Six men, all in their individual capacity but with authorisation from the organisations they work with, are doing just that in Pakistan. The project that they have focussed on is the third and final phase of a canal system, called Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project. The parties they want to bring round to the point of view of the people affected by the project are Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) and Manila-based Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Their concerns: to let authorities realise that the project is environmentally hazardous, economically unviable and socially disruptive, if not altogether destructive.

Their aim: to make ADB analyse the impacts of the project and devise effective mechanisms to redress the problems of the people in the area of the project. To achieve their goal, they have filed an inspection claim with the Bank, which was received by its Manila headquarters in November 2002.

Their problems: unwillingness to share the information and pertinent documents by the authorities; hampering their efforts to make their claim legally acceptable; and a plethora of legalistic impediments which they need to cross over before their voice is finally heard.

But the question is whether their efforts mean anything, considering that the project is already in its last stages. In fact, it was scheduled for completion by 31st December 2002.

Mushtaq Gadi, who spearheads the efforts of these people, says that their aim is to make the Bank understand the reasons for their unacceptable conduct vis-a-vis the financing of the project and the subsequent requests for analysing its adverse impacts. This, he says, is all the more needed so as to prevent their recurrence in other Bank projects.

As far as the Chashma Canal project is concerned, Gadi and his cohorts want the Bank to focus on three major areas in its inspection, if it agrees to carry out one. First, they want ADB to analyse the defects in the design of the canal, which is threatening the western side of the project area with severe flooding. It is causing inundation of arable land in the eastern side by the water left to flow openly into the river Indus. Second, they want the people to get adequate compensation for the loss of their land, livelihood and housing due to the project. Last but not least, they want the project not to result in a demographic imbalance against the communities that are already at a social disadvantage. If it happens, they want some mechanism to ensure that the people's rights are fully protected.

So, what is happening to their request for inspection? Takashi Matsuo, a senior project specialist with ADB's resident mission in Pakistan, says the Bank has a long and complicated procedure to follow before the request is finally granted. Matsuo tells that a Board Inspection Committee of the Bank is currently awaiting a response, which was due two days ago, from the Bank's management on the request. In two weeks time, the committee will decide on the response to recommend whether or not to grant the request.

One may ask, what is the need to request for the inspection? "The process of redressing the grievances of the people affected by the project has been painfully slow," says Gadi. "Whatever realisation about these grievances exists now among the official circle is the result of a long wait and a concerted campaign by the effected people," he adds.

The project started in 1991 but it was only in 1994 that Wapda admitted that the project carries environmental as well as social repercussions. Apart from this admission, adequate measures to redress these costs are still lacking. Take, for example, the case of land acquired for the project. First, it was taken away, violating the law of the land; and now the process of disbursing compensation is moving at a snail's pace.

Riaz Ahmad Khan, federal secretary of Water and Power Ministry, denies that the acquisition of land for the project violated any law. "We acquire land, not confiscate it, and that can happen only under some rules and regulations. If somebody thinks otherwise, it is his/her opinion, not ours," he asserts. But Matsuo says that the process of disbursing compensation has taken more than it should have. "So far only 30% claims for compensations have been settled, out of 13,442 acres of land acquired for the project in the Punjab. In the Frontier, however, almost 75% claims have been settled, out of 6,061 acres of acquired land," he reports.

The figures he quotes are astonishing if one also takes into account the figures quoted on 27th January by the Water and Power Ministry. According to these figures, on 20th January, Rs248,000m have been allocated as land compensation funds in the Frontier, whereas only 20% of this money had been disbursed to the landowners by 20th January. In the Punjab, the figure for the paid compensation by 20th January goes further down to 10%, according to the document produced by the Ministry.

Though the problems persist and are not likely to go away in immediate future, activists such as Gadi deserve praise for the fact that their efforts have resulted in the establishment of Institution of Grievance Redress and Settlement Committee. This committee, according to official documents, is being set up to find a solution to all the outstanding problems that have been raised on account of land acquisition, resettlement, compensation and rehabilitation.

Riaz Ahmad Khan says that the committee is soon to be given a formal status through a notification. "It is a comprehensive mechanism to redress any problem arising out of the project. Anyone effected in any way can come to the committee and seek compensation for the damage done to him due to the project," Riaz pledges. But what about the request for inspection? Riaz says that he sees no justification for the claim once the committee starts working.

Gadi only partially agrees with this assessment of the committee's functions. "The Terms of Reference for the working of the committee clearly state that it has no authority to implement its recommendations. This authority lies with Wapda and provincial governments. This duality of functions is what renders the committee a toothless tool," he says. "This still leaves room for us to go ahead with our request for inspection."

Federal Minister for Water and Power, Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, tells that every development project is bound to create some problems. "We need to assess whether these problems outweigh the utility of the project. If not, then we should go ahead with the development, and at the same time creating mechanisms to address problems it creates," he says. "Two considerations should lie at the heart of any development project--people's welfare and a strict adherence to rules and regulations."

Activists like Gadi can take heart from the Honourable Minister's words. If, according to their point of view, the project has violated the rules and regulations of ADB, as well as the Government of Pakistan, and they are able to substantiate their claim, then there is no reason why authorities should not pay heed.