MICI actions
Latest Actions
On March 8, 2018, Management presented the Progress Report to the Board of Directors, and on April 6, 2018 requested MICI to publish it on the Public Registry.
Past actions
The Request was declared eligible for the Consultation Phase and during the assessment stage OPAIN (Executing Agency) and the “Unidad Administrativa Especial de Aeronautica Civil (Aerocivil)” were identified as primary actors, as they were both influential in the decision-making process relating to the design, implementation, and/or operation of the project and therefore to the issues raised in the Request. The identification of other primary actors also included, in addition to the Requesters, two airport roundtables: Fontibón and Engativá. In January 2013, the Parties agreed to include the airport roundtable Funza as a primary actor.
During the process of the Consultation Phase it was agreed that the dialogue would focus on four thematic points: (a) water management; (b) materials and goods management; (c) noise and air; and (d) social management. The first three thematic points were addressed during the dialogue process. Nevertheless, the process was concluded by the MICI because the conditions were inadequate to resolve the remaining issues by means of the Consultation Phase. The Consultation Phase Report was issued in July 2014 and, at the request of “Comunidades Unidas”, the Request was transferred to the Compliance Review Phase. At that Phase, the Requesters submitted a supplement to the original Request, which was analyzed in depth by the Panel. After requesting several extensions in order to gather documentation and obtain Management’s response to the supplemental Request, the Panel decided on November 21, 2014 that the Request was eligible for the Compliance Review Phase.
On December 3rd, 2015, the Board of Executive Directors approved the Recommendation and Terms of Reference for a Compliance Review.
At the end of February 2016, two independent experts, Sharon Flynn (USA) and Rodrigo Negrete (Colombia) were hired to undertake the investigation of the case led by the Compliance Review Phase Coordinator. The team visited Bogota, Colombia at the end of March 2016 for a fact-finding mission.
It was envisaged that the investigation would have a maximum duration of 6 months ending at the end of August 2016. However, an extension of one more month was required to review additional documents. The investigation was completed on September 30, 2016 and on that same date the Preliminary Compliance Review Report was distributed to the parties for comments. On October 12, Management requested an extension to the comment period -the Requesters stated that they had no objection to it. On October 21, 2016, the request for extension to the comment period was approved under a short procedure by theBoard of Executive Directorsand the new deadline for MICI to receive comments from the parties was November 15, 2016. Both, Management and the Requesters forwarded their comments to the Preliminary Report before the deadline.
Both Management and the Requesters submitted their comments on the Preliminary Report prior to the deadline. The MICI finalized the Compliance Review Report in December of 2016, and submitted it for translation to English and the consideration of the Policy and Evaluations Committee of the Board of Executive Directors. The Report was distributed to the Committee on March 3rd of 2017, and considered on March 17, 2017.
In March of 2017, MICI issued the Compliance Review Report for “El Dorado International Airport”(CO-MICI002-2011). The Report’s main findings are:
Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy (OP-703), IDB Management failed to comply with the provisions set forth in this Policy by: i) failing to establish mechanisms to ensure the compliance of noise regulations; ii) determining that the environmental and social impact caused by the incremental noise was small-ranging and short-term, and that the Project already had sufficiently effective measures in place; iii) failing to identify the risks of designating a third party to manage the noise; iv) failing to evaluate the increasing impact of the noise and therefore adopting mitigating measures without ensuring their efficacy; v) failing to verify that the consultations conducted were adequate and that those impacted by the Project were informed about the noise mitigation measures.
Access to Information Policy (OP-102),the Bank failed to comply with the obligation to disclose the environmental and social information of the Project.
On May 17 of this year, the IDB Board of Executive Directors, in a session of the General Commission, considered this Report and expressed its support of the findings, requiring the Bank Management to prepare an Action Plan to implement 7 of the 8 recommendations contained in the Report. Regarding the 8th recommendation, the members of the Board did not reach a consensus, as the implementation of this recommendation depends on the decisions of national authorities and is therefore outside the scope of the Action Plan of Management.
The Report and the Final Decision of the Board are available in the chronology section below.