Search Results

Download PDF version -

Download PDF version.

Joint Press Release WALHI, Solidaritas Perempuan, and Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice Jakarta, May 8, 2024 - The Asian Development Bank (ADB) recently held its 57th Annual Meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia on May 2-5, 2024. Approximately 4000 participants attended from various sectors including ADB leadership, ADB member country delegations, and representatives of civil society organizations from various countries. Civil society representatives from various countries, especially Asia and the Pacific, were present to urge ADB to strengthen safeguard policies and stop funding large-scale projects that cause environmental damage, exacerbate the climate crisis, and violate human rights. Recently, ADB declared itself as the Climate Bank for Asia and the Pacific based on claims of success in climate adaptation and mitigation projects in various countries. ADB's claim as a bank with a strong commitment to climate action contradicts the reality of the impacts presented, especially by indigenous and local communities, as well as women's groups. Local communities, indigenous peoples, and civil society organizations have presented evidence of the adverse impacts caused by ADB projects. These losses include environmental and climate impacts, loss of livelihoods, and erosion of socio-cultural values. ADB's safeguard policies have failed to prevent these impacts without adequately addressing the grievances of affected communities. WALHI, Solidaritas Perempuan, and Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice evaluated that the ADB 2024 Annual Meeting showed no commitment to environmental protection and human rights, including women's rights. This is evident from the continued influx of debt for false climate solution projects, which prioritize investments in environmentally and socially unsustainable energy and transportation projects, resulting in climate injustice and gender inequality. Projects like these include geothermal projects in Indonesia, the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) for Indonesia, the Philippines, and Pakistan, and in various other developing countries, which have demonstrated environmental destruction and human rights violations, even exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions. The failure of geothermal projects is evident in projects such as the Muara Laboh Geothermal Power Plant in West Sumatra, the Ulumbu Poco Leok Geothermal Power Plant in East Nusa Tenggara, and others, which have shown impacts such as forced land acquisition, river destruction leading to crop failure, health threats from gas, destruction of water sources, air and water pollution, loss of livelihoods, and increased intensity of ecological disasters such as floods. For women, the presence of geothermal projects has different impacts due to their gender roles, where the destruction of their livelihoods can increase the burden on women, reproductive health disorders, and even militaristic approaches by the state leading to long-term trauma and mental disorders for women and children. Download Press Release here.

Tbilisi, 2 May 2024 - In a bold stance against the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the NGO Forum network and its allies from across the globe unite to challenge the bank's policies and projects, highlighting its detrimental impact on communities, environments, and civic spaces. As the ADB convenes its 57th Annual Meeting, CSOs emphasize the urgent need for accountability and reform within the institution. The ongoing oppression of civic space in Georgia serves as a poignant backdrop to the broader critique of the ADB's actions. Amidst oppressive laws targeting civil society in countries like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, and the shrinking civil society space in Mongolia, Vietnam, India, and Bangladesh, the ADB's role cannot be overlooked. CSOs demand that the ADB uphold the highest standards of Environmental and Social Safeguarding (ESF), rooted in internationally agreed-upon human rights, labor, and environmental conventions. However, the Draft ESF released in October 2023 fails to meet these standards. The lack of transparency and accountability in the ESF consultation process raises serious concerns. Despite two years of engagement, CSOs have not seen how their inputs were incorporated into the draft policy. The ESF's failure to commit to doing 'No Harm' underscores the ADB's negligence towards environmental and social safeguarding. Furthermore, the ESF's ambiguous language and omission of critical processes like Environmental Impact Assessments and Social Impact Assessments raise alarms about its effectiveness in addressing project-related harms. CSOs reject the ESF draft and demand its immediate overhaul with binding requirements. The ADB's support for coal and fossil gas projects contradicts its climate commitments. The Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) fails to ensure the decommissioning of coal projects or prevent their repurposing into other harmful ventures. CSOs denounce the ADB's inaction in phasing out fossil fuel support and call for the closure of loopholes allowing coal financing. Moreover, the ADB's disregard for human rights, labor rights, and gender considerations further undermines its credibility. CSOs demand the integration of a human rights-based approach into the ESF, aligning with global frameworks and principles. As the ADB conducts its safeguards review process, CSOs call for robust, just, rights-based policies with mechanisms to hold borrowers and the private sector accountable. Transparency, inclusivity, and community participation must guide ADB's decision-making processes. In a direct message to the ADB President and Director Generals, the Forum network and its allies urge them to prioritize the public interest and accountability. The ADB must heed the calls of affected communities, environmental defenders, and human rights advocates. ADB’s actions have real consequences on the lives and livelihoods of people across Asia and the Pacific. It is time for the Bank to prioritize people over profit, safeguard the environment, and uphold human rights. Quotes from NGO Forum on ADB network members and allies- The shrinking civil society space is a recent trend in the region where Russia tries to reassert its power. The laws in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and now in Georgia undermine different freedoms and rights, including the right to freedom of association and expression, recognized and widely integrated into ADB policies and standards. It threatens ADB's goals for 2030 for sustainable development, climate resilience, and prosperity. The laws have a chilling effect not only on media outlets and civil society organizations but also drastically worsen the investment climate, increase corruption, deteriorate governance indicators, significantly raise corruption risks, impact the sustainability of investments, and corrode business. Therefore, the response from ADB should be systemic to halt or reduce its impacts to ensure meaningful participation, freedom of assembly, and expression. For example, as the public sector in Georgia is a large recipient of ADB funds, the Bank should suspend all new funding to the public sector until the decision to pass the draft law is overturned, as it increases the risk of projects failing to meet performance standards by limiting opportunities for meaningful stakeholder participation. - Manana Kochladze, CEE Bankwatch At the 57th ADB Annual Meeting, we are still seeking environmental and social justice for the Tanahu Hydro Project Affected Indigenous Magar Communities, who have been pursuing justice since 2019 through the dispute resolution process with no avail. Civil society groups from Manipur are left vulnerable with no assurances that raising concerns about the Imphal road project will not lead to backlash and risk of harm. The ADB's failed delivery of the SPS 2009 remains a reality in 2024, and we are witnessing a rush to change the architecture of the policy instead of addressing the bank’s implementation failures of the SPS. Our analysis of this ESF W paper reveals a policy that seeks to dilute binding regulations from the SPS 2009 standards through the Mitigation Hierarchy approach, allowing borrowers to bypass EIAs and SIAs prior to board approval for high and medium-risk projects. This places the environment and local communities at direct risk from all ADB project operations. The ADB's new Gender-blind ESF, in our assessment, actually does an excellent job in safeguarding, especially ADB Bank Officials and its borrowers, just not the people or the planet. -Rayyan Hassan, NGO Forum on ADB In good faith we have invested two years in the ESF Consultations with the ADB’s Office of Safeguards (OSFG), but the opacity regarding the integration of CSO inputs and demands into the resulting draft policy paper is disappointing, also alarming. Despite our persistent engagement and sincere detailed input, the absence of a disclosed matrix leaves us in the dark, as to which of our comments have been considered and which have been disregarded and why! What little faith we may have liked to repose in the ADB has been lost with this lack of transparency regarding the exclusion of our inputs throughout the Phase 2 Consultation process. Most importantly, for the communities we represent, the ESF's vision fails to commit to the fundamental principle of doing 'No Harm' through ADB operations. This is a shocking disregard for the very purpose of environmental and social safeguarding right from the inception of the draft ESF W paper. It underscores the extent to which our concerns and recommendations have been blatantly ignored. -Vidya Dinker, Growthwatch, India ADB's continued financing of fossil gas and large hydropower projects contradicts the global shift towards renewable energy. LNG-based power plants, despite being ten times more expensive than renewables in many Asian countries, still receive ADB funding. We demand a decisive stance: ADB must exit gas and revise its Energy Policy to prioritize a green transition devoid of fossil fuels and environmentally destructive projects. Liquid hydrogen, CCS, and Waste-to-Energy technologies, also receiving ADB financing, have proven costly and ineffective in reducing carbon emissions. It's time for ADB to redirect public funds towards genuine solutions for a sustainable future. -Hasan Mehedi, CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) Climate smart doesn’t seem to be so smart when it fails to recognize at least three aspects - when impacts of mining supply chains are not properly monitored or assessed, corruption and regulatory capture in government and absence of meaning community consent. It is also frustrating that the already limited safeguards we have do not cover the bank’s investmebt or exposure to financial intermediaries and policy lending.  