan(2016).4Anon(Undated:i).

3

fourbeing“multimodal”, i.e., involvingbothroadsandwaterways.5Detailsof theeightroutes,asprovidedintheaforesaidstudy,arereproducedinTable1below.

Table1DetailsofEightTentativeRoutestoThegamukh

(LandRoutes&MultimodalRoutes)

RouteNo.

Nature ofRoute RouteAlignment

RouteLength(Km)

1 LandRoute Rajasthali,Bilaichhari,Jurochhari,Barkal,Thegamukh 123.54

2 LandRoute Langadu,Bagasadar,Barkal,Thegamukh 50.253 LandRoute Sajek,Majhipara,Dokanghat,

Harina,Thegamukh 97.17

4LandRoute

Bangchara (Kaptai), Chitmaram, Chakkuapara,Bhangamurapara, Bilaichhari, Silchhari,Mitingapara(Jurochhari),Barkal,Thegamukh

106.12

5 MultimodalRoute

Waterway Rangamati,ChotoHarina 63Road ChotoHarina,Thegamukh 7.98

6 MultimodalRoute

Waterway Rangamati,Barkal 37.5Road Barkal,Thegamukh 23.30

7 MultimodalRoute

Waterway Kaptai,Barkal 64.81Road Barkal,Thegamukh 29.30

8 MultimodalRoute

Waterway Kaptai,ChhotoHarina 89.62Road ChhotoHarina,Thegamukh 7.98

ThestudyhasselectedoneLandRoute.ThisistolinkRajasthali,Bilaichhari,JurochhariandBarkalwithThegamukh(123.54km)(seeRow2inTable1).IthasalsoselectedaMultimodalRoute. This is to linkRangamati andChhotoHarina bywaterway (63 km)and ChhotoHarina and Thegamukh by road (7.98 km)(see Row5 in Table 1) for the“detailed feasibility study”.6Some details of the proposed land route are provided inTable2below, includingon the lengthof thedifferent sectionsof theproposedroute,thenumberofbridgesandculverts,etc.1.5. TheCurrentStatusoftheProjectAsstatedabove,theDetailed(Final)FeasibilityReporthasbeencompletedinJune2016andsubmittedtotheBank,partsthereofhavebeensharedwiththepublic,includingatformalconsultations.However,only limited informationontheprojecthasbeenmadeavailabletothegeneralpublic,includingthewould-be-affectedcommunities.IthasbeensaidthatarevisedversionofthereportwillbesenttotheBankbyAugustorSeptember 2016. However, it is not publicly knownwhat the features of the revisedreportwill be, to cover any shortcoming of the June 2016 Report. It is expected thatuponthereceiptofthisrevisedreport,theWorldBankwilldecidewhetherthereportisin conformity with its policies and then decide whether to fund the Government’sproposed project or not. If the Bank decides to support the project, then this mayperhaps leadto furtherdetailed feasibilitystudiesbytheBank,orat itsbehest,bytheGovernmentand/orconsultantscommissionedtodothesame.II. DescriptionoftheProjectArea&ItsInhabitants

5Anon(Undated:i).6Anon(Undated:ii).

4

The project area, along with its vicinity, includes several settlements of indigenouscommunities alongwith their privately titled lands, and customarily owned and usedlands(forests, swidden lands,grasslands,grazing landsandwaterbodies).A fewnon-indigenous communities (largely Bengali people re-settled by the government in the1980s)willalsobeaffectedontheroutebetweenBarkaltoChhotoHarina.7The route passes through two major legal categories of lands, namely, (a) reservedforests,administeredbytheBangladeshForestDepartment(BFD)undertheMinistryofEnvironment and Forests; and (b) Circle-Mauza Lands, administered by traditionalMauza Headmen and Village Karbaries and supervised by a layer of authorities –traditional (Karbaries, Headmen & Circle Chiefs); bureaucratic (Upozila NirbaheeOfficers and Deputy Comissioners), elected (Hill District Councils & CHT RegionalCouncil)andministerial(lineministries,particularlytheMinistryofCHTAffairs).2.1. TheLandRouteThelandroutewillpassthroughbothreservedforests,managedbytheBFD(betweenRajasthali to Farua to Bilaichhari), andMauza-Circle areas, primarilymanaged by thetraditionalauthorities.Inthecaseof thereservedforests, lawdoesnotacknowledgeanyprivatetitleto land,although several communities live within the region, including swidden or “shifting”cultivators.TheBFDusedcheap labourof thesecommunities tocreate teakandothercommercial treeplantationsbothbeforeandafter the independenceofBangladesh, in1971.The statusof their custom-based rights is contested, since theprovisionsof theforest laws (primarily the Forest Act 1927) and CHT-specific laws (CHT Regulation1900,CHTRegionalCouncilAct1998andHillDistrictCouncilActs1989)areconflictual.WhiletheCHT-specificlawsexpresslyorimplicitlyrecognizecustomarylaw-basedland,forestandothernaturalresourcesrights,unlesssuchrightsarespecificallyrecognizedinwritinginthecaseofareservedforest,thestatusofsuchrightsiseffectivelydenied.Some parts of the project area, particularly Rajasthali and the settlements betweenRajasthalitoBilaichhari,includescommunitiesthatweredisplacedbytheKaptaiDaminthe1960s.8Thesecommunitiesareamong themost socio-economicallydisadvantagedin the CHT. It is clear that their land rights have not been acknowledged in thepreliminaryfeasibilitystudy,andtheextentofcompensationthattheywillreceive,ifatall,isveryuncertain.With regard to land tittles andother land rights in the caseof theCircle-Mauzaareas(theareasoutsidethereservedforests),thesituationisdecidedlybetterthanthatoftheRFcommunities.Butnevertheless,thevastmajorityoftheinhabitantsoftheseareasdonot possess documented land titles. Thematter is complicated further on account ofconflicts between indigenous and settler communities (both based on registered titlelandsandcustomarilyheldandusedlands),particularlyonthesegmentbetweenBarkalandChhotoHarina.On9August2016,theGovernmentpassedanordinancetoamendthe CHT Land Dispute Resolution Commission Act of 2001, which, it is hoped, willfacilitate the start of land dispute resolution by the Commission.9If the land-related7FortheBengaliresettlementprogrammeintheCHT,see:Roy(1998:64-66,71-90);Roy2000:107-121)andAdnan(2004:47-67).8Webb&Roberts(1976:19),Roy(2002:27).9CHTLandDisputesResolutionCommissionAct2001(Amendment)Ordinance2016(OrdinanceNo.1of2016),Notificationdated8August2016,publishedintheBangladeshGazette,Extra,dated9August2016,Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Legislative and Parliamentary Division, Printing andPublicationsWing,pp.13841-13843.

5

matters on this project are not resolved properly, these could end up in litigation,includingbeforetheLandCommission.2.1.1. TheLandRoute&Socio-EconomicVulnerabilityofCommunitiesThe socio-economic statusof the communities along the land route (aswell ason themultimodal route) is low compared to several otherparts of theCHT, not tomentionother parts of Bangladesh. This is particularly the case for the communities of thereservedforestareasontheroutebetweenRajasthalitoBilaichhari,wholiveonornearthe banks of the River Reingkhyong. There are no secondary and higher secondaryschoolshereandvirtuallynogovernmenthealthservices,apartfromthetotaldenialoftheirlandandresourcerightsbytheForestActof1927.Manyofthesecommunitieswereforciblyexpelledfromtheareainthepast.10Onlyveryrecently (in 2015 or 16) was the Reingkhyong reserved forest area formed into aseparate“union”,calledBarthaliUnion(itwashithertopartoftheFaruaUnion),whichwillenablethecommunitiestoaccessgovernmentalsocialservicestoagreaterextentthanbefore.Nevertheless,giventhedecadesofneglectandoppressionperpetratedonthese communities (their ancestors were the “forest villagers” whose cheap labourcreatedtheteakplantationsoftheBFD),theirsocio-economicstatusremainsadauntingchallengeforallconcerned.Evenintheremainingpartsoftheprojectarea,individualswithregisteredlandholdingsform theminority of the population. Grants of private titlewere frozen in 1989, andsincethen,untiltoday,registeredlandgrantsareonlysparinglyallowedforgovernmentdevelopmentprojectsandfortheestablishmentofeducationalandreligiousinstitutionson a case-by-case basis. Therefore, CHT inhabitants have been unable to acquire anynewlandtitlesince1989.Registeredlandsareusedprimarilyforwetricepaddy,fruitorchardsortreeplantations(forteakandothercommerciallyvaluablespeciesoftrees),alongwithhomesteads,andareknownas“grovelands”bylaw.11Since the vastmajority of the CHT landswere never formally surveyed and allocatedplotnumbers(througha“cadastral”orothersurvey),landtitlegrantsidentifythelandsthroughtheearmarkedboundariesbasedoneyeestimates.Thetitle-holdersthereforeoftenoccupyandusealargerareaoflandthanisrecordedintheirtitles,forwhichtheyhave “equitable” rights, if not full legal ownership rights. Elected local governmentofficials fromamongthe indigenouspeoples, intheprojectarea,haveexpressedgravefearsthattheselandownerswillbedeprivedofduecompensationfortheselandsundertheiroccupationandusethatlackfullvalidtitle.12Exceptforsmallstretchesof“fringelands”(dried-upreservoirbedsthatsurfaceduringthelowwaterseason)wherewetricecultivationispossible,theextentofirrigableflatlandsorlowlandsisquitesparseintheprojectareaandintheCHTregionasawhole.Consequently,themajorityofthecommunitiesdependonsubsistence-orientedswiddencultivation or fruit orchards occasionally supplementedwith tree farming and use ofnaturalforestproduce.

10Webb&Roberts(1976:19),Roy(2002:27).AddSchendel.11See,Rule34,CHTRegulation1900.12InterviewofMs.MoniChakma,UpazilaChairperson,BarkalUpazilaCouncilandMr.RitonChakma,ViceChairman,JurosoriUpazilaCouncil,atRangamation17June2016and15June2016,respectively(conductedbyMongSingNeoofKapaeengFoundation).

