MENA Fem Movement for Economical, Development and Ecological Justice
BlogInstitutionsLetters

CSOs Letter to the EIB Group Concerning the Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) Policy Review

To the Board of European Investment Bank 

Dear EIB Directors,

Our practical experience with the EIB-CM and policy analysis of its Policy and Procedures against those of peer financial institutions show that the CM deviates from international good practice and has been unable to achieve its mission independently, efficiently and in a meaningful way for those affected by EIB operations. It falls short of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms, such as independence, legitimacy, transparency, accessibility, and effectiveness. Crucially, we have seen that the institutional response to the EIB-CM’s cases has been inadequate, resulting in ongoing harm to local communities. 

It is therefore essential that the EIB-CM Policy Review results in real and necessary improvements to the Policy and Procedures and the institutional commitment to remediating harm. In advance of the Board receiving the External Panel of Experts’ Report in the coming months, we would like to outline our priorities with regard to both the Policy Review process and substantive policy recommendations. 

We urge you to provide leadership and participate in the EIB-CM Policy Review process in your capacity as members of the Board and would welcome discussions in more detail with each of you .

Review Process

The Policy Review process must be transparent and inclusive. The EIB-CM has committed to making the External Panel of Experts’ Report publicly available. It is essential that the Report is shared with external stakeholders, including local communities and civil society organisations, as soon as the Board authorises the EIB-CM review. 

In line with good practice, the public consultation process should consist of both a first round on the existing policy and a second round on the draft revised policy. The draft and final revised policy should be accompanied by a matrix of all recommendations received from the External Panel of Experts and other stakeholders during the review, whether they were adopted, and (if not adopted) reasons why not. 

Each round of consultations should include meetings with in situ project affected communities, local and international civil society organisations and other relevant stakeholders in Europe and in other regions where the EIB operates. Genuine efforts should be made to reach communities in project-affected regions, including through hybrid and virtual consultations. Complainants who used the Mechanism in the past should also be approached for feedback and recommendations. Further, targeted consultations must be held with representatives of Indigenous Peoples, in accordance with Article 41 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other vulnerable groups. 

Policy Recommendations

Substantial changes are needed to strengthen the independence, accessibility and effectiveness of the EIB-CM, including:

  • The EIB-CM needs a clearer, updated mandate. 

In order to meet best practice, the EIB-CM must be given a clear mandate to facilitate remedy, prevent harm, and serve as a source of learning and improvement for the EIB. The annual budget and resources allocated to the EIB-CM by the Board should adequately reflect its expanded mandate.

  • The EIB-CM independence needs to be strengthened.

The Policy should assert the operational independence of the EIB-CM from EIB Group Services. The EIB-CM should have a direct reporting line to the Board of Directors who should keep EIB Group Services accountable for implementing the CM’s recommendations, providing remedies and improving the bank’s operations. The selection process for the Head of the CM should be independent from the Management of the Bank.  

  •   The EIB-CM case handling process must become inclusive, equitable, transparent and safe. 

The EIB-CM Policy and Procedures lack sufficient procedural detail on the case-handling process, leaving complainants uncertain about what to expect. Hence, the case handling process should become transparent to complainants, especially women’s groups, indigenous peoples, local communities and young people and regularly inform them about proceedings and invite them to comment on proposed steps and draft reports. 

A complainant should be empowered to elect to use the Dispute Resolution and Compliance Review functions contemporaneously or sequentially. Due to the unique role EIB-CM plays in holding EIB to its own policies, parallel administrative or judicial review proceedings should not prevent complaints from being brought with the CM, to bring the CM in line with many peer financial institutions.   

The EIB-CM should be required to undertake a retaliation risk assessment with complainants and plan for how to prevent or address the risks of retaliation, as fear of reprisal can discourage and prevent project-affected people from raising their concerns with EIB Group Services and the EIB-CM. Acknowledging the EIB-CM’s efforts so far, we find its strategy to be overly general and lacking in procedural detail.

  • The Compliance Review Process should be strengthened, and EIB-CM monitoring function should be enforced.

After a compliance review, which should be made more consultative with and predictable to the complainants, the EIB Group Services should be required to propose operational correction actions and timelines in relation to each of the EIB-CM’s recommendations. The EIB-CM should have the authority to monitor the implementation of the corrective actions until all non-compliance has been remedied. It should regularly report to the EIB Board of Directors on their effectiveness in addressing harms and ensuring compliance.  The EIB-CM should also be equipped with its own initiative function to assess systematic compliance issues. The Board of Directors must understand the weaknesses in the Bank’s operations and functioning to be able to address them in a systematic way, including through amending the relevant policies and procedures of the Bank.

  • The CM Policy should leverage the advisory function of the EIB-CM 

The EIB-CM should be mandated to regularly share its learnings and advice with the Board of Directors and management on systemic issues related to project due diligence and implementation, and compliance with policies and standards and other applicable laws. The EIB-CM should contribute to systemic improvements of the bank’s Environmental and Social Sustainability Framework and transparency practices. 

These recommendations are not exhaustive, and we will provide more detailed feedback upon reading the Experts’ report. We look forward to continuing engagement with you all throughout the review process.

Signatories:

Bank Climate Advocates
Lumière Synergie Développement
MENA Fem Movement For Economic, Development And Ecological Justice
CEE Bankwatch Network
Green Advocates International
Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE)
Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ)
Conseil pour la Terre des Ancêtres (CTA)
Uzbek Forum for Human Rights
International Accountability Project
Urgewald
Oyu Tolgoi Watch
Rivers without Boundaries Coalition Mongolia
GAIA
Recourse
Eko dvogled
Jamaa Resource Initiatives
Green Alternative
National Society of Conservationists – Friends of the Earth Hungary
Counter Balance
Accountability Counsel