top of page

Search Results

308 items found

  • Letter to ADB President RE: Hiring process for the Special Project Facilitator

    July 11, 2022 MR. MASATSUGU ASAKAWA PRESIDENT Asian Development Bank CC: Asian Development Bank Executive Directors Asian Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department Director General Asian Development Bank HQ 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550, Metro Manila, RE: Hiring process for the Special Project Facilitator Dear Mr. Asakawa: We are writing this joint letter as NGO Forum on ADB with other concerned civil society groups around the world that share a common concern over accountability in international development finance, especially at the Asian Development Bank (ADB). We are writing to urge you, as President of the Asian Development Bank, to involve external stakeholders, especially civil society in the hiring process for the Special Project Facilitator (SPF). Given the importance of the SPF’s work in addressing grievances concerning ADB’s financing, it’s crucial that the person be appointed through an inclusive and transparent process. As a network of regional and international civil society groups closely following ADB projects and working with communities on the ground, we consider ourselves as legitimate and regular users of the ADB Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) mechanism. Throughout various complaints filed at the OSPF over the years, we have realized that an independent OSPF is the among the most critical structures in ADB, designed to ensure accountability and remedy for communities who are harmed or will be potentially harmed by ADB financed activities. To properly perform its work and be recognized as legitimate, it is vital that the OSPF be independent. This in turn requires the SPF to be independent, which is enhanced not only by maintaining a pre-employment cooling off period, a practice already in place at the ADB, but also by including independent external stakeholders, especially civil society, in the selection process. Furthermore, this would help ensure that the SPF is free from undue influence, including from management, governments and clients. We are aware that ADB is selecting a new SPF, as Mr. Warren Evans has left the OSPF and has been appointed the ADB Special Advisor for Climate Change. We strongly recommend that the selection process for his successor include formal consultations with external stakeholders. As noted in the Good Policy Paper: Guiding Practice from the Policies of Independent Accountability Mechanisms, consulting with external stakeholders in the hiring of members of independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) is good practice and helps ensure legitimacy.[1] ADB followed this good practice in 2019 by including a CSO observer in the hiring process for the CRP Chair. Other IAMs have adopted similar practices. For example, the independent Examiners for the Guidelines of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) are chosen through a process that includes a selection committee that has members from academia and NGOs, among others.[2] Additionally, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) creates a nomination committee composed of members internal and external to the EBRD to select the head of the Independent Project Accountability Mechanism (IPAM).[3] This committee is composed of external stakeholders who have expertise in the accountability and social or environmental fields, demonstrated integrity and independence, the ability to interact effectively with parties and civil society, and experience with the operations of the EBRD or similar institutions. Similarly for the selection process for the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Compliance Advisor Ombudsman Director General, the external stakeholders on the selection committee are tasked with reviewing applications, determining a shortlist, and conducting interviews with shortlisted candidates.[4] We request that ADB continue following the good example it set during the 2019 hiring process for the CRP chair by including external stakeholders, especially civil society, in the decision making process for the next SPF. Specifically, we are calling for: Transparency on the selection process; The inclusion of at least one civil society stakeholder on the selection committee; and The ability for the external stakeholders on the selection committee to review applications, determine a shortlist of candidates, and conduct interviews with shortlisted candidates. This is critical for ensuring the OSPF’s legitimacy and independence. As this process is in the early stages, we look forward to hearing your response about the hiring process for the next SPF and hope to further engage with you and the Board on this process. Sincerely, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Signatories: Accountability Counsel Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Building and Wood Worker's International (BWI), Global Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), India Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding, Nigeria Environics Trust, India Environmental Public Society, Armenia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Food first Information Action Network (FIAN), Sri Lanka Green Advocates International, Liberia Growthwatch, India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal Initiative for Right View(IRV), Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Public Interest Law Center (PILC), Chad Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Vision Building Future, Pakistan Witness Radio, Uganda WomanHealth, Philippines [1] See Accountability Counsel, Bank Information Center, Center for International Environmental Law, et al., Good Policy Paper: Guiding Practice from the Policies of Independent Accountability Mechanisms, pgs. 19, 21-22 (Dec. 2021), available at https://www.accountabilitycounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/good-policy-paper-final.pdf. [2] Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Objection Procedures, para. 4 (2010), http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/social_environmental/guideline/pdf/objection100326.pdf; Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Major Rules for Establishment of Examiner for Environmental Guidelines (2010), https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/business-areas/environment/disagree/images/procedure_03_en.pdf; see also C. Daniel, K. Genovese, M. van Huijjstee & S. Singh, Glass Half Full? The State of Accountability in Development Finance (SOMO, Jan. 2016), at Annex 13. Available at https://www.somo.nl/glass-half-full-2/. [3] European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, para. 3.3.a(3) (2019), http://www.ebrd.com/documents/occo/ipam-policy.pdf. [4] International Finance Corporation, IFC/MIGA Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy para. 15 (2021), https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3e7f1c4-fd6b-40fd-ae76-fb028916611d/IFC-MIGA-Independent-Accountability-Mechanism-CAO-Policy.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nFDGwP2. Download PDF version here.

