The ADB, stung by civil society organisations’ criticisms that it was not listening, is inviting further public discussion of new procedures for checking the impact of projects it finances.
Avilash Roul, director of the NGO Forum on ADB, said: “Communities affected by these projects have to know how the complaints mechanism works. Now there are too many technicalities.”
Rajat Nag, managing director general of the ADB, denied it had arranged the extra discussion period on procedures, up to 1 June, because of NGOs’ criticism, “although they have made some very valid points”.
Developing country governments, the borrowers in ADB transactions, “represent the citizenry as a whole”, Nag argued. All views had to be considered, “not just one segment of society”.
The current procedure obstructs communities’ legitimate complaints, campaigners say, because:
• The bank does not consider complaints made after its project completion report is published. This rule made ineligible complaints from Bangladeshi communities about the infamous $45 million Khulna Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project, which led to chronic waterlogging and drainage congestion, and was deemed “unsuccessful”, “inefficient” and unlikely to be sustainable by the ADB’s own evaluation officials. The bank now wants a one-year period for complaints; the NGO coalition argues for ten years.
• Site visits, even by the bank’s own compliance officers, are too restricted, the NGOs say. Nag of the ADB said: “We expect site visits to be a matter of course [...] but it has to be with the borrower’s consent. It can’t be a condition.”
• Measures for checking that upheld complaints are addressed are not tough enough, NGOs say. They point to sluggish implementation of recommendations made in 2005 by ADB compliance officers who reviewed the $800 million Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka, a highway extension that led to widespread resettlement of local communities. An ADB Compliance Review of the project last year said only two of the 19 recommendations remained to be implemented, but that the “scope and depth” of the bank’s non-compliance with its own policies had been “very significant” initially.
• Complaints procedures are too complex, NGOs claim. Villagers asked to move home to make way for the Sri Lanka highway were never provided with information in their own language, for example.
The ADB launched its review of its Accountability Mechanism Policy, which sets the ground rules for oversight, last year. The NGO Forum protested vehemently last month when a working paper on the policy was circulated just two days after the closing deadline for submitting comments – and accused the ADB of failing to consider affected communities’ views. Subsequently the additional review period, up to June 1, was announced.
Zaved Joy of Initiative for Right View, a Bangladeshi NGO that has monitored the problem-ridden Khulna project for a decade, said: “The community has suffered from a waterlogging disaster.” People whose homes had been displaced never received compensation and the ADB “has not learned the lessons.”