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