-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 1
Southern TransportDevelopment ProjectSri LankaContributors:
Rathnawalee Nettipola,
Janaka Kumara
Dilena Pahtragoda,
Cinthaka Kalutota
Suranja Kodithuwakku
by
HEMANTHAWITANAGE
Sri LankanWorkingGroup onTrade andIFIs
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 2
Executive Summary
I. Introduction1. Project in General2. Project in Terms of its
Sectoral Context History of the proposed Sri Lankan Expressway
Network3. Project in Terms of its Country-specific Context
II. Project Description1. Origins to Status Quo2. Change Model3.
Project Diary4. Concerns Weak public participation Inadequate
Information Disclosure Inadequate Resettlement Changes in Project
Design Lack of Alternative Options Assess ment and Faulty
Evaluations Weak Environmental Standards Adverse Social Impacts
5. Activities Taken by Affected People and NGOs Filing of Human
Rights Case Inspection Process Appeal to Supreme Court
III. Project Monitoring1. Monitoring Schedule2. Monitoring
Plan3. Monitoring against national and ADB Environmental Provisions
Project in Context of National Environmental Act Project in Context
of ADB Environment Policy4. Monitoring against Desirable
Environmental Standards5. Monitoring against Other ADB Policies
IV. Conclusion
O u t l i n e
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 3
A DBs EnvironmentalPolicy requires theconsideration of
environmental problems indevelopment decisionmaking. The
Environmental ImpactAssessment is a document whichanalyzes the
environmental impacts.
The Southern Transport Develop-ment Project is a construction of
anexpressway connecting Matara andColombo by a 128 kilometer
road.The road crosses through four riverbasins and many other
wetlands. Italso passes many villages and de-molishes over 1,200
houses.
The EIA was done for a three-ki-lometer corridor and it was not
aproject specific EIA per se. It was sub-ject to heavy criticism as
it did not prop-erly address the environmental and so-cial
impacts.
The project is covered under theSri Lankan Environment Policy1
andthe Resettlement Policy2 and is alsosubject to ADB policies and
provi-sions such as the Involuntary Resettle-ment Policy, the
Operations Manual(OM) Section 20 from 1997 on Envi-ronmental
Considerations in ADB Op-erations, the Information DisclosurePolicy
and the Policy on Inspection.
The OM on Environmental Con-siderations has very few
concretesafeguard provisions for environmen-
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
tal protection. One requirement isthe completion of an
EnvironmentalImpact Assessment for Category Aprojects likely to
have significant en-vironmental impacts. STDP falls in
thiscategory. Even though an EIA wasdrafted for STDP, it is
inadequatebecause it does not include all thegeographical areas
covered by theroad trace, and secondly, does nottake into
consideration major envi-ronmental concerns, such as thefact that
the road crosses four riverbasins, over one hundred wetlandsand two
thirds of trace is covered withpaddy fields. Further there is no
envi-ronmental monitoring for the project.Social impacts were
prioritised dueto the involvement of the affectedcommunities but
environmental is-sues were not properly addressed.
The main reasons include the lack of consideration of the
environmental impacts bythe road designers,
lack of willingness to addressthe environmental issues dueto the
road being used by poli-ticians for their own means
inadequate law enforce-ment in settling disputes overthe
affected environment atlocal level,
Insufficient human capacityand funds in the project moni-toring
and approving agen-cies such as Central Environ-mental
Authority.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 4
The local implementing agenciesdo not make it their priority to
imple-ment relevant ADB policies. This maybe due to ignorance of
the specificrequirements in the policies. In someinstances, the
main implementingagency does not bind the contrac-tors and
subcontractors to environ-mental provisions required by ADB.
The main contractor in STDPseems to be concerned about
fol-lowing environmental requirements.However, it is impossible for
the con-tractor to mitigate the environmen-tal impacts due to
design problems.
The project still faces controver-sies due to significant social
impacts.Although there is a resettlement planit was not released to
the public. Thislack of transparency is a major rea-son for the
disputes. The road con-struction has started from one endeven
though some of the lands havenot yet been officially acquired.
Thispressures the people and the agen-cies when taking
decisions.
The approach of the ADB and therelevant government agency staff
isnot acceptable. But the lessonslearned in this case show that
peoplewere empowered in some areas tofight against the wrong
decisions.Democratic space has been im-proved for some communities
due tothe involvement of local and inter-national NGOs. For
example, people
in Galanigama, Akmeemana andKahathuduwa used the ADBs
in-spection panel as well as the humanrights commission to the
SupremeCourt to try to get redress. Also theprocess shows how
governmentagencies and even the ADB abusepower in decision making.
The af-fected people did not receive sup-port from the general
public in thiscampaign, but nevertheless, therewas a lot of media
attention.
This campaign also shows thatthe environmental concerns of
thepeople were not properly high-lighted since social issues such
as re-settlement was a major concern.Therefore the concerned
institutions,i.e. IFIs, local agencies and civil so-ciety groups
need to follow the en-vironmental policies and regulationsboth on
national and internationallevel to make sure that the
presentgeneration protects the environmentand nature for future
generations.
1 Under the National Environmental Act (NEA)a project in thin
magnitude needs to followthe Environmental Impact
Assessmentregulations and should be open for publiccomments for a
30 day period. In the STDPan EIA was done and two public
hearingswere held for obtaining oral comments.2 The Sri Lankan
Resettlement policy wasprepared in 2001 with the
technicalassistance of the ADB
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 5
The Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) whichis
locally known as Colombo-Matara Expressway is an infrastructure
developmentproject. The project is now jointlyfunded by the ADB
(Asian Develop-ment Bank) and the Japanese Bankfor International
Corporation (JBIC).The total project cost is 27 billion ru-pees
(approximately US $ 600 mil-lion). The financial resources comeas
follows from different sources. JBICcontributes the stretch of
Kottawa toKarandeniya which is 66.9 km and theADB contributes
funding for the restof the highway i.e. from Karandeniyato Matara
which is 59.5 km.
Under the ADB environmentalcategories, Loan No: 1711 SRI
South-ern Transport Development Project(2000-2005) comes under the
cat-egory A projects with potential tohave significant adverse
environ-mental impacts for which an Envi-ronmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)is required.
The consulting agencies involvedin the design are Wilbur Smith
Asso-ciates in association with Resource
The Project in General
I n t r o d u c t i o n
Development Consultants (WSA &RDC) and the construction has
beenawarded to Kumagai Kumi, a Japa-nese company. The
EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIAR) report was con-ducted by
consultants from the Uni-versity of Moratuwa.
