Learning in Development. Olivier Serrat

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.

      • The policy update should describe the criteria to be used to determine whether the amount of consultation and broad community support for a project and mitigation measures are adequate and in what circumstances ADB endorses the principle of free, prior, and informed consent for the project from the side of indigenous peoples.

      • To complement the policy update, there is a need for a policy implementation plan that reconciles the policy aspirations with organizational, budget, and human resources implications.

      ADB’s Management generally appreciated the evaluation and agreed to consider the recommendations in the update of the policy.

       Environment^d

      The evaluation study found that the policy is relevant to ADB’s activities and the needs of DMCs. ADB’s involvement in projects sometimes added value by improving environmental performance at the project level. However, the value addition varied from country to country, from project to project, and in different aspects of environmental assessment. There is also evidence that the policy provided impetus to improve the environmental safeguards toward greater clarity, more emphasis on assessment of project alternatives, and improved monitoring, notwithstanding weaknesses in all these areas. On the whole, the environmental safeguard procedures governed by ADB’s Operations Manual were deemed to have been effective in avoiding significant adverse environmental impacts from ADB’s programs and projects.

      However, the efficiency and sustainability of the safeguard procedures are questionable due to high transaction costs and limited benefits. The main cause of this is the uniform application of a single set of procedures to all DMCs, which is no longer an effective response to the needs of DMCs nor to the growing resource constraints faced by ADB. There would be merit in revising the policy and safeguard procedures to address the changing context in DMCs. This would likely be focused on the necessity for greater flexibility in procedures, recognition of the need for alignment with national systems, a shift to an emphasis on capacity building rather than on projects, and a change in emphasis from procedural compliance to results delivery and cost effectiveness.

      The study recommends that the policy should be revised to better reflect current needs and resources within DMCs and ADB, as follows:

      • Organizational effectiveness should be strengthened in relation to the reorganization of 2002, including consolidation of environmental resources within ADB.

      • The quality of ADB’s environmental assessment process should be improved and transaction costs should be lowered to make the policy more cost effective. Categorization, scope, quantification, standards, and technical methodologies should be systematically reviewed and updated.

      • Partnerships with NGOs and civil society organizations on environment should be improved.

      • ADB should move toward adoption of improved country systems and harmonization with other development partners in selected DMCs. ADB should follow the guidance in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness on greater harmonization between funding agencies and partner countries on environmental assessment.

      • An implementation plan for the revised environment policy should be prepared. ADB should develop an action plan to implement the revised policy involving an assessment of ADB’s resources at headquarters and in the field for implementing environmental safeguards.

      ADB Management’s response confirmed that the evaluation study raised important issues that are relevant to policy update. Management believed that the ongoing process of policy update, including the planned consultations with a wide range of stakeholders, provides an appropriate vehicle for further examining the report and addressing the recommendations of the study. The chair’s summary of the DEC discussions notes that the study raised many of the right questions for the review; that the issues identified and recommendations made address not only implementation of the policy but also provisions in the policy itself; and that, by its response to the evaluation, ADB’s Management started the critical corporate-level dialogue that would lead to the policy review.

      ^a Available: www.adb.org/safeguards/default.asp

      ^b Available: www.adb.org/documents/ses/reg/sst-reg-2006-14/ses-on-ir.asp

      ^c Available: www.adb.org/documents/ses/reg/sst-reg-2007-01/ses-ip.asp

      ^d Available: www.adb.org/documents/ses/reg/sst-reg-2006-13/ses-es.asp