Search Results

Sri Lanka has got number of failed and controversial projects in the past decade. Norochcholai coal power plant, Hambanthota Harbour, Mattala airport, Uma Oya diversion, Colombo port city to name a few. They cost billions of rupees however do not distribute expected benefits. Perhaps many of them are not required for the country. This unwarranted development or over development is the result of political arrogance of the ruling regimes. During the recent conference on the Environmental Impact Assessment held in Colombo, it was revealed that some major development project don’t even have a feasibility study or even a pre-feasibility study. The developers in both private and public projects expect the EIA process to deal with the feasibility as well. There is no way that EIA teams can fulfil the task of making both feasibility and the Environmental Impact Assessment. The projects this way lack looking in to the more feasible alternatives. Uma Oya diversion project is a clear example of launching the project during the previous regime without a feasibility study done. Addressing the gathering on 29th April 2008 on the occasion of the visit of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Sri Lanka, at Sapugaskanda Former President Mahinda Rajapaksha said “Two gifts by Iran to Sri Lanka to build Uma Oya reservoir project and a modern oil refinery were the noblest of gifts we have received recently. Sri Lankans are visibly moved by this great gesture said President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A reservoir is the noblest gift one could give the Sri Lankan people.” However, President Ahmadinejad was not able to lay the foundation stone at Uma-Oya due to bad weather conditions. By December 2014, the Iranian gift become a death trap for the villagers in Bandarawela. Other than the irrigation water to Wellawaya and Hambanthota it was promised to add 120 MW to the generation system with 230 GWh of annual energy generation. It was expected to connect the power plant to the national grid in 2015. The estimated cost of the project is 529 million USD and 85% of the total project cost is provided by the Government of Iran through Export and Development Bank as a loan. By now more than 7000 million rupees have been paid as compensation for the affected communities which is not even 20% of the total damage done by the Uma Oya project. Despite the failure of the project, Sri Lankan citizens will pay this money back to Iran next couple of decades. The project had neither a proper feasibility study nor an acceptable EIA with possible alternatives. Hambanthota Harbor was built by digging Karagan Levaya which was one of the best lagoons for migratory birds reach Sri Lanka. Feasibility study for the harbor was rejected by the ministerial task force since the study is not bankable and is not a full feasibility study in 2002. Yet the project was pushed by the previous regime and it became another white elephant. Total estimated construction cost of the Phase 1 of the project is US $361 million and out of which, 85% has been funded by the EXIM Bank of the People's Republic of China. Then Sri Lanka Port Authority Chairman boasted that Singapore Ambassador in Sri Lanka when touring the site said: “We’d better find ourselves another job”. Sri Lanka being at the very epicenter of trade routes will be able to accommodate even the largest of ships and cater to their needs. As expected, no shipping line was interested to use the harbor. In July 2017, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leased out the Hambantota Port to China Merchant Port for a 99-year period at price of US$ 1.1 billion. The SLPA has built an artificial island in the extent of 110 hectares near Hambantota Port at a cost of over $500 million during the previous Rajapaksa regime. This man-made island which has been built as an entertainment facility was also given to Chinese company. These are just two occasions that Department of National planning and the Ministry of Finance did not play its role when screening the suitable projects for the country. As a result, the Sri Lankan public pay heavy cost to pay back unnecessary and illegitimate debts. Sri Lanka’s total net external debt exceeded $50 billion in 2017. Sri Lanka’s large external debt repayments total US$ 4 billion per year between 2019 and 2022. Under the previous government from 2004-2015 has borrowed 5.17 trillion rupees of total loans including 2.16 trillion rupees ($14.06 billion) of foreign loan. According to the Central bank’s latest records show Sri Lanka’s total outstanding debt was 10.3 trillion rupees as of the end of September 2017. Considering the failed projects such as Mattala Airport, Hambanthota Harbour, Uma Oya diversion and some other partly successful projects such as Moragahakanda, Yan Oya etc., half of the Sri Lanka’s debt could be considered as illegitimate debt. Illegitimate debt includes loans that: were knowingly given to oppressive regimes and dictators; caused harm to people, environment and communities; violated human rights; violated basic notions and rules of fairness, and basic assumptions of public contracts; violated democratic principles and exploited the vulnerability, impoverishment and misfortune of others. The accumulation of both legitimate and illegitimate debt in Sri Lanka in the recent times have caused enormous pressure on the country and the citizens which often see as tax increase and increase of the price of food and services. In recent months Sri Lanka has been cited by several politician in other countries and the media as the latest victim of the China debt trap diplomacy. There and many African and Asian countries who struggle to pay the debt accumulated with Chinese investments overseas. China Belt Road Initiative is one of the mechanisms to get countries to this debt trap. However, it is the ruling regimes of each country has the right to engage or avoid. It is unfortunate the development decisions in Sri Lanka has no much public acceptance or not referred for public opinion. There is no such an educated voice in the Parliament or such a dialogue happening in the country to select the development we need for the national development. unfortunately, development decision making is in the handful of