“A complaint mechanism thrives on trust”

Four years ago, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) established its own Independent Complaint Mechanism (IKI ICM). This created a point of contact for everybody to approach when unwanted consequences might arise from an IKI project – from negative social or ecological impacts to the misappropriation of grant funds. We think, after four years of work it is a good time to ask how the IKI ICM has taken root and what current developments are on the horizon.

Dear Andrea, you have been heading the IKI ICM office since its inception. In your view, what have been the key milestones since the complaint mechanism was established?

The most important thing was to become operational quickly and actually start processing complaints. We have managed to do that quiet well! We swiftly appointed an independent expert panel to handle the cases.   

In addition, many background elements also have to function in order to meet the specific requirements of the ICM. This includes, for example, a data‑protection concept that we developed. Another crucial element is the integration of our procedures with those governing the grants of IKI‑funds, such as embedding the ICM in the agreements with the implementing organisations of IKI-funded projects.   

How do you ensure that people in the IKI partner countries are aware of the complaint mechanism, trust it and can actually use it?

A complaint mechanism clearly thrives on the trust of people! Key to raising awareness for the IKI ICM are the implementing organisations on the ground. We contractually oblige them to publicise information about the mechanism, for instance via their websites and at project meetings locally. To support this, we provide them with materials in a range of languages.   

We also run online seminars in English and, on request, in other languages, which are open to anyone interested. In the longer term we intend to broaden this with dedicated public‑relations activities in the IKI focus countries.   

To date we have received 16 complaints. Compared with other complaint mechanisms, this indicates a fairly good level of awareness and accessibility. Especially when you keep in mind, that after a one‑year set‑up phase, the IKI ICM has only been processing complaints for roughly three years. 
It is important to remember: the number of complaints is not an indicator for something going wrong – rather, they help all parties improve project implementation.

What “Lessons Learned” can be drawn from the complaints received?

Of the 16 complaints, the panel has deemed four to be eligible. A few other submissions concerned matters that fall outside the remit of the ICM; we have forwarded those to the respective project management teams.   

Because we have only just completed (or are in the process of completing) the assessment of the admissible complaints, it is still too early to measure any tangible impact on project implementation. In our experience, the effects become visible later, and a robust analysis will require a larger number of cases.   

Nevertheless, the handling of complaints has already provided us with valuable pointers for improving our procedures. We are gradually incorporating these – for example, how we can communicate our requirements more clearly to the implementing organisations.   

How does the IKI Independent Complaint Mechanism fit into existing accountability systems?

Within the ICM we coordinate the IKI accountability system with the implementing organisations, many of which operate their own complaint mechanisms. Doing so, we work in a way similar to the IKI Safeguards Team. These two pillars together create a comprehensive accountability framework that affected parties at both local and international levels can access. In the process they always retain a “choice of forum”, meaning they can use the complaint avenue they trust most.   
 

Looking at the IKI ICM and its impact overall: What is your preliminary assessment after four years?

I am proud that the IKI ICM became operational so quickly and is now regarded internationally as good practice. After four years we are very well positioned – especially when you consider that the IKI is a comparatively small donor yet works worldwide with a very diverse set of stakeholders, ranging from multilateral organisations to remote communities and small NGOs.   

Finally, a look ahead: What is on the agenda for the IKI Independent Complaint Mechanism?

Two items sit at the top of the list. First, we need to restaff several seats on the expert panel. Members currently work on a part‑time basis for the IKI ICM, and some have changed their primary employment, making it no longer compatible with their UBM duties.   

Second, we are establishing a Community of Practice. Many implementing organisations have expressed a desire for deeper exchange on accountability mechanisms. Consequently, we plan to host an inaugural virtual Community‑of‑Practice meeting in the autumn.   

Interested implementing organisations can already get in touch with us by e‑mail, and are welcome to suggest topics they would like to see addressed. 
 

About Andrea Kämpf

Andrea Kämpf, LL.M., is a solicitor and mediator and heads the Office of the IKI Independent Complaint Mechanism (IKI ICM). She has worked for more than 25 years with organisations in the public, private and civil‑society sectors. 

In doing so, she has built experience in the fields of human rights, accountability, sustainability standards, participatory governance and stakeholder management.

About the IKI UBM

The Independent Complaint Mechanism of the IKI is structurally and financially independent. It comprises an external panel of four experts and an office. The office is hosted by Zukunft – Umwelt – Gesellschaft (ZUG) gGmbH, which serves as project management agency of the IKI. 

All details on the IKI UBM 

Contact: IKI-complaints@z-u-g.org