Bank watchdog urges ADB not to dilute Accountability Mechanism
“The Second Consultation Paper clearly shows that ADB is not seriously considering the need of affected people to have greater access to the Accountability Mechanism supposedly intended to address their issues concerning the Bank’s operations,” Forum said
The Accountability Mechanism of the ADB provides a venue for people adversely affected by projects funded by the regional bank to file a complaint over problems brought by its operation.
Forum said that significant changes in the policy draft should be made to better guarantee the independence and accessibility of the Accountability Mechanism.
In a letter submitted to the Joint Board-Management Working Group on the Accountability Mechanism review, Forum said that ADB should ensure improved access by affected people, extension of the cut-off date for filing a case to two years after the issuance of a project’s completion report, broader scope of the policy, increased independence of the Accountability Mechanism, and removal of grievance redress mechanism as prerequisite for filing a case, among others.
“We strongly believe that efforts made to strengthen the Accountability Mechanism through the conduct of public consultations and previously making the Review-Paper available for public comments will be rendered meaningless if the Joint Board-Management Working Group on the AM Review continues to ignore recommendations submitted not only by civil society organizations but by the people themselves who are adversely affected by the Bank’s lapses in its operations,” the bank watchdog said.
In May 2010, President Haruhiko Kuroda formally announced the review of the Accountability Mechanism during the ADB’s Annual Meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
*******
Letter in full:
2 September 2011
MR. EDUARD WESTREICHER
Chair, Joint Board-Management Working Group on the Accountability Mechanism Review
Asian Development Bank
6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550, Metro Manila, Philippines
Dear Mr. Westreicher,
We would like to express our strong disappointment over the Second Consultation Paper of the Accountability Mechanism (AM) Review. The Second Consultation Paper clearly shows that ADB is not seriously considering the need of affected people to have greater access to the Accountability Mechanism supposedly intended to address their issues concerning the Bank’s operations.
We have shown good faith in the AM Review in our submissions and recommendations by showing gaps in and shortcomings of the current Accountability Mechanism, and how it could further be improved to ensure better access of affected people. Those recommendations were based on real experiences of affected people, as well as their representative civil society organizations, which they have provided during our extensive consultations.
After our several meetings with the Joint Board-Management Working Group on the AM Review, contributions we have made during the regional public consultations and recommendations we have presented during a special CSO panel discussion at the 44th Annual Meeting of the ADB in Hanoi, Vietnam, our recommendations and concerns have not been seriously considered in the 2nd Consultation Paper. Moreover, there are new languages and issues that would further limit access of affected people to the mechanism.
We strongly believe that efforts made to strengthen the Accountability Mechanism through the conduct of public consultations and previously making the R-Paper publicly available for public comments will be rendered meaningless if the Joint Board-Management Working Group on the AM Review continues to ignore recommendations submitted not only by civil society organizations but by the people themselves who are adversely affected by the Bank’s lapses in its operations.
Significant changes in the upcoming Review (R-) Paper on AM Review, particularly improved access by affected people, broader scope, cut-off date, removal of grievance redress mechanism as prerequisite for filing a case, and independence of the Accountability Mechanism, among others, are essential to ensuring that the Accountability Mechanism would live up to the very purpose of its establishment: providing people adversely affected by ADB-assisted projects a venue to voice out and seek solutions to their problems concerning ADB's operations.
Given the manner by which the AM Review has unfolded, including apparent repeated attempts to dilute existing Bank standards and inclusion of provisions bringing additional difficulties for affected people to access the AM, we believe there is no further value in engaging the ADB in the AM Review unless significant changes are made to better guarantee the independence and accessibility of the Accountability Mechanism.
We strongly urge the Joint Board-Management Working Group on the AM Review to seriously reconsider the recommendations that Forum has submitted.
Sincerely,
Dr. Avilash Roul
Executive Director
NGO Forum on ADB
Forum's letter addressed to Executive Director Eduard Westreicher, Chair of the Joint Board-Management team:
http://forum-adb.org/docs/Forum-letter-on-2nd-ConsultationDraft-AMReview-20110902.pdf
Cc:
President Haruhiko Kuroda, Asian Development Bank
Board of Directors, Asian Development Bank
