top of page

Search Results

308 items found

  • ADB immunity faces challenge

    Since 1966, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) peddles on the illusion that it is an institution that is committed in making the region free from poverty. According to the bank, it has mobilized more than $250 billion worth of investments in infrastructure, research and knowledge sharing in its half a century of operations in Asia and the Pacific. The ADB continues to shell out illegitimate debts to its member countries even if it had disastrous project and policy outcomes. Moreover, the bank has been enjoying immunity from countries, including the Philippines where it had put its investments. This year as ADB celebrates its 50 years of operation highlighting its vision to alleviate poverty in Asia, affected communities, people’s organizations, and civil society organizations is holding an international gathering dubbed as “Asian People’s Call in Challenging ADB’s Immunity.” The event aims to expose the bank’s role in penetrating into the national fibers of its member countries that is worrisome. This is evident in the members’ Country Strategy and Programs (CSP), technical assistance on policy reforms such as privatization of public utilities, alienation of customary lands and the push for the narrative to create an enabling environment where private sectors could thrive. ADB continues to contribute to providing false solutions to its so called clean energy investments, mega-infrastructure projects on health, education, and agriculture, and ramp up more private sector development and regional integration projects across its lending portfolio. The recent review of ADB’s Public Communications Policy (PCP) has also fallen short of the necessary transparent measures expected of it. It is in these contexts that ADB had failed miserably in its overall mandate of alleviating poverty, contributing even more in the proliferation of inequality and climate crisis in Asia. Affected communities from the Naga Coal Plant from the Philippines, Railway Rehabilitation Project in Cambodia, Tata Mundra Mega Power Structure in India, Kali Gandaki “A” in Nepal and the historic Marcopper Mining Disaster from the Philippines gather in one roof to ask the most important question of all, after half a century, ‘is ADB’s immunity worth it?”

  • Historic Audit of Illegitimate Debts

    On Dec. 22, 2016, President Duterte signed the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2017 with a special provision calling on Congress’ oversight committee on overseas development assistance “to conduct a debt audit to determine the legitimacy” of 20 government-contracted foreign loans. The audit is to be completed within the 2017 fiscal year. Earlier, on Dec. 13, 2016, a more far-reaching Senate Resolution (SR) No. 253 was filed jointly by Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III “directing the appropriate Senate committee to inquire, in aid of legislation, into the foreign loans contracted by the Philippine government within the last 15 years through the conduct of a debt audit.” These two initiatives are historically significant as previous attempts by civil society groups, notably the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), to compel the government to critically examine foreign-funded projects have all come to naught. In 2008, then President Gloria Arroyo vetoed a GAA special provision that would have suspended the debt service of 13 foreign loans that the FDC called “fraudulent, wasteful, and/or useless.” The 2017 debt audit provision covers 20 loans from the Asian Development Bank, IBRD-World Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Japan Eximbank, Opec Fund for International Development, French Protocol, and Raiffeisen Zentralbank Austria. But as SR 253 implies, these are but the tip of the iceberg with 481 outstanding foreign loans up for scrutiny under the Hontiveros-Pimentel initiative. International debt campaigners regard a debt as “illegitimate” if it violates common principles of “human rights and sustainable human development, justice and fairness, accountability and responsibility, sovereignty of peoples and nations, and democratic rights.” SR 253 also invokes the Unctad (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) “principles on promoting responsible sovereign lending and borrowing.” The reasons for declaring a particular debt illegitimate are: violation of procedures mandated by law such as bribery, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation; onerous provisions such as public guarantees of private profits; negative impact on the environment, communities and people’s wellbeing, and on basic social services, human welfare, and safety; waste of funds through corruption, mismanagement, and project failures; conversion of private loans into public debts due to sovereign guarantees; subjecting the economy to shocks, unreasonable creditor demands, and financial market instabilities; and imposing conditionalities that violate national sovereignty and democratic principles. Thus, a debt audit is “both a political tool and a process to disentangle the web of debt … so as to reconstruct … the series of events” that cause many nations to fall into economic and fiscal quagmires. The FDC outlines what a debt audit should look into: the context and circumstances surrounding the transactions; the process of finalizing debt contracts; the content of the contracts; the purpose of the debts; how the funds were actually used; the impacts of debt-funded policies and projects; and the impacts of the conditionalities accompanying the debts and the debt contracts.The projected audit of 20 illegitimate loans is a preliminary but significant step toward the cancellation of all fraudulent loans and the repeal of the law on automatic appropriations for debt servicing imposed by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1977 through Presidential Decree No. 1177 and reiterated by then President Corazon Aquino through the 1987 Revised Administrative Code. As it stands, debt servicing is prioritized over any other government expenditure. The Philippines is reportedly the only country in the world with such an onerous law.Our foreign debt now stands at P2.144 trillion. In the 2017 budget the automatic allocation for debt servicing of P335 billion (up from the 2016 total of P214.5 billion) is the second highest among all categories. The debt service for the 20 questionable loans amounts to P7.6 billion.Such huge outlays of public funds are better used for projects that directly benefit the Filipino people, not those tainted by odious practices that bleed the country’s meager resources dry. First published via the Inquirer - http://opinion.inquirer.net/101506/historic-audit-illegitimate-debts #ADB #NGOForumonADB #Debts

  • December 7th board discussion on Shah Deniz gas field expansion project, Azerbaijan

