Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2000
THE RT
HON RICHARD
CABORN, MR
VIVIAN BROWN
and MR JOHN
R WEISS
20. Many of these people only speak Kurdish.
(Mr Brown) He had with him a Kurdish interpreter who
was provided by the Turkish authorities.
Mr Robathan
21. I am sorry that this has not been raised
with your department, but I do think that if one is looking at
a holistic and joined-up government approach one must consider
it in the round, and I am very surprised that it has not been
raised in your department before. I do not know this area well
but I do know some of the aspirations of the Kurdish people. I
make no judgment one way or the other on the Kurdish demands for
separatism or whatever, in whatever country they may be, but there
are Kurds in this area. This is an area with 95 per cent of Kurdish
population; who believe that they are an occupied nation; that
they are a repressed minority who would wish to be free. Now in
this area a Government is introducing a very large dam with the
support of our Government, it appears. Mr Brown is talking about
the considerations. I just wonder if your department, which has
not had human rights raised before, understands the nature of
this conflict. For example, do you know how many people have been
killed on both sides, between the Turkish and the PKK sides in
the last five years?
(Mr Caborn) The answer to that is no, I do not.
22. I will tell you, it is a large number. It
makes whatever happens in Northern Ireland look like a street
brawl.
(Mr Caborn) May I say again, as a Government, I am
sure there is intelligence inside government which have been consulted
on this report. The terms of reference are very clearly laid down
which we asked this report to address. This has been circulated
around Whitehall and, as far as I am concerned, that question
has not been raised with us.
Chairman
23. Have you done a conflict impact assessment
of this project?
(Mr Caborn) No. We have not done a conflict impact
assessment but what we have tried to do is to be as open as possible
in that report. I said the terms of reference are in that report.
"We have consulted and examined how stakeholders have proceeded
... obviously by region ... and in what way groups and individuals
perceive themselves likely to be affected by the dam, both in
terms of negative impact and any likely benefits from resettlement.
In performing this service consultants will visit the area likely
to be affected, both villages with local populations which may
be involuntarily resettled and, if known, villages in the areas
where resettlement may occur. The Turkish Government is responsible
for the dam." Now I would have thought that would have been
worked out very clearly in this report.
24. Minister, in the Appendix A to the report,
to which you are referring, the terms of reference, no reference
is made to human rights or indeed to conflict issues. There are
serious conflict issues, not just domestically within Turkey but,
of course, neighbouring countries. You emphasised that it is simply
hydro-electric use and that no use of the water will be made for
irrigation, but I would suggest to you that although that may
be said to you now, what will happen in the future is something
which I do not think any of us can, in fact, assess. Since the
Tigris and Euphrates Valleys have been the source of a great deal
of human conflict, I would have thought the least you could ask
for is a conflict impact assessment, as this Committee has recommended.
(Mr Caborn) That is a point which has been made and
well taken. I will take that away and look at it. There are also
other countries involved and I will consult them to see whether
they have made any of those conflict impact assessments. The Swiss,
the United States, the Germans, and indeed a number of countries
are involved. I will make sure that if that information is available,
that it comes to your Committee.[5]
We have not done that. I say we have consulted around Whitehall
in the normal way. This is one of a number of projects that is
on-going. As I say, there are about 200 a year. I just want to
say again, in terms of all the evidence that we have, in terms
of the Tigris, there should be no disruption to the continued
flow of the water and the quality of that water. 50 per cent of
the Tigris comes below where the dam is going to be constructed,
if it is constructed, and we have made provision again in the
conditions that the quality of the water which flows through that
will be maintained.
ECGD has also confirmed with the US and Swiss
Export Credit Agencies (along with ECGD the most active in the
project) that neither has prepared any "conflict management"
document on this project. Export Credit Agencies do not normally
require such a document. We are however sensitive to the socio-economic
and cultural framework of the region and are seeking to address
issues of concern such as resettlement and water flow to downstream
states in our dialogue with the Turkish authorities.
Mr Robathan
25. In your consultations—and I am surprised
that you did not have more representations on human rights because
we have had a lot—did you discuss this with the World Bank
who, I understand, are not willing to support this.
(Mr Caborn) The ECGD are not there promoting schemes.
The ECGD there is a financial mechanism to assist, where it is
necessary to assist, British contractors. We do not go out selling
schemes. We have not got a bag of money where we go around saying,
"You do this scheme," or "Not that scheme".
People come to the ECGD and ask for support and insurance cover.
We would not approach the World Bank on this issue. This would
not be in the normal course of events. To the best of my knowledge,
the World Bank has not been approached on this particular scheme
by the Turks or anyone else. It would not be in the course of
ECGD business to consult the World Bank on this particular project.
Mr Worthington
26. Just for the record, how much money is involved
for Balfour Beatty and other United Kingdom contractors?
