Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OSPF Annual Report 2009
The Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) is responsible for the Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism. The core function of OSPF is to facilitate problem solving using consensus-based methods, seeking agreement among all parties in identifying the matters in dispute, ways to resolve problems, and the time frame required. In 2009, OSPF concluded the consultation process for 2 complaints, processed 13 new complaints, and worked jointly with the Office of the Compliance Review Panel to inform stakeholders about the Accountability Mechanism through outreach sessions in several countries as well as at ADB headquarters. OSPF produced several publications in 2009 to disseminate information about the complaint process and to document success stories.
About the Asian Development Bank
ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries substantially reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to two-thirds of the world’s poor: 1.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day, with 903 million struggling on less than $1.25 a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration.
Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.
Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, Philippineswww.adb.orgPublication Stock No. RPT101687 Printed in the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT FACILITATOR
ANNUAL REPORT 2009
OSPF AR 2009_FA.indd 1 22/04/2010 4:26:57 PM
Office of the Special Project Facilitator
Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability
MechanismListening to Communities Affected by ADB-Assisted Projects
Annual Report 2009
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
© 2010 Asian Development Bank
All rights reserved. Published 2010.Printed in the Philippines.
Publication Stock No. RPT101687
Cataloging-In-Publication Data
Office of the Special Project Facilitator.Consultation phase of the ADB accountability mechanism: listening to
communities affected by ADB-assisted projects. Annual Report 2009Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2010.
1. Annual report. 2. Office of the Special Project Facilitator. I. Asian Development Bank.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.
The Asian Development Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.
By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country,” in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgements to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgement of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB.
Note: In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.
Office of the Special Project Facilitator
6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, PhilippinesTel +63 2 632 4825Fax +63 2 636 [email protected]/spf
For orders, please contact:Department of External RelationsFax +63 2 636 [email protected]
iii
Contents
Contents
Abbreviations v
Preface vi
Role and Mandate of the Special Project Facilitator 1
Background 1Mandate 1
Problem-Solving Activities 1Problem-Prevention Activities 2
Guiding Principles 2
Complaints 4
Conclusion of the Consultation Process for Earlier Complaints 42/2006 Pakistan: National Highway Development Sector
Investment Program 42/2007 Cambodia: Greater Mekong Subregion:
Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project 4
New Complaints 51/2009 People’s Republic of China: Fuzhou Environmental
Improvement Project 52/2009 India: Himachal Pradesh Clean Energy Development
Investment Program 63/2009 Pakistan: Southern Punjab Basic Urban
Services Project 64/2009 Pakistan: North–West Frontier Province
Road Development Sector and Subregional Connectivity Project 7
5/2009 Pakistan: National Trade Corridor Highway Investment Program (Mauza Jehan Pur Portion) 7
6/2009 Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Sewage Treatment Plant Component) 8
7/2009 Pakistan: National Trade Corridor Highway Investment Program (Bhakkal-Bher Portion) 9
8/2009 Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Water Supply Component) 9
9/2009 Azerbaijan: East–West Highway Improvement Project 910/2009 Azerbaijan: Road Network Development Program
(Project I) 1011/2009 Sri Lanka: National Highways Sector Project 1112/2009 Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic
Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program 11
13/2009 Indonesia: Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program 12
iv
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
Client Support Activities 13
Outreach 13Nongovernment and Civil Society Organizations 14Networking 14Resident Mission and Developing Member Country Sessions 15Orientation Sessions at Headquarters 16Publications 17Website 19
Generic Support 19Training Sessions 19Project Complaints Tracking System for Headquarters and Resident Missions 20Grievance Mechanisms: Resources and Best Practices in Project-Specific Systems 20
Six Years of Experience Handling Complaints 22
Budgetary Information 26
v
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
ADB — Asian Development BankCEPA — Centre for Poverty AnalysisCRP — Compliance Review PanelETESP — Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Project, IndonesiaIFI — international financial institutionkm — kilometerMFF — multitranche financing facilityNGO — nongovernment organizationOCRP — Office of the Compliance Review PanelOSPF — Office of the Special Project FacilitatorRAR — review and assessment reportRCEO — rural collective economic organizationRUIDP — Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, IndiaSPF — special project facilitatorSTDP — Southern Transport Development Project, Sri Lanka
vi
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
Preface
In 2009, the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) handled more complaints than in all previous years combined and also solidified its process for providing generic problem-solving advice to the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) operations departments.
During the year, OSPF received a record number of 13 complaints, of which only 4 met the eligibility criteria for the Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism. The mechanism’s policy requires that complainants first make a good faith effort to solve their problems by working with the concerned operations department, and most of the ineligible complaints (7) did not meet that requirement. The need to work with the operations department can be a hurdle for affected people, who may not know whom to contact or how to raise their problem with the operations department. It may therefore be easier for complainants to get in touch with OSPF. The increase in the number of complaints, even if most of them were ineligible, suggests a growing awareness that the mechanism provides recourse in case of problems. For most complaints, OSPF made site visits and met with the complainants in order to determine eligibility, and in the ineligible cases, OSPF tried to initiate dialogue between the complainants and the operations department.
OSPF also continued its efforts to improve problem solving in ADB operations. The office followed up a 2008 workshop with publication of a book, Complaint Handling in the Rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias, comprising 18 papers about the experiences of ADB and other organizations in dealing with complaints through structured systems that contributed to relatively smooth implementation of the large and complex effort to reconstruct that area of Indonesia after the tsunami of December 2004. Since its launch in Jakarta in November 2009, the book has been widely distributed and well received.
In addition to handling an unprecedented number of complaints, OSPF has nearly completed work on a complaint-handling manual for road projects in Sri Lanka, and has worked with the South Asia Department and the Office of Information Systems and Technology to develop a computer-based complaint-tracking system for use by resident missions and headquarters, which is being piloted in the South Asia region.
OSPF continued outreach activities with information sessions in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Tajikistan. Its publications were given a new look with the help of design professionals from the Department of External Relations.
This report includes a retrospective glance at OSPF’s experience in handling complaints over the past 6 years. With the expected increase in ADB lending in the coming years, and the need to emphasize infrastructure and private sector investments, the availability of the Accountability Mechanism will become increasingly significant.
Robert C. MaySpecial Project Facilitator
1
Role and Mandate of the Special Project Facilitator
Background policies and procedures have been violated. However, complainants first must attempt to resolve their problems in good faith with the assistance of the concerned ADB operations department. The Consultation Phase does not supplant the operations department’s project administration and problem-solving functions. Furthermore, the SPF’s role is limited to ADB-related issues concerning ADB-assisted projects. The SPF does not interfere in the internal matters of any developing member country.
If the SPF determines that a complaint is ineligible, the complainants can file a complaint with the CRP. The CRP determines eligibility using its own criteria. Complainants can terminate the consultation process after the SPF assessment and file a complaint with the CRP. They also can file a complaint with the CRP during the SPF consultation process. During the consultation, the SPF can recommend to the President that the process be discontinued if the SPF determines that further consultation would be purposeless.
