Global Accountability Report 2007: A Green Wash for the ADB
By Hemantha Withanage, NGO Forum on ADB

The Global Accountability Report 2007 published by the UK-based One World Trust (OWT) is a green wash for the Asian Development Bank which is responsible for many social and environmental disasters in Asia and the Pacific region.

Among 30 organizations assessed in the so-called report, OWT gives the ADB 100 percent score for transparency score to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Among the transparency good practice principles, the ADB was given a perfect score in terms of responsiveness to all information requests and justification for rejection of some; timeliness in responding to such requests; narrow conditions for non-disclosure; and appeal mechanisms. The Bank also received 86 percent for having a civil society engagement policy. It was also given 81 percent for its overall accountability which is second to the UNDP, the latter being given 88 percent.

These figures are highly questionable. It gives an absolutely erroneous picture of ADB’s accountability and transparency. NGO Forum, which has been engaging in ADB monitoring since 1992, challenges the credibility of this report for giving such a high ranking to the ADB.

The inconvenient truth with ADB’s business is that, local affected communities have been struggling to achieve justice in the past 40 years for the destructive impacts of the Bank’s policies and the projects. And yet, One World Trust has managed to come up with such a report which is a direct insult to the long struggle of those communities.

Limited transparency

The ADB Public Communication Policy (PCP) has not been established overnight. Many civil society groups, including NGO Forum, have made this possible through their struggles and continuous lobbying. However, our experience from our day-to-day engagement with the Bank and the lack of implementation of the PCP clearly show that the ADB is not as fully transparent in practice, a stark contrast to what is written in the Global Accountability Report.

The ADB PCP itself states that “Full disclosure is not always possible for legal and practical reasons. For example, ADB needs to explore ideas, share information, hold frank discussions internally and with its members, and consider the special requirements of its private sector operations. ADB shall safeguard the privacy of its staff and protect nonpublic business information of itself, private sector sponsors, and clients.”[1]

Among many other information mentioned in its policy, page 22 and 23, section 104 of the Strategy states, “ADB shall not make private sector legal agreements entered into by ADB, or amendments to such agreements, publicly available.”

With regard to the Corruption Policy, section 100 states that, “ADB may share the results of investigations, including identities of the subjects of investigations and names of parties debarred, with governments of ADB member countries.” This means that the ADB has limited transparency in its policy.

In many occasions, the ADB uses said provisions to refrain from releasing vital information about a certain project. Most recent cases include the Lafarge Cement Company mining in the Meghalaya and Phulbari Coal mining in Bangladesh. The ADB has denied the request of local communities and CSOs’ request for a copy of its legal agreement with the LaFarge Surma in accordance with the PCP.

In another occasion, the ADB Resident Mission denied the request of the Azerbaijan-based Oil Workers Rights Protection Organization for a copy of the summary initial environmental examination (SIEE) in Azeri Language for the Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Project. The ADB Resident Mission wrote, “English is the only official working language of the Asian Development Bank, and we can not provide your the requested document in Azeri or Russian language.” This is not true and totally contradicts what is written in the PCP.

Hence, while the PCP is one of the best policies available for public disclosure, it doesn’t provide 100 percent transparency.

Stalemate accountability

The ADB Accountability Mechanism has been a product of the hard work of many groups, including civil society organizations. However, it only holds the Bank internally accountable. It does not go beyond that. The ADB has no legal accountability for the negative impacts its funded projects bring since it has immunity from national laws.

Therefore, the new Accountability Mechanism is only a “window dressing.” It does not really protect the local people from being adversely affected by its projects. For example, while the Compliance Review Panel has found many violations of ADB’s policies in the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) in Sri Lanka as it has stated in its 2005 report, the ADB management has not yet settled the problem on the ground and implemented the 17 recommendations of the CRP. One bureaucratic hurdle in the STDP is lack of coordination between its major co-financers – ADB and JBIC – and the Government of Sri Lanka. Though the CRP has done its best to bring up the irregularities in the STDP to the ADB Board of Directors, it has not served its primary purpose of solving the problems surrounding the STDP.

There is a similar tug-of-war in the case of the Chasma Right Bank Irrigation Project (CRBIP) in Pakistan. Affected people have made it harder for the CRP and the local authorities by not participating in the process and by not paying irrigation taxes to the Pakistani Government. Perhaps, they believe that such could be better alternative ways to ADB’s Accountability Mechanism in achieving justice.

