Press Note: January
18, 2013
World Bank Misleads Public on
Vishnugad Project: Communities Asks Them to Report Facts
The press release issued by the World Bank (Bank) India office on
January 10 is misleading and has gone too far defending the project
without waiting for the Inspection Panel (IP) to do its
investigation. We wonder whether this is a veiled attempt to
influence the process and to send across a message to all affected
communities that, irrespective of their complaints, the Bank will
have its way.
We deplore the tone and tenor of the press release and the
accompanying ‘questions and answers’ posted on Bank website for
they being misleading and for its message that the concerns of the
affected communities will not be given the due seriousness.
Inspection Panel is the only forum within the Bank where affected
communities can seek redressal for the damages caused by a Bank
funded project.
The press release claims that Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric
Project (VPHEP) “is a sustainable hydropower project with
manageable impacts that have been thoroughly assessed and for which
appropriate mitigation measures are prepared.” The distance of
flowing river between the upstream Tapovan Vishnugad HEP now under
construction and the downstream proposed Vishnugad Pipalkoti HEP is
exactly zero and yet the Bank has the temerity to call it
sustainable.
This defensive stand of the management contradicts the Bank’s own
status report in May 2012 when the Bank found the Overall
Implementation Progress “Unsatisfactory” (compared to
“satisfactory” rating in the previous review 6 months earlier)
and Risk Rating becoming “High” (compared to “Substantial”
previously)1.
Disturbingly, the next Implementation review report is dated Dec 15,
2012, but the Bank has refused to make it public2.
There is no credible, comprehensive cumulative impact assessment done
for the dams coming up on Ganga River Basin to estimate the damage
the dams can cause. How can mitigation plans be prepared without
estimating the damage? Nor there are any studies to ascertain the
carrying capacity of the river taking into accoung the basin wide
river use pattern by the various communities for their needs and
livelihoods. Bank’s claim of “thorough assessment” is more
exposed in the context of the environmental flow of Ganga is not
determined yet. The
BK Chaturvedi committee, an inter-ministerial committee headed by
Planning Commission member B K Chaturvedi, was constituted in June
2012 by the Prime Minister's Office to recommend the flow that should
be maintained in the Ganga and its tributaries. Their report is yet
to be made finalized and made public.
As stated rightly in the Bank press
release, the second stage forest clearance for the project is still
awaited. We wonder why the Bank was in a hurry to approve the project
before all clearance was in place. We wonder whether the Bank
approval was again used as a pressure on the authorities to give all
clearances. In 1985 the Bank had approved financing the Sardar
Sarovar (Narmada) dam two years before it was given environmental
clearance by the government of India. Bank’s lending was used then
to put pressure on the government to bestow environmental clearance
to a project which is, till date, an example of monumental
destruction to people and environment. It was in fact the Narmada
episode that led to the Bank setting up the Inspection Panel.
Even as the Bank press release
claim that the construction could begin only after the Forest
Clearance is in place, blasting has already began for construction of
tunnel for the Power House, putting the people in Harsari villagers
under immense strain. Blasting continues at night as well, making it
difficult for the people to live there.
The Bank press release tries to misrepresent what its Board of
Executive Directors (Board) decided. Having received the complaint in
early July 2012, the Inspection Panel found it to be eligible and the
request for investigation was registered exactly a month later. There
after all concerned were notified by the Inspection Panel about the
registration of request. It waited for the management (Bank) response
for over 2 months, and after extending the deadline twice, they
submitted their response to Inspection Panel on October 24. For
complete chronology, visit Inspection
Panel website. As mentioned in the Press
Note of January 9, before preparing the Report and
Recommendation a team of Inspection Panel had visited the project
site, met with different stakeholders at different locations and it’s
on the basis of these meetings that an investigation was recommended
to the Board.
The Board “approved the Inspection Panel's Report and
Recommendation to investigate matters of policy noncompliance and
related harm raised in the Request for Inspection”3
in its December 18 meeting. While an investigation does not cast any
judgment on the project, it’s a recognition that there are
outstanding and unsettled issues involved in the project. It was
deplorable for the Bank to agree to suspend the beginning of the full
investigation till March 15, 2013, once the full investigation is
approved.
We are concerned about many media reports that suggesting that the
Ministry of Power has put undue pressure on the Bank to keep the
report of the Inspection Panel under wraps until the Maha Kumbh Mela
gets over. It is reported that the request was made in order to avoid
agitations that the findings may trigger some protests by the Hindu
pilgrims and spiritual leaders. We wonder whether Bank is in
connivance with the government in suppressing the report from being
made public. The Bank owes an explanation on why it will disclose the
report and other documents only after March 15 and not immediately.
Resources:
World Bank documents on
the project: http://goo.gl/sM4NW
Vimalbhai
Convener
Puran Singh Rana
Bank Recruitment Jobs 2013 available here. Currently Axis Bank Recruitment 2013, Clerk, PO, IT Speicialist Officer vacancy availble. if u want to know more details visit monster india. We offers sample papers for different bank jobs vacancy.
ReplyDelete