6

Swidden or “shifting” cultivation communities – known in Bangladesh and North-eastern Indiaas “jumias”–occupy,useandaccess their swiddenplotson thebasisofcustomarylaw.Therelatedcustoms,practicesadproceduresareexpresslyorimplicitlyacknowledged in the CHTRegulation 1900 and further affirmed through a number oflawspassedinthe1990sand2000s,followingthesigningoftheCHTAccordof1997.13The same communities also occupy, use or otherwise access various categories ofcommunity-managed lands, including mauza reserves (village common forests or“VCFs”) and other community forests, grasslands and grazing lands, alongwithwaterresources.TheVCFsaretherepositoriesofbamboo,timberandfooditemsrequiredforfamilyandcommunity use, in addition to streams, waterfalls and diverse flora and fauna. Theaforesaid commons are vital for the livelihood security of the communities. Thearbitrarycriss-crossingoftheproposedroadwouldcutacrossmanyofthesecommons.Thesurveyandstudydoneby theLGEDand/or its commissionedconsultantsdidnotaccount for these commons, and therefore, the matters of the livelihood security,compensation, relocation etc., along with biodiversity and ecological needs, have notbeenaccountedfor.TheBank’sPolicyonIndigenousPeoples(OP4.10)acknowledgesthat:

“Indigenous Peoples are frequently among the most marginalized and vulnerablesegmentsofthepopulation.Asaresult,theireconomic,socialandlegalstatusoftenlimits their capacity to defend their interests in and right to lands, territories andotherproductiveresources,and/orrestrictstheirabilitytoparticipateinandbenefitfromdevelopment.”14

Apart fromthe factorsmentionedabove,another featurehasrendered the indigenouspeoplesof theprojectareaasparticularlyvulnerable,which is the factof theirhavingbeendisplacedfromtheirhomesandlandsonpreviousoccasions,including(a)aftertheconstructionoftheKaptaiDam(1960s);15(b)evictionfromtheReingkhyongReservedForest in the 1970s;16(c) political unrest and armed conflict (1975-1997);17and (d)displacementduetoresettlementofBengalisettlers(1979-1980s).182.1.2. TheLandRoute&Socio-CulturalIntegrityofIndigenousPeoplesTheBank’spolicyonIndigenousPeoples(OP4.10)notesthefollowingaboutthesocio-culturalaspectsofindigenouspeoples:

13ApartfromtheCHTRegulation1900,theselawsincludetheHillDistrictCouncilActs(Acts19,20and21of1989,asamendedin1998)andtheCHTlandDisputesResolutionCommissionAct2001(Act53of2001).TheCHTRegulationitselfwasamendedin2003,particularlytotransferjudicialauthorityfromcivilservantstojudicialofficers[see:CHTRegulation(Amendment)Act2003orAct38of2003].14Para2,OP.4.10.15InterviewofMr.RitonChakma,ViceChairman,JurochhariUpazilaCouncil,atRangamation17June2016(conductedbyMongSingNeo)inwhichhestatesthatmanycommunitiesinJurochhariupazilawereevicteesoftheKaptaiDam.16KapaeengFoundation’snumerousdiscussions,formalandinformal,withcommunityleadersandotherinhabitantsoftheFaruaUnionoverthelastfewyears.17InterviewwithMr.ShantiBijayChakma,Headmanof124Naraichharimauza,Bilaichhariupazila,on15June2016,wherehestatesthathisfamily(andseveralothersofhisarea),weredisplacedatleasttwiceonaccountofthearmedconflict(ofthe1970sand80s).18Inherinterviewon17June2016,Ms.MoniChakma,UpazilaChairperson,BarkalUpazilaCouncilstatesthatsheandherfamilyweredislocatedthreetimes,in1979,1984andin1989(beingevictedbygovernmentsponsoredBengalisettlers).Thesamefatehasbefallenmanyothers,includingontheBarkal-ChhotoHarinaareaandthesiteoftheborderpostitselfatThegamukh.

7

“The Bank recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples areinextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources onwhich they depend. These distinct circumstances expose Indigenous Peoples todifferent typesof risksand levelsof impacts fromdevelopmentprojects, includingloss of identity, culture and customary livelihoods, aswell as exposure to disease.GenderandintergenerationalissuesamongIndigenousPeoplesarealsocomplex.”19

UndertheSocialScopingpart,theLGED-commissionedconsultants’studyreferstothreemosques, three temples and four schools among the “cultural structures” thatwill beaffected. Whilst the acquisition of lands, upon which the aforesaid religious andeducational institutions are located, will no doubt adversely affect the socio-culturalintegrityofcommunitiesconcerned,thestudydoesnotaccountforvariousotherwaysinwhichtheprojectwilladverselyaffectthesocio-culturalidentityandintegrityoftheindigenouspeoplesandtheircommunities.This includes the identificationofothersites,apart fromtheeducationalandreligiouscentres, including sacred sites, burial grounds and cremation grounds. Moreover, theindigenouspeoples’socialsystemisoftenbaseduponclansandsects,whoseintegrityisalsolikelytobedisruptedduetodislocation.2.1.3. TheLandRoute,Forest&BiodiversityIssuesThe land route directly passes through or adjacent to several forests and other areasthat are crucial for ecology,watershed andbiodiversity conservation. The two crucialcategories are the Reserved Forest areas (administered by the BFD under theMOEF)and the Mauza Reserves (Village Common Forests; administered by the MauzaHeadmen). Additionally, several parts of the mauzas managed by the traditionalinstitutionsandusedonthebasisofcustomarylawforswiddenorshiftingcultivation,grazingandasgrasslandsarealsocrucialforenvironmental,biodiversityandwatershedmanagementneeds.Thelikelyadverseconsequencesinthisregardmaycomeuponinthreeormorephasesof the project and its aftermath. Firstly, the impact will come in the course of roadbuilding,bothduringthesurveyandconstructionstages.Secondly,theimpactswillbefeltwhenvehiclescarryinginternationaltradecommoditiesstartplyingontheseroads.Thirdly, there will be indirect impacts that may result from the growth of marketcentres, settlements and commercial enterprises related to the transportation,constructionandhospitalitysectors.It is most unfortunate that the Government or its consultants have not mentioned anyinformation on these forests and relatedbiodiversity in the process of consultationsandinformationdisclosure.Thus,thegeneralpubliccannotbeblamedforconcludingthattheaforesaidissueswerenotaccountedforintheFeasibilityStudysofar.2.1.3.1. TheReingkhyongReservedForestAbouthalformoreoftheRajasthali-BilaichhariroadistopassthroughtheReingkhyongReservedForestalongthebanksoftheReingkhyongRiver.ThishasnotbeenindicatedinthemapssharedbytheLGEDandtheGovernment-commissionedconsultants. This is thefourthlargestReservedForestinBangladeshandthesecondlargestintheCHT,andtheonlylargeReservedForestinBangladesh,alongwiththeSunderbans,whichisnotuntilnowdirectlyconnectedbyroad.

19Para2,OP.4.10.

8

Theproposed landroutemayhavesevereconsequenceson the floraand faunaof theReingkgyongReservedForestandthehealthoftheRiverReingkhyong(whichisoneofthe few rivers of the region with its source being located within Bangladesh). Illegalloggingandpoachinghasbeenaconsistentproblemintheregionandbythemid-1970s,65% of the forest cover was estimated to have been destroyed, particularly by thearrival of landless and impecunious shifting cultivators affected by the Kaptai Dam.20Thesituationsincethenisdecidedlyworse,notbetter.Thenewroadisalmostcertaintoacceleratethisprocess.ThefactthattheSunderbans(whicharealsoreservedforestsundertheForestAct1927andprotectedareasunder theWildlifeProtectionAct2012)have remained relativelyintactincomparisontootherreservedforestsinBangladeshislargelyduetotheirlackof connection to mortorable roadways. Illegal logging and forest destruction anddegradation in theKassalong,Matamuhri andSanguReservedForestswithin theCHThavebeenparticularlyacceleratedbythelinkingoftheaforesaidreservedforestswithnewroads,toestablishtimberextractioncentresatBaghaihatinthenorthernCHTandAlikwadang (“Alikadam”) in the southern CHT, in the 1970s and 80s, respectively(supportedbytheAsianDevelopmentBank).212.1.3.2. TheMauzareservesorVillageCommonForests(VCFs)Severalcommunity-managedmauzareservesorVCFsarelocatedintheprojectareaoritsvicinity(seemapinFigure1andTables3-7).Informationavailabletothepublicdoesnot indicate thatFeasibilityStudyhasaccounted for these forests, their flora, faunaandwaterresourcesorthecommunitiesthatmanagethemandaredependentonthem.The legal status, management and protection of these VCFs are vested by law andancillaryordersupontheMauzaHeadmenandVillageKarbaries.22Althoughtheirtotalarea is quite small in comparisonwith the areaof the government-managed reservedforests,theirvalueforlivelihoodsecurity,biodiversityandwaterresourcesiscrucialfortheCHT.Thereareanestimated664VCFsintheCHT,coveringanareaofnearly31,000acres.23Several studies on these forests by forestry andother experts have confirmedthattheseVCFsareextremelyrichinbiodiversity,andinsomeextentsmorebiodiversethan thegovernment-managed reserved forestswith regard toboth flora and fauna.24MostVCFsarealsohugerepositoriesofplantsandothervegetationusedintraditionalandothermedicine.252.1.4 TheLandRoute,WaterResources&OtherEnvironmentalIssuesThe land route contains several major and minor rivers, including the Karnafuli,Reingkhyong, Bileisori, Solok, Thega, Sodo Horina, Bor Horinga, Thega and theirnumeroustributariesofvaryingsizes.Someof thesmallertributariesandstreamsarelocatedwithinthemauzareservesorVCFs. Accordingto informationprovidedbythe

20Webb&Roberts(1976:19),Saha(2013:84,85).21RoadstolinktheKassalongRFatBaghaihat,andtolinktheSanguandMatamuhriRFsatAlikwadang,particularlytofacilitateloggingbytheGovernment’sBFIDC,werecompletedinthe1970sand1980s,basedontheForestryMasterPlanofBangladeshthatwasframedwiththesupportoftheAsianDevelopmentBank’sForestrySectorprojects.22Rule41A,CHTRegulation1900.DeputyCommissioner,CHT’sStandingOrder[MemoNo.2384(40)dated3August1965.23Anon(2016:28,29,56-58,161-163).24Jashimuddin&Inoue(2012a:154),Jashimuddin&Inoue(2012b),Batenetal(2010:9).25Jashimuddin&Inoue(2012a:154).

