RESULTS FROM A PROJECT OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE ON … · 2014-11-07 · Safeguards Operational...

Safeguards Operational Review, Linked Document C

1

RESULTS FROM A PROJECT OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC SAFEGUARD ISSUES 1. This document presents the results from a questionnaire undertaken with 81 Asian Development Bank (ADB) project team leaders. These staff members are responsible for the vast majority of projects with significant social and environmental risk that were approved in the first two-and-a-half years following the adoption of ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS). This exercise formed an integral part of the Independent Evaluation Department’s (IED) operational review of this policy. A. Rationale 2. One of the key objectives of IED’s operational review of the SPS was to assess whether the measures ADB is undertaking are sufficient to ensure effective safeguard delivery in general and quality at implementation in particular.1 In the absence of time and budgetary constraints, this objective would be best achieved by subjecting a representative sample of ADB-financed projects approved under the SPS to full process evaluations informed by field-level investigation. However, given that this was not feasible, the project team leaders were interviewed, on the assumption that they possess relevant information on the progress of safeguard implementation in their respective projects. This approach enabled IED to obtain data on a large number of ADB-financed projects for the period under review.

B. Sampling Approach and Questionnaire Administration 3. Given that most of the questionnaire—presented in Annex 1—focused on the SPS’s delivery during project implementation, only projects with significant potential impacts and which had been under implementation for some time were considered. More specifically, three inclusion criteria were used: (i) the project’s management review meeting (MRM) date had to be after 20 January 2010 (the starting point for application of the SPS); (ii) the project’s effectivity date needed to be before July 2012 (to ensure that significant implementation had taken place); and (iii) the project had to be category A or B in any of the ADB’s three safeguard areas—environment, involuntary resettlement, and Indigenous Peoples. This resulted in 108 eligible projects. Given that there would be little value in drawing a sample from this relatively small number, efforts were made to interview the team leaders responsible for all of these projects.2 4. Over April and June 2014, five IED staff and two national consultants interviewed 81 project team leaders—49 based at ADB headquarters and 32 based in various resident missions—using the structured questionnaire presented in Annex 1. Those from headquarters were interviewed face-to-face and those from the resident missions via telephone. Further efforts were made to conduct follow-up interviews and/or send emails to other staff (e.g., departmental safeguard specialists) when team leaders were not in a position to answer specific questions. In addition, while the interview process primarily captured quantitative information on the sampled projects, the interviewees were also asked to provide qualitative and descriptive information, such as specific reasons for reported issues and possible solutions. They were also provided with the opportunity to comment on safeguard delivery and on the SPS more broadly.

1 IED. 2014. Addendum to the Approach Paper for the Safeguards Operational Review. Manila: ADB. 2 Generating sufficiently precise statistics for this number of projects would require a significantly large proportion of them to

be randomly selected. For example, in order to be 95% confident that an estimated proportion is within 5 percentage points of the true population value and assuming that this true population value is 50%, a sample size of 85 would be required.


2

IR = involuntary resettlement, IP = Indigenous Peoples. Source: Authors’ calculations.

16 184

8049

16

433

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

Environment IR IP

Figure 1: Number of Projects Data were Obtained from Project Team Leaders by Safeguards Category (n=100)

Cat. A Cat. B Cat. C

C. Challenges Encountered and Limitations 5. While successful overall, the project team leader interview process encountered several challenges. The first was that it was not possible to obtain data on eight of the 108 eligible projects, so these were excluded from the analysis. In most of these cases, the current team leader was new, and the previous team leader had either left ADB or was unable to recall the required information. Moreover, one team leader simply refused to be interviewed. A second challenge was that it was not possible to obtain complete information for several of the remaining 100 projects. Many of these problems stemmed from the fact that some of the interviewed team leaders were not involved in the project’s processing, so they were not able to answer questions pertaining to this. While efforts were made to request this missing information directly from the respective processing officers through email and/or follow-up interviews, this proved unsuccessful in several cases. 6. The limitations with respect to the information obtained through the interview process must also be acknowledged. First, a number of the interviewed project team leaders may not have been fully aware of the progress of safeguard implementation in their projects, and some may have even glossed over a number of relevant issues. Relying primarily on information provided by these individuals is certainly second best to carrying out more thorough field-based assessments. However, it is assumed that if there were significant problems with respect to safeguard implementation, the vast majority of team leaders would be aware of and would have reported on these. A second limitation is that the interviewees were asked to estimate some items, such as the number of weeks safeguard specialists had spent supporting their projects and how this time had been divided. Given that the detailed tracking of such information was not the norm for most, if not all, project teams, there is likely to be some measurement error associated with the resulting information.

D. Project Sample Characteristics 7. Data were obtained from project team leaders for 100 projects. Figure 1 presents these projects by safeguard risk category. One of the three inclusion criteria to construct the sample was that the projects had to be category A or B in any of the three safeguard areas. As is apparent from Figure 1, all but four of the projects fall into either of these categories for the environment, compared with 67% and 20% for involuntary resettlement and Indigenous Peoples, respectively. 8. Figure 2 presents a breakdown of the project sample by sector, region, financing modality, and whether they are public or private. Water and multisector projects account for the largest number of projects, followed by transport and energy. However, there are also a number of projects classified under the “other” sector, consisting of agriculture, health, and education projects.


3

FI = financial intermediary, ICT = information and communications technology, MFF = multitranche financing facility. Source: Authors’ calculations.

9. South Asia is the region with the greatest share of the sampled projects, followed by Central and West Asia and Southeast Asia. The dominant financing modality is the project loan but a significant number of multitranche financing facility (MFF) tranche loans are also included. Finally, and not surprisingly, most of the sample consists of sovereign projects. E. Safeguard Specialist Involvement in Projects

10. A team of environmental and social safeguard specialists works within each of ADB’s operational departments to support safeguard delivery in ADB-financed projects. Their involvement is considered essential in ensuring effective implementation of the SPS. Consequently, project team leaders were asked a number of questions about how their projects have been supported by such specialists. This section summarizes their responses.

1. Environment Safeguard Specialists

11. The interviewees reported that all but three of the environment category A and B projects in the sample received input from their departments’ respective environment safeguard specialists as they were being processed. In addition, of the 81 projects where construction activities had started, 79 were reported as having at least one such specialist assigned to support environmental safeguard delivery during project implementation. The project team leaders were further asked to estimate the number of days these specialists had supported the projects, both during processing and implementation. The results—broken down by risk category, region, sector, and whether they are public or private—are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. An initial observation is that very few projects were reported as having received less than 1 week of environmental safeguard specialist support during both processing and implementation. In fact, the interviewees reported that 50% and 47% of projects received at least 4 weeks of such input during the processing and implementation stages of the project cycle, respectively.