This frustration runs deeper when ADB claims to be a climate bank, when in fact it’s the investments on mining and other Extractives are possibly creating more “sacrifice zones” with the global drive to deliver the transition minerals. -Jaybee Garganera, National Coordinator, Alyansa Tigil Mina This draft safeguards policy does little to rectify the black hole that is ADB's financial intermediary lending. Communities harmed by ADB investments have a right to seek remedy, but there can be no accountability if we can’t see where the money is really coming from. The Bank’s safeguards for intermediary lending need drastic improvement, to ensure full transparency about its involvement in all projects it funds - including clear disclosure of ADB financing at project sites and in community consultations. -Kate Geary, Co-Director, Recourse Almost half of ADB’s projects — 46% — have triggered involuntary displacement between 2015 and 2020. This means up to 1 million people were likely driven away from their homes, communities, and livelihoods. All without adequate compensation or solid environmental and social impact assessment. For a development bank spending public money on poverty alleviation, this is unacceptable. ADB must do better than that, and fast. - Dr. Nora Sausmikat, Urgewald, Germany What has been set in 2009 as a forward looking safeguard policy for people and planet is turning into an unbreakable shield of protection for industry polluters .Instead of keeping at pace with the recent amendments of these MEAs on the standards and targets to curb the most harmful pollutants to guide the Bank and its borrowers, the draft ESF has omitted previous references to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,  the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. Moreover, it also has ignored the Minamata Convention that governs mercury which is a known byproduct of incinerator processes and ongoing talks for a Global Plastics Treaty. Instead of aligning with international law, the Bank relies on non-existent country mechanisms and capacities to govern pollution and offers pathways for continued pollution for industries through offsetting mechanisms The Bank’s adherence to just transition remains empty as well as the draft remains mum to the rights of informal workers in which developing countries rely tremendously for managing waste resources. The draft is regressive at every level in protecting the environment and preventing pollution. -Mayang Azurin, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Asia Pacific

RATIONALE As advocates from civil society, local communities, and workers from across the Asia Pacific and beyond, we are collectively urging the ADB to go back to the drawing board. We seek an overhaul of the current draft of the proposed Environmental and Social Framework, which updates the 2009 Safeguards Policy. REFLECTIONS ON THE PHASE 2 CONSULTATION PROCESS After two years of engaging in the formal ADB review consultation process, during which we collectively sought to consistently raise critical concerns and provide formal inputs to the ADB's Office of Safeguards in good faith, we would have expected to see these recommendations meaningfully reflected in the outcome document. Indeed, this was the reason why we attended online and in-person meetings with ADB’s safeguard staff, calling for a forward-looking policy rewrite that would require all financing flows to adhere to a binding framework underpinned by an unequivocal commitment to uphold international human and environmental rights. While we acknowledge that the ADB Safeguards review counts among its milestones 3,500 individuals consulted, including through 84 online consultation events, 10 in-country consultations, and 7 project consultations with directly affected people, ADB’s Office of Safeguards (OSFG) still has yet to disclose a matrix enumerating CSO inputs and explaining how each is duly being addressed in the resulting policy document. As a result, we have no reference point to determine which of our comments have been taken into account or corresponding rationales. OUR THOUGHTS ON THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ESF W PAPER We are currently in 2024 amid Phase 3 of the ADB process, with the first draft W paper on the ESF being the outcome of the past two years of consultations. Unfortunately, the W paper falls far short of expectations. Firstly, the 'Vision' of this ESF does not commit to ‘Do No Harm' through ADB operations. This basic lack of recognition of the key purpose of environmental and social safeguarding from the very onset of the draft ESF W paper is illustrative of how our comments and words appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Throughout the document, we see flexible words such as 'materially consistent', 'timely', and 'where applicable' applied in cases of risk assessment, borrower systems, and information disclosure. This clearly shows that actors receiving financing who are supposed to be abiding by this policy will not be held accountable for meeting mandatory requirements for environmental and social safeguarding. Accordingly, we immediately call for the removal of these terms, instead replaced with wording that ensures actors will be held to timebound, mandatory, and compliant standards throughout this document. On the issue of borrower systems, the ADB has spent more than 40 million USD over the last decade to build and strengthen Country Safeguard Systems. However, even as of now, at the time of writing, the ADB has not been able to demonstrate evidence of any pilots successfully applying Country Safeguard systems for SPS 2009 implementation. This clearly shows the ADB must step up in the implementation of the SPS 2009 (for current projects and financing) and going forward, the new ESF. It is absolutely critical that when borrower systems are less stringent, there should not be any approval of financing by the ADB. As a result, statements that indicate flexibility in the application of borrower systems must be revoked from the ESF. Again, it must be reiterated that the objective of this ESF should be to do no harm and bring affected communities and the environment to pre-project levels or better. The ESF objective is not to ensure green economic growth – there are policies and strategies that the ADB has for achieving such so-called development aims. We urge the ADB to ensure that the ESF as a Policy document is an instrument that acts as guardrails on all financing flows with the purpose first of avoiding harm and potential harm (precautionary approach), and subsequently ensuring environmental and social risks and harms that may or do result are comprehensively addressed and mitigated in a timebound manner. As we reach Objective 2, we are introduced in this ESF W paper to the term Mitigation Hierarchy. It appears as a panacea for all issues related to identifying and addressing environmental and social risks in ADB operations. The term appears without any definition, and by the time we reach the language around the Environmental Social Commitment Plan under the Mitigation Hierarchy Approach, we realize that the basic notions of Pre-Project Environmental Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment do not have any recognition in this ESF. Alarmingly, the very acronyms EIA and SIA, which are the heart of the SPS 2009, are not even mentioned anywhere in this over 170-page document. The ESF W paper fails to identify the ADB Project Cycle and thereby cannot ensure how and when the ESCP approach will address project-related harms. Another new concept emerges in this ESF W paper titled The Common Approach Applicable to Co-Financing of projects between ADB and other MDBs. The Common Approach does not commit to the highest standard of safeguards to prevail rather alludes to a commonly agreed approach which may just about mean anything in terms of the lower most standards when it comes to Co-Financed projects. Whether the project is standalone or co-financed, the ADB should remember mega infrastructure remains destructive to all local communities and environments; therefore, the highest social and environmental standards must be ensured in Co-Financing. Problematic innovations in this new ESF also include issues such as the Associated Facilities (AF). The SPS 2009 upheld that all AF will fall under the policy; unfortunately, the language in this new ESF allows AFs to circumvent ESS and the entire ESF itself. These provisions in this draft must be revoked in their entirety. The new ESF once again ignores Gender Safeguarding across all the Environmental Social Standards ESS 1-10, thereby making this ESF Gender blind in 2024. The fundamental rights of women in project-affected areas require immediate binding language so that their risks are included and addressed in the early stages of the project design and hence their voices and safeguarding are ensured throughout the project cycle. We have therefore concluded that the only option available is for there to be a full overhaul of the current draft – hence our collective call for the ADB Board and Management to take this opportunity before policy finalization to go back to the drawing board. In the sections that follow, we provide more analysis of each provision in the current draft, with a summary of critical concerns. Many of these concerns are reflected in more detail in specific submissions by respective civil society and labor organizations signatories to this collective statement. ON THE OVERVIEW OF SAFEGUARD UPDATE DIRECTIONS One of the enabling factors cited in strengthening the outcome of safeguards is the creation of the ADB Office of Safeguards, pursuant to ADB’s Organizational Review. Accordingly, the safeguards office “will house ADB’s safeguards activities” (para. 37) and will be overseen by ADB’s Managing Director General (MDG). The Independent Evaluation Department (IED) cited that the Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) “lacks clarity to guide ADB operations and has not been well adapted to support new lending modalities; nor has it been customized to address private sector financing instruments.” How will the new safeguard office ensure that safeguards delivery for sovereign and non-sovereign operations is nuanced accordingly? Currently, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC)/ Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) is in the process of drafting an approach to remedial action. In the case of ADB, one of the enabling factors cited in strengthening safeguards outcome is updating the legal agreements and remedy. The said remedy should, at the minimum, include the following: The cost of the remedy should be covered by the ADB and should not be in the form of another loan to the borrowing country or company. The draft policy should include clear provisions on how access to remedy can still be obtained even after the cut-off period of two years after the closing date of a project as per ADB’s current Accountability Mechanism (AM). The practicality of the said cut-off period should be reviewed both in the current safeguards and AM review. Lastly, the different types of remedies should be equally articulated in the draft policy. The ADB’s Accountability Mechanism review is also cited as one of the enabling factors in strengthening safeguard outcomes. Separate comments will be submitted in this regard. Nonetheless, what is critical for the current review of safeguards are the parameters of what constitutes an “impact” caused by the project–affected people. The draft policy should retain, at the minimum, the need to identify “potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and induced impacts”. Parameters on what constitutes “harm” should also be articulated in the draft policy. The Operations Manual, Staff Instructions, and Guidance Notes for each Environmental and Social Policy Standard (ESS) should be disclosed in its draft form, and be open for public comment for at least 120 working days before its approval. We urge the ADB to conduct a formal civil society consultation during the 10 year period before embarking on any amendments of this new ESF ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL POLICY STANDARDS (ESS) ESS 1: Assessment and management of environment and social risks and impacts The main concern of the Forum is that the institutionalization of the ESCP will then replace the practice of having adequate due diligence requirements prior to Board approval. Thus, the Forum maintains that the environmental and social assessment should still be undertaken prior to Board approval. Disclose in unambiguous terms the new project cycle. What are the parameters in the draft policy of what comprises the range of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups? The remedy component is consistently stipulated in each legal agreement. The same due diligence requirements and procedures should apply to non–sovereign projects. The 2009 SPS provides for the “potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and induced impacts”. Whereas the 2014 AM cites, “direct and material harm to project-affected people.” The ESP should also include the concept of “harm” in the risk screening and categorization. As per above, there should be no exception provided for Fragile and Conflict Affected States (i.e. the broad exemption within the current text must be removed); all environmental and social provisions should be ascertained prior to approval. The option for a client to offset project impacts – rather than address and compensate for losses incurred – should be removed. Similarly, the conditionalities surrounding compensation (“where technically or financially feasible”) should be removed. Addressing losses and harms through compensation should not under any circumstances be considered optional. Environmental and Social Audits for existing facilities should identify ongoing and past grievances of communities and workers related to the project in question and what steps the client is taking to address current grievances. It should also specifically incorporate a litigation due diligence review, identify the reprisal risks faced by those affected by the project and their representatives, and specify provisions for what responses will be undertaken if reprisals occur in the future. A human rights risks and impacts assessment should be required in addition to environmental and social risks and impacts, incorporating both at the project level and contextual aspects. Include provisions to ensure ADB undertakes reprisal-sensitive consultations with stakeholders and site monitoring, independent from the client. Require clients to notify the Bank of any reprisal allegations; and identify how the Bank will process and respond to any reports/allegations of reprisals or retaliation in relation to the project, inclusive of the entire project cycle, including as soon as projects are identified in the pipeline. According to Defenders in Development Campaign, the ADB should state clearly that the assessment of risks and impacts of the project includes the assessment of reprisal risks, including project-related and contextual risk factors. The new policy should establish clear criteria related to the assessment of civic space restrictions and reprisal risks, and determine how these criteria will be analyzed in order to determine the project categorization. The assessment should cover the environment for the stakeholder engagement process, human rights risks related to the government or third parties, and the vulnerability of the affected communities, including differentiated human rights impacts on defenders and other marginalized and vulnerable groups. Private sector clients should also be required to disclose any judicial processes they, or any company that is part of the same conglomerate, have been involved in over the last few years. They should also reveal any complaints against them, or any member of the conglomerate they are part of, at development finance institution independent accountability mechanisms. We suggest the inclusion of an annex with specific criteria and sources of information the Bank will use for the assessment of reprisal risks and civic space issues. The assessment should be done independently by the Bank staff and should not rely solely on the information provided by the clients. The risk assessment should be based on the results of meaningful consultations with communities, civil society organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders. Consultations should be undertaken without putting participants at further risk at a location identified by those participating as accessible and safe at a location identified by those participating as accessible and safe, and follow an inquiry about any prior security incidents and reprisals. The full submission can be found here: https://rightsindevelopment.org/news/recommendations-on-reprisals-for-the-updated-adb-safeguards/ Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) states that ESS1: Objectives of the ESS 1 should include the following key components mentioned in the Policy Principles of the  2009 SPS: 1.2 to identify potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and induced impacts and risks 1.3 consider the no-project alternative 1.4 Prepare an environmental management plan (EMP)* *Regarding (c), Should include the “assessment tools”, and “management tools” including IPP instead of EMP in the Objectives of the ESS1. ESS 2: Labor and Working Conditions According to Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines and Building and Woodworkers International (BWI): Without prejudice to penalties provided in the loan agreement, the ADB has the right to withhold further access to credit and loans, and at the same time treat unpaid loans as immediately due and demandable should the ADB receive credible evidence of failure to comply with labor laws by the borrower or any of its contractors and subcontractors. That “due diligence” was exercised by the borrower and/or any of the contractors and subcontractors cannot be used as a justification or excuse for failure to comply with labor standards by the borrower and/or any of its contractors and subcontractors.” The borrower and the contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for any labor standards or labor rights violations committed by any of the subcontractors. Prior to the release of loan proceeds, the borrower shall be required to post a bond equivalent to the estimated labor cost of the entire project, thus ensuring that unpaid wages and other benefits would be paid immediately, thereby heading off the need to go to the labor tribunals or the Ministry/Department of Labor. The ADB should incorporate the ILO Core Conventions in all its Operational Policies and Normative Documents. Make explicit reference to the ILO, as the international body mandated to set labor standards, and cite its conventions directly. National law should set a floor for labor standards, not a ceiling, and the ADB should enforce international norms around questions of freedom of association and collective bargaining independent of national policies. According to the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Informal workers' rights form the majority of the labor force in many Asian countries, especially in the waste sector. ESS2 defines "project workers" as those with contracts and "community workers" as artisanal, home-based workers. These definitions strip the rights of informal waste workers as recognized in ILO Recommendation 204 and national laws on the informal economy, waste management, circular economy, and green jobs, among others. There should also be a need for a transition plan for informal workers, developed in consultation with them well before the beginning of any project implementation. ESS 3: Pollution prevention and resource efficiency According to Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), the ADB should oversee the safe management of hazardous waste in accordance with the Stockholm, Basel, Minamata, and Rotterdam Conventions, including their accompanying technical guidelines: Total ban of all asbestos materials in ADB-funded projects. Asbestos is not just a pollution issue but it is also an industrial hazard. Bans and phaseouts in the production, sale, transportation, and use