Information Matrix of Accountability Mechanisms of IFIs

Transcription

1 Information Matrix of Accountability Mechanisms of IFIs Areas Accountability Mechanism Name and basis Accountability Mechanism Policy 2012: g/documents/acco untabilitymechanismpolicy-2012 Operations Manual: g/sites/default/files /institutionaldocument/31483/o ml1.pdf Independent Review Mechanism (IRM)Enabling Resolution and Operating Rules and Procedureshttp://w ww.afdb.org/filead min/uploads/afdb/d ocuments/complia nce-review/en- Boards_Resolution _on_establishment _of_irm_2015.pdf; /en/documents/doc ument/revised-irmoperating-rulesand-procedures / Complaints Mechanism - Procedure for the Receipt, Retention and Treatment of Complaints at the Black Sea Trade and, link: ntacts/procedure_for_th e_receipt_retention_a nd_treatment_of_comp laints.pdf for and Project Complaint Mechanism (PCM) Rules of Procedure (2014) link: /downloads/integrity/ pcmrules.pdf The responses below relate to the internal part of the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM). If complainants are not satisfied with the outcome of the EIB- CM work or with the s response they may escalate to the second tiers of the mechanism the Ombudsman (EO). The EO will then review the EIB-CM s work and the s position, will investigate further, if deemed necessary, and will take a view on the case. Such view may include findings of maladministration by the EIB and/or recommendations to the EIB. If the EIB fails to implement such recommendations, the EO may make a Special Report to the Parliament., Multilateral Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism, Two distinct policies The Policy for IADB/ MIFfunded operations (public and private sector) : b.org/documen t.cfm?id= The Policy for IIC-funded operations (private sector only(: b.org/documen t.cfm?id= Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) Operational Guidelines (2013) link: owwework/2012o perationalguidelin esupdate.htm Link to the joint SECU-SRM Accountability Mechanism homepage u-srm The Inspection Panel rldbank.org/apps/ip /Pages/Home.aspx 1

2 for and EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) ocentre/publications/a ll/complaintsmechanismpolicy.htm ocentre/publications/a ll/complaintsmechanismoperatingprocedures.htm, Multilateral Functions The Accountability Mechanism has two functions. The problem solving led by the Special Project Facilitator (SPF). SPF addresses problems of people affected by ADB-assisted projects through informal and flexible methods. The SPF also provides generic support and advice to operations in their problem prevention and problem solving activities, but not for specific cases under problem The IRM has the following functions: Problem Solving. It is facilitated by the Director of the Review and Mediation Unit (CRMU) which administers the IRM. The Problem solving techniques include facilitation, fact finding and mediation. The objective of the problem solving is to encourage requestors, project promoters and the to find agreeable solutions to problems at stake. The Complaints Mechanism has the following scope: to establish, coordinate and maintain an efficient and effective integrated mechanism for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the from any source, either internally or externally, in connection with any of its operations, accounting, internal control or other matters. It includes both compliance review/ investigation as well as problem solving. The PCM has two functions: Problem-solving, which has the objective of restoring a dialogue between the Complainant and the Client to resolve the issue(s) underlying a Complaint without attributing blame or fault. A Problemsolving Initiative might include independent or joint fact-finding, mediation, dialogue facilitation, or other dispute resolution approaches. Review, which 2 The EIB-CM has four functions: Complaints Investigation Office Responsible for investigations / compliance reviews regarding registered complaints. Mediation Function To provide different forms of mediation between, on one side, the Complainants/Reques tors and on the other side, the s /Service s and/or Project Promoter and/or national authorities as appropriate. Advisory Function Within the scope of The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) has two functions. The Consultation Phase led by the Consultation Phase Coordinator, who reports to the MICI Director. This phase provides an opportunity for the Parties to address the issues raised in the Request in a voluntary, flexible and collaborative manner. The Review Phase led by the Review Coordinator, who CAO works through three complementary roles Dispute Resolution, and Advisory. In its Dispute Resolution role, CAO provides opportunities for affected communities to engage directly with the IFC and/or MIGA project sponsor to address environmental and social concerns related to a project. In its role, CAO The Accountability Mechanism has two components. The problem solving function, which is housed within the Stakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM), helps project-affected stakeholders, governments, and other partners jointly resolve concerns and disputes. The compliance review function, which is led by the Social and Environmental Unit Review only.