17

32

21

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sector

Transport andICTEnergy

Water/Multiple

Other

22

117

40

20

Region

Southeast

South Asia

Pacific

East Asia

Central West

15

23

3

62

6

Modality

Sector loan

Project loan

Multiple

MFF

13

87

Public/Private

Sovereign

Non-sovereign

Figure 2: Number of Projects by Region, Sector, Modality and Type (Public or Private)


4

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Note: Category A and B environment projects only with reported departmental environmental safeguard specialist involvement. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders. Missing information for four projects.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=88)

Cat. A(n=15)

Cat. B(n=73)

CW(n=20)

EA(n=11)

PA(n=7)

SA(n=37)

SE(n=13)

Transport(n=27)

Energy(n=21)

Water/Multiple(n=26)

Other(n=14)

Public(n=75)

Private(n=13)

Risk Category Region Sector Public/Private

Figure 3 : Estimated Allocation of Time of Environmental Safeguard Specialists During Project Processing, by Risk Category, Region, Sector, and Type (Public or Private)

Less than 1 week 1-2 weeks 2 weeks> ; 4 weeks< 4-8 weeks Over 8 weeks

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Note: Sample of Category A and B environment projects restricted to those with construction activities under way and with reported departmental environmental safeguard specialist involvement. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=79)

Cat. A(n=15)

Cat. B(n=64)

CW(n=18)

EA(n=10)

PA(n=5)

SA(n=34)

SE(n=12)

Transport(n=26)

Energy(n=20)


Other(n=8)

Public(n=66)

Private(n=13)


Figure 4 : Estimated Allocation of Time of Environmental Safeguard Specialists During Project Implementation by Risk Category, Region, Sector, and Type (Public or Private)


12. Of the two category A projects that were reported as having had less than 1 week of environment safeguard specialist support during their processing, one is cofinanced with the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which is responsible for overseeing safeguards for this project. This project, therefore, requires minimal safeguard input from ADB. This is also why one of the three category A projects was reported as having received less than 1 week of departmental environment safeguard specialist support during implementation (Figure 4). Nevertheless, it is of concern that one of the category A projects was reported as having received less than 1 week of processing-related support and two were reported as having received less than 1 week of implementation-related support from such a specialist.

13. Although few in number, the statistics pertaining to the countries of the Pacific also stand out: five of the seven projects were reported as having received only 1–2 weeks of environmental safeguard specialist input during their processing. Moreover, among the five projects where construction activities had started, three were reported as having had less than 1 week of environmental safeguard implementation support (Figure 4). Drawing on information provided during the interviews with staff


5

ADB = Asian Development Bank. Note: Sample of category A and B environment projects restricted to those with construction activities underway for at least 1 year. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders. Missing information for one project.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Processing Implementation Processing Implementation Processing Implementation

Overall (n=59) Category A (n=12) Category B (n=47)

Figure 5: Comparison of Estimated Time Input of ADB Environmental Safeguard Specialists in Supporting the Processing and Implementation of Projects with Construction Activities Having

Taken Place for at Least 1 Year


CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Note: Sample of category A and B environment projects restricted to those where construction activities were underway. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders. Missing information for four projects.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=75)

Cat. A(n=14)

Cat. B(n=61)

CW(n=16)

EA(n=10)

PA(n=4)

SA(n=33)

SE(n=12)

Transport(n=23)

Energy(n=19)


Other(n=8)

Public(n=63)

Private(n=12)


Figure 6: Estimated Breakdown of Time of Environmental Safeguards Specialists During Project Implementation, by Risk Category, Region and Sector

Reviewing client plans/reports/documents Meeting with/capacity buidling of client staffWriting progress reports Field-based supervision visitsOther

from ADB’s Pacific Regional Department (PARD), the most likely explanation for this is that this department simply has too few safeguard specialists and inadequate travel budget to match the demand. The region also poses particular capacity and logistical challenges.

14. One of the key intended changes of the SPS was a greater focus on supporting safeguard delivery during project implementation, given that the previous approach was perceived as being too “frontloaded.” How the time of safeguard specialists is divided between supporting processing and implementation can be examined by juxtaposing Figures 3 and 4. However, this is not ideal as construction activities for a number of the sampled projects had only recently started at the time the interviews took place, so an allocation of safeguard specialist input in favor of processing would be expected for such projects. To address this, only projects with construction activities that had been underway for at least 1 year at the time the project team leaders were interviewed were included in the analysis. This restricted the sample of category A and B projects to those that are mature in terms of their physical implementation. Figure 5 presents the results, which are broken down by risk category. The balance is tilted slightly in favor of processing: overall, 54% of the projects were reported as having had at least 1 month of environmental safeguard specialist input during their design, against 49% during implementation. This bias is even more pronounced for category A projects. Here, nine of the 12 projects were reported as having received 1 month or more of environmental safeguard specialist input during processing and 4 during implementation.


6

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Note: Sample of category A and B environment projects restricted to those where construction was underway. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=79)

Cat. A(n=15)

Cat. B(n=64)

CW(n=18)

EA(n=10)

PA(n=5)

SA(n=34)

SE(n=13)

Public(n=66)

Private(n=13)

Risk category Region Public/Private

Figure 7: Percentage of Projects Reported as Having Had Received Adequate or More than Adequate Input from Departmemtal Environmental Safeguard Specialists during

Processing and Implementation

Amount of input (Processing) Amount of input (Implementation)Quality of input (Processing) Quality of input (Implementation)

15. The project team leaders were also asked how the time of environment safeguard specialists working on their projects was allocated as they supported project implementation. The results are presented in Figure 6. The bulk of their time (58% overall) was spent reviewing environmental safeguard documentation produced by clients (usually by consultants), e.g., updated plans and monitoring reports. Most of the remainder of their time (34% overall) was about evenly split between meeting with and building the capacity of clients and carrying out field-based supervision visits. Finally, very little time (8% overall) was spent on writing progress reports. This is understandable, given that the writing and submission of monitoring reports is the responsibility of the client. (However, several safeguard specialists reported that they inevitably got involved in this process.) The overall trend is more or less consistent among the risk categories, regions, and sectors, the exception being the Pacific. There, relatively more environmental safeguard specialist time was reported as being allocated to meeting with and building the capacity of client staff and the writing of progress reports. This may be a consequence, again, of the unique capacity challenges this region faces. 16. The project team leaders were further asked to rate both the quantity and quality of environment safeguard specialist input their projects had received both during processing and implementation. The results—presented in Figure 7—show that vast majority perceive that such input had been adequate or more than adequate on both counts. A slightly lower percentage of the Pacific region’s projects were rated positively. This, again, may reflect the fact that PARD has too few environmental safeguard specialists.