9

officesofthethreetraditionalCircleChiefs,mostVCFscontainatleastonestream,withsome having five to seven streams each.26There are at least 151 streams in theapproximately 45VCFs that are located onor adjacent to the future road.At least 31bridges are to be constructed, which also clearly indicates the rivers and other largewaterwaycrossings(seeTable2below).

Table2DetailsofLengthsofDifferentSectionsofProposedRajasthali-ThegamukhRoadalong

withnumberofBridges&CulvertsRequiredSectionofRoad(PlacesConnected)

NumberofBridges

NumberofCulverts

RouteLength(Km)

Rajasthali-Bileisori 7 1 49Bileisori-Jurosori 5 1 29Jurosori-Barkal 3 7Barkal-SodoHoringa 14 21SodoHoringa-Thegamukh

2 8

Source: Kamrul Hasan (Jr. Engineer), Power Point Presentation at Stakeholder Consultation, May 2016entitled “STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION MEETING: Project Consultancy Services for Feasibility, DetailedSurveyandDesignofChittagongHillsTractConnectivityConnectingThegamukhandChittagongPort”.Apart from the question of bridges and culverts thatwill cut across numerouswaterbodies, theroadmayotherwisedirectlyor indirectlyaffect, inanadversemanner, theflowofseveralofthesewaterresources.Thisinturnmayhaveseriousconsequencesonthevegetationandwildlifewhosesustenanceisdependentuponthesewaterresources.2.2. TheMultimodalRouteAdverse social, economic and environmental impacts of the multimodal route areperhapsoflesserconcerntotheaffectedcommunitiesthaninthecaseofthelandroute,buttheycannotneverthelessbeignored.2.2.1. Nature,Extent&TimingofImpactsoftheMultimodalRouteThenatureandextentof the impactsuponthecommunitieswillperhapsbe feltmoreafter the route becomes operational than in the previous stage of dredging.However,even at the dredging stage, various precautionarymeasures will need to be taken toavoidormitigatesocialandenvironmentalharm.2.2.2. Direct&IndirectImpactsoftheMultimodalRouteDuringthedredgingstage, ifstrictvigilanceisnotmaintained,theconcernedactivitiesmaydisruptthelocalenvironmentandthesocio-economiclifestyleoftheneighbouringcommunitiesinanadversemanner.Oftheestimated80-kilometrestretchoftheriver-way,45kilometresisexpectedtorequiredredging(Subolong-Barkal:15km;Aimasora-SodoHoringa:30km).27Sincehugevolumesofsilt,clayandotherdebriswillhavetoberemovedfromtheriverbed,theywillhavetobedepositedtoappropriatesitesandinanappropriatemanner.Oncevesselsstarttoply,thesocialandenvironmentalimplicationsmaybemoredirect,morecomplexandofafarlargerscalethanthedredging-relatedactivities.Firstly,aftertheriversaredredged,largervesselsthanthosecurrentlyplywillbeinvolvedingreater26Anon(2016:57).27WorldBank(2014c:26).

10

numbers and greater frequency. Secondly, as in the case of the land route, numerousmarketcentresandhubs,settlementsandcommercialenterpriseswillgrow.Thesearelikelytocausehugethreatsofwater,airandearthpollution,whichwilladverselyaffectboththeneighbouringcommunitiesandthefloraandfaunarelatedtotherivers.TheBankisawarethattherearerisksofpollutants,includingpetroleumproducts,beingreleased,alongwithnoiseandvibrationfromthevehiclesandothermachinery,andtheriskofdangerousgoodsbeingtransported.28Disposalofdredgedsoilandotherdebrisisalsoanissuerequiringcarefulplanningandexecution.However,itdoesnotappearthatthese matters have been seriously considered by the Government and consultantsduringthecourseof theFeasibilityStudyso far.Similarly, itdoesnotappearthattheselikely threats to the ecologyand to the local communities’ social, economicand culturalliveshavebeen so farbeenaccounted for in theproject-related consultationsand in theFeasibilityStudyifatalloradequatelyenough.III. RelevantLegalFrameworkThemostimportantlegalinstrumentasregardsthisprojectaretherelevantSafeguardPolicies of the Bank. These must, however, be read in consonance with broaderenvironmental and human rights instruments, including laws, policies, treaties andagreements, relevant to Bangladesh, including the CHT. Since the overwhelmingmajorityoftheinhabitantsofthefutureprojectareaareindigenouspeoples(whoalsoform themajority of thepopulationof the region),29legal andpolicy instruments thatapplytotheindigenouspeoplesarealsodirectlyrelevant.3.1. TheBank’sSafeguardPoliciesThe World Bank Group is a family of international organizations, namely theInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the InternationalDevelopment Association (IDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and theMultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and the International Centre forSettlement of Investment Disputes (ICISD). The first organizations constitute theinternational financial institution,generallyknownas theWorldBank,whichprovidesloansandgrantstodevelopingcountriesforvariousprojects.TheBankhasanumberofpoliciesmeanttomitigateharmtoindigenouspeoplesandothergroupsintheprojectsitfunds.With regards to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights andwelfare through theBank’s aforesaid safeguard policies, a 1982 publication of theBank stated that itwasintended that the Bank should avoid “unnecessary or avoidable encroachment ontoterritoriesusedoroccupiedbytribalgroups”.30

28WorldBank(2014c:26,27).29AlthoughtheGovernmenthasinrecentyearsshownreluctancetousetheterm“indigenous”,preferring“tribes”,“minorities”,“smallethnicgroups”,etc.),theterms“indigenous”or“aboriginal”,ortheirvernacular(Bengali) equivalents (particularly “adibashi”), occur in several contemporary and historical statutes inBangladesh, particularly in the CHT. These include: CHT Regulation 1900 (“indigenous”), CHT LawsRegulation 1937 (“indigenous”), Finance Act, 1995 (Act 12 of 1995; paragraph 27; “indigenous”), SocialForestryRules2004[Rule6(2);“adibashi”],SmallEthnicGroupsCulturalInstitutesAct2010(“adibashi”).The term “indigenous” was also used by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the following cases:SampritiChakmav.CommissionerofCustoms&Others (5 BLC, AD, 2000, 29),RangamatiFoodProductsvs.CommissionerofCustoms&Others, 10 BLC (2005), 525,WagacharaTeaEstateLtd.Vs.AbuTaher&Others(CivilAppealNo.147of2007),AD,2December2014.30MacKay(2005:65)citingGoodland(1982).

11

There are several Safeguard Policies of theWorld Bank,which are “triggered”, in thecase of the project in question. These include: (a) Environmental Assessment (OP/BP4.01), (b) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), (c) Forests (OP/BP 4.36), (d) PestManagement (OP 4.09), (e) Physical Cultural resources (OP/BP 4.11), (f) IndigenousPeoples (OP/BP4.10), (g) InvoluntaryResettlement (OP/BP4.12)and (h)ProjectsonInternationalWaterways (OP/BP7.60).31The followingdiscussion focusesuponsomeofmostsignificantimplicationsinrelationtotheaforesaidsafeguardpolicies.3.1.1. TheIndigenousPeoplesPolicy(OP/BP4.10)ThereareanumberofrequirementsthatareidentifiedintheBank’sIndigenousPeoplesPolicy (OP/BP4.10) thatmust bemet in order for theBank to support a project thataffectsindigenouspeoples.Theseinclude,amongothers:(a)ascreeningbytheBanktoidentitythepresenceofindigenouspeoplesin,orthepresenceofcollectiveattachmentof indigenous peoples to, the project area;32(b) engagement of the borrower in aprocessofFree,PriorandInformedConsultation(FPIC);33(c)asocialassessmentbeingconductedbytheborrower;34and(d)thepreparationofanIndigenousPeoplesPlan,35oranIndigenousPeoplesPlanningFrameworkbytheborrower.363.1.1.1. Screening to Determine Indigenous Peoples’ Presence in, or Close

Attachmentto,theProjectAreaThe indigenous peoples of the CHT - referred to in most recent legal documents as“upajati”, meaning tribes – form the majority of the population of the CHT and theoverwhelmingmajority of the project area. Bangladesh’s law recognizes the CHT as a“backwardtribal-inhabitedarea”.37It isassumedthattheBankdoesnotrequirea full-fledged“screening”todeterminetheapplicabilityofparagraph6(a)ofOP4.10’,whichconcernstheidentificationofthe“presenceofindigenouspeoplesin[theprojectarea]”orthe“presenceofcollectiveattachmentofindigenouspeoples[to]theprojectarea”.3.1.1.2. Free,PriorandInformedConsultationThe requirement concerning Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPIC) states theFPIC processmust give due regard to themarginality and vulnerability of indigenouspeoples.38The process of FPICwith the affected indigenous peoplesmust be “at eachstageof theproject, andparticularlyduringprojectpreparation, to fully identify theirviews and ascertain their broad community support for the project”.39As stated in aletterofconcernsubmittedtotheWorldBankon26June201640andverballyreportedearlier on behalf of the CHT civil society by Kapaeeng Foundation and other

31WorldBank,2014aandWorldBank(2014b:Ch.IV,paras11-15.32Paras6(a)and8,OP.4.10.33Paras1and6(c),OP.4.10.ItmaybenotedthattheWorldBankhasbeenforcefullycriticized,includingbytheUnitedNationsindigenous-specificmechanisms(UNPFII,EMRIPandSRIP)formisrepresentingtheconceptofFPICtomeanconsultation(and“Broadcommunitysupport”)ratherthanconsent,asunderstoodininternationalhumanrightsinstruments,includingtheUNDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenouspeoples(UNDRIP).34Paras6(b)and9,OP.4.10.35Paras6(d)and12,AnnexeB,OP.4.10.36Paras6(d),13andAnnexeC,OP.4.10.37See,CHTRegionalCouncilAct1998andthethreealmostidenticalHillDistrictCouncilsActs1989(asamendedin1998).38Para2,OP.4.10.Seefootnote34onthedifferentmeaningsofFPIC.39Para6(c),OP.4.10.40CommunicationtotheWorldBankonbehalfofCHTcivilsocietydatedJune26,2016,titled“ConcernsonBangladeshRegionalConnectivityProject(ChittagongHillTracts)”.

