A potential integration of the World Bank and IFC/MIGA accountability mechanisms: How can we ensure complainants’ best interests?
•
Article summary
Notes from a CSPF session titled, A potential integration of the World Bank and IFC/MIGA accountability mechanisms: How can we ensure complainants’ best interests? This panel explored the potential and implications of merging the World Bank Group’s independent accountability mechanisms, with the intention of identifying areas of common interest and advancing a principled consensus to avoid the derogation of rights for complainants while ensuring the effective and efficient delivery of accountability and remedy.
Moderator
- Kate Geary, Co-Director, Recourse
Pannelists
- Parameswaran Iyer, Executive Director for Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Sri Lanka (EDS12), WBG
- Ibrahim Pam, Chairperson of Inspection Panel, WB
- Janine Helene Ferretti, Director-General, Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman
- Orsolya Székely, Head of Dispute Resolution Service, WB
- Margaux Day, Executive Director, Accountability Counsel
- Aaron Pedrosa, Senior Attorney, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice
A video recording of this event is available here.
David: welcome to this critically important session about the potential integration of the World Bank independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs). The topic of this discussion is mission critical, for my organisation and many CSOs present in the room today who rely on the WB AMs to help communities access justice for harms they suffer as a result of projects funded by the WB. Usually there are no other recourses for this.
This consolidation is also part of the WBG President integration of teams in the institution for efficiency and effectiveness under the One World Bank approach.
So far there’s has been pretty limited information about this potential consolidation. We hope we can shine a bit of light today on what’s happening: timing and goals of these changes. We want to make change that integration, if it happens, results in better AMs for the affected people.
Parameswaran: today I am going to look at the potential integration of 3 IAMs at the Bank: CAO (Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman), IP (Inspection Panel) and DRS (Dispute Resolution Service).
There’s a move at the Bank to leverage each institution compatible advantage to make it more efficient. Bigger and better bank.
A critical part is how to integrate and make each arm to work closely with each other and make it more impactful.
There is a common framework across the Bank: makers and checkers, which you may hear more about.
From a management point there is an increasing move to have greater representation at the country level, what they call joint country representation. Now there’s one representative in each country.
The IAMs work with the board, they are independent from management.
There is an ongoing conversation on how to make the IAMs more efficient, how they can be improved for the project affected people compliance and redress systems.
Recommendation from a year ago: structural change in relation between DRS and IP, which has been ongoing. Another recommendation on how to make the work of the Bank more impactful. The other recommendation was from the country side: there’s lack of awareness about the IAMs of the Bank. There were indications telling us we needed to be more consistent.
Other banks have also included merging of private, accountability mechanisms…
The Bank started discussions, including consultations with CSOs. The three IAMs were driving this conversation, brought a paper to a board seminar. From there a task force was created, tasked with looking at the question: discussion with stakeholders, CSOs, etc.
The taskforce is working now on an approach paper which will be finalised over the next 4-6 weeks, and from there the taskforce will start working.
We want to make sure this is going to be better, the effectiveness of IAMs is improved and how this is improving the life of affected people.
Margaux: it is important to keep in mind that IFIs work in a complicated and flawed systems, and they continue to harm local communities and the environment. These communities are the ones that are the most harmed, and that the IFIs taking those decisions are kms far away.
There were over 3000 case last year brought to CAO.
IAMs can be very transformative and matter a lot for communities. They are very good for Banks as well.
Local communities know first-hand when things are not going to work. If there are trusted channels to hear from the local experts, banks can take action to assess and avoid this harm.
No matter what the WB issue of the day is, the Bank need local experts and local communities, and this is why they need IAMs.
IAMs are also important because they are the way for them not to be sued in courts.
They have to be good enough – to avoid harm but also to avoid cases coming their way.
Effective IAMs the core requirement is whether a mechanism is good enough for a community. Is it easy to access? is the process predictable? is the Bank learning from these processes and will change from these practices? We are just looking for a fair justice channel.
There’re lots of barriers to success: achieving success is particularly difficult. It’s an especially scary time to advocate for accountability. There are lots of cases where there’s push back and where people feel they’re going to end up worse off.
If the Bank really wants to get transformative and impactful outcomes, it needs to step up in accountability. The current political scenario is not beneficial to accountability.
