The IRM provides individuals or communities who are
adversely affected by bank-financed operations with an independent mechanism
through which they can raise their concerns.
They can also seek redress and hold the bank to account for
ensuring it complies with its policies and procedures related to
sustainability.
The new policy is aimed at strengthening accountability and
providing more effective recourse to people affected by bank-financed
operations.
According to a statement from the AfDB on Friday, the policy
framework is the result of series of internal and public stakeholder
consultations that began in December 2019.
This process was part of the third policy review of the
bank’s Independent Review Mechanism.
It further marked the first time that the IRM had engaged in
such a comprehensive public consultation process.
David Simpson, Director, Compliance Review and Mediation
Unit, AfDB, said the new policy represented a significant step forward for the
IRM.
“The new policy framework restructures the complaints’
mechanism, to make it more accessible, efficient and predictable.
“It also simplifies the complaint process for users of the
Independent Recourse Mechanism,while enhancing its transparency, and providing
clearer guidelines for case management.”
Stephanie Amoako, a Senior Policy Associate at
Accountability Counsel, an international civil society organisation said: “The
new accountability policy, if properly implemented, better serves the needs of
communities across Africa.
“This is by removing barriers to access the IRM and creating
a more equitable process for those using the mechanism.”
Accountability Counsel supports communities adversely
impacted by internationally financed projects.
According to the statement, a new name accompanies the new
policy as the Independent Review Mechanism will now be known as ” the Independent
Recourse Mechanism.”
The new mechanism has been restructured, replacing the
previous external experts panel model with a fully integrated unit that will
now lead all problem-solving and compliance review functions.
The new policy strengthens accessibility for complainants by
allowing complaints to be filed by a single person.
It enables the mechanism to advise communities on how to
submit complaints if needed.
It adopts a zero-tolerance standard for retaliation against
complainants and rejects any form of threats.
It also rejects intimidation, harassment, violence, or
discrimination towards those that raise concerns through the Independent
Recourse Mechanism.
The mechanism also requires AfDB management to make the IRM
better known among affected communities by disclosing information about the
mechanism at a project level.
Furthermore, the new operational rules and procedures
approved by AfDB’s board also provides the IRM with some advantages.
For istance, it has the ability to initiate compliance
review processes in certain circumstances without a formal complaint from
affected communities.
It also increases complainants’ participation in the
complaint-handling process by allowing them the opportunity to comment on draft
compliance review reports before they go to the board.
The operational rules and procedures also commit the IRM to
pursue a culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive complaint process.
It allows the IRM to consider a complaint’s eligibility even
in the case of parallel judicial or non-judicial proceedings.
It further empowers the IRM to make recommendations to the
bank on issues related to redress and remedy.
“That is when individuals and communities are adversely
impacted as a result of bank-financed operations.
“As well as ensure that agreements reached by parties in
problem-solving activities are aligned to international norms,” it added.
While the new policy enters into force with immediate effect
and would apply to all new complaints, it is expected that the IRM would
require a reasonable transition period to fully implement the new policy.
Where appropriate, ongoing complaints will be transitioned
to the new policy over time.
The bank’s complaint mechanism became operational in 2006
and has received over 100 complaints submitted by civil society organisations
and affected communities.
The mandate of the IRM covers both public and private sector
operations of the bank group. (NAN)