Search Results

Pakistan also failed to submit Intended Nationally Determined contributions (INDCs) before the Paris Agreement. So for in National and International interest the country needs to monitor coal power projects in Pakistan. Here is an overview of projects that destroys both the human lives and the environments in Pakistan: Thar II coal power plant For Thar II coal power project, the Government of Pakistan requested a $ 820m loan from China Development Bank and Construction Bank of China, at the rate of 3.3 pc and produce electricity at the rate of 9.5 cent per unit. The unit price is high in all South Asian country as well in Pakistan. Power plant is critical in nature and has many environmental issues. A 95.5 sp km mining area will create air pollution. Gojra-Shorkot-Khanwal Motorway In the construction of this highway, the government is displacing 36 villages, cutting off 60000 trees and spoiling 62 km of agriculture land. In its second phase Shorkot to Khanewal a 64 km agricultural land will be destroyed and will affect of hundreds of small land owner. This section is co financed by the ADB and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) the first project of the two banks in Pakistan. Port Qasim coal power plant The Pakistan Port Qasim Power Project is a 1,320 megawatt construction that comprises two 606 megawatt supercritical coal power plants[1], which have been under construction since May of last year (2015) as part of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The project is destroying a huge coastal area of Pakistan and ‘making land’ for project in the sea via reclamation. This project is also a threat for environment as well as the coastal life. Sahiwal coal power plant The Sahiwal Coal Power Project is a coal power plant project 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) to the northeast of Sahiwal in Pakistan's Province which is currently under construction, the 1320 MW coal plant is being financed by Chinese banks. The planned project is located on most agricultural land of Pakistan and is 1,400 km away from the sea and would require the construction of a railway line to transport imported coal for supply. There are no EIA and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) filed due diligence procedures in fact the EIA is the most confidential document of this project. Water scarcity will become a serious problem as the Plant will use around 23 lac cubic ft irrigation water for its operation. So there is an immense need to advocate for sustainable and environment friendly projects in Pakistan by China and Other IFI’s. There is a need to deepen our understanding of Chinese banks and IFI’s policies and relevant governmental decision-makers of projects financed by these banks, and the level of environmental and social impacts and safeguards essential to the sustainable survival of local communities. Coal-based power plants MUST qualify and should be ADMISSIBLE under the joint implementation and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) rules and Paris agreement to earn carbon credits. [1] http://english.cec.org.cn/No.106.1550.htm

Even before the 49th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Governors Meeting (AGM) ended, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and ADB already announced that they would jointly finance a major new highway in Pakistan. The project would be a 64-kilometre-long stretch of the M4 highway that will connect Shorkot to Khanewal in Pakistan's Punjab province. In an article by Reuters, AIIB President Jin Liqun stated that he is delighted to take a step forward in their partnership with ADB through this project. He also added that the AIIB is looking forward into deepening the already strong relationship with the bank and expand the collaboration as they seek to address the significant infrastructure financing needs of the Asia region. The M4 highway will begin at the termination of the M3 (Connects the M-2 Motorway (near Pindi Bhattian) to Faisalabad and the M-4 Motorway) at the Sargodha Road Interchange on the northern outskirts of Faisalabad. It will continue on a southwest course connecting the cities of Faisalabad, Gojra, Toba Tek Singh, Shorkot, Abdul Hakeem, Khanewal, and Multan. Once at Khanewal, it will merge onto the N5 temporarily until the M5 is complete. The M4 Highway will have three sections: Faisalabad-Gojra 58 km Gojra-Shorkot 62 km Shorkot-Din Pur-Khanewal 64 km The project cost is around $273 million and is expected to connect other highways, which will connect the cities of Faisalabad and Multan. Whereas two large bridges will be constructed on the River Ravi and Sadhnai Canal. *Sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/pakistan-aiib-idUSL5N17N0Z2 http://conpaper.tistory.com/4027 #Pakistan #Highway #M4 #AsianDevelopmentBank #ADB #AsianInfrastructureInvestmentBank #AIIB #SouthAsia Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

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.

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.

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.