  • Re: Virtual Consultations Hosted by AIIB on the Energy Sector Strategy Update

    To: Mr. Jin Liqun, President, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, V.P. and Corporate Secretary, AIIB Sir Danny Alexander, V.P., Policy and Strategy, AIIB Mr. Bob Pickard, D.G., Communications Department, AIIB AIIB Board of Directors – Via Email – Over the course of last week’s virtual consultations hosted by the AIIB on the Energy Sector Strategy Update, we hoped to join and engage in discussions in good faith. However, while we appreciate this gesture from the Bank towards expanding the process for public input on the Strategy Update, several key concerns – despite being raised consistently in writing and during online discussions – have yet to be addressed. As a result, following a collective deliberation, we are writing once again to highlight key issues of contention. With all due respect, we firmly reiterate our shared perspective that the consultation sessions as scheduled do not provide an opportunity for meaningful and inclusive dialogue between diverse sectors of civil society across the institution’s membership and the responsible Bank representatives – necessary not least because of the major implications on the future possibilities for just transition and the livelihood prospects of populations across borrowing nations of the Bank’s membership as well as meeting global climate ambitions. Key concerns we would like to bring to your attention include those which were highlighted in previous correspondence along with new issues that have come to the fore based on our participation in the virtual consultation sessions last week: The highly constrained participation of civil society organizations due to the extremely short notice provided for the online consultations, the compressed nature of the sessions, the lack of any clear commitment to simultaneous translation into regional languages, and absence of any identified structure or agenda for the sessions; The impossibility for interested local, national or regional groups to effectively gather and provide perspectives from their respective constituencies on thematic consultation issues due to the lack of adequate prior notification and time between online sessions; An evident lack of willingness among Bank management to engage with civil society calls for online sessions to be scheduled over a more extended period of time in order to enable options for greater participation; A perceived lack of serious engagement on the part of representatives of the AIIB joining the consultations when questions and concerns were raised by civil society members during the initial online sessions last week (with participants observing that Bank representatives typically moved from one comment to another, neither providing consistently clear or detailed responses nor clarity on how these issues could be addressed, while leaving few possibilities open to engage in follow-up clarifications); The absence of any gender specialist staff joining the online sessions to respond to specific questions in relation to either (i) the gendered implications of energy sector financing and future/planned projects in the pipeline, or (ii) the critical lack of gender considerations evident in the energy sector portfolio to date, meaning several key points raised remained unaddressed and/or unresolved (with no proactive commitment to correct this gap in forthcoming sessions even when asked by participants to do so), and The absence of specific focal point staff joining the initial sessions to address questions related to regional nuances in the Bank’s energy sector portfolio or to portfolios associated with energy infrastructure financing (including support for energy projects via on-lending facilities or in the urban sector). It is in this context that we urge the AIIB to proactively address the above concerns and commit to: Publishing a summary of comments received – during online interactions and in writing – alongside responses from the AIIB management; Publicly disclosing information on the expected timeline of the Energy Sector Strategy Update revision and approval process, and Publishing a revised draft of the Energy Sector Strategy Update open for a period of public comment prior to Board approval. Ultimately, this situation leaves us, as members of civil society from Asia, the Americas, the Levant and Europe, with no clear understanding of how – or even whether – the substantive points we raise are actually being taken into account or incorporated into the revised text. Significantly, it also appears that the necessary outreach to civil society constituencies about the online sessions was not undertaken by the responsible AIIB personnel, witnessed by the fact that participation in each of the initial sessions was highly limited to a small number civil society groups. At this time, therefore, we cannot consider these upcoming online sessions as legitimate spaces for meaningful discussions and dialogue between civil society and the Bank (which we consider critically necessary before an updated Energy Sector Strategy is approved), and as such, we will be demonstrating this collective conviction through our absence from these consultations. Going forward, we sincerely hope that future consultations on AIIB policies and strategies will reflect a more thoughtful, meaningful, inclusive process with full consideration of the diversity of civil society groups across sectors and regions. Looking ahead, we would also urge the AIIB to shift forthcoming public consultations from the virtual sphere to in-person discussions as soon as possible, enabling a much greater level of participation and engagement of groups informed by on-the-ground realities in communities across borrowing member countries. We look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, BRICS Feminist Watch (Global) Gender Action (Global) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Global) International Accountability Project (Global) International Rivers (Global) Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Global) Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice (Indonesia) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (Bangladesh) Both ENDS (Netherlands) Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (Philippines) Centre for Financial Accountability (India) Civic Advisory Hub (Uganda) Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (Bangladesh) Defenders Protection Initiative (Uganda) Environics Trust (India) Equitable Cambodia (Cambodia) Freedom from Debt Coalition (Philippines) Friends of the Earth US (USA) Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina) Green Alternative (Georgia) GrowthWatch (India) Indian Social Action Forum (India) Initiative for Right View (Bangladesh) Just Finance International (Netherlands and Denmark) KRuHA - People's Coalition for the Right to Water (Indonesia) Manushya Foundation (Laos, Thailand) Nash Vek PF (Kyrgyzstan) NGO “Youth Group on Protection of Environment” (Tajikistan) Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union (Azerbaijan) Oyu Tolgoi Watch (Mongolia) Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (Pakistan) Recourse (Netherlands) Rivers without Boundaries (Mongolia) Sustentarse (Chile) Urgewald e.V. (Germany) VedvarendeEnergi (Denmark) Arab Watch Coalition (MENA Region) Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (Regional) Building and Wood Workers International - Asia Pacific (Regional) CEE Bankwatch Network (Regional) EarthRights International (Regional) Latinoamérica Sustentable (Regional) NGO Forum on ADB (Regional) Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (Regional) Download PDF version here.

  • AIIB response regarding the Extended Deadline for Public Input on the AIIB Energy Sector Strategy

    Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank's (AIIB) response to 'AIIB’s Extended Deadline for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update' letter. Download PDF version here.

  • Re: AIIB’s Virtual Consultation Sessions on the Energy Sector Strategy Update

    21st June 2022 To: Mr. Jin Liqun, President, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, V.P. and Corporate Secretary, AIIB Sir Danny Alexander, V.P., Policy and Strategy, AIIB Mr. Bob Pickard, D.G., Communications Department, AIIB – Via Email – Dear AIIB President Jin Liqun, Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, Sir Danny Alexander, and Mr. Bob Pickard: We appreciate the announcement that the AIIB will open up virtual consultation sessions during different time zones in relation to the proposed updates to the Energy Sector Strategy. However, with all due respect, the limited set-up of regionally focused 1.5-hour sessions and subsequent 1-hour thematic sessions scheduled over the coming two weeks fails to reflect minimal standards for an inclusive, meaningful and accountable process as already called for repeatedly by civil society organizations representing local, national, regional and international constituencies.[1] Notably, the format as outlined on the AIIB website falls far short of the standard practices for public consultation on policy matters already followed by peer MDBs (such as the Asian Development Bank). Instead, this highly compressed set of online discussions has been announced with little prior notice, without any appended guiding concept note or background documents, no proposed structure and no suggested agenda for any of the sessions. There is also no indication of who from the Bank will join in order to receive and accordingly respond to questions raised during each session. In addition, the grouping of different regions in the first set of four general consultations does not appear to have any practical rationale. This is most especially concerning in light of the heavily concentrated investments in the energy sector, and the need to allocate time for civil society groups to engage in a dialogue with AIIB management based on lived experiences and realities grounded in specific country contexts. Finally, we also understand that there will not be simultaneous translation into major regional languages, meaning that participants who do wish to raise questions other than in English will have no guarantee of when or how they can receive a response. In order to engage in a more inclusive, meaningful and accountable process for public consultation that would encourage open discussion and dialogue, we urge the AIIB management to at a minimum: Extend the timeline for the consultations, rescheduling the sessions to allow more time between each thematic discussion, and accordingly extend the period for public comment during this time; Publish a clear online timeline of the Energy Sector Strategy approval process (e.g. inclusive of the public consultation period, expected timing to go to the Board for discussion, any re-drafting and final approval); Extend the timing of the sessions with built in flexibility up to 2 hours; Provide an outline of proposed agendas for each session; Identify who will attend from the AIIB to receive comments; Provide clear information on the structure of the proposed sessions and the web platform to be used; Provide background documents to inform each session in advance of the sessions, including – but not limited to – summaries of the Complaints-resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (CEIU) learning assessments as referenced in the proposed text of the update to the Energy Sector Strategy; Commit to simultaneous translation in major applicable languages, and Commit to publishing an online a summary of comments received during each session along with specific responses from the Bank’s management Going forward, we sincerely hope the AIIB management will take further steps towards opening more inclusive, accountable and meaningful consultation periods with full consideration for civil society perspectives from across its membership at the outset of future policy revision processes. We continue to engage in good faith and look forward to a timely response. Thank you. Respectfully, Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (Bangladesh) Both ENDS (Netherlands) Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (Philippines) Centre for Financial Accountability (India) Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (Bangladesh) Equitable Cambodia (Cambodia) Environics Trust (India) GrowthWatch (India) Indian Social Action Forum (India) Initiative for Right View (Bangladesh) Manushya Foundation (Laos, Thailand) Nash Vek (Kyrgyz Republic) Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union (Azerbaijan) Recourse (Netherlands) urgewald e.V. (Germany) Youth Group for the Protection of the Environment (Tajikistan) BRICS Feminist Watch (Global) International Accountability Project (Global) Just Finance International (Global) Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Global) Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (Global) EarthRights International (Global) Gender Action (Global) Arab Watch Coalition (Regional) Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (Regional) CEE Bankwatch Network (Regional) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives — Asia Pacific (Regional) Latinoamérica Sustentable (Regional) NGO Forum on ADB (Regional) [1] See for example, the communications to the AIIB endorsed by local, national, regional and international CSOs posted online since January 2022. Download PDF Version here.