Project-affected people are at the core of the Consultation Phase, which was established for their benefit and to improve ADB’s development effectiveness. Affected people who have a complaint often belong to the most vulnerable groups. The Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) treats their complaints with maximum sensitivity. However, OSPF does not assume that ADB operations departments, the government, or private project sponsors are less sensitive to project-affected people’s concerns. In seeking solutions to problems, OSPF aims to win the confidence of all parties. OSPF has drawn up its own guiding principles to meet that objective. OSPF also seeks the assistance of civil society groups in solving problems.
Role and Mandate of the Special Project Facilitator
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved its Accountability Mechanism on 29 May 2003. It became effective on 12 December 2003, replacing the Inspection Function, which had been established in December 1995.
The Accountability Mechanism has two key components: (i) a problem-solving role (the Consultation Phase), handled by the special project facilitator (SPF); and (ii) an investigative role (the Compliance Review Phase), which is the responsibility of the Compliance Review Panel (CRP). Although the SPF and the CRP are parts of the same Accountability Mechanism, they function independently. The SPF reports to the President; the CRP reports to the Board of Directors.
The Consultation Phase has rules governing (i) complaints; (ii) eligibility of complaints; (iii) scope and exclusion of complaints; and (iv) eight procedural steps including time frame, confidentiality, and reporting requirements (Figure 1).
Mandate
Problem-Solving Activities
The SPF promotes consensus-based problem solving, seeking agreement among all parties in identifying the matters in dispute, ways to resolve the problems, and the time frame required. People who believe they have been adversely affected by an ADB-assisted project can use the consultation process regardless of whether ADB operational
2
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
OSPF team (left to right): Ma. Roserillan Robidillo, Karin Oswald, Robert C. May, and Helen Grace S. San Agustin
Problem-Prevention Activities
In addition to its prominent role in handling complaints from project-affected people, OSPF is mandated to carry out proactive activities intended to strengthen the internal problem-solving capacity of the operations departments. These activities include collating and integrating internal and external problem-solving experiences to be fed back into ADB operations, including the formulation, processing, and implementation of projects. OSPF also provides generic problem-solving support and advice to the operations departments, but not for specific cases under review by those departments. In addition, OSPF conducts outreach programs to the public.
Guiding Principles
OSPF is guided by the principles of • enhancing ADB accountability in
development assistance;• being responsive to the concerns of
project-affected people, and treating all stakeholders fairly;
• reflecting the highest professional and technical standards in its staffing and operations;
• being independent and transparent; and• being cost-effective, efficient, and
complementary to the other supervision, audit, quality control, and evaluation systems at ADB.
3
Step 1: Filing of the complaint
Step 3: Determination of eligibility
Step 4: Review and assessment
TWO OPTIONS
7 days from receipt
21 days from receipt
49 days from receipt
7 days from receiptof findings
7 days from receiptof comments from
the operationsdepartment andthe complainant
If the complaintis ineligible,
the complainantcan file a request forcompliance review
If the complainantfinds the consultation
process notpurposeful, the
complainant mayfile a request for
compliance review
If the complainantfinds the consultation
process purposefulbut has seriousconcerns about
compliance issues,the complainant may
file a request forcompliance review
14 days from dateof notification
Step 2: Registration andacknowledgement
Step 5: Decision by the complainantto carry on with the consultation
process
Step 7: Implementation of thecourse of action in the consultation
process
Step 6: Comments on findings bythe operations department and thecomplainant and recommendation
by the special project facilitator
Step 8: Termination of theconsultation process
Figure 1: The ADB Consultation Process
Role and Mandate of the Special Project Facilitator
4
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
1 Numbers are serial numbers from OSPF’s Complaints Registry.2 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche
Financing Facility and Loan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the National Highway Development Sector Investment Program. Manila. (Total assistance under the multitranche financing facility is $773 million; initially, Loan 2210-PAK[SF] for $3 million was approved on 13 December 2005 and Loan 2231-PAK for $180 million on 15 February 2006. Loan 2231-PAK represents the first periodic financing request.)
3 ADB. 1998. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans to the Kingdom of Cambodia and to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for the Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project. Manila. (Loan 1659-CAM[SF] for $40 million, approved on 15 December.)
PAK: National Highway Development Sector Investment Program—Underpass at Gujja Basti
OSPF’s consultant verified that the underpasses had been completed and were in use. The complainants confirmed that they were satisfied with their compensation and the underpasses. This complaint was thus resolved.
2/2007–Cambodia: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project
Complaints
In 2009, OSPF handled 13 new complaints—as compared with 12 in its entire previous 5 years of existence. Of these, four were found eligible, eight ineligible, and one pending. In addition, two complaints from earlier years were concluded.
Conclusion of the Consultation Process for Earlier Complaints
2/20061–Pakistan: National Highway Development Sector Investment Program
This project comprised one loan to Cambodia and one to Viet Nam for improving roads and border crossings to encourage traffic and trade flows.3 The Cambodia loan financed 105 kilometers (km) of national road from
In September 2006, OSPF received a complaint on behalf of 53 affected persons relating to access to information from the National Highway Authority concerning the National Highway Development Plan, assisted by ADB loans,2 and about potential displacement due to road alignment, for which they requested compensation.
Most actions to resolve this complaint were taken in 2008, including announcement and payment of compensation to affected persons whose land was required for road construction. What remained was the building of two underpasses, which were intended to ensure the safety of local people in crossing the road. In September 2009,
Com
plaints
5
4 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to the People’s Republic of China for the Fuzhou Environmental Improvement Project. Manila. (Loan 2176-PRC for $55.8 million, approved on 29 July.)
the eastern side of the Mekong ferry crossing to Viet Nam. Two letters of complaint from 63 affected persons, received 30 July 2007, requested additional funding for resettlement, land titles, a job creation project, and a survey of affected households. On 20 August 2007, OSPF received documents listing 170 additional affected persons. The SPF declared the complaint eligible and issued a review and assessment report (RAR) on 24 October 2007.
At the request of the complainants, OSPF postponed the consultation process while the government and the ADB Cambodia Resident Mission pursued efforts to solve the problems. During 2009, ADB approved technical assistance for an income restoration program aimed at helping the affected persons deal with their accumulated debt burdens and reestablish their livelihood activities. This development offered an opportunity to solve the problems that the complainants had originally brought to OSPF. In view of this, and considering that the consultation process had been held in abeyance for nearly 2 years, OSPF informed the complainants in late 2009 that the complaint would be closed. The complainants were not sure that the technical assistance would solve their problems, and they were told to come back to OSPF if the income restoration program does not resolve their issues.
New Complaints
construction of sewerage on Nantai Island, and rehabilitation of 12 rivers for pollution control and flood protection on Nantai. The Fuzhou Municipal Government is the executing agency, and the Fuzhou Project Management Office is responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and monitoring project implementation. The ADB operations department with responsibility for the project is the Urban and Social Sectors Division of the East Asia Department.
On 15 January 2009, OSPF received a complaint from seven households whose dwellings were to be demolished under the Nantai Island river rehabilitation component of this project. As the complainants had moved into the area in 1994 and were not registered members of the local rural collective economic organization (RCEO), the government considered that they had acquired the land for their houses illegally and were not entitled to the same compensation as members of the RCEO. The complainants believed they were entitled to the same compensation as RCEO members, based on wording in ADB’s resettlement plan and the principle that resettled people should not be worse off after resettlement than before. OSPF found the complaint eligible, and its RAR recommended that a solution be sought through a participatory consultation process facilitated by a mediator, with OSPF as the convener.
