|
Details
are stated below:
Resettlement
Policy, Guidelines for Social Analysis, and Environmental Considerations
in Bank Operations, Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation
The failure to involve local people in the planning and implementation
of this project, the refusal to share information with affected
communities and interested NGOs, and the failure to ensure that
the voices and concerns of affected people are heard and considered
in the context of land acquisition and involuntary resettlement
constitutes a complete violation of the purpose and provisions of
the ADB Resettlement Policy, ADB Guidelines for Social Analysis
and ADB Environmental Considerations in Bank Operations. The Bank
has also violated the policy on Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation,
which requires the gathering of "qualitative and quantitative
information about important social and economic characteristics
of individuals and groups affected by the proposed project."
ADB staff lack a fundamental understanding of the social and economic
characteristics of the affected groups because they have not engaged
in a participatory process to learn about the people affected or
the true impacts on the ground.
Guidelines
for Social Analysis of Development Projects
ADB's Guidelines for Social Analysis for Development Projects, which
were in force at the time of the initial project financing, states
that:" Because households disruptions has a profound and disproportionate
effects on women, specific measures (e.g., female interviewers,
formation of women settler's associations) must be taken to ensure
that they are fully consulted and involved in resettlement plans."
These steps have not been taken in the CRBIP Stage III project,
and a s result women have been marginalized by and lack a voice
in development decision-making that has had a profoundly negative
impact on their lives and their future.Furthermore, with respect
to indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, the Bank's Management
has accepted the standards of ILO Convention 169, and in Appendix
6 of the Guidelines for Social Analysis, has specifically called
for careful scrutiny of projects " which may abruptly transplant
elements of dominant or modern culture into the midst of a relatively
undisturbed traditional culture" (Para. 10). The ADB has an
obligation to take steps to evaluate, avoid, and mitigate the impacts
that the incoming population will have on the ethnic minorities
in the project area, particularly those that are already suffering
displacement under the project. For all people affected by an ADB-financed
project, the policy requires that in terms of compensation:The project
is responsible for full compensation to all those affected (not
just legal land owners). The nature of compensation should reflect
the type of loss, thus a farmer should receive equivalent land,
a landless laborer should be given alternative employment, etc.
All, however, must be given access to adequate housing and social
services and have all relocation/reconstruction costs met… in particular,
it should provide an assured livelihood in the new situation. This
provision has not been complied with.
The
following specific provisions given in the ADB Guidelines for Social
Analysis of Development Projects were not adequately complied with
in project preparation and feasibility study: Social Analysis: This
assists Bank staff to test assumptions made in the EIRR against
social realities and to examine alternative project options in terms
of design, size, location, timing and technology (Page: 3, Para.
17). In fact the "assumptions made have not been tested and
adjusted to reflect the reality of the project area. Traditional
Water Users: If traditional water-user societies, or similar, already
exist, care will be taken to protect and involve such groups in
the new project (Page 108, Appendix 7, para. D2(iii). Rather than
protecting the rights of rowed-kohi users in the west side and farmers
living in the command areas of the Massu Wah Inundation Canal, the
project induced massive flooding and diversions of flood flows made
it almost impossible for them to continue using these rights. This
is particularly true for the communities living close to the right
(west) bank of the canal.
Involuntary
Resettlement
The ADB Involuntary Resettlement Policy, which was in effect at
the time of project financing, has been violated throughout project
implementation. The Involuntary Resettlement Policy states that:If
individuals or a community must lose their land, means of livelihood,
social support systems, or way of life in order that a project might
proceed, they should be (a) compensated for lost assets and means
of livelihood and income, (b) assisted for relocation including
provision for relocation sites with appropriate facilities and services,
and (c) assisted so that their economic and social future will generally
be at least as favorable with the project as without it. Appropriate
land, housing and infrastructure, and other compensation, comparable
to the without-project situation, should be provided to the adversely
affected population, including indigenous groups, ethnic minorities,
and pastoralists who may have usufruct or customary rights to the
land or other resources taken for the project.
Environmental
Considerations in Bank Operations
Category
B projects are "those with significant adverse environmental
impacts but for which mitigative/remedial measures may be prescribed
readily." This project has significant environmental impacts
but more than ten years have passed since the loan was approved,
and only two months before the loan is supposed to be closed, the
ADB and WAPDA have still failed to prescribe, much less implement,
appropriate mitigative or remedial measures to deal with the problems.
