OSPF Annual Report 2010

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 solutions to problems caused by ADB-assisted projects, using consensus-based methods, seeking agreement among all parties, and identifying ways to resolve problems. In 2010, OSPF concluded the consultation process for five complaints, processed seven 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 2010 to disseminate information about the complaint process, to document success stories, and to promote the use of effective grievance redress mechanisms.

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.orgISBN 978-92-9092-252-0Publication Stock No. RPT102846 Printed in the Philippines

Consultation Phase of theADB Accountability MechanismOFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT FACILITATOR

Annual Report 2010

OSPF AR 2011_FA.indd 1 2/28/11 9:59 AM

Office of the Special Project Facilitator

Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism

Listening to Communities Affected by ADB-Assisted Projects

Annual Report 2010

© 2011 Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, Philippines

All rights reserved. Published 2011.Printed in the Philippines.

ISBN 978-92-9092-252-0Publication Stock No. RPT102846

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 2010.Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2011.

1. Annual report. 2. Office of the Special Project Facilitator. I. Asian Development Bank.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use.

Use of the term “country” does not imply any judgment by the authors or ADB as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity.

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 FacilitatorAsian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, PhilippinesTel +63 2 632 4825Fax +63 2 636 2490spf@adb.orgwww.adb.org/spf

For orders, please contact:Department of External RelationsFax +63 2 636 2648adbpub@adb.org

iii

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 4

2/2006 Pakistan: National Highway Development Sector Investment Program 4

2/2007 Cambodia: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project 4

1/2009 People’s Republic of China: Fuzhou Environmental Improvement Project 5

6/2009 Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Sewage Treatment Plant Component) 6

13/2009 Indonesia: Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program 7

Ongoing Complaints 73/2009 Pakistan: Southern Punjab Basic Urban

Services Project 712/2009 Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic

Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program 8

New Complaints 101/2010 Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic

Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program 10

2/2010 Tajikistan: Education Sector Reform Project 103/2010 Philippines: Power Sector Development Program 114/2010 Kyrgyz Republic: Central Asia Regional Economic

Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 (Bishkek-Torugart Road) Project 11

5/2010 Kyrgyz Republic: Technical Assistance for Regional Economic Integration in Central Asia: Stocktaking and Experience Sharing 12

iv

Con

tent

s

6/2010 Kyrgyz Republic: Southern Agriculture Area Development Project 12

7/2010 Georgia: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program 13

Lessons Learned from a Complaint 13

Client Support Activities 15

Outreach 15Accountability Mechanism Outreach Strategy 16Nongovernment and Civil Society Organizations 16Networking 17Resident Mission and Developing Member Country Sessions 18Orientation Sessions at Headquarters 20Publications 20Flash Presentations 21Translations 21Website 22

Generic Support 23Training and Information Sessions 23Project Complaints Tracking System for Headquarters and Resident Missions 24Grievance Mechanisms: Resources and Best Practices in Project-Specific Systems 24

Statistical Update 25

Budgetary Information 28

v

Abbreviations

ADB – Asian Development BankCAREC – Central Asia Regional Economic CooperationCARM – Cambodia Resident MissionCRP – Compliance Review PanelCSO – civil society organizationCWFM – Financial Sector, Public Management and Trade DivisionCWRD – Central and West Asia DepartmentDMC – developing member countryEBRD – European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentGBAO – Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast, TajikistanGRM – grievance redress mechanismINRM – India Resident MissionIP – indigenous peopleIRM – Indonesia Resident Missionkm – kilometerKYRM – Kyrgyz Resident MissionLAPOCOF – Lanao Power Consumers Federation, PhilippinesLARP – land acquisition and resettlement planMFF – multitranche financing facilityMOTC – Ministry of Transport and Communications,

Kyrgyz RepublicNGO – nongovernment organizationNGOC – NGO and Civil Society CenterNHA – National Highway Authority, PakistanOCRP – Office of the Compliance Review PanelOSPF – Office of the Special Project FacilitatorPRC – People’s Republic of ChinaRAR – review and assessment reportSAUD – Urban Development Division, South Asia DepartmentSPF – special project facilitatorTA – technical assistance

vi

Preface

During 2010, the seventh year of operation of the Accountability Mechanism, the trend noted in 2009 of larger numbers of complaints continued. The Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) received seven new complaints, of which two met the eligibility criteria of the Consultation Phase. Six of the seven complaints, including both of the eligible ones, came from Central and West Asia. The trend in numbers of complaints suggests that civil society, particularly in Central and West Asia, is becoming increasingly aware of the availability of the Mechanism as a venue for expressing and resolving problems caused by ADB-assisted projects. OSPF brought several older complaints to conclusion during the year and published final reports concerning them. OSPF always reviews and reflects on experiences when a complaint is closed, and in cases that appear to offer particular lessons, we usually conduct special sessions in which stakeholders can present their views. This report contains a description of lessons learned from the handling of the complaint on the National Highway Development Sector Investment Program in Pakistan.

In addition to handling complaints, OPSF and the Office of the Compliance Review Panel (OCRP) undertook joint outreach activities both within ADB and in member countries. OSPF also continued providing generic support to the operations departments in their problem-solving activities, including publication of a guide for designing and implementing grievance redress mechanisms in road projects in Sri Lanka, and a training manual on complaint-handling mechanisms. OSPF prepared a flash presentation describing how a complaint was handled under the National Highway Development Sector Investment Program in Pakistan. Based on that experience, OSPF developed an illustrated booklet entitled A Complaint on an ADB-Supported Project and How It Was Resolved and a companion animated video. The booklet and video are intended to provide, in simplified form, a description of how complainants can approach and work with OSPF, and we plan to translate both products into various languages of our developing member countries as a means of increasing the accessibility of the Accountability Mechanism and improving understanding of the consultation process on the part of affected people.

The year was also marked by the start of the review of the 2003 policy that established the Mechanism. OSPF provided technical inputs for the review, which is expected to provide recommendations for Board consideration during the second quarter of 2011.

Robert C. MaySpecial Project Facilitator

1

BackgroundThe 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 policies and procedures have been violated.

However, complainants must first 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 of ADB 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

2

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

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 PrinciplesOSPF 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.

