Roadblocks to Accountability

From the earliest days of this research project, no one we spoke to was surprised to hear of an accountability gap in the Middle East and North Africa. Many took it as a given that the culture or disposition of the region was somehow incompatible with effective engagement with the systems designed to support and protect them. Those that did not lay blame at the feet of affected communities attributed the deficit to systems of state power and control, wherein short-sighted and all-controlling despots kept community voices silenced and cowed through the heavy-handed wielding of the state security apparatus. A certain what can you do fatalism was a common reaction to deficiencies beyond our reach, lying squarely at the feet of unreachable and incomprehensible others.

The research presented above paints a more nuanced picture, where multiple actors, structures, financial flows, and incentives share in a complex web of responsibility and complicity. Language, accessibility, and other barriers prevent communities from reaching out to accountability mechanisms when facing harm. Those few that enter the process are overwhelmed and under-resourced, with little consideration given to their safety from retaliation and retribution. Governments and large regional corporations receive billions of dollars in financing with little consideration for their past human rights abuses. Few expectations are raised — and no penalties are levied — about the absence of meaningful community consultation and disclosure. Due diligence and informed consent are often perceived by IFI clients as little more than an impediment to receiving much-needed funding.

IAMs attempting to support communities through these multi-year processes are understaffed, underfunded, and lack the leverage or authority to compel remedial action. Their associated financial institutions have little incentive or inclination to use the formidable leverage they do have. These obstacles demonstrate not the uniqueness of accessibility barriers in the MENA, but their very ubiquity. The issues and limitations of the IAM process that are faced by communities in the MENA are similar to those around the world; here they are simply more acute.

It is hardly surprising that complainants we spoke to are exhausted by the process, and frustrated with the results. Many organizations claimed that they would not file another complaint because the process took too long, was too intensive, and did not produce any real remedy for harmed communities. These structural deficits are overdue for significant improvement and overhaul.

Financial institutions must address knowledge and language barriers across the region, improve early access to project and IAM materials, and ensure that communities are partners in early and regular consultation.

IAMs must do more to mitigate power imbalances that skew and derail complaint processes. Part of this can be accomplished with direct support for complainants to sustain a multi-year complaint process without undue financial hardship. IAMs require significantly more authority, independence, capacity, and resourcing to accomplish this.

Civil society also has a critical role to play, in supporting harmed communities but also in developing a better understanding of current structural barriers and the means by which they may be mitigated. Future research on the access to remedy, the role of international CSO support for complainants, and several other topics are needed to properly understand and address these problems. A system that provides meaningful remedy feels far away, but with the right advocacy, information, and community support, it is within reach.