IAP Co-organizes Independent Accountability Mechanisms Outreach Workshop for East Africa
by Elias Jika
“This is the first time in history that various independent accountability mechanisms have come together for an outreach workshop,” — one of the Independent Accountability Mechanisms’ (IAM) representatives in their speech.
Nine Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), representing thirteen development banks, came together for a two-day outreach workshop in Nairobi, Kenya. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the roles and activities of the IAMs with participating civil society organizations (CSOs) and share information about their institutions, objectives, and functions. They also discussed how communities (and individual complainants for some IAMs) impacted by development projects financed by the international finance institutions (IFIs) can access these mechanisms and file complaints. The in-person workshop, with the first day held in hybrid, was attended by more than 30 CSOs from Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
The Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) were established from the 1990s onwards to handle complaints from people impacted by the environmental and social impacts of investment projects financed by IFIs. Given the support that civil society organizations (CSOs) provide to communities who are affected by these projects, IAMs conduct outreach events together with CSOs to spread awareness about their services. This helps both parties to broaden their perspectives on accountability concerns related to projects and investments.
The workshop had four objectives:
- Raise awareness among CSOs from the East African region about the accountability mechanisms of the respective institutions and the relevant functions such as compliance review and dispute resolution;
- Enable the IAMs to broaden their contacts with CSOs and project-affected people from the region;
- Obtain feedback from the CSOs on the work of the accountability mechanisms and the impact of their work; and
- Provide the IAMs and CSOs an opportunity to exchange views on engagement and accountability issues related to public and private sector development projects in the region.
The workshop was co-organized by the International Accountability Project and the following Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) from thirteen development banks:
- African Development Bank’s (AfDB) Independent Recourse Mechanism (IRM)
- Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) Project-Affected People’s Mechanism (PPM)
- Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft’s (DEG), Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank’s (FMO) and the Société de Promotion et de Participation pour la Coopération Economique (PROPARCO): Independent Complaint Mechanism (ICM)
- European Investment Bank’s (EIB) Complaints Mechanism (CM)
- FinDev Canada’s Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM)
- International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s (MIGA) Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO)
- International Climate Initiative’s (IKI) Independent Complaint Mechanism (ICM)
- U.S. International Development Finance Corporation’s (DFC) Office of Accountability (OA)
- World Bank’s Accountability Mechanism (AM), which houses the Inspection Panel (IP) and the Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)
- U.S. International Development Finance Corporation’s (DFC) Office of Accountability (OA)
“Being a part of the workshop was insightful, learning and sharing experiences from different countries. However, there is a need for creating lasting solutions for rural communities to be able to access redress from the IAMs,” Lydia Mkandawire, Center for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), Malawi.
The workshop included sessions organized, facilitated, and presented by CSO for the learning purpose of the IAMs. These included CSOs’ experiences with IAMs on engaging the IAMs to pursue remedies for project-affected communities, gender perspectives on accessing remedy through IAMs, and the use of judicial versus non-judicial mechanisms by communities to access remedy. Another session was a CSO case study where IAP and the Uganda Consortium for Corporate Accountability (UCCA) partners who have been supporting communities impacted by the Wadelai Irrigation Scheme Project in Uganda, a project financed by the AfDB and has had a complaint filed with the Independent Recourse Mechanism (IRM), shared about their experiences supporting the affected communities and on the complaint process.
Apart from the CSO-led sessions, the workshop also included interactive and engaging discussions between the CSOs and the IRMs. These included a session discussing projects of the respective DFIs of the IAMs with the IAMs present. This session was preceded by a presentation by IAP on how to access project information proposed to be financed by DFIs through the Early Warning System (EWS). For CSO participants to understand financing trends by DFIs in the region, IAP also included a presentation on the financing trends in the seven participating countries through a tableau that analyzed projects from the Early Warning System database for the past five years — January 2019 to May 2024. Other engaging discussions were on the dispute resolution and the compliance processes of the IAMs. Participants spent time discussing the processes with the IAMs regarding how they work, their shortfalls, their strengths, and how CSOs can access and use them.
The information shared by the IAMs for the CSOs included on the overview of the independent accountability mechanisms, on how the very first IAM, the World Bank Inspection Panel, was born in 1993 out of the adverse impacts of the Narmada Dam Project in India. This was a culmination of civil society demands in the 1980s for the World Bank and other development banks to accept responsibility for the negative environmental and social impacts of their projects. The Narmada Dam Project, which would resettle 60 villages and more than 20,000 villagers, was faced by protests from villagers who swore that they would rather drown than be moved from their land.
Since the establishment of the Inspection Panel, other IAMs followed suit, Asian Development Bank’s Inspection Function (IF) in 1995, which would later be reformed to the current Accountability Mechanism (AM) in 2003; the AfDB’s Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) which would later be reformed to the current Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) in 2001; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s (EBRD) Project Complaints Mechanism (PCM), which would later be reformed to the current Independent Project Accountability Mechanism (IPAM); the DEG/FMO/PROPARCO’s Independent Complaint Mechanism (ICM) in 2014; the AIIB’s Project-Affected People’s Mechanism (PPM) in 2019; and last but not least the FinDev Canada’s Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM) in 2003.