3 for and, Multilateral reports to the MICI Director. This phase offers an investigative process related to the issues raised in the Request to establish whether the ID/IIC/MIF has failed to comply with any of its Relevant Operational Policies and whether that has caused Harm to the Requesters. solving by operations departments. The compliance review Panel (CRP) investigates alleged noncompliance by ADB with its operational policies and procedures that has caused, or is likely to cause, direct and material harm to projectaffected people. review. This function is carried out by the IRM Panel of Experts which investigate to determine whether or not the harm which is or likely to be caused on people results from non-compliance with s applicable policies and procedures. Advisory function. It entails two instruments: (i) spot check advisory review of project compliance which is carried out by the IRM Experts (ii) provision of independent opinions to by CRMU. The spot check is initiated by the Boards of Directors or the President concerning projects posing high environmental and social risks for purposes of institutional seeks to determine whether or not the EBRD has complied with relevant policies in respect of an approved Project. Relevant policies consist of the s Environmental and Social Policy as well as project-specific provisions of the Public Information Policy. responsibilities, to provide advice to senior management on broader and systemic issues related to policies, standards, procedures, guidelines, resources, and systems, on the basis of lessons learned from the complaints handling. Monitoring Function In the context of past complaints, to follow-up on further developments and implementation of proposed corrective actions and recommendations, accepted by the EIB oversees investigations of the environmental and social performance of IFC and MIGA, particularly in relation to sensitive projects, to ensure compliance with relevant policies, guidelines, procedures, and systems Through its Advisory role, CAO is mandated to provide advice to the President and IFC and MIGA management based on CAO s casework bringing the perspective of project-affected people to improve IFC and MIGA policies, systems and practices. (SECU), conducts compliance reviews in response to complaints that UNDP may not be meeting its social and environmental commitments. There is also an advisory notes function which can address systemic, institution-wide, or policy issues. 3

4 learning. for and, Multilateral Milestones Inspection Function established in Inspection Function reviewed in Accountability Mechanism with consultation and compliance review phases was created in Accountability Mechanism CRMU also carries out outreach activities to raise awareness about the mandate and functions of the IRM among staff and other project stakeholders such as project promoters and civil society. CRMU disseminates knowledge products on compliance and accountability issues to familiarize stakeholders with prevailing global trends and international practices. The IRM was established in The IRM Operating Rules and Procedures were approved in 2006 along with the appointment of the first Director of CRMU. The Complaints Mechanism was established in The Procedure for the Receipt, Retention and Treatment of Complaints at the Black Sea Trade and was approved by the Board of Directors in The PCM was established in 2010, replacing the Independent Recourse Mechanism which was in place since The PCM Rules of Procedure were developed in 2009, highlighting the two functions of the 4 The first EIB Complaints Mechanism policy was approved in It was reviewed in 2009, after one year of operation, and the EIB Board of Directors approved the Complaints Mechanism Principles, Terms of Reference and Rules Independent Investigation Mechanism (IIM) established in 1994, reporting to the President (only investigation function). MICI, and independent office established in 2010 and reporting to the Board of Executive Directors with two CAO was established in 1999 to bridge a gap in the Inspection Panel s jurisdiction. CAO initiated an update of its Operational Guidelines in 2012 in response to recommendations from an independent The Social and Environmental Standards (SES), the SRM, and SECU became effective 1 January Created in 1993 by two resolutions of the International for and (IBRD) and the International Agency (IDA). In 1996 and 1999 Clarifications were added to the

5 Number of cases reviewed between 2010 and Accountability Mechanism Policy revised and became effective in 2012, with the following changes: (i) Creation of a Complaint Receiving Officer (CRO), (ii) Consultation Phase changed to Problem Solving Function, and (iii) Complainants direct access to CRP (no need to go through OSPF first) 2004 to end- September 2016 SPF: total 54, eligible 17 CRP: total 11, eligible 9 The quadrennial mandatory review of IRM was carried out in 2010 and also in The current Enabling Resolution and Operating Rules and Procedures (2015) expanded the mandate of the IRM to include the advisory function Total received: 22 Registered: 12, Problem solving: 7 review:5 Unregistered:10 In 2016: Assessment for Registration: 0, Eligibility phase: total: 24, eligible: 21 for and mechanism: Review and Problemsolving. The Rules require that the mechanism is reviewed at least every 5 years. In 2014 the Rules were updated with a view to making the mechanism more efficient and accessible Complaints received: 112 Complaints registered: 24 5 of Procedure (the Policy) in February 2010, following a process of extensive public consultation. The Complaints Mechanism Operating Procedures (the Procedures) were approved by the s Committee in December 2011 after consultation to the Ombudsman. Both the Policy and the Procedures are currently being reviewed, with public consultation planned for early Received: 182 Admissible: 145 (The EIB-CM s mandate is a broad one, but the figures above only include cases related to project environmental and social impacts or governance of, Multilateral functions consultation and compliance review covering IDB and MIF operations. Policy is reviewed and approved in December Structural changes, still report to the Board and with two functions covering IDB and MIF operations In December 2015, MICI scope is widened to cover IIC under their own MICI Policy, reporting to the IIC Board of Executive Directors and two functions consultation and compliance review : 83 Requests received, 29 registered. CP: total 29, eligible 14 CRP: total 17, eligible June 2016: 22 Requests received, 8 registered, 3 in review of CAO s effectiveness in 2010 and a review by the World Group Board s Committee on Governance and Executive Directors Administrative Matters (COGAM) in Since its inception in 1999, CAO has handled 160 cases in 49 countries, across many industry sectors SRM: 3 Registered, 2 currently open SECU: 2 Registered, 2 currently open Resolution. In November 2013, a Pilot approach to support early solutions in the Panel process was initiated. Pilot will be assessed after it processes 3 cases. Updated Operating Procedures were adopted in April 2014; Annex 2 was added in February Complaints Received: 110 Registered: 84 Pilots: 2 Investigations Recommended: 39 Investigations Undertaken: 34

