https://www.accountabilitycounsel.org/blog/csos-call-on-adb-to-commit-to...
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/68e5762082f60ead6d3ad3ab/6a4e4c3ca47f...
Last week, 25 civil society organizations wrote to the Board of Directors at the Asian Development Bank requesting updates on the ongoing Accountability Mechanism (AM) Policy review and resharing key civil society recommendations so that the Board may seriously consider them as they negotiate the draft of the revised AM Policy. More than a year has passed since Phase 1 consultations were completed. Since then indicative timelines for the review process have been changed twice (November 2025 and April 2026) and there is still no clarity on when the draft revised policy will be released for consultations. CSOs have also asked for transparency on the constitution of the Board-Management Working Group, regular updates on the process, and clarification on the role of management in the review.
We are writing this letter to both request an update on the ADB AM Policy review and re-share our main recommendations, which are based on our experience representing communities who have filed to the Accountability Mechanism and widely accepted standards for IAMs.
1. Strengthen the structural independence and impartiality of the AM in particular by ensuring the Special Project Facilitator is also hired by and reports to the Board, by following a transparent and participatory process, including external stakeholders, for hiring of both the SPF and Chair, Compliance Review Panel, and by retaining the dual structure of the AM along with the panel.
2. Communities should not be required to engage with management, who are often working closely with project borrowers, before filing a complaint with the AM. There are many reasons why project-affected people do not attempt to resolve their grievances with ADB management, including the risk of retaliation and a lack of trust.
3. Compliance investigations should be carried out on the basis of technical and objective criteria of “preliminary indications” of harm and likely harm and non-compliance and should not require Board authorization.
4. The AM should address power imbalances between complainants and borrowers during the complaints process, including by allowing complainants to choose representatives of their choice without restriction, by covering the cost of complainant participation in the complaints process, and by selecting neutral and context- aware mediators who are acceptable to both parties.
5. Management should meaningfully consult communities in the process of developing remedial actions under the Management Action Plans to ensure harm and likely harm are adequately redressed. 6. The AM should be allowed to recommend suspension of projects to the Board due to concerns of imminent harm.