The OSPF team: Ma. Roserillan S. Robidillo, Karin Oswald, Robert C. May, Grace S. San Agustin

3

Role

and

Man

date

of

the

Spec

ial P

roje

ct F

acili

tato

r

Source: OSPF.

Figure 1: The Consultation Process

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

4

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 for $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.)

In 2010, OSPF handled seven new complaints—as compared with 25 in its entire previous 6 years of existence. Of the new complaints, two were found eligible and five were ineligible. In addition, five complaints from earlier years were concluded.

Conclusion of the Consultation Process for Earlier Complaints

2/20061–Pakistan: National Highway Development Sector Investment Program

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 lands were acquired for road construction. The building of two

underpasses was completed in 2009, and the complainants confirmed that they were satisfied with their compensation and the underpasses. OSPF issued its final report in March 2010 and concluded the complaint. A lessons learned session was conducted on 14 April 2010. See page 13.

A narrative of the consultation process and its achievements is available as a flash presentation. See page 21.

2/2007–Cambodia: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project

This project3 was the subject of two letters of complaint in July 2007 concerning resettlement, land titles, and job creation, and requesting a survey of affected households. The complaint was declared eligible, and OSPF issued a review and assessment report (RAR) in October 2007 categorizing the project issues under two main headings—land titles and impoverishment. The RAR recognized that commitment to the consultation process by some major stakeholders was not assured, and the consultation process was postponed at the request of the complainants while the

Complaints

Com

plai

nts

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.)

government and the ADB Cambodia Resident Mission (CARM) attempted to solve the problems. In October 2009, ADB approved technical assistance (TA) for an income restoration program, and the following month OSPF informed the complainants that it would close the complaint in 2010.

In May 2010, the SPF and the TA consultants visited the complainants to close the complaint and turn over work on their problems to the TA team. The community members expressed thanks for the efforts of CARM, the government, and OSPF and were optimistic that the income restoration program would resolve their problems. OSPF circulated a final report on this complaint on 25 June 2010.

1/2009–People’s Republic of China: Fuzhou Environmental Improvement Project

This project4 involves sewer construction and expansion, pollution control, and flood protection in Fuzhou municipality of Fujian Province. OSPF received a complaint in January 2009 from seven households that

“We were apprehensive when we heard that the Accountability Mechanism had been activated. We had referred the complaint to the implementing agency, but they had clearly not responded in time. We wrote to our counterparts to immediately stop construction and fielded a review mission. Together we developed and agreed upon an action plan to resolve the issues and later participated in a multistakeholder consultation that included the affected people. We were very relieved that no harm had been done and gained an appreciation of the facilitation system and the problem-solving nature of the consultation process. At the time I could not see how we could ever satisfy the more than 50 people whose land was to be taken for the road bypass. In the end, our joint efforts with OSPF and the implementation agency were successful—the people were better informed of the project and their rights, adjustments were made to the alignment of the bypass, and representations were made that increased the people’s compensation. We learned that we needed to work more closely with our counterparts; that systemic issues existed; and that resettlement expertise had to be applied, including within the implementing agency. It also gave us an opportunity to discuss policies with high levels in government and helped us change the way we do things.”

Sean O’Sullivan, Former DirectorTransport and Communications DivisionCentral and West Asia Department

Complaint 2/2006: From First Reactions to Understanding to Lessons Learned

Facilitator at the closing of the complaint

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

6

5 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.)

had moved into the area in 1994 and were not recognized by the government as legal residents. The complainants stated that their houses were to be demolished, and they believed they were entitled to compensation for both their houses and the land under the project’s resettlement plan. OSPF found the complaint eligible and issued an RAR in March 2008 recommending participatory consultation facilitated by a mediator, with OSPF as convenor.

Options for resolving the complaint were discussed at a mediation session on 28 March 2009. The government representatives offered an enhanced compensation package that included access to housing with full property title. By the end of March, five of the seven households had decided to accept the package. The government extended the deadline for the other two households twice, but they remained unwilling to accept the package, and they submitted a complaint to the CRP on 28 April 2009. Then in June 2009, the government decided to change the project design to obviate demolition of the seven houses.

OSPF continued to maintain contact with the five families that had agreed to accept the package. They were concerned about rubble near their houses created by demolition of other houses due to the project, which the Project Management Office promised to remove. As of the SPF’s final report in January 2010, the cleanup had not yet been completed.

6/2009–Pakistan: Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (Sewage Treatment Plant Component)

In May 2009, OSPF received a complaint concerning the sewage treatment plant proposed under this project.5 The complaint, alleging loss of agricultural land with inadequate compensation rates and adverse

environmental impacts, was declared eligible in June 2009. OSPF issued an RAR in July 2009, and the stakeholders provided comments in August and September 2009. The RAR proposed a course of action based on stakeholders’ suggestions. Meanwhile, the loan had been suspended in February 2009 and was then closed in December 2009 without work on the plant having been begun, but with the possibility of taking up the sewage treatment plant under a new project.

On 16 April 2010, OSPF met with a senior official of the Board of Revenue together with the lead complainant, and the official confirmed that it was not possible to revise the land compensation award after it had been announced except through the courts. OSPF organized a visit by complainants on 17 April 2010 to a functioning wastewater treatment plant. The complainants appreciated the visit but were still concerned about compensation. The SPF convened a meeting in July 2010 of the complainants, project management, and the Pakistan Resident Mission to summarize the efforts OSPF had made to resolve the issues of the complaint. The consultation had been unable to resolve the key issue about land compensation, and it was unclear whether the sewage treatment plant would even be constructed, and if so, when. Given these circumstances, the SPF informed the meeting

Plant official explaining the wastewater treatment process to complainants

Com

plai

nts

7

that it appeared that OSPF could no longer play a useful role and that the case should be closed at this point. The SPF said that if ADB in the future were to take up the sewage treatment plan under a new loan, and if the complainants were harmed by an act or omission of ADB in relation to that new loan, they could come back to OSPF. OSPF issued its final report on the complaint on 2 November 2010.

13/2009–Indonesia: Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program

This program6 adopts a concerted approach to improving land and water management in the Citarum River basin in West Java, aiming at clean, healthy, and productive catchments and rivers and bringing sustainable benefits to all people. ADB supports this program through a multitranche financing facility (MFF).