6 Policy coverage For the compliance review function, ADB s operational policies and procedures in the formulation, implementation, or processing of ADB-assisted projects (finances or to be financed, or administered or to be administered by ADB), as identified by the Board (e.g. Safeguard Policy Statement, Incorporation of Social Dimensions into ADB Operations, Public Communications, and Project Performance System) For the problem solving function, a complaint may be filed regardless of noncompliance with ADB operational AfDB s operational policies applicable to both public and private sector, and are contained in the Integrated Safeguard System of the of 2013 All the s policies can be subject to review, without limitations, including but not limited to: -Operations Cycle Policy (and related manuals/ procedures) -Public Information Policy -Environmental and Social Policy -Procurement Principles and Rules for and The following policies fall within the mandate of the PCM: Environmental and Social Policy and project-specific provisions of the Public Information Policy. 6 financed operations) All policies and procedures. Concept of maladministration: Maladministration means poor or failed administration. This occurs when the EIB Group fails to act in accordance with the applicable legislation and/or established policies, standards and procedures, fails to respect the principles of good administration or violates human rights. Some examples of failure to respect the principles of good administration, as set by the Ombudsman, are: administrative irregularities, unfairness, discrimination, abuse of power, failure to reply, refusal of information, unnecessary delay. Maladministration may also relate to the environmental or social impacts of the EIB Group activities, Multilateral process of eligibility determination, 1 eligible (for both CP and CRP) MICI IDB: The MICI applies to all Relevant Operational Policies. ROPs will also be deemed to include policies approved following entry into effect of the Policy, and all such policies may be explicitly designated by the Board as falling within the purview of the MICI. MICI IIC: Covering only the following policies Environmental and Social Sustainability. Disclosure of Information Policy. CAO provides affected individuals and communities with access to redress for environmental and social impacts associated with IFC and MIGA projects. CAO s work is informed by IFC and MIGA s commitment to World Group safeguard policies, which govern the environmental and social impacts of Group projects. Since April 2006, IFC s work has been guided by its Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which are part of a Sustainability Framework that articulates IFC s commitment to sustainable The SRM responds to grievances related to social and/or environmental impacts of UNDPsupported projects. The SECU investigates alleged noncompliance with UNDP s Social and Environmental Standards, the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure, and any other commitments made in the context of specific project agreements. All IBRD and IDA operational policies and procedures.

7 Advisory Areas Awareness raising and Learning policies and procedures. The problem solving function (OSPF) has an advisory role. Review function (CRP) has no advisory role but can provide Board and lessons learned from specific cases or learning study. AM (OSPF and OCRP) regularly conducts both inreach and outreach activities, CRMU has an advisory role CRMU outreach covers: Staff seminars National and Complaints Mechanism has an advisory role. The Procedure for the Receipt, Retention and Treatment of Complaints is posted on the website and Intranet for and PCM does not have an advisory role. The PCM conducts outreach activities to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of the 7 and to project cycle related policies and other applicable policies of the EIB. EBI-CM has an advisory role (see above) EIB-CM regularly conducts both inreach and out-reach activities, including informal dialogue with, Multilateral MICI has no advisory role but can provide recommendations and generate lessons learned. The MICI conducts outreach activities regularly within the to disseminate MICI s development. CAO has an advisory role. CAO conducts proactive public outreach with the goal of ensuring that potentially Both SRM and SECU have an advisory role. The Accountability Mechanism, both the SRM and SECU jointly, and the two functions N/A The Panel presents systemic issues and reflections discerned from its work to the Board,, and the public through events and publications (for example, Board seminars, a Lessons Learned series, events during Spring/Annual meetings) and publication of Emerging Lessons series: first one on Involuntary Resettlement to be followed with the Indigenous Peoples, Environmental Assessment and Consultation and Disclosure The Panel works with civil society, WB, and other IAMs to help make the