2. Social Safeguard Specialists 17. Project team leaders were asked similar questions about the input of departmental social safeguard specialists in relation to their projects. They reported that over 94% of the involuntary resettlement and Indigenous Peoples category A and B projects in the sample received input from their departments’ respective social safeguard specialists, both during processing and implementation. Figures 8 and 9 present average estimates of the time such specialists have supported these projects in these two areas. The results are, again, broken down by risk category, region, sector, and whether they are public or private. As for the environment, very few of the projects were reported to have had received less than 1 week of support during either processing or implementation. An exception is the Pacific region. Here, two of the four projects where either involuntary resettlement and/or Indigenous Peoples plan implementation has started were reported as having had less than 1 week of social safeguard support. As explained above, this is likely due to the fact that are too few safeguard specialists supporting this complex region. Another noteworthy region is Central and West Asia, where


7

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Sample of category A and B IR & IP projects restricted to those where IP/IR plan implementation was underway and specialist support reported. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=53)

Cat. A(n=20)

Cat. B(n=33)

CW(n=8)

EA(n=6)

PA(n=4)

SA(n=26)

SE(n=9)

Transport(n=17)

Energy(n=9)


Other(n=9)

Public(n=52)

Private(n=1)


Figure 9 : Estimated Allocation of Time of Social Safeguards Specialists During Project Implementation, by Risk Category, Region and Sector


CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Sample restricted to category A and B IR & IP projects where specialist support during processing was reported. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=69)

Cat. A(n=20)

Cat. B(n=49)

CW(n=12)

EA(n=9)

PA(n=3)

SA(n=30)

SE(n=15)

Transport(n=19)

Energy(n=13)


Other(n=14)

Public(n=64)

Private(n=5)


Figure 8 : Estimated Allocation of Time of SocialSafeguards Specialists During Project Processing by Risk Category, Region, Sector, and Type (Public or Private)


five of the eight projects were reported as having received over 8 weeks of social safeguard specialist input, with 4–8 weeks for each of the remaining three projects. Narrative information obtained during the interviews revealed that there are complex challenges relating to land acquisition that have surfaced during the implementation of a number of projects in this region. These have taken a considerable time to resolve. Two projects, for example, have experienced problems in securing governmental approval to compensate the affected peoples as required by ADB, while another project faces ambiguities surrounding land ownership. 18. As for environmental safeguard specialists, the time of social safeguard specialists supporting safeguard delivery in both the processing and implementation phases of the project cycle can be juxtaposed. Again, to ensure a fair comparison, only projects where involuntary resettlement or Indigenous Peoples plans had been underway for at least 1 year were included in the analysis. The results are presented in Figure 10. These results are the opposite of those obtained for the environment—input is biased towards implementation, rather than processing. For example, for the overall sample, 48% of the projects were reported as having received 1 month or more of such support during processing, compared with 68% during implementation. This pattern does not change significantly when the results are broken down by risk category.


8

ADB = Asian Development Bank. Sampled of category A and B IR and IP projects restricted to those where IR/IP plan implementation started before July 2012. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Processing Implementation Processing Implementation Processing Implementation


Figure 10: Comparison of Estimated Time Input of ADB SocialSafeguard Specialists in Supporting the Processing and Implemenation of Projects with Resettlement Plan

Implementation Had Been Underway for at Least 1 Year


CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Sample of category A and B IR & IP projects restricted to those where IP/IR plan implementation was underway. Public/private not decomposed, given that there is only one project. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders. Missing information for two projects.

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Overall(n=51)

Cat. A(n=19)

Cat. B(n=32)

CW(n=6)

EA(n=6)

PA(n=4)

SA(n=24)

SE(n=9)

Transport(n=16)

Energy(n=8)


Other(n=9)

Risk Category Region Sector

Figure 11: Estimated Breakdown of Time of SocialSafeguards Specialists During Project Implementation by Risk Category, Region and Sector

Reviewing client plans/ reports/documentsMeeting with/capacity building of client staffWriting progress reportsField-based supervision visitsOther

19. As was the case for environmental safeguard specialist input, project team leaders were also asked about how the time of social safeguard specialists supporting their projects was divided. The results are presented in Figure 11. Again, approximately 50% of their time overall was reported as being spent on reviewing the updated plans and monitoring reports produced by clients or consultants working under them. The remainder of the time of these specialists was reported as being divided between carrying out field-based supervision visits, meeting with clients and/or building their capacity, and writing progress reports.


9

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Sample of category A and B IR and IP projects restricted to those with IR/IP plan implementation underway. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall(n=53)

Cat. A(n=20)

Cat. B(n=33)

CW(n=8)

EA(n=6)

PA(n=4)

SA(n=24)

SE(n=11)

Sovereign(n=52)

Non-sovereign

(n=1)

Risk category Region Public/Private

Figure 12: Percentage of Projects Reported as Having Had Received Adequate or More than Adequate Input from Departmemtal Social Safeguard Specialists during Processing

and Implemenation

Amount of input (Processing) Amount of input (Implementation)Quality of input (Processing) Quality of input (Implementation)

20. The interviewees were also asked to rate both the quantity and quality of social safeguard input their projects had received to date, both during their processing and implementation. The results—presented in Figure 12—are, again, positive: over 90% of the projects were rated as either adequate or more than adequate across all four areas. The Pacific region stands out, yet again, as an anomaly, with several projects rated as inadequate pertaining to both the amount and quality of support provided during project implementation. And the primary reason for this is likely the same as for environmental safeguards: PARD has simply too few ADB specialists working on social safeguards to meet the demand. F. Safeguard Monitoring Review Missions 21. As discussed in para. 14, one of the intended improvements to safeguard delivery following adoption of the SPS was a greater focus on ensuring the quality of such delivery during project implementation. It is reasonable to suggest that at least part of this effort should entail ADB-led field-based monitoring and supervision. The project team leaders were, consequently, asked about how many ADB-led review missions had taken place for their projects since their effectivity. This included the number of such missions (i) where safeguard monitoring was one of the primary objectives; and (ii) that were accompanied by one or more of ADB’s safeguard specialists. During the analysis of the resulting data, efforts were made to assess the average number of times the sampled projects had been subjected to ADB-led safeguard monitoring per year. This was done separately for the environment, involuntary resettlement, and Indigenous Peoples. Moreover, projects where construction activities or involuntary resettlement/Indigenous Peoples plan implementation had taken place for less than 12 months were excluded from the analysis. This was to ensure that the projects under analysis were sufficiently mature with respect to the safeguard areas in question. 22. The results for the environment are presented in Figure 13. Overall, 83% of the projects were reported as having received an average of at least one ADB-led monitoring review mission per year, respectively and 52% had received two. However, these figures drop to 43% and 27% when at least one of the primary foci of the monitoring missions shifts to environmental safeguards. And the statistics drop further to 27% and 11% for review missions that were accompanied by one or more ADB environmental safeguard specialists. It is further noteworthy that roughly the same percentage of category A and B projects were reported as receiving an average of at least one ADB-led monitoring mission focused on environmental safeguards per year. In addition, eight out of the 12 category A projects were reported as having never been monitored by an ADB environmental safeguard specialist. However, it is important to highlight that one of these projects is being implemented in a highly


