and rating systems used in the OED study. This Government-led evaluation found that ADB’s operations were good in comparison with others. It also stimulated discussions in the ministry about how best to reform its public investment. One outcome was that the ministry added “expected project sustainability” to the project screening criteria for all new projects, after observing that this had been a particular problem in ADB and government-led evaluations. The OED study had a major effect by demonstrating approaches for undertaking higher level evaluations that made sense to key government officials. Other ministries, particularly health and education, are now showing interest in government-led evaluations.
a Available: www.adb.org/documents/reports/sape/lao/sap-lao-2005-17/sape-lao.pdf
Box 19: Contributing to Safeguard Policy Update a
ADB has safeguard policies on involuntary resettlement (1995), indigenous peoples (1998), and the environment (2002). The policies have guided formulation and implementation of ADB’s assistance programs, particularly its lending activities. Evaluation of the three safeguard policies was included in OED’s work program for 2006 at the request of the DEC. Based on its discussions of the evaluation reports, the DEC considered that the process it had recommended—to allow time for an independent evaluation to feed into ADB Management’s review of the safeguard policies—had yielded useful results. The process served to raise many of the right questions for the review. The issues identified and recommendations made addressed not only implementation of the policies but also provisions in the policies themselves. And, by its response to the evaluation studies, Management started the critical corporate-level dialogue that would lead to policy review. The DEC believes that a reasonable process of open and inclusive dialogue involving all stakeholders, particularly on issues that are not clear cut, is needed. Such a dialogue may require an iterative process exceeding ADB’s conventional consultation activities.
Involuntary Resettlement b
The evaluation study found that the policy is relevant to project implementation and to ADB’s aim to reduce poverty. It assessed the policy as effective in terms of outcomes for affected persons. However, it found inputs, processes, and systems for policy implementation less efficient. Changing procedures and the organizational arrangements made to enforce the policy have gradually set the bar higher. More resources allocated to capacity development rather than short-term compliance may yield better long-term results. The study recommends that the planned update of the policy have a results-based framework, and that it should indicate mandatory and nonmandatory but desirable elements. ADB should decide on the level of inclusiveness of the policy, particularly regarding secondary adverse impacts of projects on people.
• ADB’s Management and the Board need to reconcile the differences between the original policy on involuntary resettlement and that currently applied.
• Whatever the nature of the policy adopted, its results-based framework should distinguish desired impacts, outcomes, outputs, activities, and inputs at both the macro (country) and micro (project) levels.
• The policy update should highlight a set of performance standards.
• The policy update should elaborate on the objective of greater reliance on country executing agency systems for land acquisition and resettlement safeguards.
• There should be clearer guidelines and procedures regarding the identification of resettlement operations needed, and compensation and assistance within resettlement operations.
The study makes recommendations regarding implementation of involuntary resettlement plans:
• Formulate a time-sequenced implementation plan to complement the policy update.
• Improve involuntary resettlement monitoring.
• Deepen involvement in building country systems and capacity for involuntary resettlement.
ADB’s Management welcomed the evaluation study, noting that both sets of recommendations should be further reviewed and considered in the context of policy update, including the consultation process. The chair’s summary of the DEC discussions advised that ADB should recast the policy in a comprehensive results framework, providing clear guidelines on the principles, degree, and approaches by which flexibility may be exercised in application.
Indigenous Peoples c
The evaluation study concluded that decisions taken by ADB’s Management had expanded the scope of the original policy. The original focus on “adverse and significant” impacts was reinterpreted to cover “adverse or significant” impacts, and the associated operational procedures became more elaborate over the years.
The policy is misunderstood by ADB staff and clients. First, the distinction between indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities is not always clear, and differs somewhat between the policy and the operational procedures. Second, the policy is ambiguous about whether the definition provided by national legislation or that derived from the policy is to be followed. Third, there is overlap with the policies on involuntary resettlement and environment. The clearest adverse impacts of ADB-supported projects on indigenous peoples relate to induced environmental change, loss of land and related livelihood, and resettlement. These are also the subject of the policies on involuntary resettlement and environment and are addressed primarily in the involuntary resettlement plan and the environmental management plan. If considerations of land, livelihood, and resettlement were discounted, then the impacts that trigger the policy would be less straightforward adverse impacts related to cultural change and, perhaps, integration into the economic mainstream and/or competition with non-indigenous peoples when an area is opened up or developed. Fourth, the need to prepare indigenous peoples development plans for projects with significant benefits to indigenous peoples, and specific actions for projects with limited positive or negative impacts on them, has left unclear the nature of these plans and specific actions. In practice, an acceptable scope for a separate plan has proved difficult for ADB staff to define. Fifth, the required consultation of indigenous peoples has been expanded by operational procedures to something very close to full consent for the project. The policy offers little advice on how to define an acceptable level of consent or how to document and measure it.
The study recommends the following:
• The policy update should clarify the areas that cause misunderstanding in the policy and address the policy drift related to ADB’s Operations Manual and practice in ADB.
• ADB should set goals for the development of indigenous peoples and related strategies for some DMCs where ADB’s forward program involves considerable interaction with indigenous peoples.
• If ADB maintains a stand-alone policy, it should include a results-based framework— distinguishing desired impacts, outcomes, outputs, activities, and inputs, both at the macro (country) and micro (project) levels.
• A sequential approach to policy development and capacity building in indigenous peoples safeguards should be adopted, focusing on a few DMCs first.
• Indigenous peoples development plans should be prepared for projects having clear risks for indigenous peoples that are capable of being mitigated through project interventions.
• Conceptual work and case study work are needed to lay out the particular risks for indigenous peoples associated with different categories of investments, as there is currently a high degree of divergence in approaches to the definition of these risks.
•
