Catalog

Rhetoric Must Match Action
ADB Review [ June-July 2006 ]

NGO recommends ADB should open up to external forms of accountability

By Mishka Zaman
Program Manager, Asia Program
Bank Information Center

Many nongovernment organizations (NGOs) argue that the Asian Development Bank is deficient in both accountability and transparency.

REMEDIAL ACTION Slow progress in the Chashma project has frustrated villagers

For years, ADB watchers have been pushing it to establish mechanisms for compliance and to ensure accountability for results on the ground.

By pushing for “downward” accountability, these groups make the point that ADB must be answerable to the people in whose name it operates, namely Asia’s poorest. However, in too many instances, affected people have no means of redress.

ADB has recently taken steps to improve its accountability with the creation of entities such as the Accountability Mechanism, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED), and with the approval of an improved disclosure policy. These are steps in the right direction.

However, the success of these can be judged only by the tangible benefits delivered to communities who suffer the negative consequences of ADB investments.

An audit determining benefits delivered and grievances addressed has yet to be carried out by ADB or by NGOs on a noteworthy scale—perhaps ADB’s 2007 review of the Accountability Mechanism would be a good time to take stock of ADB’s attempts to correct some of the wrongs of its previous lending.

What is known is that too many OED recommendations have not been acted upon by operations departments—the 2005 Annual Report of the Development Effectiveness Committee recommends “a system be established for monitoring... actions on OED’s recommendations.” This begs the question: what prevented ADB from establishing such a mechanism in the first place?

Meanwhile, operations departments are struggling to bring inspection cases such as the Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project in Pakistan and the Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka into compliance with remedial actions approved by ADB’s Board of Directors. Slow progress in the Chashma case has frustrated villagers to the extent that they have “abandoned to seek any remedy from ADB,” while inspection claimants in Sri Lanka “complain of being singled out for discriminatory treatment by the authorities.”

Top

Time for Change

Granted, these are complex issues, but the time has come for decision makers at ADB to demonstrate leadership. Accountability mechanisms, be they internal or independent, will not amount to much unless there is some bite to them.

Should ADB continue to lend to Country A that is not cooperating in bringing a project into compliance with ADB policies? Should staff responsible for planning and implementing problematic projects be rewarded with promotions?

If ADB remains focused on increasing its lending envelope without addressing the negative fallout of its operations, it will not be true to its poverty reduction mission.

Like any bureaucracy, self policing is difficult for ADB. Thus, it should open up to external forms of accountability, ranging from appropriate forms of parliamentary oversight, issue-based tribunals of eminent persons, and project-level citizens’ committees.

As a public institution committed to “improving the welfare of the people in Asia and the Pacific,” ADB must be accountable to these people and its rhetoric must match its actions on the ground.

Go back to current issue

Email this to a friend