Further information shared by the IAMs was on their core objectives, and their activities and functions. On the objectives, while IAMs differ in nature and structure, they share a common mission to independently address environmental and social complaints from project affected people. These are to:
- Help enable communities negatively affected by development projects to raise their concerns.
- Provide redress in support of the mission of the IFIs to promote sustainable development and fight poverty.
- Promote learning to improve projects in the future.
In their activities and functions, IAMs work within the framework of the IFIs’ environmental and social policies and safeguards. IAMs have similar core functions, with some variations, which are dispute resolution, compliance review, advisory work, and outreach and communications, with this workshop being an example of the last function.
Other information shared by the IAMs to the CSOs was on their mandate and limitations. While IAMs are legally and institutionally part of their parent IFI, they are independent of management and operations. This means that IAMs are mandated to hold their institutions accountable for the environmental and social performance of their projects in line with their policies. However, IAMs cannot stop or suspend a project, they can’t typically accept complaints about closed projects, they cannot force the parent institution or other parties to provide material or financial redress to complainants, most IAMs do not accept complaints related to financial corruption or staffing matters, and if the IAMs receive these kinds of complaints they will forward them to the appropriate offices within their institutions.
Most IAMs have two main core functions that are similar amongst them, which are dispute resolution and compliance review. The typical process for dispute review is;
- Once a complaint is filed, IAM meets the parties and other stakeholders where relevant, to get a better understanding of the issues and explain the dispute resolution option. If parties choose dispute resolution, independent mediator(s) are contracted.
- Next, mediator(s) help parties to agree on a set of ground rules that will govern the process, covering such issues as handling the media, disclosure of information, and confidentiality. The mediator(s) work with the parties to design a structure for the process, including the objectives, scope, participants, methods, stages, and timelines of the dispute resolution process.
- Then, the mediator(s) work with the parties to identify their needs and interests, explore options to address them, and negotiate possible settlement of issues raised. Tools used may include information sharing, joint fact-finding, participatory monitoring, expert advice, and joint field trips.
- Thereafter, if the parties reach a settlement, the mediator(s) work with them to conclude a Dispute Resolution Agreement containing a time-bound implementation schedule for agreed actions and provisions for how implementation will be monitored.
- Finally, the IAM issues a report on the outcome. The Parties are provided with a copy of the report which is also publicly disclosed.
The typical process for compliance review is appraisal, investigation, and monitoring. Appraisal determines whether a further investigation is warranted. If warranted, the appraisal is investigated. The investigation process involves a detailed investigation with findings and recommendations. It usually involves field visits with experts. And finally, the Investigation process involves the monitoring of the management action plan (MAP) in relation to the investigation findings.
“I attended the workshop to have my capacity strengthened and to amplify the voice and agency of women in mining host communities. What was most relevant to me is the procedure on how to lodge complaints. I appreciate the opportunity for cross learning among the participants in terms of sharing experiences and co-creation.” Ceasar Katebe, Zambia Alliance of Women (ZAW), Zambia.
For decades, IAP has been supporting national and community groups impacted by development projects. IAP has been monitoring IFI funded through the Early Warning System (EWS) initiative. Project information from the EWS database is shared to IAP partners. With regard to IAMs workshops, IAP has also been supporting CSOs in different regions across the globe to learn more about IAMs. In June 2017, IAP coordinated a workshop with the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, NGO Forum on ADB, and International Rivers on how individuals and communities harmed by development projects can seek recourse and justice. Representatives from 35 CSOs and community groups based in 11 countries in South and Southeast Asia participated in a workshop, which was attended by the independent accountability mechanisms of the World Bank Group — the Inspection Panel and the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman — and the Asian Development Bank. In October 2018, coinciding with the World Bank Annual Meetings in Bali, Indonesia, IAP coordinated a workshop entitled, CSOs Accountability Workshop, between Indonesian CSOs partners, the World Bank’s Inspection Panel and IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman. The aim of the workshop was to increase CSO and community awareness of development projects in Indonesia and to increase access to the accountability mechanisms of the World Bank Group. In September 2019, IAP was a lead co-organizer for a South Asia Region workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The workshop was co-organized with the Inspection Panel, CAO, ADB Accountability Mechanism, UNDP-SECU and GCF-IRM, and about 30 community members and CSOs participated. IAP has also supported communities impacted by IFI-funded projects to file complaints to their IAMs. Some of these complaints included the Tanahu Hydropower Project in Nepal, and the Northern Province Sustainable Fisheries Development Project in Sri Lanka.
For IAP to co-organize this outreach event with the independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs), it is part of an ongoing effort to support communities to address the adverse impacts that they face from projects financed by international financial institutions (IFIs). IAP will continue to engage with IFIs and the IAMs to hold them to account and to support communities in addressing their complaints regarding projects that are adversely affecting their lives. IAP will support various community-led responses by providing them with project information, supporting advocacy campaign strategies, and providing advice. Furthermore, IAP will keep on supporting communities in realizing their development priorities.
Elias Jika is the Program Coordinator for Southern Africa and Middle East and North Africa regions at the International Accountability Project. He coordinates regional outreach on development projects as part of the Early Warning System initiative.