8 including informal dialogue with the staff on lessons learned and ways to improve accountability. OSPF and CRP/OCRP, together with evaluation and knowledge departments in ADB, issues learning reports every three years. AM has a website, and social media account. regional workshops Community sessions CRMU also coorganizes outreach events with the Integrity and Anti- Corruption Department of the, the and Safeguard Division, the Division in charge of Civil Society Organizations and country offices of the in its Regional Member Countries. This is in addition to events organized with the IAMs. site and is included in new employee orientation and periodic training programs. Out-reach activities are conducted on a periodic basis. Results are discussed with the Evaluation Office and are evaluated, as appropriate, in terms of lessons learned. for and mechanism to project-impacted individuals as well as Organisations throughout EBRD countries of operation. PCM provides training to EBRD staff in London and the Resident Offices. PCM reports on outreach and inreach activities in the PCM Annual Report. 8 the staff on lessons learned and ways to improve accountability. As part of its Advisory role, the EIB-CM may issue reports on systemic issues detected during the handling of the cases., Multilateral role and process. The MICI has as part of its mandate to conduct public outreach throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. impacted individuals and communities are aware of CAO s existence, understand CAO s role, and can access CAO services with regard to the environmental and social impact of IFC and MIGA projects. Equally, to enhance uptake of lessons from CAO s work, it is important that IFC and MIGA staff understand CAO s work and that insights are shared. CAO s inreach and outreach activities thus extend to communities, civil society organizations, IFC and MIGA staff and clients, private sector, policy practitioners, international institutions, business and human rights community, separately, regularly conduct both in-reach and out-reach activities. The aim of in-reach is to build awareness and capacity among UNDP staff and project managers/implem enters in regional and country offices. The aim of outreach is to raise awareness among partners, NGOs, CSOs, communities and other CS platforms about the Accountability Mechanism and how to file complaints when appropriate. Panel better known in borrowing countries by organizing outreach events. The Panel has a dedicated website, and can also be accessed via the WB website. The Panel ensures user-friendly information is easily retrievable through the internet and social media. Reference to the Panel is included in all Project Appraisal Documents. Panel and collaborate in trainings of operational staff. The Panel issues an Annual Report and a quarterly newsletter. Public information materials are produced in several languages.

9 for and, Multilateral academia, and mediators. Legal advice The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) advises the Board, Board Review Committee (BCRC), SPF/OSPF, and the CRP/OCRP on matters concerning ADB s legal status, rights, and obligations under the Agreement. Current practice: One legal staff of OGC provides advice to BCRC, SPF/OSPF, and CRP/OCRP. This legal staff does not advise on AMP issues to avoid any perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest CRMU does not provide legal advice since it is the prerogative of the s General Counsel. CRMU seeks the advice of the General Counsel in course of IRM review, consultations during compliance review process, if need be. Legal staff of the Office of the General Counsel, who do not advise on project related issues, provide advice to the Complaints Mechanism. External counsel may also be used. The PCM Rules of Procedure provide: The General Counsel will, upon request, provide all legal information and advice needed regarding the s policies and procedures and the s rights and obligations regarding the project at issue in a complaint. The EIB-CM produces its own legal opinions and is the one responsible to interpret its mandate. In the absence of a declared or perceived conflict of interest, the Head of the EIB-CM may request a legal opinion to the s legal services. Policy requirement: If requested by the MICI Director, the IDB/ IIC Legal Department will provide legal information and advice regarding IDB s/iic s rights and obligations in relation to a specific operation, or regarding the interpretation of ROPs. The MICI Director may also seek external legal advice on Requestrelated issues as they arise. No compulsory obligation to seek advice from IDB Group Legal Dept. Current practice: The MICI has not sought internal (IDB/IIC) nor external advice on legal issues. The CAO VP and General Counsel may provide advice to the President of the World Group on issues that relate to the CAO mandate. UNDP s Legal Office is available to advise as needed/requested. The Panel determines the eligibility of a request for inspection independently of any views expressed by. With respect to matters relating to the 's rights and obligations in the context of a request, the Panel will seek the advice of the 's Legal Department as required by the Resolution. Cutoff dates Problem Solving and Review cannot be accessed if two years or more Rules section C on statute of limitation CRMU shall not handle complaints filed more than 24 Suspicions should be reported the soonest possible after the reporting person or entity becomes aware of The Review function is available within 2 years after the ceased its 9 The only formal cutoff: Complaints must be lodged within one year from the date on which the Requests can be filed related to operations that have been approved by the The complaint must pertain to a project that IFC and/or MIGA are participating in, or To be eligible for the SRM, the request must relate to a current or proposed A Request may be submitted at any time, starting with when a Project is under