The complainants decided to continue with the consultation process, and the parties provided comments on the RAR. A session with the mediator on 28 March 2009 considered various options, and the government representatives offered an enhanced compensation package that included access to economic (low-cost) housing with full property title. Five of the seven families accepted, but two families did not agree to the settlement and eventually submitted a case to the CRP. The government then decided to change the project design so that the seven houses would not need to be demolished. The complainants requested that
1/2009–People’s Republic of China: Fuzhou Environmental Improvement Project
This project intends to improve the urban environment of the Fuzhou municipality in Fujian Province of the People’s Republic of China.4 It has three components: expansion of a sewer network in eastern Fuzhou,
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
6
The PRC: Fuzhou Environmental Improvement Project—Affected houses
5 ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility to India for the Himachal Pradesh Clean Energy Development Investment Program. Manila. (Total ADB assistance under the multitranche financing facility is $800 million; Tranche 1 is Loan 2461-IND, for $150 million, approved on 27 October.)
6 ADB. 2003. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project. Manila. (Loans 2060[SF]/2061-PAK, for $90 million, approved on 18 December.)
PAK: Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project—Working group during the multistakeholder consultation
the area surrounding their homes be cleared of rubble from the demolition of surrounding buildings so that they would have easier access; this action was still pending at the end of the year.
2/2009–India: Himachal Pradesh Clean Energy Development Investment Program
concerned operations department, which is a requirement of the Consultation Phase. In addition, the complaint did not meet the requirement that it should be submitted by at least two affected persons. Therefore OSPF found it ineligible.
3/2009–Pakistan: Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project
This program combines physical investments in hydroelectric power generation with capacity development in Himachal Pradesh, a small and mountainous state with abundant water resources.5 The physical output will be increased clean energy production through run-of-river hydropower schemes to meet 100% of the state’s power needs and to export power to the rest of the country.
OSPF received a complaint in late January 2009 concerning the Sainj hydroelectric power plant, which is planned as part of a later tranche under the investment component. The complaint raised issues regarding the social and environmental impacts of the proposed plant. However, the complainant had not yet raised these issues with the
This project aims to improve water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, and roads in low-income communities and to strengthen institutional capacities of municipal agencies.6
OSPF received a complaint in February 2009 from the representative of 55 people whose land was to be acquired for construction of a wastewater treatment plant near the city of Multan. The complainants raised issues regarding the environmental effects of the plant; questioned the site selection and design; and were concerned about loss of their land and livelihoods, and the level of compensation offered. Only limited information was available to the affected persons about the rationale for the wastewater treatment plant, and there was
Com
plaints
7
a high level of tension in the project area because some land had been cleared and construction started before the affected persons were consulted. In January 2009, ADB asked that construction work on the plant be stopped, and in February 2009 suspended the subproject because of noncompliance with safeguard requirements. After communicating with the complainants and receiving clarifications regarding their request, OSPF visited the site in May 2009, interviewed the stakeholders, and determined that the complaint was eligible.
OSPF conducted a review and assessment in June 2009 and recommended using a structured participatory consultation process to work out a course of action to resolve the problems. In July 2009, the complainants decided to continue with the process, and the parties provided comments on the RAR. OSPF organized and facilitated a multistakeholder consultation in Multan on 6 August 2009, during which various options were discussed. Although the parties could not reach consensus on solving the problems, they did agree as a next step to participate in a day-long session on the project’s environmental aspects. OSPF started planning this session but could not pursue it during the remainder of 2009 because of security concerns in Pakistan. Meanwhile, ADB closed the loan at the end of July 2009 and is discussing with the government whether to include the wastewater treatment component under a new project expected to be approved in 2010.
4/2009–Pakistan: North-West Frontier Province Road Development Sector and Subregional Connectivity Project
connectivity between Afghanistan and the Karachi ports.7
In April 2009, OSPF received a complaint from the representative of a number of affected persons that the government had taken their land for this project without compensation, and that upon approaching the government they were offered only a very small amount for their land. They requested help in ensuring that reasonable compensation would be provided. In response to OSPF’s request for clarifications, the complainants confirmed that they had not yet tried to solve their problem with the operations department responsible for this project, and OSPF therefore declared the complaint ineligible.
5/2009–Pakistan: National Trade Corridor Highway Investment Program (Mauza Jehan Pur Portion)
7 ADB. 2004. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the North–West Frontier Province Road Development Sector and Subregional Connectivity Project. Manila. (Loans 2103/2104[SF]-PAK, for $301 million, approved on 18 November.)
8 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility and Technical Assistance Grant to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the National Trade Corridor Highway Investment Program. Manila. (Loans 2400/2401[SF]-PAK, for $545 million and $10 million, approved on 17 December.)
This project will improve the provincial road network, build the capacity of road agencies, and enhance subregional
This program, a flagship endeavor by the government to bring about better connectivity and trade facilitation, involves roads, ports, railways, airports, customs clearing procedures, tariffs, and the trucking industry. ADB is an active partner in the road sector, in part through a multitranche financing facility (MFF), the first tranche of which involves two loans for key road sections and support components. 8
A group of landowners thought that their land was going to be acquired for constructing the Faisalabad–Multan motorway. They submitted a complaint in April 2009 expressing concern about losing their land and stating that they had not received information about the project or the compensation rates for their land. OSPF visited the site, met with the complainants, and discussed the case with the operations department. Based on the information obtained, OSPF concluded
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
8
9 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project. Manila. (Loans 2211/2212[SF]-PAK, for $20 million and $40 million, approved on 13 December.)
that the operations department was aware of the situation and working on the issues raised, and that OSPF involvement would not be useful at that time. The complaint was therefore declared ineligible.
6/2009–Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Sewage Treatment Plant Component)
and September 2009. The report identified various options for resolving the issues and recommended a course of action including a briefing on land valuation, implementation of the updated resettlement plan, explanation of the rationale for the site’s selection, and provision of information about environmental impacts and safety measures.
OSPF’s ability to pursue the consultation was limited by the security situation in Pakistan, which precluded subsequent missions during 2009. OSPF’s consultant organized a meeting in December 2009 to explain the process of land valuation to the complainants and provide an opportunity for them, ADB, and the government to share information, raise concerns, and discuss next steps. ADB closed the loan at the end of August 2009 and is discussing with the government whether to include the sewage treatment plant component in a new project scheduled for 2010. However, it appears that the plant’s construction may be substantially delayed by uncertainty about its size and cost-sharing arrangements.