  • CSOs from across the Asian Region urge the ADB to stop financing false climate & energy solutions

    Manila – Civil society groups from across Asia are condemning the Asian Development Bank’s Asia Clean Energy Forum 2022, hosted from June 14-17th, as failing to provide a platform for discussion about real climate and energy solutions grounded in science and the lived realities of the region’s diverse communities. To highlight critical concerns about the ADB’s proposed and current energy investments, a range of events are being organized online and in person by community groups and their allies. Today, the NGO Forum on ADB is hosting an online press conference featuring representatives from groups based in Southeast and Central Asia and the Caucasus to speak about the need for the ADB to support decentralized, appropriately scaled, distributed variable renewable energy, and to pull back from sinking limited funds into risky resource intensive energy ventures that are neither clean nor just. In Manila, an in-person convergence will be coordinated by the Power 4 People (P4P) Coalition on the morning of June 17th, bringing together local and regional organizations united in the call issued to the ADB to stop financing false solutions. Details of the event location and timing will be disclosed separately. “We recognize this year at ACEF, though the ADB has made an effort to focus on support for ‘green’ energy technologies, it has been dominated by private sector proponents and by discussions about technologies that are neither ‘clean’ nor economically, socially or environmentally sound. As civil society organizations mobilizing and organizing for a rights based, lasting, inclusive, just transition, we are adamant that power must be wrested in the public domain, ensuring meeting people’s’ rights to water, land, territory and other resources are not only prioritized, but set as non-negotiable,” explained Tanya Lee Roberts-Davis, Energy Campaigns and Policy Strategist with the NGO Forum on ADB. “Net-zero should not be misconceived as real-zero. Short-sighted technocratic fixes such as carbon capture schemes are not a substitute for simply making the rapid and needed shift to invest in forward looking clean energy sources. Meanwhile, we are concerned the highly touted Energy Transition Mechanism risks creating a situation whereby the public may be forced to accept a heavy toll on their health, the environment and climate, while coal companies will have the greenlight to continue to turn a profit over the course of several years during which the ADB and other donors sponsor the project’s retirement,” she continued. As asserted by Yobel Putra, of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific: “ACEF 2022 is not getting better as it adds more false solutions to the list. For years, ADB has insisted that waste-to-energy incineration is a renewable energy source and a low-carbon solution. However, the world knows that plastic is on track to become a bigger climate problem than coal. Burning municipal solid waste — especially when it contains plastics — is dirtier than coal-fired power plant in every aspects. In addition to the highly toxic emission and ash, WTE incineration is amongst the dirtiest energy sources on the grid both in the U.S. and the E.U.. Substituting one form of dirty fossil fuel with another and claiming it as renewable is greenwashing. Worse, ADB’s suggestion to couple its climate harming projects with carbon capture technology is a huge distraction. Our time is running out, ADB should stop becoming a climate criminal before it is too late.” Andrey Ralev from CEE Bankwatch added: “The biodiversity and climate crisis can and must be addressed together. We fully support the upscaling of investments in renewable energy, but this should not be at the cost of biodiversity loss. The lack of strategic planning and cumulative impact assessment means that many hydro, wind and solar projects in the ADB pipeline are wrongly placed. The Zarafshan wind power project, for example, could lead to the extinction of the globally endangered saker falcon and Egyptian vulture.” In the Philippines and Southeast Asia, the recent Financing a Fossil Future report from the Manila based think-tank Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) found that ADB is among notable public financiers helping bankroll the fossil gas industry in the region since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. Alarmingly, 84% of total financing for midstream gas projects mapped in the report were found to have been linked to public financial institutions. As Avril de Torres from CEED asserted: “It took 12 years for ADB to recognize that financing coal goes against the development it claims it wants to achieve for the Asia-Pacific region. By keeping the door open for fossil gas, however, ADB is sustaining its dirty energy legacy, merely switching from one fuel to another in dooming the region to climate catastrophe.” “ADB is also forcing grave economic burdens on our people - spiking gas prices as exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine war are a warning sign against massive fossil gas expansion, if we wish to veer away from vulnerability to volatile fuel costs. If it hopes to become a genuine climate and development bank, we see no other path for ADB to take than working with Asia-Pacific peoples to advance renewables," she concluded

  • Beyond ACEF 2022: Challenging the ADB to Stop Financing False Climate and Energy Solutions