of problematic and hazardous pollutants and waste streams. These should be included in the Prohibited Investments List. According to GAIA, ADB should exclude thermal WTE from its renewable and clean energy portfolio. ADB should undertake a plan accompanied by targets to phase out existing thermal WTE. On pollution prevention, the said ESS should guide the minimum on how air pollution, and hazardous and non–hazardous wastes can be mitigated, if not avoided. On resource efficiency, aside from water use and water balance, the new policy should also provide at the minimum additional requirements on energy use as well as raw material use. Generally, the Commitment to the circular economy is only limited to the disposal aspect of economic production, instead of placing safeguards measures for the reduction of unnecessary materials in the economy. It only speaks of internationally recognized standards, particularly the outdated EHSG WB standards, not international conventions on bans and phase-outs of global pollutants of concern such as stated in Stockholm, Rotterdam, Basel, and Minamata conventions. There is no anticipatory proposal based on the ongoing Global Plastics Treaty. Recycling of hazardous waste such as plastic, e-waste, and non-biodegradable waste follows the waste hierarchy in a safe manner for human and ecosystem health, as defined by the host country’s applicable laws or the EHSGs. ESS 4: Health, safety and security In addition, workers’ risk assessment and management plan should also clearly indicate arrangements for the payment of wages, among others, and should be consistent with the protection based on ESS 2 on labor and working conditions. Expand the scope of ESS 4 not only to project–affected persons and project workers but also to their families. Where hazardous materials are part of existing project infrastructure or components, the Borrower will exercise due care during the construction and implementation of the project, including decommissioning, to avoid community exposure. The Borrower should avoid or minimize the potential for community exposure to waterborne, water-related, and communicable and non-communicable diseases that could result from project activities. ESS 5: Land acquisition and land use restriction NGO Forum on ADB suggest that there should be clarity on livelihood impacts & asset losses not caused by land acquisition. Most involuntary resettlement plans only compensate for physical displacement in the project area without having clear plans or compensation schemes for communities, economic sectors, and households that will be marginalized as a result of the shift in land use due to ADB’s projects. The scope of ESS5 must be broadened to include physical and economic displacement that is caused, in whole or in part, by any or all project activities that affect people’s livelihood and food resources or access to these resources. The scope should not be limited to land acquisitions and land use restrictions. It should also include any activities that are directly and significantly related to the project that result in physical or economic displacement. ESS5 must protect those with customary land tenure systems who may be excluded from ESS7. ESS5 should explicitly recognize all people and communities that have customary tenure rights as having legitimate land claims. The Borrower should treat such communities with the same protections and provisions as are required for those with formal land rights. Activities that reduce access to productive resources such as downstream impacts of dams which can have disastrous and impoverishing impacts on fishing and agricultural communities, should be covered in the draft ESF. According to Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES): Objectives of the ESS 5 should include the following key components mentioned in the Policy Principles of the 2009 SPS: 2.3 “Improve, or at least restore, the livelihoods of all displaced persons through (i) land-based resettlement strategies when affected livelihoods are land-based where possible or cash compensation at replacement value for land when the loss of land does not undermine livelihoods” 2.7 “Ensure that displaced persons without titles to land or any recognizable legal rights to land are eligible for resettlement assistance and compensation for loss of nonland assets.” 2.10 “Include the full costs of resettlement in the presentation of the project’s costs and benefits.” 2.11 “Pay compensation and provide other resettlement entitlements before physical or economic displacement.” ESS 6: Biodiversity and sustainable natural resource management NGO Forum on ADB is deeply concerned over ADBs' lack of recognition of critical habitats and biodiversity in their project operations. The impact of the Mannar Windmill project in Srilanka led to the direct impact on the loss of migratory bird populations due to poor design and lack of due diligent EIAs in cognisance of the migratory bird flow in the Mannar province. Similarly, the Mahaweli Water Management project in Srilanka has led to the destruction of critical habitats of the surrounding elephant population, directly causing elephant-human conflicts in the area. to this end, we strongly urge the new ESF to ensure clear No Go Zones to protect critical habitats from ADB project operations with no exceptions. According to Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES): Objectives of the ESS6 should include the following key components mentioned in the Policy Principles of the 2009 SPS:1.8 Do not implement project activities in areas of critical habitats According to Friends of the Earth (FoE) US, there should be a total ban on offsets even as a “last resort”. This has been used as a means to justify and rationalize harmful projects that would otherwise not be able to receive financing. There is no scientific way to prove “no net loss” of biodiversity or “no significant net degradation”. Critical habitat should include not only the habitat of Endangered and Critically Endangered species but also the habitat of vulnerable species as defined by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or as defined in any national legislation. According to the Biomass Action Network, there should be a total ban on wood-based projects in the absence of an ADB forest policy. There is a wide range of impacts associated with logging, deforestation, forest degradation, and conversion – usually with a large environmental footprint - and in the absence of such a policy it cannot be assumed that upstream impacts are known and have been rigorously assessed against established criteria, let alone whether they are acceptable or how they could be mitigated, if at all. Wood-based projects are predicated on ongoing demand for feedstock that will reach significant volumes and affect significant areas over time, and those environmental impacts are clearly associated specifically with each project. To suggest that allowing the certainty of destruction today in one place on the promise of future restoration in another place (via “no net loss” of biodiversity and “no significant net degradation”) means that overall it is impossible to deliver net zero, making it a perverse concept in the field of biodiversity conservation, and should not be included. It must also be noted that the current bioenergy projects with woody biomass/pellets as feedstock are receiving billions of dollars of public subsidies to remain viable while being responsible for deforestation and biodiversity loss. Such examples are there both in Japan and South Korea and Drax in the UK is the biggest example. Thus investment in bioenergy goes hand in hand with public subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity and results in biodiversity loss. Target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework urges to eliminate and phase out subsidies harmful to biodiversity ESS 7: Indigenous Peoples According to the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), it must be stressed that FPIC has been reduced to an endless consultation process that only stops once consent is secured. As such, drawing from the practice of movements, the “Right to Say No” framework has emerged. It improves upon the FPIC by stressing the fundamental right of communities to reject projects and affirm instead their development models. Both the FPIC and the Right to Say No go beyond the ambit of “meaningful consultation”. The determination of vitiated consent and/or influencing of community consent must be conditioned to discontinue or disallow project support. ESS 8: Cultural heritage According to Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils.), the ADB can ensure better protection of cultural heritage through recognition of the importance of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage for present and future generations. The new ESF policy should aim for: Undertake or identify existing cultural mapping to establish an inventory of cultural properties, customs, and practices, all within the full purview of Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs.  which may be unduly threatened by an ADB-supported project; Protect cultural heritage from damage, inappropriate alteration, disruption, removal, or misuse and adopt the mitigation hierarchy approach from adverse impacts arising from the project. ESS 9: Climate change NGO Forum on ADB demands that there should be a climate risk vulnerability assessment – should not merely be focused on emissions but also a thorough vulnerability assessment of the risks to the population to be affected by any ADB–financed project. It should be applicable to all projects and financing, including, for example, trade finance. Clearly articulate how GHG measurements will be accounted for and what measures will be taken to respond accordingly when projects already exist, including the application of polluters’ pay principles. This includes avoiding a shift from one high GHG-emitting fuel to another. The ADB should require that emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) should be estimated and disclosed using a project lifecycle analysis (including up until decommissioning) prior to project approval, with the methodology for analysis disclosed. Each client should also be required to report annual emissions from the projects and subprojects (in cases of FIs) and the methodology used. This should be disclosed on the ADB website with no exemption for confidentiality