    Dear President Nakao, We are writing you because we learned that the ADB board will discuss for approval the Shah Deniz gas expansion project in Azerbaijan, at its next board meeting scheduled on December 7th. We urgently ask you to postpone such a decision and align the ADB to the practice of other IFIs involved in financing of the same and related gas projects. As independent and civil organizations have been subject to the Azerbaijani government’s repression, financing of the Shah Deniz expansion would undermine the credibility of Asian Development Bank’s shareholders, as well as forefeiting the principles accountability, transparency and public participation – that your Bank promotes as essential for achieving its laudable goal of eradicating poverty in Asia. We have been opposing the financing of the Shah Deniz gas project and its connection to the Southern Caucasus Pipeline (Azerbaijan-Georgia) which is part of the mega-gas pipeline known as “Southern Gas Corridor” (SGC) and consisting of the TANAP project in Turkey and the TAP pipeline in Greece, Albania and Italy. Contrary to what often stated by project proponents and biased media, the Azeri gas set to be exported through this corridor to Europe is not actually needed according to the EU gas consumption scenario and will not easy EU energy dependance from Russia – actually TAP and TANAP are keen to transport Russian gas too. Furthermore, gas reserve of Azerbaijan are not sufficient to feed this pipeline for its timelife and more gas has to be imported either from Russia or Turkmenistan. In all affected countries local communities are concerned about project implementation and its environmental, social and human rights impacts and tens of complaints have already been filed to the EIB, the EBRD and the World Bank who are also assessing different parts of the SGC. By agreeing to finance the project, it will set a risky precedence that undermines the ongoing investigations of other IFIs. Even more concerns exist about the current status of Azerbaijan within the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative and the overall human rights situation in the country. We understand that these concerns have already been raised by some shareholders of your bank and think that due attention should be given to them. In particular, we welcomed the decision of last October by the Board of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) not to restore Azerbaijan’s status in the Initiative. The Board set Azerbaijan a four-month deadline to reform restrictive legislation that paralyses the operations of civil society in the country. Failure to comply with the corrective actions set out by the EITI Board will lead to the country's suspension from the organisation. Several IFIs, such as the EIB, the EBRD and the World Bank Group have de facto made approval of financing for Azerbaijan gas projects and related pipelines conditional to the implementation by the Azeri government of these corrective measures. We are still concerned that the EITI decision not to suspend Azerbaijan outright fails to recognise the severity of the crackdown against civil society in the country, enabling Azerbaijan to continue its harassment of all government critics while whitewashing its image to secure lucrative foreign investment. In this regard, stringent legislation governing the operation of non-governmental organisations, criminal proceedings against numerous NGOs, and intimidation tactics targeting critical voices, make it excessively difficult for civil society to operate in the country. The four-month deadline given by the EITI Board to remedy issues afflicting civil society is unlikely to compel Azerbaijan to renounce its repressive practices and instead rewards the government for superficial reforms made during the past few months. Last October Azerbaijan narrowly avoided suspension through a series of a last moment improvements aimed at appeasing the EITI Board, including unfreezing bank accounts, lifting travel restrictions and dropping criminal proceedings against members of the Azerbaijan EITI Coalition. However, these changes should not be regarded as a meaningful sign of progress with respect to the overall situation for civil society in Azerbaijan. Numerous other NGOs and their leaders continue to face criminal charges and restrictions on their ability to operate, and several civil society representatives remain in jail on trumped up charges. Indeed, on the day of the EITI decision, a Baku court sentenced a 22-year-old prodemocracy activist Giyas Ibrahimov to 10 years in jail on false narcotics charges, further to his involvement in an act of political graffiti. In addition, a recent Presidential decree allegedly aimed at facilitating grants by foreign donors has been dismissed by experts1 as a mere cosmetic reform. Azerbaijan has received multiple recommendations from international human rights and transparency bodies, including the EITI on the need to reform legislation and practices governing civil society, to bring these in line with international human rights standards. In April 2015, during the height of governmental persecution of civil society in Azerbaijan, the EITI downgraded Azerbaijan's status, outlining a corrective action plan that Azerbaijan was meant to implement in order to reinstate its position within the Initiative. Over the 18 months since the last EITI Board decision on Azerbaijan, the government has had ample opportunities to amend restrictive legislation and create an enabling environment for civil society in the country. The Azerbaijani government's total disregard of the recommendations and its failure to undertake the required reforms in due time is a clear sign that it perceives a free and independent civil society as a threat to its interests. We take this opportunity also to share our deep concerns for the human rights and democracy situation in Turkey after the faild coup of last July. As widely reported on international press, tens of thousans of public officials, journalists and activists have been laid off, detained or arrested in an arbitrary manner and under questionable and often ungrounded charges. Leading economies in the world expressed their serious concerns about the situation in Turkey. Our partner organisations in the country have been reporting us a climate of fear and intimidation which obstruct their work. The future of Turkey’s democracy is at stake. We do believe that this regrettable situation should be taken into account as well when the ADB considers financing a project whose ultimate aim is to export gas through a major pipeline crossing the Turkish territory for more than one thousand kilometers. Furthemore SOCAR, the Azeri State-owned energy company, has a significant share in the TANAP pipeline project. To conclude, given the current economic downturn in Azerbaijan and Turkey it is evident that without IFIs’ public support the Shah Deniz project and the SGC as a whole will not move ahead. Private investors see very high risks in getting exposed through the financing of these deals. Political and technical uncertainty further reduce private finance interest in them. Subsidising a mega-gas infrastructure which would lock-in the entire region in a fossil fuel dependant and climate-harming future is the wrong choice to do. Public resources could and should be used for better and more sustainable purposes, once a climate of restored democracy and human rights respect is in force in the two countries. We hope that you and the board will share our concerns and as a minimum post-pone your decision on the project. We look forward to hearing from you and trust that the ADB will raise the flag of democracy and human rights promotion through its acts. Sincerely, Rayyan Hasan, NGO Forum on ADB (rayyan@forum-adb.org) Antonio Tricarico, Re: Common (atricarico@recommon.org ) Petr Hlobil, CEE Bankwatch Network (petr@bankwatch.org ) Xavier Sol, Counter Balance (xavier.sol@counter-balance.org) Dr. Tek Vannara, The NGO Forum on Cambodia (vannara@ngoforum.org.kh ) Hasan Mehedi, Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (clean.khulna@gmail.com )

