How is the World Bank creating opportunities for collaborative problem solving? Amar Inamdar – Program Manager, Dispute Resolution & Prevention, OPCS (World Bank) Paola Agostini - Senior Economist and Program Coordinator GEF/TerrAfrica/FCPF (World Bank) Kris Genovese - Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law Annual Meetings CSO Forum Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Agenda Update on work of World Bank’s Dispute Resolution & Prevention team (Amar Inamdar) Action on the Ground – what this work means for communities and people (Paola Agostini) The broader context: how does collaborative problem solving complement other spaces for accountability? (Kris Genovese) Too often we (WB) fall into trap of doing too much or too little to resolve conflicts on projects Help people thing through what the Bank needs to versus what the Borrower needs to do WB is a financier of public goods; very different from being the operator of an investment project Transition: Broad approach: now some details

What do we mean by grievance redress? “Grievance Redress Mechanism”: Complicated terminology to name a simple thing. GRMs were introduced into WB OP4.10 and OP 4.12 to give people at risk of being tangibly impacted by WB projects (e.g crack in a wall from an infrastructure project) a channel to make their voice heard and get reparation

Natural resource conflict is significant “70% of 192 major stalled infrastructure projects are delayed because of non-technical risk issues” Goldman Sachs, 2010 “Land, water and labor are the source of the majority of significant complaints” CAO at 10, 2010 Predicting and resolving disputes is a key strategic asset Drivers from population, communications, democracy There is no structured process for responding to this complexity Peers and competitors are implementing innovative solutions

Our Work / Structure The Dispute Resolution & Prevention team is an internal team (in OPCS) that supports World Bank clients and staff. To date, our approach has been demand-driven and voluntary. Now asked by the Senior Management Team to scale up and enhance this approach. Unique among IFI’s in having this proactive approach in Management. Too often we (WB) fall into trap of doing too much or too little to resolve conflicts on projects Help people thing through what the Bank needs to versus what the Borrower needs to do WB is a financier of public goods; very different from being the operator of an investment project Transition: Broad approach: now some details

Three pillars to support citizen accountability Borrower Country-driven problem-solving that uses good practice markers to build on existing borrower capacity Predict, prevent and better manage disputes arising as a result of Bank-supported operations Sustainable, low-cost approach to improving accountability, performance and results World Bank Management A management process for earlier and faster response to grievances submitted to WB Greater predictability for the Bank and borrower Focus is on problem solving with assessment of opportunities for mediation, facilitation etc. Independent Recourse Inspection Panel International Tribunals etc Generally formal, compliance-based investigations Too often we (WB) fall into trap of doing too much or too little to resolve conflicts on projects Help people thing through what the Bank needs to versus what the Borrower needs to do WB is a financier of public goods; very different from being the operator of an investment project Transition: Broad approach: now some details

Highlights–project/program level Forest Carbon Partnership Facility $12m allocated $250,000 per country Guidance with UNDP Case-based Liberia, Kenya, Nepal, Mexico, Ethiopia,

Highlights–Management/Corporate level Global Review World Bank’s Approach to Grievance Redress Knowledge, networks, tools The Change agenda – Risk Management

Use of Project Mechanisms is on the rise FY11: all projects FY11: IL portfolio Chart on Left-hand side: All Projects: 50%; increase from 28% in 2008 Chart on Right-hand side: Investment Lending only Application based on risks 72% of Cat Bs have GRMs: is this the right #? Too high/too low? We don’t know TRANSITION: LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CAT A AND B PORTFOLIO w/in regions and sectors Half of all projects include a description of a GRM… … with wide regional variation.

Breakdown by Instrument Investment Loans (FY11) DPL P4R Total operations 392 71 7 PAD references a GRM 225 3 5 % with reference 57% 4% 71% Additional detail on P4R loans PAD references GRM systems? PAD assesses effectiveness? Grievance data collected and reported publicly? Grievance data required for disbursement? Dedicated funds available? P4R 5 out of 7 1 out of 7 4 out of 7 2 out of 7 TRANSITION: Previous 2 slides looked just at investment lending portfolio. Here’s snapshot of all instruments. Q: Does PAD include a reference to a GRM? First 6 P4R loans look quite good 5 specific questions for P4R loans (read questions) - helps give some more detail on the extent of the commitment TRANSITION: This summarizes the findings from all regions. More detail on LCR region.

Key Findings Overall usage of Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRMs) has increased GRM usage primarily tied to safeguards GRMs exist on paper but not always in practice Of the GRMs in existence, many not being used No systematic measurement of GRM implementation Bank rarely gets the GRM data, and misses opportunity to respond/resolve 6 key findings – will go into more detail in each

5 Simple Things the Bank can do… WB Approach to Grievance Redress Case Studies Training curriculum for staff Create tools to support GRM implementation Consistent risk triggers Improve risk assessment in Cat B portfolio Access to free customizable GRM platform (SMS or web-based) Use feedback to prioritize supervision # Grievances Received / # Resolved Create incentives for monitoring Protocol for handling citizen complaints Access to professional mediators Improve internal complaints handling Improve GRM implementation Reduce costs Identify systemic issues Promote accountability Improve predictability