2024 Update: Good Policy Paper
Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), when implemented effectively, can be transformative tools for justice. IAMs are a forum for communities whose human rights and environment are harmed by investments to raise their concerns and have them addressed. In 1993, the World Bank created the first independent accountability mechanism in response to political and public pressure from civil society seeking to ensure that project-affected communities could seek remedy. Since then, many other development finance institutions (DFIs), development agencies, and other financial institutions have followed suit. As of 2021, over two dozen IAMs have received over 1,800 complaints. To handle these complaints, the IAMs have developed detailed rules of procedure. Viewed collectively, the complaint-handling policies or procedures of the IAMs share many commonalities and a number of differences. From complainants’ perspective, the success of a complaint often hangs on the effectiveness of the IAM’s particular policies in facilitating an accessible, transparent, and accountable forum for addressing grievances.
As financial institutions without IAMs consider creating them, and as existing IAMs continue to improve their policies to better serve communities, there is much to learn from existing policies. This guide identifies and brings together in one place the 69 current strongest provisions in IAM policies to guide the development of new IAMs and the revision of existing IAM policies. Most of the provisions below are taken from DFI IAMs, given the long history and evolution of IAMs in the DFI space. However, these recommendations are useful for all development and financial institutions seeking to improve their accountability frameworks, as well as other types of complaints mechanisms, such as OECD National Contact Points or those connected to certification bodies and other multi-stakeholder initiatives.
This project began in 2017 when a number of civil society organizations, experienced both in advising and accompanying communities in filing complaints to IAMs and also advising IAMs on internal policy and practice, set out to capture the best existing practices from established mechanisms. Consequently, we evaluated existing IAM policies to find the provisions that we valued the most: provisions that made IAM processes more effective for communities. Based on case experience, we knew that certain provisions gave communities a fairer, more predictable, and more accessible process that allowed them to have a greater role in seeking the accountability they deserve. As we undertook this review, we rooted our analysis in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ effectiveness criteria: Legitimacy, Accessibility, Predictability, Equitability, Transparency, Rights-Compatibility, and Serving as a Source of Continuous Learning.
As a result, we developed this good policy paper, which identifies good existing policy provisions that cover the key elements of an effective mechanism: Mandate, Function and Roles, Structure and Powers, Information Disclosure and Outreach, and Complaint Process; as well as the three typical functions of an IAM: Compliance Review, Dispute Resolution, and Advisory. As IAM policies continue to evolve, so too will this guide. We have already used good practice provisions cited in this guide to provide input into the development and revisions of multiple mechanism policies. In turn, those finalized policies have provided us with new or better versions of the provisions that we had originally identified, which we then used to improve the existing recommendations. And so it will continue.
Read the full report here.