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

​​The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been a major funder of coal power plants – funding over $1.69 billion since 2007. Last 2013, they have given out a loan amounting to US$30.00 M that aims to provide cheap, reliable power to a region that has struggled with power outages. The new 1,200-megawatt Jamshoro power plant came without the support of the U.S. government citing “significant, grave and lasting negative impacts that coal [has] on the environment.” But despite the absence of the US vote, ADB still pushed through the project because of the acute power shortages of up to 20 hours a day that have crippled the economic growth of the country. It was said to be a contributing factor to the unemployment and social unrest across the country Pakistan. According to the project brief, the coal-fired generation unit is the first in the country to use supercritical boiler technology. It was built at an existing power plant in the town of Jamshoro in Sindh province, about 150 kilometres east of the provincial capital, Karachi. ADB also claimed that it is employing state of the art emission control equipment resulting in “cleaner emissions than the existing heavy fuel oil-fired generators and subcritical boiler technology which is more commonly used.” However, a lot of people think that this project is not a good idea since the country has already begun to feel the effects of climate change. One of them is Khawar Mumtaz, the chairperson of the National Commission on the Status of Women, “Women in the region serve not only as workers but as primary caregivers to their families. Because they must walk farther distances to fetch water and collect wood, they have less time for their families and friends, and more often end up with health issues because of it”. In a report by Emily Atkin of Thinkprogress.org, the women in Sindh –the south-east part of the country have been “socialising less, walking further, and encountering health issues due to shortages in fuelwood and fresh water”. These changes were attributed to climate change since weather patterns and intensity of heat and cold have changed working patterns of people, especially female farmers. There are around 42 million women farmers in Pakistan, most of them have replaced substantive cropping with cash crops. This also made them replace natural fertilisers to chemicals, pesticides and hybrid seeds. Forests were replaced with banana cultivation, and dams resulted in the decrease of fish. Though the coal plant seems to be a sign of hope for most people since ADB under its Energy Policy 2009 have been selectively supporting new coal-based power plants in its developing member countries after a careful consideration of alternate scenarios, but it is still an omen of climate issues that will come after because the process is still burning coal. SOURCES: http://www.adb.org/projects/47094-001/main#project-pds http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/12/12/adb-approves-900m-loan-for-pakistan-coal-plant-but-will-it-be-the-last/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3042521/adb-pakistan-coal-plant/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/29/3005311/climate-change-hurting-pakistans-women/ PHOTO CREDITS: http://dailytimes.com.pk/static/uploads/original/three-year-lapse-jamshoro-coal-power-project-seeks-government-attention-007befdfa5cbf3895817fe6f08ce1a18.jpg #CoalPlant #ADB #Pakistan Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

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.

“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.

