International financial institutions consider infrastructure development as one of the key factors for economic growth and improving the quality of life. However, a modern understanding of development is impossible without respect for environmental and social guarantees, protection of human rights and effective accountability mechanisms. This is why the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has committed itself in its Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) to meaningful community consultation, prevention or mitigation of negative impacts of projects, fair redress, and access to grievance mechanisms.
However, practice shows that even if such standards exist, their implementation on the ground is not always effective.
A case that was discovered years later
The Nash Vek public foundation learned about this case by chance – during a conversation with a resident of one of the settlements in Kyrgyzstan. By this time, the reconstruction of the road, financed with the support of ADB, had been completed several years ago (more than a year and a half)).
According to the owner, as a result of the project, his land plot and unfinished construction site were affected.
Before construction began, there was free access to the site. After the project was completed, a sidewalk and curbs were built, completely limiting access to the area. In addition, according to the owner, part of his land plot was actually occupied by elements of the road infrastructure.
The owner also reports that during construction work the foundation of the building under construction was damaged. According to him, the foundation was filled in by the workers (contractor), and his indignations/appeals to the workers remained without due attention. Following construction, an additional challenge has been the new drainage system, which continues to channel surface water onto the site, creating the risk of further property destruction.
However, according to the complainant, no independent assessment of the damage was carried out, no compensation was paid, and he was not provided with information about the existence of a grievance mechanism for the project.
Why is this case important?
This case does not concern only one owner.
It raises issues of relevance to all international development bank projects.
If a person only learns of the existence of a grievance mechanism several years after the project has completed, a natural question arises: how effective was the community consultation and did all affected people actually receive the information they needed about their rights?
If project impacts continue to be felt years later, another question arises: Were all potential impacts identified and assessed during project preparation and implementation?
If the impact assessment is based solely on design documentation, is this sufficient to establish the factual circumstances?
These are the issues at the heart of ADB’s environmental and social safeguards framework.
Documents are only part of the picture
Currently, dialogue on this case continues between the Public Foundation “Our Century” and ADB.
We positively assess the Bank’s readiness to discuss the issues raised. However, ADB’s preliminary comments, in our opinion, are primarily based on official project documentation.
However, any infrastructure project has two stories.
The first is reflected in reports, technical documentation and monitoring documents.
The second exists in the experience of people who directly encountered the consequences of the project.
The two stories do not always coincide completely.
Therefore, when considering such appeals, it is important to take into account not only official documents, but also photographs, videos, results of independent examinations, testimonies of victims and on-site inspections. Only a comprehensive assessment allows one to objectively establish the circumstances and determine whether the guarantees were implemented not only formally, but also in essence.
Accountability is not about finding someone to blame
Due to the fact that, according to the applicant, the consequences of the project continue to this day, with the support of the Nash Vek Foundation, a complaint was filed with the project managers and the ADB Accountability Mechanism.
It should be emphasized that the appeal to the accountability mechanism is not an attempt to question the need for infrastructure development or the implementation of projects of international financial institutions.
On the contrary, independent mechanisms exist precisely to identify possible shortcomings in the implementation of projects, facilitate the restoration of violated rights, learn lessons and prevent the recurrence of similar situations in the future.
An effective accountability system builds trust in international financial institutions by demonstrating a willingness not only to finance development, but also to recognize the need to correct mistakes when they occur.
What does people-centred development mean?
Today, the success of infrastructure projects is often measured by the kilometers of roads built, the volume of investments and the speed of implementation.
However, for residents whose homes, land or livelihoods are affected by the project, the main indicator remains whether their concerns were heard, whether they received timely information, whether the consequences were objectively assessed and whether access to fair compensation was ensured.
The experience of Kyrgyzstan shows that achieving these goals requires not only adherence to formal procedures, but also constant dialogue with local communities, openness to independent assessment and a willingness to take into account the actual consequences of projects.
It is this approach that makes development truly sustainable, equitable and people-centred.