Subject: Public Corrections to Bonaire Reporter, issue 10-10-08 - sewage project

Dear George,

I regret, as I did not get an answer from you on the misinterpretation in your last issue of Bonaire Reporter, I have to make a correction in this public way by my self.

Thanks for the comprehensive correction and laying out in your article the past events with time schedule in your last issue.

- The planned sewage collection system is not a energy efficient GRAVITY-system as UNESCO-IHE suggested it, it is an high energy-demanding (with high operation & maintenance costs) VACUUM-system, which is a big difference for the future payments by the future customers, in the long term.

- One thing I am very surprised about:
"...After investigation the Ombudsman found the charges to be without merit..."

May you share with me the source of this statement?

For your explanation, after only a preliminary analysis done by the Ombudsman, he handed ALL over to Anti-Fraud Office of EC (OLAF). The anti-corruption investigation unit of EC-HQ investigated the case than in detail. Please read text of his decision in detail more careful:
http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/031875.htm

Furthermore, when I had a visit by an OLAF-Investigation Officer back in 2004 in my home town in Germany, he told me, as the Complainant I would receive NORMALLY a short official message by OLAF about the final outcome of investigation made, without any specific details, e.g. a text like: "After investigation by OLAF found the charges to be without merit" or "After investigation by OLAF found the charges to be relevant".

Since 2004 I never received anything like that, despite several reminders send direct to head of OLAF. In my opinion this is a sign things have to be hidden, as OLAF is only a unit of EC-HQ not really independent of EC-HQ.

In the text of Ombudsman's decision you could read:
...
1.4 Upon a preliminary analysis, the Ombudsman is not convinced that the Commission has sufficiently dealt with all the issues raised by the complainant. For example, in his review of the Feasibility Study which was prepared in March 2003, the complainant took the view that notwithstanding the high cost of the project, it was envisaged that 82 % of the population of Kralendijk and the surrounding area would not be served and that approximately 636 m³ of untreated waste-water per day would still find their way to the sea. As far as the Ombudsman can see, the Commission does not seem to have provided a satisfactory reply to this point yet, either in its opinion or through the comments made by the consultant on the review prepared by the complainant to which the Commission referred in its opinion.
...

...Given that OLAF has decided to open an investigation into the issues raised by the complainant in his complaint, the Ombudsman takes the view that there are no grounds to pursue the present inquiry. ...

Ombudsman closed down investigation because OLAF has taken over, not because the case was "to be without merit".

I hope you can clarify this possible misunderstanding in public to, as it is as well a big difference if you say "...to be without merit..." or you say "...the Ombudsman is not convinced that the Commission has sufficiently dealt with all the issues raised..."

Thanks in advance,

All the Best

Detlef

Detlef,
Thank you again for all you information!
Looking at your profile...(excuse me please!) What were you doing in North Korea? Pretty impressive!

North Korea: For ECHO-Aid water-supply and sanitation project planning (proposal) for several villages. Always "supported" by an "interpreter";-)
Detlef

Well as I said Very impressive! Thanks again for all your posts and information!

Detlef.

I am sure that George & Laura would have been more than happy to address any misinterpretations in their publication.

George has told me that he has a rather zealous spam filter and as a consequence, some mail slips through.

Antony.........