According to the EIA this projecthas been justified as a project
forpoverty alleviation and in that senseis in line with the poverty
reductionstrategy. However, this justification cre-ated local
controversy. The EIA states
The proposed Express-way, by enabling speedingtransport of
produce, willhave a positive influence onagriculture by way of
expand-ing markets, reducing wast-age during transportation,timely
availability of inputs,quicker disposal or produce,etc. The outputs
of agricultureand fisheries are highly perish-able and large
amounts of pro-duce go waste during transpor-tation of produce from
south-ern areas of the country tolarge urban centres like
Galle,Kalutara, and Colombo1 .
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 6
The Road Development Authority (RDA) definesthe objectives of
the proposed Expressway projectas follows:
To provide the required accessibility andmobility for the future
developmentof the southern Province and part ofWestern and Uva
Provinces included in the
Proposed Southern Development Plan.
To provide a highway to act as a catalystin encouraging and
attracting industriesand services for the economic andsocial
development of the Western and
Southern provinces and beyond.
To provide a highway that will be part ofa proposed access
controlled highwaynetwork in Sri Lanka to improveinter-regional
transportation.
(EIAR, March 1999)
1 Chapter 6 page 46 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
report, Southern ExpresswayDevelopment project, Main Text, 1999
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 7
The Project in Termsof its Sectoral Context
ADB is a long-time donorin the Sri Lankan RoadSector. The
followingloans and TechnicalAssistance (TAs) havebeen provided by
the ADB in the re-cent past.
However, the STDP was ADBsfirst road project in Sri Lanka
thatinvolved the actual construction ofnew roads rather than the
merewidening of the existing roads.
10-26273
tcejorPdaoRrofnaoLATytilicaFyrotaraperP
daoRrofnaoLATylsuoiverp()noitaraperPtcejorP
NAOL 3002voN72 4002raM01
10-08213tnempoleveDrotceSdaoR
tcejorPNAOL 2002rpA52 2002ceD72
10-22562tropsnarTnrehtuoS
tnempoleveDNAOL 3991nuJ1 0002raM51
10-13382krowteNsdaoR
tnemevorpmINAOL 8991yaM1 9991tcO41
10-87163etavirP-cilbuPyawsserpxE
pihsrentraPATPP 3002yaM91 3002peS81
10-58213syawhgiHlanoitaN
tcejorPtnempoleveDATPP 2002rpA42 2002ceD12
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 8
S ri Lankas first expressway was designed in1991 to link
KatunayakeInternational Airport toColombo city. The ad-verse
impacts of this project, in-cluding involuntary resettlementraised
vehement protest amongthe project affected peopleand a lawsuit was
filed with thehelp of Environmental Founda-tion in 1993. As a
result theproject was changed. Projectconstruction began in 2001
butstopped again in 2002 due to in-sufficient funds.
The second expressway isthe Southern Transport Devel-opment
Project. The third ex-pressway in this nature was pro-posed in 1996
and is known asOuter Circular Road which wasto be constructed
around Co-lombo city. All other major ex-pressways were also to
belinked to this expressway. Thethird expressway was alsostopped
due to strong publicprotests.
History of the proposedSri Lankan expressway network
The fourth expressway was pro-posed to link the Outer
CircularRoad and city of Kandy which is thelast kingdom located in
the centralprovince. This will be a 112 kilome-ter long road. At
present, affectedcommunities are voicing strong pro-test about this
expressway.
The fifth proposal will link Co-lombo and Anuradhapura whichis
the first kingdom and the firstcapital of Sri Lanka. This is still
atthe designing stage.
During the last elections heldin April 2004, the present
opposi-tion party (former governing re-gime) proposed 27
expresswaysincluding a 22 kilometre bridge tolink Sri Lanka and
India.
In all the cases the displace-ment of the people is a
majorproblem. In addition, damageentailed in all these cases will
notonly cause harm to the environ-ment but also result in serious
ad-verse impacts for the inhabitantsof the environment.
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 9
MAJOR EXPRESSWAYS PROPOSED INITIALLY
Colombo-Anuradhapura
Colombo-Kandy
Outer Circular Road
STDP
PROPOSEDEXPRESSWAYNETWORK OF THELAST REGIME
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 10
I n 1992, the RDA decided tobuild a highway from Colombo to
Galle to facilitate thedevelopment of the Southernregion, which is
referred to asthe Southern Expressway. RDAs origi-nal design was
called the OriginalTrace (OT), but it was then reviewedand a trace
was drawn which in-cluded some part of the OT, but
withmodifications. This was called theCombined Trace (CT).
The ADB and JBIC agreed to fundthe project. The required EIA
andsocio- impact studies were com-pleted in 1996. The Central
Environ-mental Authority (CEA) gave permis-sion to carry out the
project in 1999.But they requested that the route tobe changed in
some parts to so thatsome of the wetlands in this partcould be
saved.
The RDA responded by draftinga new trace which is called the
FinalTrace (FT). No EIA was done for thesechanges. The people to be
affected
were not consulted. They weremerely informed and RDA simplywent
ahead with the new trace.
The final trace will be a 128 kilo-meters long, 80 meters wide
road-way, jointly funded by the ADB (54Kilometers) and the Japanese
Bankfor corporation (JBIC -74 Kilometers).The acquisition width for
road con-struction will be 80 m and the roadplatform is designed
for an A1 fourlane highway, with provision for ex-pansion to six
lanes at a future datewithout any further acquisitions.
The proposed expressway islocated in the southern part of
SriLanka, in a corridor from Colomboto Matara lying approximately 5
- 11km inland of the existing A2 Road.At the Colombo end the
proposedhighway starts from a point inMakumbura, at 21 km on the
highlevel Road. At the Matara end theproposed trace ends at
Hittatiya,about 4 kilometers from Nupe, onMatara- Akuressa
Road.
Project in Terms of itsCountry-specific Context
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 11
The proposed trace traversesthrough the four districts of
Colombo,Kalutara, Galle and Matara1 and thefollowing 17 Division
Secretariat Divi-sions: Homagama, Horana, Banda-ragama, Kalutara,
Dodangoda,Matugama, Walallawita, Bentota,Elpitiya, Karandeniya,
Baddegama,Bope- Poddala, Akmeemana,Habaraduwa, Welipitiya,
Malim-bada and Matara.
It crosses 4 major rivers in the SouthWestern Southern part of
Sri Lanka,viz Kalu Ganga2 , Bentara Ganga, GinGanga and Polwatta
Ganga.