10 for and, Multilateral Board(s) or any delegated authority to the IDB President or IIC the General Manager. Request has to be filed within 24 months after the last disbursement of the relevant operation (not relevant for financial instruments such as guarantees). have passed since loan or grant closing date. months after the physical completion of the project concerned or more than 24 months after the final disbursement under the loan or grant agreement or the date of cancellation of the disbursement amount, whichever comes first. the conditions that lead to the need of submitting a complaint. No time limitation for reporting. participation in a Project. The Problem-solving initiative is available within 1 year after the last disbursement, or where the has not sold or exited from its investment (equity). facts upon which the allegation is grounded could be reasonably known by the complainant. However, for complaints lodged after the loan has been fully reimbursed, the EIB will have no leverage with the client. are actively considering. There is no formal cutoff date. UNDP project. For SECU, there are no specific cutoff dates. However, a case is ineligible if the complaint relates to projects or programmes that is not supported by UNDP or for which UNDP s support has ended and its role can no longer reasonably be considered a cause of the concerns raised in the claim. Note, however, that when UNDP s support has ended, but impacts can fairly and reasonably be traced to UNDP s involvement, the SECU will accept complaints that are likely to provide institutional learning, prevent future mistakes and abuses, or support resolution of concerns of communities. consideration by, until disbursement is less than 95% and before the project is closed. 10

11 Who files / minimum number of APs Representation At least two (2) project-affected persons. Additionally, for compliance review, one or more ADB Board members may also file a complaint, in special cases involving allegations of serious violations of ADB s operational policies and procedures relating to an ongoing ADBassisted project, but after first raising the concerns to. Project-affected people may be represented by a local representative. In exceptional cases, At least two individuals. People affected by projects could be represented by duly authorized individuals, NGOs and exceptionally Any staff member, or an individual or group of persons or a legal entity outside the affected or feeling affected by a decision or practice of the, or of an operation funded by the, may file a complaint. Anonymous complaints can also be accepted as a basis for a review/analysis/ investigation; however, the s capacity to follow up such reports may be limited. Requests may be submitted by an authorized representative, on behalf of a projectaffected person or for and One or more individual(s) located in an Impacted Area, or who has or have an economic interest, including social and cultural interests, in an Impacted Area, may submit a Complaint seeking a Problemsolving Initiative. One or more individual(s) or Organisation(s) may submit a Complaint seeking a Review. Project-affected individuals may have an Authorised Representative to assist them in filing the Complaint and 11 Any natural or legal person. No need to prove to be affected. Complaints may be represented by people or organizations of their choice., Multilateral Any group of two or more people. Requests can be filed by a representative (residence not relevant), provided he or she indicates Any individual or group may submit a complaint so long as they believe that they are affected, or potentially affected, by the environmental and social impacts of an IFC/MIGA project. CAO cannot accept anonymous complaints. Another organization may file a complaint on behalf of affected people, so long as the organization Any individual or community may file a request to UNDP s Accountability Mechanism. There are no requirements regarding who or how many complainants there must be so long as the other eligibility criteria are met. A third party, such as a civil society organization, may file a request on behalf of affected individuals so long A Request for Inspection may be submitted by: a. two or more project affected people; or b. a duly appointed local representative acting on behalf of affected people; or c. in exceptional cases, a non-local representative where the party submitting the Request contends that appropriate representation is not locally available and the Board so agree; or d. an Executive Director of the in special cases of serious alleged violations of the 's policies and procedures; or e. the Executive Directors acting as a Board. Requesters may be represented by a local representative. In exceptional circumstances,

12 for and, Multilateral the persons on whose behalf he or she is acting and provides written evidence of the authority to represent them. SPF and CRP may agree on representation by a nonlocal representative. Evidence of authority to represent is required. foreign representatives if unfeasible to obtain local representation in country where the project complained of is located. group of people, as long as they have been duly authorized by the requester/s and explicitly evidence such authority. maintaining communication with PCM during processing of the case. clearly identifies on whose behalf the complaint is being made, and provides explicit evidence of authority to present the complaint on their behalf. Project affected peoples may also be represented by local representatives during the Dispute Resolution process. During assessment CAO works with the parties to identify community representatives. as they provide proof that they are acting on the affected person(s) s behalf. when local representation is not available, and the Board agrees, a non-local representation is also acceptable. Direct / indirect / potential effects / harm For both functions, there must be direct and material harm that has been, or is likely to be, caused to the complainants by the ADB-assisted project. Upon authorization of the Boards of Directors, The IRM Panel of Experts investigates whether the alleged non-compliance by AfDB with its operational policies and procedures has caused or is likely to cause, direct and material harm to project affected persons. The Complaints Mechanism investigates any kind of complaint received, including those of potential or indirect adverse effect. PCM provides an opportunity for an independent review of complaints concerning a Project which allegedly has caused, or is likely to cause, harm. Harm which has not been properly compensated or mitigated is covered, even if there is been full compliance. As per the MICI Policy, harm is defined as follows: Any direct, material damage or loss. Harm may be actual or reasonably likely to occur in the future. The harm must be linked to a potential non-compliance with operational policies. Any individual or group may submit a complaint so long as they believe that they are affected, or potentially affected, by the environmental and social impacts of an IFC/MIGA project CAO s assessment of the complaint does not entail any judgment on the For the SRM, Any person or group of persons who believe they are adversely affected by a UNDP project, or at risk of adverse impacts from a proposed UNDP project, may file a request for use of the SRM. For SECU, it is required that a The Panel investigates whether harm (material adverse effects), as alleged by the Requesters, has totally or partially resulted from failure of the to comply with its policies and procedures during design, appraisal and implementation. 12

