SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) There is good
reason for the expectation that relevant international criteria
should be met before a proposal is agreed and cover sought
- it is a sign of political will, institutional capacity, developmental
commitment and good faith. The shotgun wedding approach to export
credit that we find in the case of the Ilisu Dam does not in our
view bode well for the implementation of commitments but is rather
the worst form of export credit practice (paragraph 11).
(b) The Ilisu Dam
was from the outset conceived and planned in contravention of
international standards, and it still does not comply. For that
reason cover should not be given (paragraph 11).
(c) We have no sense
that ECGD and the United Kingdom Government have at any point
seriously considered what repercussions the construction of the
Dam will have on the prospects for peace (and thus genuine sustainable
development) and the rights of the marginalised in this region
of Turkey (paragraph 13).
(d) We are astonished
that the Foreign Office did not raise any questions about the
proposed Ilisu Dam and its effect on the human rights of those
living in the region. The large-scale resettlement of a population,
many of whom may well question the very legitimacy of the Government
which moves them from their homes, must surely demand some detailed
analysis from the Foreign Office. We would expect comments on
the necessity of a genuinely transparent, free and fair consultation
process; discussion of the relation between the removal of communities
and drift to the towns on the one hand and on the other any conflict-related
tactics and military strategy of the parties to the conflict;
certainly an analysis of the human rights of the affected community
and the extent to which the building of the Dam could possible
infringe or affect them. We criticise the Foreign Office for failing
to raise these issues in detail with ECGD and DTI Ministers. More
generally, we recommend that the Foreign Office present an analysis
to ECGD of the human rights implications of every project for
which ECGD is considering cover (paragraph 15).
(e) ECGD should not
provide cover for any project which infringes the human rights
of workers, local populations or other affected persons. Furthermore,
for projects in areas where there is persistent human rights violation,
ECGD should consider whether such abuses render compliance with
other conditions (for instance, local consultation) impossible.
We recommend a clear commitment from ECGD to respect and protect
internationally agreed human rights in all its activity and for
the United Kingdom Government to press within the OECD for all
export credit agencies to agree a human rights policy (paragraph
17).
(f) We recommend
that all projects in countries eligible for official development
assistance which ECGD considers for support be referred to DFID
for an opinion on their developmental effect and consistency with
DFID's country strategy. It should not, however, be the case that
DFID simply becomes a rent-a-conscience for the rest of Whitehall.
ECGD itself should also have the expertise in house to assess
the developmental impacts of proposed projects and we recommend
that ECGD ensure that appropriate social, environmental and developmental
experts are employed for this purpose (paragraph 19).
(g) We recommend
that ECGD blacklist companies convicted of bribery or corruption,
at least those found on the World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms
(paragraph 21).
(h) If, once ECGD
cover has been granted, the company concerned is found guilty
of corruption or bribery, we recommend that cover be void immediately
(paragraph 22).
(i) We reiterate
our recommendation that development objectives be included in
the ECGD's Mission Statement (paragraph 25).
(j) The Government
has said that it is waiting for the revised Environmental Assessment
Report and the Resettlement Action Plan before deciding whether
its conditions have been met and cover can be granted for the
proposed Ilisu Dam. We do not, however, believe that fundamental
conditions met at the last minute, and only as a result of export
credit agency pressure, can be treated seriously. Cover for the
Ilisu Dam should not be granted. We join the Trade and Industry
Committee in urging the Government to provide time for a debate
in advance, rather than in the wake, of a Ministerial decision
on export credit (paragraph 26).
(k) The debate over
the Ilisu Dam has, however, provided a welcome opportunity to
consider how issues of development, human rights, conflict, corruption
and conditionality are handled by ECGD. In all these areas we
conclude that improvements must be made. We look forward to the
Review of ECGD's Mission and Status implementing our recommendations
(paragraph 27).
|
|