  • Climate Justice Week kicked off with demand of immediate emission cut

    Khulna, 22 October 2016: The earth cannot be saved by emission cut as per Paris Agreement. The commitment of developed and advanced developing countries are quite insufficient to reduce global warming. Besides, they are not fulfilling their commitment of providing 100 billion US dollar per year for reducing vulnerability. It is a totally betrayal to the most vulnerable communities. The speakers said it in the inaugural press conference of Climate Justice Week today (22 October 2016, Saturday) at Humayun Kabir Balu Auditorium of Khulna Press Club. Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) and Committee of Concerned Citizen (CCC) jointly organized the workshop. CLEAN-TIB-CCC Working group convener Advocate Kudrat-E-Khuda moderated the press conference while CLEAN chief executive Hasan Mehedi read out the written speech. In the written speech Hasan Mehedi said, as per the voluntary commitment of Annex-1 countries and advanced developing countries like China and India the global temperature may touch 4 degree Celsius by 2050 which is far more than the targeted 2 degree Celsius of Paris Agreement. Bangladesh and low-lying countries will be at risk of sinking at that level of emission. Besides, the developed countries pledged to provide 100 billion dollars for reducing the vulnerability to climate change per year, but only 1 billion dollars has been provided from Green Climate Fund so far. Contrarily World Bank and other Multilateral Banks are making loan business by using the vulnerability of the climate affected people. The green groups declared 11-point demand to the world leaders including immediate deep cut of emission, sufficient compensation to the climate victims, ensuring transparency, accountability and people's participation in climate finance, ensuring domestic and international safe migration of climate forced migrants, prioritize adaptation over mitigation in the least developed countries and formation of national climate authority for effective negotiation and implementation. The organizers declared a "Climate Justice Week" from 22-28 October 2016 all over Bangladesh to raise voices of climate victims. The week will be observed in Dhaka, Khulna, Satkhira, Bagerhat, Jessore, Jhenaidah, Pirojpur, Jhalakathi, Barisal, Barguna, Bhola, Patuakhali, Noakhali and Cox's Bazar with Climate Victims Procession, Forced Migrants Rally, Shadow Climate Justice Tribunal, Hoax on G-8 Meeting on Climate Change, Coffin Rally, Craft Rally etc. Deputy Director of Information Department M. Javed Iqbal, CCC member Shahida Akhter Putul, Advocate Ashok Kumar Saha, Bangladesh Human Rights Enforcement Committee coordinator Advocate Mominul Islam, civic leader Sheikh Abdul Halim, SPACE coordinator Salah Uddin Titol, TIB area manager Firoz Uddin, Ashraful Alam, YES member Mahmudun Nabi Sujan, SM Mamunur Rashid, Shusmit Sarkar, Foyezun Nahar Pinky, Uttam Tarafder, CLEAN campaign officer Nashim Rahman Kiron, Shubarna Islam Disa was present in the press conference among others. Hasan Mehedi Chief Executive, CLEAN Phone: +88 017 1670 2006 Click here to see schedule of events.

  • Official investigation finds ADB failed to consult Samoan people before pushing harmful land reforms

    (Apia, 6 September 2016) - The Asian Development Bank’s internal watchdog has found there is evidence that ADB violated its operational policies in advising the Government of Samoa to adopt controversial land and financial sector reforms. The decision from the ADB Compliance Review Panel came after a preliminary investigation into a complaint submitted by a group of Matai (chiefs of villages in Samoa) regarding a series of ADB projects called Promoting Economic Use of Customary Land.  The chiefs are concerned that the ADB-driven reforms, which were carried out without meaningful consultation of the Samoan people, risk dismantling the customary land tenure system that has been the foundation of Samoan civilization for thousands of years. Approximately 80 percent of land in Samoa is governed under the customary tenure system, which disallows the individual ownership of land in favor of collective ownership. The system promotes equitable allocation of family lands to all its members, in keeping with customs and rules applicable to that family. The ADB-driven reforms make it easier to lease customary land and to use those leases as collateral for loans. The ADB advised the Samoan government to adopt a system through which an individual can unilaterally lease out customary land, without getting the consent of other members of the family. The lease agreement could then be used by the leaseholder to access credit from a bank. But if the leaseholder is unable to repay the loan, the bank can repossess the lease, and take control of the customary land for decades. The Panel criticized ADB for failing to consult customary landowners and consider their views and concerns in the advice provided to the Samoan government: “Well thought out advice given after wide, accountable and meaningful public consultations might have highlighted the concerns and fears expressed by the complainants and other customary landowners…There is prima facie evidence that suggests that inadequate consultations under the [projects] have deprived the customary landowners in Samoa of the opportunity to surface these concerns in a timely fashion and to have them properly addressed in the advice, consultant reports, draft legislation, and draft papers developed under the…projects.” The Panel found that ADB “recommended piecemeal changes to customary land laws leading to uncertainty and an abridgment of some customary land rights.” The diminution of the bundle of rights associated with customary land ownership, which resulted from ADB’s advice, the Panel found, was “likely to cause direct and material harm to the complainants and project affected people.” Despite the panel’s conclusion and recommendation that the prima facie evidence of noncompliance is serious enough to warrant a full compliance investigation, the ADB Board of Directors decided not to authorize such a review at this time. Fiu Mata’ese Elisara, matai of Sili and Savaii and Executive Director of Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated, said: “We are happy that the Compliance Review Panel has validated our complaint, and we particularly welcome the panel’s finding that ADB violated its policies by failing to engage communities in meaningful consultations before advising our government on matters of such fundamental importance to our identity and way of life.” “We are, however, disappointed and puzzled as to why the panel’s recommendation was overruled by the Board, which failed to authorize a full investigation,” he added. “This decision reeks of conflicts of interest,” said David Pred, Managing Director of Inclusive Development International, which has been advising the complainants. “Firstly, the director who represents Samoa on the ADB Executive Board sits on the committee that recommended overruling the Compliance Review Panel’s decision and there's no indication that he recused himself." The Board Compliance Review Committee, which made the recommendation not to authorize the full review, cited conflicting opinions that it had received from the independent Compliance Review Panel and the bank’s Office of General Counsel about whether ADB’s actions caused or is likely to cause harm. The committee also recommended deferring a full investigation due to “indications that the Government of Samoa will propose legislative changes that would substantially remove material harm to the complainants.” “The question one must ask is why does the ADB Board have an independent accountability mechanism to investigate complaints if it is just going to ignore its findings and instead take its cues from the very lawyers whose job it is to defend ADB Management against such complaints,” said Pred.  “That is the very definition of a conflict of interest.” Leuluaialii Tasi Malifa, lawyer and matai of Afega village, said: “If the Government of Samoa is preparing legislation that truly addresses our concerns, and ensures that the Constitutional prohibition on alienation of customary land is fully safeguarded, then this will be a positive outcome of our complaint.  But if this legislation does not materialize or is inadequate, we will continue to demand a full accounting from ADB." The Compliance Review Panel’s Report on Eligibility is available at this link: https://compliance.adb.org/dir0035p.nsf/attachments/SAM-EligibilityReport-18Aug_Web.pdf/$FILE/SAM-EligibilityReport-18Aug_Web.pdf The Chair’s Summary of the Board Compliance Review Committee proceedings is available at this link: http://www.adb.org/documents/chairs-summary-bcrc-crp-request-n20162 For more information and press inquiries, please contact: In Apia: Fiu Mata’ese Elisara, Executive Director, Ole Siosiomaga Society Inc. and matai of Sili, Tel: +685 7791999 Email: fiuelisara51@yahoo.com; and Leuluaialii Tasi Malifa, lawyer and matai of Afega village, Tel: +685 7284452 Email: vaoga@yahoo.com. In New York David Pred, Managing Director, Inclusive Development International (IDI), Tel: +1 917-280-2705 Email: david@inclusivedevelopment.net