According to the Pre-feasibilityStudy Report (1993) it was
proposedto have intermediate interchanges atMoonamalwatta( near CP
27)Navadagala( near CP 37) Narawala( CP 62) and Dorape( near CP 70)
withlink roads to Aluthgama/ Bentota,Kosgoda. Ahungalla, Dadalle/
Galleand Koggala on the existing A2.
But the proposed combined tracewill have interchanges
inPolgasowita, Welmilla, Ramukkana,Wewita, Wadugama,
Lewwanduwa,Nawadagala, Kurundugahahe-tekma, Baddegama,
Thotagoda(Akmeemana) Padinnoruwa andKokmaduwa.
The first kilometer from the Mataraend has an elevation slightly
below
mean sea level (MSL), but beyondthat the ground level of the
tracecentre line is above MSL, with mostlymild undulations, varying
betweenelevations 0.0 and 60.3 m above MSL.
1 Colombo and Kalutara districts arewithin the Western province
and Galle andMatara districts are within Southern province
2 Ganga means a river
MAPPROPOSEDTRACE
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 12
According to Road Development Authority(RDA), the
proposedhighway is intended asa limited and controlledaccess road.
RDA is the executingagency for this project. This
proposedexpressway will link Sri Lankas capi-tal, Colombo, with
Matara on theSouthern cost.
The concept of the SouthernExpressway was introduced by RDAin
late 1980s. The original trace wasdesigned by RDA in 1992.
Theproject was started in 1994 withoutthe mandatory EIA.
ThereforeEnvironmental Foundation Ltd (EFL)1
Organisation of the Safeguard ofLife and Environment (OSLEN)2
withother NGOs and community groupswere able to stop the
work.However, with the fundingassistance of the ADB and theJapanese
Bank for InternationalCorporation (JBIC) RDA againinitiated this
highway project in 1996.
In 1996, the consultant appointedby the ADB came up with
analternative design to the original RDAtrace which is known as the
ADBtrace. However, at the EIA stage,both RDA and the ADB trace
werecombined and the new trace isknown as the combined trace.
TheEIA was submitted to the authoritiesin 1997.
The EIA was opened for publiccomments in 1999 and two
publichearings were held. The project wasapproved under the EIA
procedurein 1999.
1 Environmental Foundation ltd., is anenvironmental NGO which
provide legalassistance for the public to protect
theirenvironmental and social rights
2 OSLEN was a very active environmentaland consumer network
around this period.They organized the people around thehighway and
educated them of thecomponents of the road.
P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n
1. Origins to Status Quo
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 13
Change Model
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 14
Project Diary
raeY ytivitcA
2991daoRehtotetorwLFE-AIEnatuohtiwdetratssawtcejorP
dnaswallacolehtfonoitaloivehtnoytirohtuAtnempoleveDtcejorpehtpotsotelba
4991dialerewsenotsnoitadnuof6dnadetratsniagasawtcejorP
deppotsniagasawsihT-dellifsawertemolikflahdnaenodnassecorpAIEehtwolloftonfitiuswalagninetaerhtLFEyb
9991sawAIE.stnemmoccilbupehtrofdenepodnaenodsawAIE
devorppa
0002 degnahcsawetuoR
1002 sesacsthgirnamuhdelifelpoepdetceffA
1002BDAehttanialpmocnoitcepsninadelifelpoePdetceffA
lenaPnoitcepsnI
2002 detcejererewsesacnoitcepsnI
2002 MGABDAehtdednettaelpoepdetceffA
2002ehttsniagaelpoepdetceffaehtybdeliferewsesaceerhT
ecartdevorppaehtfosegnahc
3002 deliferewsesactruoCemerpuSeerhT
4002deredrodna4002yraunaJnideussisawredrotruoCemerpuS
detaloivneebevahsthgirnamuhehttaht
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 15
The public consultation procedure was questioned by thepublic as
bad procedure.Many people who will be affected were not
consulted.From the beginning there were somecontroversial issues
among the af-fected communities and the imple-menting agency.
The main controversies wereweak public participation/
consulta-tion process; inadequate informationdisclosure; inadequate
resettlement,changes in project design, lack of al-ternate options
assessment and faultyevaluations, weak environmental stan-dards and
adverse social impacts.
Weak Public Participation
At the beginning of the project, thegovernment officers in
Divisional Sec-retariats and RDA failed to give in-formation about
the ResettlementPlan and project details., to the com-munities,
saying that they also werenot aware of these things or they didnot
allow the issuance of some docu-ments (even the road map) to
thegeneral public. ADBs Involuntary Re-
settlement Policy says that the af-fected people should be fully
in-formed and closely consulted on re-settlement and compensation
op-tions. But the consultations did notinclude any discussion,
consultation,or information about where and howthe affected people
were going tobe resettled.
The current approved design ofthe road has not been given to
thepublic and this amply exhibits the in-efficiency of the
implementingagencies of the project that havenot been accountable
and trans-parent in their approaches. RDA hasnot designed a
comprehensivedrainage plan.
There is a lack of information dis-semination to the general
publicabout the project and the Resettle-ment Plan. RDA has held
only onepublic meeting in the divisions al-though they claim that
they had sev-eral meetings. RDA officers invitedthe local level
government officer,Grama Niladhari, and the SamurdhiOfficer instead
of affected peopleto these meetings.
Concerns
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 16
When some people protestedthe surveying of their lands,
RDAbrought the police and terrorized vil-lages such as Akmeemana
andGalanigama. In one case, policearrested a woman in Akmeemanaarea
who opposed the surveying ofher land. She was arrested while
herchild was along at home. She wasthe only parent for her
child.
Inadequate Information Disclosure
Other than the EIA document,people did not have access to
anyother documents. The EIA wasopened to the public for a 30
daycommenting period in 1999. It wasnot easy to obtain the
ResettlementPlan which should be available toeverybody. It was very
hard to obtainproject related documents from theADB Resident
Mission and from theRDA and even from the ADB head-quarters.
Inadequate Resettlement
After the implementation of theMahawali Project in 1985, STDP
wasthe second project to create hugeproblems through resettlement.
Totallands of 8745(951.17 ha) are plannedto be crossed by the
highway. Ac-cording to the resettlement plan1
Current estimate show that5683 households of all categories
will be affected. Moreover 1488structures, which include
1315homesteads and 151 commer-cial establishments, will be
af-fected. Of these 214 house holdsare considered vulnerable.
From that number only 865 houseowners will receive alternate
landsfrom the project.
