The fight for stronger safeguards
- NGO Forum on ADB
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has long been an influential player in driving development across Asia and the Pacific. As such, its policies and practices have far-reaching consequences for communities, the environment, and the overall success of development projects. In recognition of this impact, the ADB has undertaken a review of its Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), originally enacted in 2009, to ensure it reflects evolving global standards and addresses the lessons learned from past projects.
However, this review process has not been without challenges. NGO Forum on ADB and its allies have worked relentlessly to make sure that the voices of those most affected by ADB-funded projects—communities who often bear the brunt of these developments—are heard and considered in the policy revisions. Their efforts have provided invaluable feedback, pushing for stronger environmental and social safeguards to ensure that the people and ecosystems most impacted by these projects are protected.
Civil society’s role in shaping the SPS review
The Forum Network Engagement Report on ADB Safeguards Policy Review (2021–2024) sheds light on the process of civil society engagement in the ADB’s SPS review from 2021 to 2024. Through a mix of qualitative methodologies, such as participant observation, purposive sampling, and an analysis of civil society submissions, this report examines how effectively ADB has engaged with stakeholders during the policy revision process. The report draws from direct feedback, ADB’s responses to concerns, and discussions with ADB leadership to assess the overall effectiveness of the engagement.
What has improved?
Some positive changes have been made in ADB’s approach to safeguarding communities and the environment. For example, the bank has committed to stronger stakeholder engagement and has introduced a zero-tolerance policy against reprisals targeting affected communities. These steps are welcomed by civil society, as they offer potential protections for people facing retaliation when they raise concerns about ADB-backed projects.
The gaps that remain
However, despite these improvements, significant gaps remain in the revised SPS. Some key concerns include:
Delayed Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) - These assessments are a critical part of ensuring projects are implemented transparently and responsibly. However, their delay often limits access to important information, making it difficult for affected communities and other stakeholders to engage in the decision-making process early on.
Weak Consultation Processes - Although there has been some improvement, consultations with affected communities still lack equity. Recommendations from civil society advocates suggest more structured consultations—for example, using local languages, allowing for feedback rounds, and disclosing consultation budgets—are necessary to make these processes more inclusive.
Absence of a Human Rights-Based Approach - The current policy lacks a mandatory approach to assessing human rights risks, leaving communities vulnerable to exploitation and harm. Civil society is pushing for mandatory human rights assessments for high-risk projects, alongside stronger implementation of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights.
Financing Harmful Projects - Civil society has also raised concerns about ADB’s ongoing financing of projects that may cause environmental and social harm. Many advocates are calling for a complete ban on funding projects that have the potential to harm the environment or communities, as well as the introduction of robust climate risk assessments to ensure that projects align with climate goals.
The Power of Civil Society Advocacy
The engagement process has highlighted the power of civil society advocacy in shaping ADB’s policies. Unified advocacy, early participation, and media mobilization have proven to be powerful tools in influencing the direction of ADB’s safeguard policies. Moving forward, it will be essential to continue pressuring ADB through coordinated advocacy and efforts to ensure that the bank’s decision-making processes truly reflect the needs of affected communities.
Sustained grassroots participation is also critical to maintaining momentum for stronger environmental and social safeguards. By continuing to hold ADB accountable, civil society can help ensure that the bank’s policies are not just aspirational but are backed by concrete actions that protect vulnerable populations and the environment.
The fight for a just and sustainable future
While some progress has been made in revising ADB’s safeguard policies, the fight for stronger protections is far from over. ADB must continue to listen to civil society, ensure transparency in its decision-making, and implement human rights protections that prioritize the needs of communities.
As this struggle continues, it’s clear that civil society plays a crucial role in holding ADB accountable. The NGO Forum on ADB and its allies are relentless in their efforts to push for reforms that not only meet international standards but also ensure equitable and sustainable development that protects the rights of communities and the environment.
Next steps
Looking ahead, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that ADB’s policies meet the needs of the most affected communities. The SPS review process highlights the ongoing need for meaningful consultation, human rights assessments, and climate risk evaluations to guide ADB projects in a way that is truly accountable to the people and ecosystems they impact.
In conclusion, while ADB’s revised safeguards represent a step forward, the fight for stronger policies that protect vulnerable communities and the environment is ongoing. We must continue to push for greater transparency, stronger human rights protections, and meaningful participation to make sure ADB’s projects truly align with a just and sustainable future for all.
Comments