A nongovernment organization (NGO) submitted a complaint to OSPF in December 2009, stating that persons had been evicted from their property due to this program, but they had not been adequately consulted and were not given information, compensation, or assistance for restoring their livelihoods. OSPF conducted an eligibility mission in January 2010, but, because the complainants had not yet attempted to solve their problems with the concerned operations department, OSPF found the complaint to be ineligible, advised the complainants to address the issues to the ADB operations department first, and initiated a meeting with the Indonesia Resident Mission (IRM) and a consultant to the program. Contacts were made, initial questions answered, and subsequent steps discussed.

Ongoing Complaints

3/2009–Pakistan: Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project

A complaint was received in February 2009 about this project,7 the goals of which are to improve water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, and roads in low-income communities and to strengthen the institutional capacities of municipal agencies. OSPF visited the site in May 2009 and deemed the complaint eligible. OSPF subsequently issued an RAR recommending participatory consultation, which occurred on 6 August 2009. The parties agreed on most components of a course of action but not on the location and design of the sewage treatment plant, so a signed agreement was not possible. ADB closed the loan in July 2009 without construction of the plant, while holding open the possibility of including the plant in a new financing package.

Since the complainants were concerned about environmental impacts of the plant as well as compensation, an “environmental day” was held on 18 February 2010 to discuss

6 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.)

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 $296 million and $5 million, approved on 18 November.)

Panel discussing issues at the environmental day

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

8

8 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.)

9 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.)

environmental issues. OSPF also recommended that the complainants visit a functioning plant, which they did on 15 April 2010. Their visit to a plant in Faisalabad similar to the one designed for their area produced a mixed reaction. The complainants did not appear to be convinced about the benign impact of the plant, and also reiterated their concerns about compensation. For OSPF, this concluded its activities related to environment, design, and location issues. The devastating floods that hit Pakistan in July and August 2010 prevented the planned followup on the complaint, but in November, OSPF’s consultant conducted interviews with all the complainants to ascertain their status as a basis for further problem-solving efforts in 2011.

12/2009–Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program

Kazakhstan’s Road Development Program, being implemented from 2006 to 2012, targets 43,000 kilometers (km) of national

and local roads for reconstruction, expansion, and rehabilitation. The work is being cofinanced by the Islamic Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and ADB through an MFF.8 Two local NGOs sent a letter to OSPF in November 2009 requesting that road crossings be provided for livestock and agricultural machinery in the Zhambyl Oblast section of this road.9

OSPF declared the complaint eligible on 3 December 2009, conducted a review and assessment in January 2010, and issued the RAR in English, Russian, and Kazakh on 8 February 2010. OSPF facilitated three subsequent consultations in early March. The first consultation among the complainants, the Committee of Roads, and the ADB operations department aimed at resolving issues concerning road crossings for cattle and agricultural equipment, water flow, access of local vehicles to the reconstructed highway, and project-related communication.

The process was designed and managed as a multiparty, facilitated, collaborative problem-solving consultation. The Committee of Roads presented the draft road design and answered questions from the other participants. After some proposals, much discussion, and clarifications, the group

Signing the agreement during the first consultation

Complainants visiting a sewage treatment plant

Com

plai

nts

9

came to a consensus and signed an agreement on the location of one underpass, an additional underpass, and a dirt approach road for agricultural machinery that would not be part of the ADB-assisted project. It was further agreed that the location of the culverts would be retained, and information would be provided to the community. Two representatives from local NGOs participated in the consultation as observers. OSPF is monitoring the implementation of the agreement.

Mr. Kuandyk Sholakov, who refers to himself as a rural poet, is from the affected village of Janaturmis and participated in the consultation. He had prepared a poem in the Kazakh language called “I Salute the Road of Friendship.” By reading it to the participants, he contributed to the constructive tone and positive atmosphere.

The second and third consultations were designed to improve communication and information sharing among local NGOs, the ADB operations department, and the Committee of Roads. OSPF facilitated and documented the outcome of both consultations. The regional coordinator of the NGO Forum on ADB participated in these two consultations.

Meanwhile, construction works started, including preparatory work at Janaturmis, and the design was revised to accommodate the second underpass. An OSPF monitoring mission visited the project site in November and met with the complainants and concerned government officials.

Mr. Kuandyk Sholakov

As if the bird of civilizationHas perched onto my hand.I’ve felt the waft of new timesAnd I salute the road of friendship.

Being the offspring of Abai,Being the progeny of Zhambyl,I applaud and welcomeThe project on the new avenue.

I only hope my heart wouldn’t be anxious later…I wish the youths and lasses stay cautious,I call on you to keep safe the language and cultural wealth,And not to damn the Kazakh cast of mind.

Now the stretch of my arm will be longer,And the length of my road will increaseThus making the dreams of our ancestry come trueAnd let the dreams be multiplied for us to be at.

After musing on here is my conclusion:With new construction which is of global sizeLet us be saved from cruelty,Let this road be not for tanksBut let it be the road of friendship, Let it be the road of happiness.

Kuandyk SholakovMarch 1, 2010

I Salute the Road of Friendship

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

10

New Complaints

1/2010–Kazakhstan: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 Investment Program

On 4 June 2010, a second complaint was received about this project.10 The complainants stated that the village would lose one of the current two bus stops and that an underpass for their agricultural machinery was not included in the agreement reached under the first complaint. OSPF fielded a mission and determined that the complainants had yet to address the problem to the concerned operations department, and hence the complaint was ineligible. The mission advised the complainants to address their complaint first to the ADB operations department and facilitated a telephone call between the complainants and the Committee of Roads at the oblast level. The issue related to the agricultural machinery was explained and solved directly.

2/2010–Tajikistan: Education Sector Reform Project

This project11 aimed to improve the quality, efficiency, and equity of primary and general secondary education, which included the rehabilitation of schools in five districts. It was implemented by the Ministry of Education. In one of these districts, Roshtkala in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO), six schools were rehabilitated. The project has been completed, and ADB’s Financial Sector, Public Management and Trade Division (CWFM) of the Central and West Asia Department (CWRD) was in the process of preparing the project completion report.

