ejustice 1.2 - ADB Safeguard violations of the UPPER ELAHARA CANAL PROJECT

ADB Safeguard violations of the

UPPER ELAHARA CANAL PROJECT

Hemantha Withanage (B.Sc)

Asian Development Bank agrees that the ADB funded Mahaweli Water Security Investment Program which involves Upper Elahera Canal Project (UECP) had violated its Safeguard policy 2009. However, ADB has yet to accept that this project also has issues on the basis of conflict of interest.

The UECP comprises two components. The first component is the construction of the Kalu Ganga-Moragahakanda Transfer Canal (including two tunnels) that will transfer water between the Kalu Ganga and Moragahakanda reservoirs. The second component is the construction of the Upper Elahera Canal that connects the Moragahakanda reservoir to the existing reservoirs Huruluwewa, Manankattiya, Eruwewa and Mahakanadarawa (including in total 28 km of tunnels).

In late 2018 the project was involved in clearing the access road to the tunnel entrance. Construction of 1.7 km access road inside Beligama forest which is part of the Knuckles conservation forest was already identified component at the EIA and ADB decision making stage. However the construction company Sinohydro Corporation Ltd involves clearing another 1 km through the conserved forest without prior approval of the Forest Department and the Central Environmental Authority. This is undoubtedly an environmental safeguards violations of the ADB.

Although the environmental impact have been identified for the initial 1.7 km section, the construction company did not follow the conditions set during the project approval. The company has dump debris and soil to the river side without respecting the environmental safeguards.Therefore, the Sinohydro Corporation Ltd., has violated the Fauna and Flora Protection ordinance, Forest Ordinance No 16 of 1907 (amended) and the National Environmental Act No 47 of 1980(amended).

ADB Safeguard policy statement -June 2009 state that;

“In areas of natural habitat, the project will not significantly convert or degrade such habitat, unless the following conditions are met: (i) No alternatives are available. (ii) A comprehensive analysis demonstrates that the overall benefits from the project will substantially outweigh the project costs, including environmental costs. (iii) Any conversion or degradation is appropriately mitigated.”( Section 26)

When the project involves activities in a critical habitat, the borrower/client will retain qualified and experienced external experts to assist in conducting the assessment.(Section 29)

According to the Policy

“In circumstances where some project activities are located within a legally protected area, in addition to the requirement specified in para. 28, the borrower/client will meet the following requirements: (i) Act in a manner consistent with defined protected area management plans. (ii) Consult protected area sponsors and managers, local communities, and other key stakeholders on the proposed project. (iii) Implement additional programs, as appropriate, to promote and enhance the conservation aims of the protected area.”( Section 30)

The Safeguard policy statement -June 2009 state “Where unanticipated environmental impacts become apparent during project implementation, the borrower/client will update the environmental assessment and EMP or prepare a new environmental assessment and EMP to assess the potential impacts, evaluate the alternatives, and outline mitigation measures and resources to address those impacts”.( section 23)

Conflict of Interest

Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment has a conflict of interest over this project. The Project implementing agency Mahaweli Water Security Investment Programme and the two regulatory authorities i.e. Forest Department and the Central Environmental Authority also comes under the same Ministry.

The Secretary to the Ministry Mahaweli Development and Environment oversight all the agencies and therefore the project governance is not done in a proper manner.

The Secretary initially requested the Synohydro corporations to plant 300 trees to compensate the destruction however, IUCN was requested to develop a report. This happens only when environmentalist Mr. Jayantha Wijesinghe and CEJ start raising this issue in the local media and with the ADB.

The Forest Department or the CEA did not act against the violation due to the conflict of interest. Such obstruction of justice and interference in the duties of agencies tasked with detecting, investigating, and prosecuting illicit behaviour which has identified as a possible corrupt practices in the ADB Anticorruption Policy should not have happen in this case.

Ideally the project should have been implemented by a different agency without creating this conflict of interest. Still it is the role of the Asian Development Bank to ensure proper governance and remove barriers.

Although the ADB expect civil society to act as watchdogs, this experience shows that it is not practical for civil society to monitor when some projects are complicated and people don’t have access to projects sites. On the other hand there is no civil society representation to the Project steering committee and the transparency of such project activities are doubtful.

Some contractors are not trained to follow safeguards. The problems also exists when the contractors don’t understand the requirements specially due to the language barrier.

The ADB funded projects now should have inhouse safeguard officers. It is unfortunate that they did not stop the damage. Therefore its the duty of the CEA and the Forest Department to take legal action.(END)