This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor does it make any representation concerning the same.
Dr. Maartje Van Putten Dr. Ishrat Husain
OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKSHOP
To solicit the view and perspective of multiple stakeholders on the current Accountability Mechanism (AM) of Asian Development Bank (ADB) These views will serve as inputs into the broad based Review of AM that is being undertaken by two independent consultants under the overall guidance of a Working Group of the ADB Board and Management
History of the accountability mechanisms of Multilateral Financial Institutions (MFIs) The World Bank as the first Other MFIs
A new AM was approved by the ADB in May 2003. This AM consists of two separate but complementary functions: (i) a consultation phase consisting of a Special Project Facilitator (SPF) to resolve problems faced by the affected people in ADB assisted projects. (ii) a Compliance Review Phase consisting of a Panel (CRP) to investigate alleged violations of ADB’s operational policies and procedures that have resulted, or are likely to result in direct, adverse and material harm to project-affected people.
The AM covers both the public and private sector projects.
The SPF has so far received 27 complaints. Nine have been declared eligible for further processing while 17 cases were ineligible because the operational departments were not approached in 13 of these cases in the first instance. The CRP has received only three complaints since its inception. One of them has reached the final stage after five years of monitoring. The ADB Board and Management have decided that a review of the AM should be undertaken by two independent consultants. This multiple stakeholder consultation is an integral part of the review process in which feedback and suggestions for improvement are solicited.
ISSUES FOR SOLICITING FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
1. Do you think the 2003 Accountability Mechanism has been effective and adequate? What is your view on ADB’s approach to site visits? Should it be mandatory in the loan agreement? What issues, if any, do you have when bringing a case to ADB’s Compliance Review Panel? Do you think that the accountability mechanism is independent? Do you think that the mechanism is accessible to affected people? What do you think of the eligibility criteria for filing a complaint?
4. 5. 6.
What do you think of the effectiveness of the information dissemination and of level of awareness about the Accountability Mechanism? What do you think of the broader impact that the AM has had on ADB’s approach to project selection and decision making? How can ADB simplify and streamline the existing procedures? What do you think about building country’s own systems and processes to conform with those of ADB? What is your view of the cost implications of the mechanism for the borrowing countries? Do you have any other issues or suggestions or recommendations?
METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS
Web based solicitation of comments on the existing mechanism by the public at large and interested stakeholders. Literature survey and comparative study of the ADB’s AM with those of other multilateral and bilateral institutions, including visits and interaction with selected Panels. Consultation with the ADB staff at the headquarters and selected Resident Missions, Management and the Board of Directors. Evaluation of the progress made so far by the office of the Special Project Facilitator and the Compliance Review Panel.
Consultations with the representatives of the Government, Private Sector, Civil Society and NGOs, Academia in Colombo, Frankfurt, Jakarta, Manila, Tokyo and Washington by holding multi-stakeholder workshops and also individual meetings. Field visits to project sites and meetings with the affected people in Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka.
A Review Report by the independent experts to the Working Group of the ADB.
July 2010 Appointment of the Consultants and issuance of the TOR Background preparation by the Consultants Web based solicitation of comments August 2010 Consultations with the ADB Staff, Management and the Board Members at Manila. Interactions with the OSPF and OCRP Interaction with the NGO Forum on ADB Meetings with the officials of the Government of the Philippines September 2010 Issues paper for the Working Group Visit to Sri Lanka
October 2010 Visit to Tokyo November 2010 Visits to Washington, Frankfurt, Indonesia and the Philippines December 2010 Final Review Report submission