OSPF received a complaint on 5 August 2010 from Roshtkala District, acknowledged receipt, and registered the complaint on 6 August 2010. The complainants raised concerns about the quality of the rehabilitation works for schools and the building of the district education department in Roshtkala and requested confidentiality. The complainants nominated three NGO representatives: one from the local NGO Kalam based in Khorog, the capital of GBAO; one from the NGO Tarakiet in Dushanbe; and the coordinator for Central Asia and the Caucasus Region from the NGO Forum on ADB, based in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic.

In August 2010, OSPF reviewed documents, interviewed people, visited Tajikistan, and found the complaint eligible for the Consultation Phase.

The review and assessment took place in September 2010, conducted partly in parallel with a joint fact-finding mission, with the OSPF consultant as an observer, that assessed in detail five of the six schools (there were no complaints from one of the schools rehabilitated under the project) and the district education building. The RAR was distributed to the complainants, who discussed it with support from the OSPF consultant. The complainants decided on 20 November 2010 to continue with the

10 See footnote 9.11 ADB. 2003. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to the

Republic of Tajikistan for the Education Sector Reform Project. Manila. (Loan 2053-TAJ, for $7.5 million, approved on 17 December.)

The SPF on his way to the site

Com

plai

nts

11

Consultation Phase and provided comments on the RAR. OSPF has received comments from the government and CWFM, and will try to facilitate an agreement on a course of action in early 2011.

3/2010–Philippines: Power Sector Development Program

The Lanao Power Consumers Federation (LAPOCOF) submitted a complaint in September that centered on the privatization of the power sector in the Philippines. The complainants believed that privatization of the sector, which ADB had been supporting through this program12 and the prior Power Sector Restructuring Program, had resulted in increased electricity rates for consumers, and they were concerned that a local hydropower facility would be privatized under the new program. They requested that ADB review the first phase of the program and apply the lessons learned from the review in planning the second and third phases. They also asked to participate in ADB’s review of the Philippines’ power restructuring program, and they requested TA to amend the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, for education of electricity consumers, and to support renewable energy sources.

Unfortunately, the complaint arrived shortly after the program completion report had been issued—which under the Accountability Mechanism policy is the cutoff point for submitting complaints—and so OSPF had to find the complaint ineligible. This exclusion due to a narrow margin of time understandably caused disappointment, and the cutoff point (which had been raised as an issue by NGOs in the past) was again identified as a matter that should be reexamined during the current policy review. Nonetheless, many of the issues raised in the complaint were addressed to a greater or lesser extent: ADB and the government had decided not to pursue phases 2 and 3 of the program; ADB focused part of its Philippine program on renewable energy; and the Southeast Asia Department agreed to include LAPOCOF in its consultations on the power sector.

4/2010–Kyrgyz Republic: Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Transport Corridor 1 (Bishkek-Torugart Road) Project

The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Program has several road corridors. The CAREC Transport

A project school

12 ADB. 2006. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Program Cluster and Loan to the Philippines for the Power Sector Development Program. Manila. (Loan 2282-PHI, for $450 million, approved on 8 December.)

One of the shops affected by the project

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

12

Corridor 1 (Bishkek-Torugart road) is an important regional route linking the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to Central Asia and Europe. The project13 has several components, including physical improvement of a 39 km road stretch. The project’s primary impact will be to increase regional trade and tourism, particularly between the Kyrgyz Republic and PRC. The executing agency is the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC).

In September 2010, OSPF received a complaint about the project from six people alleging loss of property due to improvement of the road. To determine whether this complaint was eligible for the Consultation Phase of the Accountability Mechanism, the SPF met with officials of MOTC, ADB staff in the Kyrgyz Resident Mission (KYRM), and concerned NGOs, and visited the project site to confer with the complainants. The SPF confirmed that the complainants were losing property (two shops and some trees) because of the project. Although CWRD and MOTC were aware of this issue and had taken some action to address the complaint,

the complainants losing shops believed that the compensation offered (some construction materials) was not adequate, and the complainant who lost trees had not been offered any compensation. The SPF concluded that the complaint met the OSPF eligibility criteria. OSPF conducted a review and assessment in early December; issued the RAR; and requested the complainants, CWRD, and MOTC, to provide comments on the proposed course of action by 15 January 2011. OSPF will proceed to work on resolving this complaint together with the complainants, CWRD, and MOTC.

5/2010–Kyrgyz Republic: Technical Assistance for Regional Economic Integration in Central Asia: Stocktaking and Experience Sharing

A consultant working on this regional TA14 who had been terminated submitted a complaint in September 2010 disputing the grounds for termination. OSPF found the complaint ineligible because it was a contract dispute covered by the exclusion of procurement matters under the Accountability Mechanism policy.

6/2010–Kyrgyz Republic: Southern Agriculture Area Development Project

This project15 was approved in January 2007 but canceled in January 2009. A group of six complainants submitted a complaint in

13 ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed ADF Grant to the Kyrgyz Republic for the CAREC Transport Corridor 1 (Bishkek-Torugart Road) Project. Manila. (Grant 0123-KGZ, for $20 million, approved on 14 November.)

14 ADB. 2009. Technical Assistance for Regional Economic Integration in Central Asia: Stocktaking and Experience Sharing. Manila. (TA 7314, for $900,000, approved on 21 July.)

15 ADB. 2007. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan and ADF Grant to the Kyrgyz Republic for the Southern Agriculture Area Development Project. Manila. (Loan 2314-KGZ, for $15 million, approved on 29 January.)

Interior of an affected shop

Com

plai

nts

13

September 2010 questioning why the project had been cancelled and asking how the money allocated for the project had been used. OSPF found that the loan had been cancelled before any significant amount of funds had been disbursed. Therefore, since there had been no ADB-financed activities in the project area, there could have been no adverse impact stemming from the project, and the complaint was declared ineligible. During a mission to Bishkek, the SPF met with two NGOs representing the complainants; explained the reasons for ineligibility; and pointed out that, since there had been virtually no disbursement, the loan funds had remained with ADB and had not been transferred to the government.

