Safeguarding its business interest
October, the ADB Safeguards Policy Update Team issued the draft policy statement on the Safeguard Policies which has been used as basis for the ongoing regional consultations.
The draft policy statement not only manifests the intention of the Bank to water down its existing Safeguard Policies but completely shows that the Bank is disrespecting and dishonoring its pronouncements on poverty alleviation, inclusive growth and development effectiveness.
In Kyoto last May, the SPU team parroted the promise and assurances of President Kuroda to civil society that the ADB would not come up with a weaker set of Safeguards, i.e. protection of the environment, respect for the rights of the indigenous peoples (IPs) and avoidance of displacement. But this has not been the case.
In the draft policy statement, the ADB is proposing the introduction of Country Safeguards System which undoubtedly passes the buck of responsbility and accountability for the adverse impacts of ADB projects to its borrowing countries. The country system would totally remove the stringent conditionalities of the loan, making it a lot easier for national governments to implement projects without giving due respect to the environment and rights of local communities. Relying on a country’s systems would be dangerous since it is open to manipulation and corruption, especially in countries with no room for democratic space.
The draft policy statement has also explicitly contradicted the recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples by downgrading its provision on “free prior informed consent” to “free prior informed consultation.” This is highly problematic for IP communities since consultations with them in the past did not necessarily end up as meaningful and effective. Likewise, it strips off affected people the right to public participation.
These are just some of the worrisome provisions of the draft policy that lack vigor and clarity which contribute to the weakening of the Safeguard Policies. A safeguard policy with no teeth would make ADB shareholders, specificaly the borrowing countries, really happy. But at what price?
The ADB should not only worry about how much have been disbursed and how many projects have been implemented. If it is really dedicated to its overarching goal of poverty reduction, it should ensure that the benefits of its intervention reach the poor and the vulnerable in the region, and does not contribute to the degradation of the environment.
A strong set of Safeguards is essential to achieve this. If indeed the ADB wants to solve the growing inequalities in the region while it continuously support large-scale projects posing harm to local communities and the environment, it should come up with a stronger, more binding set of Safeguards.
The ADB should review its past actions and assess its intention for updating its Safeguards. Are they really safeguarding the vulnerable from being further marginalized or safeguarding its business interest?