corrupted politicians. The past experience shows bureaucrats have no say on these decisions or either they are corrupt too. It is paramount to correct the system and clean the politics before Sri Lanka get drowned into this deep debt crisis. Written by Mr. Hemantha Withanage. Hemantha is the Executive Director of Centre For Environmental Justice/Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) around the world urged the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) two days before the start of its 3rd Annual Meeting in Mumbai, India to fulfill its promise of being ‘green’. A year ago in Jeju, South Korea, during its 2nd annual meeting, President Jin Liqun clearly stated that “there are no coal projects in our pipeline, and we will not consider any proposals if we are concerned about their environmental and reputational impact.” However, a year after, AIIB has funded several fossil fuel projects, including the Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline, the Bhola IPP gas power plant in Bangladesh and the Myingyan gas power project in Myanmar. Civil society organizations (CSOs) around the world urged the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) two days before the start of its 3rd Annual Meeting in Mumbai, India to fulfill its promise of being ‘green’. A year ago in Jeju, South Korea, during its 2nd annual meeting, President Jin Liqun clearly stated that “there are no coal projects in our pipeline, and we will not consider any proposals if we are concerned about their environmental and reputational impact.” However, a year after, AIIB has funded several fossil fuel projects, including the Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline, the Bhola IPP gas power plant in Bangladesh and the Myingyan gas power project in Myanmar. The AIIB has also taken its first step in funding coal through its investment in the IFC Emerging Asia Fund and its indirect financing of a coal mine expansion in Myanmar. This investment raises significant concern, showing how investing through third parties, like infrastructure funds, can result in the AIIB funding coal and other harmful fossil fuels by the back door. Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, a network of 250 organization across Asia stated that “AIIB has an opportunity to lead the way in sending a strong signal to financial markets and other development finance actors that the era of fossil fuels is over. AIIB should take concrete steps to address the climate crisis, by shifting investments from harmful fossil fuels towards sustainable renewable energy and to support energy access for poor communities. He also added that investors of AIIB led infrastructure funds to have an equal responsibility to foster carbon-free energy projects” Luz Ligthart, NGO Forum on ADB’s AIIB Policy Coordinator said that “AIIB as the world’s newest multilateral development bank, is in a strong position to forge a new path post-Paris Agreement and live up to its commitments that its Energy Sector Strategy (ESS) embraces, and is informed by, the principles underpinning SE4AL, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Paris Agreement.” The network also expressed that the bank should rule out coal, whether for power generation or industrial uses, as well as associated facilities such as transmission lines and railways or ports primarily meant for the transportation of coal. This includes closing loopholes in financial intermediary lending to ensure AIIB does not fund coal indirectly. NGO Forum also mentioned that the Bank should shift from fossil fuels to sustainable renewable energy now, “AIIB can send a strong signal to other development finance institutions and the financial sector by matching the World Bank's recent commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas, establishing a plan to phase out remaining investment in harmful fossil fuels by 2020, and shifting its investments to sustainable renewable energy, this should exclude support for large hydro dams that cause extensive social and environmental harms,” according to Hassan. Also, the AIIB should invest on energy access says Sreedhar Ramamurthi, of Environics Trust, a New Delhi based CSO, “the biggest challenge for reaching SE4ALL/SDG 7 by 2030 is not necessarily generating much greater amounts of energy; it is getting it to those who need it most.” #AIIBAGM2018 #AIIB Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

Halfway through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Annual Meetings in Bali, Indonesia, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group (WBG) announced that it would be “rapidly greening its portfolio” and that “it will be taking significant steps to vastly reduce its exposure to coal through new financial intermediary (FI) investments”, this move by the IFC should put considerable pressure on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to green its portfolio as well and re-think its business as usual pursuit of economic growth driven by dirty energy. Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB stated that “the Forum is gravely concerned with these seismic shifts in global development financing, specifically in relation to Asia’s developing economies. The intrusion of private capital in mega infrastructure investments has raised the ante on the governance mechanisms, or lack thereof, of multilateral banks especially the ADB. The network believes this lack of accountability of private capital is a telling sign for all future especially energy-intensive projects being championed by the ADB through its Strategy 2030”. The ADB just recently approved its Strategy 2030 and has set up a clean technology fund or CTF through which in 2013 has financed - without meaningful consultation or attention to environmental or social safeguards - over 150 Million USD in geothermal energy projects in Indonesia alone. Geothermal technology and gas projects are still riddled with underlying environmental impacts including GHG emissions. In 2016, the ADB through its ADB CTF Private Sector Geothermal Program: Indonesia & Philippines was attempting to seek further funding, again without the mandatory meaningful public consultation required by the ADB. In addition, ADB has provided direct support in the name of "clean energy" for the notorious mega-infrastructure Financial Intermediary, PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur, (PT SMI) with a well-documented track record of violations of environmental and social safeguards. Given that the majority of geothermal projects in Indonesia are targeted at forest areas inhabited by Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples, lack of attention to the environmental and social impacts is a tremendous problem. NGO Forum also notes with extraordinary concern that the ADB is currently attempting to place Indonesia's entire National Energy Company (PLN) under "borrower system" rules instead of requiring mandatory implementation of all ADB Safeguards. Given the dismal environmental and social track record of PLN and the borrower system, this call into question any claims of a focus on clean technology with meaningful environmental and social safeguards. The ADB has also a track record of financings dirty fossil fuel projects such as the Tata Mundra Coal Power Plant in India, Visayas Coal Project in the Philippines, and many other investments in gas projects in the region. At present, ADB is looking to invest in the CHP5 Coal Power Plant in Mongolia. The bank has also sent a team to see the feasibility of the Upper Karnali Hydropower Dam in Nepal as a possible investment venture. In fact, the majority of its 41 energy pipeline projects published online, are based on the extraction of fossil fuels or other forms of retrogressive energy investments, including large hydro and waste to energy (incineration) projects. Sreedhar Ramamuthi, co-founder of Environics Trust, a grassroots organization based in New Delhi, India, explained that “ADB should provide a clear plan of action on transitioning from Fossil Fuel energy to fully renewable energy investments and to ensure and publicly commit that these investments - including existing investments -- are carried out under fully implemented ADB safeguards with mandatory meaningful consultation with the affected communities, strict avoidance of forced resettlement, and with careful and documented adherence to environmental safeguard requirements”. Hassan Mehedi, chief executive director of Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), a grassroots organization based in Khulna, Bangladesh also put emphasis on the protection of forest and forest peoples, “there should be a mandatory social safeguards for the protection of the lives and livelihoods of affected communities, with a specific focus on women, Indigenous peoples and the vulnerable as required by ADB safeguards” The transition from Fossil Fuel to renewable energy must have clear indicators and targets with mandatory gauges including gender-disaggregated documentation of environmental and social impacts, how to prevent those impacts, information disclosure, consultation, and avoidance of land evictions. Lastly, NGO Forum on ADB calls for clean energy transition indicators in line with countries and their respective NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) as per Paris Agreement. #ADB #coal #IFC #worldbank #Bali Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) 6th Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation (APAN) Forum starts today and will run until October 19, 2018. This year’s theme focuses on resilience and avoiding the worsening impacts of climate change, although these efforts are not being discounted, the ADB once again portrays itself as a champion of clean energy, committing $2 billion a year to clean-energy investments, but it still continues to support coal-based power projects. “Having these events and forums are helpful in raising awareness regarding climate change but what we want is for the Bank to divest entirely from coal and other fossil fuel financing as well as clear transition plan to sustainable and socially acceptable renewable energy projects” say’s Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB. “ADB’s total financing for coal projects is estimated at a staggering $10.74 billion from 2009 to 2017 ” he added. The Bank has not shown any sign of slowing down when it comes to coal financing particularly on the projects that are already existing like the Korea Electric Power Corp.’s 200-megawatt (MW), the coal-fired power plant in Naga, Cebu, and the Masinloc Power Partners Ltd.’s 600-MW coal-fired thermal power plant in Zambales. In the Philippines alone, ADB financed over $120 million in the Cebu project, while putting in $200 million in the Zambales plant. “Climate change will have its impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable, quoting the ADB, they encounter more intense tropical storms, more severe and more frequent droughts, and floods, accelerated melting of glaciers and rises in the sea level, higher frequency of forest fires, shortages of freshwater, threatened crop production and aquaculture, higher incidence of heat-related and infectious diseases, but still the Bank does not intend to stop funding projects that promote climate change” says Sreedhar Ramamuthi of Environics Trust, a grassroots organization based in New Delhi, India. In a recent press statement of NGO Forum on ADB, in relation to the World Bank Annual Meeting, the Forum pointed out that the ADB approved its Strategy 2030, which does not explicitly describe ADB’s energy investment strategy for the coming decade. The Forum fears that in the section titled Unlocking Private Capital most of the energy portfolio will be hidden. This will make big-ticket energy investments opaque and inaccessible to transparency and accountability. There will be no way to verify what forms of energy projects will be selected for financing and how will they be bank rolled. Furthermore, ADB has set up a clean technology fund or CTF through which in 2013 has financed - without meaningful consultation or attention to environmental or social safeguards - over 150 Million USD in geothermal energy projects in Indonesia alone. Geothermal technology and gas projects are still riddled with underlying environmental impacts including GHG emissions. The recent earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia shows the tectonic balance of volcanic island states are fragile; therefore any massive geothermal expansion