13 for and, Multilateral merits of the complaint. plausible causal relationship exists between UNDP s involvement and the alleged harm. Structure Problem Solving - SPF and OSPF Review - CRP and OCRP Appointment and reporting The SPF appointed by the President, after consultation with the Board, and reports to the President. The CRMU Direct is responsible for conducting Problem solving, outreach and knowledge management. He also provides advisory services. The CRMU has 3 professional staff and 3 administrative staff. The IRM Experts are responsible for compliance review triggered by requests. They also undertake spot check advisory reviews of project compliance initiated by the President or the Boards of Directors. The Director of CRMU is appointed by the Boards of Directors upon recommendation of the President. The IRM experts are appointed by the Complaints Mechanism is handled by the Internal Audit Department in an independent manner. The Head of Internal Audit Department, who is ultimately responsible for BSTDB s Complaints Mechanism, reports directly to the Board of Directors, maintaining the principles of Review and Problem-solving Initiatives are both conducted by PCM. The PCM Officer is nominated by a committee and appointed by the President on a 5- year renewable contract. The PCM Officer reports to the 13 One Head Investigation office complaints officers Mediation office mediation officer Communication Reporting and outreach programme officers Support and secretariat The second tier, the Ombudsman, is external to the. All EIB-CM staff is appointed by the EIB president according to the s normal staff procedures. The Ombudsman is MICI Director (overall responsible for MICI Office) Phase Coordinators: Consultation and Roster of Experts to support investigations headed by the Review Coordinator Full-time Technical and administrative support The MICI Director is appointed by the Board, for a fiveyear period, with the possibility of a single renewal for an equal period. The MICI Director CAO has one head, the CAO Vice President, and is composed of three unique functions. These three functions and the ways they interact are outlined in CAO s Operational Guidelines, which are available at The CAO Vice President is appointed through a unique independent selection process led by civil society, private sector and UNDP Accountability Mechanism is composed of two separate units, the SRM (problem solving) and SECU (compliance). The coordinator of the Stakeholder Response Mechanism is a staff position within the Bureau for Policy and Programme 3 Member Panel (1 full time; 2 part time) Permanent Secretariat Panel Members are appointed by the Board. The Panel reports to the Board.

14 for and, Multilateral reports directly to the Board. CRP members (3 Member Panel, 1 full time; 2 part time) are appointed by the Board upon the recommendation of the BCRC in consultation with the President. The CRP reports to the Board through the BCRC. Boards of the Directors in concurrence with the President. independence and objectivity. On an annual basis, at a minimum, a report is submitted by the Head of Internal Audit to the President and the Board of Directors, presenting all complaints received and their treatment. President and the Board on an annual basis and on such other occasions as may be necessary. PCM Experts are nominated by a committee and appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the President for a renewable term of 3 years. appointed by the Union Parliament. The appointment of the CP and the CRP Coordinators is the responsibility of the MICI Director to whom they report. Their mandates are for 5 years only. Upon completion of their appointments, the MICI Director and the Coordinators may not work at the IDB/IIC in any capacity. academia. CAO staff are recruited by the CAO Vice President. CAO reports to the President of the World Group, and provides quarterly reports and briefings as requested. CAO informs the World Group Board of its activities through case and Annual Reports, which are publicly available. CAO also provides an annual update to the Board s Committee on Effectiveness (CODE), and offers periodic technical briefings to supplement this information. Support (BPPS). The Lead Officer is located in the Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI), and is appointed by the OAI Director. The Lead Officer reports to the OAI Director. Site visit for a complaint Site visits only after obtaining consent from the borrowing country (including for private sector projects). If site visit is declined, Site visit are coordinated through AfDB country offices. To date there was no issue with regard to denial of permission to enter The Complaints Mechanism conducts every investigation in the most appropriate manner. If deemed necessary, a site visit may be included in the investigation process. No consent is required for site visits. It is a EIB-CM decision only. Site visits are foreseen at different stages of the MICI process including eligibility. The MICI Director will consult with the Executive Director CAO will carry out assessments in a flexible manner, which may include visiting project sites. When planning a visit, CAO will notify For both SECU and the SRM, site visits are conducted when necessary to gather required evidence and meet with relevant The Panel informs the Executive Director prior to its eligibility and investigation visits. The investigation visits takes place based on the The PCM Experts may carry out site visits during the Eligibility Assessment stage, as well as for the purposes of a Review 14