PAK: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project—Interview with a complainant (using an interpreter) during the review and assessment
This project aims to improve living conditions in Rawalpindi in Punjab Province, including environmental sanitation (sewerage, sewage treatment, storm water drainage, solid waste management, slaughterhouse replacement, and public toilets); water supply improvement (replacement of tube wells, rehabilitation and construction of distribution networks, installation of water meters, and water supply and sanitation facilities for schools); and institutional development.9
In May 2009, a group of affected persons from the village of Jabbar Miana submitted a complaint about a sewage treatment plant that was planned under this project. The government had already acquired land from most of the complainants to construct the plant, but the complainants considered the compensation rates too low. The Board of Revenue had already announced compensation rates, and some affected persons had filed court cases requesting higher compensation. Complainants were also concerned about the environmental impact of the sewage treatment plant and questioned the selection of the site in their area. In June 2009, OSPF visited the site, interviewed stakeholders, and determined that the complaint was eligible. During the eligibility mission, some affected persons from other villages joined the complaint, making a total of 25 complainants.
The review and assessment took place in July 2009, and in August 2009 the complainants decided to continue with the consultation. The stakeholders provided comments on the RAR in August
Com
plaints
9
7/2009–Pakistan: National Trade Corridor Highway Investment Program (Bhakkal-Bher Portion)
9/2009–Azerbaijan: East–West Highway Improvement Project
10 See footnote 8.11 See footnote 9.12 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans to the Republic
of Azerbaijan for the East–West Highway Improvement Project. Manila. (Loans 2205[SF]/2206-AZE, for $3 million and $49 million, approved on 8 December.)
A second complaint about this program10 was received in July from two people who stated that they would lose their homes, land, and livelihoods because of the road being built through their property. The complainants requested either a change in the route or livelihood restoration and compensation based on market rates. In response to OSPF’s request for clarification, the complainants said that they had sent the same letter to ADB’s Pakistan Resident Mission. OSPF confirmed that this was the first time these complainants had brought their problem to the attention of ADB, but because the complainants had not yet attempted to solve their problems with the concerned operations department, OSPF found the complaint to be ineligible.
8/2009–Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Water Supply Component)
A second complaint was also received about this project.11 The complainants approached OSPF in August 2009 and stated that, because the loan had been suspended, they would be deprived of clean drinking water. Upon further checking, OSPF found that the section of the city of Rawalpindi where the complainants lived had not been included in the scope of the project’s water supply component. Furthermore, the loan was to be closed at the end of August, and the water supply component would not be implemented. OSPF therefore determined that this complaint was not eligible, because the complainants would not be directly and adversely affected by the project.
The project will improve three sections of the main east–west road from Baku to the Georgian border by reconstructing the existing two-lane pavement with minor widening.12
A complaint was submitted by a local nongovernment organization (NGO) in September 2009 concerning a particular section of the road where it seemed that houses and other properties were going to be acquired, and people displaced, in order to make way for the highway improvements. The highway in this particular area was being improved under a cofinancing arrangement supported by the Islamic Development Bank, but it was considered part of the scope of the ADB project. Surveys were being undertaken, and people had been told that they would need to move from the area, but they were given no details about the project or its resettlement and compensation arrangements. In a few cases, people had already been evicted and structures demolished without consultation or compensation.
OSPF held discussions with officials of the executing agency and with NGO staff at their offices in Baku, visited the project area with the NGO’s head, met in the field with road engineers, and inspected maps of the area. It turned out that the land acquisition in question was most likely for another, privately financed road-widening project that was adding another lane on the same road. This was distinct from the ADB project, which comprised improving the existing road but not significantly widening it (Box). Because the people did not seem to be affected by the ADB project, and they had not yet raised the issue with the operations department, OSPF determined that the complaint was ineligible.
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
10
Picture this: One day, you notice surveyors outside your house and ask them why they are there. They tell you they are doing the initial survey for a new road that will be built in your area. This is the first time you have heard of such a road. Who is behind this project? Whom do you contact to get more information? How do you find out whether your property will be needed for the road, and if so, how much you will be paid for it? It is an unfortunate fact that, in many cases, affected persons are not fully informed in advance about projects being implemented in their areas. And it is often very difficult for them even to find out who is supporting the project or where to go for more information.
In the case of the East–West Highway in Azerbaijan (complaint 9/2009), the complainants clearly were losing their property due to road construction, and an NGO filed a complaint on their behalf with OSPF, stating that they had not been consulted or given information about the project or the compensation they would receive. The ADB road project had been underway in this general area for some time, and it was perhaps natural to conclude that the land acquisition was part of that project. ADB staff, however, maintained that the project would not entail much land acquisition, since it was mainly for improving the existing road and not for widening it or constructing a new alignment. Upon discussion with the implementing agency, OSPF learned that a privately financed road-widening project was being started in the same area as the ADB project, even though no other road work in the area was described in documentation available to ADB. In the field, the OSPF mission checked the area with the help of road engineers and concluded that the area where the complainants were located was probably being acquired as part of the road-widening project and not the ADB project.
Without discussing the project with the implementing agency, visiting the site, consulting with engineers, and looking at maps, it would have been very hard to learn about the widening project and determine where activities under the two projects were demarcated.
OSPF also found that NGOs representing people affected by the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor I Investment Program in Kazakhstan (complaint 12/2009) were uncertain which sections of the road were being financed by which donors. It can be a challenging task for local people to learn what agency is behind the works that are affecting them and whom they should contact in the event of problems.
Whose Project Is This? Another Problem for Affected People
10/2009–Azerbaijan: Road Network Development Program (Project I)
Roads play a pivotal role in Azerbaijan’s national economy, and the government developed the Road Network Development Program for 2006–2015 in July 2006. The investment component will construct, upgrade, and rehabilitate about 9,500 km of state and secondary roads. The government
requested an MFF of up to $500 million and submitted its first periodic financing request to ADB for a blend of two loans.13
A local NGO submitted a complaint in September 2009 stating that people whose land was to be acquired to construct the Massali–Astara section of the North–South Highway had not received adequate information about the project and had been told by local officials that they would be paid
13 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans to the Republic of Azerbaijan for the Road Network Development Program. Manila. (Loans 2354/2355[SF]-AZE, for $190 million and $10 million, approved on 4 October.)
Com
plaints
11
a compensation rate that they considered too low. The area is well suited to agriculture and highly productive, and the people thought the compensation rate should reflect this value. Some had been pressured into signing documents that they did not understand. OSPF met with the NGO and concerned officials of the executing agency, visited the project site, and met with affected persons in the field. OSPF established that this complaint had not previously been raised with the operations department, and therefore it was deemed ineligible. OSPF arranged a meeting between the NGO and the ADB project officer, and advised the NGO to pursue the matter with the operations department.
11/2009–Sri Lanka: National Highways Sector Project
14 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the National Highways Sector Project. Manila. (Loan 2217[SF]-SRI, for $150 million, approved on 15 December.)
15 ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility to the Republic of Kazakhstan for the CAREC Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program. Manila. (Loan 0024-KAZ, for $700 million, approved on 12 November.)
and ADB staff. The mission found that the complainants were going to lose strips of land and structures, mostly small roadside shops. While some landowners had been paid for their land, the complainants said that most had not yet received any compensation, and they wanted to be sure that they were reasonably compensated. The OSPF mission established that the complainants sent their complaint letter to OSPF before making an effort to solve their problem with the operations department, and therefore the complaint was declared ineligible.
