ADB Accountability Mechanism

Annual Report 2012

• Publisher: Asian Development Bank
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9789292540319
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Economics

After a full-scale review of the Accountability Mechanism that was concluded in February 2012, the new Accountability Mechanism of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) became effective on 24 May 2012. It has resulted in clearer and closer collaboration between the functions of problem solving—handled by the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF)—and those of compliance review by the Compliance Review Panel. The policy now clearly defines the responsibilities of OSPF and those of the Office of the Compliance Review Panel ( OCRP) as well as the oversight function of the Board on compliance review. The newly created position of the complaint receiving officer is a single entry point for complaints and directs them to OSPF, OCRP, or other offices in ADB. These changes make the Mechanism more credible, efficient, and effective in addressing the concerns of people affected by ADB projects.

Problem Solving and Compliance Reviews

This section discusses ongoing complaints.

Greater Mekong Subregion: Rehabilitation of the Railway in Cambodia Project

ADB and the Government of Australia (through the Australian Government Overseas Aid Program [AusAID]) are working with the Royal Government of Cambodia and other aid partners to rehabilitate the national railway in Cambodia. The new railway will position Cambodia as a true subregional transport hub, creating new jobs and business opportunities. The project has been under way since 2010 but has been plagued with delays, mostly because of the need to move 4,164 families that live alongside the dilapidated railway tracks.

On 21 November 2011, OSPF received a complaint from project-affected households through an NGO regarding resettlement, compensation, indebtedness, public services at relocation sites, and the lack of information and consultation.¹

OSPF determined the complaint to be eligible (under the former procedure) in January 2012 and began a problem-solving process with the affected households, government, ADB, and AusAID to address concerns. (See Appendix for another complaint received but deemed ineligible.)

The Complaint

Relocation site-specific issues

The affected households at the relocation sites have acknowledged that the environment is better compared with their previous sites, although it can still be improved. While water and electricity connections are mostly available, the access roads are not usable throughout the year. Some people are concerned about flooding attributed to insufficient drainage. In some sites the distance to schools and health centers is now much farther.

Issues related to individual life situations

A number of households mentioned that they are indebted and have to pay high interest rates. They are afraid of losing their houses and land, which they used as collateral for the money lenders. They attribute their indebtedness to the low compensation rates they received from the project. The affected households are also afraid that they cannot pay off their loans due to their loss of income because of the move to the relocation site.

Issues along the railway tracks

Many households are hesitant to move to the relocation sites and have requested additional compensation. They have requested that the project explain how compensation will be calculated. They are also afraid of losing the income opportunities they have in the center of the city and are concerned about the restoration of their livelihoods.

Project-related information, consultations, and communication

The affected households would like to receive timely and appropriate information. In the relocation sites, for example, they would like to know more about the Income Restoration Program.

Complainants’ representative signing the agreed-upon course of action during the multistakeholder consultation workshop, August 2012.

A review and assessment of the concerns was conducted in January 2012 and led to a course of action to address them. The course of action was discussed and agreed upon in a multistakeholder workshop conducted by OSPF in Phnom Penh in August. The multistakeholder workshop included parties involved in the complaint: (i) representatives of the affected households; (ii) the Interministerial Resettlement Committee (IRC), Resettlement Department, and Ministry of Economy and Finance; (iii) AusAID; and (iv) ADB.

Four activities were identified in the course of action for all project sites: (i) capacity development for affected people on problem solving; (ii) one-on-one sessions to discuss and resolve individual concerns; (iii) assessment and development of a plan for addressing concerns related to infrastructure and services at the relocation sites; and (iv) planning for development activities, including the Income Restoration Program (IRP) of the Resettlement Department and the Expanded Income Restoration Program (EIRP) of ADB and AusAID. Activities in the course of action were implemented between September and October 2012.

From Challenges to Results

Implementation started with capacity development on problem solving. A 1-day workshop was organized for all project stakeholders to understand problem solving, and how each party can play a part in resolving issues. The project also included time to explain the process of one-on-one sessions with the affected persons, detailing the procedure and rules for engagement.

The purpose of the one-on-one sessions was to resolve individual concerns of affected persons lodged in the complaint.

The purpose of the one-on-one sessions was to resolve individual concerns of affected persons lodged in the complaint. Through mediation, OSPF facilitated a dialogue between affected persons and IRC, ADB, and AusAID. In cases where the complaint involved a disagreement on compensation, the Resettlement Department, ADB, and AusAID walked affected persons through their agreements/contracts. This helped the affected persons to understand the policy regarding compensation, and how their compensation was calculated based on the size and type of their home. In some instances, discrepancies were found in the contracts, which led to correcting them. In each session, an agreement was signed by the affected persons, IRC, and OSPF to underline the fact that the complaint had been resolved and that OSPF could close it.

Some complaints were made about the infrastructure and services provided at the relocation sites. Assessment workshops were organized to investigate these problems and resolve them through a multistakeholder process. In all areas, affected households, the local government, IRC, and ADB have agreed that each will play its role in resolving the problems. For water-related problems, water users groups will be established to organize the community to collect and pay for water, while the local government and the project will assist in the construction of household connections. Payment for water use will be based on tariffs agreed to by the community. The water users groups will also be responsible for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the water system, and the collection of water fees from the households.

This project is unprecedented in its scope, scale, and complexity. Problems inevitably arise during resettlement, but the key is to work to resolve them.

The ADB project was designed to include income restoration for relocated persons. The IRP run by the government is aiming to restore the incomes of people who are ...