3 Stupid World Bank Energy Projects
July 12th, 2008 | by blank89 |
Public Domain: Oil Pipeline
Description:
The Chad oil pipeline was originally designed to “generate revenues for Chad’s poverty reduction,” The project was approved and construction began. However, things quickly fell through with the Chad government and the World Bank as less and less money went to poverty reduction. The problem was settled, but not before a large amount of oil money went out the window.
Project Status:
Active/Completed
The Chad-Cameroon pipeline has been working since 2003. There was a brief period when the Chad government did not spend the money they were receiving for the oil responsibly, but the World Bank seems to have settled with them. The end result is that the people who needed the money the most didn’t get it. A very few top officials and projects got the money that was set aside to feed the people. According to the project web site, “The World Bank and the Government of Chad signed a memorandum of understanding on July 13, 2006 under which Chad has committed 70 percent of it’s 2007 budget spending to priority poverty reduction programs,”
2. West Africa Gas Pipeline
Description:
The recent corruption in the Nigeria presidential election has caused trouble for the project. The pipeline is likely to create even more conflict in an area that has little stability to begin with. This project doesn’t make sense environmentally either. One of the goals of the project is to provide environmentally friendly fuel, but the project has a category A environmental rating. This is a section of the world bank description of a category A rating:
“A Category A project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works,”
This rating system may even be deliberately misleading, as it is reverse of most rating systems.
Project Status:
Active
An investigation panel in 2007 concluded that “the panel believes that these important questions regarding
the Bank’s alleged failure to comply with its own policies and procedures and possible harm to the requesters can only be addressed in the context of a Panel investigation,”
The panel listed several discrepancies, including undocumented pollution.
3. India Coal Power Plants
Description:
This project was meant to help India meet energy needs. The project leaders claimed that this was the least expensive way to get energy to the poor working class. If the point is inexpensive energy, why not invest in solar power? Coal has to be purchased, and like oil it’s not going to stay inexpensive for very long. The World Bank cited studies showing that solar power would not produce as much energy. Independent studies showed that this was not true, but it’s especially not true if there is no money for coal in the near future.
This project also has an environmental category A rating.
Project Status:
Closed
For once, the bank made a good decision. Their conclusion: “project ratings convey unsatisfactory project outcomes, unlikely sustainability, and modest institutional development impacts,”
Sources:
http://www.enn.com/business/article/34296, http://www.bicusa.org/en/Institution.Projects.5.aspx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria
You must be logged in to post a comment.