plans may prove to be critically sensitive in triggering further instability in the archipelago. Furthermore, ADB has provided direct support in the name of "clean energy" for the notorious mega-infrastructure Financial Intermediary, PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur, (PT SMI) with a well-documented track record of violations of environmental and social safeguards. Given that the majority of geothermal projects in Indonesia are targeted at forest areas inhabited by Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples, lack of attention to the environmental and social impacts is a tremendous problem. Titi Soentoro from Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, an organization based in Indonesia emphasized that “ADB is currently attempting to place Indonesia's entire National Energy Company (PLN) under "borrower system" rules instead of requiring mandatory implementation of all ADB Safeguards. Given the dismal environmental and social track record of PLN and the borrower system, this call into question any claims of a focus on clean technology with meaningful environmental and social safeguards”. NGO Forum on ADB demands that the Bank should provide a clear plan of action on transitioning from Fossil Fuel energy to fully renewable energy investments and to ensure and publicly commit that these investments - including existing investments -- are carried out under fully implemented ADB safeguards with mandatory meaningful consultation with the affected communities, strict avoidance of forced resettlement, and with careful and documented adherence to environmental safeguard requirements. Forum also demands that ADB private sector investments in energy should be made fully transparent and binding to all ADB operational policies and guidelines. In addition, the transition from Fossil Fuel to renewable energy must have clear indicators and targets to meet the Paris Agreement objectives; with mandatory gauges including gender-disaggregated documentation of environmental and social impacts, how to prevent those impacts, information disclosure, consultation, and avoidance of land evictions. NGO Forum on ADB calls for the Bank to review its draconian 2009 Energy Policy and align its energy lending portfolio with countries respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as per Paris Agreement. Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

Last October 23, 2018, NGO Forum on ADB sent a letter to the World Bank-International Monetary Fund (IMF) regarding the harassment experienced by network members during the Seminar on Environmental and Social Issues at Plagoo Hotel, Bali, Indonesia last October 11. Below is WB-IMF's response to the letter - Download the letter here. #WB #worldbank #Indonesia

The NGO Forum on ADB is seeking a Research Intern starting in January 2019. An internship is an opportunity to learn while gaining practical experience. Our hope is to create an experience that is rewarding, interesting, and enhances your practical work experience for your future career. Overview The NGO Forum is seeking a Research Intern to provide support for our Asian Development Bank Advocacy Program, focused on environmental justice and human rights safeguards and advancing climate justice through our #DeCarbonize Campaign. Working with our Advocacy team, the intern will assist in monitoring ADB projects, generate profiles on key actors and research memos to help focus and support grassroots partners in the Asia and Pacific region. We are looking for someone who is enthusiastic about social justice, reliable and well-organised. Ideal candidates should have a strong interest in international development and the vision and mission of NGO Forum. You will have the opportunity to learn and practice how to demystify large amounts of complex information and concisely communicate with stakeholders. Attention to detail and accurate spelling are essential. You should be self-motivated, able to work independently while functioning well as a member of a small team. Period: Starting in January 2019 onwards for at least 3 months part-time (10 hours a week) Reimbursement of local travel costs, and lunch; we are unable to pay any stipend or salary. Location: Our office in Teacher’s Village, Quezon City. To apply, please send a cover letter stating your interest in the position and a resume with complete contact information to joseph@forum-adb.org. Next: If shortlisted, we will invite you for an interview. Provisionally, these will be held in mid-December 2018 and may be conducted via video conference (i.e. FB Messenger, Skype, WhatsApp) if needed. To know more about us click here. #Intern

After much anticipation, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) recently released Strategy 2030, its long-term corporate strategy to respond effectively to Asia’s changing needs. As the ADB looks to the future of development finance in Asia, it must keep community engagement, including access to effective remedy, at the forefront. Strategy 2030, then in draft form, was heavily showcased during May’s ADB annual meeting in Manila, Philippines. The strategy includes plans to increase private sector lending as well as the use of country systems in lieu of ADB safeguard policies for public sector operations. Strategy 2030 also cites the bank’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals as the overarching objectives of the strategy document. However according to the joint submission of NGO Forum on ADB, a close partner of Accountability Counsel, Strategy 2030 still lacks adequate guidance on how will ADB concretely contribute in achieving the targets set forth in these key global agreements. Importantly, although Strategy 2030 does contain some commitments to work with civil society organizations (CSOs) in the design and implementation of projects, little mentioned in the strategy is how the ADB plans to ensure that local communities direct the course of development in Asia and have access to accountability and remedy in the event of any negative impacts from financing. Of course, the ADB is not the only actor in the region, and questions about the future of development in Asia span various institutions. China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative will pour over $1 trillion dollars into the region and beyond. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a China-led multilateral bank that opened in 2016, is ramping up operations. How can the ADB and other financial institutions ensure that communities’ rights are respected in the course of undertaking projects in the region? When rights are violated or communities have concerns about projects, how can these institutions ensure that communities have effective venues to raise and address these concerns? Not focusing sufficiently on community input can be disastrous. As Rayyan Hassan from NGO Forum on ADB raised during a session in Manila hosted by the ADB’s independent accountability office, communities often lack information about projects that may negatively impact them, owing to ineffective consultation and information disclosure processes. Fear, insecurity, and anger then build into grievances. Accountability Counsel has seen this scenario play out time and again through our casework, both in Asia and across the world. For example, the World Bank’s accountability office confirmed that the communities in Sindhuli, Nepal affected by the 220 kV Khimti-Dhalkebar Transmission Line had not received proper information and consultation about the health, safety, and economic impacts of the bank’s project, leading to misunderstanding, violence against peaceful protesters, and significant project delays. Similar concerns are being raised by communities in Lamjung, Nepal who are affected by the European Investment Bank (EIB)-funded Nepal Power System Expansion Project, which is integrated with the ADB’s South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation Power System Expansion Project. Given the local communities’ recent advocacy with the EIB, it appears here again that international financiers have to do more to ensure that their development projects maintain a high standard of information disclosure, consultation, and participation in order to “do no harm” and truly improve lives in Asia. As the ADB and others look to the future of development in Asia, they must put measures in place to ensure that communities’ voices are fully respected in the course of projects. This includes strong environmental and social safeguard policies surrounding project design and implementation. As CSOs highlighted during the ADB annual meeting, strong environmental and social protections are particularly important as these institutions increase the focus on private sector investment, which has historically received less oversight. This also includes comprehensive and accessible project information for communities and ongoing inclusive consultations, right from the project design phase. Crucially, respecting community voices also entails ensuring that communities have access to an effective accountability office to address any project-related harm, including the denial of information and consultation around the project. To be effective, these offices must operate according to principles including legitimacy, transparency, and fairness. The ADB’s accountability office, comprised of the Compliance Review Panel and the Office of the Special Project Facilitator, is well established but could be improved, particularly in the area of structural independence from the ADB. As the ADB rolls out Strategy 2030, the bank should place particular attention on strengthening the accountability office to ensure that it is an effective, legitimate avenue for community engagement and provides meaningful remedy for the harms communities have suffered or will potentially suffer. Through Strategy 2030, the ADB seeks to achieve a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific. This is only possible if the ADB, and other financial institutions and actors in the region, put communities first. Community engagement, including access to an effective accountability office, is vital for ensuring that future development in Asia reflects the needs and priorities of its people. #ADB #Asia

REGARDING THE ON GOING BANGLADESH PROTEST HIS EXCELLENCY ASAD ALAM SIAM Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Bangladesh Dear Honorable Ambassador Siam; NGO Forum on ADB would like to express its strongest condemnation regarding the abusive shortcuts being used by the Bangladesh authorities to solve the public outcry regarding the death of two students last July 29 due to an over speeding bus. The Forum also demand that the authorities should immediately release anyone they have arrested for peacefully criticising the government, and instead should prosecute those who are attacking students for demanding improved road safety. Despite the clear and justifiable demands, this was met with unlawful attacks by the Bangladesh authorities and the Chatro League[1]. They arrested students, even girls, women, and children, who are just helping restore order in the city. The authorities resorted to heavy violence against the peaceful student protesters using batons, physical threats, jamming mobile internet connections, water cannons and tear gas to disperse the marching protesters. NGO Forum on ADB also condemns the sexual harassment[2] faced by girls and women during the attacks on the mass student protest. It was stated that while this was happening police authorities were just standing by, taking photos and videos to be able to identify the protesters. It was also reported that the police did not make any attempt to stop these acts aimed at unarmed youth and civilians. Furthermore, NGO Forum on ADB demands the immediate release of renowned photographer and activist, Mr. Shahidul Alam who was arrested from his house by 30 to 35 plainclothes police officers, this is after he gave an interview with Al Jazeera regarding the protest, where he stated that what is happening is not just an issue on road safety but is about a deeper more concerning crisis such as - “looting of banks, the gagging of the media, the extrajudicial killings, disappearing’s, bribery and corruption"[3]. Mr. Shahidul Alam is facing charges under Section 57 of Information and Communication Technology Act (ICT Act), which allows the prosecution of any person who publishes, in electronic form, material that is fake and obscene; defamatory; tends to deprave and corrupt its