  • Justice bleak for complainants with compromised mechanisms in development banks

    Manila –For many communities facing uncertainty and harm caused by investments of development financial institutions (DFIs) including displacements, loss of livelihood, loss of social and cultural lifeways, harassment, intentional misinformation and degradation of the environment –- accountability mechanisms (AMs) provide hope for powerless communities seeking information, dialogue, redress, compensation and project cancellation especially when local authorities and private developer fail to respond. International norms guide the formulation of AM policies that influence its decisions – but that is not always the case. Deriving a satisfying outcome from a complaint process is filled with complex challenges including compromised independence of AMs to management, high eligibility criteria for complaints, lack of information on development projects, weak linkages of independent CSO watchdogs to affected communities, among others. For many documented cases, engaging these AMs is never a walk in the cloud for affected communities and watchdogs despite the existence of MDB policies on safeguards, public disclosure, and transparency. The underlying reason for the conduct of the 13thAnnual Meeting of the Independent Accountability Mechanisms with Civil Society Organizations is to understand the problems in engaging the AMs of DFIs. Representatives and top leaders of around national and international DFIs participated in the event. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) known to be one of the leading DFI in Asia have been under fire for several years regarding how they take on responsibilities of the projects that they are financing using public money but recent cases showed a dissonance between its policies and actual implementation of AM recommendations to make projects comply with DFIs own social and environmental safeguard policies. In a welcome speech, ADB President Takehiko Nakao emphasized the effectiveness of the AM, citing specifically the successful response to the complaint of project-affected communities in the Cambodian Railway Rehabilitation Project. Sim Pov, a public school teacher forcibly displaced from the said project claimed differently. He narrated that it has been 10 years and there are still families who have not been relocated. There is still no potable water in some relocation sites, no source of livelihood, and no available public transport. Poipet, a relocation site a few meters away from the dumpsite and families are neck deep in debt.  The teacher, himself, was resettled in Battambang, one of the five uninhabitable resettlement sites. Pov also said that there are still families who have not been paid in full. Land titles in the resettlement sites promised to them some 5-7 years ago have not yet been handed to them which makes them feel insecure about their land rights should another ‘development’ project need their land. ‘Why is ADB making these policies when they themselves cannot follow them?’ and added, “The ADB’s Mechanism gave us hope. We engaged again and again, but nothing happened”. Pov ended his statement by saying that the affected families from Cambodia is disappointed and has a big cynicism towards ADB. Anirudha Nagar from Accountability Counsel said ‘everything looks on good on paper, but in reality, it is another story’ referring to the experience of the Sindhuli Community of Nepal on how the World Bank misled them to implement an energy project, much like what had happened to Cambodia. An ADB official recognizes the truthfulness of what Mr. Pov’s statement and said that ‘the right people to address the problems are the ADB Board’.  He then asked how can the NGO’s target and influence the board. As the session ended, Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB said that ‘the NGO’s cannot do it alone, the international AMs cannot do it alone, the community cannot do it alone. It is an uphill battle that we have to take altogether’. For complainants, earning the stamp of eligibility provides hope that the wheels of justice could work in their favor. A  groundbreaking study of AMs by SOMO, CIEL, Both ENDs, IAC, IAP and many other independent watchdogs engaging DFIs with communities worldwide adversely affected by development projects, the attrition rate of filed cases is high. The section on ADB showed that nine complaints filed were deemed ineligible for the AM’s Special Project Facilitator problem-solving function or were otherwise closed without reaching a substantive phase of the complaint process between July 2014 to June 2015. Complaints that have successfully passed the test of eligibility face a variety of hurdles. Complainants are required to first raise their concerns with ADB’s Operations Department before filing a complaint to the Mechanism there appears to be no standardized procedure for receiving and responding to those concerns or similar tracking system. For complaints that have been reviewed due to lack of compliance with ADBs own policies, Management is required to consult with the Compliance Review Panel on remedial actions, however, it is not required to consult with the complainant, “which is a major flaw in the remedial process”, the study reveals. Such is the case of complainants of the Cambodian Railway Rehabilitation project who are still in a bitter battle with Management due to incomplete implementation and unresolved issues despite glaring CRP findings and recommendations in favor of the complainants. One of the recommendations of the study is to lift the privilege of immunity given to DFIs that enables them to act with impunity.

  • ADB criticized for holding questionable consultations on its new corporate strategy