A month after the 49th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Governors Meeting (AGM) in Frankfurt, the project-affected communities of the Cambodian Railway Rehabilitation Project still awaits action regarding the response given by President Takehiko Nakao in the query that was posted by one of the complainants. Sim Pov, a high school teacher and a representative from Battambang, a Cambodian Railway Rehabilitation Project affected community gave out his statement and humbly asked President Nakao to respond and aid their situation. Mr. Sim Pov, flew 9,229 km to ask President Nakao for his help on the following: Displacement and the need for livelihood for the people who were relocated. People in resettlement areas are now in dire condition because the sites where they were placed have no livelihood opportunities, poor water and and road infrastructure, and has very little job opportunity. As a result, project-affected families fell into heavy indebtedness because of the poorly implemented resettlement process. A 2013 independent review of the resettlement commissioned by ADB( put the hyperlink on CRP recommendations on the project), found out that many relocated families incurred huge debts. The review suggested that the families were at a great risk of losing their home by selling their new plots of land to settle the debts that they acquire in the process of resettling. For six years the relocation sites have no access to clean drinking water. Sim Pov then showed President Nakao a bottle containing murky water from Battambang and sincerely asked ‘what if your family Mr. President would be drinking this water?’ (insert video hyperlink) THE NIGHTMARE OF RESETTLEMENT An article published by Cambodian Daily (insert hyperlink of article so they can check) describe the plight of families being plucked out of their homes to be placed somewhere else to give way to development, in this case, the rehabilitation of the Cambodian Railway. It indicated that aside from losing their properties, livelihoods and income, families are also put into resettlement sites that are far from the families’ jobs. In addition, the promise to help them earn more money were late in coming. Imagine the ordeal of having your transportation fare eating up most of your daily budget. (will put how much it cost to go to work and back from Battambang) The compensation scheme drawn up in 2006 was not changed when relocation sites were set up farther away than originally planned, nor adjusted for inflation when being paid out five or more years later, this resulted to evictees being forced to take on even more debt, often at exorbitant interest rates leading to a cycle of debts for most families. Most resettlement site does not provide clean water, and workers either have to buy their own clean water for bathing and drinking (another expense which the families should incorporate in their budget), or use the unsanitary water sources available to them. This practice exposes them to diseases and makes the people get sick very quickly especially the children. Mr. Sim Pov with high hopes asked President Nakao to hasten the implementation of the CRP recommendations. He then went, bowed down to pay his respect and gave the bottle to President Nakao. President Nakao accepted the bottled water and set it aside. ADB’s ANSWER. President Nakao admitted that the problems surrounding the Cambodian Railway Rehabilitation Project have been an “issue for quite a while”, but the independent complaints review panel have already studied it and have made recommendations. He also emphasized that ADB “is working together with the government of Cambodia with the focus on the problem of unjust compensations.: but did was careful to mention of any deadlines. He also stated that there are still grievances particularly in the city of Phnom Penh and they are trying to address it as well. The project-affected community have exhausted the ADB’s complaints mechanisms and hope that the situation will be addressed very soon – and will not be like the bottled water; something that was set aside. Sources: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/railway-project-suffers-blow http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/briefing/cambodias-railway-system/ https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/adb-railway-project-made-major-mistakes-51738/ For the full video please watch it here #CAMGMSRehabilitationoftheRailwayinCambodia #cambodia #Displacement #Railway #Poipet #SimPov #EquitableCambodia #AsianDevelopmentBank #ADB #NGOForumonADB #PhnomPenh Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