12/2009–Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program
Kazakhstan’s Road Development Program, to be implemented from 2006 to 2012, targets 43,000 km of national and local roads for reconstruction, expansion, and rehabilitation. This work is being cofinanced by the Islamic Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and ADB through an MFF.15
Two local NGOs sent a letter to OSPF in November 2009 requesting that road
This project supports the second in a series of interventions to improve overall road performance in the country. Specifically, it will upgrade 270 km of national highways, hilly roads, and south highway links under an MFF.14 It includes bridges, drainage, culverts, and weigh stations.
In August 2009, a group of persons owning land along the Habarana–Kantale road portion of this project sent a letter to several ADB offices including OSPF, the Office of the Compliance Review Panel (OCRP), and the Sri Lanka Resident Mission stating that they were going to lose land due to the widening of the road and were concerned about receiving adequate compensation. However, it was not clear whether they wanted to submit a complaint to OSPF. In response to OSPF’s request for clarification, the complainants met in September 2009 and decided to submit a complaint to OSPF. OSPF visited the project area and met with the complainants and their representative, as well as with concerned government officials
KAZ: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor I Investment Program—Livestock crossing the road in front of traffic
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
12
crossings be provided for livestock and agricultural machinery in the Zhambyl Oblast section of this road.16 They said that local farmers had not been adequately consulted during the design of the project, and that their livelihoods would be damaged because the current design did not include enough facilities of this type in their portion of the road. They also said that project information was not available to the affected persons, and this was limiting the participation of local communities. OSPF fielded a mission that visited the project area and met with the NGOs, affected persons, local government officials, and project design engineers. Based on the mission’s findings, OSPF declared the complaint eligible and planned to field a review and assessment mission in January 2010.
13/2009–Indonesia: Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program
The government requested an MFF to support its program, the first tranche of which comprises two loans.17
An NGO submitted a complaint to OSPF in December 2009, stating that persons had been evicted from their property to make way for this project, but they had not been adequately consulted and were not given information, compensation, or assistance for restoring their livelihoods. OSPF prepared for an eligibility mission in early January 2010.
16 ADB. 2009. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility and Administration of Loan to the Republic of Kazakhstan for the CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Zhambyl Oblast Section) (Western Europe–Western People’s Republic of China International Transit Corridor) Investment Program. Manila. (Loan 2562-KAZ, for $187 million, approved on 7 October.)
17 ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility and Administration of Grant and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of Indonesia for the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program. Manila. (Loans 2500/2501[SF]-INO, for $470 million and $30 million, approved on 2 December.)
13
Client Support A
ctivities
Client Support Activities
Table 1: Clients Reached in 2009Origin of Participants NumberADB staff 226Governments 124Nongovernment organizations 76Project beneficiaries 32International financial institutions 31Others (academe and consultants) 26Total 515
OSPF actively informs external and internal stakeholders about its functions and activities through outreach sessions, and also provides generic support to ADB operations departments in their problem-solving activities.
Outreach
In 2009, outreach sessions reached a total of 515 persons (Table 1 and Figure 2).
44%
24%
15%
6%
6%5%
International financial institutions
Others (academe and consultants)
ADB staff
Governments Project beneficiaries
Nongovernment organizations
Figure 2: Distribution of Participants
14
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
Nongovernment and Civil Society Organizations
Meeting with Solidaritas Perempuan
Solidaritas Perempuan, an Indonesian women’s organization, met with OSPF to raise concerns about the Madrasah Education Development Project and to get OSPF’s insights on how OSPF would handle a complaint on such a project (one with nonmaterial impacts). The principal project facilitation specialist discussed various avenues within ADB to make the NGO’s concerns heard. She also briefed Solidaritas Perempuan on the eligibility criteria and clarified that (i) people can come to OSPF if they suffer harm from an ADB-supported project; (ii) a complaint can be made anytime between when a project is put into the ADB pipeline and the project completion report is issued; and (iii) if a complaint is declared ineligible by OSPF, it can be taken to the CRP.
Briefing with Nongovernment Organization Interns
At the request of the NGO Forum on ADB, the SPF oriented seven interns in two separate groups in 2009. Interns came from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, and Tajikistan. The NGO Forum is an Asian-led network of nongovernment and community-based organizations that support each other to amplify their positions on ADB policies, programs, and projects.
Participation in ADB Annual Meeting
During ADB’s 42nd Annual Meeting in Bali, Indonesia in May, the SPF and the chair of the CRP met with representatives of civil society organizations and briefed them about the Accountability Mechanism, answered questions, and discussed current concerns.
Networking
Independent Accountability Mechanism Workshop
The SPF and the principal project facilitation specialist attended this workshop in Washington, DC in January 2009 along with representatives of the independent accountability mechanisms of the African Development Bank, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Overseas Private Investment Corporation (USA), and World Bank. The workshop was organized and hosted by the compliance advisor/ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation and facilitated by senior staff from the Consensus Building Institute, a US-based nonprofit organization that works with international financial institutions (IFIs) and other stakeholders to resolve conflicts. It covered the conditions under which assisted negotiation could help resolve complaints; the use of conflict assessments to determine whether and how to proceed with assisted negotiation; strategies, tools, and resources for assisting stakeholders in the negotiation process; experiences with specific cases; and exchange of ideas about how assisted negotiation can help resolve current or upcoming cases. OSPF presented its experience with the complaint on the National Highway Development Sector Investment Program in Pakistan. A simulation explored roles, interests, and challenges in the conflict assessment process. The sharing of experiences among institutions is beginning to create a body of knowledge and standards of practice in the relatively new field of grievance redress in IFIs.
Asian Mediation Association Conference
The principal project facilitation specialist attended the first Asian Mediation Association Conference on “Mediation Diversity–Asia and Beyond” in Singapore in June 2009.
15
Client Support A
ctivities
The association, composed of member organizations based in Asia, aims to promote and facilitate the use of mediation to amicably settle disputes. Panelists from the association’s member countries pointed out that mediation has a long tradition in many Asian cultures and is also increasingly accepted as a court-sanctioned approach. Discussion included culture and how it affects mediation: Western models are not necessarily a good fit for Asia, and adaptations need to be made. Concurrent sessions were offered focusing on specific sectors. A session on mediation in infrastructure projects discussed the application of advanced management systems to complicated infrastructure projects to incorporate core principles into contracts. A very practical session covered mediation techniques to empower parties to resolve their own disputes.
Annual Meeting of Principals of Independent Accountability Mechanisms
The SPF attended this meeting hosted by the compliance advisor/ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation in Washington, DC in June 2009. The meeting was attended by representatives of the accountability mechanisms of the major IFIs—ADB, African Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and World Bank. Three bilateral agencies also attended—Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Nippon Export and Investment Insurance, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (USA). The agenda included sessions on governance of the independent accountability mechanisms, establishing a “community of practice,” collaborative complaint handling on projects involving multiple IFIs, accessibility, outreach, and two case studies. Several agencies had recently concluded or were currently conducting or planning policy reviews, including extensive public consultations; the results will be useful when ADB reviews its own Accountability Mechanism.
International Association of Facilitators Conference
The consultation coordination officer attended the 12th International Association of Facilitators Conference in Taipei,China in August 2009, including several workshops, notably one that presented 18 types of facilitated processes, their key features, and related deliverables. The session helped in organizing concepts and lessons in a systematic way. Other sessions dealt with appreciative leadership, tools to build accountability, working with multilingual groups, client support, and process design. The conference also provided significant opportunities for networking with experienced facilitators.