or commercial sensitivity under the ADB’s Access to Information Policy. ADB should establish definitive provisions on what types of projects are considered eligible as climate mitigation/climate adaptation, establish what is the rationale and basis for classification, and disclose on project data sheets the percentage of financing considered as mitigation and/or adaptation, respectively. The Bank should also provide for screening to ensure direct and indirect financing (including trade finance, equity investments, associated facilities, and FI subprojects) is not exposed to coal, including but not limited to referencing the Global Coal Exit List. Lastly, ADB should also apply screening using the Global Oil and Gas Exit List to exclude clients that have no intention of scaling back on support for expanding fossil fuel assets. According to the Asia Pacific Biomass Working Group, Biomass Action Network, EPN International, provisions on the types of projects considered eligible as climate mitigation and adaptation should be developed, and in so doing, energy generation from woody biomass should be excluded due to high emissions at the smokestack of wood combustion for large-scale energy production (equal to or exceeding those of coal). Assertions that something happening in forests elsewhere is a mitigating factor are dubious at best, cannot be delivered in relevant timeframes under the Paris Agreement, and have no relevance in the absence of forest policy under which to evaluate such claims. Investing in bioenergy from burning woody biomass should not be considered as investing in renewables and also carbon neutral since it has been proved by scientific evidence that the entire process from logging of woody biomass to generation of bioenergy results in increasing emissions and does not reduce emission or become carbon neutral. A study by Trend Asia in Indonesia revealed that co-firing 10% of biomass in 107 power plants potentially produces 26.48 million tonnes of Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission per year. This emission comes from deforestation, High-temperature electrolysis (HTE) utilization, to wood pellet production. Instead of reducing, mixed biomass-coal will add emissions from power plants between 2021-2030, with an increasing projection of 298.9 million tonnes of CO2e in 2030. ESS 10: Stakeholder engagement and information disclosure NGO Forum on ADB suggest that the 120–day disclosure should be retained in the ESF. In its attempt to strike the right balance of upfront assessment vis–a–vis implementation support, ADB must not forego key safety nets as this will completely defeat the purpose of the ESF. In this respect, we are extremely concerned about the timing of when Borrowers will be expected to develop and disclose key risk analyses and management plans. Specifically, the ESF does not make clear when the Borrower must prepare and disclose Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs); Indigenous People’s Plans (IPPs), and Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs), and instead the text suggests that they will be developed after Board approval. This is a clear dilution of the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement. According to Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) The sentence “ADB will not finance projects that do not comply with requirements on project preparation of Environmental and Social Policy  (E&S Policy)” should be included in para 13 of E&S Policy. The following document names should be listed in para 49 of E&S policy as examples of documents which ADB is required to disclose prior to the ADB approval. The terms of exceptional cases in the ADB approval disclosure should be limited/defined clearly in the same paragraph. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Environmental and Social Audit Report Environmental and Social Management Plan Environmental and Social Management Framework Environmental and Social Management System JACSES further adds: Objectives of the ESS10 should include the following key components mentioned in the Policy  Principles of the 2009 SPS: 1.5 Ensure women’s* participation in consultation. 1.5 Involve and concerned nongovernment organizations, early in the project preparation process. 1.5 Establish a grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of the affected people’s concerns and grievances regarding the project’s environmental performance. * Regarding the introduction of “vulnerable people” into the Working Paper for the new ESF,  it is not necessary to be described them as “women”. According to Defenders in Development Campaign, stakeholder engagement plans must include concrete measures to implement the client’s commitments to prevent reprisals and to ensure an enabling environment for stakeholder engagement and public participation. The policy should clearly establish how the Bank will respond to cases of retaliation, by regulating some of the essential elements of the response protocols. The Bank’s commitment to use its leverage to respond effectively to cases of reprisals must be clearly established in the policy. Concretely, the bank must: Proactively and publicly denounce - with the previous informed consent of affected people - any reprisal in the context of all current and pipeline projects; Commit to providing emergency assistance to defenders at risk; Disseminate widely how people affected by the projects can engage directly with the bank to raise cases of reprisals, and the procedures and protocols applied by the bank to deal with those cases; Establish the client’s obligation to collaborate in good faith and support any investigation of allegations of reprisals carried out by the Bank that may be related to the project, and the client's obligation to remedy reprisals; Develop institutional capacities and allocate sufficient resources for the assessment of reprisal risks and the implementation of mitigation and response strategies, and Produce statistical information on the allegations of reprisals received, the kind of reprisals, the sectors involved, the countries where they allegedly took place, and the kind of responses adopted by the bank for continued monitoring and accountability. The full submission can be found here: https://rightsindevelopment.org/news/recommendations-on-reprisals-for-the-updated-adb-safeguards/ Other issues ESF ignores: Gender According to Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice, safeguard commitments to protect communities (including women in their diversities) and the environment from ADB operations. The ESF dilutes the SPS 1995 in terms of gender consideration. The ESF did not review the implementation of SPS gender considerations in this process. Hence, ESF is lacking bases to develop ESF. The ESF also removed the protection aspect for women. Examples: SPS 1995 includes gender impacts and risk assessment on environment, IR, and IP; ESF is only for social risks and impacts. ESF does not require an assessment of the changing environment of women and gender differences. ESS 10 does not include women as a stakeholder ESS 10 (para 28) does not require a gender-responsive grievance mechanism. SPS 1995 does. Some numbers for comparison: According to Asia Biomass Working Group the entire ESS and the draft safeguards policy review process look completely gender-blind. Extraction and logging of woody biomass leading to deforestation and/or plantations, and bioenergy generation have severe impacts on women amongst the project-affected Indigenous Peoples, local and vulnerable communities with the loss of access to forests, loss of biodiversity, collection of NTFP, loss of livelihood and traditional homeland and from severe environmental pollution. On Financial Intermediaries Disclosure: FI lending is notoriously opaque with little information about where the money ends. Disclosing monitoring reports for transactions financed by ADB through FIs is welcome as is the commitment to disclose a summary of the ESMS. However, it would be preferable if the name, sector, and location of higher-risk subprojects were disclosed on the ADB’s website before approval to enable scrutiny. Application of standards to subprojects: It is welcome that the ADB proposes to apply its standards at the subproject level to high and substantial-risk projects. It is welcome that this is a requirement – however, this policy could be strengthened by requiring ADB’s FI clients to include ADB standards in legal contracts with subproject developers, as is the practice at the EIB. The focus on high and substantial-risk subprojects or transactions leaves out activities determined to be medium risk – which can sometimes be misclassified (eg a small dam that has impacts on indigenous lands). Access to Grievance Mechanism/Accountability Mechanism: Access to accountability in FI projects is much more difficult than in those financed directly – so here an FI-specific requirement would have been much more effective. The language as it stands is far too vague. The requirement should be that FIs will implement effective GRMs and meaningful stakeholder engagement at the subproject level, disclosing information about it in a manner and format accessible to local communities. As well as disclosing information about the GRM, there must also be information at the subproject level, in a manner and format accessible to local people,  disclosing a) the ADB’s involvement b) the existence of the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism and how to reach it. The AfDB has this requirement in its new E&S standards, and the InterAmerican Development Bank requires disclosure of its accountability mechanism during stakeholder consultation about the project. Prohibited Investment Activities List NGO Forum on ADB suggests full prohibition on support for any form of mining of uranium, rare earth, critical or transition minerals, including but not limited to support for developing plans or operations for extraction. According to the Asia Biomass Working Group: they are suggesting a full prohibition on support for co-firing of woody biomass with coal, which serves to entrench the use of coal and should be prohibited on that basis along with other projects co-firing other substances with coal. A prohibition on co-firing woody biomass with coal is also warranted due to its climate impact being equivalent to or exceeding that of coal combustion alone, recognizing that a flawed accounting