    Manila, Philippines – NGO Forum on ADB expressed its disappointments and discontent on the stakeholders’ consultation for the Asian Development Bank’s corporate strategy held at the ADB Manila Headquarters last Monday due to lack of public disclosure and quality consultations with civil society organizations (CSOs). The Forum questioned ADB’s intent to shift towards using country safeguards systems without any ‘assessment’ and ‘equivalency’ with its own safeguards systems as presented by Strategy and Policy Department of the ADB. This alarming move towards using country systems prematurely will have disastrous impacts on local communities and the environment especially in autocratic regimes where civil society voice is suppressed and persecuted, and national instruments are riddled with corruption and weak implementation. ADB in doing so will also be in violation of its own ADB Safeguards Policy Strategy SPS 2010, where it clearly indicates ‘equivalency’ and ‘assessment’ to be conducted for Country Systems with ADB standards before they are considered for use in any ADB project. In ADB’s own study on Country Systems in 2015, it indicates that in six upper middle-income countries UMICs, the use of country systems are not feasible as they are far from ADB SPS 2010 standards. The ADB is faced to provide competitive lending rates with the rise of new banks and abruptly moving towards using Country Systems is a way by which the Bank is trying reduce loan approval times and “costs” by compromising due diligence requirements which put human rights, public safety, environmental sustainability and national economies at risk. On being questioned on this issue of policy dilution, Safdar Parvez from the ADB HQ responded by reassuring there will be ‘no dilution of ADB safeguards’. The Forum believes, however, that reliance on country safeguards systems is tantamount to “ADB absolving from its obligations to human rights, SDGs, and climate change deals”.  “Even if we have good national laws, safeguards implementation will be subject to the country’s changing technical capacities, budgetary limits and shifting political leadership.” Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of the Asia-wide independent watchdog of ADB expressed his deep concerns that the presence of CSOs in this consultation process could just be a way to legitimize ADB’s questionable private-led sector strategies. Participating CSOs were asked to form workshop groups and comment after the “Road to 2030” powerpoint presentation of Safdar Parvez, ADB Director, Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination, Central and West Asia Department. “We cannot provide substantial comments based on just a few bullet point summaries, without a full disclosure of the entire ADB strategy 2030 draft paper revealing the details of plans presented to us.  This strategy will guide how public money is going to be used for development purposes for the next 14 years and thus we need full disclosure of information prior(with adequate time) to have a robust, informed, meaningful consultation”, said Hassan. The bullet point presentation by ADB failed to mention how the strategy 2030 would address the problem of sustainable development particularly in terms of its commitment to reaching the level of global warming to 1.50 Celsius, which can only be achieved by keeping fossil fuels on the ground. The Bank continues to invest in coal energy and greenhouse gas emitting large hydropower plants and has not made any clear commitments to divest and transition to renewable energy in the wake of COP 21 Climate Accord. Forum Policy Coordinator Mayang Azurin pointed out that “the Bank makes it clear that intends to increase investments to the private sector in achieving its mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development without providing a review on the impacts of Strategy 2020 which was also private sector led on inequality, environmental sustainability, and human rights.” She cited the case of Naga Coal Plant in the Philippines and Tata Mundra Plant in India, both private sector energy projects with formal community complaints filed in ADB’s Accountability Mechanism on its damaging impacts on the environment, health and livelihoods. She also added that the strategy has no mention of human rights and labor standards, which are crucial as some ADB-financed projects violate both international and local labor standards. Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation in Uzbekistan ADB project supported forced labor. Abner Manlapaz of Life Haven Incorporated indicated that there should be stronger language in inclusion of women, persons with disabilities (PWD), indigenous peoples and conflict groups.  The Forum also added that if ADB is really serious in taking into account the stakeholders condition “the language of equivalency and assessments should be included in the draft, and a keener language on accountability and human rights in the context of greater priorities in private sector development should be included”. Forum also drew attention to the strategy’s intent to be selective on financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which can be dangerous.  Azurin said the SDGs are premised on the importance of an integrated approach to planning for people, planet, and prosperity. “We see that the goal on justice, peace and accountable institutions have barely been considered.  The strategy 2030 is silent on accountability and instead falls into dangerous lines by planning to invest in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States”. CSO voices from FCAS demands development banks to disinvest so as not to add further tensions to the ongoing ethnic and geopolitical rivalries in the region intensified by supporting dictatorial regimes and private sector control on public resources. “Public money should be used for poverty-reduction and sustainable development and that cannot be achieved with the same strategies that led us into deepening inequalities, to begin with,” Hassan said.

  • Press Statement of NGO Forum on ADB on the First AIIB Annual Meeting

    The members of the NGO Forum on ADB congratulate the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for holding its first Annual Meeting in Beijing, China. A number of civil society organizations (CSOs) were present in the event as invited guests including Chinese civil society groups. Yet the participation of CSOs was limited to only attending two plenary sessions on the 26th June date; with no real space for dialogue with AIIB Management and Operations. On the first session on ‘Infrastructure and Economic Growth’ when the floor was finally opened for questions to the audience NGO Forum on ADB, Executive Director, Mr. Rayyan Hassan addressed AIIB President Mr. Jin Liqun and raised the issue of shrinking space of civil society, need for meaningful dialogue, and lack of clear guidelines on the release of key project information prior to board approval of AIIB projects. The Forum believes that, these issues remaining unclear will continue to pose real harm to communities; who will be bearing most of the social and environmental risks associated with large-scale infrastructure. The AIIB has an Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) which is expected to mitigate social and environmental impacts but there has been no release of directives or guidelines on how to deliver the AIIB ESF objectives on the ground. For 15 years, the NGO Forum on ADB has contributed significantly in the development of environmental and social safeguards of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and it recognizes the AIIB’s efforts in ensuring that its development projects avoid harm, or when unavoidable, mitigate and justly compensate project-affected communities. For future AIIB annual meetings, the NGO Forum on ADB suggests that a full day of seminars is dedicated to meetings with CSOs and they can have the liberty to suggest topics and propose speakers for panels discussing important public questions. This, of course, would not prevent the AIIB to organize its own official program of seminars by deciding whether and on which topic to have also CSO representatives as speakers and contribute their vast experience and knowledge on development concerns. Consequently, regarding our on-going engagement with the Bank on specific matters, including policy definition and project specifics, NGO Forum on ADB would like to reiterate its interest to contribute early in advance to the content of the policies as well as project assessments. CSOs has to be engaging with the Bank in discussions concerning the definition of sectoral strategies, including the energy sector, and accountability mechanisms open to project-affected communities within the on-going set up of the compliance, grievance mechanism and integrity office. In facing the challenges of meeting this common agenda, the Forum hopes the AIIB will engage CSOs in a systemic manner in developing strategic plans, policies, directives, grievance mechanisms and provide timely public disclosure of all project-related information. The NGO Forum on ADB welcomes the importance given by President Jin Liqun in his talk on the principle of transparency in stemming out corruption among project holders, fostering understanding and in collective problem solving between investors and project-affected communities. We support this statement and further suggest to the Bank to adopt and enforce time-bound procedures when complaints must be addressed to avoid expensive delays in project delivery brought by discontent among parties – investors and project-affected communities alike. The anonymity and security of the complainant will also need to be considered by the AIIB in its Grievance Mechanism. Again, the NGO Forum on ADB expresses its gratitude to the Bank for the space it has extended. It hopes that a more meaningful and adequate engagement be available in the immediate future as this will contribute greatly to the AIIB’s leadership as an MDB creating infrastructures not only for physical connectivity but also for the political and social linkages between shareholders and its larger stakeholders for an inclusive and sustainable development.