Decisions makers people are usually people far away, the people taking the decisions are not usually those who are going to use these mechanisms.
I would agree with the principle of no regression, no delusion. Other 3 principles I would like to ask: we have to set high ambition, people who are impacted need to be part of the design process, we need to trust the IAMs staff to know what they are doing and remain independent.
Aaron: we filled a case in 2017 against IFC for investing in three financial intermediaries for 19 coal plans across the Philippines. A management action plan was put in place in 2019, still no actions have been taken.
Our motivations are justice and remedy. It’s always after the fact.
Communities have always been invisible from design, preparation, construction… Almost never consulted, or considered.
The case of RSBC, communities continue to suffer effects of IFIs work.
Communities keep being undermined in the Philippines. To this day do not have access to remedy. It’s been eight years since we filled the complaint.
Regarding the integration of the IAMs, there needs to be increasing accountability, remedy, information sharing… This is still not the case in the Philippines.
We ask: will the integration integrate communities-led experience? will deliver justice and remedy? Will deliver remedy to the affected communities?
Merged or not, communities and justice should be the bottom line.
Questions and answers
David to Parameswaran: why the merge now, what is the problem we are trying to solve? Happy to say the purpose is to improve the effectiveness of the IAMs, which we all agree on. Why do you think consolidating the IAMs will achieve that goal?
Parameswaran: this has been ongoing for many years. A couple of reasons why it got initiated: there’s always room for improvement. There is an opportunity to make it better and more effective. From the primary lenses of improving integration of affected people. The principle of no delusion no regression ais the base. The issue of integration came in, will this lead to that? The feedback we have been getting is that while the CSO community may be available there’re other stakeholders: client countries for example. There are projects where more than one are involved (IBRD, IFC…) and with the increasing integration of the Bank this will become more and more frequent. It was an opportunity to relook at it.
We had conversations with other MDBs, some are also looking into this.
These all created the opportunity for this moment and why it came back on the table.
Critical questions like will it make it better, etc, we are thinking about those, and if it became better with integration, the board will take the decision.
David: many times, consolidations bring things backwards. I would like to ask: take us to a specific example of what no regression means. CAO is one of the most accessible mechanisms of the whole IAMs system. One of the reasons is the low bar of eligibility, it’s easy for communities to access to this mechanism. Others like the IP are much less accessible. Will the CAO eligibility criteria prevail over the others?
Parameswaran: accessibility is a key parameter. Everything is on the table this is all going to be looked at.
Representative from the African Youth Court Foundation Nigeria: we work with the Bank in a nutrition project. When grievances are reported, what are the systems doing to make sure the feedback is received and changes are made? and investigations report disclosed?
Representative from Inclusive Engagement International, Bangladesh: it was mentioned there’s an external taskforce. Who is in there and how are they selected?
Parameswaran: the discussion was about the need to have such taskforce, preferably from people from outside the institutions and trustworthy. These came from a pool of names recommended by the IAMs to the Board.
Dustin, Urgewald: to what extend is learning included in this process? Do you look at institutional environment within the WB?
Parameswaran: this is led by the board, it was not initiated by the management. There’s been lots of discussion and it’s of interest of the entire board, the task force is meeting every member of the board and other parts of the Bank who engage with other members of the Bank; once the paper is being finalised they want to engage with people from outside, details about consultation will come out soon.
Representatives from Human Rights Watch: what process are important to follow to make sure these mechanisms make it better for the people. What is going to happen?
Greg from Accountability Counsel: there is confusion on what mechanism is available for communities. What can be done to address such confusion? Can more resources been allocated to information and disclosure?
Parameswaran: they work well right now, we want to go to another level. If more outreach is required, if anything is needed, it should be done. That’s the idea of the process.
Thomas, former economist at the Bank for 10 years: it’s important not to play politics. Things need to get done and cleaned up and better. This issue has been ongoing for more than 20 years, clearly not being cleaned up.
David: Aaron talked about the RSDC case, we worked on it. Eight years on, three years after a MAP was put in place, still not outcome. The potential remedial actions that could be implemented are things that could be better handled by the Bank. What we need is a One World Bank approach to remedy. If we are going to have a One World Bank remedial action as well?