However, the original estimatewas only 622 structures under
thecombined trace and 938 structuresunder the Original RDA
trace.2
Therefore the selection of the FinalTrace which includes more
resettle-ment and destruction cannot bejustified. Estimated
resettlementcost is Rs 2,861,503,350 with 10% con-tingency which is
the equivalent toUSD 29.75 million.
.Land acquisition started in July
2000 and is continuing to date. RDAstime frame for the
implementationof the resettlement was from March2001 to December
2003. The govern-ment acquired the land for thisproject under the
section 2 of theLand Acquisition Act.
In some cases, the displacedpeople said that they were not
in-formed earlier and that they did notreceive or see the Section 2
notices.People were not aware about theland acquisition and the
resettle-
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 17
ment procedures. Earlier on, RDA didnot take any step to
initiate publicparticipation and raise publicawareness. Hence the
affectedpeople protested against this situa-tion and ten different
communitiessent complaints to the ADBs Inspec-tion Committee.
After the protest in September2001, RDA opned four offices
inGalanigama, Mathugama, Galleand Kurundugaha-hathakma.
RDAappointed resettlement officers andresettlement assistants to
work withthe affected people. Then they triedto collect the
information of the af-fected people and to identify theresettlement
sites. But all this pro-cess was dependent on the per-sonal views
of the respective re-settlement officers as some officerssaw the
road as a major step to-ward over-all development, whileothers were
sympathetic to the situ-ation of the affected people. Nei-ther the
ADB nor the governmenttook efforts to improve the resettle-ment
monitoring system. The oneconsultant hired under ADB to per-form
the monitoring, does not repre-sent a sufficient attempt at
ad-equate monitoring.
In 1999, the Sri Lankan Govern-ment put into effect a National
Re-settlement Policy with the assistanceof the ADB consultants. The
dis-
placed people from the STDP projectwere to be resettled
according tothe above policy, which was verysimilar to the ADB
ResettlementPolicy. However, the way the re-settlement happened
shows that theRDA did not follow this policy.
For example the policy states that
Affected people should befully involved in the selection
ofrelocation sites, livelihood com-pensation and development
op-tions at the earliest opportunity.
It also states
To assist those affected to beeconomically and socially
inte-grated into the host communities;participatory measures
shouldbe designed and implemented.
The above descriptions of theconsultation process
demonstratethat these provisions were not imple-mented in STDP.
Because of the inspection com-plaints and the other letters of
theaffected people, RDA was askedto submit a Resettlement
ActionPlan before the loan was made ef-fective. RDA submitted the
Re-settlement Action Plan to ADB inNovember 2002 and the loan
be-came effective.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 18
RDA valued the properties ofthe affected people of the Co-lombo
Matara Highway under sec-tion 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,but
these evaluations were not highenough. RDA then initiated theLand
Acquisition and ResettlementCommittee (LARC). This
committeeconsisted of five members includ-ing the division
secretary (chair-man), resettlement officer, and theaffected
person. There were sepa-rate LARC committees for eachfamily. The
head of the family is themember in the committee. The pur-pose of
the LARC was that eachaffected person could set his/herprice for
compensation. 3
The success of this set-up de-pends on the bargaining power
andthe social status of the respectiveaffected person. Also in some
casesit depends on the personal attitudesof the divisional
Secretary. RDA ac-quired the lands in 1996 at the South-ern end
(Sulthanagoda Goda-gama and Akurugoda area). There-fore the LARC
committee has valu-ated this land to the market valueof the year
1996.
Changes in Project Design
The Sri Lankan Government selectedtwo alternative traces for the
devel-opment of a Southern Expresswaycalled the Original RDA trace
and
the Combined Trace. The fact thatthe trace used throughout the
docu-ments and studies is not the one thatthe Road Development
Authority isimplementing constitutes a violationof ADB and National
policies. TheCentral Environmental Authority(CEA) in its approval
has given rec-ommendations to closely follow theoriginal trace as
the combinedtrace involves a lot of environmen-tal impacts.
The lack of an on-site monitoringsystem meant that the
executingagencies failed to take responsibil-ity for the
resettlement activities inthe project. In most of the
reportedcases, we found that political pres-sure was applied to
influence the di-rection of the original trace. For ex-ample, at
one point the trace inAkmeemana area was changed bya politician in
the area so that theroad would no longer cross throughhis
electorate.
The EIAR indicated that 622houses were to be demolished bythe
Road. But the resettlement planstates that this number is 5683.
Thisnumber is much higher than thenumber of affected houses
underthe combined trace which wouldhave affected 938 houses.
However,we learnt that RDA also does nothave accurate knowledge or
assess-ment of the actual situation.
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 19
Lack of Alternate OptionsAssessment and Faulty Evaluations
Affected people and the NGOs whosent comments on the EIA during
thepublic commenting period and dur-ing the public hearings
proposed anumber of primary alternatives forthis project. These
included expan-sion of the existing highway, con-struction of an
electrified railway line,use of sea connections, constructionof a 4
lane highway instead of theproposed six lane highway and ma-jor
alternatives.
Furthermore, a number of sec-ondary alternatives were pro-posed
for some sections of thehighway. For example, somegroups roposed an
elevated high-way for the section where floodingis a serious
problem.
According to the feasibility studya six-lane highway is
necessary forthe section from Colombo to Kalutarawhich is about 20
kilometres. The re-maining section only needs a 4 lanehighway.
However, none of theseoptions were positively evaluated bythe
feasibility study or the EIA.
Weak Environmental Standards
This project was started in 1992and an Environmental Impact
As-sessment Report (EIAR) was pro-
duced in 1994 showing varioustraces. A trace was chosen and
theEIAR was updated in 1996. Howeverit was not issued for comments.
Afterthe funds were made available, con-sultants were called in and
RDAagreed on a better trace. The EIARwas then amended for the data
onthe new trace and it was publishedin 1999.The base data is now
7years out of date and is conse-quently not accurate.
The road trace which goesthrough Akmeemana is not includedin the
approved EIAR. The EIAR refersto the combined trace goingthrough
Poddala, Meepawala,Labuduwa, Totagoda, Madin-noruwa, Kokmaduwa and
Godag-ama. But now the road is goingthrough Poddala,
Narawala,Walawaththa, Thalgasyaya, Niyaga-ma, Ihalagoda,
Godamuna,Pinnaduwa, Godawatta andAnkokkawala. Some of these
areasare not included in the original EIAR.
When the Central Environmen-tal Authority gave approval to
thisproject, they imposed certainterms and conditions on RDA.
Theapproval imposed 58 conditionsunder 11 sections including a
moni-toring program.
