Dear Ms. Drilon,
I acknowledge
the receipt of final terms of reference for the Chashma inspection
panel dated February 3, 2004. After reviewing the document very
carefully, the following are the serious concerns:
1-Inspection,
Chashma Environmental Management Plan and NDP: The final terms of
reference for the inspection of Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project
determine that the inspection panel will be only authorized to undertake
the inspection of the Project with reference to ADB Loan No. 1146-PAK
(SF). While the Chashma Environmental Management Plan is being funded
as the sub-project of the National Drainage Program (NDP) under
the ADB Loan No. 1413. As you know most of our concerns in the inspection
claim were about the non-compliance of various ADB environmental
guidelines and procedures. Definitely, the Chashma Environmental
Management should be addressing the environmental problems of the
Project. My question is very simple. How the inspection panel will
be able to judge the Chashma Environmental Management Plan in the
context of policy compliance without bringing an associated but
different loan agreement into the overall scope of inspection? Unless
this question is not settled and the inspection process is not finalized,
finalization of the Chashma Environmental Management Plan will be
merely another violation of ADB policies and procedures. For example,
the Chashma Environmental Management Plan is being prepared without
having any Environmental Impact Assessment that we believe is an
essential condition for the policy compliance.
Here I don't
want to go into the details of the Chashma Environmental Management
Plan, its history, comprises leading to non-compliance, exclusion
of important environmental issues as well as the irrelevance of
most of the issues that are part of the current Chashma Management
Plan. These points are self evident by simple comparison between
the environmental issues raised in the inspection claim and the
Chashma Environmental Management Plan.
2: Inspection
and ADB Policy on Confidentiality and Information Disclosure: We
have been raising the issue of transparency and information disclosure
for last many years. It is stunning to know that the inspection
scope as determines by the final terms of reference for the panel
exclude the review of compliance with operational procedures and
policies concerning transparency, information disclosure, consultation
and participation in the project preparations and implementation
process. This exclusion seems significant because of the on-going
review of ADB Policy on Confidentiality and Disclosure.
3. Supplementary
Financing and Inspection Scope: It was determined by the Samut inspection
panel that supplementary financing requires comprehensive review
of the project as well as compliance with all policies and procedures
that were operational at the occasion of supplementary financing.
The final terms of reference for the inspection panel are in fact
the violation of policy on supplementary financing because it excludes
operational policy and procedures such as Policy on Indigenous Peoples,
Policy on Confidentiality and Disclosure, etc. Why the conclusion
of the Samut inspection panel have not been incorporated while the
findings and conclusions of the Samut inspection claim have already
been accepted by the Board inspection Committee.
4: Participation
of the Inspection Panel in Chashma Lok Sath: We requested to the
Board Inspection Committee and directly conveyed to the Inspection
Panel that we would like to invite the panel in Chashma Lok Sath
to be held on March 26-27, 2004, in the project area. Chashma Lok
Sath is being held in the context of the inspection. Local people
from all over the project area will attend the Lok Sath in order
to provide their testimonies, statements and pronounce the truth
of their life after the project. This will be a great opportunity
for the inspection panel to listening directly the voices of local
people and determine the nature and extent of harm being done to
them. However, the proposed work plans as given in the final terms
of reference for the inspection panel is silent about this issue.
I would like to have clarity on this issue.
5: Filing the
selected complaints of local persons submitted to the GRSC: We have
been provided the copies of more than five thousands complaints
filed by individuals and groups to the GRSC. These complaints are
nothing less than legal evidence of countless harm done to local
communities. Diversity and extensiveness of harm described in these
complaints are stunning. We would therefore like to file selected
complaints as legal evidence to the inspection panel in order to
determine nature and extent of harm. We would also like to provide
third inspection supplement based on the record of these complaints.
As you know we were not part of the GRSC and the process of collecting
complaints was entirely handled by the ADB-Government appointed
committee and consultants. We believe this record should be fully
used as an authentic legal evidence to determine the harm and the
success of subsequent grievance redress process. Moreover, we intend
to invite many of those who filed complaints to
the GRSC in the Chashma Lok Sath so that they should not only be
able to provide their testimonies with regard to harm but also give
the assessment of the grievance redress process.
6: Technical
Review of the Project: We believe and we have fully narrated it
in the inspection claim and first supplement to the claim that the
project was not technically feasible. Moreover, there were many
alternative options available at the project preparation stage that
were deliberately ignored. We strongly believe the inspection process
can not be considered comprehensive unless full technical review
was not done. Moreover, the ADB documents especially audit report
on the Chashma Command Area Development Project concludes that technical
design should be considered integrated.
As the ADB
Management welcomed any such technical review in its comments on
the terms of reference for the inspection panel, we don't see any
hurdle in the technical review of the project. Terms of reference
should be immediately developed and consultants should be directly
hired by the inspection panel. We should also be provided opportunity
to comment upon the supposed terms of references for the technical
review.
Last but not
least, the inspection process has so far not yielded into any positive
change from the perspective of local communities. If our comments
are not taken seriously and responded positively, we will be compelled
to think that the ADB is only interested to use the inspection process
in its own benefits as it is so far the case. We will be compelled
to conclude that these are not policies that should be complied,
reformed and changed. Rather, our efforts require changing the Heart
and Soul. And you know very well that change in Heart and Soul is
only possible through offering sacrifices, experiencing sufferings
and offering love in return to ridicule and oppression.
With best regards,
Mushtaq Gadi
|