31
March 2003
We
are writing to express our strong support for the demand for inspection
made by the Requesters of the Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project-Stage
III (CRBIP-III). We agree fully with the Requester's claims to the
Board Inspection Committee dated February 25. We ask the Board to
authorize thorough and immediate inspection to ensure transparency,
accountability, and justice.
We
believe that the Management Response has failed to adequately address
the allegations of policy violations raised by the Requesters. Particularly
troublesome was the recurrence of the argument that the reappraisal
procedure does not apply, although the authority of the procedure
was reaffirmed by the Board Inspection Committee during the Samut
Prakarn Inspection case. In this regard, we believe that the Inspection
Function, the tool of the Board to ensure policy compliance in the
Bank's operations, should be exercised and accountability and transparency
should be upheld.
Furthermore,
we are concerned about Management's apparent reluctance to review
alleged policy violations, and the proposal to replace Inspection
with the Grievance Redress and Settlement Committee (GRSC). The
GRSC does not have a compliance review function and is thus unrelated
to the primary objective of Inspection, which is the investigation
of policy compliance. We believe that the consideration of Inspection
authorization should be firmly based in the Bank's commitment to
broader principles of accountability and development effectiveness
alone, and not be influenced by the GRSC. It is worth noting that
as of a Resolution in 1999, the World Bank Board prohibits the Management
to communicate with the Board on remedial measures until the Panel
completes its inspection and submits its findings. We would also
like to draw your attention again to the fact that it is the very
wish of the requesters to proceed with the inspection instead of
relying on the GRSC.
Moreover,
the GRSC, as well as the Management of the Bank and the Executive
Agencies, clearly lack credibility with the affectees, rendering a
satisfactory resolution to the dispute highly questionable. We note
that the Requestors have thoroughly explained why the GRSC constitutes
an inadequate and unrealistic response to their demands, and why they
have stayed away from the GRSC process in the Supplement to their
Inspection Claim dated 25 February 2003. We would like to emphasize
the Requesters' claim that the Management's consistent failure to
consult or ensure the participation of the affected communities still
dominates the GRSC process, exemplified by the de facto veto power
of the Executive Agencies in the decision-making of the GRSC. We therefore
believe that only inspection and the informed decision of the full
Board will ensure the impartial and independent evaluation of and
recommendations on the problems of CRBIP-III.
We ask for an authorization of thorough and immediate inspection,
and that your consideration not be affected by GRSC that is irrelevant
to the purpose of inspection. We hereby ask members of the Board to
take leadership in pursuit of justice for those adversely affected
by the Bank-funded project as a result of Management's lack of due
diligence. A decision to go forward with the inspection for CRBIP-III
will improve the Bank's transparency and accountability and increase
confidence in the operations of the Bank among the stakeholders.
Thank
you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
SUGITA Rena
Program Staff
Sustainable Development and Aid Program
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES)
|