According to the conditions un-der the monitoring program,
RDA
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 20
should prepare a monitoring planwhich should approved by the
moni-toring committee. A monitoring pro-gram should be implemented
assoon as the approval is granted. Ac-cording to those conditions,
the CEAcan question the RDA if there areany violations.
The implementation of STDP be-came very controversial due to
thewide-spread displacement of localcommunities. In addition, the
40 %of the proposed trace traversesacross flood retention areas
such aswetlands and paddy fields. There-fore many hydrological
impactsare anticipated.
Adverse Social Impacts
Most of the adverse social impactsrelate to the resettlement of
the af-fected people The design of theroad construction does not
take intoaccount access to health care, edu-cation and related
services of theaffected communities.
For example, in the case of schoolchildren being displaced, RDA
offic-ers gave letters to the school princi-pals which stated the
childs pre-ferred choice of school. Howeverwhen children applied to
their schoolsof choice, the school principals didnot always respect
these letters.
The residents of the villages alongthe proposed trace are from
fami-lies that have been there for severalcenturies. The area is
self sufficientand also relatively crime-free. Whatwill happen to
these traditional fam-ily ties? For the villagers this social
net-work is the most important asset thatthey have. There was no
attempt fromRDA or ADB to mitigate this aspect.
1 Page vi section 3 Executive Summerypf the Resettlement
Implementation Plan. Acopy was received from the ADB Resident
Mis-sion for a request made by Heather Mundy,of Galanigama. However
RDA did not openthis document to the general public
2 Chapter 6 page 48 of the EIA
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 21
Activities Taken byAffected People & NGOs
Until 1996, no united movement existed among theaffected
people.. Due tothe involvement of Environmental Foundation
Ltd(EFL), Organization for the Safeguardof Life and Environment
(OSLEN) andthe Green movement of SriLanka(GMSL), the affected
peoplewere informed on the impacts andpossible actions.
As a result, in 1998, the NGOs in-volved succeeded in organizing
asolidarity movement of the affectedpeople from the expressway. As
a firststep, village level committees wereorganized. Already
established com-mittees and the new committeesthen joined together
and formed amass movement.
This movement periodically orga-nized campaigns along the road
wayand in the major cities to protest againstthe expressway, to
educate politiciansand the bureaucrats on the impactsand to get the
media publicity.
The protest movement was at itsheight at the time the EIA
wasopened for public comments in 1999.Affected people and the NGOs
in-volved jointly attended the publichearings and the environmental
or-ganizations succeeded in educatingthe public on the EIA and the
nega-tive impacts. This helped improve thepublic commenting. Both
GreenMovement of Sri Lanka and the SriLankan Working Group on ADB
werevery active during this period. As aresult, RDA organized a
meeting toexplain the compensation packageand the road design.
After this meeting the road designwas changed in some sectors
andnew people become affected. Thepeople who had been affected
bythe old design left the campaign atthis stage. The environmental
organi-zations worked with the newly af-fected people in the same
fashion. Amass demonstration was held in frontof the ADB resident
mission in 2001and a petition was handed over to
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 22
the Resident representative. Althoughthere were several meetings
after this,no major changes have taken place.
Filing of Human Rights Case
Three communities along the high-way decided to file human
rightsaction before the National HumanRights Commission, claiming
thatRDA and the Government of SriLanka disregarded human rights
indesigning the expressway. 97 personsfrom Galanigama and 457
fromAkmeemana joined this petition.
Public Interest Law Foundation(PILF) later assisted them with
these hu-man rights cases. Of the three humanrights cases, one came
fromGalanigama, one from Akmee-manaand one from another affected
house-hold, Heather and Cyril Mundy filedthe third case. However,
the caseswere delayed in the commission forvarious reasons and the
people de-cided to file three writ applications inthe Court of
Appeal.
The Court of Appeal appointeda judiciary committee to study
thetraces. According to the report of thecommittee, these areas had
alreadybeen covered in the EIA that wasprepared before 1999. The
Court ofAppeal observed:
It is true that at the time theEIAR was prepared, the FinalTrace
was not envisaged. How-ever ... the Final Trace was not
analteration that would come un-der Regulation 17(i)(a) and
sec-tion 23EE [of the Act].1
The Court dismissed the writ ap-plications, in the exercise of
its dis-cretionary powers, holding that:
[When balancing thecompeting interests] the con-clusion
necessarily has to bemade in favor of the larger in-terests of the
community whowould benefit immensely bythe construction of the
pro-posed expressway . . . theadoption of the CombinedTrace would
undoubtedly re-sult in irreversible damage tothe eco-system in the
BolgodaWetland area. Therefore theonly option is to adopt the
Fi-nal Trace which ... will resultonly in the displacement of
af-fected people in that area ...the obligation to the society asa
whole must predominateover the obligation to a groupof individuals,
who are so un-fortunately affected by theconstruction of the
express-way. 2
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 23
Inspection Process
At the same time the Sri LankanWorking Group on ADB (SLWG)
edu-cated the affected people on theavailability of the Inspection
Com-mittee of the ADB. As a result, tendifferent communities filed
com-plaints with the Inspection Commit-tee of ADB in 2001. They
believedthat the policies such as Resettle-ment Policy and
Information Policyof ADB have been violated.
There were three separate com-plaints from Galanigama,
Akmee-mana, and Kahathuduwa and ajoint complaint came from
otherseven community groups. In the pro-cedure of the Inspection on
STDPGalanigama and Akmeemana werein forefront. Galanigama
andAkmeemana were in the 9th stageaccording to the Diagram in the
ADBInspection Policy.
In the conclusion concerning theauthorization of an Inspection,
theBank Inspection Committee re-jected the point about the
align-ment actually selected for the roadconstruction when
formulating theReport and Recommendation forthe President, saying
that alignmentconsidered in the RRP consisted of3-4 km wide
corridor in which the fi-nal alignment was expected to belocated
and which includes the re-quested area.
According to Sri Lankan law, sec-tion 48 of the1980 of the
National En-vironmental Act (as amended sec-tion 56 of 1988)
requires a site spe-cific EIA for a new developmentproject. But the
EIA for this project isnot a site specific EIA as it covers
acorridor of 3-4 kilometres.
