In particular, the project would have to comply with our policies, as set forth in Operational Directives, concerning the environment, resettlement and indigenous peoples. . . The studies requested by the World Bank were originally expected to be completed mid-1996 but this has since been extended to sometime in 1997. In early 1996, EGAT warned the government of Lao PDR that it would have to cancel its plans to buy electricity from Nam Theun 2 if the developers could not satisfy the World Bank's requirements within six months. Since the World Bank began advising the Nam Theun 2 proponents on preparation of resettlement and environmental management plans, proponents have begun to promote the project as a program for poverty alleviation. They sure as hell are not well off right now.
Malnutrition is evident. . .
These people don't understand what is meant by doctors and pharmacies. Many of these villages aren't even served by roads. The report is remarkable in its lack of detail about the resettlement plans which, from a local perspective, is likely to be the most important information. Rather the report appears to be a preview of the final justification for resettlement of communities out of the area, not as forced resettlement by hydropower developers, but as an opportunity to improve the lives of poverty-stricken people. Arguably, one of the functions of the World Bank advisors has been to assist the developers to defuse public criticism of the project in Thailand, Australia and the US, by developing a public relations spin which obscures the project's role in poverty creation and aims to build public support for the project.