Buzzword 6 - Accountability

This is the episode that made me equal parts excited and nervous. For years, Nina Lesikhina’s name would land in my inbox attached to careful emails about issues on projects I worked on. We were usually on opposing sides of a transaction. I was inside the system, trying to make sure safeguards were applied and followed. Nina was outside it, asking hard questions and bringing community concerns to the surface. I often thought of my team as the good guys, the ones going above and beyond to prevent harm. It was strange to imagine that someone might see us as the problem, or at least as not doing enough. I did not take it personally. Some clients were difficult to defend, and her messages often strengthened our hand in enforcing standards. When I started the podcast, I knew I wanted to sit down with Nina, meet her in person, and hear her side of the story.

BankWatch is a civil society network that monitors public lenders. They read the documents, talk to people on the ground, and push institutions to follow their own rules. That description sounds simple. In practice it is complex, slow, and often uncomfortable. It involves power imbalances, language barriers, and communities who have the most to lose if things go wrong. This episode is about that reality, not the theory.

Why this episode now? Because the system needs constructive tension. Development banks talk about transparency and accountability, and they have policies that set a high bar. Projects still fail people when those policies remain on paper. External scrutiny can feel adversarial, but many of the improvements I have seen in the field came after tough questions from civil society. Nina’s emails were never noise. They were a signal that something important needed attention, and sometimes they were the reason a standard was taken seriously by a reluctant client.

What do we cover together?

First, how BankWatch actually works. Who they listen to. How they decide what to raise. What “evidence” looks like when you are dealing with lived experience as well as technical reports.

Second, how communities experience large projects. We talk about consultation that informs decisions, not just disclosure that meets a timetable. We look at grievance mechanisms that protect people from retaliation and actually resolve problems.

Third, how banks and clients can make this relationship less defensive. Timely disclosure helps. So do realistic action plans, clear ownership for mitigation, and visible monitoring that compares predictions to outcomes.

We also talk about the emotional side of this work. It is easy for teams to retreat into process when a project is under pressure. It is also easy for activists to see institutions as a wall. Nina and I try to hold the practical middle. You can insist on better and still respect the constraints of delivery. You can listen to communities and still ask for evidence that can stand in a board room. You can disagree and still act in good faith.

If you work inside a bank or as a consultant, this episode will give you a useful lens. Think about your next project and ask three questions. Are you publishing information that helps people understand what will change where they live. Are your mitigation measures written so that anyone can check if they happened. Are you inviting scrutiny early enough for it to shape decisions, not only to tick a box after the fact. If the answer to any of those is no, you will find ideas here on how to move closer to yes.

If you are in civil society, you will hear how your questions land on the other side. The most helpful messages we received were specific, documented, and timed to the decision we had to make. They pointed to a standard and a gap, and they suggested a feasible correction. Nina’s approach often did exactly that, which is why even difficult exchanges were useful on projects where we needed leverage.

What did I learn from this conversation. That trust grows in small steps. Share a draft earlier than you normally would. Invite a short validation session with local people. Record what changed because of that session. Publish a brief note after major milestones that shows prediction against outcome. None of this requires an overhaul. It requires a habit.

What should you listen for. The way Nina describes building relationships with communities over time. The difference between noise and a pattern in complaints. The value of naming the person who owns a mitigation measure. The moment when an email becomes a plan with an action, a date, and a way to check if it happened.

Most of all, listen for how accountability can be a shared project. Banks, clients, and watchdogs want the same outcome on paper. Fewer harms, better benefits, decisions that people can live with. This episode is my attempt to show how we get closer to that in real projects with real people. I hope it gives you something practical to try on your next assignment, whether you sit inside the institution or across from it.