In the 49th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Governors Meeting (AGM) Civil Society Panel 2 entitled Grassroots Perspective on Integrating Core Labor Standards in ADB. Mr. Souparna Lahiri, International Committee Member of NGO Forum on ADB discussion was anchored to the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. His discussion gave emphasis on- Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (Convention No. 87 & No. 98) The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour (Convention No. 29 & No. 105) The effective abolition of child labour (Convention No. 138 & No. 182) The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (Convention No. 100 & No. 111) Mr. Lahiri also emphasised that ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work are universal and that they apply to all people in all States - regardless of the level of economic development. It particularly mentions groups with special needs, including the unemployed and migrant workers. It recognises that economic growth alone is not enough to ensure equity, social progress and to eradicate poverty. ADB AND FORCED LABOR: A BACKGROUNDER In 1998 ILO Declaration on Core Labour Standards specifically poses to international organisations, such as development banks, to promote an atmosphere conducive to the achievement of CLS. An assessment of compliance with CLS helps refine the development banks’ agenda and poverty reduction strategies. In light of this, it was the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which recognised the observance of the CLS in bank operations. The ADB’s board of directors in 2001 adopted a Social Protection Strategy. “In the design and formulation of its loans, ADB will comply with the internationally recognised core labour standards”. By 2002 the ADB signed a memorandum of understanding with the ILO for operational collaboration in taking forward ADB’s commitment to CLS. While, the Social Protection Strategy of ADB includes safeguards related to the environment, involuntary resettlement and indigenous and tribals, it does not include any labour safeguards or operational manual to promote CLS in ADB operations. In the same panel Claude Akpokavie, Senior ILO Adviser explained that this declaration is not an 'option’ that can be implemented only if ‘wanted’. This is a right for every worker, all over the world. UZBEKISTAN’S WHITE GOLD Cotton in Uzbekistan is referred to as ‘white gold’ because it generates an estimated US$1 billion annually through the export of around 850,000 tonnes of cotton every year, but despite these profits, those ordered to pick the cotton remain impoverished as workers are paid little, if anything. The situation was aggravated when the Amu Bukhara Irrigation System (ABIS) was proposed and approved with the goal to ensure sustainable and reliable water supply for irrigated agriculture in the main command area of 250,000 ha and drinking water for 725,000 population. That is at least what the Asian Development Bank (ADB) together with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) “intended” to accomplish when they gave out the US$146.00 Million loan to the Uzbekistan government in 2013. Two years after, October 2015, two boys ages 2 and 17, died in circumstances related to Uzbekistan’s fall cotton harvest. For decades despite the welcoming notions from countries around the world regarding the need to refine labour standards to protect the workers, the government of Uzbekistan has forced adults and initially children as young as 10 to pick cotton under harsh conditions during harvest season. Although the younger children are no longer mobilised in large numbers, local administrations routinely send secondary students (15-17-year-olds) to the fields in some districts. Matthew Fischer-Daly, Cotton Campaign Coordinator explained that Uzbekistan primarily uses forced labour during the harvest season, around September to October. After much external pressure, the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan declared its intent to ensure that no one under the age of 18 would participate in the cotton harvest. But this only put adult forced labour into high gear. The 2-year old boy died while his mother picked cotton under threat of losing her job as a kindergarten teacher. Health care workers and students are among 1 million workers forced to toil long hours in the cotton fields, often without access to clean drinking water and typically work without crucial safety and health gear, exposed to toxic pesticides and dangerous equipment. The working condition is dangerous, people can be left exhausted, suffer from ill-health and malnutrition after weeks of hard labour. Those assigned to work on far-flung cotton farms are forced to stay in makeshift residences in poor conditions with insufficient food and clean drinking water. How is this even possible when there is already an international law about the rights of workers? Moreover, how can ADB allow this despite its commitment with the ILO for operational collaboration in taking forward ADB’s commitment to CLS? Daly explained that forced labour system is deeply rooted in the economy of Uzbekistan. The state owns most of the land, leases it to the farmers and imposes cotton production quota. Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyoyev ordered the penalization of farmers that had not fulfilled their state-assigned cotton production quotas, including confiscating property and imprisonment. Failure to meet the annual quota results to penalty for farmers like loss of lands, destruction of non-cotton crops, and/or confiscation of property. The government controls everything, from income to setting the procurement price of the harvested cotton, which is way lower than the cost of production. The government maintains monopolies, buy and sell all the cotton, making enormous profits not for the benefit of the citizens but for the profit of corrupt private elites. ANOTHER PROMISE UNFULFILLED. This is not only a matter of forced labour or coercion. This is also a matter of compliance to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work to which the ADB in 2006 commits itself. The bank promised to work towards the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour in designing and implementing all its projects, it is even stated in its own Core Labor Standard Hand Book, page 39. The bank also claimed that they will not finance production or activities involving harmful or exploitative forms of forced labour or child labour. Mr. Lahiri in his discussion stated that the Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board (RRP) admits that there are concerns about core labour standards, particularly during the harvest. ADB is committed to supporting adherence to the core labour standards. Suitable loan covenants have been included to ensure such adherence in relation to project activities, and will be monitored during project implementation. ADB will also closely interact with the government, including through policy dialogue, the ILO, and other institutions on this matter. However, the Assurances and Conditions part of the RRP only indicated that The government, the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR), and the Ministry of Finance have assured ADB that implementation of the project shall conform to all applicable ADB policies including those concerning anticorruption measures, safeguards, gender, procurement, consulting services, and disbursement, as described in detail in the project administration manual and loan documents”, and that the government, the MAWR, and Ministry of Finance have agreed with ADB on certain covenants for the project, which are set forth in the loan agreements. This statement prompted Human Rights Watch to write a letter to ADB President, Takehiko Nakao, dated September 3, 2013, where in they express their serious concerns regarding the system of employing forced labour in the Uzbek cotton fields and urged the ADB President and Board of Directors to refrain from approving the Irrigation System Rehabilitation Project. But it pushed through the same month of the same year. With all the CLS violation of the ABIS project, why is it still an ongoing project? SIDE NOTE. Panel 2 in the 49th ADB AGM also faced the hard truth that the space for CSO’s is shrinking day by day. What is happening to Uzbekistan is an example, citizens are not allowed to organize themselves, express their opinions and demand for their rights, journalists and media persons are going missing as they cover the cotton story of the country, the space for civic engagement is closing—not just in countries that have struggled under repressive or autocratic governments like Uzbekistan, but also in democracies with longstanding traditions of supporting freedom of expression. There is a need to do something. To watch the video watch here: SOURCES: http://www.adb.org/projects/44458-013/main#project-pds http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33480/files/cls-handbook.pdf http://www.solidaritycenter.org/children-among-six-dead-in-uzbek-cotton-harvest-so-far/#sthash.5n290wTV.dpuf http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/opinions/uzbekistan-turkmenistan-cotton/ http://www.solidaritycenter.org/children-among-six-dead-in-uzbek-cotton-harvest-so-far/ http://www.cottoncampaign.org/what-the-world-bank-and-asian-development-bank-can-do.html PHOTO CREDITS: https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/10/letter-adb-president-nakao-regarding-modernization-and-improved-performance-amu #Uzbekistan #Cotton #ForceLabor #Labor #ChildLabor #ForcedLabor #CentralAsia Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.