    Over the course of this week’s Asia Clean Energy Forum, hosted virtually by the Asian Development Bank, we have been alarmed by the absolute absence of space available to take into account the perspectives of peoples’ organizations representing the very communities and workers across the region whose livelihoods are at stake when ‘green’ energy infrastructure investments move forward. ADB’s Energy Portfolio: Yet to be Overhauled? We appreciate ADB President Masatsugu Asakawa’s assertion that an “overhaul of the energy sector” is needed, and ADB Energy Sector Group Chief Priyantha Wijayatunga’s acknowledgement that Paris alignment of financing means making all efforts to keep global heating below 1.5C. However, the fact remains that the ADB introduced a new Energy Policy in October last year which – despite ruling out investments in coal and coal-related infrastructure – still explicitly enables financing for the build up of carbon-intensive oil and gas dependent infrastructure, including LNG terminals, toxic waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration, the development of new hydropower projects, and vastly expensive fossil fuel dependent carbon capture ventures. We note that according to the ADB website, the Bank appears to be considering financing for the 280MW Nenskra Hydropower Project in Georgia, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Gas Pipeline Project, the Rokia 120MW Combined Gas Cycle Project in India, and a carbon capture scheme in collaboration with the Indian Oil Corporation, along with investments in companies with fossil fuel heavy portfolios via financial intermediary facilities. All of these projects, along with large-scale wind and solar schemes, such as the 500MW Zarafshan Wind Power Project in Uzbekistan, raise serious concerns among local, regional and international civil society groups. Beyond project financing, we also remain concerned about the impacts of ADB’s technical assistance to local and national governments – intended to spur on policy reforms and infrastructure developments – including potentially dire violations of human rights and ecological integrity. Examples include: ADB’s recently completed technical assistance for Sri Lanka providing advice on the build-out of infrastructure needed for a new liquified natural gas (LNG) facility – despite the reality that the current energy and socio-economic crises are specifically connected to heavy reliance on imported and highly volatile sources of fossil fuel energy sources, and ADB’s technical assistance for project preparation of a waste-to-energy facility in Cebu, Philippines – that has contributed to undermining national legal frameworks on solid waste management, clean air, and renewable energy as well as international commitments. Accordingly, it remains an open question as to how the ADB will proceed in overhauling its own implementation of policies, projects as well as technical assistance in the direction of a clean energy transition. Whether they will commit to a rights-based framework that upholds climate science as per recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for limiting global warming to 1.5C and avoids exacerbating borrowing country’s levels of indebtedness is yet to be seen. ACEF 2022: Private Sector Promotion of Plans Backed by the Fossil Fuel Lobby We have seen how this year’s focus at the Asian Clean Energy Forum on “Innovative and Integrated Solutions For a Low-Carbon And Resilient Future” has meant that private sector proponents have had the floor to promote infrastructure build-out for risky, speculative and resource-intensive technologies in the name of “Net Zero” pathways, prolonging the shift away from reliance on carbon-intensive systems, such as via carbon capture and storage for oil and gas as well as WTE operations, along with large-scale green/blended hydrogen production and transport ventures. We remain highly cognizant that key actors behind such a push for a ‘hydrogen society’ and for the expansion of carbon capture schemes are oil and gas companies, as by design, they are the ones who will reap the profit of prolonged reliance on fossil fuels. In this regard, we reiterate our collective assertion to the ADB that the surest way to tackle economic, climate and energy injustice, and to support a rights-based pathway that aims to avoid overshooting 1.5C, would be to pivot entirely away from systems that are carbon and resource intensive as well as heavy greenhouse gas emitters. We recall here the dire warnings of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, clearly pronouncing the narrow window left to avoid catastrophic global warming, and the IPCC’s suggestion that the best chance we have of limiting warming would rely on limited or no use of engineered carbon capture technologies. Carbon capture has already been exposed as a failed technology over decades of piloting, with systematically poor CO2 capture rates, incurring exorbitant increases in construction costs that are passed on in the cost of energy. Meanwhile, the infrastructure build-out needed to transport carbon and inject it into storage sites requires vast areas of land, risking dispossessing rural, peri-urban or Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Likewise, ‘green’ hydrogen made through the electrolysis of renewable energy is reliant on large-scale solar or wind farms that require onerous uses of local water and land resources. Ultimately then, it is far more economical and efficient for energy to be sourced directly from RE sources, appropriately scaled and designed to meet the needs of the communities it is intended to serve. It is also clear that any proposal to blend green hydrogen with blue or gray hydrogen would by default mean reverting to reliance on fossil fuels. There is no reason for the ADB to consider sinking scarce public resources into technocratic pathways that will delay the needed energy transition. Indeed, despite the Bank’s apparent preparedness to scale up climate financing, we await clear time bound commitments related to phasing out oil and gas reliant infrastructure and other climate-misaligned investments, including toxic waste-to-energy projects and large-scale hydropower projects. In this regard, we remind the ADB of their outstanding commitment to open up a period of consultation on forthcoming draft guidance notes that are intended to provide staff with criteria for screening investments in fossil gas, hydropower and waste-to-energy projects to civil society groups as outlined in the 2021 Energy Policy. Sidelined from ACEF 2022: Indigenous Peoples from Across the Region Notably absent from official ACEF sessions has been any perspective on locally relevant innovative energy systems being developed by Indigenous Peoples’ communities across the region. Nor has there been any clear attempt to remain cognizant throughout the ACEF conference of ensuring there is Free, Prior and Informed Consent from all project affected communities as part of an iterative process.This is particularly alarming given the reality that many of the energy systems discussed, including floating photovoltaic schemes, carbon capture, and hydrogen projects, could end up encroaching on ancestral domains or dispossessing people of their homes and livelihoods. Indeed, from the outset, before developers consider carrying out biodiversity sensitivity mapping as advanced by the ADB for solar and wind projects, it is imperative to ensure communities have had the time to come to a consensus on whether (or not) they agree to the project development, and that their decision to grant or withhold consent is accordingly respected. Furthermore, any plans to avoid bird flight paths or biodiversity hotspots when building such projects need to be ground-truthed by the intergenerational knowledge of local communities. Energy Transition Mechanism: Climate Credentials and Claims in Support of Just Transition Remain in Question Finally, in relation to the ADB’s Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM), which has been referenced in several ACEF sessions, we note that to date, this market-oriented scheme to retire coal projects has been characterized by a lack of transparency and has as of yet, failed to meaningfully take into account the perspectives of community-based and workers’ federations grounded in specific local and country contexts. In fact, there are no concrete commitments to ensure the ETM scheme will uphold UN and ILO Conventions (including ILO Convention 169) or the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, nor assurances that comprehensive financing for the coal power projects targeted for retirement will be available to ensure site clean-up, land reclamation as well as reparations and redress for harms wrought on communities and workers. As a market-driven initiative, the Energy Transition Mechanism by design is intended to ensure investors earn a return while supporting coal operators to retire power plants over the course of 10-15 years, despite the fact that technically these plants could be replaced by lower cost new renewable energy projects. In effect, this means that the ETM risks far overshooting the nationally required targets to uphold a 1.5C trajectory, therefore blocking countries from aligning with the Paris Agreement goals. It also means that the ETM as it stands, will inherently burden local communities with heavy social costs. In fact, the support for a just transition under the ETM and development of ‘clean’ projects do not come along with any clear financing component nor any guarantees that fossil gas projects will not be built as part of the process. We are also concerned that the blended finance modality used to support the roll out of the ETM effectively means it will be difficult for affected communities to access grievance mechanisms and seek accountability. Conclusions: Beyond ADB’s Asia Clean Energy Forum 2022 Moving forward from this year’s Asia Clean Energy Forum, we reiterate our call on the ADB Management and Board to consciously pivot away from financing false climate and energy solutions. Decisions taken in this regard not only will have real impacts on peoples’ livelihoods across the region, but will also determine if the pathway followed is one which will hasten – or undermine – progress towards a just, inclusive, sustainable and rights-based transition. Regardless, we assure the ADB that civil society groups remain attentive to the plans advanced for green (and not-so-green) energy investments, ready to hold the Bank accountable – as for us, at stake is the stark reality of who may live and who may perish in the years ahead. Submitted by the NGO Forum on ADB along with the following local, national and international organizations: Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice (Indonesia) Balkani Wildlife Society (Bulgaria) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (Bangladesh) CEE Bankwatch Network (Georgia) Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (Philippines) Centre for Financial Accountability (India) Centre for Human Rights and Development (Mongolia) Change Initiative (Bangladesh) Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (Bangladesh) Collective for Energy Justice (India) Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (India) Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (Nepal) EarthRights International (USA) Environics Trust (India) Freedom from Debt Coalition (Philippines) Green Advocates International (Liberia) Growthwatch (India) Indian Social Action Forum (India) Indigenous Women’s Legal Awareness Group (Nepal) Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (Japan) KRuHA - People's Coalition for the Right to Water (Indonesia) Mekong Watch (Japan) Nash Vek Public Foundation (Kyrgyzstan) Progressive Plantation Workers Union (India) Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union (Azerbaijan) Oyu Tolgoi Watch (Mongolia) Recourse (Netherlands) Rivers without Boundaries Coalition (Mongolia) urgewald e.V. (Germany) Youth Group on Protection of Environment (Tajikistan) BRICS Feminist Watch (Global) Programme on Women's Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Global) International Accountability Project (Global) Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (Regional) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific (Regional) 350 Pilipinas 350.Org (Asia) Download PDF version here.

