Comments on the Review of the Inspection Panel’s “Toolkit”

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the World Bank Inspection Panel and with it the advent of independent accountability offices at international financial institutions (IFIs). Despite being the first accountability office, the Panel now lags behind other accountability offices, which have developed new approaches and have been vested with additional authorities that the Panel currently lacks. The World Bank’s Board of Directors is actively reviewing the Panel’s “toolkit” and considering some revisions to strengthen the Panel’s ability to deliver on its promise of providing accountability.On September 30, Accountability Counsel submitted joint comments with partners to the Working Group of the World Bank Board’s Committee on Development Effectiveness on the review of the Inspection Panel's "toolkit." Our comments, summarized below, address seven issues flagged by the Bank's notice. We provided these comments based on the understanding that the discussion is currently limited to a short list of issues that aim at strengthening the Panel and that the proposed decisions will be open to further consultation prior to any substantive changes being made.

Summary of Comments

1. The Panel should be explicitly authorized to provide advice and lessons learned.
2. The Panel should be authorized to monitor implementation of action plans to ensure that harm is remedied.
3. Until the review of the International Finance Corporation (IFC)/Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and its Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the Inspection Panel should be authorized to contract any dispute resolution case that arises to the CAO's dispute resolution function.
4. The cut-off date for filing complaints should be extended to at least two years.
5. The Panel process should expand communications with the complainants and enhance their opportunity to participate.
6. The Bank's decision to use Bank-Executed Trust Funds should be reviewable by the Panel.
7. In the context of Bank co-financing operations with IFIs that have different accountability offices, complainants should still have access to the Inspection Panel, as well as those other accountability offices.

Read our full joint submission with partners from American University Washington College of Law, Bank Information Center (BIC), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Centre for Research in Multinational Corporations (SOMO), Inclusive Development International (IDI), International Accountability Project (IAP), Montpelier Consulting, and Oxfam International.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the review of the Panel’s “toolkit” and to contribute to the strengthening of the Panel. We also look forward to engaging in the process proposing any substantive changes that will be made to the Panel before the Board makes final decisions.