12

representativeswho visited the Bank office inWashingtonDC inMay 2016, the FPICprocess so far carriedout by theGovernment and its consultantshasutterly failed tofollowthestandardsrequiredbytheBank,includingitsOP/BP4.10.3.1.1.3. SocialAssessmentbytheBorrowerWherethepresenceofindigenouspeoples,ortheircollectiveattachmentto,theprojectarea,isaself-evidentfact(asitundeniablyis,inthecaseoftheconcernedprojectarea),ortheBank’sscreeninghasconfirmedthatsuchisindeedthecase,theborrower–theGovernmentofBangladeshforthisproject–isobligedtoundertakeasocialassessment.TheBank’spolicystates:

“If,basedonthescreening,theBankconcludesthatIndigenousPeoplesarepresentin, or have collective attachment to, the project area, the borrower undertakes asocialassessmenttoevaluatetheproject’spotentialpositiveandadverseeffectsonthe IndigenousPeoples, and to examineproject alternativeswhereadverse effectsmaybesignificant.Thebreadth,depth,andtypeofanalysisinthesocialassessmentareproportional to thenatureandscaleof theproposedproject’spotentialeffectsontheIndigenousPeoples,whethersucheffectsarepositiveoradverse ...Tocarryout the social assessment, the borrower engages social scientists whosequalifications,experience,andtermsofreferenceareacceptabletotheBank.41

Inaddition,OP4.10clarifiesthatthe“qualifications,experienceandtermsofreference”of the social scientists that are engaged by the borrower government to do theassessment are “acceptable to the Bank”. Inotherwords, theBank cannotdivest itselffromresponsibility ifthestudyisdonebythecommissionedsocialscientists fallsshortofthestandardsofOP/BP4.10andotherapplicablesafeguardstandards.Itisclearfromthepreliminarybitsofthestudythatweresharedwiththepublicthattheconcernedsocialscientistswerenotfamiliarwiththeindigenouspeoples’socialandpoliticalinstitutions,their organizations, their customary land regimes, their dependence on forests andnaturalfreshwatersources,theirspiritualpracticesandsoforth.Therefore,thefailureto ensure that adequately qualified social scientists were engaged to do the socialassessmentworklieswithboththeGovernmentandtheBank.OP4.10providesthatinordertoensurethattheconcernedconsultationprocessfulfilsthe criteria of Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPIC), the borrower mustestablish “an appropriate gender and inter-generationally inclusive framework… whichincludes … affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, the Indigenous PeoplesOrganizations(IPOs)ifany,andotherlocalcivilsocietyorganizations(CSOs)identifiedbytheaffectedIndigenousPeoples’communities(emphasisadded)”.42Thepolicyalsostates that theborrowershoulduse“consultationmethodsappropriatetothesocialandcultural values of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities … [giving] specialattention to the concerns of Indigenous women, youth, and children (emphasisadded)”.43Inaddition,thepolicystatesthattheborrowermust“[provide]theaffectedIndigenous Peoples’ communities with all relevant information about the project(including an assessment of potential adverse effects of the project on the affectedIndigenous Peoples’ communities) in a culturally appropriatemannerateachstageofprojectpreparationandimplementation(emphasisadded).”44

41Para6(c),OP.4.10.42OP4.10,para10(a).43OP4.10,para10(b).44OP4.10,para10(c).

13

The process of consultation thus far used by the Government or its commissionedconsultants does not indicate that it has neither been inclusive nor in a socially andculturally appropriate manner, as stipulated in the concerned policy, including thedisclosure of relevant information. Such a departure from policy is clearly apparentfromseveral“consultations”conductedinthecourseofthisproject.Anexampleisprovidedherewithtoillustratetheinefficaciousmannerinwhichthefewconsultations, aboutwhich thebetter informedandperhaps the “elite” sectionofCHTcivilsocietyisawareof.TheconsultationheldinRangamation16May2016isreferredtohere,inwhichaPowerPointpresentationwasmadebySocialDevelopmentSpecialist,Dr.KhurshedAlam,asmentionedbelow.45The presentation slides consist largely of almost verbatim restatement of policyprovisionsintheoriginalinEnglish,andnoteveninthenationallanguage,Bengali, letalone a local language or dialect (although the oral presentation may have been inBengali).Alloftheselengthytextswouldsurelyhavebeenunintelligibleverbosejargonto even those attendeeswhowere fluent in English (who are not likely to have beenmore than a small minority).Therewasthereforenoeffort toexplaintheBank’spolicyandtheimpactoftheprojectinaculturallyandsociallyappropriatemanner.One of the slides titled Support toAffectedFamilies listed an unbelievable 88 “publicconsultations”,withoutmentioningwhotheparticipantswereandwhattranspiredfromthem.46Thesameslidecitedanopinionofsomerespondentsthatuseofmachineryisthebetteroptionforthe“constructionworkofroadalignment”.Inyetanotherslideofthesametitle,apartfrommentioningtheapproximatesumofmoneythatmayberequiredfor resettlement, it gave a quantitative estimate of not “support”, but “loss” to thecommunities (listing thenumberof families thatwouldhave to be relocated and losetheirshopsandgardens,thenumberofmosques,temples,schoolsandpondsthatwouldbeaffected),etc.Onlyoneof theslidesunder thisheadingreferred tosomeproposalsthatcouldberegardedas“supportive”oftheaffectedfamilies,onfruitgardens,fishingboats,smallbusinessesandincomegeneratingactivities’trainings.In the concluding part of the presentation, headed “Opinions of Respondents”, thepresentermakesthreemajorobservations.Firstly,he listseightmatters thathighlightthe improved social conditions of the respondents over the previous five years(education and school enrolment, housing, sanitation, qualitative and quantitativeimprovement in food intake, mains and solar electricity access, use of television andmobile phones,movement outside the area and job opportunity). Secondly, hemakesnoteof theavailabilityof local labour forconstructionwork.Thirdly,heobserves thatdredgingworkisastrongdemandofthecommunities.47Thissuggeststhatnoneoftheparticipantsattheconsultationexpressedanyconcernatallregardingadverseconsequencesoftheproject.Thisisverydifficulttobelieve,Thustheconclusiononemayquiteeasilydrawfromthis is thateithergatheringwas“stagemanaged”, and/or that the respondents were “handpicked” to reflect only positivefeedback or the information that was disclosed was totally inadequate or in aninappropriateformat,oralloftheabove.3.1.1.4. IndigenousPeoplesPlan&InformationDisclosure

45Alam(2016).46Alam(2016).47Hasan(2016).

14

AnIndigenousPeoplesPlan,oralternatively,anIndigenousPeoplesPlanningFramework,isoneofthemostcrucialcomponentsofOP4.10.TheFrameworkonlyappliesincaseswhere indigenouspeoples’presenceorcloseattachment to theprojectareacannotbeascertained until the later programmatic or sub-project work starts.48In the currentproject, where the indigenous peoples’ overwhelming presence in the project area isvirtuallyaself-evidentfact,anIndigenousPeoplesPlan(IPP)isnecessary.TheborrowerisresponsibleforthepreparationofanIPP,whoseprimarypurposeistoensure that (a) the affected indigenous peoples receive “culturally appropriate socialand economic benefits”; and (b)when potential adverse impacts are identified, thoseimpactsare “avoided,minimized,mitigatedor compensated for”.49Manyof the social,environmentalandculturalmattersreferredtoaboveareindeedthemattersthatneedtobeaddressedinanIPP.Thesecouldincludesuchmeasuresasontherealignmentofthe road, bridges and culverts, grants of alternative lands for settlements, creation orprotectionofcorridorsforwildlife,protectionofwatersheds,etc.According to OP 4.10, the borrower government is obliged to “[make] the socialassessment report and draft IPP/IPPF available to the affected Indigenous Peoples’communitiesinanappropriateform,manner,andlanguage”.50Consequently,andbeforeprojectappraisal,“theborrowersendsthesocialassessmentanddraftIPP/IPPFtotheBankforreview”,whereuponboththeBankandtheborrowerareobligedtomaketheaforesaid information available to the public, and to the affected indigenous peoples’communities,respectively.51However, the public consultations, and the information disclosed by the Governmentand/or its consultants, do not indicate that any serious steps have been taken to frameevenbasicprovisionsofafutureIPP, and if they have been framed, to share the samewiththeaffectedcommunitiesandthepublic.Consequently,theBanktoohasfailedinitsduty to ensure that the Government and its consultants take into account the adequatematters to start extensive consultationswith theaffected communities and their leadersandrepresentatives(fromvillagetoregionallevel)toformulatebasicideasofafutureIPP.3.1.1.5. Land&NaturalResourcesOP4.10enlistsanumberofsafeguardmeasuresonLandsandRelatedNaturalResourcesintheparttitled“SpecialConsiderations”.Theseobligetheborrowertopayparticularattention to certain matters related to lands and natural resources in two particularinstances, among others, namely, during carrying out social assessments and thepreparationofanIPPorIPPF.52Theseare:

“(a)thecustomaryrightsof the IndigenousPeoples,both individualandcollective,pertainingtolandsorterritoriesthattheytraditionallyowned,orcustomarilyusedor occupied, andwhere access tonatural resources is vital to the sustainability oftheirculturesandlivelihoods;

(b)the need to protect such lands and resources against illegal intrusion orencroachment;

48OP4.10,para13.49OP4.10,para12.50OP4.10,para15.51OP4.10,para15.52OP4.10,para16.