Parameswaran: if you look at IFC and the Bank, no regression no delusion, this all makes sense. This could all be part of this conversation.
David: now let’s hear from accountability leaders. Ibrahim, I would like to hear how the three of you are coordinating on this? What role would you expect the mechanisms are going to play in this process? Are you all in the same page about the three core principles that need to lead this process?
Ibrahim: IP has been in existence since 1993. On behalf of the three mechanisms, we have worked rather closely together since the beginning of this process. We three were involved in scoping the original and evolution of the IAMs at the Bank. Experts provided the main elements of what we anticipated should be the core elements of this integration. Particularly at areas of policy difference, areas of potential policy integration and the idea of reaching high standards was always there. Speaking of remedy, what’s interesting is that the IP has attained a very high level of remedial action.
Orsolya: we coordinate in our daily work. We coordinate not only among ourselves but with the taskforce. We are eager to have these discussions with the board as well. We mentioned this puts lots of pressure on our capacity. As we move into the substance of the process case base examples should be part of the discussion, there may be differences, that’s why it makes it imp for stakeholders to take part on these discussions.
David: I fear that if you are not on the same page of the core principles of this process, the risks are likely to outweigh the benefits.
Question to Janine: How do you see the benefits of the integration? what more is needed to create best class IAMs?
Janine: communities do not even know when projects are funded by the WB. This needs to be improved. Opportunity for impact is a benefit that can be seen. The One World Bank approach to remedy is a great goal. There’s got to be more than lessons learned. Dispute resolutions are falling. There’s an accountability gap, that we can hopefully solve with this integration. Other benefits are to look at where we have blind spots, like impact on biodiversity. Also strengthening access to information and disclosure. There’re risks of transaction and risks of inherent differences. Principles are very important: no regression, transparency, and commitment to improving access to remedy. These can maximise our chances to get a next generation accountability 3.0. because our role is to make sure we commit to these principles.
David to Orsolya: are there especial concerns for dispute resolution when bringing together mechanisms that serve both public and private sectors? Risks on the transitions?
Orsoyla: we can bring something new to the institution. We brought a few cases to look at the challenges on bringing together different policies, timelines, etc. Things like how do you use public sector leverage? It’s important not to dilute mandates. There’re clear responsibilities and we do not want these to dilute as part of the integration. There are lessons learned that can be brought in terms of using different tools that can help each other.
Questions and answers
Representative from Global Environment Facility: are you working with IAms in other institutions? Are you sharing information?
Ibrahim: we do have a cooperation agreement between the IP and Compliance mechanism at ADB for example. We work to identify common standards. There’s a push for greater harmonization from the G20 among MDBs.
There is coordination around dispute resolution between IAMs, for example. What could be in the future, our coordination and harmonized approach to our work is looking to become that super IAM David mentioned.
To Janine: global environ public goods, what is the internal discussion about remedial actions towards damage to environ in communities?
Janine: if you are concerned about a project that is causing damage to the biodiversity as a global concern as opposed to specific impact to a community, there’s no living body not affected by climate.
Representative of Human Rights Council of Balochistan: easy approach to the mechanisms and how affected communities can get in contact with IAMs. How do you measure the damage? HQ is only for people who can access. Is this mechanism available for every country? How can you make it accessible for these people not only to talk to you but how do you measure what these mechanisms involve for these peoples? After years, I am still trying to understand these mechanisms. How can you make it easier to access justice?
Orsoyla: it’s a great achievement for a member of a community to reach out. Information needs to be provided earlier on, by the team in the ground and to the team in the ground. There’re serious barriers, one being language. We try to overcome this by making our materials visual and explain as simply as possible who we are and make our system and processes as simple as possible.
Kate Gary from Recourse: can Charles give a very brief explanation on how we can engage with the panel. How can communities be involved in this process?
Charles: there’s an approach paper with the board currently. I feel confident that the points everyone have raise are captured in that paper. For instance, about transition, we understood this would be an important issue – we look at these issues if an integration does happen.
Dave: there must not be dilution, and Parameswaran said on the record that they need to have a World Bank Group wide remedial action framework. The mechanisms need to hold the board and the task force accountable and make sure we come up with a 3.0 that’s better than a 2.0.
