3 May 2004
Para. 16: The procedures should explicitly mention that when Claimants request that their identities be kept confidential, that the CRP will keep their identity under “lock and key” within their office (i.e. will not disclose their identity to any ADB staff). This clarity is important because the independence of the CRP office from the ADB may not always be apparent to affected communities.
Para. 20: The procedures must put a cap on the “additional time” that may be required if a request is submitted in a language other than English to ensure the timely processing of all cases. It is recommended that a maximum of two weeks be provided for translation of a case, bearing in mind that a case can either be a two page letter or a larger submission.
Para. 22: In the line that reads “A request for compliance review must specify the following,” we recommend that the “must” be changed to “should” to prevent cases that are missing one or a couple of these items from not being considered at all.
Para. 22, viii: We recommend removing “an explanation of why the request is nonetheless eligible for compliance review” because this language places too much of a burden on the requesters. The CRP can perhaps consider changing this language to something such as “an explanation of why the request should still be considered” which grants the requesters more flexibility in what they must state as the reasons for which the case should be considered by the CRP.
Para. 25, iii: CRP Procedures should state that the CRP will forward complaints that allege corruption to the ADB Anti-corruption Unit. This is consistent with the ADB’s Anti-corruption Policy, which requires ADB staff to report to the Office of the Auditor General for investigation any allegations or evidence of corruption that they receive or encounter. CRP should also notify requesters of this and the existence of the Anti-corruption Unit.
Para. 29: It is recommended that the CRP not take an additional week to determine the eligibility of a case found ineligible by the SPF. Requests deemed ineligible by the SPF shoud be scrutinized by CRP for eligibility within 14 days.
Para. 35: A draft terms of reference for the compliance review should be shared with the requesters before it is finalized.
Para 47: Is the provision for a “revised request” stated in the Policy? If it is (we might have missed seeing it), we would recommend that since the original request is already deemed eligible and the revised request would build on the original request, the eligibility of the revised request should not be questioned or judged again. Thus there should not be a need to determine eligibility anew.
Para. 52: This provision is applying a double standard to the requesters regarding their right to keep information they submit to the panel confidential. It is recommended that the same standards of confidentiality should apply to all stakeholders and the phrase “substance of the complaint” needs to be clearly defined.
Para. 64: The Review that will be conducted in three years should be independent and public (and not simply a management review). Perhaps it can be conducted by what is now the newly independant OED. The review must include opportunities for external stakeholder input, particularly from communities that have filed requests with the accountability mechanism.
Para. 66: Procedures should not be altered for private sector projects. This would be inconsistent with the Board approved Accountability Mechanism policy paper which simply states that “The new ADB accountability mechanism will apply to private sector operations (loan, guarantee, equity investment to the extent that ADB's operational policies and operational procedures are covered by it, or technical assistance [TA] grant),” without mention of adjusting any requirements for private sector operations.
Additional suggestion: It is recommended that the CRP draft procedures include a provision which specifies the manner in which requests/cases that only refer to a breach of the ADB Disclosure Policy (currently under review) will be handled. We anticipate instances when an external stakeholder that is not satisfied by the response they have received from ADB management regarding release of a particular document/s will want to have an avenue for an appeal. This appeal/grievance redress system must be independent, effective and responsive. We recommend that the ADB Compliance Review Panel be given the additional responsibility of dealing with such appeals from requesters. The CRP should develop a procedure for responding to such appeals, one which allows it to submit its findings to the Board, requesters and management no later than within 30 days of having received an appeal.