15

(c)the cultural and spiritual values that the Indigenous Peoples attribute to suchlandsandresources;and

(d)IndigenousPeoples’naturalresourcesmanagementpracticesandthelong-termsustainabilityofsuchpractices.”53

Furthermore, the section of OP 4.10 on Special Considerations contains safeguardsrelatedtoanActionPlanaspartoftheIPPtoprovidelegalrecognitiontotraditionallyorcustomarilyusedoroccupied lands, including, at thevery least, “long-termrenewablecustodialoruserights”.54Italsoincludestheissueofacquisitionoflands.Given that the concerned land acquisition law for theCHT (theCHTLandAcquisitionRegulation 1958) is quite draconian on notice and hearing matters, and contrary toNatural Justice and Due Process principles, with no regard for customary land andresourcerights, it is incumbentupon theGovernment,withsupport fromtheBank, toeither reform the 1958 law itself, or to provide supplementary executive or policyguidelinestoprovidecompensation–inlandorcash–forlandsusedundercustomaryregimes(whichareotherwiserecognizedbyBangladeshiandCHTlaw).Lessonsmay be taken in this regard from the ongoing AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB)-fundedCHTRuralDevelopmentProject,whichprovidesforthepaymentofcompensationforcustomarilyand traditionallyowned,usedandoccupied lands. It may be mentionedthat the ADB’s relevant safeguard policy on indigenous peoples contains very similarprovisionstothatoftheWorldBank.AlthoughownersofcustomarilyheldlandsintheCHT,withoutformallyregisteredtitle,havereceivedsomecompensationinthecourseof theongoingADBproject, thematter isnotbeinguniformlyfollowedinall thethreedistrictsoftheCHT,withthemainfetterbeingtheabsenceofrecognitionofcustomarylandrightsintheCHTLandAcquisitionRegulation1958.55The matters of social assessment and information disclosure and the IPP have beendiscussed above (chapters 4.1.1.3 & 4.1.1.4, respectively) and hence will not berepeated.However,whatneedstobereiteratedhereisthatthereisnoindicationtodatethattheGovernment,itsagenciesanditsconsultantshavetakenanyseriousaccount,ifatall,oftheaforesaidland-relatedmattersduringthesocialassessment. In the case of theIPP, the general public and the affected communities remain quite ignorant aboutwhethertheGovernmenthasdoneanypreparationfortheIPPatall.In the same vein, the absence of any mention of customary uses of the indigenouscommunities on reserved forests, mauza reserves (VCFs) and water resources, theindigenous peoples’ natural resource management practices and their long-termsustainability, and so forthduring the consultations, or in thedocuments sharedwiththepublic–otherthaninagenericmanner–isunequivocallyindicativeoftheabsenceof any consideration of “Special Considerations” issues by the Government and itsconsultants.Consequently, we are forced to conclude that the land-related matters of “SpecialConsiderations” referred to in paragraphs 16 and 17 of OP 4.10 have been totallyoverlooked. Likewise,otherthanperhapstoprovidegenericguidancetotheGovernmentontheBank’ssafeguardpoliciesandtheirapplication,thereisnothingtosuggestthatthe

53OP4.10,para16.54OP4.10,para17.55DiscussionswithBiplabChakma,ExecutiveDirector,Taungya(apartnerNGOintheCHTRDprojectfundedbyADB),Rangamati,CHT,on2August2016.

16

Bank,includingitsconcernedTaskTeamanditscountryoffice,paidanyseriousattentiontotheissue.3.1.1.6. InvoluntaryResettlementOP 4.10 contains safeguards onwhat it callsPhysicalRelocationofIndigenousPeoples.However,sincethematterofrelocationisalsodirectlyaddressedintheBank’sseparatepolicy on Involuntary Relocation (OP/BP 4.12), the matter is discussed together inChapter4.1.2.1.3.1.2. OtherSafeguardPoliciesInadditiontotheabove,theBankalsohasothersafeguardpoliciesthatarepertinenttotheconcernedproject.Someofthemorerelevantonesarebrieflymentionedbelow.3.1.2.1. The Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12) vis-à-vis the

IndigenousPeoples’Policy’sSectiononPhysicalRelocationOP4.10states thatwherephysicalrelocationof indigenouspeoplesconcernscomplexissuesthatmayhaveadverseimpactsupontheconcernedpeople’sidentity,culturalandcustomarylivelihoods,theborrowerisrequiredto“explorealternativeprojectdesignsto avoid physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples”.56The policy further states that in“exceptionalcircumstances”physical relocationmaybeunavoidablebut that toomustbewith the “broad community support” of the concerned people, as part of the FPICprocess. In such cases, the borrower is obliged to prepare aResettlementPlan.57Thisplanmustbe“compatiblewithIndigenousPeoples’culturalpreferences,and includealand-basedresettlementstrategy”,withanoptionof returnwhere thereason forsuchrelocation no further exists. 58 These considerations would also apply speciallydesignated forestareasandsacredsites,andhence thecaseof thecommunities livingaroundFaruaBazarwithintheReingkhyongReservedForestwouldalsoapply.59TheBank’s InvoluntaryResettlementPolicy(OP/BP4.12)containsdetailedprovisionsonmitigationmeasures in theeventofrelocation, includingon(a)ashareofbenefits;(b) assistance to improve livelihoods and standards of living; (c) disclosure ofinformation, consultation on resettlement alternatives; (d) compensation at “fullreplacementcost”; (e)“movingallowances”;(f)offeredsupportafter thedisplacementhas taken place for a “transition period”; and (g) development assistance, includingcredit, training, job opportunities, etc.60Furthermore, particular attention needs to beprovided to “vulnerable groups” and land-based resettlement strategies givenpreferencewherethelivelihoodsofthedisplacedpersonsareland-based(asisthecasewith the overwhelming majority of the affected people of the concerned project).61ThereisnoindicationthatanyseriousattentionhasbeenprovidedtoresettlementissuesandpreparationofaResettlementPlanbytheGovernmentoritsconsultant.3.1.2.2. TheEnvironmentalAssessmentPolicy(OP/BP4.10)

56OP4.10,para20.57OP4.10,para20.58OP4.10,para20.59OP4.10,para21.Seealso,OP4.12,para3.60OP4.12,para6.61OP4.12,paras8,11.

17

IthasbeenconsideredthatthestudiesundertheRETFprojectwouldnotbythemselvesgenerate any adverse environmental or social impacts.62 However, the possibility of“significant”environmentalandsocial impactsareanticipatedwhenthe infrastructureworkisdone,andhencetheRETFhasbeenclassifiedasEnvironmentalCategory“A”.63ForEnvironmentalCategory“A”projects,ahigherdegreeofcarethanforotherprojectswhere environmental harm is anticipated but not of a high degree. In particular,independentEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)expertsarerequiredtocarryouttheEA,and where “serious and multidimensional environmental concerns” are involved, theexperts need to be “internationally recognized environmental specialist”.64In suchcases,moresothaninmanyothercontexts,theBankretainsitsprerogativeto“advise”theborrowerontheEArequirements,which forallpracticalpurposesmeansthat theBankvetstheprocessofcommissioningofsuchexperts,althoughthisisnotmentionedinsomanywords.65TheborrowermustalsofollowstringentmeasuresonDisclosureofInformation.66TheEnvironmentalAssessmentPolicy(OP4.10)alsostatesthattheconcernedcountry’sfindingsofcountryenvironmentalstudies,nationalenvironmentalactionplans,nationallegal and policy framework, related institutional capabilities and internationalenvironmentaltreatiesandagreements,amongothermatters,havetobetakenaccountof in the Environmental Assessment (EA).67The policy categorically states that “[theBank] does not finance project activities that would contravene such countryobligations…”.68Bangladesh is party to several international treaties on environment-related issues,including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its national constitution, since2011, containsprovisionsonenvironment,biodiversityandclimate change.69 IthasaNationalEnvironmentManagementActionPlan(NEMAP),andpoliciesonEnvironment,ForestsandClimateChange,alongwitha5-YearPlan.TheaforesaidpoliciescontainfewornodirectmentionoftheCHTanditsenvironment,forestsandbiodiversity,exceptthe5-YearPlanand the latestdraftpolicyonForests,buthavedirect implications for theCHT.Thecurrent7th5-YearPlancontainsseveralmeasuresontheindigenouspeoples,includingtheCHT(whicharetermedotherthanas“indigenous”butthereferencesareyet clear),which aredirectly related to forests, environment andbiodiversity and thedependence on indigenous peoples upon their conservation. The section of NEMAPconcerningtheCHT,inparticular(whichwasaddedseparatelyandlastlyonaccountofthe prevailing unrest and insurgency in the region), contains severalmatters that arepertinenttotheCHT’senvironmentandbiodiversity.In the feasibility study process of the concerned project so far, the aforesaidenvironmentalmatters–includingbothinternationalandnationalinstruments-donotseemtohavebeenexploredtoanysignificantdepth,ifatall.TheslidesofaPowerPointpresentation by Dr. Mustofa M. Kamal, Environment Specialist, dated 16 May 201662Houtte(2014:4).63Ibid.64OP4.01,paras3,4.65OP4.01,para5.66OP4.01,paras15-18.67OP4.01,para3.68OP4.01,para3.69Article18AoftheConstitutionofBangladeshreads:“TheStateshallendeavourtoprotectandimprovetheenvironmentandtopreserveandsafeguardthenaturalresources,bio-diversity,wetlands,forestsandwildlifeforthepresentandfuturecitizens.”