(Mr Caborn) $220 million on a scheme which is nigh
$2 billion. It is about 220 million.
27. This is the largest single firm involved?
(Mr Caborn) No, the Swiss are the largest. They are
the leaders of the project. We are not leading the project.
28. May I clarify this strange expression "minded".
The Secretary of State is "minded". Your expression,
however, is that he has not made his mind up. There is a bit of
a conflict. Would it not be accurate to say that the Secretary
of State has made his mind up, unless something pretty seismic
comes along?
(Mr Caborn) I want to give you a bit of Yorkshire
there, Mr Worthington. As far as I am concerned, no decision has
been made. We are waiting genuinely to see whether we can get
conditions which will actually answer the areas raised in this
report that we commissioned as a British Government. If they are
not met, then we will not go ahead with it. If they are met, then
obviously we will go ahead with it, but that is further down the
course. "Minded" is a fancy word. As far as I am concerned
it is very clear. Are we going to get answers to questions that
we have asked and are we satisfied, as a Government, that we can
actually deliver that? If we can, we will go ahead. If we cannot
get answers to those questions which are clear, precise and can
be carried out, we will not go ahead with it. That is what "minded"
means in my language.
29. If the Home Secretary has said he is "minded"
to return Pinochet, he has made his mind up.
(Mr Caborn) That is a question you will have to put
to the Home Secretary. I am telling you exactly my interpretation
of "minded", which came out in a press release that
came out from the DTI. I do not particularly want to comment.
30. "Minded". What Secretary of State
would come out with a statement in December, that he is "minded"
to agree something, unless he is pretty firmly agreed to it? The
implications of backtracking on a statement like that would be
pretty considerable.
(Mr Caborn) You could put all the interpretations
on it that you want. I am telling you, as far as I am concerned,
as the Minister, what my interpretation of "minded"
is. There are conditions which we have laid down which, to a large
extent, have been quantified in a report we commissioned. We have
internationally agreed broad standards, which I have read out
to the Committee, from OECD. This country, in which the dam is
to be built, is also a member of the OECD. They are the conditions
that we are looking for in that particular area, and in other
areas we have laid down clear criteria which we want to see met.
We have said that to our colleagues in the other countries who
are signatories to this agreement, through their Export Credit
Agencies, and we are now having those discussions. We will come
back and give this Committee—indeed, the House—the
answer to those questions and our decision.
31. May I turn to the World Bank. I would like
to follow this through on a Parliamentary Question I asked and
you replied to. I asked you what assessment you had made of the
Ilisu Dam project, on the guidelines from the World Bank, for
(a) ECGD and (b) developmental support. You said you are only
considering support for the Ilisu Dam. As this is not a developmental
project such support, if agreed, will not be conditional on compliance
with World Bank guidelines. So what the World Bank says on this—and
they have made it quite clear that this dam does not fit in with
their guidelines—does not matter to you?
(Mr Caborn) The point we are making is that the World
Bank guidelines were laid down for development. They were not
laid down for the commercial contract of ECGD. There is a difference
in that. Mr Weiss will add to it.
(Mr Weiss) The World Bank has not been asked by the
Turkish authorities to finance this project. It is not a developmental
project in that way. We have looked at the OECD guidelines on
resettlement as the benchmark to be used for deciding whether
or not, amongst all the other conditions that the Secretary of
State has specified, we should go ahead on this.
32. No work has been done on resettlement at
all?
(Mr Weiss) The Turkish authorities, accepting the
long delay that has occurred since 1982, have now appointed a
firm of independent consultants to advise them on the resettlement
process, and they have actually recently held meetings in the
locality with the local population to get their views on the resettlement
of the villages that are affected by the proposed reservoir. The
process has begun.
33. I cannot understand why, when the work has
not been done on resettlement, when the work has not been done
on environmental impact, when there has not been consultation
with other countries around, why the Secretary of State has come
up-front and said that he is "minded" to support the
project.
(Mr Caborn) That is because we had a report which
was commissioned independently. There are certain recommendations
to this report in section 8 of that report. We have taken those
very seriously indeed and what we are now trying to do is to meet
them. I accept all the criticism which has been made: that is,
that there has been no movement in these areas. We are saying
that these are conditions that we are laying down that have to
be met and indeed are confirmed, as I said in this particular
area, by what the OECD is saying. We believe that needs to be
moved forward. If we could get a satisfactory settlement of this—and
we can see sustainable regeneration in that area; we know from
the background that there is an energy deficit there; and dams
are going to be built or there is going to be some supply, is
it not better to engage with people in a meaningful way? If I
could digress a little, Chairman. I walk in Derbyshire a lot,
a lovely part of the country. A few weeks ago I was out there
and I was talking to some other people at the side of the Ladybower
Dam. It was Ashington village and the Derwent that went under
water in the early 1940s to produce a dam there called the Ladybower
Dam. There was great consternation at the time. Again, if you
are going to make progress, if you are going to close these deficits
of energy or water supply, there is a consequence to that. Do
you engage in a meaningful, objective and transparent debate or
do you walk away from this? What I am saying, on behalf of the
British Government—of a country that now has accession into
the European Union, who clearly are part of the OECD as well,
where there are certain standards laid down in these areas—we
ought to be getting into a constructive dialogue. If one can raise
standards and resolve some of the problems that you have referred
to, and your colleague, Mrs Clwyd, I would suggest that is the
right way forward. One can always look back in history and say
things should have happened. We are moving forward. What we want
to do is to try to assist Turkey in doing this in a more sustainable
way.