audience; causes, or may cause, deterioration in law and order; prejudices the image of the state or a person; or causes or may cause hurt to religious belief [4]. This law has been used over and over again to prosecute those who criticize the government or individual politicians. Along with Mr. Shahidul Alam; several journalists, particularly photographers and videographers have been persecuted and hurt by police and Chatro League while they were documenting the protest actions. Lastly, this is a lucid proof of a populist and authoritarian government encroaching on the space of civil society, promoting repression, securitized environment, and criminalization of people, especially youths who want raise key issues pertaining to governance and rule of law. We urge your office to raise these issues with the necessary government agencies and restore peace, dignity, free press, human rights, and democratic practice in Bangladesh. We demand the immediate release of Mr. Shahidul Alam from unlawful imprisonment. We demand immediate action by the Govt to end all forms of persecution and suppression of journalists, press personnel and media. We demand that govt immediately end all forms of violence and crackdown on peaceful protesters and reinstate healthy democratic practice in the state Respectfully, NGO Forum on ADB Signed by: 1. 350.org 2. African Resources Watch (AFREWATCH) 3. Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice 4. Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance to Stop Mining-Philippines) 5. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) 6. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) 7. Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia 8. Community Policing Partners -COMPPART 9. Conseil Régional des Organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement 10. Environics Trust, India 11. Environmental public alliance 12. Equitable Cambodia 13. Freedom from Debt Coalition 14. Friends of the Earth US 15. Friends with Environment in Development 16. Indian Social Action Forum: INSAF 17. Indigenous Perspectives 18. International Accountability Project 19. Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya 20. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils.) 21. Lumière Synergie pour le Développement 22. Manipur Cycle Club 23. Narasha community development group 24. Network Movement for Justice and Development (NMJD) in Sierra Leone 25. Oyuntuya Gotov, Consumer foundation,Mongolia 26. Regional Council of Non Governmental Development Organizations 27. Sri Lanka Nature Group 28. Ulu Foundation 29. Urgewald 30. WomanHealth Philippines [1] https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/undeterred-by-violence-students-close-dhaka-s-roads-to-demand-justice-20180806-p4zvrb.html [2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/06/bangladesh-stop-attacks-student-protesters-critics [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/06/asia/bangladesh-student-protests-intl/index.html [4] http://www.sacw.net/article13769.html Download letter here. #Bangladesh

NGO Forum on ADB is looking for a Policy Coordinator on ADB. Responsibilities includes : Coordinating and facilitating the Forum membership in achieving its policy advocacy objectives, goals and strategies as per its overall campaign on holding ADB accountable. Continually engage ADB Board, Management, and Operations on Policy and Project issues. The position is also expected to coordinate the Forum membership in generating policy discourse, dialogues, workshops, seminars, and knowledge sharing. Detailed Terms of Reference (TOR) will be discussed once a candidate is shortlisted. *Only shortlisted applicants will be invited for interviews. Please send your motivation letter and CV's to secretariat@forum-adb.org not later than September 15, 2018, 12:00 NN. To know more about the organisation click here.

The problem in Asian market perceptions around infrastructure financing begins with the assumption of that there is a 27 trillion dollar[1] demand for infrastructure by 2030. This figure has been quoted in several development discussions especially within the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank (WB) and other Multilateral Development Bank (MDBs) discussions. The emergence of this figure is first seen in a report released by the ADB Institute in 2016[2], and since then the 27 trillion dollar figure for infrastructure has captured the imaginations of financiers, project developers, governments, and investment firms, much to the worry and concern of local communities. The WB has reechoed a similar statement in the latter part of this decade by suggesting a Billion to Trillions of shifts in infrastructure[3], ADB President Nakao has also cited this figure of 27 Trillion in allaying concerns raised by the media in the 50th ADB AGM in Yokohama last year over the market competition with Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) [4]. By the assumption of a massive infrastructure market, the IFIs are trying to paint a picture for newer investors, especially from the private sector to step in. Thus, a slightly deeper look into the lending portfolio of a new MDB like the AIIB will reveal modalities which are often investor friendly such as co-financing, financial intermediary lending, financial securities, bonds etc[5]. As more forms of blended finance mechanisms are being established, the AIIBs public relations game in the investment finance world has leveled up since the AIIBs 2nd AGM in Jeju, South Korea. The President of AIIB had reinforced the Bank’s mantra of Green, Lean, and Clean along with emphasizing the need for efficiency and fast-tracking projects, which is intended to suggest that investors can reap their rewards quicker than what the other banks offer. Taking a step back, the AIIB had started operations since 2016 simultaneously with China’s One Belt One Road agenda, which is now the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) master plan. The BRI by its DNA is a close cousin to the 27 trillion dollar figure pronounced by the ADB. The BRI sets the same scenario of a never-ending infrastructure market of connectivity, transport and energy projects making the case for new private investors under the guise of global economic integration. This