18

illustrates the point. As in the case of the presentation by a Social DevelopmentSpecialistreferredtoabove(seechapter3.1.1.3above),theslide,againinEnglishratherthan in the national language, Bengali, makes generic statements on forest andenvironmentissues,whichseemtohavefewdirectlinkstolocalcontexts,otherthaninavaguemanner.Thereseemstobenoreferencetotheforests,biodiversityandwaterbodies in the affected areas, and the likely adverse impacts on them, or onways andmeans to mitigate such loss and damage (for a list of the affected water bodies, seeTables 3 below). Some of the patently irrelevant matters considered are mentionedbelow.The slide titled Environmental Concernsmentions such matters as “sea level rise”,“earthquakes”,“flooding”,“severewinddamage”,etc.thatareveryremotelyconnected,if at all, to the construction of a road. There is no mention of risks to soil, water,biodiversity,pollutionorothermatters,whicharemorelikelytobeinthemindsoftheaffectedcommunities.AnotherslidetitledScreeningConsiderationcontainstwobulletedparagraphs, which are totally irrelevant to the concerned issue. These are citedherewith,verbatim:

• Theculturalcharacteristicsoftribalpeopleandtheirlifestyleareverymuchattractivefor

thetouristfromhomeandabroad.

• DevelopmentofEcotourismandBiodiversityConservationatKaptaiNationalPark,whichisasub-projectof“EcotourismConservationofBangladeshproject”.70

3.1.2.3. TheForests&NaturalHabitatsPolicies(OP/BP4.36,OP/BP4.04)The Bank’s Safeguard Policy on Forests (OP/BP 4.36) states the following aboutfinancingprojectsthatimpingeuponforestsandtheirresources:

“The Bank does not finance projects that, in its opinion,would involve significantconversion or degradationof critical forest areasor related critical naturalhabitats.If a project involves the significant conversion or degradation of naturalforestsorrelatednaturalhabitatsthattheBankdeterminesarenotcritical,andtheBankdeterminesthattherearenofeasiblealternativestotheprojectanditssiting,and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the projectsubstantially outweigh the environmental costs, the Bankmay finance the projectprovidedthatitincorporatesappropriatemitigationmeasures.”71

Therefore,theBankisobligedtotakeoneoftwomeasures:

1) Where “significant conversion or degradationof critical forest areasor relatedcritical natural habitats” is involved, the Bank refrains from financing theproject.

2) Where the Bank decides that such adverse conversion, or degradation, is not“critical”, it goes ahead with the project, but takes “appropriate mitigationmeasures”.

It has been forcibly argued above (in chapter 2.1.3) that the proposed projectwouldseverely harm forests, biodiversity andnaturalwater resources (seeTables 3 below).Therefore, the Bank should take steps to re-align the proposed route to avoid thereserved forests (ReingkhyongandBarkal reserved forests) and thenumerousmauzaforestsorVCFs.However,noseriouseffortsarenoticeabletoconsiderchangingtheland

70Kamal(2016).71OP4.36,para5.

19

route to avoid road construction in theFaruaUnion (Rajasthali-Farua-BileisoriRoad).Asformitigationmeasures,therehasbeennofocusseddiscussiontoo.TheBank’sSafeguardPolicyonNaturalHabitats (OP/BP4.04) states: “TheBankdoesnot support projects that, in the Bank's opinion, involve the significant conversion ordegradation3of critical natural habitats.”72The same policy further reiterates thefollowing:

“TheBankdoesnotsupportprojectsinvolvingthesignificantconversionofnaturalhabitatsunless thereareno feasiblealternatives for theproject and its siting, andcomprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the projectsubstantially outweigh the environmental costs. If the environmentalassessment4indicates thataprojectwouldsignificantlyconvertordegradenaturalhabitats, the project includes mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank. Suchmitigationmeasures include,asappropriate,minimizinghabitat loss(e.g.,strategichabitat retention and post-development restoration) and establishing andmaintaininganecologicallysimilarprotectedarea.TheBankacceptsotherformsofmitigationmeasuresonlywhentheyaretechnicallyjustified.”73

Asinthecaseofthediscussiononforestsabove,therearenoindicationswhatsoeverinthe feasibility study sharedwith thepublic, that theGovernment, and vicariously, theBank, has put any serious consideration to the issue of natural habitats. While nodetailedstudyhasbeendoneinrecentyears,themalaiseofbiodiversitydestructionandthewantonkillingofwildlife,degradationofnatural forests through thepromotionofmonoplantationsandso fortharecommonknowledgewithin theCHT,asalsoamongenvironmentalists,wildlifeprotectionactivistsandothers.3.1.2.4. TheGender&DevelopmentPolicy(OP/BP4.20)The objectives of theWorld Bank’sGenderandDevelopment Policy (OP 4.20) include“[the addressing of] the gender disparities and inequalities that are barriers todevelopment,andbyassistingmembercountriesinformulatingandimplementingtheirgenderanddevelopmentgoals”.Thus, issues of gender equality, and inevitably, CHT women’s rights, includingindigenouswomen’s rights, and thediscrimination they face in exercising such rights,havetoaccountforlawsandpoliciesthatarerelevanttotheCHTcontext.AmongthesearetheNationalWomen’sDevelopmentPolicyandtheConventionontheEliminationofallformsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW),whichBangladeshhasratified.Paragraph38oftheWomen’sPolicyaddressestheissueofindigenouswomen(termingthemaswomenfrom“SmallEthnicGroups”),andreferstomeasurestoenablethemtoretain their “heritage and culture”,74and “special measures” for the development of“backwardwomen”(meaningindigenouswomen).75Two, important issues are noteworthy for the context of indigenous women, amongothers. Firstly, that in addressing the rights of indigenous women and the nature ofimpact upon their rights by the concerned project, the special circumstances of thestatus of the indigenous and non-indigenous women in the CHT, including their

72OP4.04,para4.73OP4.04,para5.74NationalWomen’sDevelopmentPolicy2011,article38.2.75NationalWomen’sDevelopmentPolicy2011,article38.3.

20

vulnerabilities,necessarilyhas tobeaccounted for.Thus, the issuesofsocio-economicvulnerabilityofindigenouspeoplesintheprojectarea,combinedwiththelikelyadverseimpactsuponforests,waterbodiesandtheenvironmentasdetailedabove,wouldalsoapplyto indigenousandnon-indigenouswomenof thearea,except that theywould insome cases suffer somewhat differently from men. Since women are more closelyrelated to the responsibilities of gathering food,water and firewood from the forestsandstreams,theywouldbeevenmoredirectlyimpacted.The second issue is concerning indigenous women’s culture and heritage. In certaincontexts, indigenous women are the sole or primary repositories and upholders ofindigenoustraditionalknowledge(e.g.,onmedicinalplantsandsustainableuseofplantsand animals as food), basketry and weaving, rituals and ceremonies (dance, music,social ceremonies), which may be severely impacted in an adverse manner by theproject.Thepreliminarystudiesdoneinprojectarea,ofwhichthegeneralpublicareawareof,donotdemonstratethatanyspecialattentionhasgoneintothematter.Thenumberofwomenparticipants inthefewformalconsultationsthatwerereasonably“public”andinclusive,was low,particularly those from the rural and relatively “remote” locations.GiventhatpatriarchalpracticesarecommonevenwithinindigenoussocietyintheCHT,consultations lackingasignificantnumberofwomenwouldhavesurelyfailed tofocuson the women’s problems and vulnerabilities, which even their menfolk would havefailedtoarticulateproperly.Thus,itmaybeeasilyconcludedthatthestudiesdonebytheGovernment and its consultants basically ignored women’s issues ands thereby violatedGenderandDevelopmentpoliciesofboththeGovernmentandtheBank,nottomentiontherelevantnationalandCHT-specificlaws.3.2. National&CHTLawAmongtherelevantlawsaretheCHTRegulation1900(whichfunctionsinthenatureofaconstitutionalinstrumentfortheCHT),theCHTRegionalCouncilAct1998(Act12of1998), theCHTLandDisputesResolutionCommissionAct2001 (Act53of 2001) andthreevirtuallyidenticallawsonthethreeHillDistrictCouncils(HDCs),theHillDistrictCouncils Acts 1989 (Acts 19, 20 and 21 of 1989), which may be regarded as the“regional”laws”oftheCHT,incontradistinctionto“national”lawsand“local”laws.76Customary law is particularly relevant in the context of the CHT,which is genericallysafeguarded by the Constitution of Bangladesh and expressly or implicitlyacknowledged by the regional laws concerned. The apex court of the country, theSupreme Court of Bangladesh, in a number of decisions, including over the last fewyears, has unequivocally and strongly upheld the application of customary law to theindigenousinhabitantsoftheCHT.773.3. InternationalLaw

76TheCHTisrecognisedasa“backwardtribal-inhabitedregion”byAct12of1998.HenceitmaybemorecorrecttorefertotheCHTlawsas“regional”lawsratherthanas“locallaws”.ThelatterphraseisapttocauseconfusionwithlawsapplicabletolocalgovernmentunitsthatexistinallpartsofBangladesh,includingtheCHT.By“nationallaws”maybemeantlawsthatapplytotheentirecountry,withoutdistinction.Additionally,somenationallawsapplytotheCHTinalimitedmannerormodification,aslaiddowninthescheduleoflawsappendedtotheCHTRegulation1900.77AungShwePrueChowdhuryvs.KyawSainPrueChowdhury&Others,18BLD,AD,33&50DLR,AD(1998);RajkumariUnikaDevivs.Bangladesh&Others,12BLT,AD(2004),141;AbrechaiMog&Othersvs.JointDistrictJudgeKhagrachari&Others,19BLC(2014),258;WagacharaTeaEstateLtd.vs.AbuTaher&Others(CivilAppealNo.147of2007),AD,2December2014.