  • AIIB Annual Meeting Press Statement

    The members of the NGO Forum on ADB congratulate the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for holding its first Annual Meeting in Beijing, China. A number of civil society organizations (CSOs) were present in the event as invited guests including Chinese civil society groups. Yet the participation of CSOs was limited to only attending two plenary sessions on the 26th June date; with no real space for dialogue with AIIB Management and Operations. On the first session on ‘Infrastructure and Economic Growth’ when the floor was finally opened for questions to the audience NGO Forum on ADB, Executive Director, Mr. Rayyan Hassan addressed AIIB President Mr. Jin Liqun and raised the issue of shrinking space of civil society, need for meaningful dialogue, and lack of clear guidelines on the release of key project information prior to board approval of AIIB projects. The Forum believes that, these issues remaining unclear will continue to pose real harm to communities; who will be bearing most of the social and environmental risks associated with large scale infrastructure. The AIIB has an Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) which is expected to mitigate social and environmental impacts but there has been no release of directives or guidelines on how to deliver the AIIB ESF objectives on the ground. For 15 years, the NGO Forum on ADB has contributed significantly in the development of environmental and social safeguards of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and itrecognizes the AIIB’s efforts in ensuring that its development projects avoid harm, or when unavoidable, mitigate and justly compensate project-affected communities. For future AIIB annual meetings, the NGO Forum on ADB suggests that a full day of seminars is dedicated to meetings with CSOs and they can have the liberty to suggest topics and propose speakers for panels discussing important public questions. This, of course, would not prevent the AIIB to organize its own official program of seminars by deciding whether and on which topic to have also CSO representatives as speakers and contribute their vast experience and knowledge on development concerns. Consequently, regarding our on-going engagement with the Bank on specific matters, including policy definition and project specifics, NGO Forum on ADB would like to reiterate its interest to contribute early in advance to the content of the policies as well as project assessments. CSOs has to be engaging with the Bank in discussions concerning the definition of sectoral strategies, including the energy sector, and accountability mechanisms open to project-affected communities within the on-going set up of the compliance, grievance mechanism and integrity office. In facing the challenges of meeting this common agenda, the Forum hopes the AIIB will engage CSOs in a systemic manner in developing strategic plans, policies, directives, grievance mechanisms and provide timely public disclosure of all project-related information. The NGO Forum on ADB welcomes the importance given by President Jin Liqun in his talk on the principle of transparency in stemming out corruption among project holders, fostering understanding and in collective problem-solving between investors and project-affected communities. We support this statement and further suggest to the Bank to adopt and enforce time-bound procedures when complaints must be addressed to avoid expensive delays in project delivery brought by discontent among parties – investors and project-affected communities alike. The anonymity and security of the complainant will also need to be considered by the AIIB in its Grievance Mechanism. Again, the NGO Forum on ADB express our gratitude to the Bank for the space it has extended. We hope that a more meaningful and adequate engagement be available in the immediate future as this will contribute greatly to the AIIB’s leadership as an MDB creating infrastructures not only for physical connectivity but also for the political and social connectivity between shareholders and its larger stakeholders for an inclusive and sustainable development.

  • 15 Years is Enough!

    SIGN ON STATEMENT for CORE LABOR STANDARDS ACROSS ALL ADB OPERATIONS Asian Development Bank was the first amongst the multinational development banks in 2001 to commit that its operations will comply with the internationally recognized Core Labor Standards (CLS). It has been 15 years since but we observe with dismay that ADB is yet to implement fully its commitment to the international community and the workers of Asia and the Pacific to not only recognize but comply with the following CLS: freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, effective abolition of child labor, and; elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Since 2006, the Global Trade Union Federations have consistently campaigned to strengthen ADB’s compliance mechanism and due diligence to integrate CLS in project concept papers and design and implement CLS in consultation and collaboration with the trade unions. They have, during the safeguards review also made a submission to include labor safeguards and CLS within the purview of Safeguard Policy Statement. ADB management rejected their contention relying solely on the Social Protection Strategy and the Operations Manual Charter 3 (OMC3) both of which have failed to protect workers’ rights and decent work. Various studies on the ground indicate that while CLS does find mention in project concept papers and design tools, the issue of core labour standards fails to find place in important operational documents such as loan agreement, project agreements and administration manuals, and contractors’ agreements. CLS is not an agenda in the project review and monitoring reports or in the Bank’s  evaluation studies. Forced labor, poor wages, violation of right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, poor and inadequate health and safety measures, lack of social security, deplorable working condition of contract and migrant workers have been reported from ADB funded projects in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines and Uzbekistanamongst others. It has also been pointed out that ADB’s project teams and consultants lack expertise on labor issues and instead of hiring workers’ or labor specialists or collaborating with International Labour Organisation (ILO) specialists, this lack of expertise is being plugged through the recruitment and engagement of gender and social specialists or simply social sector specialists. These violations to workers’ rights should not exist in projects funded by ADB whose mission is to eradicate poverty in Asia. In ADB-funded projects, especially for the infrastructure projects, workers are first and direct beneficiaries in terms of employment generation, decent wages, gender equality, decent work and living conditions and reduction of poverty. But, workers’ issues are relegated under “Other Social Issues” in operational terms and treated with lesser brevity from other safeguard issues like environment, resettlement and indigenous rights. Is it because workers’ issues and core labor standards are not considered potential risks enough for the non-implementation of projects or projects getting delayed and issues for an inclusive development? Absence of CLS in risk assessment and risk management matrix and that of results framework surely point out to this significant aspect. We waited for 15 years expecting that the ADB-ILO collaboration inked in 2002 Annual General Meeting in Shanghai,China will deliver results in favor of the workers and their rights and that the ADB will ultimately comply with its commitments to adhere to and implement core labor standards in its operations. But, even the Independent Evaluation Department’s special evaluation study on ADB’s Social Protection Strategy has refused to evaluate ADB’s compliance to CLS and dumped the issue. ADB’s existing Social Protection Operational Plan (2014) has nothing new to be excited about, repeating the same old commitments that ADB had kept unchanged  for the last 15 years at the expense of workers of  Asia and Pacific region. This cannot go on and should not go on. It’s time that ADB should move from its rhetoric to action. Fifteen  years is enough. ADB’s non-compliance with core labor standards stands between its long-term strategy of poverty reduction and inclusive growth and achieving that objective. The Bank cannot espouse to eradicate poverty in Asia when its own interventions defy internationally recognized basic rights of workers. It cannot continue to work around poor compliance mechanisms and weak national labor laws to expedite the implementation of its own development projects and claim success when those who labor for these projects remain unprotected or marginalized even further. We call on ADB to come out clear, be transparent, commit to due diligence in upholding the rights of the workers and fulfill its commitments to fully implement core labor standards in its all levels of operations. - Signed - India Forum of Forest Movements (India) Indian Social Action Forum (India) Intercultural Resources India (India) Life Haven Center for Independent Living (Philippines) National Alliance of Peoples Movement (India) NGO Forum on ADB (Asia) Urgewald (Germany) Public Services International (International) 11.11.11- Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement (Belgium) Umeedenao Citizen Community Board (Nepal) Center for Bangladesh Studies- Bangladesh Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Ulu Foundation, USA Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network, Bangladesh

  • Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2016 Statement

    If humanity hopes to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 as per the discussions of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, it must essentially stop emitting all forms of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere by 2060.[1] Since the 49th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors the announcements of ADB and AIIB co-financing and the zealous solicitation of private sector as a development partner augurs the same blind rhetoric of economic growth models of the last decade that made electricity inaccessible to 622 million people in Asia and exorbitantly costly and dirty for the rest. The Bank is still working on the same frame of single-track economic growth by peddling a transnational (TNC) and multinational corporations (MNC)-based energy demand without carefully weighing the environmental and social consequences of its investment decisions. ADB’s Strategy 2020 commitments of regional economic integration, China’s One Belt One Road and the G20s commitment towards achieving 2% GDP growth of its members by 2020; are alarming signs of dirty energy investment and increased GHG emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global populations has crossed the 395 ppm threshold of CO2 which was one of the nine planetary limits for our survival. The earthquakes in Nepal, typhoon Yolanda, Haiyan in the Philippines, the recent floods in Paris and Germany all indicate the precarious state of an overtaxed planetary system. While being completely aware of the climate crisis, the ADB continues to espouse its support to dirty energy sources including coal and large hydropower projects.  The Jamshoro Power Generation Project in Pakistan, Naga Coal Power Plant in the Philippines, Tata Mundra Coal Plant in India, Tanahu and West Seti Dam projects in Nepal, Citarum Dam in Indonesia are all well documented examples of ADB’s destruction of the environment, public health, social fabric, ecological balance and this list is far from exhaustive. Today, we are witness to unprecedented increases in the cost of electricity making it less and less accessible to the poor. The delegation of providing electricity as a basic social service to the private sector clearly failed to deliver critical development outcomes for Asia’s poor but succeeded in feeding the energy demands of TNCs and MNCs along ADB’s precious economic corridors which are either placed in ecologically or politically fragile zones. ADB’s method for economic growth in Asia was marked by inequality, darkness, and dirt due to its disregard of its social and environmental accountabilities. For some years, the ADB has been vocal on projected “energy demands”, which is said to be more than double between 2010 and 2035, reaching 16,169.2 terawatt-hours or  half of the world’s global energy consumption by 2035. By then, Asia will also be responsible for almost half of all global carbon emissions, 35 % higher than current emissions[2]. But these “energy demands ”are needs ensuring that TNCs and MNCs thrive and are not reflective of the needs of underserved communities? The ADB claims that its own financing for clean energy rose to $2.4 billion last year from only about $280 million in 2005. This might seem a positive trend but evidence shows that ADB’s average energy lending for off-grid and mini-grid renewable energy is only at 7.5 % of its total energy portfolio[2]. The bulk of taxpayers’ money goes to false solutions to the problem of accessible and “clean” electricity such as energy efficiency, clean coal which are still powered by coal—the largest contributor to climate change. With the region’s vast resource endowments, NGO Forum on ADB strongly believes that renewable energy can and has to be the core driver for all future energy investments by ADB to achieve its commitment to poverty eradication and sustainable development. As we denounce ADB’s investments in fossil fuels; we also do not endorse the notion of large hydropower as “clean energy’ or “climate adaptive” source of renewable energy which forms a significant part of the Bank’s energy lending portfolio. We also criticize poor standards in labeling environmentally-enhancing projects across all funding facilities for “clean” and “green” projects. Thus, despite the proliferation of “green” financing instruments and windows, ADB energy projects still destroy peoples’ lives and the planet. Eleven years after the first Asia Clean Energy Forum, the ADB continues to invest in dirty energy sources without making any meaningful and swift shift in its operations. The writing is on the wall: Stop offering false solutions in the name of ‘clean energy’ and stop funding large hydropower dams which disenfranchise the poor and harm the environment. Act on the climate crisis. Stop investing in all forms of fossil fuel and shift to renewable energy now. [1] 1.5 °C and Climate Research After The Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change. 1 February 2016. [2] ADB And The Climate Investment Funds Climate Change Innovation And Action In Asia And The Pacific. January 2016. [3] Still Failing to Solve Energy Poverty: International Public Finance for Distributed Clean Energy Access Gets another “F”. Oil Change and Sierra Club. April 2016.