“It is unfortunate that ADB’s Accountability Mechanism has become a jailbird of bureaucracy. Project compliance has become the duty of the CRP instead of all parties. How long will CRP policing among co-financers, executing agency and the ADB management continue?”[2]

Within the two arms of the Accountability Mechanism, the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) believes that they are in the best position for dispute resolution. However, the OSPF has failed to meet such expectations based on its previous handling of complaints that have clearly shown its bias towards the ADB. On the other hand, although the CRP has produced good reports and recommendations, such have been unpromising because of its failure to effectively enforce them.

The ADB needs to end its poor legacy if they are really committed to its accountability. It has been a known fact that the OSPF only settled a case in Indonesia out of the 17 complaints they have received. They use the silly eligibility process to keep their gates closed for local communities’ complaints as well as from reaching the CRP. In this respect, the Global Accountability Report is quite contrary to ADB’s own experience.

On greater accountability, the ADB does not have a clean track record. ADB’s development projects have displaced over 1.77 million people in the last decade. 25,000 people living in 26 villages around Khulna Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project in Bangladesh are under water for more than nine months a year. Apart from other physical and social damages, at least eight people have died in STDP due to construction-related accidents. One Vietnam highway project displaced 86,000 people, although the original plan was to only remove only 6,000 people. To date, the Mae Moh Coal Power Plant has already killed at least 600 people.

In addition, the ADB is planning to support the Phulbari Coal Mining Project in Bangladesh which will be implemented by the UK-based Asian Energy. The project will displace more than 100,000 people. When the people have opposed the project, the police came to the rescue, killing at least four people. Worse, the ADB has been keeping relevant documents from local communities and CSOs citing the provisions in the PCP which does not provide access to certain private sector project-related document.

Never judge the ADB by its paper work

One should not purely rely on good reports that usually serve as green wash for an institution’s wrong doings, such as the ADB. Local communities who have been struggling against the problems that the ADB has brought them know the truth behind the glossy reports of the ADB.

One World Trust’s Global Accountability Report 2007 has only been a product of a desk study on ADB’s policy. The score on transparency and accountability that it has given the Bank clearly show it and are highly questionable. It is wrong to assess an institution, such as the ADB, which has been involved in thousands of projects, by simply reading its documents. As mentioned above, the policy itself identifies ADB’s limitation to make itself fully transparent. Hence, the ADB cannot receive a perfect score unless there is an error in OWT’s methodology, or worse, due to some hidden agenda.

No one has the capability to judge ADB’s transparency and accountability without looking into its practice. On the other hand, issues highlighted above show that ADB’s transparency and accountability policies have no direct impacts on the project-affected people. In my experience, affected people are not interested about ADB’s paper work but in achieving justice instead. Therefore, giving the ADB a high score on its accountability is a total betrayal of their continuing struggle.

The report has only referred to ADB policies and internal reports. It has not looked into other documents. Considering other reports, such as the Operations Evaluations Department’s (OED) special evaluation studies, one could easily see that OWT’s findings are not true.  

Likewise, though the report looks into the transparency and accountability of other development organizations and aid agencies, OWT’s own process has not been transparent. They have neither consulted people, who are continuously suffering due to development projects, and the numerous CSOs working on and monitoring the ADB.

According to many unimpeachable sources, the ADB president has been making decisions without respecting the Bank’s Board of Directors. The president’s continuous involvement in the selection of the members of the CRP and the OED has curtailed the independence of these divisions. ADB’s score for its transparency and accountability is a complete mockery given the present non-transparent hiring process.

In recent times, ADB’s consultation and participation process have been gravely mishandled by its own staff. The consultations on the Energy Strategy Review, Long-Term Strategic Framework, and Aid for Trade that were held this year has not been satisfactory. In most cases, the ADB has already made up its mind on how a policy will look like even before the conduct of the consultation. Civil society’s participation has been purely a rubber stamping; but in essence, effective public participation has been absent all along.

There are millions of people out in Asia and the Pacific region who continuously struggle because of the destructive impacts of ADB-funded project and policies. They have been long struggling to attain justice, transparency, accountability and good governance. One should have these facts before listening to a non-conclusive report that clearly provides a green wash for the environmental degradation and social rights violations brought by ADB’s development intervention.

Endnotes

1 Asian Development Bank. “The Public Communications Policy of the Asian Development Bank Disclosure and Exchange of Information.” Sec. 35, Manila, March 2005.

2 Hemantha Withanage. “Accountability Mechanism: A Jailbird of Bureaucracy.” 2006.