Home 
Publications Catalog Online Publications ADB Review Article
Getting It Right
|
In May 2003, the Asian Development Bank, striving to do things better than in the past, replaced its Inspection Function with the Accountability Mechanism. A review of the Inspection Function had revealed that it was not sufficiently transparent, that it was slow and cumbersome, and that it was difficult for project beneficiaries to access.
The new mechanism has two separate but related functions—consultation and compliance review—which provide for problem-solving and for investigating alleged violations of ADB’s policies and procedures (see chart).
People who are directly, materially, and adversely affected by an ADB-assisted project in the course of its formulation, processing, or implementation can file a complaint with the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF), headed by the Special Project Facilitator (SPF) (www.adb.org/spf).
This initiates the mechanism’s consultation function, the goal of which is to seek agreement among all parties involved on solutions to problems identified in the complaint. Those who believe they have been adversely affected by an ADB-assisted project can use the consultation process regardless of whether ADB’s operational policies and procedures are violated.
After determining whether a complaint is eligible for consultation, OSPF provides a venue and process for problem solving that can include fact-finding reviews, meetings, roundtable discussions, stakeholder consultations, and other means appropriate to the situation. The SPF is responsible for monitoring and reporting implementation of any agreement.
The SPF reports directly to the ADB President. The SPF’s functions do not replace the project administration and problem-solving functions of ADB’s operations departments and will not interfere in the internal matters of a developing member country.
Only two requests for inspection under the former inspection policy have made it through the system in about 8 years. Since it started its work in December 2003, OSPF has received five complaints: Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) in Nepal on 3 May 2004, Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) in Sri Lanka on 9 June 2004, Sixth Road Project in the Philippines on 27 September 2004, Community Empowerment for Rural Development Project (CERDP) in Indonesia on 21 February 2005, and Khulna-Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project (KJDRP) in Bangladesh on 4 January 2006.
Complaints are about access to information, community participation, land acquisition, compensation and resettlement, agricultural issues, and, in one case, about village infrastructure.
Project-affected people are at the core of the consultation phase. They often belong to the most vulnerable groups and live in remote areas
The Sixth Road Project was not eligible because the complainants had not tried to solve their grievances with the ADB’s operations department first. The KJDRP was ineligible because a project completion report had already been issued. The review and assessment of MWSP was completed in 2004. The SPF arranged with the executing agency to attend to the complainants’ grievances; however, they withdrew from the consultation phase and filed for compliance review in October 2004. The SPF then closed the consultation phase.
After review, assessment, and agreement on a course of action, STDP underwent an intensive phase of conflict resolution and problem solving with an independent international facilitator in 2005 who subsequently considered a mediated settlement of the dispute unlikely.
The facilitator concluded the proceedings on 24 January 2005 with OSPF following suit on 1 February 2005. The complainants also filed for compliance review as allowed under the Accountability Mechanism.
CERDP went through the eight steps of the consultation phase, concluding with village agreements (see Finding a Voice). The CERDP complaint shows that all parties must be willing to solve the perceived problems and to act in good faith. Only then is it possible to settle disputes.
Successful complaint resolution is also aided if complaints are confined to relevant matters. Experience with the application of the new policy has also shown that its aspects may need to be reviewed, such as application to cofinanced projects.
Project-affected people are at the core of the consultation phase. They often belong to the most vulnerable groups and live in remote areas. Reaching out to those people remains OSPF’s biggest challenge. Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) can help bridge the gap by making the consultation phase known to stakeholders who are without access to the internet or to written information.
In 2005, OSPF developed an illustrated field guide to improve project-affected people’s access to the consultation phase. In 2 years, 46 orientation sessions were held in Manila, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Mekong, and Central Asia.
Within its mandate of providing generic advice to ADB’s operations departments, OSPF also conducts feedback sessions on lessons learned. It has developed a checklist to identify potentially complaint-prone projects, and a collection of articles based on best practices in operations departments. With operations departments’ staff acting swiftly and constructively on solving problems, the OSPF should have less work in the long run.
The compliance review phase is an investigative process that determines whether ADB has violated any of its operational policies and procedures in the course of formulating, processing, or implementing the ADB-assisted project.
Project-affected people who are, or are likely to be, directly affected materially and adversely by an ADB-assisted project, and claim that the harm is the result of an act or omission of ADB to follow its operational policies and procedures, can file a request for compliance review. An ADB Board member can, in special cases, also file a request.
The investigation is done by the Compliance Review Panel (CRP) that reports directly to the ADB Board of Directors. In two instances, the CRP reports to the Board Compliance Review Committee—a standing committee of six Board members—to clear its terms of reference for a compliance review and to review its draft monitoring reports. The CRP members are Augustinus Rumansara (also chair), Richard Bissell, and Vitus Fernando; the CRP is supported by a secretariat, the Office of the Compliance Review Panel. The CRP recommends to the Board project-specific remedial actions to bring the project back into compliance, as well as general remedial actions to improve development effectiveness. The Panel also monitors ADB Management’s implementation of the Board-approved remedial actions.
Two complaints—the STDP in Sri Lanka and the MWSP in Nepal—have proceeded for compliance review. The STDP was found eligible for compliance review and the MWSP was determined ineligible. In 2004, the Board mandated the CRP to monitor the implementation of remedial actions on the Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project (Stage III) in Pakistan—a project that was investigated under the previous ADB Inspection Function. The Panel has carried out outreach activities covering a wideranging audience including ADB personnel in ADB headquarters and country offices; civil society, including NGOs; government officials; private sector; and academe and students.
The STDP consists of a 128-kilometer highway component and a road safety component, with funding mainly from ADB and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.
In December 2004, the CRP received a request for compliance review from the Joint Organization of the Affected Communities on the Colombo-Matara Highway representing 25 requesters living in the project area. The requesters claimed that the ADB President’s Report and Recommendation to the Board of Directors for the STDP was for a trace known as the Combined Trace (CT). The requesters claimed that at least 40% of the CT had been altered to another trace—the Final Trace—for which the required studies and consultationshad not been done according to ADB policies. The requesters claimed to be suffering from harm as a result of noncompliance by ADB of its operational policies and procedures under the project as follows: loss of homes, loss of livelihoods, damage to the environment, degradation to wetlands, dispersion of integrated communities, damage to five temples, negative effects of resettlement, and human rights violations. The ADB Board authorized investigation after the CRP found the request eligible.
The CRP’s Draft Report was issued to both the requesters and ADB Management for comments, before CRP issued its Final Report. The STDP was found by CRP to have lapses of compliance with the following ADB operational policies and procedures: environmental considerations in ADB operations, gender and development in ADB operations, benefit monitoring and evaluation, formulation and implementation of loan covenants, incorporation of social dimensions in ADB operations, involuntary resettlement, and project administration instructions on change in project scope or implementation arrangements.
The Board approved the project-specific and general recommendations in the CRP’s Final Report in July 2005, and the CRP is presently monitoring ADB Management’s course of action on the implementation of the remedial actions.
Information on the CRP, including its outreach and reports, are on its website at http://compliance.adb.org
Go back to current issue
© 2008 Asian Development Bank Privacy | Terms of Use |
 Top of page |