  • AIIB’s Extended Deadline for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update

    13th June 2022 To: Mr. Jin Liqun, President, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, V.P. and Corporate Secretary, AIIB Sir Danny Alexander, V.P., Policy and Strategy, AIIB Mr. Bob Pickard, D.G., Communications Department, AIIB – Via Email – Dear AIIB President Jin Liqun, Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, Sir Danny Alexander, and Mr. Bob Pickard: We appreciate the decision to extend the duration of the period for public comment on the proposed updates to the Energy Sector Strategy. However, with all due respect, we urge the AIIB to make this one month reflective of a more inclusive, meaningful process taking into account the global reach of the Bank’s current membership. As previously elaborated, this would include namely: Scheduling interactive discussion sessions with civil society in different languages, including listening directly to people already affected by AIIB’s energy sector investments and considering their recommendations for moving forward, Scheduling time to discuss concerns related to particular types of projects or about regional/country contexts, and Accepting submissions in major operating languages of member countries (i.e. not English only, including for example: Arabic, Bahasa, Bengali, Hindi, Nepali, Russian, Spanish and Thai). Given the constrained time frame available, at a minimum, we urge you to schedule separate sessions on the following (with translations and different time zone options): Fossil fuel financing and alignment with the Paris Climate Accord (1.5C Pathway) Financing new /expansion hydropower project schemes (in contrast to renewable energy systems needed for a just and sustainable transition) Gendered implications and considerations related to project financing under the Energy Sector Strategy, including universal energy access We look forward to a timely response. Thank you. Respectfully, Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice (Indonesia) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (Bangladesh) Both ENDS (Netherlands) Centre for Financial Accountability (India) Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (Philippines) Civic Advisory Hub (Uganda) Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (Bangladesh) Committee for the Cancellation of Third World Debt (India) Defenders Protection Initiative (Uganda) Environics Trust (India) Environmental Public Alliance (Armenia) Equitable Cambodia (Cambodia) Freedom from Debt Coalition (Philippines) Friends of the Earth US (USA) Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina) Gender Action (USA) GrowthWatch (India) Indian Social Action Forum (India) Initiative for Right View (Bangladesh) KRuHA - People's Coalition for the Right to Water (Indonesia) Manushya Foundation (Laos & Thailand) Mekong Watch (Japan) Nash Vek (Kyrgyz Republic) Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union (Azerbaijan) Oyu Tolgoi Watch (Mongolia) Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (Pakistan) Recourse (Netherlands) Rivers without Boundaries (Mongolia) Sustentarse (Chile) Urgewald e.V. (Germany) VedvarendeEnergi (Denmark) Youth Group for the Protection of the Environment (Tajikistan) 350 Pilipinas (Philippines) Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables /Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies (Argentina) BRICS Feminist Watch (Global) Inclusive Development International (Global) International Accountability Project (Global) International Rivers (Global) Just Finance International (Global) Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Global) Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (Global) 350.org Asia (Regional) Arab Watch Regional Coalition (Regional) Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (Regional) Building and Wood Workers International - Asia Pacific (Regional) CEE Bankwatch (Regional) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific (Regional) Latinoamérica Sustentable (Regional) NGO Forum on ADB (Regional) Download PDF version here.

  • Grupos de la sociedad civil descartan las consultas en línea del Banco Asiático de Inversión

