22 August 2011 Head Office 132 Leicester Street, Carlton Messrs Westreicher, Shamsuddin, Vandersyp, Thapa and Nag Victoria 3053, Working Group on the Review of the ADB Accountability Mechanism Telephone: +61 3 9289 9444 Facsimile: +61 3 9347 1983 6 ADB Avenue Mandaluyong City 1550,

Via Electronic Mail

Dear Working Group,

RE: position on Second Consultation Paper, Review of the Accountability Mechanism Policy

I write regarding the second Consultation Paper on the Review of the Accountability Mechanism Policy. Oxfam Australia has input in great detail into the review up to this point. The Working Group’s willingness to amend the review process and make it more transparent and participatory had encouraged our further input since the first Consultation Paper. However, the content of the second Consultation Paper forces us to conclude that hardly any of our input has been taken up in a substantive way. This is most disappointing.

The only notable change in the review over the existing mechanism, so far, has been to allow claimants to choose which arm of the mechanism they approach. The one substantive recommendation that has been taken up during the review process appears to be that the Complaint Receiving Officer now will be recruited from outside of the Bank, although this is not entirely clear from the wording in the second Consultation Paper.

Other than those two changes, our substantive recommendations were not taken up. Moreover, measures have been introduced that further compromise the independence of the Accountability Mechanism. Oxfam Australia expressed our concern over these features in both our previous submissions to the review. In overview, these are the rejected recommendations and problematic new introductions:

• The Special Project Facilitator’s (SPF) independence remains compromised, due to the fact that the position continues to report to the President and the term is renewable.

• The accessibility of the mechanism has not improved and the process still demands burdensome documentation so that the process is not user friendly for affected people.

• The explicit description of the process of the Compliance Review Panel’s (CRP) investigation in the case that a borrowing country rejects a site visit provides a loophole

and raises the impression that it is acceptable to reject a site visit, as an alternative is provided.

• Burdensome and conflicting prerequisites (such as the requirement to approach the Grievance Mechanism before approaching the SPF) to approaching the Accountability Mechanism remain in place.

• The fact that all complaints received by any other departments are forwarded to the mechanism is contradictory to the expectation that operational departments solve problems and the procedure will cause confusion in regard to the requirement for claimants to address their concerns with Management and make a good faith effort to resolve problems with Management first.

• The Board Compliance Review Committee (BCRC) is allocated extended functions which have the potential to compromise the mechanism.

Oxfam has engaged in good faith in this review so far, investing much effort and resources. However, given the minimal uptake of our recommendations, at this point we see no further value in engaging in the review unless there are significant changes in regard to the above in the second W-paper. What is most disappointing is that, in our assessment, the revised mechanism in its current form will not deliver the process and outcomes needed for project affected people.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Hewett Executive Director

Cc: Emma Fan, Secretary, AM Review Working Group

/ 2