Safeguards
Down the drain!
Hemantha Withanage
Civil society organizations, led by the NGO Forum on ADB, decided to BOYCOTT the on-going series of consultation of the Asian Development Bank on its draft Safeguard Policy Statement. The draft policy is a clear manifestation of the Bank’s intention to weaken the existing Safeguard Policies. The ADB should produce a second draft of the policy before continuing with its consultations.
“Do no harm” is one of the basic principles of nature. However, in spite of the benefits of development, it brings with it negative impacts to local communities and the environment. Since the Stockholm summit in 1987, the world has started respecting environmental and social rights in a new form of governance, “sustainable development.” This has brought the principles during the consultation in the Earth Summit to balance development and conservation of the environment. International financial institutions (IFIs), such as the ADB, established their respective social and environmental safeguard policies in the early 90s. However, the Safeguard Policies have been weakened with inclusion of corporations into World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSDD) in 2002.
The ADB Safeguard Policies includes three policies i.e. Environment, Indigenous People and Involuntary Resettlement. There is no doubt that these policies are important to the people living in the project impact areas. The ADB began considering the environmental impacts of its projects in early 90s. It brought its Involuntary Resettlement Policy in 1995, Indigenous Peoples Policy in 1998 and Environment Policy in 2002.
IFIs have become powerful among the so-called “developing nations.” Their investment has stirred development in these countries but has also created social and environmental damage as well. The ADB is not the only donor agency providing development financing in Asia. The World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Japan Bank for International Cooperation and a number of other bilateral and multilateral agencies are also in the business.
The Paris Declarations on aid effectiveness which was adopted by the IFIs in 2005 intends to increase efforts in harmonization among aid agencies. On the other hand, it also encourages further deterioration of the social and environmental rights especially in countries with less or non-existent democratic space.
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) guillotined its social and environmental safeguards in the name of harmonization in 2006. The ADB has started to follow the same path in late 2005.
Chronology of the process
• 18 July 2005: ADB board approval and announcement informing stakeholders about the Safeguard Policy Update
• 22 July 2005: NGO Forum on ADB submitted a letter, which was endorsed by 35 civil society organizations, to the ADB President regarding the process and requesting not to weaken the existing Safeguard Policies
• 28 September 2005: The ADB, through its Principal Safeguard Specialist Mr. Albab Akanda, responded to Forum’s letter stating that it has no intension of weakening the Safeguards.
• October 2005: The ADB posted the Discussion Note on the Safeguards Update for public comments
• 26 October 2005 – 28 February 2006: Stakeholder commenting period on the Discussion Note
• 16 March 2006: Forum issued an open letter, endorsed by 48 CSO groups, to the ADB President on the Safeguard Policy Update saying, NO to Weakened Standards, YES to Accountability
• December 2006: Forum published “Development Debacles” and “Snapshots of ADB Disasters”
• December 2006: Forum sponsored a conference on the Safeguard Policy Update in Bangkok, Thailand
• January 2007: Oxfam Australia issued a synthesis report entitled, “Safeguarding or Disregarding?”
• The ADB Operations Evaluation Department issued Special Evaluation Studies on ADB Safeguards Environment (2006) Resettlement (2006) and Indigenous people ( 2007)
• 11 March 2007: Forum issued a collective statement on the SPU calling for stronger safeguards, equitable and sustainable development in Asia
• July 2008: Resignation of some members of the ADB SPU team due to disagreements among the team
• October 2007: Forum issued a letter, endorsed by 42 groups, requesting to change the consultation process to ensure effective and more participation
• October 2007: Web-posting of the Consultation Draft of the Safeguard Policy Statement
• October 2007: Forum issued a letter requesting the ADB to ensure proper and effective community participation in the SPU consultations for Indonesia and the Mekong region
• November 2007 to April 2008: The ADB conducted a series of external stakeholder consultations in Central and West Asia, Mekong region, Philippines, Indonesia, East Asia, South Asia, Pacific, Europe, Japan and North America. A special consultation was also organized for the IP communities.
• November 2007: Forum members attended Bishkek and Manila consultations. IP groups attended the Manila IP consultation
• December 2007: South Asian groups decided to boycott the SPU consultation
• December 2007: BIC sent a letter requesting a second draft before continuing with the Safeguards consultation
• January 2008: Forum members demanded a second draft and decided to boycott consultations in Indonesia, Hanoi, Sydney, Germany, USA and Japan
• March 2008: Forum members during the Forum Annual Meeting decided to further continue with the boycott of the remaining consultations based since the current draft is flawed and has significantly weakened the Safeguards. Members, however, continued to engage in the safeguard process.
Civil society organizations decided to boycott the ongoing consultations on the draft Safeguard Policy Statement because it has weakened the provisions of the existing Safeguard Policies. Coming up with a business-friendly set of Safeguard Policies will defeat the primary purpose of the Safeguards which is to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups against involuntary displacement and protection of the environment.
Introduction of the Country Safeguards System Approach and Multi-Tranche Financing Facility will make the ADB less accountable for the disastrous impacts caused its funded projects. It passes responsibility to the national governments. The ADB clearly intends to play its role purely as a lending institution, completely disregarding the local communities vulnerable to development- induced social and environmental problems.
Let’s fight for our social and environmental rights!
ADB, Uphold life and livelihood of local communities!