convention to exclude the emissions from energy sector accounts does not indicate zero emissions, merely that they ought to appear elsewhere (and that will be outside project boundaries although the impacts will arise due to the project). Critical Concerns Over New Financing Modalities and Products The current ESF draft, in Article 62, mentions that it does not articulate specific E&S requirements for financing modalities and products and points towards a pending ADB management-approved document, which has not been disclosed. Civil society raises the question: Why are the specific E&S requirements for products like equity finance, bonds, and new financing modalities not subject to civil society and public comment? For high-risk and substantial-risk financing through new modalities and products, borrowers are subject to Strategic Social Environmental Assessment (SESA) as per Article 63 of the draft ESF. The SESA framework in the ETM scheme has been purely done through secondary and website information. This is a critical oversight that may lead to unassessed risks on the ground. The ADB must ensure that the SESA for new financing modalities undergoes onsite field investigations and rigorous project site visits, especially for high and substantial-risk projects, including meaningful consultation and time-bound disclosure requirements. Under no circumstances should E&S assessments be done post-project approval. All E&S assessments must be conducted before project approval with time-bound information disclosure and meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, especially project-impacted communities. Civil society strongly recommends that FIs and corporate clients including non-sovereign borrowers must have established ESMS systems that have gone through equivalence with the ADB ESS and ADB ESP before being considered for financing. If a client does not have an ESMS, they should be barred from ADB financing without exception. Borrowers with ESMS should have to undergo an equivalence assessment, and if they have proved to have lower standards, the ADB will build their capacity to par with ADB standards before financing is approved.  This should be mandatory, especially for financing for all sectoral and policy lending which may have a direct impact on local communities. Offsetting E&S impacts must be revoked entirely as a solution to address harms and potential harms. This includes for all forms of non-sovereign, corporate, and FIs including RBLs and MTF.  ADB must ensure second and third-tier assessment and validation of all E&S assessments done by borrowers before project and/or financing approval. All costs to mitigate E&S issues must be earmarked in the loan and MOUs with clients/borrowers to ensure the safeguard costs are met across all forms of financing. It is ADB's responsibility that all clients/borrowers must ensure that contractors and all forms of subcontractors adhere strictly to ADB ESF. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS In light of the above concerns, we reiterate the call for a full rewrite of the ESF ensuring that binding requirements are set on borrowers keeping in mind the Do No Harm mandate of the ADB Safeguards. With climate vulnerability, political instability, and ongoing conflicts and wars, the role of the ADB to uphold environmental and social safeguards signals a commitment to the SDGs and the Paris Goals. We urge the Bank to charter Safeguards which leads other MDBs towards project operations that are accountable, transparent, and uphold human and environmental rights for all. Endorsed by the following organizations - 11.11.11, Belgium 350 Pilipinas, Philippines 350.org Asia, Asia Accountability Counsel, Global Action Paysanne Contre la Faim, RDC ActionAid Vietnam, Vietnam Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice, Indonesia Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippines Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center, USA Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI), Regional Centre for Research and Advocacy Manipur, India Change Initiative, Bangladesh CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Community Development Friend (CDF), Bangladesh Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Community Legal Help And Public Interest Center, Philippines Conseil Regional des Organisations Non gouvernementales de Développement, RDC Defenders in Development Campaign, Global Eco-Coalition Armenia, Armenia Environmental Public Society, Armenia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Focus on the Global South, Regional Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines Gender Action, Global Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Global Green Alternative, Georgia Growthwatch, India Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group, Nepal Indus Consortium, Pakistan Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, Global International Rivers, Global Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan Karmojibi Nari (KN), Bangladesh KRuHA, Indonesia Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils., Philippines Life Haven CIL, Philippines Lumière Synergie pour le Développement, SENEGAL Mekong Watch, Japan Nash Vek PF, Kyrgyzstan Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization, Azerbaijan Pakistan Fisherfolk forum, Pakistan Participatory Research & Action Network - PRAAN, Bangladesh Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF, Nigeria Philippine Legislators' Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), Philippines Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Rivers without Boundaries PF, Kazakhstan Sahmakum Teang Tnaut (STT), Cambodia Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia South Asia Just Transition Alliance (SAJTA), Regional The Bretton Woods Project, United Kingdom Urgewald, Germany VOICE, Bangladesh Download submission here.

Tbilisi, Georgia - Coinciding with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Meeting this year, the "Ripple Effect" exhibition is set to occur in Tbilisi, Georgia, from May 1-5, 2024. This exhibition seeks to illuminate the adverse impacts of ADB projects on both the environment and human rights. The exhibition serves as a potent platform for communities affected by ADB-funded projects to voice their grievances and advocate for change through the compelling medium of watercolor. Artists illustrate the interconnectedness of environmental degradation, social injustice, and human rights violations caused by ADB activities through evocative paintings. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, remarked, "At its core, the 'Ripple Effect' exhibition seeks to expose the devastating consequences of ADB projects on local communities and ecosystems. Through the expressive power of watercolor, we hope to spark meaningful dialogue, raise awareness, and ultimately drive positive change." Indira Shreesh, from the Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), underscored the significance of the exhibition, asserting, "Justice delayed is justice denied. The 'Ripple Effect' exhibition provides a crucial platform for indigenous women to share their lived experiences and highlight the disproportionate impact of ADB projects on indigenous communities." Manana Kochladze, Strategic area leader of CEE Bankwatch Network, commented on the exhibition's importance, stating, "The Indorama Agro cotton project, supported by international financial institutions including the ADB, has been an unmitigated disaster for labour and land rights in Uzbekistan. The Bank should ensure thorough due diligence and meaningful stakeholder engagement to prevent human rights abuses while investing in countries with a democratic deficit or sectors with high environmental and social risks." The exhibition seeks to raise awareness by depicting the realities of ADB-funded projects, illuminating their human and ecological impacts. "Through images and colors, these artworks give voice to communities who are often silenced," says Mark Fodor, coordinator of the Defenders in Development campaign. "Despite ADB's commitments to ensure public participation, local communities and defenders who try to speak out are often ignored or attacked. In other cases, the pervasive climate of fear makes it virtually impossible to conduct consultations around the projects, as people are too afraid to speak out. We hope that these artworks will act as a powerful reminder that protecting freedom of expression is key to advancing a truly sustainable, human rights-based, and community-led development." The "Ripple Effect" exhibition will commence on May 1, 2024, at the Hilton Garden Inn, Tbilisi, Chavchavadze, followed by an exhibition at the Museum of Fine Art, 7 Shota Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi, Georgia. Admission to the exhibition is free from May 2 to May 5, 2024.  You can also see the exhibition online at https://www.forum-adb.org/ripplefx. About the organizers: NGO Forum on ADB | The NGO Forum on ADB is a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) based in Asia and the Pacific that monitors the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) and  Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank  (AIIB) projects, programs, and policies. The goal is to hold the ADB accountable for the impacts of its projects and policies. The NGO Forum on ADB has held the ADB accountable since 1992. Coalition for Human Rights in Development | The Coalition for Human Rights in Development is a global coalition of civil society organizations, social movements, and grassroots groups. The Coalition's goal is to ensure that all development finance institutions respect human rights. CEE Bankwatch | CEE Bankwatch Network is a non-governmental organization that focuses on environmental and human rights issues in Central and Eastern Europe. The network was established in 1995 and has over 90 staff members in offices across the region, with its main headquarters in Prague.  CEE Bankwatch Network monitors the actions of international financial institutions, such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and exposes potential risks to the public. Green Alternatives | Green Alternative (GA) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Georgia that promotes sustainable development and protects the country's environment and cultural heritage. GA was founded in 2000 and is part of the CEE Bankwatch Network.