7/2010–Georgia: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program

This program16 aims at providing efficient, reliable, and affordable urban transport services to Georgian cities under an MFF. A local NGO sent a letter to OSPF on 27 October 2010 raising issues related to compensation and information available to affected persons. OSPF acknowledged receipt and registered the complaint on 5 November 2010. In a video conference, OSPF explained that the complainants first needed to address their problems to ADB’s operations department. The Georgia Resident Mission and the complainant further discussed the locations of different sections of the subject road and concluded that the section in question was not financed by ADB.

Lessons Learned from a Complaint—Pakistan: National Highway Development Sector Investment ProgramOn 14 April 2010, OSPF provided an opportunity to Pakistan’s National Highway Authority (NHA) and CWRD to reflect on lessons learned from the National Highway Development Sector Investment Program. The session was attended by 25 participants from the Economic Affairs Department, NHA, CWRD’s transport and safeguards staff, and OSPF staff and consultants. The main lessons learned were:

• Provide full information to affected people. People in the project area were unaware of the project and its rationale and plans. This lack of awareness was compounded by a lack of access to information. In addition, some affected people were illiterate, and appropriate methods were needed to reach them. Information needs to be distributed about a project and about its land acquisition and resettlement plan (LARP).

• Start early. Information needs to be disseminated early, before a project starts. The LARP should be implementation-ready before construction contracts are awarded. Project preparations also need to be

16 ADB 2010. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Multitranche Financing Facility to Georgia for the Sustainable Transport Investment Program. Manila. (Loan 2655-GEO, for $300 million, approved on 21 July.)

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

14

started early. Experience worldwide has shown that it is easier to solve problems if they are identified and dealt with early.

• Solve problems locally if possible. People are needed in the project area to work every day on problem solving. Problems should be solved locally if possible, in a process of partnership. This is in line with ADB’s safeguard requirement to build grievance redress mechanisms within projects. If there is a well-trained team managing complaints locally, complaints will be reduced or resolved sooner.

• Recognize shared responsibilities. The sharing of responsibilities between NHA and ADB was a key to

success in this case. The executing agency and ADB should work as partners. A sense of ownership is essential.

• Monitor continuously. Continuous monitoring of a project is essential. The executing agency needs to insist that the supervision consultants submit reports regularly and on time.

• Review the Land Acquisition Act. The Act is detailed and difficult for lay persons to understand. A simplified version might be prepared, or the current Act summarized or explained so that it is known and understood by those affected. The use of the Act’s emergency provision should be limited.

“In the past, executing agencies have not necessarily had the proper attitude, but this is changing. People need to be accorded respect and given a fair chance to be heard,” a participant from the government said.

15

Client Support Activities

Table 1: Clients Reached in 2010

Origin of Participants Number

ADB staff and interns 327

Governments 79

Nongovernment organizations 171

Project beneficiaries 2

International financial institutions 27

Others (academe and consultants) 25

Total 631

Source: OSPF.

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.

OutreachIn 2010, OSPF outreach sessions involved a total of 631 persons (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 2: Distribution of Participants in Outreach Session, 2010 (%)

International Financial Institutions Others (Academe and Consultants)

ADB Staff and Interns GovernmentsProject BeneficiariesNongovernment Organizations

52

24

27

<14 4

Source: OSPF.

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

16

Accountability Mechanism Outreach Strategy

In November 2010, OSPF and the Office of the Compliance Review Panel (OCRP) issued their joint outreach strategy for the Accountability Mechanism, intended to provide both internal and external outreach programs to broaden the understanding of the Mechanism among all project stakeholders and increase its accessibility. OSPF and OCRP will work with the operations departments on outreach campaigns in DMCs as well as at ADB headquarters beginning in 2011.

Nongovernment and Civil Society Organizations

Whether in relation to outreach or a complaint, OSPF’s missions in 2010 were almost always combined with separate, individual meetings with local and international NGOs with the objective of sharing the Accountability Mechanism and learning from organizations’ experiences with ADB-assisted projects. Also, preceded by research, OSPF met with organizations and individuals specializing in mediation, facilitation, and conflict resolution for possible cooperation with OSPF on complaint-related issues. OSPF missions met with a total of 32 individuals on seven separate occasions in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Georgia, and Indonesia.

Briefing for Nongovernment Organization InternsAt the request of the NGO Forum on ADB, the SPF oriented eight interns from Cambodia, India, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Viet Nam in 2010. The NGO Forum is an Asian-led network of NGOs and community-based organizations that support each other to amplify their positions on ADB policies, programs, and projects.

Participation in ADB Annual MeetingThe SPF and the Chair of the CRP met with representatives of CSOs as part of the CSO Program facilitated by the NGO and

Civil Society Center (NGOC) during ADB’s 43rd Annual Meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on 3 May 2010. The SPF and the Chair described the operations and experience of the Accountability Mechanism and provided an opportunity for CSOs to raise and discuss issues of concern.

Consultation with Indigenous Peoples’ GroupsOSPF and OCRP conducted a 1-day consultation with seven staff of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact in Chiang Mai, Thailand, on 19 February 2010. The objectives were to learn how the Accountability Mechanism can improve its outreach to indigenous peoples (IPs), clarify issues that IP groups might have in accessing the Mechanism, learn about IP groups’ experiences with ADB-assisted projects, understand how IP groups are linked, and come up with ideas on cooperation related to grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs).

The IP groups noted that the harm IPs receive from projects is often not material but rather causes impacts on their culture and identity, so the criterion of “material harm” is less relevant. They suggested dissemination of information to IPs through radio and videos, and through translation of the OSPF Information Guide into IP languages.

The participants recommended including IP networks in OSPF’s outreach preparations, and doing an initial translation of OSPF’s brochure and Information Guide into Hmong.

The SPF explaining the Consultation Phase

17

Clie

nt S

uppo

rt A

ctiv

itie

s

Networking

Annual Meeting of Principals of Independent Accountability MechanismsThis year’s meeting was held on 28-29 June in Tokyo, hosted by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance. It provided a valuable opportunity to renew contacts with those charged with similar duties and to exchange information on outreach activities, harmonization among accountability mechanisms, internal governance, and the use of country systems. There were presentations by Japanese experts on climate change policy and on Japan’s environmental dispute resolution system, and the meeting discussed the evolution of IAMnet, the electronic information exchange system for accountability mechanisms set up and operated by OCRP. The SPF moderated the session on outreach activities, and OSPF’s principal facilitation specialist presented OSPF’s experience with outreach activities over the last 6 years.

