Statement by Elias Diaz Pena (Sobrevivencia) to the World Bank Board of Executive Directors

 

February 3, 1998

Experience with the Yacyreta (Paraguay) Claim

The Yacyreta Hydroelectric Dam Project has caused serious environmental impacts as well as social impacts, particularly on the population of the area. These problems have been repeatedly denounced by different affected sectors and by civil society organizations for years, ever since project implementation started.

The lack of attention to these claims during all these years gave rise to the decision of resorting to independent inspection panels that have been established both at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

All these problems, and particularly the lack of interest that the Bank’s technicians assigned to the Yacyreta project, have shown during the entire period for its effective solution, ignoring systematically the different claims from different sectors and systematically denying the responsibility of the Bank by not really solving the just claims of the population that has been affected and making responsible only the inoperational and corruptive offices of the binational entity among the governments affected, have really put in jeopardy the initial trust of the population in the interests of the Bank in the well-being of all the communities, which was the original reason for establishing it.

The World Bank Inspection Panel has really contributed greatly to improve the relations of the World Bank and the affected population, as well as the image of the Bank in the public opinion, both in Paraguay and in Argentina, because somehow it has restored the trust among the population, particularly in those that have been mostly affected by the project. And the Bank is sensible to their very serious and unresolved problems.

It is very important that we point out that the Inspection Panel is really an independent organization able to discriminate the degree of responsibility they have for resolution of these problems, on the one hand the government and on the other hand the Bank offices. The ability of a Panel should really be appreciated by all Directors of the Bank. As representatives of the government that really make up the Bank, we should not forget that the Bank’s offices must respond to the government, and that judgment and analysis on their performance cannot be done by themselves.

The Panel’s intervention also contributed to a process of opening dialogue (which was practically nonexistent before) between the EBY, the affected population, and the government institutions from both countries. But notwithstanding, so that the Panel really carries out its mission, we still need to improve several areas.

During the mission carried out by the Panel at the project area, they needed much more time than they really had in the area in order for them to understand the complexity and the magnitude of the problems that arise from the dyke, and the diversity of affected sectors in the situations that have come up in the different communities in the project area.

During the Panel process, the Bank’s officers have access to information from the Panel, and they have the right to submit a response to the Panel’s report before it is issued. The right to have both information and the responses to the Panel's report should really be secured for the claimants.

The Panel’s report should be made available to the affected population and the claimants in Spanish since this is the language spoken in the region. The English report cannot be used by the communities in the area because the translation is not officially recognized by the Bank and the Panel. Besides, we cannot think that organizations of very scarce resources can pay for the cost of the translations.

The response of EBY and the World Bank, to the Panel’s inspection has been very deficient. For example, the action plan that EBY submitted was developed before this inspection, without any participation of the affected population or the organizations of the civil societies in the region. This action plan should really be developed on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Panel. Both while developing and implementing the action plan, the active and effective participation of claimants in all affected sectors should be included in the process. This has not been the case when we talk about Yacyreta.

The Inspection Panel must also be able to participate while developing this action plan and also in monitoring its implementation. It is also necessary that the Panel carries out a periodic evaluation or assessment of the implementation results.

In spite of all the progress in some areas and a better attitude of EBY toward the affected population, the present situation in the communities is still very serious. One of the most crucial problems and one that EBY pays less attention to, among many others, is the lack of fair compensation to those affected by losing their means of earning money caused by the filling of the area. This is the case for independent workers, such as fishermen, agriculturalists, small entrepreneurs, small businessmen, artisans, agriculturalists, different ceramic industries, and those called orlidos (?) in a great area of influence. The lack of attention to these claims and how EBY has treated those affected are basic human right violations recognized in the universal Charter of Human Rights and the Declaration of American Nations signed in San Jose, Costa Rica.

We hope that the Inspection Panel of the World Bank continues to act with a very active role both developing a new action plan for Yacyreta, as well as in monitoring and following up the implementation of this plan.

We also hope that the claimants are sufficiently informed of all developments and effective participation is secured for all people in the affected areas. Most of all the claimants' role in these processes must be protected and expanded.

Thank you.

---

Return to Links to Claimants' Statements