| The
Requesters refused to become formal part of the negotiation process
between the ADB and the Government of Pakistan. This decision was
taken in part because of the concerns about the inadequacy and unrealistic
nature of the GRSC as articulated in earlier. Another reason, which
did not encourage Requesters participation, was the irresponsible
and inflexible conduct of Management and EAs was another reason behind
this decision of the Requester. This assessment of the Requesters
is based on their past engagements and interactions with Management
and EAs. Elaboration of this assessment is essential in the context
of the Inspection Request as well as the on-going thrust of inspection
review process on consultation and problem solving.
The
Requesters and the Project affectees entered into dialogue and consultation
with Management and EAs in good faith and a constructive spirit.
We have undertaken considerable efforts to bring concerns and grievances
of project affectees in the notice of Management and EAs. These
efforts started in November 2000. We have made a number of requests
for information sharing and establishment of grievance redress mechanisms.
Rigorous dialogue efforts were undertaken for a period of five months,
which yielded in the Chashma Multi-stakeholders' Workshop, held
in March 2002, after a 15 month period of continuos requests for
information sharing and grievance redressal.
Despite
the concerns of the Requester and Project affectees about their
lack of access to important project information and relevant documents
as well as the design of the dialogue, they decided to attend the
Chashma Multi-stakeholders Workshop with the hope that both Management
and EAs would be interested in responsible problem solving approaches
towards their concerns and grievances. The Chashma Stakeholders'
Dialogue process was however dissolved during the workshop due to
three reasons.
First,
the Requesters and Project affectees came to know that they were
neither informed nor consulted during the key decision-making on
the issue of involuntary resettlement. The decision about the involuntary
resettlement was made during February 2001 to May 2001. This was
the period when the Requester and the Project affectees were not
only engaged with Management and EAs but also asking for greater
access to information and participation in decision-making process.
They came to know during the Chashma Multi-stakeholders Dialogue
that they were deliberately excluded in the 2001 process.
Secondly,
the Requester and the Project Affectees made the request to Management
and EAs before and during the Chashma Multi-stakeholders Dialogue
Workshop that the provision for emergency land acquisition (Section
17 of LAA-1894) should not be applied in the Project. But this request
was not entertained and emergency provision was retrospectively
imposed before the Chashma Multi-stakeholders Dialogue Workshop.
Thirdly,
the last blow to the confidence and trust of the Requesters and
the Project affectees on the consultation and negotiation process
was the refusal of the ADB's consultants with regard to their request
that the report on the Chashma Multi-stakeholders Workshop covering
the details of field visits and proceeding of the workshop should
be provided to them. This event proved the breaking point of consultation
and negotiation process.
The
BIC should note that Management has made extensive references to
the Chashma Multi-stakeholders Dialogue without referring to the
controversy and conflict. Rather, Management continues to refer
to the action plan as consensual and agreed between all stakeholders.
This is not only inaccurate and untrue but also shows that the Management's
conduct is imposing, dominating and irresponsible with respect to
the spirit of multi-stakeholder negotiations.
Management
tried to re-initiate and re-establish the dialogue and consultation
process after receiving the indication from the Requesters that
they would be moving towards the inspection function. These efforts
were however very much directed and specific to thwart the move
for invoking inspection function. Despite this fact, the Requesters
have given sufficient time to Management to comply with the Bank's
policies and procedures. However, Management delayed the process
and just insisted on our participation in the GRSC without answering
our specific demands made in the Complaint and further elaborated
and specified in the Request. It should be noted that the GRSC was
finalized in the end of January 2003, almost after 10 months of
the multi-stakeholders dialogue of March 2002.
Last
but not least, the Requester and the Project affectees feel that
BIC should make critical and objective assessments as to whether
Management has taken timely and sufficient measures to prevent such
a situation to becoming a serious problem of organizational accountability.
The Requester and the Project affectees have undertaken considerable
efforts and spent significant amount of time and energy to make
Management realized that timely, adequate and realistic actions
are required to comply with the relevant policies and procedures.
|