Strengthening Communication with Stakeholders
At the end of 2009, OSPF’s computerized mailing list carried 956 contacts distributed as follows: (i) NGOs, 789; (ii) consultants, 55; (iii) facilitators, 54; and (iv) IFIs, 58. Monthly emails were sent to these contacts to alert them of new OSPF products such as The Urban and Environmental Improvement Project: Learning from an Ineligible Complaint in Nepal; 2008 Annual Report; Consultation Primer; Complaint Handling in the Rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias and its Summary of Lessons and Recommendations; new OSPF brochures; and new translations of the Information Guide.
Resident Mission and Developing Member Country Sessions
Tajikistan
The SPF held two sessions in Dushanbe, Tajikistan to apprise stakeholders of the rationale and features of the ADB Accountability Mechanism: one for NGOs and the private sector, with 14 participants; and one for government officials and Tajikistan
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
16
Resident Mission staff, with 27 participants. Simultaneous interpretation into Russian was provided. The SPF explained the background and rationale of the Accountability Mechanism, described its provisions and how it operates in practice, and discussed examples of both consultation cases and compliance review cases that have been handled since the current mechanism was adopted in 2003. There was a particularly lively exchange of views with the NGOs, which raised a number of questions about such matters as making affected persons aware of the mechanism, the cutoff point for accepting complaints, the handling of land acquisition cases, and the manner of assuring confidentiality when requested.
Joint Missions with the Office of the Compliance Review Panel
Philippines
On 19 November 2009, in coordination with the ADB NGO and Civil Society Center, OCRP and the SPF conducted two outreach sessions in Manila, one for NGOs and academics, and the other for private sector sponsors of ADB-financed projects.
At the first program, attended by 16 representatives from 15 Manila-based NGOs and academic institutions and 2 CRP members, the SPF and the CRP secretary gave the main presentation on the Accountability Mechanism and then led the discussions. The issues raised included (i) difficulties in accessing information on ADB-financed projects; (ii) questions about how affected persons benefit by filing a request for compliance review when the Accountability Mechanism is, in effect, an internal ADB mechanism; (iii) sanctions or censure for ADB staff involved in projects found to be noncompliant; and (iv) concerns over the time frame for the Accountability Mechanism. The participants raised a number of concerns that should be taken into account in the next review of the Accountability Mechanism policy.
The outreach program for the private sector was attended by four representatives
of Philippine private sector organizations, two staff members of ADB’s Private Sector Operations Department, and one CRP member. The SPF and OCRP provided background information on the Accountability Mechanism’s coverage of private sector operations, and the SPF and CRP secretary gave a joint presentation on the Accountability Mechanism and current issues. This presentation emphasized that private sector sponsors should consider the possibility of complaints or requests for compliance review being lodged under the Accountability Mechanism when evaluating the potential costs, time frame, and reputational risks involved in an ADB-financed project. The private sector participants informally shared their experiences with complaint handling and conflict avoidance in their respective companies.
Indonesia
The SPF visited Indonesia on 23–26 November 2009 to conduct joint outreach sessions with OCRP for NGOs and the private sector about the ADB Accountability Mechanism. The session with NGOs was followed by a lively question-and-answer period that afforded an opportunity to clarify how the mechanism operates in practice and the requirements for filing complaints. The outreach session for the private sector was important in view of the planned increase in assistance to the private sector under Strategy 2020.
Orientation Sessions at Headquarters
Briefings on the Accountability Mechanism for ADB Interns and New Staff
OSPF and OCRP jointly briefed 106 interns and new staff members in four groups in 2009. Both offices explained the Accountability Mechanism and the different procedures and steps that are followed once a complaint or request has been received.
17
Client Support A
ctivities
Environmental Dispute Coordination Commission, Japan
The SPF met and briefed examiners from Japan’s Environmental Dispute Coordination Commission and shared OSPF’s experiences in complaint handling over the past 5 years. The commission shared Japan’s environmental dispute resolution mechanism. Its main duties are conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication to resolve environmental disputes justly and quickly.
Environment and Social Safeguards Orientation
During a 2-day course on the ADB environment and social safeguards policy, the principal project facilitation specialist made a presentation and engaged participants in a discussion of actual safeguard-related complaints.
Workshop for Regional Technical Assistance on Access to Justice for the Urban Poor
This initiative of the Office of the General Counsel aimed in part to (i) make participants understand the connection between dispute resolution and access to justice for the urban poor, and (ii) explain the issues to consider when using or setting up dispute resolution mechanisms in urban development projects. The principal project facilitation specialist made a presentation based on OSPF experience in setting up the Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Project’s (ETESP) grievance redress mechanisms. She also highlighted a number of issues and factors in strengthening existing institutions and designing dispute resolution mechanisms. The video Handling Complaints Efficiently—ETESP Experience was shown.
Working with Civil Society Groups
This 2-day workshop was a hands-on training course for learning how to engage civil society organizations more effectively. The training focused on ADB-specific procedures
as they occur throughout the ADB project cycle and during country program and strategy development. The principal project facilitation specialist made a presentation on proactive handling of complaints from NGOs, citing recent experiences in Central Asia.
Publications
Complaint Handling in the Rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias
OSPF planned, organized, edited, and produced (with the assistance of the Department of External Relations) this book on handling complaints in the rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias after the devastating tsunami and earthquake of December 2004 and March 2005. The book, which comprises 18 papers by ADB and a dozen other organizations, is a unique compilation of experiences in dealing with problems at the project level in a very difficult post-disaster situation. It is intended to provide guidance for establishing and operating grievance redress mechanisms in future efforts of this kind.
The book draws lessons from a series of workshops in Aceh organized by OSPF from 2006 to 2008 and includes the approaches, lessons, and impacts of the complaint-handling mechanisms used by various institutions during the rehabilitation effort. A consultant first assembled a team of writers, and then followed up with ADB staff and consultants, and with groups and individuals from ADB and other organizations, who
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
18
wrote about their experiences, including those related to traditional (adat) complaint handling. The book recommends starting early and preparing well, setting up an effective complaint-handling mechanism, assuring proper functioning of the mechanism, avoiding or minimizing complaints through timely communication, and working with traditional conflict-resolution systems when appropriate. An 8-page summary of lessons and recommendations was also published in both English and Bahasa Indonesia, and the main report is being translated into Bahasa Indonesia.
Information Guide and Translations
An Information Guide to the Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism was revised and translated into East Armenian, West Armenian, and Georgian. It explains the steps and procedures once a complaint is filed with OSPF in a clear and easily reproducible format. Either the old or the new version is now available in 21 languages of developing member countries.
www.adb.org/knowledgeshowcase. Key points are as follows:• Problems often arise in large and
complex projects, leading to complaints from intended beneficiaries.
• ADB’s Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support Project in Indonesia established several avenues for receiving and responding to complaints at the project level.
• The complaint-handling systems provided feedback about problems and enabled their early resolution before they escalated, resulting in smoother project implementation.
