Kenya;the Sondu-Miriu Hydroepower Project


The Question of the Representative
and The Written answer by the Cabinet



Also see "the Question of Mr.Sutou"(July 31,2001)

　

Question No. 151-130.

JULY 17, 2001.

The SONDU MIRIU HYDROPOWER PLANT PROJECT

IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA.

Answered by:

Mr. Koizumi, Junichirou, the Prime Minister of Japan.

Answered to:

Mr. Watanuki, Tamisuke, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Initial Sender of the Question:

Mr. Hosaka, Nobuto, the House of Representative.

Q1(1)

Provide precise details of the content of an inspection, agreed in advance, of the Project which cost 6.6 billion yen.

A1(1)

The Sondu-Miriu Hydropower Plant Project (the Project) makes up part of the "Multipurpose Development of the Soudu River Project" drawn up by the Kenyan Government in 1985, and is considered to have priority over other projects in terms of expense allocation and construction work. After sealing an Official Development Assistance (ODA) contract worth 6.68 billion yen in June 1989, Japan Koei Corp. received an order in October of that year to inspect part of the Project using 6.66 billion yen of the ODA for the Project. The Project inspection examined the following specific elements:

1. Ability to complete the Project

2. Review of validity and effectiveness of the investment as well as of the enforcement of the Assessment of the Impact on the Environment

3. Project facility design and construction methods

4. Review of construction work costs forecasted time to complete the Project

Q1(2)

Provide details of Phase I of the Project costing 6.933 billion yen.

A1(2)

The maintenance engineering works, including an intake facility, headrace tunnel, and access roads, for which the ODA of 4,425,000,000 yen is used. After international bids for the maintenance of engineering works were solicited, the corporations of Kounoike Group Co, Videkke and Murray & Roberts were invited to do the work. Japan Kouei Co. Ltd. was assigned a consultancy role, was requested an order for it. 1.876 billion yen is being used as the ODA for consulting.

Q 1(3)

The costs of relocating two elementary schools was 0.42 billion yen and of installing bells to mark the start of lessons cost 9.50 million yen. Although it was agreed that the Japanese Government had no responsibility for the relocation costs, will the Kenyan Government ask Japan to meet these costs?

A 1(3)

None these expenses are covered by the original terms of the ODA agreement. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation asked the Kenya Electricity Generating Company, KenGen, about the issue of electricity and water supply, and bells of two elementary schools. They provided the following information in their answer:

The Project can use the existing supply routes that go to the elementary schools. The Kenyan Government has already dug wells so there is already a supply of water. Bells were in use even before the relocation of the schools.

Q 2(1)

Last February, a Japanese journalist was arrested and was thereby severely restricted in his movements when attending a meeting with local residents as research for an article. Did the Japanese Embassy complain about this? What was the content of their complaint and how did the Kenyan Government respond?

A 2(1)

The meeting was held in Upper Nyakach county in Nyando prefecture, Nyanza state without the permission of the major of Nyanza state. The Japanese Embassy in Kenya has asked for details about the circumstances of the arrest. On March 6th, we submitted a note signed by the chief of the Japanese Embassy

’

s Public Relations and Information Centre to Upper Nyakach county mayor enquiring about the circumstances of and reasons for the journalist

’

s arrests. We mentioned that this incident might cause people to incorrectly conclude that the Kenyan Government had illegally interfered with the independent collection of data. At the time of writing no reply to the note has been received. This is in spite of a subsequent reminder to the Kenyan Government to answer the enquiry.

Q 2(2)

Lots of problems caused by the Project have arisen. Does the Japanese Embassy adequately gather this information? Does the Embassy handle these problems properly? Also, Ambassador Aoki is said to have made some comments about discussions held in the Diet and the activities of NGOs. What did he say on these subjects? What were his intentions?

A 2(2)

The Japanese Embassy cooperates with the Nairobi office of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation in gathering information related to the Project and comments on the validity of reported news. The Embassy also reports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and makes appeals to the Kenyan Government. Current and recent activities of Ambassador Aoki are as follows:

  1. Requested prompt and sincere environmental and social measures by the Kenyan Government

  2. Requested that more people, including NGOs and local residents, be involved in local meetings and meetings of the Technical Committee, so that a wide range of opinions are aired.

  3. Requested a high level of security against intimidation and the elimination of human rights violations in order for NGOs and local residents to be freely express whatever opinions they have about the Project.

Ambassador Aoki introduced arguments that had been raised in Japan about the Project and introduced related documents including minutes relevant Diet sessions. He also explains details of requests made by the Japanese embassy in Kenya to the Kenyan Government regarding environmental and social problems. Ambassador Aoki is working to persuade Kenya to take appropriate measures on these issues, based on Japanese Government policy guidelines.

Q 3

In general, ODA projects could involve a variety of problems in terms of the environment, human rights and corruption. Clearly describe the Ministry of Foreign Affairs position on the idea of an objective system of inspection and assessment carried out by a third party and how findings can be made openly available to the public. Additionally, do you think that, like a Holland-funded project, it is necessary to have a team of independent environmental experts rather than a team organised and sent by the Government?

A 3

We believe that it is important to assess the ODA impartially and objectively in order to provide effective and efficient enforcement of the ODA

’

s aims, improvement of quality and to accurately relay the circumstances and results of the ODA to the public. We have backed some research on the assessment of the ODA by well informed individuals, consultants, international experts and NGOs. The ratio of research by third parties to involved parties has been increasing year by year. We are determined to continue to facilitate impartial and objective assessment by third parties.

Q4

According to the results of the overseas inspection quoted in answers given by the Japanese Government, the importance of the Odino Waterfall has not been recognised from either cultural or religious viewpoints. However, we conducted some of our own research about the Odino Waterfall and found out that the Odino Waterfall is regarded as "a sacred waterfall where people gather together and is believed to be a site of cultural heritage, religious significance and life-extending properties." Explain clearly when and how local inspections were carried out by the Japanese Government and through whom the results of these inspections were received.

A4

We are not sure how the inspections were carried out. In February 2001 the Socio-Environment Examination Committee from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation held hearings with local residents. Additionally, in June 2001 a section chief from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sent to the location of the Project in Kenya and carried out a site inspection which included hearings with local residents. None of the local residents present mentioned that the Odino Waterfall was a special heritage site of cultural and religious significance.