From the point of view of the in-volved NGOs, the argument of
thecorridor is not seen as valid, and inaddition to that, several
affectedhouseholds in the Galanigama areafall outside of this 3-4
km. The com-munities failed to receive justice fromthe domestic law
of the country.Therefore they complained to the re-course mechanism
of the Bank al-though it failed to give them justice.The Board
Inspection Committeeconcluded that an inspection of theSTDP was not
warranted based insuf-ficient evidence. The Board Inspec-tion
Committee stated that:
22. In deciding whether torecommend to the Board that theBoard
authorize an inspection ofthe Project, the Committee hasgiven
careful consideration to theRequest and the Response theretoand to
other relevant documents.On the basis of the documentspresented to
it the Committeehas, based on the reasons givenabove, maintained
that the Re-quest is not clearly ineligible norclearly
frivolous.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 24
23. It has, however, alsocome to the conclusion that thevery
detailed and thoroughanalysis made by Managementin its response to
the substantiveallegations of non-compliancewith policies made by
the Re-quester appears to establish con-vincingly that the
allegations ofnon-compliance were un-founded in all cases.3
The Bank Inspection Committeerejected the Akmeemana requeston
the same grounds. Regarding therejection of the other seven
com-plaints, and the Kahathuduwa com-plaint the committee
stated;
In accordance with para-graph 35-37 of the Inspection
Pro-cedure, the committee has care-fully considered the requests
andin the light other documents. Ithas concluded that the
Requestshas not presented reasonableevidence that the
communitygroups rights and interest havebeen or are likely to be
directly,materially and adversely af-fected by an action or
omissionof ADB as a result of ADBs failureto follow its operation
policiesand procedures. The Committeehas therefore determined that
atthis stage in time Requests clearlyineligible and no written
responseto the Requesters by ADB man-agement is required.4
However, communities feel thatthe above statement is false.
TheADB reviewed its Inspection Functionin 2003, recognizing that
the designand prescribed inspection processhad so far been a
failure. On June8, 2004, the affected communitiesof STDP filed a
new Inspection Re-quest under ADBs revised Inspec-tion
Function.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
When the Court of Appeal decisionwas against the opinion of the
pub-lic, the claimants decided to go tothe Supreme Court and asked
for arevision. Judgement was deliveredin February 2004 and
according tothe plaintiffs We both won and lost
The Court found that the devia-tions in Bandaragama andAkmeemana
were alterations re-quiring CEA approval after compli-ance with the
prescribed proce-dures and the principals of naturaljustice. It
confirmed that the discre-tion to refuse relief by the Court
ofAppeal was justified, but that theAppellants ought to have
beencompensated for the infringementof their rights under Article
12(1) andthe principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court orderedRs.75,000 to be paid to each of
thepetitioners in addition to the amountdue under the Land
Acquisition Act.
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 25
The court also ordered costs ofRs.50,000 for each of the three
casesplus the reimbursement of the Judi-cial Committee costs of
Rs.100,000.Because there are some 47 petition-ers in the South that
means that totalcost to the state is nearly Rs.4 million.
The Court also ruled that the ap-pellants were adversely
affected bythe deviations and were thereforeentitled to a hearing,
under the audialteram partem rule as well as Article12(1).Judgment
also says that
If it is permissible in the ex-ercise of a judicial discretion
torequire a humble villager toforego his right to a fair proce-
dure before he is compelled tosacrifice a modest plot of landand
a little hut because they areof extremely negligible value
inrelation to a multi-billion rupeenational project, it is
neverthelessnot equitable to disregard totallythe infringement of
his rights: thesmaller the value of his property,the greater his
right to compen-sation.5
1 Appeal Court order2 Excerpts from the Supreme Court Order3
Management response to Gama
Surakeema Sanvidhanaya4 ADB management response to the vil-
lagers of Kahathuduwa.5 Supreme Court decision
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 26P r o j e c t M o n i t o r i n g
Monitoring Schedule
Following visits were done for the monitoring.
doireP tnevE
2002yaMht61-9 MGABDAdednettA
2002enuJ51elpoepehtdetsissa-gniteemytinummoCtsriF
noitazinagrotniojahsilbatseot
2002enuJ72-62 tisivetistsiF
2002yluJht7 gniteeMytinummoCdnoceS
2002yluJ31-21 tisivetiSdnoceS
2002rebotcO tisivetisdrihT
rebmevoNts12-023002
tisivetiShtruoF
4002lirpAht52-12 tisivetishtfiF
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 27
Monitoring Plan
Therefore following types of monitoring wereidentified for the
monitoring programme.
Blasting and drilling activities
Exploitation of construction material
Transportation of material
Noise
Soil erosion
Surface water quality
Surface water quantity
Ground water quantity
Air Quality
Displacement and resettlement of people
A lthough the NGOs involved tried to obtain acopy of the
MonitoringPlan government agencies refused to disclosethe plan,
although it is a public docu-ment. Therefore, the NGOs
involvedresorted to preparing their own moni-toring plan based
comprehensive
studies of the EIA report.
The objective of the monitoring waso determine whether the
construc-tion of STDP poses an unacceptablerisk to the environment,
society andeconomy of the area. The majorconcerns related to the
sociologicaland hydrological aspects.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 28
Monitoring AgainstNational and ADBEnvironmental Provisions
The project in the context of NationalEnvironmental Act
The project was started in 1992without ADB or JBIC involvements.
ADB came to thescene in around 1996. By thenSri Lanka had its own
EIAregulations. 1994 RDA started fillingthe road without any EIA or
even aproper feasibility study. This is a viola-tion of the local
environmental laws.However, ADB does not take respon-sibility for
the violation of local laws.
But a local EIA was done in 1999and it was opened for public for
30days under the national EIA process.Two oral public hearings were
heldjust after the end of the 30 day com-menting period.
However the public hearings wereneither adequate nor
adequatelypublicized. The decision of the hear-ings was not
adequately transparent.
According to the ADB environ-mental categorization projects in
thisnature comes under the category Awhich require a detailed EIA.
In thiscase they have prepared the rightdocument both at country
levelsand ADB level.
However this Environmental As-sessment was done for the
com-bined trace which is the amalgam-ated trace of original RDA
Trace andthe ADB trace.
This trace was not fully approvedby the Central Environmental
Au-
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 29
thority. The combined trace was sup-posed to cross through
Bolgoda wet-land in the western Province andKoggala wetland in the
Southernprovince.
Both these wetlands are very im-portant. On that basis, the
combinedtrace was not approved in Bolgodaarea . Alternatively they
asked thatthe road be moved inland.
The RDA moved the road within3 kilometre corridor to the right
endof the corridor. However some ofthese villages were not even
stud-ied in the EIA. The Issue inGalanigama came in this waywhich
is became a reason for theinspection case and also for thehuman
right complaint and thenbefore the Supreme Court.
There was similar incident inAkmeemana area. According to
theresidents in the area the road wasmoved to their village to
protect twoage old abandoned tea factories.Some people think a
politician wasbehind this move. However this mat-ter was also ended
in the inspectioncase and Supreme Court.