10

IR = involuntary resettlement, resident mission = review mission, RP = resettlement plan, SG = safeguards, SGS = safeguard specialist. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

50%

100%

General RM IR SG RM IR SG RMwith SGS




Figure 14: Average Number of Review Missions Per Year for Category A and B Involuntary Resettlement Projects where RP has been under Implementation for at least

12 months

more than 3 times 2 to 3 times at least 1 but less than 2 times less than 1 time none

Env. = environmental, resident mission = review mission, SG = safeguards, SGS = safeguard specialist. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

General RM Env.SG RM Env. SG RMwith SGS

General RM Env. SG RM Env. SG RMwith SGS

General RM Env.SG RM Env. SG RMwith SGS


Figure 13: Average Number of Review Missions (resident mission) Per Year for Category A and B Environment Projects where Contruction HasTaken Place for at Least 12

Months

more than 3 times 2 to 3 times at least 1 but less than 2 times less than 1 time none

insecure area, and ADB staff do periodically review safeguard implementation progress with the client through face-to-face meetings. While there is currently no specific minimum requirement for the frequency of ADB-led monitoring and supervision for category A projects, several operations departments require this to take place twice per year. This is particularly relevant during the project’s construction phase. 23. Figure 14 presents the same results for involuntary resettlement.3 Here, 57% of the projects were reported as having received at least one such mission per year on average and 27% twice a year. The figures for those missions that were accompanied by a social safeguard specialist are 38% and 16%. In addition, unlike environmental safeguards, all nine category A projects received an average of at least one involuntary resettlement-focused ADB-led monitoring review mission per year, with most of these being accompanied by a social safeguard specialist. However, as is the case for the environment, there are a number of category B projects where the frequency of ADB-led monitoring focusing on involuntary resettlement safeguards in general and those accompanied by a social safeguard specialist in particular is low, i.e., it had either never happened or had happened less than once per year on average.

3 Note that many of the projects for this particular sample overlap with those analyzed for environmental safeguards, so

comparing their average number of general review missions is not of particular interest.


11

IP = Indigenous Peoples, IPP = Indigenous Peoples plan, resident mission = review mission, SG = safeguards, SGS = safeguards specialist. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

General RM IP SG RM IP SG RM withSGS




Figure 15 Average Number of Review Missions Per Year for Category A and B Indigenous Peoples Projects where the Indigenous Peoples Plan has been Under Implementation for

at least 12 Months

more than 3 times 2 to 3 times at least 1 time but less than 2 less than 1 time none

24. Figure 15 presents the results for Indigenous Peoples. While the number of projects is relatively small, the average frequency of Indigenous-Peoples-related safeguard monitoring is significantly greater than for both the environment and involuntary resettlement. In particular, eight of the 10 projects were reported as having had been subjected to ADB-led Indigenous Peoples safeguard monitoring at least once per year on average.

G. Safeguard Monitoring Reports 25. The project team leaders were also asked whether safeguard reports for their respective projects were being submitted on time and whether they were able to, in turn, readily disclose them on ADB’s website. The results are presented in Figure 16. For those projects where at least one official reporting deadline had passed, the interviewees stated that the reports were submitted on time for 75% of the sampled projects. However, there is considerable variation among the five regions. The SPS and ADB’s Public Communications Policy require the posting of safeguard monitoring reports on ADB’s website within 14 days of submission. The graph therefore also displays the percentage of projects where reports were reported both as submitted and posted on the web in a timely fashion. As indicated in Figure 16, this was only reported to be the case for 58% of the projects. The study team further verified whether these reports actually exist on ADB’s website. Figure 16, therefore, also displays the percentages of projects where (i) their respective environmental and social monitoring reports were reported as having been submitted to ADB on time and uploaded onto ADB’s website; and (ii) one or more of such reports were actually found to be present on the website. As indicated, there is considerable discrepancy between the percentages reported by the project team leaders and those verified by the study’s team.


12

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders and web verification.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall (n=91)

CW (n=21)

EA (n=10)

PA (n=5)

SA (n=37)

SE (n=18)

Figure 16: Percentage of Projects where Clients Submit Monitoring Reports That Are Uploaded on the Website without Significant Delays by Region

i. Reported timely submissionii. Reported timely submission & uploaded on webi & ii with one or more safeguard monitoring reports found on web

Client not submitting

reports on time15%

Nothing to report on because of project delays

8%

Quality of reports need to be

improved before posting

48%

Reports need to be translated

7%

Other22%

Figure 17: Reported Reasons why Reports are not Uploaded on the Website Upon Receipt (n=27)

26. In cases where the timely posting of safeguard monitoring reports had not taken place, the interviewees were asked why this was the case. Their responses are summarized in Figure 17. As indicated, the main reason was that there was a felt need to improve the quality of the reports before posting them on the web. Delays experienced on the side of the client in submitting the reports on time in the first place and in the ADB safeguard review process itself were also cited as key reasons, as was the need to translate the reports prior to posting.

H. Issues Encountered during Project Implementation 27. As described in para. 2, to fully assess the quality of safeguard implementation and, by extension, the likely attainment of positive safeguard outcomes, IED would have—ideally—carried out detailed fieldwork on a representative sample of projects approved under the SPS. However, in the absence of this, project team leaders were asked whether they were aware of their projects encountering any issues or challenges associated with safeguard implementation. The questions are presented in Section 1 of the questionnaire (Annex 1), and the safeguard implementation issues that were reported are presented separately for each of the three safeguard areas in the following subsections. The samples of category A and B projects that were analyzed are restricted to those where


13

EMP = environmental management plan. Sample restricted to projects where construction activities had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

None70%

One18%

Two7%

Three3%

Four2%

Figure 18: No. of Environmental Safeguards Implementation Issues

Reported by Project Team Leaders for Sampled Environment Category A and

B Projects (n=81)

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Figure 19: Types of Environmental Safeguard Implementation Issues Reported by Project Team Leaders (n=81)

Delays in updating EMP Insufficient financial resources allocatedMitigation measure design shortfalls Mitigation measure implementation shortfallsMonitoring and supervision shortfalls (client) Reporting shortfalls (client)Public consultation following Board approval Information disclosure following Board approvalOutstanding grievances Other issues

construction activities had started in the case of the environment, or where involuntary resettlement or Indigenous Peoples plan implementation had started in the case of the other two safeguard areas.