[Manila, 25 April 2024] - Ahead of the ADB’s Annual Meeting next month, civil society groups are firmly calling on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to go back to the drawing board and overhaul the draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) as written in its current form. To demonstrate their grave concerns that the policy provisions will undermine project-affected people and their allies abilities to hold ADB to account when social and environmental harms and damages occur, they intend to deliver a statement to the ADB Headquarters in Manila this morning. The draft ESF, aimed at updating ADB's safeguards policies, is being met with opposition from civil society groups due to a wide range of critical shortcomings, including: Lack of Clear Lines of Accountability Lack of Clarity Related to the Stakeholder Engagement Lack of Human Rights Approach Weakened Environmental and Social Protections Gender Consideration Dilution Climate Change standards that fail to stand up to climate science Opaque Financial Intermediary Lending In light of these grave concerns, the NGO Forum on ADB and the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) together with the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), 350.org, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Freedom from Debt Coalition, Sanlakas, Oriang, K4K-QC, Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO), Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC-KSK), EcoWaste Coalition, Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CHRD), Recourse and International Accountability Project (IAP)  urge the ADB to overhaul the draft ESF, revising the language to instead reflect a set of forward-looking safeguards applicable to its entire portfolio, grounded in international human rights and environmental standards. QUOTES (Alphabetical) ⁠"The ADB's safeguards should be the backbone of the bank's commitment to people and the ecosystem's well-being. Prioritizing community consultation and consent in all energy projects is paramount, ensuring that local communities are empowered in decision-making, safeguarding their rights and livelihoods. For us, the well-being of people and planet are non-negotiable."  - Chuck Baclagon, Finance Campaigner 350.org Asia The ADB continues to subject people and planet to further harm. The latest draft of ADB’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) further dilutes already weak safeguards provisions for affected communities. Even worse, the Bank continues to  ignore opposition by communities and persists in pushing climate-exacerbating  programs and policies and debt-creating finance in many Asian countries. The ADB should walk the talk of eradicating poverty. Heed peoples’ demand for debt cancellation, reparations for past and continuing harms, an end to financing of planet-warming fossil fuels, and a  rapid, equitable, and just energy transition. - Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) As a bank with a legacy of dirty energy and harm, the least that ADB could do in the face of worsening climate crisis and environmental degradation is to produce and implement a most stringent ESF. Instead, the draft allows financing of projects whose risks are not yet fully assessed, problematically allows offsets, and neglects the need to fully stop new financing for coal or gas with no exceptions. Glaring loopholes essentially render the ESF useless in truly responding to climate and environmental imperatives. We are one in calling on ADB to thoroughly improve the ESF draft, and ensure that finance is instead channeled to genuine solutions such as distributed renewables. - Avril De Torres, Deputy Executive Director, Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED) “The EcoWaste Coalition is troubled by the provision of the ESF that allows borrowers or clients to propose less stringent measures. This opens a door to potential abuses, where economic or political pressures could dilute the rigor of environmental and social protections. If ADB is genuine in their stance to promote sustainable and responsible development, they should put stronger oversight, clearer criteria for exceptions, and more robust accountability in the ESF to uphold rigorous environmental and social standards.” -Glory Rose Manatad, Legal and Policy Officer, Ecowaste Coalition ⁠“The failure of the ADB to accept any semblance of accountability for its past role in pushing policies that dismantled mechanisms and structures that protected people from corporate abuse or anti-people projects has again reared its ugly head. The weakening and dilution of existing safeguards is proof that ADB has not learned any lesson and remains more concerned with ensuring the profitability of the private sector rather than protecting the welfare of people or the future of the planet.” - Rovik Obanil, Secretary General, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) ADB has to recognize that we are already feeling the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It has to stop giving corporations continued license to pollute and to burn our planet through hideous carbon and pollution offsets. The false solutions they promote trapping us into dirty debts and are severely impacting the environment and communities - most especially the poor and marginalized. It's time for the Bank to wake up to the facts and finally align with international socio-environmental and human rights instruments! -Brex Arevalo, GAIA AP Climate and Anti-Incineration Campaigner “The ADB has an opportunity to ensure that governments uphold the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. It should mandate the securing of the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples within their ancestral domains. More importantly, the ADB must begin to subscribe to the framework of the “Right to Say No” of indigenous peoples and move beyond “meaningful consultation,” which the FPIC process has sadly become. The reverse of the Right to Say No is the community’s Right to Say Yes to their own model of development.”  -Maya Quirino, Advocacy Coordinator, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils.) The ESF W Paper, after two years of consultations, regrettably fails to integrate any of the comments provided by civil society, which have consistently demanded stringent requirements for ADB borrowers to adhere to environmental and social compliance principles, committed to "Do No Harm." The mitigating hierarchy approach promoted by the ADB in this draft ESF poses a direct threat to communities and the environment globally. It undermines all prerequisites for environmental and social risk assessment and compliance prior to loan approval, granting borrowers absolute freedom to disregard environmental and social risks. This constitutes a dismantling of the fundamental notion of safeguards. We strongly condemn the ADB's current ESF draft at its 57th annual meeting and demand a complete overhaul to ensure mandatory risk assessment requirements before loan approval, with language compliant with independent investigations for all ADB borrowers. Anything less than this poses a direct threat to communities and the environment. -Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB “As it stands, the ESF allows for the continuation of projects that worsen climate change. Fossil fuel use should have stopped by 2025. This should be reflected by the ESF, with stringent policies barring the financing of any more fossil fuel projects. If not, it fails to safeguard the environment or any community.” -Ian Rivera, National Coordinator of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice “This draft safeguards policy does little to rectify the black hole that is ADB's financial intermediary lending. Communities harmed by ADB investments have a right to seek remedy, but there can be no accountability if we can’t see where the money is really coming from. The Bank’s safeguards for intermediary lending need drastic improvement, to ensure full transparency about its involvement in all projects it funds - including clear disclosure of ADB financing at project sites and in community consultations." -Kate Geary, Co-Director, Recourse

CSOs from the Philippines monitoring the Asian Development Bank (ADB) vehemently reject the draft safeguards policy proposed by the Bank. This document, ostensibly aimed at enhancing environmental and social protections, falls woefully short of addressing critical concerns raised by civil society organizations and affected communities. While the creation of the ADB Office of Safeguards is presented as progress, it remains unclear how this new entity will effectively tailor safeguard measures to sovereign and non-sovereign operations. Furthermore, the draft policy lacks teeth in ensuring that remedy costs are borne by the ADB itself, rather than burdening borrowing countries or companies with additional loans. Despite the ADB's claims of extensive consultations, these engagements lack substance. While thousands may have been engaged, the ADB fails to transparently disclose how CSO demands have been integrated into the policy, rendering these consultations tokenistic at best. The draft policy's approach to addressing harm caused by projects is alarmingly vague, with inadequate provisions for identifying and mitigating impacts on affected communities. Furthermore, the proposed updates to the institution’s safeguards policy fail to incorporate a clear and robust mitigation hierarchy, without any clear prioritization first and foremost to avoid harm, minimize risks of harm, and commit to compensation measures in project planning and implementation when harms do arise. This omission exacerbates the risk of irreversible harm and damage to those living and working in and around project sites and the surrounding ecosystems, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive, binding safeguards that prioritize the prevention of harm followed by requiring steps to mitigate any damaging consequences for affected communities, workers and planetary commons. Furthermore, the ADB's proposed safeguards on pollution prevention and resource efficiency are grossly insufficient, lacking concrete measures to address hazardous waste management and phase out harmful practices such as thermal waste-to-energy projects. Inadequate protections for Indigenous Peoples, insufficient measures to safeguard cultural heritage, and a lack of gender considerations further underscore the policy's deficiencies. The proposed safeguards policy by the ADB is a disservice to the very communities it claims to protect and the environment it purports to preserve. The collective rejection of this draft policy underscores the urgent need for substantive revisions that prioritize the rights, well-being, and dignity of all individuals impacted by ADB projects. The time for half-measures and token consultations is over. Philippine CSOs demand a robust safeguards framework that holds the ADB and its partners accountable for their actions, ensures full transparency and meaningful participation, and unequivocally prioritizes environmental sustainability and social justice. Read press statement here.