34. But the Secretary of State has made a statement
that he is "minded" to agree, not if conditions are
met, which is a word you used, but if they were addressed.
(Mr Caborn) I do not want to make a semantic play
but what we are looking for, and what we have laid down very clearly
in all the communications which have gone to the Turkish authorities,
and to our Parliament, and to those supplying export credit as
well, the broad standards laid down by the OECD in terms of their
resettlement—and I have read them out—ought to be
the benchmark by which any of this is judged against. The second
thing is that it is properly implemented and people also have
confidence that this will be implemented. The Turkish authorities
are certainly taking this resettlement issue very seriously indeed.
Chairman
35. When you say that, Minister, "certainly
taking it very seriously indeed", nothing has been planned
so far; nothing has been done so far; and we are talking about
the removal of between 16 and 20,000, according to your reports,
but according to Kurdish reports 60,000 or more. Now, nothing
has been done. Come on, you cannot enter into a dam, when you
have made no assessment as to what is going to be the settlement
of the people who have been removed from their homes and historic
and traditional lifestyle, can you?
(Mr Caborn) May I raise one point with you. When I
read this report, and when you look at the detail of previous
resettlements, it has been done, in my view, in a way that is
totally acceptable; but the end product is that those who sue
the Turkish authorities, albeit two or three years down the road,
have been successful in compensation. So what you have is an unacceptable
position where you dislocate people. They tend to go into the
major cities, sometimes with money that they cannot handle, and
a level of money that clearly does not match the level of compensation.
Then you get a suing of the Turkish authorities, which has happened.
In the vast majority of cases it has been upheld and, therefore,
they have got further money. Now that is the most unsustainable
way. If the project itself is right, and that is the debate, but
the methodology which is then applied is not very good, what we
are saying to the authorities is to relook at it because on every
other count they have been taken to court on compensation and,
by and large, they have won. To the Turkish authorities that is
not a particularly good way of doing business either. We are raising
this with them.
Mr Worthington
36. May I raise just one question, again from
a question which I asked you. There is a UN Convention on the
non-navigational uses of trans-boundary waterways. There is a
UN Convention on that, which obviously is talking about the relationship
with neighbouring states. We are a signatory to that. Your reply
is that the assessment of such compliance is a matter which will
need to be addressed. That means it has not been addressed so
far, does it not?
(Mr Caborn) To the best of my knowledge the answer
to that is no, it has not, but I do not know whether my officials
have any further information on that specific area, that specific
Treaty to which you refer.
37. It is important, is it not, if we sign a
Treaty, a UN Convention, that when we are considering waterways
which go across boundaries we should take those into account.
(Mr Caborn) We are talking navigational, not quality
of water now, are we?
38. We are talking about the impact of this
dam which has an impact, not just for Turkey, but for Syria and
other countries as well.
(Mr Caborn) May I get the question absolutely precise.
Mr Worthington is referring to the navigational.
Mr Worthington: No, I am not. It is the
UN Convention on the non-navigational uses of trans-boundary waterways.
Chairman
39. In addition, Minister, there is a Treaty
signed between Turkey and Iraq, which says that in all uses of
the Euphrates water there would be consultation between the two
countries, and no such consultation has taken place. Is that not
true?
(Mr Caborn) In that case then, the two conditions
which we have laid down very clearly of the four conditions—which
are water quality, waste water treatment plant for the upstream
towns and the water flow downstream, particularly during an impoundment—these
will be two of the areas which we will want to have satisfaction
on before we come to a final decision. I would suggest, Mr Worthington,
that the Treaty which you referred to would then be factored into
that discussion, particularly about the water flow downstream.
That, and indeed other issues, will be raised there and on which
we will have to be satisfied.
5 Note by witness: Conflict Impact Assessment: We
have discussed with DFID and they have advised that, while there
are a number of different methodologies, there is as yet no universally
accepted tool for Conflict Impact Assessment. DFID is in the process
of defining such a methodology for incorporation in DFID's programme
planning. Back
|
