New Accountability Mechanism Offers Smoother Way for Airing of Grievances

MANILA, PHILIPPINES (19 January 2004) - The path to development is seldom cut and dry or free from controversy. Families may have to be resettled or farmlands may be truncated for the sake of vital infrastructure, environmental conditions may change with the construction of dams, livelihoods may be interrupted, or disagreements over compensation may arise.

Realizing this, ADB tries to anticipate any troubles that may arise from its development projects, and applies strict social and environmental safeguards to its operations. But not all problems can be foreseen.

To address the concerns of people affected by ADB-assisted projects, ADB established a new Accountability Mechanism that became effective in December 2003.

"We are trying to further enhance our reputation as a very caring institution," says Nalin Samarasingha, Special Project Facilitator. "This is an attempt to do things better than we did in the past, and in a more efficient and transparent way."

The new mechanism replaced the Inspection Function established in 1995 to provide an independent forum to hear concerns of individuals about ADB's compliance with its policies and procedures in the context of specific projects, after efforts made in good faith with ADB's operational departments have been exhausted.

"The donor community and other stakeholders of the bank felt that the old mechanism was cumbersome, as far as the procedures were concerned. There were also concerns about insufficient transparency," Mr. Samarasingha adds.

In May 2003, after a participatory review of the Inspection Function that involved representatives of the public, private and nonprofit sectors, including many nongovernment organizations, the new mechanism was approved.

It consists of two complementary phases - a consultation phase and a compliance review phase - designed to be as independent and transparent as possible, to be more responsive to the concerns of project-affected people, and to further enhance ADB's development effectiveness.

Under the old mechanism, project-affected people had to first show that ADB had failed to follow its policies or procedures to some extent, before an inspection was undertaken. With the new procedure, people who are genuinely or materially affected by ADB-assisted projects can bring their grievances to ADB irrespective of whether it followed its policies and procedures or not.

The first step is the consultation phase, handled by Mr. Samarasingha, which is an informal, consensus-building manner of looking into grievances and trying to bring about some settlement.

If a settlement isn't reached or the complainants are not satisfied with the outcome of the consultation process, they can then bring the matter to the Compliance Review Panel whose job is to determine whether ADB complied with its policies and procedures in the process of implementing the project in question.

This phase works much like the old Inspection Function, but allows greater participation from the complainants by giving them the chance to respond to the panel's findings before the Board of Directors makes a decision on the case.

The new mechanism also has a broader scope. Unlike the old one, the new process covers not only public but private sector operations as well. It also does away with the condition that complaints can only be filed before 95% of the loan has been disbursed. Now, project-affected people can file a complaint until the day the project completion report is issued.

Aside from this, complaints no longer have to be submitted in English, but can now be made in any of the official languages of ADB-member countries.

"How long the process takes depends on the nature of the problem, the complexity of it, the location, and the language in which the proceedings have to take place," says Mr. Samarasingha.

"But sometimes, justice delayed is justice denied so we have to try our best to expedite the process and address the issues as quickly as possible."