1. Environment 28. As shown in Figure 18, most projects were reported to be problem-free with respect to environment safeguard implementation. Among the 30% of projects where this was not the case, only one specific issue was reported for over half of them. These issues are presented in Figure 22. The most prevalent issue was reporting shortfalls, primarily with respect to quality, followed by delays in updating environmental management plans (EMPs) following Board approval and shortfalls in the implementation of the environmental impact mitigation measures contained in these plans. Most of the reasons reported for the untimely updating of the projects’ EMPs were related to capacity and/or ownership shortfalls on the part of the client and/or the implementation consultant, and in all cases it was reported that efforts were being made to resolve these. Various problems were reported pertaining to the implementation of planned mitigation measures. In two projects, worker health and safety protocols were not being properly followed. In another, unacceptable levels of dust and noise had affected the operation of local schools, while general project implementation delays in another were frustrating all aspects of environmental safeguard implementation. This particular project is likely to be cancelled. Finally, contractors’ lack of familiarity with environmental safeguards was reported for two projects under the “other issues” category.

29. In order to explore the extent to which issues related to the implementation of environmental safeguards vary by risk category, sector, region, and whether they are public or private sector projects, an index was created from the information provided by the project team leaders. Each type of issue was treated as a binary indicator, with 1 indicating the presence of a reported issue/problem and 0 the absence of the issue (Figure 19). For the sake of simplicity, related indicators were combined to form five specific components for the index, and each of these components was weighted equally, as was each of their respective indicators. This resulted in an index that ranges from 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%), where a score of 0 for a project would imply that no environmental safeguard implementation issues


14

IR = involuntary resettlement. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

none46%

one17%

two17%

three8%

four4%

five4%

six4%

Figure 21: Number of IR Safeguards Implementation Issues Reported by

Project Team Leaders (n=48)

CW=Central and West, EA = East and Asia, EMP = environmental management plan, PA = Pacific, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Sample restricted to projects where construction activities had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Overall(n=82)

Cat. A(n=15)

Cat. B(n=67)

Transport(n=26)

Energy(=21)


Other(n=11)

CW(n=19)

EA(n=10)

PA(n=5)

SA(n=36)

SE(n=13)

Public(n=69)

Private(n=13)

Risk Category Sector Region Public/Private

Figure 20: Environmental Safeguards Implementation Issue Index by Risk Category, Sector, Region, and Whether they are Public or Private Sector

Delays in updating EMP/insufficient financial resources Design and/or implementation shortfallsMonitoring, supervision, and/or reporting shortfalls Information disclosure and/or consultation shortfallsOther issues

were reported for any of the 10 indicators. A score of 1, on the other hand, would mean that issues were reported for all the 10 indicators. The average index score, therefore, equates to the average proportion (or percentage) of issues that were reported for the sample of projects in question. 30. Figure 20 presents the resulting implementation issues index for environmental safeguards, decomposed by risk category, sector, region, and whether they are public or private sector projects. The index’s overall score is less than 5%, which reflects the fact that relatively few issues were reported by the project team leaders with respect to environmental safeguard implementation among the sampled projects. The decomposition of the index by risk category and sector is particularly revealing. Category A projects had fewer implementation issues, while Category B projects more closely mirrored the overall trend. The same is true for the energy sector, while significantly more issues were reported for the other sectors. There is little variation among the regions, save for the fact that more issues were reported for the Pacific’s four projects.

2. Involuntary Resettlement 31. Of the 67 involuntary resettlement category A and B projects in the overall sample, land acquisition and resettlement activities were reported to have started in 48. As shown in Figure 21, at least one involuntary resettlement safeguard implementation issue was reported for 54% of these projects. The specific types of issues are presented in Figure 22. Delays in updating resettlement plans and issues associated with implementing such plans were reported for over 30% of the projects. The causes of the former are varied: several team leaders reported that not all affected people were identified during project processing, necessitating the undertaking of further identification and negotiation processes and the allocation of additional budgetary resources. Differences between the compensation requirements in the SPS and those permissible under local


15

IR = involuntary resettlement, RP = resettlement plan. Note: Project sampled restricted to those where IR plan implementation had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Figure 22: Types of Involuntary Resettlement Safeguard Implementation Issues Reported by Project Team Leaders (n=48)

Delays in updating RP Insufficient financial resources allocatedRP design shortfalls RP implementation shortfallsMonitoring & Supervision shortfalls (client) Reporting shortfalls (client)Public consultation following Board approval Information disclosure following Board approval

law were cited as another source of delay, as were delays on the part of contractors in finalizing detailed engineering designs. Finally, for one project, the updated resettlement plan was found to be poor by ADB’s safeguard specialists, necessitating its revision. 32. The most common reason cited for delays in resettlement plan implementation stems from the fact that affected people had been dissatisfied with the compensation they were offered and had demanded more, often through the local courts. This is also why outstanding grievances were reported for over 15% of the projects. Ambiguities surrounding land ownership were cited as the second most common reason, particularly where individual land rights do not have a deep historical basis. Finally, another cause of resettlement plan implementation delays was resolving differences between ADB’s requirements and those of its clients. By extension, these delayed implementation of other project activities.

33. For several projects, team leaders also reported that involuntary-resettlement-related monitoring and supervision on the part of the client was not sufficiently rigorous and that the quality of involuntary resettlement progress reporting needed improvement. Other safeguard implementation issues were raised for seven of the projects; these included sentiments that SPS’s requirements are too rigid and require too much work on the part of both ADB and its clients. 34. An index was also created to consolidate the issues reported by the project team leaders on involuntary resettlement safeguard implementation. This was broken down by risk category, sector, and region (Figure 23).4 The overall index score is over twice that for environment safeguards, revealing a significantly higher prevalence of reported issues. Most of these pertain to delays in the updating of resettlement plans and implementation problems. Note that the index is significantly higher for category A projects than for category B projects. For the environment, it was the opposite. 4 There was only one private sector project where involuntary resettlement or Indigenous Peoples plan implementation had

started, so the data were not broken down according to whether they were public or private sector.