    Grupos de la sociedad civil descartan las consultas en línea del Banco Asiático de Inversión en Infraestructura por no ser ni significativas ni inclusivas 19 de mayo, 2022 Grupos de la sociedad civil de Asia, Europa y América Latina están organizando la primera salida virtual durante una sesión sobre la futura dirección del financiamiento del sector energético del Banco Asiático de Inversión en Infraestructura (BAII). El BAII se encuentra cursando en el proceso de actualización de su Estrategia del Sector Energético de 2018, y ha invitado al público a comentar sobre un borrador propuesto entre el 8 de abril y el 3 de junio. Sin embargo, la sesión de consulta en línea de hoy (de una hora de duración), junto con una sesión similar programada para mañana (también de una hora de duración) , son los únicos espacios de tiempo que el banco ha abierto para que grupos de todo el mundo planteen sus preguntas e inquietudes directamente al personal, durante el transcurso del período de consulta de ocho semanas, lo cual no da tiempo suficiente para un involucramiento o una discusión significativa. Tanya Roberts-Davis, estratega de políticas de energía y campañas de NGO Forum on ADB explicó: "Es absolutamente imperativo que el BAII, una institución financiera internacional que financia proyectos de infraestructura a gran escala con un impacto significativo en las personas, las economías y el medio ambiente en todo el mundo, participe en un proceso transparente, inclusivo y públicamente responsable para actualizar su marco estratégico guía de sus futuras inversiones en energía. De hecho, según cálculos propios del banco, el sector energético recibe casi un tercio de la financiación para proyectos. Sin embargo, solo ahora, después de repetidos llamados de grupos de la sociedad civil a la gerencia del banco, y apenas dos semanas antes de que finalice el período para que el público envíe sus aportes, estamos siendo 'invitados' a espacios de una hora para presentar breves comentarios sobre el borrador de la Estrategia del Sector Energético actualizada. Nos negamos a considerar una plataforma tan restrictiva como un espacio para discusiones, diálogos y debates genuinos, significativos e inclusivos”. El grupo de organizaciones de diversos sectores sociales tomó la decisión de sumarse a la sesión de consulta del BAII programada para hoy para leer un comunicado colectivo de denuncia, antes de realizar una salida masiva de la sesión como protesta en línea. Otros transmitirán un mensaje similar al boicotear el proceso por completo. Como afirmó Vidya Dinker de Indian Social Action Forum: “Estamos tentados a ser tan desdeñosos con el proceso del BAII como lo ha sido el banco con cualquier principio de consulta significativa o debida diligencia. Sin embargo, nuestro compromiso de elevar las preocupaciones de las comunidades afectadas y hacer que el BAII rinda cuentas, significa que estaremos allí hoy para decir claramente una vez más lo que hemos dicho antes al banco- llamarlos y afirmar que estas 'consultas' simbólicas no pueden ser utilizadas para legitimar lo que ha sido un proceso extremadamente apático e irrespetuoso. Cualquier Estrategia del Sector Energético actualizada que BAII adopte sin la debida corrección será inaceptable y en discrepancia con las obligaciones que se han auto establecido”. Maia Seeger de Sustentarse en Chile explicó además: “El BAII apenas está comenzando a financiar proyectos de energía en América Latina. A lo largo de los años, nuestros países en esta región se han visto afectados por el desarrollo de megainfraestructura energética realizada sin la debida consulta, con enormes impactos en los pueblos indígenas, las comunidades y el medio ambiente. Por lo tanto, estamos muy preocupados por los recursos que el BAII asignará para expandir los megaproyectos de energía en la región, por ejemplo, si incluirá plantas de hidrógeno verde con uso intensivo de recursos en Chile. A la luz de las malas prácticas que hemos visto con respecto a los procesos de consulta del BAII hasta la fecha, solo podemos esperar que las inversiones conduzcan a un aumento de los conflictos socioambientales en el futuro”. Nora Sausmikat de Urgewald en Alemania, afirmó: "Como banco multilateral con calificación triple A dedicado a financiar la 'infraestructura del mañana', los accionistas y la gerencia no deben ceñirse a tecnologías obsoletas que provocan crisis. Es hora de escuchar a la ciencia y a la gente, como se ha pedido durante los últimos seis años. ¡La actualización de la Estrategia del Sector Energético debe tener en cuenta las voces de la gente – ahora – y de manera significativa!” Mayang Azurin de Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific profundizó: “Instamos al BAII a resolver las flagrantes inconsistencias en las prácticas de inversión en su apoyo actual a proyectos de conversión de residuos en energía. Es hora de que el BAII descarte el apoyo directo e indirecto para esta tecnología tóxica y de alto consumo de carbono, ya sea como una forma de generación de energía o de gestión de residuos y la excluya claramente de la elegibilidad para el financiamiento bajo la Estrategia del Sector Energético actualizada. De acuerdo con este posicionamiento, instamos a la Junta a reconsiderar cualquier apoyo adicional para los proyectos residuos en energía actualmente financiados en las Maldivas y Turquía. Además, el BAII debe evitar seguir involucrándose en futuras inversiones en el sector retirando de inmediato el financiamiento propuesto para proyectos residuos en energía a través de préstamos de intermediarios financieros a China Everbright Limited. Seamos claros, dicho apoyo socava no sólo las ambiciones nacionales de seguir una trayectoria energética baja en carbono, sino también los compromisos internacionales de prohibir la producción de los mismos contaminantes que emiten los proyectos de conversión de residuos en energía, contaminando el aire, el suelo y el agua, de lo cual depende nuestra supervivencia." Para el grupo de expertos en el Centro para la Energía, la Ecología y el Desarrollo (CEED) en Filipinas, una consulta genuina con las partes interesadas y los expertos debería guiar al BAII hacia direcciones financieras alineadas con el clima que no tengan preferencia por los combustibles fósiles. Gerry Arances de CEED enfatizó además que: "En su Estrategia del Sector Energético 2022 propuesta, el BAII promueve el mito del gas fósil y el supuesto papel del GNL como combustible de transición para Asia, e incluso como contribuyente a la seguridad energética. Pero la expansión masiva del gas trae consigo una auge del metano que hará que no alcancemos nuestros objetivos climáticos y provocará precios de la electricidad más costosos incluso cuando ya se encuentran en su punto más alto. una política firme para deshacerse del gas fósil y centrarse en las energías renovables. Más aún, el BAII debe abordar las brechas evidentes en la implementación de su política que conducen a inversiones que contradicen directamente sus propios compromisos con el Acuerdo de París". Haciéndose eco de este sentimiento, Kate Geary de Recourse (Reino Unido/Países Bajos) concluyó: “En un momento en que el BAII se ha comprometido a alinear sus inversiones con el Acuerdo de París sobre el Cambio Climático, es vital que el banco haga bien sus inversiones en energía. Esto significa abandonar los combustibles fósiles y apoyar la energía renovable sostenible para mejorar el acceso a la energía en toda Asia, especialmente para las comunidades pobres. Una verdadera consulta abriría un espacio para que los más afectados por el cambio climático compartan sus preocupaciones y propongan alternativas; en cambio, el BAII ha optado por cerrar efectivamente la puerta a su compromiso". Información de contexto: Se han presentado en varias ocasiones desde enero de 2022, varias cartas abiertas firmadas conjuntamente por organizaciones de la sociedad civil en Asia, Europa y América Latina han planteado preguntas y preocupaciones sobre el proceso del BAII para actualizar su Estrategia del Sector Energético. Se puede leer una muestra de estas cartas aquí: https://www.forum-adb.org/aiibcommunications Estas cartas han pedido al BAII que: Publique los borradores de la actualización de la Estrategia del Sector Energético propuesta en los principales idiomas de los miembros regionales y no regionales; Programe sesiones de discusión interactivas en línea para zonas horarias e idiomas diferentes Participe en discusiones enfocadas con grupos de la sociedad civil sobre los distintos tipos de inquietudes referentes a los proyectos (como el financiamiento de represas hidroeléctricas o proyectos de energía a gas), así como en contextos específicos de países donde las inversiones del sector energético del BAII se han concentrado más hasta la fecha; Aceptar aportes escritos en los principales idiomas de los países miembros; y Responder proactivamente a la variedad de inquietudes sobre el riesgo de represalias que experimentan los miembros de la comunidad que hablan abiertamente en las áreas afectadas por el proyecto. El comunicado completo de denuncia realizado por grupos de la sociedad civil al BAII durante la Sesión del 19 de mayo se puede leer aquí: https://www.forum-adb.org/post/collective-statement-for-the-energy-sector-strategy-update

