Board Approves Panel Recommendation Not to Investigate the India: Amravati Integrated Urban Development Program

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors (the “Board”) on April 29, 2024, approved a recommendation by the Inspection Panel, not to investigate the India: Amravati Integrated Urban Development Program (AIUDP or the “Program”).

The Panel received a Request, dated October 18, 2024, from four individuals who alleged that the Bank is violating its Environmental and Social policies. The Request stated that this new Program is linked to a previous Bank project, the Amaravati Sustainable Infrastructure and Institutional Development Project (ASIIDP), which had been developed in 2017 to support the development of the Amaravati City Capital (ACC) as a new capital city for the state of Andra Pradesh. In 2017 the Panel had already received a request for inspection and had recommended an investigation into potential non-compliance with livelihood restoration requirements set out in the Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12). In 2019, the Government of India withdrew its request for the ASIIDP, and the Panel revised its recommendation not to investigate the case.

The new AIUDP involves Program-for-Results financing for a loan of US$ 800 million in support of the ACC and was approved on December 19th, 2024. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is co-financing an additional US$ 800 million in support of the ACC development using a similar Results-Based-Lending instruments. The Request filled with the Inspection Panel was also filled with the ADB’s Compliance Review Panel. After conducting its initial due diligence, the Panel registered new Request on February 10, 2024 and undertook an eligibility visit to India in March 2025 jointly with the ADB’s Compliance Review Panel team. Based on its Resolution and the applicable World Bank Policy and Directive on Program-for-Results Financing , the Panel submitted its recommendation not to investigate the AIUDP to the Board on April 11, 2025.

The Request to inspect the AIUDP raised concerns about the land pooling scheme which the authorities introduced in 2014/15 to assemble the land required for the ACC, stating that the scheme involved involuntary and coercive land pooling from landowners and that it has affected the livelihoods of landless agricultural laborers and has increased the risks of flooding and other environmental impacts. The Request stated that these harms are linked to the ACC development started in 2014 and which has been revived in 2024. Specifically, the Request raised concerns that the Bank’s use of Program-for-Results (PforR) financing for the new AIUDP lowers the environmental and social safeguard standards that will be applied. It links the AIUDP to the previous ASIIDP which had been classified as a Category A project for environmental and social impacts. Requesters feared that ASIIDP’s legacy issues will be “overlooked” under PforR financing, including human rights violations, involuntary resettlement, displacement of local communities, the “illegal” land pooling scheme, and the intimidation and coercion of landowners. The Request also claimed loss of livelihoods, food insecurity, and ongoing and future environmental and socio-economic harm. In addition, it alleged lack of meaningful consultation and disclosure of information, and poor labor standards and conditions for construction workers.

In its Report and Recommendation, the Panel acknowledged the serious concerns the Requesters raised, and the harm that the affected people who it met have experienced because of the ACC development. This harm relates to the land assembly process and negative impacts on livelihoods. The Panel observed the serious concerns that Requesters and community members raised regarding the risk of flooding and how this risk will be managed. While the Panel was made aware of harm suffered by people and communities affected by the development of ACC, the Panel was not able to establish a plausible link between the new AIUDP and the harm suffered as well as the potential harm raised in the Request. The Panel recognized that at the current, early stage of Program implementation, legacy issues and potential future risks are still being assessed, including whether mitigation in place is sufficient or should be further strengthened. Therefore, the Panel could not determine whether and to what extent the harm related to the allegations of the Requesters can be linked to the new Program. More