16

CW = Central and West, EA = East and Asia, IR = involuntary resettlement, PA = Pacific, RP = resettlement plan, SA = South Asia, SE = Southeast Asia. Project sampled restricted to those in which IR plan implementation had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Overall(n=48)

Cat. A(n=18)

Cat. B(n=30)

Transport(n=17)

Envergy(=9)


Other(n=6)

CW(n=8)

EA(n=5)

PA(n=4)

SA(n=25)

SE(n=6)

Risk Category Sector Region

Figure 23: Involuntary Safeguard Implementation Issue Index, by Risk Category, Sector, and Region

Delays in updating RP/insufficient financial resources Design and/or implementation shortfallsMonitoring, supervision, and/or reporting shortfalls Information disclosure and/or consultation shortfallsOther issues

IP = Indigenous Peoples, IPP = Indigenous Peoples plan. Sample restricted to projects in which IP plan implementation had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 25: Types of Indigenous Peoples Safeguard Implementation Issues Reported by Project Team Leaders (n=13)

Delays in updating IPP Insufficient financial resources allocatedIPP design shortfalls IPP implementation shortfallsMonitoring and Supervision shortfalls (client) Reporting shortfalls (client)IP participation following Board approval Information disclosure following Board approvalOutstanding grievances Other issues

3. Indigenous Peoples

35. A large number of implementation issues were reported for Indigenous Peoples safeguards. Specifically, at least one such issue was reported for eight out of the 13 projects that were analyzed (Figure 24). As can be seen in Figure 25, Indigenous Peoples plan design and implementation shortfalls were the most common issues. For instance, in several of the projects, planned interventions intended to benefit Indigenous Peoples were found to be impractical during project implementation. One project also experienced implementation delays due to the clients’ lack of prioritization in addressing Indigenous Peoples issues. 36. As for the environment and involuntary resettlement, an Indigenous Peoples safeguard implementation issue index was created. The sample of Indigenous Peoples projects was too small to make it worthwhile to break down the index by sector and region. Nevertheless, Figure 26 presents the overall index, broken down by risk category. The pattern is similar to that of involuntary resettlement: the overall index reveals more implementation issues than there were with environment safeguards, and this prevalence is biased towards category A projects.

IP = Indigenous People Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

none38%

one31%

two15%

four8%

five8%

Figure 24: Number of IP Safeguards Implementation Issues Reported by

Project Team Leaders (n=13)


17

IP = Indigenous Peoples, IPP = Indigenous Peoples plan. Sample restricted to projects in which IP plan implementation had started. Source: Authors’ calculations, based on questionnaires completed during interviews with 81 project team leaders.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Overall (n=13) Cat. A (n=4) Cat. B (n=9)

Figure 26: Indigenous Peoples Safeguards Implementation Issue Index by Risk Category

Delays in updating IPP/insufficientfinancial resources

Design and/or implementationshortfalls

Monitoring, supervision, and/orreporting shortfalls

Information disclosure and/orconsultation shortfalls

Other issues

I. Discussion and Conclusion 37. This report presents the results of a questionnaire undertaken with 81 project team leaders to gain an understanding of what ADB is doing to ensure effective delivery of the SPS and to identify the issues that are being encountered as projects are implemented. A number of insights were derived from this exercise. The first is positive: almost all ADB projects receive at least some attention from departmental-level safeguard specialists—during both processing and implementation. In addition, a very high percentage of project team leaders rated both the quantity and quality of the safeguard specialist support their projects received positively. PARD, however, is an anomaly, given that it has only three safeguard specialists to support a region that possesses a number of unique capacity and logistical challenges. 38. During project implementation, project team leaders from the various departments reported that over half of the time of safeguard specialists is spent reviewing and commenting on client-generated safeguard documentation and reports. This is the case for both environment and social safeguards. Although this activity is, of course, important, one may question whether this large allocation of time is appropriate. Indeed, a number of interviewees stated that ADB’s reporting requirements needed to be streamlined. Several suggested that simplified reporting templates would improve matters significantly. These should be tailored for the common types of projects ADB finances, along the lines of the Environment and Social Safeguards Division’s rapid environmental assessment (REA) checklists. This would make reporting more focused and efficient, thereby freeing up the time of both clients and ADB’s safeguard specialists to concentrate on more substantive safeguard delivery issues. 39. Another key finding is that the level of safeguard attention appears to be more biased toward processing in the case of environmental safeguards and toward implementation in the case of social safeguards. This is likely a reflection of the fact that safeguard implementation challenges are more prevalent with respect to social safeguards, necessitating greater involvement of social safeguard specialists in project implementation. However, one may question, again, whether this is ideal. In many cases, relying solely on reports to meaningfully understand the progress of environmental safeguard implementation is likely to be inadequate. Systematic, field-based investigation will often be more effective in ensuring that action is undertaken to prevent adverse environmental impacts. In the evaluation IED plans to undertake on the effectiveness of the SPS in 2015–2016, field-based investigation will take place to corroborate whether environmental safeguards need more attention at the field level.

40. One project team leader stated that many of the involuntary-resettlement-related problems that are often encountered during the implementation of ADB-financed projects could be significantly


18

reduced if greater efforts were made during processing to make projects more “implementation-ready.” This staff member encouraged clients to compensate displaced persons prior to Board approval, thereby avoiding delays in the starting of civil works. This is obviously not feasible for all projects. However, it would help address another issue raised by another team leader: for a number of projects; significant resources and efforts go into resettlement planning prior to Board approval, but much of the work needs to be repeated after detailed engineering designs have been finalized. Consequently, in cases where resettlement plans cannot be implemented or finalized before Board approval, significant efficiency gains could be made by simply requiring a good quality resettlement framework to be in place, as opposed to a full-fledged draft resettlement plan.

41. Unsurprisingly, the results of the questionnaire reveal that safeguard delivery during the implementation of many ADB-financed projects is not problem-free. Striking a balance between supporting large-scale infrastructure projects on the one hand and ensuring the avoidance or appropriate mitigation of adverse environmental and social impacts on the other is definitely challenging. ADB is certainly making significant efforts to rise to this challenge. However, there are a number of things it can do to avoid safeguard delivery problems during implementation or, at the very least, to ensure that they are more readily resolved: (i) simplify and focus documentation and reporting requirements, so that the time of clients and safeguard specialists (and even other project team members) can be freed up to attend to more substantive safeguard delivery issues; (ii) make ADB-led safeguard monitoring during project implementation more regular and systematic; and (iii) identify ways to avoid unnecessarily duplicating effort during project processing and implementation.


Annex 1: Project Team Leader and Team Member Interview Form

19

Team members Interviewed: Name Position Department 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Lead: The interview will focus one or more of the projects you manage that falls under SPS and with

an effectivity date prior to July 2012. The project(s) we have on record is(are): <review project(s) below>. Is(Are) this(these) correct? (If not, make relevant corrections.) For the remainder of the interview, we will be referring to this(these) project(s).

Select 1st project Select 2ed project Select 3rd project Country Title

Loan. No Approval date (m/y) / / / Effective date (m/y) / / / Sovereign/Non-sovereign Sector Financing Modality Safeguards Classification Env. IR IP Env. IR IP Env. IR IP

Note: To be populated before interview

1. General Safeguard Progress: 1a. Environmental Safeguards: 1a_1. For each project, has implementation started for one or more of the project’s components that

could potentially generate negative environmental impacts (e.g., construction activities)? Loan #:

Yes No

N/A: Cat. C for environ.