OSPF Brochure and Translations
A revamped pocket-sized brochure, Consultation Phase of the Accountability Mechanism: Listening to Communities Affected by ADB-Assisted Projects, explains OSPF’s role in the Accountability Mechanism and answers the following questions:• What is the ADB Accountability
Mechanism?• What is the Consultation Phase?• Who can file a complaint?• How can you file a complaint?• What matters are not eligible for
complaints?
The brochure also provides a flowchart of the consultation process and gives guidelines for the content of a complaint. It has been translated and is available in Bahasa Indonesia, Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Sinhala, Tamil, and Urdu.
Knowledge Showcase
OSPF produced a pithy article entitled “Complaints from Beneficiaries: A Valuable Resource for Project Implementation,” by Robert C. May, Karin Oswald, and Pieter Smidt, which was published on the Internet at
19
Client Support A
ctivities
The OSPF Consultation Primer
This booklet, which provides an easy- to-digest description of the step-by-step procedure OSPF follows once a complaint is found to be eligible, was translated into Chinese and Urdu. It also includes lessons learned from 5 years’ experience in implementing the Consultation Phase.
complaints according to different types: design-related; lack of information or nondisclosure; safeguard issues including land acquisition; compensation; involuntary resettlement; corruption; and nonresponsiveness of the executing agency. They concluded that most complaints occurred during implementation. The resident mission’s process for resolving complaints depends on the type of complaint they are dealing with, but it always involves discussions with the executing agency and other stakeholders, fact finding, and facilitation of solutions in the field. The external relations officer is tasked with registering, acknowledging, and tracking the complaints. Complaints related to social safeguards are more difficult to deal with than design issues.
Conflict Management and Grievance Mechanisms
OSPF hired a consultant to review the consultation process against OSPF’s procedural experiences and the ways complaints have been managed in the past. The consultant also assessed OSPF’s current outreach strategy and recommended improvements, including ways to expand the outreach to the ADB Private Sector Operations Department and to private sector sponsors. Informal sessions with OSPF staff explored the consultant’s findings and advice on current and upcoming activities.
During the consultant’s 1-week visit to headquarters in February, OSPF also organized small, focused sessions on conflict management and grievance mechanisms with environment specialists; resettlement specialists; and staff from the India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka resident missions and the South Asia Department who had specific concerns on dispute resolution. A total of 39 staff attended the sessions.
OSPF, with the Human Resources Division, designed a pilot course on conflict management targeted at staff who are exposed to grievances, complaints, and disputes, particularly from those adversely affected by involuntary resettlement. The 2–3 December workshop, facilitated by a consultant, provided social development specialists, especially those dealing with resettlement issues, with tools and skills that
Website
The OSPF website (www.adb.org/spf) was viewed 18,641 times in 2009. (Because of a change in the system for recording “hits,” this figure cannot be compared with those of previous years.) The most-visited pages were those describing and giving a sample of a complaint letter, followed by the home page. Peak activity was recorded in February–March and September–October.
Generic Support
Training Sessions
Complaint Handling for Pakistan Resident Mission
In May 2009, 22 staff of the Pakistan Resident Mission participated in training given by the principal project facilitation specialist based on a long list of complaints received by the transport group. Participants sorted the
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
20
will help them identify the signs and understand the stages of conflict, handle complaints and disputes, manage conflict, and translate conflict into collaboration and participation.
Project Complaints Tracking System for Headquarters and Resident Missions
OSPF worked with the India Resident Mission and the Office of Information Systems and Technology to develop a structured online complaint-handling system. The system was rolled out in the India Resident Mission. Online training for the focal points and links for the resident missions are already available on the ADB intranet.
Grievance Mechanisms: Resources and Best Practices in Project-Specific Systems
Southern Transport Development Project, Sri Lanka
OSPF engaged the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) to evaluate the accessibility, efficiency, and effectiveness of grievance redress mechanisms in the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP). CEPA
found that the STDP had made remarkable progress in implementing and improving its grievance mechanisms. In particular, accessibility for affected persons had been improved by increasing the number of grievance redress committees and locating them at the divisional instead of the district level. Affected persons’ perceptions of the grievance mechanisms were positively influenced by having been treated respectfully and having received higher compensation. The lessons were discussed in a workshop for government officials and ADB staff on 20 March 2009, and were included in CEPA’s final report.18 They also provided the basis for developing a guide for designing and implementing grievance mechanisms, described in the next section.
Designing and Implementing Grievance Redress Mechanisms— A Guide for Road Projects in Sri Lanka
OSPF, with the assistance of a consultant, developed this guide on grievance redress for road projects, working in close cooperation with the Road Development Authority of Sri Lanka and the staff of the STDP, the Environment Protection Agency, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Lands. The guide clarifies the concept of grievance redress mechanisms and shows
18 http://adb.org/Documents/SPF/Consolidated-Final-Report-05182009.pdf?bcsi_scan_D4A612CF62FE9576=CnirjS6m1SIYvcfgUlnr/g0AAAAEJwgL&bcsi_scan_filename=Consolidated-Final-Report-05182009.pdf
21
Client Support A
ctivities
how grievance redress should be built into a project’s institutional framework and implementation arrangements. It describes the key elements of grievance mechanisms and presents guidelines for setting up and implementing them. It also highlights the need for capacity building. The guide will support the Road Development Authority’s efforts to establish and manage grievance mechanisms in future road projects. This publication, which could not have been prepared without the support of the South Asia Department, will be finalized in 2010 and translated into Sinhala and Tamil.
Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, India
OSPF has been reviewing project-specific complaint-handling mechanisms to determine best practices that can be applied in future projects. The Bisalpur Water Supply Project, which is part of Loan 1647-IND: Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP), was selected for review jointly with the South Asia Department’s Urban Development Division and the India Resident Mission because it includes a well-functioning grievance redress mechanism as part of a resettlement plan. A joint mission of OSPF and the resident mission’s resettlement specialist examined the experiences under the grievance mechanism and identified lessons learned. The emphasis of the review was on the design and operation of the mechanism, its performance, examples of good practice, and aspects that
need improvement. The mission held one workshop with RUIDP on 16 March 2009, and a second workshop to share findings and discuss suggestions with RUIDP staff on 21 March 2009. The mission conducted individual interviews with current and former project and nongovernment staff, with resettlement and rehabilitation committee members, and with affected persons in three villages.
Experiences with Grievance Mechanisms in a Post-Disaster Situation
The book, Complaint Handling in the Rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias: Experiences of the Asian Development Bank and Other Organizations, with separate summaries in English and Bahasa Indonesia (see under Publications, page 17), was launched in Jakarta at the National Development Planning Agency with more than 75 people attending, including persons who worked on or were interested in the rehabilitation effort—government officials, NGOs, ADB staff and consultants—and media representatives. Presentations were made by ADB, the head of the Grievance Facilitation Unit in Aceh, the National Development Planning Agency, and the NGOs Bina Swadaya and Muslim Aid. The book was well received, and the launch event afforded prominence and publicity that should widen its impact.
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
22
Table 2: Complaints by Issue, 2004–2009
Issues
Number of Complaints
Eligible Ineligible Total
Resettlementa 13 11 24Information 4 6 10Consultation 0 4 4Environmental impact assessment 2 1 3Othersb 10 7 17
a Includes land acquisition and compensation.b Only one issue per complaint.