  • Civil Society Groups Dismiss the AIIB’s Online Consultations As Neither Meaningful Nor Inclusive

    Civil society groups from across Asia, Europe and Latin America are staging the first ever virtual walk out during a session about the future direction of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) energy sector financing. The AIIB is currently in the process of updating its 2018 Energy Sector Strategy, and has invited public comment on a proposed draft between April 8th and June 3rd. However, today’s one hour online session together with a similar session scheduled for one hour tomorrow, are the only time slots the Bank has opened for groups from around the world to directly raise questions and concerns to staff over the course of the eight week consultation period, leaving no time for meaningful engagement and discussion. Tanya Roberts-Davis, Energy Policy and Campaigns Strategist from the NGO Forum on ADB explained: “It is absolutely imperative that the AIIB, an international financial institution bankrolling large-scale infrastructure projects that have significant impacts on people, economies and the environment across the entire range of borrowing member countries, engage in a transparent, inclusive, publicly accountable process for updating their strategic framework guiding future energy investments. Indeed, by the Bank’s own calculations, energy accounts for nearly one third of its project financing. Yet, only now – after repeated calls from civil society groups to the Bank’s management – and a mere two weeks before the end of the period of public input, are we being ‘invited’ to one hour time slots for submitting brief comments on the draft update of the Energy Sector Strategy. We refuse to consider such a restrictive platform as a space for genuine, meaningful, inclusive discussions, dialogue and debate.” The group of organizations from diverse social sectors made the decision to join the AIIB’s consultation session scheduled today in order to read out a collective statement of denunciation, before staging the online walk out, while others will convey a similar message by boycotting the process entirely. As Vidya Dinker from the Indian Social Action Forum affirmed: “We are tempted to be as dismissive of the AIIB’s process as the Bank has been of any principles of meaningful consultation or due diligence. However, our commitments to advancing the concerns of affected communities and to keep AIIB accountable mean we shall be there today to clearly say yet again what we have said before to the Bank - to call them out and state that these token ‘consultations’ cannot be used to legitimize what has been an extremely listless and disrespectful process. Any updated Energy Sector Strategy that AIIB adopts without due course correction will be unacceptable and at variance with their stated obligations.” Maia Seeger from Sustentarse in Chile further explained: “The AIIB is just beginning to finance energy projects in Latin America. Over the years, our countries in this region have been affected by the development of mega-energy infrastructure carried out without proper consultation, with huge impacts on Indigenous Peoples, communities and the environment. We are therefore highly concerned about the resources the AIIB will be allocating to expand mega-energy projects in the region, for instance, if it will include resource-intensive green hydrogen plants in Chile. In light of the malpractices we have seen regarding AIIB consultation processes to date, we can only expect the investments will lead to increasing socio- environmental conflicts in the future.” Nora Sausmikat from Urgewald, based in Germany, asserted: “As a triple A rating multilateral bank devoted to financing the ‘infrastructure of tomorrow” shareholders and the management should not stick to outdated crisis evoking technologies. It is time to listen to science and the people, as requested during the last six years. The updating of the Energy Sector Strategy needs to take into account the voices of the people – now – and in a meaningful manner!” Mayang Azurin from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific elaborated further: “We urge the AIIB to resolve the flagrant inconsistencies in investment practices in its current support to Waste-to-Energy (WTE) projects. It’s time for the AIIB to rule out direct and indirect support for this toxic and carbon-intensive technology either as a form of power generation or waste management, and clearly exclude it from eligibility for financing under the updated Energy Sector Strategy. In line with this positioning, we urge the Board to reconsider any further support for currently financed WTE projects in the Maldives and Turkey. In addition, the AIIB must avoid becoming further entangled in future investments in the sector by immediately withdrawing the proposed financing for WTE projects through financial intermediary on-lending to China Everbright Limited. Let’s be clear, such support undermines not only national ambitions to pursue a low-carbon energy trajectory but also international commitments to ban the production of the very pollutants that Waste-to-Energy projects emit, contaminating the air, soil and water our survival depends upon.” For the think-tank Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) in the Philippines, genuine consultation with stakeholders and experts should guide AIIB to climate-aligned financing directions that hold no preference for fossil fuels. Gerry Arances of CEED further emphasized that: "In its proposed 2022 Energy Sector Strategy, AIIB peddles the myth of fossil gas and LNG's supposed role as a transition fuel for Asia, and even as a contributor to energy security. But massive gas expansion brings a methane boom that will cause us to miss our climate goals, and will trigger more costly electricity prices even as they are already at an all-time-high. AIIB cannot boast of being ‘lean, clean, and green’ if it cannot even take a firm policy to divest from fossil gas and focus on renewable energy. More so, AIIB must address the glaring gaps in its policy implementation which lead to investments that directly contradict its own commitments to the Paris Agreement." Echoing this sentiment, Kate Geary from Recourse (UK/Netherlands) concluded: “At a time when the AIIB has committed to align its investments with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, it is vital that the bank gets its energy investments right. This means moving out of fossil fuels and into supporting sustainable renewable energy, to improve energy access across Asia, especially for poor communities. A true consultation would open space for those most affected by climate change to share their concerns and propose alternatives - instead AIIB has chosen to effectively close the door on their engagement." Background Information: Open letters jointly signed by civil society organizations across Asia, Europe and Latin America have raised questions and concerns about the AIIB’s process for updating its Energy Sector Strategy have been submitted on several occasions since January 2022. A sample of these letters can be read here. These letters have called for the AIIB to: Post translated draft texts of the proposed Energy Sector Strategy Update in major languages of regional and non-regional members; Schedule online interactive discussion sessions held in different time zones and languages Engage in focussed discussions with civil society groups on specific types of project related concerns (such as on financing for hydropower dams or gas power projects) as well in country-specific contexts where AIIB energy sector investments have been most concentrated to date; Accepting written input in major languages of member countries; and Proactively responding to the range of concerns about the risk of reprisals experienced by outspoken community members in project affected areas. The full statement of denunciation made by civil society groups to the AIIB during the May 19th Session can be read here.