If yes: Ask the project officer when such implementation started (month and year), and complete question 1a_2 for each applicable project.

Loan #: Month/Year _____/_____ _____/_____ _____/_____

1a_2. For each of the projects for which environmental safeguards are relevant, are you aware of any of the following:



20

Loan #: Yes No Yes No Yes No

1. Were significant delays experienced in updating the project’s EMP following Board approval?

yes no yes no yes no 2. Have insufficient financial resources been available to

properly implement the project’s EMP? yes no yes no yes no

3. Have there been problems with the planned design of one or more of the EMP’s key mitigation measures?

yes no yes no yes no 4. Have there been problems with the implementation of

one or more of the EMP’s key mitigation measures? yes no yes no yes no

5. Has the client’s monitoring & supervision of the EMP’s key interventions been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 6. Has the client’s reporting on environmental

safeguards been unsatisfactory? yes no yes no yes no

7. Has public consultation (post‐Board approval) on environmental safeguards issues been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 8. Has information disclosure (post‐Board approval) on

environmental safeguards issues been inadequate? yes no yes no yes no

9. Have there been outstanding grievances on environ‐mental issues that have not been timely addressed?

yes no yes no yes no 10. Other issue (specify): yes no yes no yes no 11. Other issue (specify): yes no yes no yes no

1a_3. Ask the interviewee(s) if they have any insights on the causes of any environmental safeguard

issues identified above, as well as possible solutions. Also, ask if they would like to make any additional comments on environmental safeguards implementation in the project(s) they lead.

Causes of Enviro. SG Issues Possible Solutions Additional Comments

1b. Involuntary Resettlement Safeguards:

1b_1. Has implementation of the project’s resettlement or land acquisition plan started? Loan #:

Yes No

N/A: Cat. C for IR

If yes: Ask the project officer when such implementation started (month and year), and complete question 1b_2 for each applicable project.

Loan #: Month/Year _____/_____ _____/_____ _____/_____



21

1b_2. For each of the projects for which IR safeguards are relevant, are you aware of any of the following:


1. Were significant delays experienced in updating the project’s RP following Board approval?


properly implement the project’s RP? yes no yes no yes no

3. Have there been problems with the planned design of one or more of the RP’s key interventions?


one or more of the RP’s key interventions? yes no yes no yes no

5. Has the client’s monitoring & supervision of the RP’s key interventions been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 6. Has the client’s reporting on IR safeguards been

unsatisfactory? yes no yes no yes no

7. Has public consultation (post‐Board approval) on IR safeguards issues been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 8. Has information disclosure (post‐Board approval) on IR

safeguards issues been inadequate? yes no yes no yes no

9. Have there been outstanding grievances on IR issues that have not been timely addressed?


1b_3. Ask the interviewee(s) if they have any insights into the causes of any of the identified IR

safeguard issues, as well as possible solutions. Also, ask if they would like to make any additional comments on environmental safeguards implementation in the projects they lead.

Causes of IR SG Issues Possible Solutions Additional Comments

1c. Indigenous Peoples Safeguards: 1c_1. Has implementation of the project’s IPP started?

Loan #: Yes No

N/A: Cat. C for IP

If yes: Ask the project officer when such implementation started (month and year), and complete question 1c_2 for each applicable project.

Loan #: Month/Year _____/_____ _____/_____ _____/_____

1c_2. For each of the projects for which IP safeguards are relevant, are you aware of any of the following:



22


1. Were significant delays experienced in the updating the project’s IPP following Board approval?


properly implement the project’s IPP? yes no yes no yes no

3. Have there been problems with the planned design of one or more of the IPP’s key interventions?


one or more of the IPP’s key interventions? yes no yes no yes no

5. Has the client’s monitoring & supervision of the IPP’s key interventions been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 6. Has the client’s reporting on IP safeguards been

unsatisfactory? yes no yes no yes no

7. Has IP participation in project decision‐making (post‐Board approval) been inadequate?

yes no yes no yes no 8. Has information disclosure to IPs (post‐Board approval)

on relevant aspects of the project been inadequate? yes no yes no yes no

9. Have there been outstanding grievances raised by IP that have not been timely addressed?


1c_3. Ask the interviewee(s) if they have any insights into the causes of any of the identified IP

safeguard issues, as well as possible solutions. Also, ask if they would like to make any additional comments on environmental safeguards implementation in the projects they lead.

Causes of IP SG Issues Possible Solutions Additional Comments

2. Safeguard Specialist Involvement:

2a Environmental Safeguard Specialist Support 2a_1. Is there one or more environmental safeguard specialists from your department that is

supporting each project as it is being implemented? Loan #:

Yes No

N/A: no relevant implementation: N/A: Cat. C for environment:

For those projects with ‘Yes’ for 2a_1 ask 2a_2. For Cat. C environment projects, skip to 2b Social Safeguard Specialist Support. For projects ticked “no relevant implementation,” skip to 2a_5.



23

2a_2. For each project, approximately how many full-time person weeks has this (these) specialist(s) spent supporting the implementation of environmental safeguards following Board approval? (Review ranges below.)

Loan #: Less than 1 week:

1-2 weeks: More than 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks:

4-8 weeks: Over 8 weeks:

2a_3. Approximately, what percentage of this time was spent on each of the following for each

project? (Ensure that the totals add up to 100% for each project.) Loan #:

a) Reviewing client plans/reports/documents: ____ % ____ % ____ % b) Meeting with/capacity building client staff: ____ % ____ % ____ % c) Writing progress reports: ____ % ____ % ____ % d) Field-based supervision visits: ____ % ____ % ____ % e) Other: specify ____ % ____ % ____ % f) Other: specify ____ % ____ % ____ % 2a_4. How would you rate the amount of environmental safeguard specialist input—from within your

department—each of your projects has received so far following Board approval? Loan #:

More than adequate Adequate

Less than adequate Significantly inadequate

2a_5. How would you rate the quality of environmental safeguard specialist input—from within your




2a_6. If the interviewee(s) states less than adequate or significantly inadequate to either 2a_4 or 2a_5,

ask the reasons why and if they have any recommended solutions. Reasons for shortfalls Possible Solutions Additional Comments



24

2a_7. Was there one or more environmental safeguard specialists from your department that supported each project in its processing stage on environmental safeguards?