Meeting with NGOsAfter the annual meeting of the principals of the independent accountability mechanisms (see at left), an NGO forum was held at the ADB Institute in Tokyo, organized by ADB’s Japan Representative Office and chaired by the Secretary, CRP. ADB and the World Bank presented summaries of their mechanisms, and CSOs had an opportunity to raise concerns and seek clarifications. The SPF presented ADB’s Accountability Mechanism.

Meeting with Japanese Ministry of FinanceOn 30 June, the SPF and the Chair and Secretary, CRP called on officials of the International Bureau of Japan’s Ministry of Finance to brief them on the outcome of the annual meeting of the principals of the independent accountability mechanisms and the status of the review of ADB’s Mechanism.

Training in Advanced Facilitation SkillsThe principal facilitation specialist participated in a 2-day training course on advanced facilitation skills in Elsmeren,

Seventh Annual Meeting of Principals of Independent Accountability Mechanisms; June 28 and 29, 2010; Tokyo, Japan

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

18

Belgium. The course aimed to improve facilitation skills and stressed that shifting the facilitator’s focus away from people’s behavior, attitudes, and motivation, which are mostly not controllable anyway, provides more space to concentrate on the truly controllable aspects like process and meeting management. Leading meetings in a way that encourages participants to share responsibility provided a wealth of tips and recommendations for the daily use of the facilitator.

International Association of Facilitators ConferenceThe consultation officer attended the 13th International Association of Facilitators Conference in Seoul, Republic of Korea in August 2010. The workshops attended looked into the varied aspects of facilitation like the challenges in effective and meaningful cofacilitation, communication that stimulates productive interaction, building consensus, and the use of team-building activities to help lessen the time and effort required to build collaboration in a group. The sessions were highly experiential, with ample interactive knowledge exchange, discussions, and takeaway tools for different facilitated processes.

Strengthening Communication with StakeholdersOSPF maintains a database with about 1,000 entries of local and international NGOs, facilitators, mediators, consultants, and international financial institution members. Email notifications of OSPF’s new postings or publications are sent to them regularly.

Resident Mission and Developing Member Country Sessions

Kyrgyz RepublicWith the help of KYRM, OSPF organized an outreach session on 8 November to explain the Accountability Mechanism to NGOs based

in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic. Fourteen NGO representatives attended the session, and there was a lively question-and-answer period during which the SPF clarified a number of aspects of the Mechanism, how it operates in practice, and what the experience with it has been so far. The NGOs appreciated the session, which also afforded KYRM an opportunity to further develop relations with local NGOs.

Joint Missions with the Office of the Compliance Review Panel

IndonesiaOn 26 and 27 April, the SPF participated in joint outreach sessions on the Accountability Mechanism with OCRP in Jakarta, Indonesia. Separate sessions were held with government officials (during the Country Portfolio Review Mission) and with staff of IRM.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, GeorgiaThe SPF, the principal facilitation specialist, and the consultation officer participated in a joint outreach mission to the Caucasus on 6–14 September 2010 together with OCRP, NGOC, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s (EBRD) Project Complaint Mechanism. The mission was intended to apprise representatives of concerned government agencies, NGOs and CSOs, resident mission staff, and private sector sponsors about the policy and procedures of ADB’s Accountability Mechanism. It was also intended to

The SPF presenting the Accountability Mechanism

19

Clie

nt S

uppo

rt A

ctiv

itie

s

strengthen relations with NGOs/CSOs and to inform them of how ADB can interact with them, and what opportunities are available to pursue joint programs with ADB. In addition, OSPF sought to identify mediators and facilitators who could be called upon in the event of future complaints.

Meetings and briefing sessions were held in Baku, Azerbaijan (6-8 September); Tbilisi, Georgia (9–10 September); and Yerevan, Armenia (13–14 September). A total of 127 persons attended the briefing sessions (30 from government agencies, 91 from NGOs/CSOs, 5 from resident missions, and 1 from a private sector sponsor). OSPF and NGOC also held 21 individual meetings with NGOs and CSOs.

The sessions elicited lively interchanges during question-and-answer sessions, which afforded the participants an opportunity to request clarifications and ask questions about the Accountability Mechanism and

ADB’s work with civil society. Participants’ evaluations of the sessions were positive, and overall, the program appeared to widen understanding and appreciation of the Mechanism and how civil society and NGOs participate in ADB’s activities.

EBRD’s project complaint mechanism officer

Discussions at the Caucasus outreach sessions

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

20

Orientation Sessions at Headquarters

Briefings on the Accountability Mechanism for ADB Interns and New Staff OSPF and OCRP briefed 327 interns and new staff members in several groups during 2010. In these sessions, participants learn about the Accountability Mechanism and the different steps and procedures followed once a complaint or request is received by the two offices.

Joint Presentation with NGO and Civil Society Center As a follow-up to the joint outreach mission to the Caucasus, on 26 November, NGOC and OSPF conducted a briefing session for 17 CWRD colleagues. NGOC provided an overview of civil society in each country, including trends since ADB began operations; a summary of past civil society participation in ADB operations; and a review of NGO advocacy activity as well as an overview of possible entry points for greater CSO participation in ADB operations by country. OSPF added a brief assessment of NGO capacity on facilitation and mediation and their readiness to engage.

Publications

Training Manual on Complaint-Handling Mechanisms in Development ProjectsThis manual comprises two modules: (i) a 2-hour training course for project directors, executing and implementing agencies, project design consultants, and ADB project officers; and (ii) a 1-day training course aimed at implementers including implementation consultants and NGOs working on GRMs. Both modules come with a set of slides with the trainer’s input for the trainees. With this manual, OSPF provides general guidance that will enable project officers and project implementers to design and manage their own complaint-handling systems in keeping with the principles of effective GRMs developed by the United Nations.

This manual is a work in progress and will undergo field testing in 2011.

