Grievance Redress Mechanisms in OPIC Projects

December 17, 2013Fund for Peace

Keith Kozloff, Director of Accountability Katherine Dunbar, Office of Investment Policy

Hierarchy of resources Bilateral engagement

Community consultation process Community liaison Project level GRMs

Local public authorities Public ombudsman or human rights office Labor, environmental, sector ministry Conciliation/mediation/arbitration court Traditional domestic court system

IFI Management Accountability mechanism

Project feedback mechanisms in Togo

Good practice in grievance mechanisms

Study Approach Sample size = 31 active projects

All active Category A projects disbursed since 2007 (6)

Random sample of the 76 post-ESPS active Category B projects (25)

7

97

4

4

Projects Sampled by Region

AfricaLatin AmericaEurasia/Central AsiaEast Asia/South Asia/PacificMENA

6

127

6

Projects Sampled by Business Line

InsuranceIFSMEFStructured

Category A

Category B

1

14

5

9

2

Post-OPIC Involvement

Effects of OPIC Involvement

Category A

Category B

5

141

10

2Active GRM

Reported GRM

No GRM

Pre-OPIC Involvement

“Robustness” of Project GRMs• Defined 12 criteria for best practice GRMs • “Graded” each project

Category A Category B

2

7

45

4

61-3 points4-6 points7-9 points10-12 points

Frequency and Characteristics

of Received Grievances

High volume of minor complaints

Large majority relate to requests for:

employment compensation community

development 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Less than 15/year 15-50/yearOver 50/year

Number of Projects

Case Study of an Effective GRM

Conclusions and questions for discussion

Benefits of GRMs Limitations of GRMs How to strengthen GRMs and broader

grievance “ecosystem” Other tools for managing community relations