The Project in the Context of ADBEnvironment Policy
The1997 OM is very weak on concreteprovisions for environmental
protec-tion and none of the other provisionsare relevant to the
STDP case. How-ever, the preceding description of theenvironmental
impacts and the fol-lowing section clearly demonstratethe violation
of environmental stan-dards in this project.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 30
Monitoring Against DesirableEnvironmental Standards
Document Completeness
According to widely accepted and practiced standards an
EnvironmentalImpact Assessment should include the following
components:1 ,
1 (Unfortunately, the new Environment Policy does not yet apply
to STDP. We have to look atOM Section 1997, and the Environmental
Assessment Guidelines of 1998).
nalP sliateddnaytilibaliavA
,nalPtnemeganamlatnemnorivnEhtiwslaedRAIEehtfo01retpahC
dnastnemeriuqeRlanoitutitsnI.margorpgnirotinomlatnemnorivne
noitaulavednagnirotinomtcejorPeludehcsdnanalp
otseussiehtotderrefer01retpahCsahtidnasegatsllatarotinom
hcihwseicnegaehtdednemmocergnirotinomehtnievlovnidluohs
)NALPONRAFOSTUB(.eettimmoc
nalPnoitazinagrOmaetgnirotinomehtfoegdelwonkehtotnalphcusoN
seitinummoc
nalpdnufeetnarauGlatnemnorivnE nalphcusoN
nalpdnufgnirotinomehT nalpdnufhcusoN
dnuftnempolevedytinummocehT dnufhcusoN
dnufdnanalpycnegnitnoC dnufdnanalphcusoN
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 31
Document Completeness
tnemucoD
tnemucodlasiarppatcejorPsihtotsseccaoN
tnemucod
)noissessops'BDA(ydutsytilibisaeF sseccaoN
ehthtiw(nalpgnireenignedeliatedehT)tnemnrevoggniworrubevitcepser
selurerusolcsidnoitamrofnIsseccaoN
s'BDA(noitanimaxelatnemnorivnelaitinInoissessop
rednuenodAIEylnOelbaliavawallacol
tnemucodlasiarppacimonoceynAehtniytimrofinuatubyrav(elbaliava
noitarepowonktonoD
Shelf life of the EIA document
The data used in this EIA is reason-ably new. The data is taken
fromdocuments mostly published in thelast decade. Also some of the
dataused has been taken from the South-ern Corridor project, Draft
final Re-port, Interim Report, Daft Initial SocialImpact assessment
and from the Ini-tial environmental examination pub-lished in 1998.
Therefore the data setused for the EIA can still be consid-ered
applicable.
Review of other similar projects
A similar project was done in SriLanka in 1994 which is
ColomboKatunayake Expressway. This projectalso created a lot of
controversy. Asa result of a case filed by the Envi-ronmental
Foundation on behalf ofthe affected people the originaltrace was
abandoned and a freshEIA was prepared to minimize thesocial and
environmental impacts.However, the project still had
severalproblems such as political influence,
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 32
displacement and adverse impactson fishermen due to the crossing
ofa lagoon. RDA did not draw lessonsfrom this negative experience
whenit designed STDP.
Respect for standards, associate lawsand treaties, local,
national andinternational
The final order of the Supreme Courtcase shows that it violates
humanrights. This cannot be taken as aproject that promotes
sustainabledevelopment.
Access to environmental informa-tion, environmental decision
makingenvironmental justice
Access to information in this case isfar from adequate. Due to
the lackof information and political influ-ences, there was no
justice in envi-ronmental decision making.
Consistency with the CountrysOverall Development Strategy
Alignment with country developmentstrategy by the ADB
The governments underlyingstrategy for the country strategy is
todevelop today and conserve to-morrow. Government plans aremade to
increase the GDP and to
keep the growth rate above 8%. Thegovernmet believes that only
goodinfrastructure can bring about thisgrowth rate. Therefore the
govern-ment concentrates more on express-ways and the power
generation sec-tor. This is mostly because of the domi-nation of
ADB, Word Bank and IMFmacroeconomic policies. Howeverthese
macroeconomic policies donot give benefit to the poor. In thiscase
the project aligns with the Gov-ernment strategy. But the majority
ofSri Lankans oppose the present de-velopment strategy of the
country.
Alignment with local plans
Local plans are normally pre-pared by the governing
regime.Therefore STDP is compatible withthe local plans, too.
Capacity of consultants
The EIA was done by local con-sultants from the University
ofMoratuwa. They had experience insuch assignments.
Stakeholders
Simplified stakeholder analysiswas not undertaken as part of
theEIA. However, public hearings and asocial survey for the social
impactassessment were conducted.
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 33
The process of this developmentshows that RDA and the ADB are
play-ing the dominant role. Only very fewpeople living along the
road activelyparticipated in the process. The major-ity of the
villages have no access to de-cision making process. They were
andare being left out in policy dialogue,discussion and
decision-making.
Participation is mostly happeningthrough the local EIA process.
Therewas no empowerment from the gov-ernment, ADB or the RDA. But
civil so-ciety groups such as Sri Lankan Work-ing Group on ADB,
Green Movementof Sri Lanka and the EFL took a role ininvolving the
affected people.
People actively participated inthe public commenting period
andin the oral hearings. Some villages inGalanigama, Kahatuduwa,
andAkmeemana organized themselvesand filed court cases and even
anInspection Panel case.
The most active stakeholderswere the RDA and the ADB.
Somepoliticians also took an active role ininfluencing the process
to their ends.The public which is the main stake-holder in this
case very rarely partici-pated in the process as they werenot
informed and not empowered.Only few who are
knowledgeableparticipated in the process.
Project Stakeholdersand their Interests
Below is a list of the project stake-holders and their
interests:
tnemnrevoG erutcurtsarfnI:dnayrtnuocehtnitnempoleved
tnempolevedlanoitanllarevo
:syawhgiHdnatropsnarTfoyrtsiniMdnalavorppatcejorP
krowtendaorehtfotnempoleved
:ADR seiticrehtootsseccaysaE
:ytirohtuAlatnemnorivnElartneC,gnirotinom&lavorppA
latnemnorivneotecnerehdasdradnats
tnatlusnoC dnangisedtcejorP:tnemssessatcapmifonoitaraperp
sOGN ecitsuj,ecnanrevoGdooG:tnemnorivnetcetorp,ytiuqe&
:elpoePdetceffA ,snrecnoclaicoS,snrecnoclatnemnorivne
tnemeltteser
BDA gnitsissa,sdnuffognivoM:detseuqerrofsCMD
otsseccaedivorp;stnempolevedrotcesetavirpdnasnoitaroproc
.tnemevlovni
:snaicitiloplacoL
tnempoleveDrofsboj,stcartnocbus,noissimmoc,dnaytirohtuagniniag,sretroppus
.setovgniruces
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 34
Table for Stakeholder Analysis (Importance and Influence)
sisylanAredlohekatS
sseccuStcejorProfecnatropmIfoleveL
woL hgiH
foleveLecneulfnI
ninoisiceDgnikaM-
hgiH
aideM,sOGN
,muroFOGN(sOGNI,LEIC,IEOF,WALE,CIB
,napaJIEOF,AACO)SECAJ
aimedacAslaudividnI
BDAfoyrtsiniMdnaLSOG
tropsnarTADRAEC
weiveRAIEeettimmoC
snaicitiloplacoL)srekamnoisiced(
yraiciduJ
woLegraltacilbuP
tnemnrevoGrehtOseicnega
detceffatcejorPelbarenluv(elpoep
)puorglatnemnorivnelacoL
sOGN
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 35
Monitoring AgainstOther ADB Policies
This case is a very good example for monitoring theADBs
Resettlement Policy. Thebasic principles of the policystate
thatInvoluntary resettlement
should be avoided where fea-sible, where population
displace-ment is unavoidable; it should beminimized by exploring
all viableproject options.1
The proposed option of the roadtrace did not meet this
requirementand the present trace has the high-est number of
resettlement. The sec-ond principle states
If individuals or a communitymust lose their land, means
oflivelihood, social support sys-tems, or way of life in order that
aproject might proceed, theyshould be compensated and as-sisted so
that their economic andsocial future wall generally be atleast as
favourable with the
project as without it. Appropriateland, housing, infrastructure,
andother compensation, compa-rable to the without project
situ-ation, should be provided to theadversely affected
population,including indigenous groups,ethnic Minorities, and
pastoralistswho may have usufructs or cus-tomary rights to the land
or otherresources taken for the project.
This principle was grossly violatedand no support was given to
the re-located households other than pro-viding compensation in
cash. Theywere not advised on how to usemoney, identifying new
lands andbuild new houses.
The third Principle states that
Any involuntary resettle-ment should, as far as possible,be
conceived and executed asa part of a development projector program
and resettlementplans should be prepared with
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 36
appropriate time bound actionsand budgets. Resettlers shouldbe
provided sufficient resourcesand opportunities to re-establishtheir
homes and livelihoods assoon as possible.
This did not happen in STDP andonly certain persons got
adequatecompensation but the majority werenot provided adequate
compensa-tion. Originally they were providedthe market rate but
later a gazettenotification was published that af-fected people
will get governmentvalue plus 25% extra.
The fourth principle states
The affected people shouldbe fully informed and closelyconsulted
on resettlement andcompensation options. Whereadversely affected
people areparticularly vulnerable, resettle-ment and compensation
deci-sions should be preceded by asocial preparation phase to
buildup the capacity of the vulnerablepeople to deal with the
issues.
This provision was also grossly vio-lated. The resettlement plan
is still notavailable for the affected people whilehalf of the
acquisition is already done.
The next principle states
Appropriate patterns of so-cial organization should be
pro-moted, and existing social andcultural institutions of
resettlersand their hosts should be sup-ported and used to the
great-est extent possible. Resettlersshould be integrated
economi-cally and socially into hostcommunities so that
adverseimpacts on host communitiesare minimized. One of the
effec-tive ways of achieving this inte-gration may be by
extendingdevelopment benefits to hostcommunities.
There was no awareness of ex-isting social and cultural
institutionsand there was no program to inte-grate affected people
into the hostcommunities.
Although the resettlement wasstarted in 2000 the Resettlement
planwas done in October 2002. This is aclear violation of the
policy.
1 Involuntary Resettlement Policy of theADB, August 1995
-
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement with NGO Forum on the
ADB
Southern Transport Development Project
Sri Lanka 37C o n c l u s i o n
This project created controversies from the early panning stages
to the construction phase.. The problemaspects include ADB
policyviolations, disregard of national lawsand regulations and
disregard ofthe social and environment rights.
Affected people have used allpossible actions time and again
toobtain redress. While some peoplebenefited from these
actions,there is still a large number of af-fected people who have
yet toreceive justice.
Recourse could not beachieved through administrativepractises,
political influence, localjudiciaries or through the ADBs
ac-countability mechanism. Somesuccess was achieved however,when
the Supreme Court ac-cepted that the human rights ofaffected
communities have beenviolated.
This is a good case to prove thatthe ADB has violated its
policies.ADBs Involuntary ResettlementPolicy, its Environment
Policy andPublic Disclosure Policy have beengrossly violated. The
case alsoshows that inspection mechanismis merely lip service.
If the bank policies need to beapplied in local cases the Bank
hasto play a major role by familiarisingthe implementing agencies
andother stakeholders with its policies.The ADB needs to make sure
thattheir DMCs and local implementingagencies respect the Banks
policies.At the same time the Bank should un-derstand and respect
the vision of thelocal people and the Bank should beaccountable to
the people.
In particular, the ADBs Environ-ment Policy was violated. In
thiscase The Supreme Court foundthat NO EIA had been conductedfor
the stretches of the road whichwere changed, which is in viola-tion
of Environment Policy. Thisshows that the affected peoplewere
denied the opportunity toparticipate in decision making. Fur-ther,
there is no environmental man-agement plan and no active
envi-ronmental monitoring committee.
Our investigations revealed thatthere are no adequate
mitigationin place to address the environ-mental problems at the
construc-tion sites. Therefore the Bank hasthe immediate
responsibility tomake sure that project follows theBanks
Environment Policy at leastat the construction stage.
-
A Monitoring Framework for ADBs Environment Policy based on Four
Case Studies
ADB and the Environment 38R e f e r e n c e
1 Operation Manual section 21 issued on 1 December 1992 - Asian
devel-opment Bank.
2 Proposal for the Monitoring and Evaluating the Implementation
of theADBs Environmental Policy by PRRM, February 2003
3 Environmental Impact Assessment report, Southern Expressway
devel-opment Project Main Text University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
March 1999.
4 Handbook on Resettlement A guide book to good practice, Asian
de-velopment ,1998
5 Resettlement Implementation Plan Volume 1, October 2002, Road
De-velopment Authority
6 OM Section 1997, and the Environmental Assessment Guidelines
of 1998).