  • Collective Statement For the Energy Sector Strategy Update

    From the outset, we want to be clear: we are present here for the purposes of conveying our collective denunciation of this online consultation. In no way do we consider this as a meaningful space for the expression of diverse civil society groups’ concerns related to the AIIB’s energy sector investments. From our perspectives, the period of public consultation should be considered a pivotal moment in the process of the Energy Sector Strategy update – not simply a tick-box exercise – most especially in light of the current context of compounded geopolitical, socio-economic, health, environmental, water and climate crises being experienced by populations across Asia and the Pacific, the Levant, Latin America, and Africa. Today we are therefore taking the opportunity to reiterate and reaffirm the calls made both in writing as well as during the AIIB’s ESS Update Information Session webinar last February, urging the Bank to provide assurances of an accountable, inclusive and transparent revision process by: scheduling online interactive discussion sessions held in different time zones and languages; engaging in focussed discussions with civil society groups on specific types of project related concerns as well in country-specific contexts where AIIB energy sector investments have been most concentrated to date; posting translated draft texts of the proposed Energy Sector Strategy Update in major languages of regional and non-regional members; accepting written input in major languages of member countries; providing transparent and clear language on the applicability of the Energy Sector Strategy to non-regional member states; and proactively responding to the range of concerns civil society groups have brought forward about the risk of reprisals experienced by outspoken community members in project affected areas. We have yet to receive a response from the AIIB addressing these points directly. As the project specific decisions made in the energy sector have significant long term repercussions for the future of people, economies and the environment across borrowing member countries, it is imperative for the Bank to engage in a transparent, inclusive, publicly accountable process for updating its strategic framework guiding future energy investments. Indeed, many of us have joined meetings in the past when we raised project-specific concerns about the AIIB’s recent and proposed investments in the energy sector, including mega-dams, gas power projects, and toxic waste-to-energy incineration technologies, explaining how they can end up implicated in human rights violations and undermining global climate ambitions. It is in this light that we refuse to consider this session today as a space for genuine, meaningful, inclusive discussions. If the AIIB management is serious about financing innovative, appropriately scaled renewable energy solutions and avoiding becoming branded as a laggard, we urge you to ensure the institution's investments neither undermine the spirit and aspirations of the Paris Agreement nor global ambitions for just energy transitions. Pursuing this way forward, however, would require a willingness to meaningfully engage, listen and take into account the views of communities and civil society groups raising questions about the AIIB’s current and prospective energy portfolio. It is in this context that we refuse to remain silent. Having provided you with this background, we are withdrawing from this platform today, in a position of collective denunciation.

  • Tackling ADB Financial Intermediary Investing: Why does it matter?

    There has been a significant clamor across multilateral development banks in “unlocking”, “catalyzing” and “mobilizing” private sector resources for development. In the case of ADB, this is embedded in its Strategy 2030 with a target that the bank will expand its private sector operations to reach one – third of its total operations in number by 2024. Emphasis is given on profitability, commercial sustainability and expansion in so – called new and frontier markets in the fragile, conflict and small island developing states. Financing modalities such as private equity funds to scale up public – private partnerships is one of the proposed mechanisms in mobilizing financial resources for development. Some of these projects are categorized as financial intermediary (FIs) or third party lending with limited ADB supervision. The shifts and changes in these new lending modalities have led to a more diverse portfolio which also poses more complex social and environmental risks and harm. Lack of information disclosure, accountability, meaningful consultation and risky sub – projects without adequate MDB oversight are some of the issues being raised by CSOs. As compared to the traditional lending modalities, there are a lot of unknown variables when dealing with financial intermediation. The World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation invests over half of its total portfolio in FIs. Inclusive Development International (IDI) and partners were uncovered more than 150 projects and companies funded by IFC intermediaries that are causing or are likely to cause serious environmental harms and human rights violations. There are valuable lessons that can be replicated from over a decade of campaigning by CSOs on financial intermediation on IFC and other MDBs to ADB. In 2019, a complaint was filed to ADB on a USD 400 million FI loan to support PPP projects including a road sub – project mired with various labor, occupational health and safety issues. The complaint was unfortunately deemed ineligible but this also served as a reminder for the Forum to take stock, have a better understanding on these lending modalities and ultimately strengthen its support to communities. Currently, ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement is being reviewed. One of the upcoming safeguards consultations pertain to “Safeguards in the Private Sector Operations” scheduled on June 21 - 22, 2022. Accordingly, CSOs are encouraged to present their perspectives on how ADB implements the environmental and social safeguards in private sector operations which include investment projects, funds channeled through financial intermediaries, corporations, equities, and guarantees. It is also part of the broader intent of this knowledge sharing activity to generate an initial consolidation of issues and position to take for the said consultation. Objectives: For social, economic, gender, environmental and climate justice advocates concerned about MDBs particularly ADB's opaque FI portfolio. To learn more on FI lending at ADB and other MDBs in terms of what worked and did not work. To serve as an initial platform to discuss broader ADB FI campaign building. Download the reading list here | Download program here | Answer Quick Pre-Session Questionnaire here

  • AIIB's Response: 'AIIB’s Call for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update'

    Dear Secretariat of NGO Forum on ADB and everyone: Thank you for your letter to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and for your comments on the public consultation on AIIB’s Energy Sector Strategy Update. AIIB strongly values public consultation as an integral process in updating its Energy Sector Strategy and as an important opportunity to hear feedback and suggestions from a wide range of stakeholders, including CSOs and NGOs. The public consultation of AIIB’s Energy Sector Strategy Update follows established practices and intends to be transparent, inclusive, and accountable. The consultation is also designed to ensure integrity by requesting for identifiable source of comments. AIIB commits to collate and duly consider all comments received during the public consultation and a summary of comments will be made publicly available. We sincerely encourage you to take full advantage of the consultation by submitting written comments and expressing your specific concerns on the draft strategy to essupdate@aiib.org. In addition, we will be holding two online sessions for CSOs in different time zones as platforms for you to directly communicate your comments and suggestions to the AIIB energy strategy team. Invitations with registration links will be distributed soon. We look forward to receiving your further feedback and suggestions on the draft of updated Energy Sector Strategy. Best regards, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Read AIIB’s Call for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update.

bottom of page