Introduction The "Ripple Effect" Watercolor Exhibition seeks to illuminate the intricate connections between environmental degradation, social injustice, and human rights violations stemming from the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) projects. This significant exhibition, scheduled from May 1-5, 2024, in Tbilisi, Georgia, serves as a platform for impacted communities to voice their concerns and convey a potent message using the evocative medium of watercolor. Theme The exhibition's core theme delves into the far-reaching consequences of ADB-funded destructive projects on global social and ecosystems. Artists will utilize watercolor as a poignant medium, capturing the innate beauty of water juxtaposed with the challenges and destruction wrought by ADB initiatives. Furthermore, these watercolor paintings will undergo digital reproduction to extend their reach via social media platforms. Objectives Raise Awareness: Through the eloquence of artistic expression, the exhibition aims to elevate public consciousness regarding the detrimental impacts of ADB projects on local communities, emphasizing the human and ecological toll. Advocacy: Foster advocacy for sustainable and responsible development practices, compelling the ADB to reevaluate and refine its funding portfolio for the collective betterment of the environment and affected communities. Dialogue: Establish a dynamic platform for open dialogue and discourse among artists, environmentalists, policymakers, and the general public, emphasizing the critical importance of preserving water ecosystems. Empowerment: Empower individuals to take meaningful action and make informed choices by providing information on alternative, sustainable development practices prioritizing environmental health and human rights. Venue and Schedule The exhibition will be held at an art gallery in Tbilisi, Georgia, from May 1-5, 2024. The comprehensive schedule includes an opening ceremony, guided tours, artist talks, and panel discussions designed to engage the audience actively, fostering a nuanced understanding of the complex issues. Check the art pieces 🖼️

Mr. Muhammad Ehsan Khan, Regional Director, East Asia Dept. Mr. Dustin S. Schinn, Project Officer, East Asia Dept. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Cc: Mr. Priyantha Wijayatunga, Senior Director, Energy Sector Office, ADB Mr. David Morgado, Senior Specialist, Energy Sector Office, ADB Mr. Bruce Dunn, Director, Office of Safeguards, ADB Ms. Christine Engstrom, Senior Director, Finance Sector Office, ADB -        Via Email - Re: Climate-Smart Mining for a New Climate Economy (Project 57273-001) March 5th 2024 Dear Mr Muhammad Ehsan Khan and Mr. Dustin Schinn, We are writing to raise specific questions and concerns in relation to  Project 57273-001 in Mongolia, which has a stated outcome to improve the “enabling environment for climate-smart mining and processing of minerals” and output to enhance the state’s “capacity to catalyze investment in exploration and processing of climate-smart minerals”. According to the available project document, in December 2023, the ADB’s “President, acting under the authority delegated by the Board, has approved the provision of technical assistance not exceeding the equivalent of $500,000 on a grant basis to the Government of Mongolia for Climate-Smart Mining for a New Climate Economy”. As a result, we understand that several board members may remain unaware of this particular transaction[1]. We find this concerning on several fronts. This is the first time that ADB has approved financing for a stand-alone technical assistance grant supporting the transition mining sector[2] (also termed ‘critical’ mineral sector), setting an important precedent that should require heightened due diligence. Approving it without any board discussion and without advance posting on the ADB’s website meant there was no time for debate, discussion or questions to be raised. The track record of ADB’s involvement in the extractive sector, for example, at the Marcopper Mine in the Philippines, was marred by irreparable harm wrought on local ecosystems and the rights of communities. Meanwhile, in Mongolia, there’s no shortage of information about the grievances of herders affected by the Oyu Tolgoi mining operations, a project which received support from the World Bank Group (WBG) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and was the subject of two separate cases filed under the WBG’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (2012-2020) as well as a case filed under the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism[3].  It is therefore highly alarming to see the lack of any evidence of careful consideration of human rights and environmental legacies of IFI financing in the sector, as well as of addressing broader questions of accountability and transparency, which we would have expected to be integrated into the “Lessons Learned” section of the associated project documents.  We note also that Mongolia is actively implementing the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), yet there is no clarity provided on how this TA will  interface with and benefit from the application of  EITI. The ADB Senior Management has been alerted on multiple occasions in relation to the threats posed to environmental human rights defenders in Mongolia, including those who have been involved in monitoring the Oyu Tolgoi Mine, new mines and mining infrastructure in the country. Yet, not once does the TA mention ensuring human rights due diligence or consideration for ensuring an enabling environment for herder community leaders, women’s rights advocates or other human rights defenders to engage in discussions about the impacts of the expansion of the mining industry, let alone for ensuring the mining industry consistently seeks and respects community rights to give or withhold consent through non-coercive, non-threatening channels. The silence about human rights due diligence in this TA risks the possibility of encouraging a situation in which mine-sites in Mongolia become “sacrifice zones” that will be mined for exports (serving the markets of other countries), while Mongolians bear the brunt of the impacts of mining. The TA fails to take into account specific current harms, damages and losses attributed to the mining industry in Mongolia, and to make any mention of precautionary measures required to consider in relation to associated production and storage of vast amounts of toxic waste materials from mining. Nor is there any consideration for ensuring mapping takes into account areas that should be demarcated as ‘no go zones’ due to cultural, heritage, social, conservation or ecological considerations. ADB’s recent blog about this technical assistance references uranium extraction arrangements for transporting to France via China as a “possible option” to explore for expanding the export of ‘rare earth’ minerals from Mongolia. In this regard, we are aware that several business newswires have reported that France has sealed deals with Mongolia to develop mining sites for extracting both lithium and uranium, and that some of ADB’s member countries consider uranium as a critical mineral. Despite the massive ecological and health harms that can result from uranium extraction, and ADB’s prohibition on financing support for nuclear facilities, we are alarmed that there is no information about how the ADB hired consultancy firm will consider uranium mining options in the recommendations and mappings expected to be provided. We are dismayed by the simplistic assumptions embedded in the TA related to “climate smart” mining. There appears to be no due consideration on the part of the ADB for how mining can be considered ‘climate smart’ in a landscape where the losses and damages of climate change are acutely felt by the pastoralist population, and would inevitably exacerbate problems related to increasing water scarcity, droughts, dzuds and dust storms. In this regard, we would like to inquire what parameters have been developed by ADB to confidently assume or claim that a certain mining project has achieved “climate-smart” status? We understand that typically, the definition of climate smart mining is applied to sites in the region where there is an assumption that countries can generate financing through extracting mineral resources to be used in the manufacturing of components for renewable energy technologies, primarily for export, and that such mining operations may be powered by non-fossil fuel options. As explained above, this arrangement does not resolve the irreversible damage to local ecosystems and communities that are directly dependent on the land for their livelihoods, nor the reality of toxic tailings left in the wake of such extractivism. Finally, we are aware that the project documents suggest the intention of the ADB’s effort is to “create the momentum for a green, just transition in rare earth mineral mining, processing, and manufacturing” in Mongolia. However, it is unclear how the element of ‘justice’ in these processes is being ascertained given the lack of strong regulatory policies in place to ensure communities have the "Right to Say No," while workers’, environmental, women and other human rights advocates face highly constrained options to join consultations, let alone give inputs into mappings or organize to assert concerns at specific sites[4] without fear of intimidation or reprisals. We request specific information regarding why the above points were not addressed and how they will be moving forward. We would be open to discuss further, following hearing from you on each of the above points in writing. Thank you for your time and we look forward to receiving your response. Sincerely, 350.org Asia, Regional - Asia 350 Pilipinas, Philippines Accountability Counsel, International Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice, Indonesia Alyansa Tigil Mina, Philippines Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE), Philippines Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Regional - Asia Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional - Asia Balay Alternative Legal Advocates for Development in Mindanaw, Inc. (BALAOD Mindanaw), Philippines Bank Climate Advocates, USA Bayansharga NGO, Mongolia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh CAMBIUM, Colombia Center for Energy, Ecology and Development, Philippines Center for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Community Resource Centre, Thailand CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Conseil Régional des Organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement, DR Congo Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda Gender Action, International Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), International Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives - Asia Pacific, Regional - Asia Globe International Center, Mongolia Green Advocates International, Liberia Growthwatch, India Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal International Accountability Project, USA Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya "Khovdiin Toli Newspaper" NGO, Mongolia KRuHA (Peoples’ Coalition for the Right to Water), Indonesia Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KsK), Philippines Lumière Synergie pour le Développement, Senegal Mines, Minerals and People, India MiningWatch Canada, Canada Mongolian Women's Employment Support Federation, Mongolia Mongolian Mother Nature Salvation Foundation NGO, Mongolia Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan NGO Forum on ADB, Regional - Asia Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Peace Point Development Foundation (PPDF), Nigeria Psychological Responsiveness NGO, Mongolia "Public Administration New Initiative" NGO, Mongolia Recourse, Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition, International Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia, Mongolia Sayanaa Wellbeing Association NGO, Mongolia Steps Without Borders NGO, Mongolia Trend Asia, Indonesia Urgewald, Germany Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI), Indonesia Witness Radio, Uganda [1] This was verified during meetings that NGO Forum on ADB held with several board members at ADB Headquarters in Manila during early February 2024. [2] However, we have taken note with similar alarm of the active tender on mining and extractives (explicitly to support the transition mining supply chain development) in Indonesia associated with the Regional TA “Accelerating the Clean Energy Transition in Southeast Asia” (Project 55124-001), and therefore recognize that similar stand-alone projects in other ADB borrowing member countries may already be under consideration. [3] See: https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/mongolia-oyu-tolgoi-01khanbogd and https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/mongolia-oyu-tolgoi-02khanbogd. See also: https://www.ebrd.com/documents/occo/cr-report-ot-23022017.pdf [4] As an example of an expression of broad concerns being raised across civil society sectors in relation to transition mining, please refer to the declaration issued in October 2023 from the Thematic Social Forum on Mining and the Extractive Economy.

To read the full communication download here.