Frankfurt, Germany –Deafening silence rose when leader of project-affected communities,Sim Pov raised his community’s issues on the US $ 42 million loan to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for the Cambodia Railway Rehabilitation Project. The project aims to restore Cambodia’s railway infrastructure by rehabilitating existing railway tracks and associated structures, reconstructing the destroyed railway line to Thailand. Sim Pov brought a sample of the murky water from the Battambang resettlement site and handed it to President Nakao during a dialogue with civil society organizations on the 49th Annual Governors Meeting being held in Frankfurt. The community leader and high school teacher asked the President to help the 4,000 displaced families living in dire conditions due to poor compliance on safeguards measures on involuntary resettlement issues. In November 2011, ADB received a complaint on failure to comply with adequate compensation and restoration of livelihood. Displaced families waited for years to be receive compensation for lost properties that were heavily undervalued forcing them to take debts in order to survive. They were placed in inhabitable resettlement areas far from employment opportunities, access to clean water and near dump sites exposing them to health risks. “What do you think if your family has to live with this kind of water?” Sim Pov raises the bottled water containing dirty water during the CSO dialogue with Nakao. He and his family would drink the water he took from the resettlement site. He closed his query by saying that “I strongly believe that Mr. President with your leadership you will take immediate action to address our urgent situation”. The complaint filed by the communities triggered a safeguards review to which a Compliance Review Panel, after a 17-month investigation, admitted that ADB committed errors in its due diligence processes. The Panel found that families affected by the Railway project “suffered loss of property, livelihoods, and incomes, and as a result have borne a disproportionate cost and burden of the development efforts funded by ADB.” According to the Panel, ADB’s “inadequate attention to addressing the resettlement, public communications and disclosure requirements of its own policies…has led to significant yet avoidable adverse social impact on mostly poor and vulnerable people.”. The Panel issued clear recommendations to the ADB Management to comply with safeguard policies and address the issue. After six years, however, displaced families have found themselves unable to recover their way of life. The livelihood restoration project based on a debt refinancing scheme managed by Vision Fund failed to restore the economic status of affected communities as it only covered 35 families. Families, however, were unable to pay due to many factors that were compounded by poor compensation schemes. A displaced family merely receives US$25 a month as compensation. The Safeguard Policy Statement requires compensation for lost assets and loss of income and livelihood, decent relocation, restoration of livelihood such that displaced families’ economic and social future will generally be at least as favorable with the project as without it, provided with appropriate land, housing, infrastructure, and other compensation, comparable to the without-project situation and full disclosure to resettlement and compensation options. The complaint and the current economic and social status of project-affected families tell a glaring picture of gross implementation of ADB projects without careful planning and disregard to safeguard measures. In the same dialogue, the NGO Forum on ADB, a network of 250 civil society organizations raised the possible rise in displacements, human rights violations especially of vulnerable sectors brought by a strong focus on large scale infrastructure projects in ADB and in other multilateral development banks (MDBs). ADB has just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the new Chinese-led multilateral development bank, Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank whose draft safeguard policy was deemed to be inadequate and dangerous by many CSOs. #CAMGMSRehabilitationoftheRailwayinCambodia #EquitableCambodia #Cambodia #cambodia #Sim #Rai #AsianDevelopmentBank #SimPov #PhnomPenh #Sihanoukville #Poipet Written by Jen Derillo. Jen is NGO Forum on ADB's Program Coordinator for Communications.