This alone shows that the project was improperly classified.The
project should have been classified as Category A, projects "with
significant adverse environmental impacts requiring detailed environmental
assessment/analysis." Had the Bank properly recognized the
complexity of the environmental and social impacts of this project,
and commissioned the appropriate studies and analysis, either at
the time of the initial financing or at the time of refinancing
in 1999, many of the problems in the project might have been better
addressed. Appendix 1 of the Operations Manual states that Category
A projects include "large-scale irrigation and water management
projects," "drainage projects," and "displacement
and resettlement of indigenous" communities".
The
project was classified into "B" category, but that was
again in violation of the ADB Environmental Considerations in Bank
Operations. The provisions of these guidelines clearly demand that
projects involving severe resettlement and socio-cultural impacts
should be put into "A" category.Furthermore, the version
of the Environmental Consideration in Bank Operations policy in
effect at the time of refinancing clearly recognizes that projects
categorization can be reviewed and updated as additional information
on the projects becomes available. OM Section 20, para. 3. This
should have been done in the light of the evidence of greater environmental
and social impact that anticipated during initial project design.
Bank's
Operational Missions
The following provisions of the Bank's Operational Missions (OM
32 BP/OP issued on January 13, 1997), were clearly violated: "A
reappraisal mission is sent when substantial or basic changes have
become necessary in the scope or implementation arrangements of
an approved project or when cost overruns are incurred in its implementation.
As in the case of an appraisal mission, the re-appraisal mission
is required to obtain all the necessary information to analyze the
technical, economic, financial, legal, institutional, social, environmental,
and other aspects of the revised project and should also reach a
written understanding in the form of an MOU with the borrower/executing
agency concerned. The mission is expected to examine the completed
and ongoing works of the approved project and to determine whether
substantial changes in the project scope or implementation arrangements
are necessary to achieve the original objectives of the project
or whether supplementary financing of cost overruns could be considered
based on the policy and operational guidelines established for such
purpose. The work done by the reappraisal mission forms the basis
of the required Board paper (normally for approval on a no-objection
basis) proposing major changes in project scope or implementation
arrangements, or the RRP and legal documents for a supplementary
loan."
Supplementary
Financing of Cost Overruns on Bank-Financed Projects
The
following provisions of the Bank's Operational Procedures on Supplemental
Financing of Cost Overruns of Bank Financed Projects, (OM Section
13/OP issued on 12 December 1995) were not followed at the time
of supplementary financing for the CRBIP Stage III:" The procedures
for processing a supplementary loan, whether by additional financing
or by reallocating funds from other Bank's financed projects, is
similar to that for new loans, and includes reappraisal of the entire
projects". The policy also states that " Financing of
cost overruns will require reappraisal of the project concerned".
(BP para 1).
Guidelines
for Social Analysis of Bank Projects
The following specific provisions of ADB Guidelines for Social Analysis
have been totally violated: Wherever viable alternatives exist,
involuntary resettlement should be avoided. Where resettlement is
unavoidable, project options should be sought which minimize the
actual number of persons displaced. If an individual or community
must loose their original land, livelihood, social support system
or way of life in order that a project might proceed then they have
a right to be compensated in such a way that their economic and
social feature will be at least as favorable as without the project.
Wherever possible the affected community will be fully informed
and closely consulted on resettlement and compensation options and
actively involved in decision-making. The full cost of compensation
including social preparation be included in project costs and taken
into account in the rate of return calculation when the economic
analysis of project is prepared. To better assure resource sufficiency
and to strengthen loan conditionality, both local and foreign, cost
of resettlement/ compensation should be included as part of the
proposed loan package.The right of those affected to be consulted
on their future options, the adequate preparation of the receiving
site and especially the acquisition of suitable land, etc before
project operations require the removal of people from their original
homes.
The
requirements detailed in the Appendix 6 of ADB Guidelines for Social
Analysis were ignored and hence violated in the following way in
the planning and implementation process: Possibility to avoid the
unnecessary land acquisition was not taken into consideration.Majority
of the project affectees were not properly informed. They were not
consulted at all in the land acquisition process. In majority cases,
awards were not made prior to the land acquisition. This violated
the important guideline that makes it necessary to inventorize and
value the assets before the land acquisition. Compensation includes
only cash money and thus restricts options for affectees. The option
of land for land was not even included in the package. Valuation
of land is much below the market rate. Participation of affectees
was not made possible at any stage or at any level. Regularization
of land was required in the project area. However, project activities
started in many project areas without demarcating plots and allocation
of titles.
|