Six Years of Experience Handling Complaints
Six years of handling complaints from affected people has provided enough experience to justify a look back. What has been the experience of the Consultation Phase?
Since the ADB Accountability Mechanism became effective in December 2004, OSPF has received 25 complaints (Figure 3). The complaints came from South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and East Asia—but predominantly from South Asia (Figure 4). The annual average was 4 total complaints
and 1.5 eligible complaints, although there were large variations from year to year. The bulk of complaints concerned infrastructure projects (Figure 5), particularly in the road sector, and the most common complaints were about resettlement and information (Table 2). Complaints came overwhelmingly from males (Figure 6).
Of the 25 complaints, only 9 met the eligibility criteria of the Consultation Phase. Most of those found ineligible were cases
Figure 3: Total and Eligible Complaints, 2004–2009
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Eligible Total complaints
23
Six Years of Experience Handling C
omplaints
44%
24%
12%
12%
4%4%
Energy
Rural infrastructure
Road transport
Agriculture and natural resources Industry and trade
Water and other municipal infrastructure and services
64%
20%
12%
4%
Central Asia East AsiaSouth Asia Southeast Asia
Figure 4: Complaints Received by Region, 2004–2009
Figure 5: Complaints Received by Sector, 2004–2009
20%
80%
Female Male
Figure 6: Complainants by Gender, 2004–2009
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
24
where the complainants had not first tried to solve their problem by working with the operations department, which is a requirement of the ADB Accountability Mechanism (Table 3). Interestingly, issues raised in many of the ineligible complaints were resolved by the operations departments after proper contact was made. This reflects an aspect of OSPF operations that is not readily apparent but is nonetheless significant. In handling complaints over the past 6 years, OSPF has assumed an informal role in connecting affected persons with the concerned operations staff of ADB, and this is true for ineligible as well as eligible complaints. It is often difficult for affected persons, and sometimes for NGOs, to know which persons in ADB are responsible for a project and how to contact them. In some cases it may even be challenging to find out whether a particular activity affecting local people is part of an ADB project (Box on page 10).
OSPF treats all complaints with a great deal of care, and as part of assessing eligibility, its representatives normally visit the project site and meet with the affected persons and with any concerned NGOs.19 These visits provide an opportunity to brief affected persons and NGOs about the Accountability Mechanism and the procedures of the Consultation Phase.
Table 3: Reasons Complaints were Found Ineligible, 2004–2009
Reason Number
Complainants have yet to address problem with the concerned operations department
10
Issues raised with SPF have been addressed by government; operations department followed up on new issues
1
Project completion report has been issued 1
Procurement related 1
Operations department’s efforts to address concerns are underway; OSPF involvement would not be useful at this time
1
Complainants are not materially and adversely affected by the project
2
Total 16
19 Of the 25 complaints, OSPF conducted eligibility missions to the project sites in 18 cases, including 10 of the 16 ineligible complaints. The instances where OSPF did not visit the sites were cases where there was strong a priori evidence of eligibility or ineligibility and a visit would clearly not have been helpful.
In ineligible cases, OSPF informs complainants how to pursue their grievances through the normal project channels. OSPF’s involvement also lends some prominence to the issues raised in the complaint. In cases deemed ineligible because the complainants did not first try to solve their problem with the operations department, OSPF informs the affected persons that they can come back to OSPF if they are still dissatisfied after working with the concerned department. When a complaint is found ineligible, OSPF also tells the complainants that they have the option to submit a complaint to the CRP.
The overall volume of complaints received by the ADB Accountability Mechanism is broadly similar to those experienced by mechanisms in other multilateral development banks. A perennial question about all these mechanisms, including ADB’s, is why there are so few complaints in comparison to the large portfolios of the institutions. No doubt this is partly because most problems are being handled at the ground level, as OSPF’s work on project-specific grievance mechanisms has shown; however, other factors must also be at work. To approach this question it is useful to focus on 2009: Why was there such a substantial increase in complaints?
25
Six Years of Experience Handling C
omplaints
From this exercise it becomes clear that the availability of information about the Accountability Mechanism is a key factor. NGOs that had become aware of OSPF through outreach sessions submitted several complaints in 2009, and during the same year, operations staff informed people affected by some complex projects about the availability of recourse to OSPF. Thus, NGOs and ADB staff play key roles in apprising affected communities of the Accountability Mechanism and in facilitating their access to it when needed. OSPF’s work on project grievance mechanisms for complex or high-risk projects, and its joint outreach efforts with OCRP aimed at raising awareness of the ADB Accountability Mechanism, are aimed at the two primary channels for resolving problems: (i) identifying problems early and solving them at the project level if possible, and (ii) making known the possibility of independent recourse in cases where problems cannot be solved through the normal project channels.
Finally, how successful has OSPF been in resolving problems? Statistics do not tell the whole story, since each case has its own peculiarities, and some outcomes are difficult to categorize. It is also rather early to draw conclusions, with only nine cases to review. Of the nine eligible complaints, two were resolved, one was withdrawn by the complainants and then submitted to the CRP, one was left unresolved and went to the CRP, two were closed after partial or expected resolution (one of them having gone to the CRP), and three are ongoing (Figure 7). On the one hand, it appears that so far only two of nine complaints were successfully resolved, but on the other hand, only one complaint was clearly unsuccessfully handled. The remaining cases were either withdrawn, partially resolved, or are still ongoing. In the context of development projects and the difficult nature of the issues raised, this record is not entirely unsatisfactory. When one also considers the resolution of ineligible cases by the operations departments—due, at least in part, to OSPF’s facilitation of contacts and the higher profile afforded by elevation to the mechanism—the office’s record is one of qualified success.
Figure 7: Outcome of Eligible Complaints, 2004–2009
11%
34%
22%
22%
11%
Not resolved WithdrawnOngoing ResolvedPartly resolved
OSP
F A
nnua
l Rep
ort
2009
26
Budgetary Information
OSPF used $292,559 in 2009. Of this amount, $162,922 went for complaint-related expenses; $41,227 for outreach and training; $54,697 for studies and follow-up activities regarding project grievance mechanisms; and $33,713 to support, assess, and upgrade OSPF systems.
OSPF Annual Report 2009
The Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) is responsible for the Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism. The core function of OSPF is to facilitate problem solving using consensus-based methods, seeking agreement among all parties in identifying the matters in dispute, ways to resolve problems, and the time frame required. In 2009, OSPF concluded the consultation process for 2 complaints, processed 13 new complaints, and worked jointly with the Office of the Compliance Review Panel to inform stakeholders about the Accountability Mechanism through outreach sessions in several countries as well as at ADB headquarters. OSPF produced several publications in 2009 to disseminate information about the complaint process and to document success stories.
About the Asian Development Bank
ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries substantially reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to two-thirds of the world’s poor: 1.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day, with 903 million struggling on less than $1.25 a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration.
Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.
Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, Philippineswww.adb.orgPublication Stock No. RPT101687 Printed in the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT FACILITATOR
ANNUAL REPORT 2009
OSPF AR 2009_FA.indd 1 22/04/2010 4:26:57 PM