15 Remedial action plan the CRP will complete compliance review and deliver its findings without site visit. Problem Solving: OSPF includes stakeholders in preparation. Implementing the problem solving process requires the consent of everyone involved. Remedial actions adopted as a result of the problem solving process are reflected in a written agreement/s among the parties. Review: Remedial action plans (RAPs) are prepared by the based on the findings of the CRP s compliance review report, and it needs to be reviewed by CRP and agreed with the borrower prior the country for investigation. Time Bound Mediation Action Plans to be signed by the requestors, the project promoter and the. The remedial plans covers the issues raised by the request and other similar issues resulting of project implementation activities Depending on the investigation s results, the Complaints Mechanism may prepare and submit to the and/ or Board of Directors a remedial action plan. for and or Problem-solving Initiative. Review: Upon a finding of non-compliance and receipt of the Review Report, the is required to prepare a Action Plan (MAP), which will address whether the recommendations contained in the Review Report are appropriate. The MAP should include a timetable and estimate of the human and financial resources required to implement those recommendations considered appropriate. No requirement to consult with Complainant(s) in the preparation of the MAP. The MAP is subject 15 The EIB-CM may produce recommendations to the, which are part of the case Conclusions Report. A draft version of such report is submitted to the complaints for consultation., Multilateral for said country but does not require non-objection for mission. Consultation Phase: Even though the CP process itself does not envisage a remedial action plan, the CPs objective is to reach a consensusbased resolution of the issues raised, which could include an action plan. The action plan can be monitored by MICI for up to 5 years. Review Phase: Based on the findings and recommendations highlighted in the Review Report, if deemed appropriate, the Board will instruct to develop, in consultation with the MICI, an action plan and present it for consideration. IFC and/or MIGA, the client, complainant, and other relevant stakeholders. IFC does not, as a matter of practice or requirement issue management action plans, as part of a response to an investigation report. In this respect, IFC s falls short of good practice among IFI s including IBRD and IDA. people. No consent from any entity or office is required. For the SRM, typically the UNDP Country Office leads in responding to the grievance, in collaboration with SRM HQ as needed, unless the complainant requests an HQled process. For SECU, the compliance review document will propose remedies for addressing issues of noncompliance, with input provided through sharing of the draft with complainants and management. agreement of the borrower obtained through the Executive Director. Within six weeks of receiving the Panel s Investigation Report, submits to the Board its response which normally includes proposed actions in response to the Panel s findings. may also include in its report a proposal to submit to the Board periodic progress reports on the implementation of the remedial efforts and/or plan of action consults with Requesters to prepare the postinvestigation remedial Action Plan, and the Panel may report to the Board on the

16 Information disclosure to submitting to the Board for review and approval. No requirement on the consultation with APs and NGOs/CSOs concerned in the preparation of the RAP. Information disclosure consistent with the ADB Public Communications Policy For problem solving: Complaint letter (or general description of complaint if complainants did give consent to disclose), eligibility determination, review and assessment (or summary of the review and assessment report if consent to disclose was not received from complainants or borrower), completion report (or summary if The IRM rules provides that all reports and communication relating to the complaints as well as IRM Annual Reports should be posted on the IRM website except for issues relating to respect of confidentiality of requestors identities or government by the Disclosure and Access to Information Access to information concerning any fact or document related to a complaint is subject to the provisions of the s Public Information Policy. for and to the acceptance/approva l of the relevant decision-making authority. Information disclosure is subject to the EBRD Public Information Policy and any other applicable requirements to maintain sensitive information as confidential. For Problemsolving: Complaint, Response, Client Response, Eligibility Assessment report, President decision on Problem-solving Initiative, Problemsolving Initiative report, Problemsolving Initiative Monitoring reports. Review: Complaint, 16 Information disclosure consistent with the EIB Transparency Policy The publication of complaint related documentation depends on the complainant agreement. If the complainant(s) didn t asked for confidentiality, are published: The complaint, The Initial Assessment Report The Conclusions Report (investigation), if any The Mediation Report, if any The s Response Any further Follow-, Multilateral The action plan can be monitored by MICI for up to 5 years. Information disclosure consistent with IDB s Access to Information Policy and IIC s Disclosure of Information Policy respectively. Documents to be published: Intake and Eligibility: Original Request (if not confidential) Notice of Registration Response (redacted as needed) Eligibility Memorandum CAO makes every effort to ensure transparency and maximum disclosure of its reports, findings, and outcomes. This includes reports and findings from its dispute resolution processes, compliance investigations, and advisory work, as well as CAO Annual Reports. CAO also recognizes and protects a party s right to confidentiality. Information disclosure will respect a party s request for confidentiality, as well as IFC and For SRM, information about SRM procedures; SRM cases (project, status, result); and how to access the SRM are available online. SRM publishes quarterly newsletters about SRM implementation. UNDP project staff are required to share information about the SRM with project stakeholders throughout the project cycle. For SECU, the principle of transparency requires public comment and adequacy of this consultation. The Panel has its own disclosure regime for the four phases of its process. It also abides by the World s Access to Information Policy with respect to documents. All reports prepared by Panel and as part of Panel process are made public. Ph 1: Notice of Receipt: Promptly after an initial review to ascertain Request is submitted by a qualified party and contains the requisite basic