21

Among the relevant treaties to which Bangladesh is a State party in context of theconcerned project are Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention of theInternational Labour Organization (ILO) (C107), International Convention on theEliminationofallformsofRacialDiscrimination(CERD),InternationalCovenantonCiviland Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic Social and CulturalRights (ICESCR), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and United NationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(UNFCCC).Themostimportantagreementisthe CHT Accord of 1997, which may be regarded as the Government’s single mostimportantpolicydocumentontheCHT.Moreover,throughtheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(UNDRIP), and OutcomeDocument ofWorld Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014organised by the General Assembly also unanimously recognized the rights ofindigenouspeoples,whichisapplicabletoBangladesh.IV. Environmental&SocialIssuesIdentifiedinPreliminaryFeasibilityStudyThepreliminaryfeasibilitystudystatesthatthechoiceoftheabovetwooutofthetotaleightrouteswerebasedona“multi-criteriaanalysis…toevaluateandrankeachofthe4waterroutesand4landroutesusing[theabove-mentioned]criteriaandsub-criteria”,basedon“technical,environmentalandsocialscreeningoftheprobableroutes”.78While the aforesaid data provides the names of the four major upazila (sub-district)headquarters that the LandRoute is to pass through before reaching Thegamukh (asmallruralfrontiermarketcentre),themapsharedbytheconsultantsdoesnotprovidedetailsoftheexactrouteandthesettlementsthatitistopassthrough,exceptforafewprominentbazars(marketcentresorhubs).The informationprovidedbytheconsultantsontheLandRouteindicates,ontheroutebetweenRajasthali to Barkal, that itwill pass through a number of rural settlements,includingFaruaBazar.FaruaBazar,withinBilaichharisub-district,islocatedwithintheReingkhyong Reserved Forest, and therefore, the Rajasthali-Farua and the Farua-Bilaichhari routes will necessarily pass through reserved forest areas. Moreover, theproposed land route will also pass through community managed forest areas andsettlements.Table3belowshows the locationof the reserved forests and communitymanagedmauzareserves(VCFs)withinoradjacenttotheprojectarea.

Table3ListofVillagesorSettlements,Forests&WaterBodieson

Rajasthali-BileisoriSectionofProposedRajasthali-ThegamukhRoad1 2 3 4Section ofRoad VillageorSettlement Mauza Forest (VCF) or

ReservedForest(RF) WaterBody

RajasthalitoBileisori

*RajasthaliBazar*BumasoriPara*BaliPara*SugunosoriAngamasora*FaruaEgojjyasoriPara(RF)*Leppyasori(RF)*Orasori(RF)*Tawktanala(RF)*UlusoriPara(RF)

RESERVEDFOREST(RF)*RengkhyongRF

RIVERS &TRIBUTARIES*Rengkhyong*Bileisori

MAUZAFORESTS(VCFs)*BaliparaGrameenBon

STREAMS* 7 streams

78Anon(Undated:i).

22

*Alikhyong(RF)*Down*DigholsoriPara*BileisoriBazar

*PangkuaParaVCF

withinVCFslistedinColumn3

Total 13VillagesorSettlements 1RF,2VCFs 2 Rivers, 7streams

Source: This table has developed through consultationwith community and traditionalleaders.In the case of theMultimodalRoute, the course of thewaterway is easily locatable bylocals familiarwiththerivercourseandhencerequiresnofurther information,exceptwhereitinvolvesdredging,andthelikelyimpactofdredgingupontheinhabitantsoftheriverbanks. As for the LandRouteportion of theMultimodalRoute, the sketchy mapshared by the consultants indicates that it will pass through both the left and rightsbanks of theKarnafuli (“left” as one faces upstreamor the source, following the localtraditionofdistinguishingleftandrightwhilefacingthesource,andnotthemouth).The ProjectSummarydocument refers to Environmental and Social Scoping, with theaim “tominimize adverse effects on native vegetation and habitat and on threatenedflora and fauna, species and ecological communities, including any relevant specieslisted under the Forest Act, and address opportunities for offsetting potential lossesconsistentwithrelevantpolicy”.79Amongthekeyenvironmentalandbiodiversityissues,itflagsarethefollowing:

“Directlossofnativevegetationandanyassociatedlistedthreatenedfloraandfaunaspeciesknownorlikelytooccurintheprojectsite;Directhabitatlossforlistedthreatenedfaunaspecies;Indirect loss of vegetation or habitat quality resulting from edge effects, habitatfragmentationorotherdisturbanceimpacts;andPotential for other indirect impacts on biodiversity values including changes inhydrology and risk of significantly increasing mortality of Forest Act listedspecies.”80

In the brief section on Social Scoping for the Land Route, the study provides aquantitative analysis of the social impact in the project area and accounts for thefollowing land, water bodies, householders and structures: (a) Land: 114 acres; (b)Number of AffectedHouseholds: 564; (c)Number of Commercial Structures: 157; (d)Number of Orchards: 241;81(e) Number of Affected Cultural Structures (mosques,templesandschools):10;and(f)NumberofAffectedWaterBodies(Ponds):32.8279Anon(Undated:v).80Anon(Undated:v).81Theexactphraseusedis“AgriculturalAffected(Garden)”.Thephraseprobablyconnotesorchards(fruitgardens) and perhaps tree plantations (teak and other commercially valuable species) as the Bengaliequivalentofthephrase“garden”includesflowergardens,orchardsandtreeplantations.82Thisestimated isbasedonAnon(Undated:v).Thereferencetoponds isconfusingas thehighlandanduplandterrainoftheprojectareaisunlikelytocontainverymanyponds,unlessotherwaterbodiessuchasrivers,creeks,streams,waterfalls,etc.arealsoincluded.However,giventhat40bridgesareestimatedtoberequired(see,PowerPointPresentationofMr.KamrulHasan),notmentioningtheculverts,theassessmentofaffectedwaterbodiesispatentlyasevereunderestimate.

23

V. Analysis of the Feasibility Study of the Government vis-à-vis the BankSafeguards

5.1. ProcessofConsultationsThe most glaring feature of the preliminary steps of the feasibility study beingconducted by the Government – through the LGED and its consultants – is one ofinsufficientconsultation. InacommunicationtotheWorldBankonbehalfofCHTcivilsociety in May 2016, it was mentioned that the LGED had reportedly conducted21consultations, in the first phase, and 80 consultations in the second phase, “in locallanguages, to seek feedback on the likely impact of the intervention upon theconcerned”.83Conversely,ithasbeenclaimed,ataconsultationheldinRangamation13June 2016, that 52 public consultations were held concerning RoadAllignment-1 andanother36ontheMultimodalAllignment-1.84However,theaforesaidcivilsocietyletterofconcerntotheBank,datedJune26,2016claimsthefollowing:

“Thismatterwasdiscussedwith indigenous leaders fromvillagetoregional levels,andwithoutfail,allshowedcompleteignoranceabouttheaforesaidconsultations.Theseleadersincludechairpersonsandmembersoftheconcernedlocalgovernmentbodies (UnionCouncilsand theUpazilaorSub-DistrictCouncils),and the traditioninstitutions of Circle Chief, Headman and Karbari. Even the ChittagongHill TractsRegional Council (CHTRC), the apex administrative body in the CHT, and theMemberofParliamentfromRangamati,areuninformed.This clearly suggests that either these consultation meetings, or a substantialnumberofthem,nevertookplace,ortheyconcerneddiscussionsatverysuperficiallevels, and perhaps in secret, as information about them appears to have beensuppressedorotherwisenotmadeknowntothepublic.”85

Some of the prominent community leaders – both elected and traditional – from theproject area in the course of this study confirmed more or less the same fact. Thecommunityleaders,letaloneordinaryvillagers,weremostlytotallyignorantabouttheprojectandthepossibleconsequencesoftheproject.Thisstateofaffairssuggests,attheveryleast,absenceofpropersupervisiononthepartoftheGovernmentandonthepartoftheBank,andperhapsarathercavalierattitude towardsensuring that theconsultationprocesswasindeedinaccordancewiththeBank’srelevantsafeguardpolicies.5.2. DisclosureofInformationDisclosure of information has generally been hugely inadequate, although thisshortcoming was being addressed to an extent, through relatively more focussedconsultationswithwould-be-affectedpeopleandotherstakeholders.However,theyareneverthelessfarshortofthestandardrequired.Thevalueofthesevirtual“last-minute”consultations has been severely compromised by the hurried nature of theseconsultations, which has severely undermined the needs of adequate informationdisclosure.

83CommunicationtotheWorldBankonbehalfofCHTcivilsocietydatedJune26,2016,titled“ConcernsonBangladeshRegionalConnectivityProject(ChittagongHillTracts)”.84Alam(2016).85CommunicationtotheWorldBankonbehalfofCHTcivilsocietydatedJune26,2016,titled“ConcernsonBangladeshRegionalConnectivityProject(ChittagongHillTracts)”.

