Members of
the Board
Asian Development Bank
RE: Board Decision on 2 April 2003 regarding Inspection Request
on the Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project-Stage III (CRBIP-III)
We are writing
to you regarding the Board decision on the Chashma Inspection Request
dated 2 April 2003. We are deeply concerned that this decision to
delay the Inspection for 5 to 9 months would effectively preempt
the responsibility of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in the following
ways:
i) The Grievance Redress and Settlement Committee (GRSC) is not
designed to fulfill the accountability of the ADB. In addition,
it appears that the GRSC is failing even in its own mandate; and
ii) The delay will minimize ADB's leverage to take any action based
on the findings of the Panel since CRBIP-III loan will close before
the inspection is completed.
In order to
ensure that the ADB is accountable for the suffering it has caused
on affectees due to its own lack of policy compliance, therefore,
we ask you to take leadership as a member of the Board to withhold
the CRBIP-III loan until the recommendations of the Board Inspection
Committee (BIC) based on the Panel's findings are thoroughly implemented,
and to finance all costs for the implementation of the recommendations.
The Board decision
delayed the investigation in order to prioritize the operation of
the GRSC. However, we would like to draw your attention again to
the fact that the GRSC, an institution of the Government of Pakistan
(GoP) and thus not required to follow the policies of the ADB, is
inherently irrelevant to the question of policy compliance. Therefore,
we strongly believe that the accountability of the ADB for damages
caused by Management's lack of due diligence should be upheld in
the Inspection process regardless of the GRSC.
Besides the
need for ADB's accountability, the development of the GRSC in the
past three months suggests that it will not be able to accomplish
even its own mission. Even putting aside its unjustifiable structural
flaws, the TOR of the GRSC has not been complied with. In addition
to the two-and-half months' delay in its schedule, for example,
the representatives of the affectees have been selected by the sole
discretion of the local officials without any prior consultations
with the district counsels as required in the TOR (para. 7, TOR
for the GRSC). Furthermore, the GRSC flagrantly decided at its second
meeting on 22 May 2003 that ex post facto consents by the respective
district counsels would serve its purpose. As a result, all of the
GRSC members are male and powerful, and majority of them are beneficiaries
of the project, including the two landlords who are known for their
strong alliances with the GoP and chosen in violation with the TOR
as the affectee representatives. It is painfully clear that the
GRSC will not, as a natural course of events, provide a resolution
to the disputes that is satisfactory for the affected communities.
It is critical
to note that Management supports the above decision of the GRSC
as "legitimate." Furthermore, in response to our concerns
regarding the GRSC, Management wrongly stated that the Requesters
had recently agreed to cooperate with the GRSC (letter dated 23
June 2003 from Mr. Frederick Roche, Director of Agriculture, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, South Asia Department to JACSES).
To the contrary, according to the Requesters, the Requesters have
met with the GRSC to inform them that they (the Requesters) are
formally not part of the GRSC but would like to remain up-dated
about its activities. These incidents further illustrate the Management's
inability to appropriately supervise the GRSC.
Furthermore,
the situation as it stands will not allow the ADB to do anything
about the findings on policy violations and subsequent damages.
The loan is currently scheduled to close on 31 December 2003, which
means that even if the investigation begins as early as August,
recommendations based on the Panel's findings will be made to a
closed project. Moreover, the remaining loan amount is already small.
We are deeply concerned that under such circumstances, the fulfillment
of the ADB's accountability may be compromised for the technical
reasons. We must remember that the implementation of the Board decision
based on the Panel's findings in Samut Prakarn case was far from
satisfactory since most of its loan was already disbursed.
We believe
that the ADB has obligations to ensure its leverage in solving the
project-induced problems, especially because the inadequacy and
illegitimacy of the GRSC was already clear at the time of Board
consideration, and the ADB failed to address the concerns of the
Requesters about the GRSC. The failure of the GRSC was expected,
as the problems with the GRSC were clearly described by the Requesters
in the Second Supplement to the Chashma Inspection Claim dated 25
February 2003. Moreover, it was also recognized within the ADB when
a member of the Roster of Experts, requested by the BIC to evaluate
the Management response to the proposed GRSC, found that the GRSC
is illegitimate and ineffective, as it was established in a manner
that ignored the affected people and gave control to the borrowing
agencies and local elites. She states:
Management
has failed to secure the participation and agreement of the affected
people…Despite the clear objections to the GRSC process outlined
in the request of 19 November 2002, Management has pressed ahead
with finalization of the MOU and publication of the TOR which have
been negotiated with only one party to the process… It is my considered
view that the GRSC, as presently constituted, will not address those
concerns [of the affected people]. Fundamental to the legitimacy
of any process for dispute resolution is that all stakeholders must
be involved in negotiations to establish the process and agree on
the structure and mechanisms [Emphasis added] (para. 21-22, Advise
from the Designated Roster Member).
It should be
noted that, as described in the Report on Facts and Concerns regarding
CRBIP-III and the GRSC sent to you on 8 May 2003, all of the affectees
I met at 7 villages have expressed strong skepticism toward the
GRSC and its composition, and demanded greater and direct representation
of affectees (p. 8). Furthermore, the Requesters clearly stated
in the Second Supplement why they have disengaged in the establishment
process of the GRSC, and that their participation in the GRSC will
depend on acceptance of their demand to redesign the GRSC into a
fair institution. However, this demand was not even mentioned by
the BIC, and their demand was ignored. That is why the requesters
are not participating in the GRSC to this day.
In this regard,
we are deeply concerned that, as in the inspection case of Samut
Prakarn, the Inspection Function will be once again be unable to
ensure ADB's accountability. Repeating the same mistake would lead
to erosion of confidence among the stakeholders in the operations
of the ADB, as well as its commitment to the new Accountability
Mechanism.
Therefore,
we demand the following:
i) Start the Inspection in August;
ii) Finance all cost for the implementation of the BIC's recommendations
based on the Panel's findings; and
iii) Suspend the disbursement and extend the CRBIP-III loan closing
date to ensure the leverage of the ADB until the BIC's recommendations
are appropriately and sufficiently implemented.
We hereby ask
members of the Board to take leadership in pursuit of justice and
ADB's accountability. Those harmed as a result of Management's lack
of due diligence should not be made to suffer anymore. Your timely
intervention in this matter will allow Stakeholders to have more
confidence in the operations of the ADB.
Thank you very
much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
TANABE Yuki and SUGITA Rena
Program Staff, Sustainable Development and Aid Program
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES)
|