At the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in May 2010, the President announced a joint Board and Management review of the Accountability Mechanism. This paper gives the summary of the review in which the main objective was to examine the scope for improvements in the Accountability Mechanism. The Accountability Mechanism provides a forum where people adversely affected by ADB-assisted projects can voice and seek solutions to their problems and report alleged noncompliance of ADB's operational policies and procedures. It consists of two separate but complementary functions: consultation phase and compliance review phase.

Multilateral development banks and other development agencies have adopted environmental and social safeguard policies setting due diligence standards for the provision of project finance. Such policies are evolving in terms of the activities covered and in their normative requirements. Recent iterations incorporate human rights requirements, recognising the imperative of adopting human rights-based approaches to development. Each institution has also established independent accountability mechanisms (IAM), variously functioning to ensure compliance with the applicable safeguards, to advise management regarding the application of the obligations involved, and to facilitate communication with affected communities and individuals with a view to resolving project-related disputes. IAMs are central to the implementation, interpretation, and ongoing elaboration of safeguard policies, and thus to the environmental and social good governance so essential for sustainable development. This edited volume presents a series of in-depth examinations by leading experts from banking institutions, academia and civil society, of key aspects of the rapidly evolving practice of IAMs, and of the implications of such practice for environmental and social governance.

This report reviews the implementation of ADB's Accountability Mechanism Policy during the period 2016–2018. ADB's 2012 Accountability Mechanism Policy mandates a triennial analysis of lessons learned, with a focus on the management of complaints elevated to this "last resort" mechanism. This report attempts to put into perspective the number, nature, and management of complaints from project-affected people as dealt with by project-level grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs) and by operational departments. It finds that most complaints are effectively addressed by GRMs and that the number of projects with complaints reaching the Accountability Mechanism is a small fraction of ADB's active portfolio. The recommendations are aimed at improving the future implementation of the policy.

This book presents a series of in-depth examinations, by leading experts from banking institutions, academia and civil society, of key aspects of the rapidly evolving practice of IAMs, and of the implications of such practice for environmental and social governance.

After a full-scale review of the Accountability Mechanism that was concluded in February 2012, the new Accountability Mechanism of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) became effective on 24 May 2012. It has resulted in clearer and closer collaboration between the functions of problem solving—handled by the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF)—and those of compliance review by the Compliance Review Panel. The policy now clearly defines the responsibilities of OSPF and those of the Office of the Compliance Review Panel ( OCRP) as well as the oversight function of the Board on compliance review. The newly created position of the complaint receiving officer is a single entry point for complaints and directs them to OSPF, OCRP, or other offices in ADB. These changes make the Mechanism more credible, efficient, and effective in addressing the concerns of people affected by ADB projects.

Engaging with one of the most consequential issues of our time, this book offers a comprehensive analysis of responsibility for environmental damage under international law. In doing so, it considers the responsibility, liability and accountability of state and non-state actors for harm caused to the environment and non-compliance with environmental norms across a wide range of multilateral regulatory frameworks.

Through detailed comparative case studies of civil society engagement with two major regional international organizations in Southeast Asia this book demonstrates the potentials and limitations of civil society actors as democratizing agents in governance beyond the nation-state. Drawing on previous research on civil society, social movements, transnational activism, and democratization, Uhlin develops an analytical framework focusing on a) how national and international political opportunities shape—and are shaped by—civil society advocacy; b) how civil society activists frequently combine inside and outside strategies when targeting international organizations; and c) how civil society advocacy can have a liberalizing impact on the targeted international organizations. Drawing on rich empirical data, including more than 100 qualitative interviews with civil society activists and representatives of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the study demonstrates how civil society actors have contributed to pushing ADB—and to a much lesser extent ASEAN—in a political liberal direction, improving transparency, strengthening accountability, and introducing mechanisms protecting people from the abuse of power. With its innovative analytical framework, broad scope covering civil society activism across Southeast Asia, and in-depth analysis of civil society attempts to influence ADB and ASEAN the book makes important contributions to research on civil society activism in Southeast Asia as well as the more general field of civil society and governance beyond the nation-state.

Climate change and its adverse impacts on nature and human society are clearly felt. Who should bear the responsibility? Should anyone be held liable for grave losses and damages related to climate change? In what way and to what extent can these issues be addressed in legal mechanisms both globally and locally? Will an international liability regime an ultimate solution? Are courts ready for and capable of resolving these disputes that find intricacy of law, policy and science? To shed light on these issues, this book is structured with four main themes on the discussions of climate change liability and related mechanisms. They are: 1) state liability and responsibility, 2) climate change litigation, 3) climate change liability and alternatives, and 4) dispute resolution and remedies. Reflections on the concepts of liability/responsibly/accountability have provided for nuanced understandings of their functional dynamics in climate change governance. Our findings also suggest that International and domestic courts have become a vital player in attribution or distribution of climate change liability. In addition to formalistic rights discourse and rigid liability regime, a few alternatives such as carbon market, insurance, mediation or soft law are also finding their ways to ensuring sustainability of climate change governance.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which began operations in 2016 and now has an approved membership of eighty-four worldwide, has quickly become perhaps one of the world’s most promising agents of global economic development. With its firm commitments to the twenty-first century imperatives of cost-effectiveness, zero tolerance for corruption and active promotion of environmental sustainability, its clearly stated aims and requirements echo the goal of reform that other multilateral institutions are undertaking. This book is among the first to offer an incisive introduction to the AIIB’s law and governance, which are now essentially in place. From a perspective of Chinese multilateralism, which parts ways from the dominant twentieth-century Bretton Woods arrangements, the author provides in great depth the details of such elements of the Bank’s Articles of Agreement as the following: – non-resident board system; – procurement; – role of trust funds; – state-owned enterprises as private entities; – immunity; – dispute settlement; – accountability for involuntary resettlement and human rights violations; and – policy on prohibited practices. Throughout, the author provides deeply informed comparisons with such existing multilateral development banks as the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as with the World Trade Organization. He shows how the AIIB not only emulates but also innovates while continuing to collaborate closely with these institutions. He suggests what should be done to optimize governance, standards and operations of the AIIB together with these peer institutions in a mutually emulating manner. Lawyers and policymakers involved in international economic law and related fields will welcome this nuanced and in-depth description and analysis of the AIIB. Its concomitant analysis of political economy and global governance issues will be of interest to bankers, businesses, government officials and others looking for an overall understanding of multilateral development banking and China’s approach toward global governance in particular.