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.

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.

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.

This year's Annual Report of the Accountability Mechanism (AM) has the theme "Strengthening Partnerships" with good reason: Cooperation is the heart and soul of the mechanism. Without close collaboration among the AM, governments, aff ected people, nongovernment organizations, and civil society organizations, the AM cannot work. Collaboration between the AM and Asian Development Bank (ADB) staff is essential. We are constantly learning from stakeholders in ADB projects and from project staff , and we also learn from our interactions in the field during outreach missions. In this publication, the O ffice of the Special Project Facilitator, the O ffice of the Compliance Review Panel, and the Compliance Review Panel itself present their activities in 2014 and some of the challenges for 2015.

This report highlights lessons from the implementation of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Accountability Mechanism Policy 2012 during 2019-2021. The Accountability Mechanism was established to help people affected by projects to voice concerns and it seeks to enhance the effectiveness and quality of projects supported by ADB. This report analyzes the triggers for complaints filed with the Accountability Mechanism, considers lessons from complaint resolution, and explores recurring and emerging issues through the lens of good governance. It was jointly prepared by the Office of the Compliance Review Panel, the Office of the Special Project Facilitator, the Independent Evaluation Department, and the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Department.

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.