17 consent to disclose is not received), monitoring reports and final reports. For compliance review: Complaint letter, general description of complaint, Eligibility report and Board decision (if determined eligible), Terms of Reference, final compliance review report, management s proposed remedial action plan and Board decision including CRP s comments, monitoring reports, OSPF and OCRP jointly post the Accountability Mechanism annual reports; SPF, CRP/OCRP, evaluation function and knowledge management function publish a for and Response, Client Response, Eligibility Assessment report, Review report, Action Plan, Complainant comments, Monitoring reports. PCM publishes Annual Reports on its website. 17 up or Audit Reports, Multilateral Consultation Phase: Assessment Report Consultation Phase Report Annual Monitoring Reports Review Phase: Recommendati on for a Review and ToRs (after Board consideration) Board decision regarding Recommendati on and ToRs. Review Report, including responses from and the Requesters, and final decision by the Board Annual Monitoring Reports MIGA disclosure policies. participation in the operations of SECU. To this end, SECU publishes the Guidelines on its website and makes them readily available to those requesting it. In addition, SECU makes public its terms of reference, factual findings, draft reports, and final reports. SECU also publicizes the social and environmental compliance mechanism to the general public, particularly in areas where UNDP projects are implemented. Public disclosure of the facts of each investigation is integral to ensuring the transparency and effectiveness of SECU. As such, SECU will post on its information. Ph 1: Notice of Registration/Non- Registration: Posted on website simultaneously at the time of circulation to Board, usually within 15 days of receipt if additional information is not needed. Ph 2: Report and Recommendation (Eligibility Report): Publicly available within two weeks after Board nonobjection received. Response and Request for Inspection is also made publicly available at this time. Ph 3: Investigation Plan: Made publicly available within 4-6 weeks after an investigation is approved by the Board. Ph 4: IPN

18 triennial joint learning report. for and, Multilateral website all conclusions and factual findings of a compliance investigation. Investigation Report: Made available within two weeks after Board meeting. The SECU / SRM website contains information about the following: review procedures; The Stakeholder Response Mechanism; Instructions about how to file a Complaint and or a grievance with the Stakeholder Response Mechanism; A link to an external page to file a Complaint; A registry of Complaints, including information about the Complaint and the Complaint s status; Terms of reference and investigation reports pertaining to each Complaint; Report and Recommendation: Made available within two weeks after Board meeting. Joint press release between the Panel and : Made available within two weeks after Board meeting Translations of the Panel s Reports and Reports are made available on the Panel s website. 18

19 Monitoring requirement on implementation of remedial actions SPF monitors and reports to the President annually, until completion. Monitoring time frame is project specific, dependent on implementation of remedial actions but does not exceed 2 years. CRP monitors and reports to the Board annually for a maximum period of 3 years, as a general rule, on s remedial actions for Board information only. IRM has mandate to monitor both recommendations of compliance review reports and the problem solving resulting settlement agreements. The monitoring reports relating to the compliance review along with corresponding management response and progress reports. All remedial actions taken or to be taken and their implementation, are closely monitored by the Complaints Mechanism. for and The PCM Officer issues Review Monitoring reports (implementation of the Action Plan) and Problem-solving Initiative Monitoring reports at least biannually or until the PCM Officer determines that monitoring is no longer needed. The Review and Problem-solving Initiative Monitoring reports are submitted to the President and to the Board for information. 19 EIB-CM follows up the implementation of its own recommendations, Multilateral Consultation Phase: Depending on the agreement reached, the MICI will design a monitoring plan with the Parties and monitor for up to 5 years. Review Phase: Based on the Action Plan approved by the Board, the MICI will design a monitoring plan with the Parties and monitor for up to 5 years. In cases where IFC and/or MIGA are found to be out of compliance, CAO will keep the compliance investigation open and monitor the situation until actions taken by IFC or MIGA assure CAO that IFC and/or MIGA are addressing the noncompliance. CAO will then close the compliance investigation. Other information as reflected in the SECU Disclosure Policy; Annual reports describing SECU s activities. The SRM will include with any agreement an agreed plan for monitoring the implementation of the agreement made as the result of the grievance response process. The SRM will issue a monitoring report at least annually until such time as the agreement has been fully implemented. All monitoring plans and reports will be made available to the requestors and the public on the SRM Website. SECU will prepare as part of its compliance review report a proposed plan for monitoring implementation of any decisions The Panel does not have a monitoring mandate. Periodic progress reports by on the implementation of the action plan is approved by the Board as part of the approval of the action plan. tracks the submission of progress reports and implementation of the approved actions. These reports are to be submitted every six months to the Board and shared with the Panel prior to Board submission, and made publicly available.