On October 28, 2009, representatives from Accountability Counsel, Center for International Environmental Law, American University, International Rivers, and IAP submitted comments via email to the African Development Bank (AfDB) regarding a new Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) for the institution.
The AfDB has commissioned an indepedent consultant, Prof. Michelo Hansungule, a Professor at the
Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria,
South Africa, to assume the review of IRM. He has conferred with representatives of similar mechanisms in other
multilateral development banks, users of the mechanism, government officials, and civil society
organizations in order to draft his Review Report which offers recommendations on how IRM operations may be improved. However, the AfDB has not provided any details about the review process, particularly civil society consutlations, on their website.
The comments from civil society organizations are based on their cumulative experience with IFI accountability mechanisms.
Their comments noted key issues and concerns such as:
1. We are pleased that the Draft Review Report includes a number of key issues that require attention during the IRM Review; namely, issues of independence of the Compliance Review Mechanism Unit (CRMU), the need for greater outreach regarding the IRM, and the need for easier access to the mechanism. However, we are concerned with the questions raised about the post-employment ban on the Director of the CRMU (a feature we view as critical to the mechanism’s independence), the suggestion that there should be more than three Experts, and the perceived “stagnation” that could result from the employment bans on IRM staff.
2. The scope of the Draft Review Report is
unclear. A number of recommendations appear to be aimed at changes or
additions to AfDB policies or approaches generally, beyond the scope of
the AfDB IRM Operating Rules and Procedures and the AfDB IRM Enabling
Resolution. For example, the recommendation that the “Boards should
come up with a strategy to instill a sense of ownership of
Bank-financed projects in the minds of local communities in project areas” appears unrelated to changes that might
be needed to either IRM document and raises a process question: which
documents are under review?
3. We agree with the assessment on page 7 that the current AfDB IRM does
not encourage access. However, we disagree with the caution on page 8
of the need to balance greater access with the worry of flows of
complaints creating an inefficient system. The most widely accessible
mechanisms at present is the IFC/MIGA Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman
(CAO), which has jurisdiction over complaints from every continent, not
just Africa; even then they have had only 67 eligible complaints in
nine years. We agree nonetheless with the conclusion on page 9 that
more should be done to facilitate requests to the AfDB IRM.
4. We agree that there should be greater resources allocated for outreach
as recommended and that the rules should be provided in a more
user-friendly format. We also agree that the Bank’s policies and
procedures should be distributed (in full and summary form) and
publicized in local languages where possible.
Professor Hansungule will consider these recommendations, and those of other contributors when finalizing his Review Report, which
will be presented to the Bank Group’s Boards of Directors in the
beginning of December, 2009.
Learn more...
| 
