This case story originates from BASESwiki.org, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories.
The Russkiy Mir II project involves an IFC loan of up to $100 million to develop and build the Taman LPG/Fuel Oil terminal and port in the Black Sea, to purchase and expand rail maintenance facilities, to purchase locomotives and rail cars, and to purchase a wheel-making / spare-parts manufacturer and other rail-related infrastructure. A complaint filed in October 2007 by two NGOs – Save Taman! and North Caucasus Environmental Watch – raises concerns about the impacts of the project, and about IFC’s due diligence prior to Board approval of the loan. The NGOs believe the company’s activities pose a number of threats to the natural and social environment in the region surrounding the Taman Peninsula. They also question IFC’s environmental categorization of the project as “B” – rather than “A”, and believe that the environmental review process failed to comply with IFC performance standards.
In March 2008, a CAO Ombudsman team conducted an assessment and found that many project-impacted stakeholders who did not sign the complaint regard the issues of social development and community engagement as a high priority. Those stakeholders expressed their support for a facilitated community engagement process to address issues of social development and investment in the future of the peninsula. However, because those issues were not the focus of the complaint filed with the CAO by the two NGOs, the signatories requested that CAO’s involvement focus exclusively on the question of IFC’s categorization of the loan to Russkiy Mir, and requested a transfer of the case to CAO Compliance for appraisal. In accordance with CAO Operational Guidelines, the CAO Ombudsman concluded its assessment of the complaint and transferred it to CAO Compliance. CAO Compliance appraisal concluded that an audit of IFC was not merited.
CAO case story page: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=86