Accountability Mechanism
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT FACILITATOR | COMPLIANCE REVIEW PANEL | RELATED DOCUMENTS
 

Policy Highlights

The old Inspection Function was replaced by the ADB's new Accountability Mechanism in May 2003 to address the concerns of people affected by ADB-assisted projects about violations of ADB's operational policies and procedures.

According to the ADB, "The principles in establishing the ADB Accountability Mechanism include enhancing ADB's development effectiveness and project quality, being responsive to the concerns of project-affected people and fair to all stakeholders, and being independent and transparent."

The Accountability Mechanism consists of two separate inter-related functions which are called:

    (i) consultation phase; and
    (ii) compliance review phase.

The consultation phase assists project-affected people with specific problems caused by ADB-assisted projects through consensus-based methods with the consent and participation of all parties concerned. The Special Project Facilitator (SPF) is responsible for this phase. The SPF is independent of operations departments which formulate, process and implement projects, and reports directly to the President.( ADB website)

The compliance review phase establishes ADB's accountability in its operations. It provides a forum in which project-affected people (and in special circumstances, any Board member) can file requests for compliance review. The Compliance Review Panel (CRP) is responsible for this phase. It investigates alleged violations by the ADB of its operational policies and procedures in any its assisted project that directly, materially, and adversely affects people in project formulation, processing, or implementation. The CRP is independent of the ADB Management, and reports directly to the Board on all activities, except on specific activities where it reports to the Board Compliance Review Committee. (ADB website)

Who can file a complaint?

    ▪ Any group of two or more people in the country where the ADB-assisted project is located or in an
      adjacent member country. This can be an organization, association, society or other group of individuals.
    ▪ A local representative appointed by people adversely affected by a project.
    ▪ A non-local representative, in exceptional cases where local representation cannot be found and the
      Special Project Facilitator agrees; and in the case of a request, the Compliance Review Panel agrees.
    ▪ Any Board member can in special cases file a request relating to ongoing projects.

For more information, please visit www.compliance.adb.org
 

Rationale for the Mechanism

   ▪ Encourage transparency and accountabily in the ADB operations
   ▪ Compelement the ADB's policy of allowing greater public access to ADB documents and publications
   ▪ Complement ADB's increased emphasis on beneficiary participation in project planning and
      implementation
   ▪ Help educate the public on issues in development programs in ADB developing member countries (DMCs)
 

Experience to Date

The OLD INSPECTION FUNCTION entails a complicated, cumbersome process that is intimidating for lay people. The Bank requires claims and communications to be conducted in english, which prevents many affected people from being able to engage in the process. It also requires citation and analysis of non-compliance with ADB policies. Moreover, there is no permanent Inspection Panel. Inspection requests are handled by the Board Inspection Committee, consisted by the ADB Board members. The ADB Board members' dual function on the Board and the Inspection Committee compromises the independence of the process.

The claimant of the three inspection cases, which involved KORANGI WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROJECT in Pakistan, SAMUT PRAKARN WASTE WATER PROJECT in Thailand, and SOUTHERN TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(STDP) in Sri Lanka were not happy with how the inspection committee handled their claims.

The recent CHASMA RIGHT BANK IRRIGATION PROJECT in Pakistan was also treated under the OLD Inspection Function. However, monitoring has been conducted by the Compliance Review Panel which was established under the new Accountability Mechanism.

Read Chasma Inspection Panel Report.
 

History

The ADB’s Inspection Policy was approved in December 1995 and became effective in October 1996. The policy has been reviewed since September 1998; completion of review process was scheduled in late 2002.

In March 2002, FORUM and several NGOs, including BIC, submitted comments on the Inspection Policy entitled, “Strengthening Public Accountability.” The analysis evaluated the ADB Inspection Function based on the experience of the Samut Prakarn case and the new inspection requests, as well as experiences from other multilateral development banks (MDBs).

In order to strengthen the Inspection Function, the following main changes were recommended:

    ▪ establish a permanent Inspection Panel and abolish the Board Inspection Committee;
    ▪ create a shorter, user-friendly Inspection Process, which assists claimants rather than places the burden
       on them; and
    ▪ ensure the implementation of remedial measures authorized by the Board.

At the ADB Annual Meeting in Shanghai in May 2002, BIC and FORUM will co-organize a seminar on ADB’s Inspection Policy and “Lessons learned from the Samut Prakarn test case”.

ADB received its first Inspection Request in 1997 concerning the Korangi Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pakistan. The Bank rejected this Request, however, claiming that it did not meet the eligibility requirements (i.e. the need to cite ADB policy violations) as determined by the Inspection Policy.

The first Inspection case to be accepted in July 2001 -- the Samut Prakarn Wastewater Management Project in Thailand -- was characterized by a lengthy bureaucratic process, problems related to the lack of a permanent Inspection Panel, and ADB’s inability to ensure the Inspection Panel’s visit to the project site. In February 2002, the Bank’s Inspection Committee report concluded that the Bank did not comply with its own policies -- on supplementary financing of cost overruns, operational missions, involuntary resettlement, incorporation of social dimensions, and benefit monitoring and evaluation – and that “a relevant group has suffered direct and material harm” as a result.

Despite these conclusions, however, recommendations were weak – no recommendations for ADB to either acknowledge its non-compliance or initiate action to reprimand Bank Management and staff. With the Inspection report out, the affected community in Klong Dan again urged Bank President Chino to immediately stop the disbursement of the loan for the project. Last month, the villagers rallied at the Thai Parliament to petition Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to halt the project -- which is almost 90% completed – and not pay any compensation to the project developer.

In another case -- the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) in Sri Lanka -- the ADB Inspection Committee received three Inspection Requests from affected communities from July to December 2001. The process illustrated how cumbersome the filing an Inspection Request is for affected communities. In April 2002, the requesters were informed that their complaints were rejected.

To strengthen the Inspection Function, several NGOs submitted the following recommendations to ADB in March 2002 – 1) establish a permanent Inspection Panel and abolish the Board Inspection Committee; 2) create a shorter, user-friendly Inspection Process, which assists claimants rather than places the burden on them; and 3) ensure the implementation of remedial measures authorized by the Board.

The Inspection Policy review process had been in progress since September 1998; completion is scheduled in late 2002. Consultants nominated by the NGO community – and coming from activist NGO backgrounds -- have been contracted by the ADB to undertake the initial review. NGOs have submitted recommendations based on the Samut Prakarn test case/experience. At next month’s ADB Annual Meeting in Shanghai, NGOs will organize a forum on the ADB’s Inspection Policy and “Lessons learned from the Samut Prakarn test case”.

The NGOs such as members groups of the NGO Forum on ADB, Bank Information Center, Environmental defense made a strong effort to bring a better inspection mechanism. The New accountability mechanism provide a much easier process and better results although there are criticisms about its functions.