Designing and Implementing Grievance Redress Mechanisms – A Guide for Implementors of Transport Projects in Sri Lanka and TranslationsThis guide clarifies the concept of GRMs and presents the rationale for their implementation. It shows how grievance redress should be built into projects’ policy and institutional frameworks as well as planning models. It describes the key elements of GRMs and provides step-by-step guidelines for designing and implementing

A Guide for Implementors of Transport Projects in Sri Lanka

21

Clie

nt S

uppo

rt A

ctiv

itie

s

them. Practical tools and other materials are also found in its annexes. The guide evolved through experiences accumulated in the Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka. It is also available in Sinhala and Tamil.

The guide was launched on 27 July. The government representatives stressed that it had been developed jointly, many opportunities to review and revise had been provided to them, and they considered it “their” guide. Fifty-six persons, including 12 representatives from the local media, participated.

A Complaint on an ADB-Supported Project and How It Was Resolved A new booklet illustrates a real complaint case that was successfully resolved. It explains in a comprehensive and comprehendable way the requirements and procedures followed once a complaint is found eligible. It also aims to encourage villagers to use their right to complain.

An animated version of the booklet produced on the same story can accompany the booklet or be a stand-alone item that aims to present the requirements and procedures followed when a complaint is found eligible.

Booklet

Animated version

Flash Presentations

OSPF Outreach—6 Years of ExperienceThe presentation describes OSPF’s experiences in doing internal and external outreach during its first 6 years. It gives crisp details of the objectives of outreach, channels used, and an indication of its effectiveness and challenges.

The National Highway Development Sector Investment Program in PakistanThis 9-minute presentation chronicles the story of a complaint received in 2006 until its successful resolution in 2009. It also presents major lessons learned in solving problems related to land acquisition and resettlement. It is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v =Y3N4-3Ja6F4

Translations

Information GuideThe revised version of An Information Guide to the Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism was translated

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

22

problems at the project level and is intended to provide guidance for establishing and operating GRMs. Copies of the Bahasa Indonesia version were distributed in November during the consultation on the Accountability Mechanism Review in Jakarta.

into Russian. This publication explains the steps and procedures once a complaint is filed with OSPF in a clear and easily reproducible format. The Information Guide is now available in 22 DMC languages.

Table 2: OSPF Website

No. Month Page Views

1 January 2,878

2 February 2,730

3 March 3,311

4 April 905

5 May 936

6 June 926

7 July 949

8 August 1,402

9 September 1,218

10 October 1,393

11 November 977

12 December 933Total 18,558

Website

The OSPF website (www.adb.org/spf) was viewed 18,558 times in 2010 (Table 2). The most visited pages were the sample complaint letter, complaints registry, and home page. Peak activity was recorded in January–March and August–October.

Consultation PrimerThe OSPF Consultation Primer, which provides an easy-to-digest description of the step-by-step procedure OSPF follows once a complaint is declared eligible, was translated into Russian and Bahasa Indonesia. The booklet is now available in four DMC languages.

Complaint Handling in the Rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias: Experiences of the Asian Development Bank and Other OrganizationsResponding to a request made during the book launching in 2009, OSPF translated this book into Bahasa Indonesia to expand its audience in Indonesia. The book is a collection of experiences in dealing with

23

Clie

nt S

uppo

rt A

ctiv

itie

s

Generic Support

Training and Information Sessions

Informal Briefing on Grievance Redress MechanismsIn an informal briefing on 15 November, the principal facilitation specialist talked about OSPF’s perspectives on grievance mechanisms. Fourteen members of the resettlement network from the operations departments and the Regional and

Sustainable Development Department participated.

Briefing on Gender IssuesAs part of the 29 October Gender Equity Community of Practice retreat that brought together 42 participants, including ADB headquarters and resident mission gender specialists, divisional focal points, and Gender Equity Committee members, the principal facilitation specialist gave a presentation on gender issues in ADB’s Accountability Mechanism, focusing on OSPF’s experiences. See box.

Seventy-four percent of the complaints OSPF has received since 2004 came from men and only 26% from women. In a few cases, women took the lead, were exceptionally active, provided leadership in groups, and had decision-making power. In one case, of a group of five complainants, one was a woman—outspoken, respected, and listened to. In most cases, however, women leave it to their men to complain, handle the discussions, and take decisions in public. “Why are you asking me? My husband already told you everything,” is what is heard time and again at the beginning of interviews.

Gender mainstreaming in the Consultation Phase. OSPF nonetheless makes sure that during the Consultation Phase gender issues are considered. Not only men are interviewed, but also women. The wives usually have different perspectives, concerns, needs, and suggestions for solving the problems. It was the women in one case who requested an underpass so that children could get to school safely. OSPF includes women as consultants and in its interviewer teams to assure access to female family members. Making sure that women are regularly informed during the consultation phase remains a challenge. An even bigger challenge is the active participation of women in consultations. “The women have no time for meetings. They are too busy,” is what the men say. But very often the women themselves are one of the obstacles: “Why should I come? I fully trust my husband to do the right thing,” they say. If they come, at times OSPF has to be creative to make sure that they participate: they may sit in separate rooms, with male messengers—brothers, cousins, children—going back and forth and communicating their views to the male audience. OSPF also hires women who discuss separately and communicate women’s views to the group. OSPF’s contributions to women’s empowerment might be limited, but we firmly believe that if we all make efforts at all times, bigger steps will be the result.

Complaints on gender issues. OSPF has received just one complaint related to gender issues. Among other issues, a group of affected persons pointed out the lack of gender analysis and feared a negative impact on women.

Is Complaining Men’s Business?

continued on next page

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

24

Box continued

Project Complaints Tracking System for Headquarters and Resident Missions

The Project Complaints Tracking system, which was introduced in 2009, continued to be used by the India Resident Mission (INRM), Sri Lanka Resident Mission, and Nepal Resident Mission. Although the level of usage was limited during the year, the resident missions generally found the system helpful and easy to use. CARM also started using the system, and OSPF presented a briefing about it to CWRD and offered to assist in its adoption by resident missions.

