A/HRC/36/40 at improving the social safety net in Tanzania are designed in such a manner that Indigenous People can benefit from them … and that Indigenous People are fully consulted.25 27. The Special Rapporteur and the Independent Expert concluded that “the granting by the Board of waivers to OP 4.10 … is problematic both from a normative and an operational point of view. By taking for granted the unilateral contention that OP 4.10 contradicts the provisions of the national constitution … this generates evident protection gaps with relation to the rights of indigenous groups”. 26 28. In its response of March 2017, the Bank argued that “the project preparation team drew upon the advice of local and international experts and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives. In particular, the government agreed to prepare a safeguards instrument aligned with the requirements of OP 4.10, known as the Vulnerable Groups Planning Framework (VGPF)”.27 29. It further clarified that: The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors took account of the project design, the legal documents including the legal covenants related to the VGPF, and approved the SAGCOT Investment Project … the sub-project eligibility criteria has been designed to limit the potential impact of sub-projects on the land rights of host communities — the Project will not support investments that involve the reallocation of land from smallholders to agribusinesses. 28 30. Human Rights Watch has also highlighted instances in which the Bank failed to observe its own policy of protecting indigenous peoples’ rights. For example, it documented the forcible transfer of the semi-nomadic Nuer people in the Gambella region of Ethiopia, noting an operational link between World Bank projects and a government relocation programme known as “villagization”. The matter came before the Bank Inspection Panel, which indeed found that the Bank “did not carry out the required full risk analysis, nor were its mitigation measures adequate”. 29 31. In 2014, the Bank approved a $73 million grant for the Inga hydropower project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite the Board noting “significant implementation risks”. In July 2016, the Bank suspended funding. The NGO International Rivers commented that the Bank should not have been involved in the project in the first place, because “Inga represents a failed development model which bypasses the poor for the benefit of extractive industry and export markets”. 30 B. Labour rights violations 32. Civil society has also drawn attention to labour rights violations in connection with World Bank projects. Human Rights Watch’s “Toxic Toil” report, for example, documents the flagrant violation of children’s rights and the exposure of child labourers to mercury poisoning in Tanzania. In it, Human Rights Watch calls upon the gold mining industry to establish a thorough due diligence process, including regular monitoring, to eliminate child labour in supply chains.31 33. Further, in commenting on the Bank’s compliance investigation into an IFC investment in Indian tea plantations, Human Rights Watch notes: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 8 See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=22932. Ibid. See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=49127. Ibid. See www.hrw.org/news/2015/02/23/world-bank-address-ethiopia-findings. Bretton Woods Observer, Autumn 2016, p. 2. Available from www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Observer_Sept_16_online.pdf. See www.hrw.org/report/2013/08/28/toxic-toil/child-labor-and-mercury-exposure-tanzanias-smallscale-gold-mines.