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)
|