  • Asian Peoples Safeguards

    “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.” Article 2 Human rights ensures that everyone is “entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” That promise, however, was realized only by a few elite and powerful sector, leaving many Asians progressively poorer, vulnerable and disempowered in the last few decades. Asia remains home to two-thirds of the world’s ‘extreme’ poor living on less than US$1.90 a day magnified by deepening inequalities in the areas of income, wealth, health, education, and disability, gender and ethnicity. Magnifying the burdens of Asia’s poor are the increasing vulnerabilities to climate change. The neoliberal paradigm of looking at economic growth without looking at the social and environmental implications of those actions was such a great failure that IFIs had to admit at some point that neoliberalism fuels inequality. It is also does not give great hope for Asians that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is replete with targets to allow private capital through neoliberal economy to operate with greater roles in agriculture, trade, water, energy and other services. The comprises made to make the language of inequality, labor, sustainable consumption, justice and climate change appear in the texts is not without threats to people and the planet. The proposed ADB Strategy 2030 uses SDG language without hiding its intents to be selective on goals that offer business opportunities, to absolve its agency from human rights obligations, to investment more on the private sector. Meanwhile, the newly-established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank conceived right after SDGs and the CoP21, quickly rolled out a number of mega infrastructure projects with high risks to ecosystems, the climate, resettlements and fiscal health. IFIs are not making any major shifts despite new global commitments but does develop sophisticated financial instruments and modalities to support the same paradigm of neoliberalism. These sacrilegious acts against humanity’s new ideals happen in the context of a dramatic transformation and configuration of power as seen in growth outputs, trade and finance. The rise of Asia, of China, is shifting the global economic center of gravity away from Europe and the United States. Emerging IFIs such as the New Development Bank of BRICS countries the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank have initially increased the tensions – but in seeing that complementation can yield better profits – IFIs have quickly adapted to combine technical and financial resources to close the infrastructure investment gap which is close to US$8 trillion until 2020. What we momentarily see as tensions transform easily into unity against. Asia’s disadvantaged poor. The infrastructure investment are not about schools, public hospitals, water and electricity services for last mile communities. These are infrastructure projects to make TNCs thrive: huge energy projects, mega-roads, ports, airports necessary to make global supply chains move with efficiency to take raw and semi-processed materials from different parts in resource-rich Asia and sell its finished goods and services to global destinations. Infrastructure investment assumes that a neoliberal economy stimulates production and trading that will provide jobs and income opportunities as a distributed benefit of globalization. The distribution has taken place – the wealth created by the vast number of workers and farmers are owned by a a few capitalist elites in certain Asian countries. Worse, the remaining wealth of indigenous peoples and communities are forcedly taken away for infrastructure development. Infrastructure-related projects, according to the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism accounts for most of the complaints they have received in the past years. The IFIs direction to invest more with private capital for developmental needs and on the other hand, governments’ enthusiasm to absorb more sectoral and infrastructure loans to fast-track their growth targets is a double-edged sword translating to greater control of private capital on social services, key economic sectors and natural resources. To ensure that loans are expeditiously disbursed at least cost to IFIs, borrowers and private capital, safeguards are further diluted even in its limited ability to protect human rights. In the case of ADB, it is doing more than just dilution. By being bent on full reliance to country safeguard systems regardless if these countries have governments that are despotic or corrupt, have weak national laws or immature judicial systems – ADB is absolving itself from its human rights obligations, especially amid shrinking space for CSOs. Whereas IFIs would have direct culpabilities on economic, social and cultural rights, its role in denying political and civil rights are becoming more evident due to disappearances, employment of paramilitary in project management, and lack of public disclosure and means of redress. In 2014, just before the SDGs and CoP 21 were finalized, CSOs gathered to reclaim the idea of safeguards away from the praxis of international financial institutions (IFI) Policies and bring them back to the people. The Asian Peoples Safeguards meeting provided the initial platform for this coalition of CSOs to define the core elements of a People’s Safeguards: Individual and collective rights Do No Harm Peoples Sovereignty and Self-Determination State Obligations including. Extra-Territorial Obligations (ETOs) Integrity of ecosytems and environment and the principle of commons Security of peoples and communities People empowerment people’s participation Inclusion, non-discrimination and equity Gender justice Transparency, accountability and freedom from corruption Respect and recognition of international conventions Climate Justice Financing in the service of peoples rights, people-centered development, resilient and sustainable welfare system The current play to systematically deprive Asia’s disadvantaged poor gives a critical basis to revisit and advance the Asian Peoples Safeguards. Unveil ADB’s Privilege of Immunity As CSOs strengthen national and grassroots organizations to instruct governments and IFIs on the kind of economic and development it seeks in its own contexts, it is also essential to break the privilege of immunity that allowed IFIs to act with impunity and it is high time to set an example with one of the most influential Banks in the region as a message that for poverty-reduction and sustainable development to be achieved, equality in justice is a critical goal for humanity. As ADB enters its 50th year of operations in Asia it carries with it the privilege of immunity accorded by international laws to ADB as an international organization in the UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies and Vienna Convention. This same privilege is also claimed by ADB in its own charter and its headquarters agreements with borrowing government protecting the Bank from suits by governments or by any of its agencies or instrumentalities, nor by any entity or person seeking claims outside of ADB’s internal grievance mechanisms effectively freeing its agency from full accountability. This privilege bestowed to ADB and other IFIs in the implementation of its policies, programs and projects that have brought mass poverty, unemployment, and loss of livelihood, social unrest, and human rights violations. The KJDRP water drainage project in Bangladesh, Nam Theun 2 Dam project in Laos, Marcopper Mining in the Philippines, Tata Mundra Coal Plant in India, Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program in Armenia and the Railway Rehabilitation Project in Cambodia among others -- all suffered from ADB’s interventions that were replete with risks to marginalized and vulnerable peoples, the economies and the environment and yet the Bank is treading the same path in greater levels. The ADB’s Accountability Mechanism are mostly ornamental and exist for operational efficiency rather than indict perpetrators of human rights violations. Safeguards are developed from community struggles yet materialization of the promises to real protection on the ground remains glaringly absent and in some cases negligible at most. Thus, lifting ADB’s privilege of immunity as a campaign is a critical call any CSO working on poverty-reduction, sustainable development and human rights must take up for the next years to come but it will have to be undertaken with a certain degree of progressive interventions. This campaign may be a driver for IFIs to make their internal grievance mechanisms and safeguards policies relevant for affected-communities. Greater Collaboration is Desired at all Levels At the local and national advocacy for a peoples’ safeguards and fully accountable development finance will be instructive for States on which laws must be strengthened or passed for the promotion of human rights, what kind of economy is desired, and how people demands to be engaged in development processes -- instead of letting IFIs shape national laws through concessions and technical assistance. But the benefits cannot be achieved if Asian civil and social movements are divided and under capacitated to craft their collective aspirations effectively raised by and for themselves. The process is long and challenging but the empowering benefits will be desirable. Northern CSOs partners in amplifying the voices of Southern groups to decisionmakers in their own countries, need to take this into account to ensure that advocacy on Asian issues are effective and empowering for Asian CSOs.

bottom of page