29 April 2004
ADB concludes 13 face-to-face consultations on first draft of Public Communications Policy.
On July 19, the ADB concluded its 13 country face-to-face consultations on the first draft of its new disclosure policy with a final consultation in Dhaka. The previous week, Indian civil society groups staged a walk-out of the Bangalore consultation to protest the lack of participation in the consultation by persons affected by ADB projects in southern India. The Indian groups also felt that the arrangement of the consultation was deeply flawed as illustrated by the extremely short invitation notice and the fact that past and ongoing experiences of ADB project show that information is not provided to people on a timely basis.
For more on the country consultations, please see the notes below. A revised second draft of the Public Communications Policy is expected in August 2004. The review process itself is due to conclude in March 2005.
Read more about the Public Communications Policy review on BIC's ADB Transparency Web page.
Dhaka, Bangladesh, July 19, 2004
NGOs at the Dhaka consultation presented the ADB with a letter outlining their key concerns. The link to the letter is below and NGO notes on the consultation are coming soon.
Bangalore, India, July 16, 2004
This consultation was poorly attended. According to at least one participant, the government officials who confirmed that they were coming were not present. After being dissatisfied with the process of the consultation, a group of NGOs read a letter of protest out loud and then walked out of the meeting. The link to the letter and ADB's response is below and NGO notes on the consultation are coming soon.
New Delhi, India, July 14, 2004
According to one participant, this consultation was attended by about 19 out of the 80 participants invited. No one from the private sector was present. NGOs were concerned that the ADB consultation process was targetting institutions rather than project affected people. Timely transparency and explicit social and environmental policies were among the key requests of the NGO community.
NGO notes from this consultation are coming soon.
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, July 9, 2004
There were 40-45 participants at the Bishkek consultations, most of whom were NGOs. There were very few government representatives and some members of the business community. There were also three groups representing affected communities in three different regions of Kyrgyzstan. The following notes summarize the prep-sessions for the consultation as well as the session itself and the wrap-up.
Washington D.C., United States of America, June 21, 2004
Approximately 30 people attended the session. There were 3 representatives from the US Treasury (MDB Policy Office, ADB Desk Officer, Loan Officer), some staff members from the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (this Committee has begun a series of MDB oversight hearings lately), individual/institutional consultants (communications consultants, contractors, university departments), at least 4 representatives from the World Affairs Council (had some kind of a co-sponsoring role), and NGOs (Bank Information Center, Freedominfo.org, Human Rights Watch, Pacific Environment, Transparency International, World Resources Institute). Furthermore, there were at least 3 representatives from the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank.
London, United Kingdom, June 11, 2004
There were 14 participants at the London consultation: 12 representatives from NGOs and 2 government officials (from DFID and the Department of International Development). The following notes relate only to the PCP consultation, held in the first (morning) session. The second session, after lunch, was reserved for a presentation of the New Accountability Mechanism. The third session was for the Anticorruption Policy.
Beijing, People's Republic of China, May 19, 2004
... no feedback at this time ...
Hanoi, Vietnam, May 13, 2004
17 to 18 people participated in the Vietnam consultation: 4 academia/media (including a reporter from “Kinhte Saigon”), 3 donors (CIDA, UNDP, and World Bank), and 10 to 11 NGO activists, including ActionAid Vietnam (2 members), IRN, WWF (2 members), International Development Enterprises, and Center for Reproductive Family Health. I was the only one who had come outside Hanoi/Vietnam. The gender distribution was 8 men and 10 to 11 women. 4 to 5 elderly people were there as well. IRN and the two ActionAid members had also attended a preparation meeting on the previous day.
6 to 7 ADB officials also participated: 4 to 5 came from Vietnam Resident Mission (VRM) and 2 from the Manila Headquarters: Mr. Bart Edes and Ms. Cindy Malvicini. Cindy is a consultant. Two simultaneous interpreters sat at the back of the room.
Sydney, Australia, May 3, 2004
The Australian consultation, which lasted one full day, covered three issues:
- Consultation on the ADB’s draft Pacific Strategy 2005-2009 (3½ hours)
- Consultation on the ADB’s Public Communications Policy (scheduled 3½ hours, ran for about 4)
- A briefing on the ADB’s New Accountability Mechanism (1 hour)
About 30 people participated in the PCP session, which was facilitated by Bart Edes and Cyndi Malvicini from the ADB’s Office of External Relations (OER). Other participants consisted of: 10-12 private sector participants (aid contractors including universities); 6 Australian government representatives (from Treasury, AusAID, and the state government), and; about 12 NGO representatives. This number included one NGO representative from Papua New Guinea and one from Samoa. Participation of these latter two people was not a result of ADB planning; rather, they were visiting Sydney for other business and attended the consultation only after other NGO colleagues informed them about it.
Suva, Fiji Islands, April 29, 2004
... no feedback at this time ...
Jakarta, Indonesia, April 27, 2004
The Jakarta consultation was attended by 45 participants; approximately half were from Non-governmental organizations, nearly one-third were from government agencies (local and national); some from universities, and very few representatives from business entities. Most of the participants were from Jakarta-based organizations. According to one source, no affected communities were represented in the consultation.
Several NGOs also participated in a pre-consultation workshop hosted by the Working Group on Multilateral Development Banks, Indonesia.
Based on the notes from this consultation, the ADB may want to consider the following recommendations to improve future meetings:
* Participants: It is disappointing that affected communities were not more involved in the consultation. The ADB should proactively reach out to communities to engage them in the consultations. Communities should receive timely notice of the meeting to ensure that they can be present and so that they can effectively participate.
* Availability of information at the consultation: Hard copies of the draft PCP were not available at the consultation. This limits the ability of participants to comment on and discuss the draft policy, especially if some participants have not study the paper in advance.
* Accountability Mechanism: The ADB used the disclosure policy consultation as a forum to introduce the Bank’s new accountability mechanism. The ADB should inform participants in a timely manner before the meeting that topics other than the Disclosure Policy will also be discussed.
* Business confidentiality: In the Jakarta consultation, the ADB was unable to answer questions about what constitutes business sensitivity and confidentiality. The disclosure policy review is an opportunity for the Bank to better define constraints to disclosure, especially in regards to business confidentiality. The Bank should develop more concrete proposals in this regard and be prepared to have a discussion about access to documents related to its private sector operations.