24

Therefore, these consultations cannotbe regarded tohave fulfilled theneedsof using“consultationmethods appropriate to the social and cultural values of the indigenouspeoples’communitiesandtheirlocalconditions,”865.3. LackofAdequateSupervisionbytheBankThe above discussion shows unequivocally, not only that the Government and itsconsultantshavefailedtohavedueregardtotheBank’srelevantsafeguardprovisionsbut also that the Bank itself has failed in its duty to properly supervise and guide theGovernment and its consultants’ role in the course of the recently concluded feasibilitystudy.VI. RecommendationsThefollowingaresomebasicrecommendations:6.1. RecommendationstotheWorldBank6.1.1. TheWorldBankshouldrevokeordeferitsdecisiononsupporttheChittagong-Thegamukh Project until and unless fully open, transparent, inclusive and context-appropriatestudiesaredoneintheprojectarea,inaccordancewiththeBank’srelevantSafeguardPoliciesandthelawsandpoliciesofBangladesh,includingthelaws,policies,customs,practicesandusagesoftheCHTandinternationalhumanrightsstandards;6.1.2. The World Bank should fulfill its fiduciary and other duties properly andadequately,insupervisingtheactivitiesoftheGovernmentofBangladesh,includingitsrelevant ministries, departments, agencies, and consultants commissioned by it, inrelationtofeasibilityandotherstudiesbeingdone,ortobedone, inthecontextoftheBangladeshTradeandTransportFacilitationStudiesRETFProject.Inparticular,theBankshould provide necessary guidance and support to the Government of Bangladesh, totake special care where indigenous peoples are present in or are otherwise to beaffectedbythefutureprojectactivities.6.1.3. TheWorldBankshouldconsiderwhetheranyroadbuildingprojectswouldbeappropriatetofundatthecurrentjuncture,whencrucialelementsoftheCHTAccordof1997remain fullyorsubstantiallyunaddressed.These include theresolutionofmajorland-related disputes in the CHT through the CHT Land Disputes ResolutionCommissionandtherehabilitationoftheformerInternationalJummaRefugeesandtheInternally Displaced Indigenous People in terms of the CHT Accord of 1997 and theGovernmentofBangladhesandJummaRefugeeWelfareAssociationAgreementof1997.Itisnoteworthythatthelong-awaitedamendmenttotheLandCommissionActof2001only came about on 9 August 2016, and it is still a long way for the Commission toactuallystartitsworkonresolutionoflanddisputes.6.2. RecommendationstotheGovernmentofBangladesh6.2.1. The Government of Bangladesh should conduct a fresh feasibility study onproposed the Chittagong-Thegamukh project in accordance with relevant laws andpolicies, including the laws, customs, practices and usages of the CHT, in fullconsultationwiththeCHTRegionalCouncil,andinconsultationwith,andthefree,prior

86Para9,OP.4.10.

25

andinformedconsentof,theindigenouspeoplesandotherinhabitantsoftheproposedprojectarea.6.2.2. TheGovernmentofBangladeshshouldrefrainfromallroad-buildingandothermajor infrastructuralprojects in theCHTunlessanduntil the freepriorand informedconsentoftheCHTRegionalCouncilandthatoftheconcernedcommunitiesisobtained.The Government should be aware of legitimate fears of the CHT-specific institutions(includingtheCHTRegionalCouncil,thetraditionalinstitutionsandcivilsociety)oftheviolation of their rights before the crucial provisions of the CHT Accord of 1997,including the full transfer of land administration and land management to the HillDistrictCouncils, theresolutionof land-relateddisputesbytheCHTLandCommission,and the rehabilitation of the former international Jumma refugees and the internallydisplacedindigenouspersonsiscompleted.6.3. RecommendationstoOtherLending&DonorPartnersoftheGovernmentofBangladesh6.3.1 Existing and prospective development partners of the Government ofBangladesh,includingmultilateraldevelopmentbankssuchasinstitutionsoftheWorldBankGroupandtheAsianDevelopmentBank,othermajordevelopmentbanksownedby governments and other lending bodies or donor institutions (governmental orotherwise)refrain fromsupportingany infrastructuralprojects intheCHT,unlessanduntil there is sufficient progress with regard to the resolution of major land-relateddisputes and the rehabilitation of the former international Jumma refugees anddisplaced people in the region, and the free, prior and informed consent of the CHTRegionalCouncil,otherCHT-specific institutions(includingthetraditionalinstitutions)andtheconcernedpeoplesandcommunitiesisobtainedonthematter.6.4. Recommendations for UN Human Rights & Indigenous-SpecificMechanismsRelevantUnitedNationsbodies,includingtheHumanRightsCouncilanditsbodiesandprocedures, including relevantUN Special Rapporteurs and the ExpertMechanism ontheRightsof IndigenousPeoples, and theUNPermanentForumon Indigenous IssuesshouldcloselymonitorthesituationintheCHTtohelpensurethatnoroad-buildingorother major infrastructural projects are funded unless sufficient progress on landdispute resolution and rehabilitation of former international Jumma Refugees andinternally displaced indigenous peoples is achieved and the free, prior and informedconsent of the relevant CHT-specific institutions and concerned peoples andcommunitiesisobtained.6.5. Recommendations for Human Rights Watchdog Bodies & Civil SocietyOrganizationsInternational human rights organizations including Amnesty International, HumanRightsWatch, InternationalWork Group on Indigenous Affairs, Tebtebba Foundationand other organizations are urged to draw attention on the human rights of theindigenous peoples of the CHT, in general andwith regard to proposed road-buildingprojects,includingtheChittagong-Thegamukhproject,tofacilitatetheprotectionofthehumanrightsoftheindigenouspeoplesoftheCHT.6.6. RecommendationsforBangladeshiandCHTCivilSocietyorganizations

26

Bangladeshicivilsocietyorganizations,includingthosebasedintheCHTorworkingontheCHT,areurgedtodisseminateinformationontheproposedChittagong-Thegamukhproject and othermajor infrastructural projects in the CHT to the concerned peoplesandcommunities,tofacilitatedialogueanddiscussionamongallconcerned,andtohelpraise the capacities of the concerned peoples and communities to enable them to bebetterawareabout their rightsand to raise theirorganizational capacities inorder tohelp them better defend their rights under Bangladeshi (including CHT) law andinternationalhumanrightsstandards.……………………………………

27

BibliographyAdnan,S,2004.Migration,LandAlienationandEthnicConflict:CausesofPovertyintheChittagong

HillTractsofBangladesh,Research&AdvisoryServices,Dhaka.Alam,Khurshed(SocialDevelopmentSpecialist),2016.PowerPointpresentationonChittagong-

ThegamukhConnectivityProject,dated12May2016.Anon (2016). Sustainable Forest Management in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Report of

Independent Expert submitted to UNDP, 1 August 2015 [Commissioned under theChittagongHillTractsWatershedCo-ManagementProject(SupportedbyUSAID).

Anon (Undated). Project Summary: Consultancy Services for Feasibility, Detailed Survey

andDesign of Chittagong Hills Tracts (CHT) Connectivity Project Summary: ConnectingThegamukhandChittagongPort.

Baten, A.B., Khan, N. A., Ahammad, R & Missbahuzzaman, K, 2010. VillageCommonForests in

Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: Balance between Conservation and Exploitation,UnnayanOnneshan,CentreforResearch&ActiononDevelopment,Dhaka.

Goodland, Robert, 1982. Economic Development and Tribal Peoples: Human Ecological

Considerations.Hasan,Kamrul(Jr.Engineer),2016.PowerPointPresentationatStakeholderConsultation,May

2016entitled“STAKEHOLDERCONSULTATIONMEETING:ProjectConsultancyServicesfor Feasibility, Detailed Survey and Design of Chittagong Hills Tract ConnectivityConnectingThegamukhandChittagongPort”.

Houtte, Diep Nguyen-van (Task Team Leader, World Bank), 2014. Integrated Safeguards

Datasheet:AppraisalStage(ReportNo.84359,updated24January2014).Jashimuddin, M & Inoue, M, 2012a. ‘Community Forestry for Sustainable Forest Management:

Experiences fromBangladeshandPolicyRecommendation’,FORMATH,Vol.11(2012),pp.133-166.

Jashimuddin,M& Inoue,M,2012b. ‘ManagementofVillageCommonForests in theChittagong

Hill Tracts of Bangladesh: Historical Background and Current Issues in Terms ofSustainability’,OpenJournalofForestry,2012,Vol.2,No.3,121-137.

Kamal,Dr.MustofaM, 2016. PowerPointPresentation at StakeholderConsultationon16May

2016,entitled“ChittagongHillTractConnectivityconnectingThegamukhandChittagongPort (ENVIRONMENT), SAI Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd, India, BETS ConsultingServicesLtd,Bangladesh.

MacKay, Fergus, 2005. “TheDraftWorld BankOperational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples:

Progress OrMore Of The Same?”,ArizonaJournalof International&ComparativeLaw,Vol.22,No.1,pp.65-98.

http://arizonajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MacKay-Formatted.pdf [Accessed 1August2016].

Roy, R. D., 1998 [1995]. ‘Land Rights, Land Use & Indigenous Peoples in the Chittagong Hill

Tracts’ in P. Gain (ed.), Bangladesh: Land, Forest and Forest People, Society forEnvironment&HumanDevelopment(SEHD),2nded.,pp.53-118.

Roy,R.C.K,2000.LandRightsoftheIndigenousPeoplesoftheChittagongHillTracts,Bangladesh,

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Document No. 99,Copenhagen.

28

Roy, R. D, 2002. Land and Forest Rights in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Talking Points, 4/02,InternationalCentreforIntegratedMountainDevelopment(ICIMOD),Kathmandu,June,2002.

Saha,P.S.,2013. ‘MajorReservedForestsof theCHT:ReingkhyongReservedForest’ inP.Gain

(ed.), The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Man-Nature Nexus Torn, Society for Environment &HumanDevelopment(SEHD),Dhaka,pp.83-91.

Webb, W. E. & Roberts, R., 1976. Reconnaissance Mission to the Chittagong Hill Tracts,

Bangladesh:ReportonForestrySector,Vol.2,AsianDevelopmentBank,Manila.WorldBank, 2014a. IntegratedSafeguardsDataSheet:AppraisalStage, ReportNo. 84359dated

24January2014.WorldBank,2014b.ProjectInformationDocument(PID),ReportNo.84373.WorldBank, 2014c.EnvironmentandSocialManagementFramework(ESMF):BangladeshTrade

andTransportRecipientExecutedTrustFund(RETF)(E4432),dated25January2014.