Grievance Mechanisms: Resources and Best Practices in Project-Specific Systems

Preparing a Generic Guide on Grievance Redress Mechanisms for Resettlement Plans in IndiaOSPF, together with the South Asia Department’s Urban Development Division (SAUD) and INRM, reviewed GRMs in

resettlement plans of projects delegated to INRM and subsequently had a closer look at the GRMs set up in the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project to learn from their implementation. With comments from INRM and SAUD on the findings, OSPF finalized an internal paper this year. The paper compares the principles of legitimacy, trust, accessibility, predictability, and fairness with design features and concrete implementation of resettlement plans. It concludes that future design and implementation should (i) consider a wider scope of complaints, including construction-related issues and postconstruction impacts; (ii) assure that creation of unrealistic expectations is avoided; (iii) systematically record and document grievances, and monitor GRMs; and (iv) assure women’s participation on grievance committees. OSPF then started discussions on developing a generic guide for setting up GRMs in resettlement plans in India and recruited a consultant, who produced a series of practical outputs for the use of safeguard specialists in the South Asia Department, including a slide show on benefits and best practices of resettlement GRMs, and a checklist.

26

74

Female Male

Complainants by Gender, 2004–2010 (%)

Source: OSPF.

25

Statistical Update

OSPF received seven new complaints during 2010, of which two met the eligibility criteria of the Consultation Phase. Since the Accountability Mechanism became effective in December 2003, OSPF has received 32 complaints in total, and of those, 11, or about one-third, were eligible (Figure 3, Table 3). Resettlement, information, and consultation and participation continue to be the issues most frequently raised (Table 4), and complaints still come predominantly from men (although women have had prominent roles in some CSOs that facilitated complaints; see box on

page 23). Complaints have been mostly about infrastructure projects, particularly roads (Figure 4), although in 2010 one of the eligible complaints was about an education project and one of the ineligible ones was about an agriculture project. The main reason complaints have been found ineligible is that the complainants approached OSPF before they had made an effort to solve their problems by working with the concerned ADB operations department (Table 3). One complaint during 2010 was found ineligible because it was submitted shortly after the program completion report had been issued.

Eligible Complaints Total Complaints

14

12

10

8

6

4

2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Com

plai

nts (no.)

2008 2009 2010

0

2

Figure 3: Total and Eligible Complaints, 2004–2010

Source: OSPF.

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

26

Table 3: Complaints Received, 2004–2010

A. Eligible Number

Outcome:

Resolved 2

Partly resolved 3

Ongoing 4

Unresolved 1

Withdrawn 1

Total 11

B. Ineligible

Reasons for Ineligibility:

Complainants have yet to address problem with concerned operations department

14

Complainants are not materially and adversely affected by project 3

Project/program completion report has been issued 2

Procurement related 2

Total 21

Table 4: Issues Raised in Complaints, 2004–2010

Issues Number of Times Raised in Complaints

Resettlement 26

Information 12

Consultation and participation 10

Agriculture, natural resources, environment 9

Community and social issues* 8

Energy 2

Others** 6

*Includes gender issues (raised once).**Includes the following issues: distributary link, flooding, procurement, loan suspension, education, and termination of contract.

Source: OSPF.

The past 2 years have seen an increase in complaints, which seems to be due in part to an increasing awareness among CSOs of the availability of the Accountability Mechanism as a means of addressing the concerns of project-affected people, and perhaps in part to the outreach efforts by OSPF and OCRP. During 2009 and 2010, OSPF received 20 new complaints, compared with a maximum of 8 during any 2-year period prior to 2009.

Overall, more than half of the complaints have come with some involvement of CSOs (Figure 5), and during 2010, five of the seven complaints came from or through CSOs.

There has been a geographical trend in the complaints received by OSPF (Figure 6). During the first 4 years of the Accountability Mechanism (2004–2007), all complaints came from South Asia17 and Southeast Asia. During 2009, OSPF received its first complaints

17 South Asia is defined here to include Pakistan.

Source: OSPF.

27

Stat

isti

cal U

pdat

e

43

3333

13

13

19

Road TransportWater and Other MunicipalInfrasture and ServicesEnergyAgriculture and NaturalResources

Industry and Trade

Rural InfrastureEducationRegional Technical Assistance

Figure 4: Complaints Received by Sector, 2004–2010 (%)

Source: OSPF.

44% (14)

56% (18)

Affected Persons CSOs and Affected Persons

Figure 5: Complaints Received from Affected Persons and CSOs, 2004–2010

Source: OSPF.

OSP

F A

nnua

l Rep

ort

2010

28

from East Asia (PRC) and Central and West Asia (two from Azerbaijan and one from Kazakhstan); and in 2010, six of the seven complaints came from Central and West Asia (three from the Kyrgyz Republic and one each from Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan). It may be no coincidence that OSPF and OCRP conducted outreach missions in Central and West Asia during 2008–2010.

The outcome of eligible complaints continues to be mixed, with two complaints clearly resolved, three in a category termed “partly resolved,” and four still ongoing;

one complaint was closed unresolved, and one was withdrawn (Table 3). As noted in our 2009 Annual Report, numbers do not tell the whole story, as each case is unique and has its own peculiarities. In addition, for ineligible complaints, OSPF sought to assist affected persons in contacting and working out their issues with the concerned operations department. No affected persons whose complaints were found ineligible have thus far come back to OSPF after pursuing their case with the operations department.

50

19

28

3

South Asia

Southeast Asia

Central Asia

East Asia

Figure 6: Complaints Received by Region, 2004–2010 (%)

OSFP used a total of $290,459 in 2010. Of this amount, $150,842 went for complaint-related expenses; $84,845 for outreach, studies, and support activities in setting-up GRMs; and $54,772 to support and assess OSPF systems.

Budgetary Information

Source: OSPF.

OSPF Annual Report 2010

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 solutions to problems caused by ADB-assisted projects, using consensus-based methods, seeking agreement among all parties, and identifying ways to resolve problems. In 2010, OSPF concluded the consultation process for five complaints, processed seven 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 2010 to disseminate information about the complaint process, to document success stories, and to promote the use of effective grievance redress mechanisms.

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.orgISBN 978-92-9092-252-0Publication Stock No. RPT102846 Printed in the Philippines

Consultation Phase of theADB Accountability MechanismOFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT FACILITATOR

Annual Report 2010

OSPF AR 2011_FA.indd 1 2/28/11 9:59 AM