is the very current, very hyped, dominant narrative in infrastructure financing leading it to be presented as another asset class for big capital to play with. Infrastructure Financing: Upstream, Midstream and Downstream concerns Stemming from this framework it would be useful to have a look at the operational phases of an infrastructure project. To this end, the infrastructure project cycle should be the bedrock of all conversations that look towards development effectiveness. In the upstream the question that needs to be asked is – are around the appropriate scale of a project, how big is the project being envisioned? How are decisions being made around which projects are viable to finance? Focusing on the end use and end gain, who then will the infrastructure serve, reward and incentivize and to what end? Midstream into the project cycle the project selection process should be accountable to national development strategies? The debate remains on how borrowing governments are currently defining national development strategies, and whether the inclusive and local sustainable development goals are being considered. The jury is still out on that issue. Downstream into the project cycle comes from a step preceding it where due recognition of Quality at Entry (QAE) requirements prior to project approval has been ensured. Questions that often emerge in downstream are infrastructure project related social and environmental impacts. Thus the QAE stage is absolutely critical to bring in the immediate and long-term local environmental and social dimensions. Which begs to ask- are the governance mechanisms within project financiers ensuring that these issues at QAE have been meaningfully integrated into the project design to ensure sustainable infrastructure outcomes? Have these QAE requirements been verified in terms of robust methodologies, multiple layers of checks and balances with validation exercises? If not, the downstream harsh realities of project sites will be marred with irreparable social and environmental damage. This can lead to social upheaval, political, and economic tensions and not to mention the potential threat of deep financial risk of failed projects to both public and private investors. Concluding Reflections Keeping all these considerations in mind, the nature of infrastructure projects these days are showing a trend of multiple financiers in a project mix. Public finance in the form of MDs is showing increasing trends in co-financed projects. There are numerous players from the MDB scene such as ADB, International Finance Corporation (IFC), AIIB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the WB. These co-financed projects are peppered across the Asia region in sectors of energy, transport, etc. The civil society takes on co-financed projects has not been positive. Immediate reactions point towards banks trying to shirk responsibility on due diligence and responsibilities, while private sector project developers are gifted a broader capital base for each of these projects. ADB Strategy 2030 Framework clearly focuses on unlocking private capital to infrastructure projects as a core pillar for the coming decade of its work[6]. There is an emerging conversation within UN Financing For Development, UNFFD conversations and even the UN SGD processes for making private sector a development partner. This leads us to focus on the end stream implementer, the project developer, which in most cases are private sector companies utilizing big pools of public finances from various sources including MDBs, pension funds, and other leveraging sources of finance. In some cases, we are also noticing commercial and bilateral banks and financial intermediaries (FI) playing into the infrastructure financing market as a key player. This often in tandem and close cooperation with public financing sources including MDBs. Looking at the myriad of financiers it is clear that the agenda, for now, is unlocking the private sector finance into projects. But can private sector-led infrastructure projects really deliver the public good? The answer will only be gleaned from the close scrutiny of the emerging maturation of these infrastructure project models. For now, the debate can be simply summarized between- investor’s financial risk versus the public risk burden when large-scale infrastructure projects unfold on local communities. [1] Asian Development Bank Institute. 2016. Connecting South Asia And Southeast Asia. Manila: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Peel, Michael, and Tom Mitchell. 2017. "Asia’S $26Tn Infrastructure Gap Threatens Growth, ADB Warns | Financial Times". Ft.Com. https://www.ft.com/content/79d9e36e-fd0b-11e6-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4 [3] "Press Release: From Billions To Trillions--Transforming Development Finance Post-2015 Financing For Development: Multilateral Development Finance". 2015. IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr15170. [4] Curran, Enda, and Karl Yap. 2018. "ADB Says Emerging Asia Infrastructure Needs $26 Trillion By 2030". Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/adb-says-emerging-asia-infrastructure-needs-26-trillion-by-2030-izouvxn8. [5] "Articles Of Agreement - Other Documents - AIIB". 2018. Aiib.Org. https://www.aiib.org/en/about-aiib/basic-documents/articles-of-agreement/index.html. [6] "Strategy 2030 Achieving A Prosperous, Inclusive, Resilient, And Sustainable Asia And The Pacific". 2018. Adb.Org. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/414336/strategy-2030-draft.pdf. [7] HBF paper, The big gamble, 2018 Download the paper here. #AIIBAGM2018 #AIIB