Loan #: Yes No

N/A: Cat. C for environment: For those projects with ‘Yes’ ask 2a_8. For Cat. C environment projects, skip to 2b Social Safeguard Support 2a_8. For each project, approximately how many full-time person weeks of input from one or more your

department’s environmental safeguards specialists went into its design? (Review ranges below.) Loan #:

Less than 1 week: 1-2 weeks:

More than 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks: 4-8 weeks:

Over 8 weeks: 2a_9. How would you rate the amount of environmental safeguard specialist input—from within your

department—each of your projects received as it was being designed? Loan #:



2a_10. How would you rate the quality of environmental safeguard specialist input—from within your

department—each of your projects has received as they were being designed? Loan #:



2a_11. If the interviewee(s) states less than adequate or significantly inadequate to either 2a_8 or 2a_9,


2b Social Safeguard Specialist Support 2b_1. Is there one or more social safeguard specialists from your department that is supporting the

each project as it is being implemented? Loan #:

Yes No



25

N/A: no relevant implementation: N/A: Cat. C for IR and/or IP:

For those projects with ‘Yes’ for 2b_1 ask. For Cat. C IR/IP projects, skip to 2c External Support. For projects ticked “no relevant implementation,” skip to 2b_5. 2b_2. For each project, approximately how many full-time person weeks has this (these) specialist(s)

spent supporting the implementation of IR/IP safeguards following Board approval? (Review ranges below.)




2b_3. Approximately, what percentage of this time was spent on each of the following for each

project? (Ensure that the totals add up to 100% for each project.) Loan #:

a) Reviewing client plans/reports/documents: ____ % ____ % ____ % b) Meeting with/capacity building client staff: ____ % ____ % ____ % c) Writing progress reports: ____ % ____ % ____ % d) Field-based supervision visits: ____ % ____ % ____ % e) Other: specify ____ % ____ % ____ % f) Other: specify ____ % ____ % ____ % 2b_4. How would you rate the amount of social safeguard specialist input—from within your




2b_5. How would you rate the quality of social safeguard specialist input—from within your






26

2b_6. If the interviewee(s) states less than adequate or significantly inadequate to either 2b_4 or 2b_5, ask the reasons why and if they have any recommended solutions.

Reasons for shortfalls Possible Solutions Additional Comments

2b_7. Was there one or more social safeguard specialists from your department that supported each

project in its processing stage on IR and/or IP safeguards? Loan #:

Yes No

N/A: Cat. C for IR and IP: For those projects with ‘Yes’ ask 2b_8. For Cat. C IR/IP projects, skip to 2b Social Safeguard Support 2b_8. For each project, approximately how many full-time person weeks of input from one or more

your department’s social safeguards specialists went into its design? (Review ranges below.)




2a_9. How would you rate the amount of social safeguard specialist input—from within your department—each of your projects received as it was being designed?

Loan #: More than adequate

Adequate Less than adequate

Significantly inadequate

2a_10. How would you rate the quality of social safeguard specialist input—from within your department—each of your projects has received as they were being designed?



Significantly inadequate 2a_11. If the interviewee(s) states less than adequate or significantly inadequate to either 2b_8 or 2b_9,




27

2c External Support:

2c_1. Has the project ever received any ADB safeguard specialist support from outside of your department?

Loan #: Yes No

2c_2. Which organizational unit(s) provided this support? (Select all that apply.) Loan #:

a) RSES b) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) c) Officer of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) d) Other (specify) e) Other (specify)

2c_3. Approximately, how many person days of such external departmental support went into the

project’s preparation/design (pre-Board approval)? (Review the following ranges: a) less than 1 day; b) 1-2 days; c) 3-5 days; d) 6-10 days; e) 11 to 20 days; f) more

than 20 days) Loan #:

a) RSES b) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) c) Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) d) Other (specify) e) Other (specify) 2c_4. Approximately, how many person days of such external support was provided during the

projects’ implementation (post-Board approval)? (Review the following ranges: a) less than 1 day; b) 1-2 days; c) 3-5 days; d) 6-10 days; e) 11 to 20 days; f) more

than 20 days) Loan #:

a) RSES b) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) c) Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) d) Other (specify) e) Other (specify) 2c_5. How would you rate the amount of safeguard support each of your projects has received so far

from outside of your department? Loan #:





28

2c_5. How would you rate the quality of safeguard support each of your projects has received from outside of your department?



Significantly inadequate

2c_6. If the interviewee(s) reports that the level of extra-departmental safeguard support one or more of

the projects received has been less than adequate or significantly inadequate, ask the reasons why and if they have any proposed solutions. Also, ask if they would like to make any additional comments.

Reasons for shortfalls Possible Solutions Additional Comments

3. Safeguard Monitoring (Review Missions): 3a. Since the project’s effective date <see page 1>, how many ADB led monitoring missions—which

included project site visitation—have been carried out to date? Loan #:

# of ADB-led monitoring missions with site visitation: Environmental SGs monitoring How many of these missions was the monitoring of the implementation of the project’s EMP a key objective? How many of these missions were either accompanied or led by an environmental SG specialist? IR SGs monitoring How many of these missions was the monitoring the implementation of project’s RP/LARP a key objective? How many of these missions were either accompanied or led by a social SG specialist? IP SGs monitoring How many of these missions was the monitoring the implementation of the project’s IPP a key objective? How many of these missions were either accompanied or led by a social SG specialist? 3b. Has an independent advisory panel been established for the project, which is—at least in part—

responsible for monitoring environmental safeguards? Loan #:

Yes No

If yes: How many field-based missions has the panel carried out to monitor EMP implementation?



29

3c. Has an independent advisory panel been established for the project, which is—at least in part—responsible for monitoring social safeguards?

Loan #: Yes No

If yes: How many field-based missions has the panel carried out to monitor RP/LARP/IPP implementation?

4. Monitoring Reports 4a. For each project, have safeguards monitoring reports been submitted by the client more or less on time?

Loan #: Yes No

Not relevant: First due date for submission has not yet past Skip to 5a if “Not relevant” has been ticked

4b. How would you rate the quality of the safeguards monitoring reports that have so far been submitted for each project?

Loan #: Highly satisfactory

Satisfactory Partly unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory Not relevant: No reports submitted to date

4c. For each project, are you able to post safeguards monitoring reports on ADB’s website generally

following their planned submission schedule? Loan #:

Yes No

If no, ask: What is the primary reason for this: 1. Client is not submitting reports on time 2. Nothing to report on because of project delays 3. Quality of reports need to be improved before posting 4. Reports need to be translated, which takes time 5. Other: Specify ___________________________

5a Do you have any other comments you would like to make about safeguards implementation in relation to the projects we have been discussing?

RESULTS FROM A PROJECT OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE ON … · 2014-11-07 · Safeguards Operational...

Documents

Transcript of RESULTS FROM A PROJECT OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE ON … · 2014-11-07 · Safeguards Operational...