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)’s third annual meeting in Mumbai comes as the Bank continues to scale up is operations. Since 2016, the Bank has approved nearly five billion USD in lending to 24 projects in 11 countries, all countries located along the Silk Road Economic Belt. At least 20 additional projects are likely to be approved before the end of this year. AIIB President Jin Liqun recently boasted that “in the face of many doubts and misgivings” about AIIB’s willingness to invest in environmentally and socially sustainable projects, “the AIIB defended itself – not with words but with performance. The initial performance of the AIIB over the past two years has gained widespread international recognition, gradually resolving many concerns.” One concern that remains unresolved is AIIB’s commitment to a robust environmental and social oversight mechanism. Two and a half years since AIIB launched its operations, the Bank still lacks a functioning oversight mechanism—also known as an independent accountability mechanism—to ensure that projects comply with environmental and social requirements, and to provide a forum to address the harms to individuals and communities that can result from violations of those requirements. The communities that experience harm from development bank-funded projects are nearly always impoverished, frequently lack formal education, and often live in remote rural areas. As a result of development bank-funded projects, children have been sexually abused by project workers, families have been violently and forcibly evicted from their homes to accommodate projects, and adults and children have been forced to work as project laborers. For each of these instances of grave harm, the development banks’ independent accountability mechanisms provided an avenue for redress for those who were harmed, and identified the actions that the banks needed to take to resolve the internal failures that allowed harms to occur. AIIB’s founding documents, by committing to establish an oversight mechanism, recognized that internal oversight is needed to correct and prevent policy violations that result in harm. But the institution has been extraordinarily slow in following through on that commitment. A draft of the oversight mechanism’s procedures was released for public comment only in March of this year, over two years after AIIB began funding projects. The draft was widely criticized by civil society as “grossly limited” [E1] in scope. It excludes nearly 70% of the Bank’s ongoing projects—all those that are co-financed by other development banks—from independent AIIB review. Instead, in the interests of efficiency, the AIIB directs communities to bring their concerns to co-financing institutions’ oversight mechanisms. The AIIB’s deferral of accountability is unprecedented among development banks. And it signals a concerning lack of interest from AIIB in playing an active role in ensuring the environmental and social sustainability of all the Bank’s projects, regardless of financing structure. Moreover, the draft oversight mechanism incorporates excessively legalistic requirements that will make it nearly impossible for communities to have their claims heard. Since the policy also restricts the ability of civil society organizations to provide assistance to communities that wish to file complaints, communities will likely be navigating the legalistic process on their own. As a result of these and other flaws, a group of 14 expert watchdog groups concluded that the oversight mechanism, if approved by the AIIB’s Board of Directors as currently drafted, will “fail[] to achieve its core purpose of preventing and resolving harms experienced by project-affected communities, and enhancing institutional accountability and continuous learning within AIIB.” AIIB, which aims to be “[a]n innovative international multilateral development institution with a 21st century governance structure,” must not prioritize efficiency over compliance with environmental and social standards. The Bank is quickly moving into riskier financing structures by increasing investments in large-scale resettlement programs and mobilizing private sector investment. The Bank must not lose sight of the importance of independent oversight of environmental and social requirements, and it must not compromise on providing an effective avenue for redress for the impoverished and marginalized. #AIIB #AIIBAGM2018

To Luz Julieta Ligthart, We acknowledge the receipt of your letter on the big shift from fossils to sustainable renewable energy. We note your concerns on the impact of fossil fuels on the environment and climate change. President Jin has asked me to respond to you on his behalf. AIIB aims to create a better tomorrow for billions of people by investing in sustainable infrastructure in Asia and beyond. Based on our core values of Lean, Clean and Green, we work with our clients to connect people, services and markets that over time will improve economic outcomes in the region. To meet the Paris Agreement goals and determine AIIB’s role within the global context, we developed the Sustainable Energy for Asia Strategy after extensive research and two rounds of public consultations. Based on what we heard from members, clients, partners and civil society, we determined our strategy should be informed by the principles underpinning Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Paris Agreement. This approach creates a framework for AIIB to support our clients to: (i) develop and improve their energy infrastructure; (ii) increase energy access; (iii) facilitate their transition to a less carbon-intensive energy mix; and (iv) meet their goals and commitments under these global initiatives. We recognize and respect your position on the role fossil fuels should play in the world’s energy mix if we are to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. As a green bank, we are also looking to do our part as expressed in the Paris Agreement. As a multilateral development bank, we see our role as enabling the path already chosen by our members as they strive to meet their NDCs. We are all aligned in our goals to create a low-carbon future. We only differ in determining how to get there. AIIB was envisioned to be a modern, 21st century MDB focused on improving economic development in Asia and beyond. To achieve this goal, we must be transparent and accountable to our members, clients and people we are here to serve. We will learn from experience, listen to new ideas and be flexible in our ability to respond so we can find the best way forward. We thank you for your ideas and suggestions about how we can be a greener bank. We welcome a healthy discourse on our work and will continue to be open to ideas and suggestions that will make us a stronger. Sincerely, Wu Xiaobo Information Associate Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank