Search Results

NGO Forum on ADB Statement 2023 ADB Annual Governors Meeting Open Statement: Critical Questions to ADB's Management during the 56th Annual Meeting Introduction At this 56th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), as CSOs here in Incheon, we are glad to have this session in person. Mr. President, you are aware that the region has been hit severely economically by the Ukrainian war, as it was on the rebuilding path back from the pandemic. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Philippines, Nepal and Bangladesh face severe budget shortfalls, rising inflation, fuel and electricity soaring prices, and food price hikes. The reserve banks are desperately looking for IMF bailouts to see through the near-term deficits. The ADB must refrain from adding further to this burden by supporting a development pathway that leads to import dependence and mega infrastructure-related social and environmental damage. The ADB cannot be an enabler for non-performing loans and white elephant infrastructure projects, which will further deepen the financial crisis and widen inequality. The ADB, therefore, must ensure responsible project selection, community-inclusive design and implementation to ensure the Asia Pacific region to not fall into deeper debt and financial crisis. The ADB has been party to aiding and abetting an energy import-dependency and energy poverty pathway for the Asia Pacific, and it has to take real responsibility in ensuring that the region achieves a Paris 1.5 aligned energy security and sovereignty future. The ADB infrastructure projects are yet to ensure binding safeguards, and communities such as the Magar and Dalit surrounding the Tanahu Hydropower project in Nepal are still suffering, living with an uncertain future for themselves and that of their children, six years into the OSPF dispute resolution process. For this 56th ADB AGM, we, therefore, wish to bring your attention to the following issues – Safeguards W Paper: The ADB is approaching the Safeguards review Phase 3 process, and we expect the W paper to be released in June as per the ADB SDCC announcement. The W paper must ensure that our inputs across the Phase 2 process have been considered and integrated, and a clear matrix of what was included and excluded must be shared in the public domain. We urge the W paper to be open for at least 120 days of public commenting and be shared in critical regional and national languages where ADB is heavily invested (Russian, Bangla, Hindi, Bahasa, Nepali, Sinhala, Tamil, Khmer etc.). Information Disclosure and Meaningful Consultation: Mr President, the ADB has repeatedly failed to meaningfully consult with local communities and explain the projects' risks, which has continually led to direct adverse impacts on people and the environment. We urge the ADB to retain para. 54 on (meaningful) consultation and participation of the SPS 2009 on meaningful consultation and information disclosure and reinforce the "Clear, timely, and appropriate disclosure" as provided in para. 15 of the Access to Information Policy to be upheld and elaborated through the new SPS. Risk avoidance and mitigation: The new Safeguards must ensure binding requirements on rigorous risk assessments for all performance standards prior to project approval. The assessments must be done through extensive consultations with locally affected and grassroots communities to examine all alternatives, including no project option, in light of internationally agreed standards and obligations. There is no room for mitigation hierarchy approaches like the ESMP as post-approval mechanisms to ensure environmental and social safeguards; this is a dilution and will endanger communities, biodiversity, and the environment across the region from direct and indirect project-related harms. FIs: We are increasingly alarmed by the opaqueness of the private sector operations department, and the different financing modalities such as financial intermediaries, multi-tranche facilities, joint ventures and bonds that the Bank is aggressively promoting. How will ADB ensure adequate safeguards are in place for these emerging modalities? FI subprojects must ensure that ADB safeguards are explicitly upheld and delivered across all layers of financing. This has been observed as a ruling by the CAO on the recent complaint against IFC and RCBC and must be upheld as a standard practice across all FI lending across all MDBs. Accountability Mechanism: At this point, is ADB already considering how the Accountability Mechanism will be reviewed, taking into account the new approach of the SPS in Phase 3? Will the AM review process be transparent, rigorously inclusive nationally and regionally, and ensure meaningful participation and consultation by civil society and affected communities? How will ADB ensure that it makes recourse for project-affected communities easier, more accessible, expedient and cognizant of the community's demands? To this end, we urge the ADB to ensure an independent AM and finally shift the OSPF from management control and bring it under direct ADB Board supervision, as is the CRP. We have been struggling with the OSPF process in Tanahu for over six years, and this can no longer be the way to ensure independent dispute resolution. Cost of Safeguards: Who will pay for the Safeguards, Mr. President? The SPS 2009 has failed to answer this question, and honestly, we are tired of running between Bank and Borrower for the fundamental rights of people to live with dignity; the ADB Safeguards once and for all should demarcate the cost of Safeguards be written in ink into the new policy. Shrinking Civic Space and Reprisals Recognizing the realities of being a human rights defender and voicing dissent in these difficult times, will the Bank specifically adopt a zero tolerance of intimidation and reprisals built into the proposed policy with explicit and clear protocols on responding when cases do arise? There is no excuse for delay, as the fact is that environmental and human rights defenders who have spoken out at previous ADB meetings, including from Vietnam and Mongolia, have experienced intense surveillance, threats and other harassment, including in some cases incarceration, for the work they do. Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) The network is also raising a range of concerns regarding the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) scheme that the ADB is preparing to pilot in practice. In Indonesia, the process for pilot project selection has been done behind closed doors and veiled by non-disclosure agreements. In the case of selecting the 660MW Cirebon Unit 1, the adjacent 1000MW Cirebon 2 will be coming online at full capacity, built by the same parent company. Meanwhile, the ADB's refinancing for the existing power plant appears set to bypass the stringent application of its Safeguards and Accountability Mechanism. As there are already significant community grievances, these would first and foremost be addressed and remedied. While hypocritically championing its safeguards on the ETM website, is this the kind of misleading public information we can expect from ADB after 50 years of operation in the region? For Pakistan, we have seen that the analysis being undertaken unambitiously proposes to focus on piloting the ETM at a site which is producing under 200MW of power while, by design, deprioritizing vast areas of the country where coal projects are clustered by focusing on places where non-fossil fuel energy projects are already proposed/under construction. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the ADB appears to be conveniently sidestepping the reality that it has financed several coal power projects and has a responsibility to support prompt closure, environmental rehabilitation, and community restitution. In all instances, we urge the ADB to explicitly commit to excluding support for resource-intensive "fuel-switching" options, including those which depend upon biomass, ammonia, or burning waste, as well as to excluding large hydropower when considering what will be financed under the ETM as 'clean energy'. Question On Gas As of 2019, gas is the leading contributor to global fossil emissions – whilst coal emissions are declining. In the latest IPCC report (AR6), it is clear that there is no more room for new gas, oil and coal projects to still have a chance to achieve the 1.5-degree global target, notwithstanding the current LNG supply problems and volatility of international and Asian LNG prices which has caused spiralling high costs of electricity and inflation in essential gas dependent Asian countries. With ADB still pursuing investment into gas projects and development, it is promoting a new stranded asset, just like coal that the Bank has promoted for the last decades. ADB continues to be the second-largest gas financier among peer MDBs. Meanwhile, some of ADB's borrowing member countries have already declared their support for an international non-proliferation treaty on fossil fuel development. When will ADB commit to a time-bound phase-out from gas finance and to including gas as part of its exclusion list in line with the ambition needed to avert deepening the climate crisis and the catastrophic consequences experienced by the people of this region? We have noted that just recently, the ADB approved a new coal-to-gas switching project – meaning the institution, as of 2nd Q 2023, is still contributing to locking member countries into dependence on fossil fuels. Question On WTE, Hydro, Geothermal We urge the President to suspend support for the 121 million USD Waste-to-Energy (WtE) incinerator project in Thilafushi, Maldives, which ADB has supported since 2017. The Maldives parliament has recently passed a Waste Management Act omitting civil society inputs to prohibit waste importation into the country. However, it passed with provisions to allow the import of waste, which risks turning Maldives into a perpetual dumping ground for other countries. The justification stems from this 500 tons per day WTE plant which would be dependent on fossil-based plastic waste. On top of the country's weak environmental regulations, this is also against international conventions on waste transport and sustainable development. Will ADB show climate leadership by stopping support for existing and new WTE incinerators? Can ADB commit to prioritizing viable, appropriately scaled Solar and Wind solutions as clean energy solutions and removing large-scale hydropower dams as well as geothermal projects from being classified as renewable energy solutions and qualified for as part of the Bank's climate finance portfolio? To date, the ADB's Climate Change Action Plan, updated versions of the Gas, Waste to Energy, Hydropower Guidance Notes and Paris Alignment Guidance Note (associated with the 2021 Energy Policy) have not been disclosed publicly, nor has there been an opportunity for robust public consultation on these documents, inclusive of communities affected by ADB's energy and climate financing. Meanwhile, the Safeguards Review is ongoing. Given this lack of transparent, clear and publicly accountable policy guidance, we have deep concerns with the decision to launch the Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IF-CAP) at this year's Annual Meeting. We also note that the IF-CAP will "create up to $15 billion in new loans for much-needed climate projects across Asia and the Pacific". Financing for climate adaptation and mitigation is needed across the region but not new loan-based options, as these will inevitably exacerbate existing public indebtedness. In addition, committed climate finance must follow clear rights-based social and environmental frameworks that align with international human rights obligations, strictly adhere to providing support for only those projects and programs that align with a 1.5C pathway, prioritize the most climate vulnerable countries in the region, exclude support for false solutions (including carbon credit and markets schemes, infrastructure associated with carbon capture and storage, waste incineration or large hydropower, and "fuel switching options" such as coal to gas switching, co-firing with ammonia, hydrogen or biomass or refuse-derived fuel) and compliment international financing for loss and damage as agreed to under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Mr. President, in light of the above issues described, we urge you to uphold the public interest and the public need above all interests, especially when using Multilateral Development Bank (public) finance. We remain vigilant and engaged with you and ADB management on whether ADBs next lending phase is pro-people and pro-environment. We hope that under your leadership, you will allow the Bank to remain open to hearing critical views from the ground when it deviates from that agenda. Sincerely, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Signatories: 11.11.11, Belgium 350 Pilipinas, Philippines 350.org, Asia Accountability Counsel, Global Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Alternative Development Program, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UPCIDS AltDev), Philippines Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Asia/Regional Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, Bangladesh Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center, USA BRICS Feminist Watch, Regional Building and Wood Workers International, Philippines Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Philippines Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Dam Sense, United States Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Peru EarthRights International, Mekong Region Ecological public society, Armenia Environics Trust, India Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda Gender Action, Global Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) — Asia Pacific, Regional (Asia Pacific) Green Advocates International, Liberia Growthwatch, India Indian Social Action Forum, India Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal Indus Consortium, Pakistan Initiatives for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, India International Rivers, Global Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia Just Ground, USA Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Friends of the Earth Philippines, Philippines Lumière Synergie pour le Développement, Senegal Manushya Foundation, Laos & Thailand MiningWatch Canada, Canada Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan Observatoire d'études et d'appui a la responsabilité sociale et environnementale, R.D..Congo Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan, Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan, Open Azerbaijan Initiative, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakaid, Pakistan Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF, Nigeria Phenix Center, Jordan Programme on Women's Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (PWESCR), India Public Interest Law Center (PILC), Chad Public Services International, India Recourse, The Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Rural Reconstruction Nepal, Nepal SPELL-Solidarity for People's Education and Lifelong Learning, Philippines The Bretton Woods Project, United Kingdom Trend Asia, Indonesia UP CIDS AltDev VOICE, Bangladesh WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Download PDF here.

Incheon, South Korea - Forum members and allies present at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are calling on ADB management to prioritize safeguards and meaningful consultation in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that are facing severe economic challenges due to the pandemic and the Ukrainian war. Countries such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Philippines, Nepal, and Bangladesh are experiencing severe budget shortfalls, rising inflation, soaring fuel and electricity prices, and food price hikes. To ensure the stability of LMICs, the ADB must prioritize responsible project selection, design, and implementation going forward. Forum urges the ADB to take real responsibility in ensuring that the LMICs achieve Paris 1.5 aligned energy security and sovereignty. Despite the ADB's efforts, safeguards for infrastructure projects have not been effectively delivered, and communities surrounding projects continue to suffer. For instance, the indigenous Magar and Dalit communities in Tanahu, Nepal, still live in limbo with an uncertain future for themselves and their children. In light of these issues, the Forum network and allies brought attention to the following critical questions during the 56th ADB AGM: Safeguards: The CSOs expect the release of the Working (W) - paper on the Safeguards review Phase 3 process in June. We urge the W - paper to be open for at least 120 days of public commenting and to be shared in key regional and national languages where ADB is heavily invested. Information Disclosure and Meaningful Consultation: Forum urged the ADB to retain para. 54 on (meaningful) consultation and participation of the SPS 2009 and reinforce the "Clear, timely, and appropriate disclosure" as provided in para. 15 of the Access to Information Policy to be upheld and elaborated through the new SPS. Risk Avoidance and Mitigation: The new Safeguards must ensure binding requirements on rigorous risk assessments for all performance standards before project approval. The assessments must be done through extensive consultations with locally affected and grassroots communities to examine all alternatives, including no project option, in light of internationally agreed standards and obligations. For Financial Intermediaries: The Forum on ADB is concerned about the opaqueness of the private sector operations department and the different financing modalities such as financial intermediaries, multi-tranche facilities, joint ventures, and bonds, which the Bank is aggressively promoting. FI subprojects must ensure that ADB safeguards are explicitly upheld and delivered across all layers of financing. Accountability Mechanism: Forum urges the ADB to ensure an independent accountability mechanism, shift the Office of the Special Project Facilitator from management control, and bring it under direct ADB Board supervision. This will make recourse for project-affected communities easier, more accessible, expedient, and cognizant of the community's demands. Cost of Safeguards: Forum demand that the ADB demarcate the cost of Safeguards be written in ink into the new policy. For Shrinking Civic Space and Reprisals: Forum network and allies call on the Bank to adopt a zero-tolerance policy of intimidation and reprisals built into the proposed policy with explicit and clear protocols for responding when cases arise. Addressing these critical questions will help the ADB to ensure responsible project selection, design, and implementation in LMICs and protect vulnerable communities from direct and indirect project-related harms. The network calls on the ADB to uphold its commitment to promoting sustainable development in the region by prioritizing responsible project selection, design, and implementation. This includes ensuring that the new Safeguards review process is transparent and inclusive of public input and that binding requirements for rigorous risk assessments are in place to mitigate potential harm to communities and the environment. By addressing these critical questions, Forum believes that the ADB will demonstrate its commitment to promoting sustainable development in the region, particularly in countries facing severe economic challenges due to the pandemic and ongoing conflicts. Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) The network also raised a range of concerns regarding the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) scheme that the ADBĺ is preparing to pilot in practice. In Indonesia, the process for pilot project selection has been done behind closed doors and veiled by non-disclosure agreements. In the case of selecting the 660MW Cirebon Unit 1, the adjacent 1000MW Cirebon 2 will be coming online at full capacity, built by the same parent company. Meanwhile, the ADB’s refinancing for the existing power plant appears set to bypass the stringent application of its Safeguards and Accountability Mechanism. As significant community grievances already exist, these would first and foremost be addressed and remedied. While hypocritically championing its safeguards on the ETM website, is this the kind of misleading public information we can expect from ADB after 50 years of operation in the region? For Pakistan, the analysis being undertaken unambitiously proposes to focus on piloting the ETM at a site which is producing under 200MW of power, while, by design deprioritising vast areas of the country where coal projects are clustered by focusing on places where non-fossil fuel energy projects are already proposed/under construction. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the ADB appears to be conveniently sidestepping the reality that it has financed several coal power projects and has a responsibility to support prompt closure, environmental rehabilitation, and community restitution. In all instances, Forum urges the ADB to explicitly commit to excluding support for resource-intensive “fuel-switching” options, including those which depend upon biomass, ammonia, or burning waste, as well as to excluding large hydropower when considering what will be financed under the ETM as ‘clean energy’. Question On Gas As of 2019, gas is the leading contributor to global fossil emissions – whilst coal emissions are declining. In the latest IPCC report (AR6), it is clear that there is no more room for new gas, oil and coal projects to still have a chance to achieve the 1.5-degree global target, notwithstanding the current LNG supply problems, and volatility of global and Asian LNG prices which has caused spiralling high prices of electricity and inflation in key gas dependent Asian countries. With ADB still pursuing investment into gas projects and development, it is promoting a new stranded asset, just like coal that the bank has promoted for the last decades. ADB continues to be the second-largest gas financier among peer MDBs. Meanwhile, some of the ADB’s borrowing member countries are declaring their support for an international non-proliferation treaty on fossil fuel development. When will ADB commit to a time-bound phase-out from gas finance and to including gas as part of its exclusion list in line with the ambition needed to avert deepening the climate crisis and the catastrophic consequences experienced by the people of this region? We have noted that just recently, the ADB approved a new coal-to-gas switching project – meaning the institution, as of 2nd Q 2023, is still contributing to locking member countries into dependence on fossil fuels. On WTE, Hydro, Geothermal We strongly ask the ADB to suspend its support for the 121 million USD Waste-to-Energy (WtE) incinerator project in Thilafushi, Maldives, as it conflicts with international conventions on waste transport and sustainable development. Instead, ADB should prioritize viable Solar and Wind solutions, and remove large-scale hydropower dams and geothermal projects from being classified as renewable energy solutions. Forum and allies are concerned about ADB's lack of transparent and publicly accountable policy guidance on climate change action and financing. The ongoing Safeguards Review and the launch of the Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IF-CAP) without clear policy guidance are alarming. Forum Network is emphasizing that committed climate finance must follow clear rights-based social and environmental frameworks, align with international human rights obligations, and prioritize the most climate-vulnerable countries in the region. False solutions must be excluded, such as carbon credit and markets schemes, waste incineration, large hydropower, and fuel switching options. It is imperative that the ADB takes real responsibility and ensures that LMICs achieve energy security and sovereignty aligned with the Paris 1.5 agreement. CSOs urge the ADB to prioritize safeguards and meaningful consultation in all projects, particularly those affecting vulnerable communities and the environment. Forum network is also concerned about the opaqueness of the private sector operations department and different financing modalities, such as financial intermediaries, multi-tranche facilities, joint ventures, and bonds, that the Bank is promoting. The ADB must ensure that safeguards are upheld across all layers of financing, as has been ruled by the CAO in the recent complaint against IFC and RCBC. It is imperative that the ADB takes bold and decisive action to address critical questions of sustainable development, community protection, and transparency, not only during the 56th Annual Meeting but also beyond. As a leading financial institution in the region, the ADB must take full responsibility for ensuring that all its projects are implemented in a socially, environmentally, and economically responsible manner. Failure to do so would undermine the ADB's credibility and betray the trust of the communities it serves. The ADB must prioritize the interests and well-being of communities over profit and economic growth. The Bank must take concrete steps to mitigate the adverse impacts of its projects on vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples, women, and marginalized groups. This includes conducting thorough social and environmental impact assessments, consulting with affected communities, and implementing measures to mitigate and address any negative impacts. It is time for the ADB to move beyond mere rhetoric and take concrete actions to uphold its commitment to sustainable development, protect vulnerable communities, and ensure responsible and transparent project implementation.

Incheon - 3 May 2023: As the Asian Development Bank (ADB) commemorates its 56th year of operations in Asia, the NGO Forum on ADB and its allies raised concerns about the potential dilution of key safeguard commitments. While the ADB has made progress towards reform, the consultations suggest that the Bank may prioritize the private sector and borrowing governments over the well-being of affected communities and the environment. The Forum Network urgently calls on the ADB to prioritize the lessons learned from project-affected communities in shaping the new Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) "The current categorization system for environment, indigenous peoples (IPs), and involuntary resettlement must be maintained, and binding requirements for each category should be created," says Ritu Thapa of Indigenous Women's Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG). Integrating the categories for different issues addressed by the SPS may result in setbacks in avoiding environmental and community harm. Under-categorizing high-risk projects to moderate risks raises concerns about inadequate risk scoping, deliberate alterations of data, over-reliance on third-party consultants, and meaningful community consultations. “Strong Environmental and Social safeguards are important, but to be meaningful, they also require a strong accountability infrastructure. Project-affected communities are best placed to know when a project has unintended environmental and social harms, and an effective Accountability Mechanism ensures that ADB hears from these communities,” says Radhika Goyal, of Accountability Counsel. She also explains that ADB’s Accountability Mechanism is far behind its peer institutions, and it must ensure that its upcoming Accountability Mechanism Policy review is an independent, transparent, and consultative process informed by the views of local communities and civil society organizations. The Forum Network also calls for strengthened guidance for involuntary resettlement safeguards, including gender, economic, and climate-induced displacements and cultural issues. The SPS must integrate involuntary resettlement issues in countries where women and other cultural groups do not have recognized rights to own land under customary law. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, women and girls constitute 80% of the people displaced by climate-related disasters globally. This highlights the need for strengthened guidance on gender-related issues in involuntary resettlement safeguards. According to Titi Soentoro of Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, “Many women face environmental, economic, and social risks from the resettlement and changes in their landscapes and livelihoods due to ADB-supported project operations. Mostly it is due to the lack of implementation of gender safeguards, particularly regarding gender impacts and risk assessment, meaningful consultation with women, information disclosure, and gender-responsive grievance mechanism.” She added that “Project Gender Action Plan does not cover those requirements because the action plan is about participating women in the project like job or income creation and skills training, but not protection from potential harm. ADB must correct these flaws in its operations and retain the gender consideration and safeguards provisions of the SPS 2009.” The Forum also demands meaningful inclusion of more urgent safeguards issues supported by a coherent umbrella of safeguards systems and tools. The network welcomes the broadening of the themes and protection to include labour as a response to the progressing international laws, standards and norms. Dr. Rene Ofreneo from Freedom from Debt Coalition strongly stated that the ADB must prioritize the rights and welfare of workers in its development projects -- that is, ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and social protection, and provide just transition assistance to all affected workers, including host communities. “Labor rights are human rights. The ADB must actively engage with labor unions and civil society organizations, promote gender equality, and prioritize decent work for sustainable livelihoods. Workers are not expendable commodities but the backbone of economic development. Let's demand accountability from ADB and press it and other "development" banks in Asia to ensure all workers are accorded full dignity and respect!” Ofreneo added. Furthermore, the Forum urges the ADB to include a climate safeguard and prohibit high-GHG emitting activities from its investment list. The ADB must comply with the provisions of the Paris Agreement, uphold the recommendations of the most recent IPCC Assessment Report 6, and fully incorporate outcomes of the most recent agreements sealed during COP26. "The time for half measures is over. The Forum Network urgently calls on the Asian Development Bank to include a robust climate safeguard that prohibits high-GHG emitting activities from its investment list," says Hasan Mehedi of CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) and currently the International Convenor of the Forum network. "The Bank must set an ambitious overall cap on all emissions by 2030 and develop transparent, actionable, and time-bound plans to ensure that all direct and indirect investments align with the IPCC Pathway 1 of 1.5C. Our planet cannot afford anything less. The ADB must show true leadership in tackling the climate crisis and prioritizing a sustainable future for all", he added. Lastly, the NGO Forum on ADB highlights the importance of recognizing tangible and intangible cultural heritage for present and future generations. The ADB must ensure better protection of cultural heritage, including traditional skills, knowledge, beliefs, minority dialects, and languages. "The preservation of cultural heritage is not just a matter of the past, but a crucial pillar for a sustainable future," explained Annabel Perreras, Safeguards Policy Coordinator of the Forum; she also added that "ADB must recognize the immense value of tangible and intangible cultural heritage for present and future generations. This includes protecting traditional skills, knowledge, beliefs, minority dialects, and languages integral to the identity and well-being of communities. The ADB must take concrete steps to ensure cultural heritage is respected and safeguarded in all its projects and operations. Only by valuing and protecting our diverse cultural heritage can we truly build a just and sustainable world for all." "Let's not turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis that the pandemic and Ukrainian conflict have brought upon this region. The global supply chains are broken, and rising inflation has pushed countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka to the brink of economic collapse. The Asian Development Bank, now in its 56th year, must take decisive action to ensure that its operations do not exacerbate the existing economic crisis,” says Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB network. He added, “We can no longer tolerate white elephant projects that only serve to benefit a select few while ignoring the pressing needs of the masses. We demand that the ADB stops contributing to the region's dirty carbon future and instead invest in sustainable and environmentally conscious projects. It's time for the ADB to prioritize community and environmental needs if it truly wants to be known as a development bank. We urge the ADB to listen to the people, act transparently, and champion sustainable development that benefits everyone, not just the wealthy elite." The NGO Forum on ADB and its allies are committed to working with the ADB to ensure that the updated SPS prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet. The network demands the ADB engage meaningfully with civil society, impacted communities, and local experts to create a genuinely effective and equitable policy. Watch the video below ⬇️

Civil Society Groups Speak Out at ADB Annual Meeting: Just Energy Transitions Require Recognition of the Urgency of the Climate Crisis, Respect, Transparency and Access to Remedy May 2 2023, Incheon, Korea - On the opening day of the Asian Development Bank’s Annual Meeting, civil society delegates asserted critical questions and fundamental concerns about the models for energy transition being presented by the ADB and corporate sector. During the civil society session titled, “Challenging Ways Forward: Asserting Communities' Considerations on Just Transition,” spokespeople from regional alliances, including NGO Forum on ADB, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific (GAIA-AP), and Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), along with nationally based groups, such as the Indus Consortium from Pakistan, and the Philippines-based Centre for Ecology, Energy and Development (CEED) raised critical perspectives on the ADB’s support for resource intensive infrastructure projects in the name of the energy transition, including waste to energy incinerators, hydroelectric dams and fuel switching schemes involving reliance on fossil gas. They highlighted the concerns of local communities and workers who have been – and continue to be – negatively affected as a result of ADB’s direct project-based loans, equity investments and technical assistance. During the panel session, ADB Vice President of East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia, Ahmed Saeed was also present to provide remarks and responses. “To date, in every case where the ADB is supporting ‘coal to clean’ energy initiatives, whether in Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Pakistan, Kazakhstan or India there remains a lack of transparency, a severe gap in communication with concerned organizations advocating for the rights of communities, informal labourers as well as formal workers, a serious lack of attention to crucial questions related to remedying social, economic, cultural and environmental, harm, as well as no evident response to the context of heightened reprisal risks. This is particularly problematic given the constrained civic space for people to raise critical questions about these plans given the vested interests at stake,” explained Tanya Roberts-Davis, Just Transitions Advocacy Coordinator at the Manila based International Secretariat of the NGO Forum on ADB. She continued: “It is incumbent upon the ADB Board and Management to address these issues head-on rather than conveniently sidestepping them and carrying on business as usual.” As Fiza Qureshi of the Indus Consortium affirmed: “We’ve seen that the pre-feasibility studies for the proposed Energy Transition Mechanism in Pakistan – along with associated analysis, are not uploaded on the ADB’s website, blocking the possibility for interested civil society groups and especially communities around coal projects to engage in any meaningful way in discussions about plans that will affect their future. A just energy transition mechanism that prioritizes the poor and vulnerable communities and groups would require transparency, timely data disclosure in local languages and inclusion of their opinion at all stages. It would also take into account aspects related to the impacts of coal projects on environmental and land degradation, air and ground water pollution and the toll on peoples’ livelihoods, health and well-being, most especially for women.” She also called on the ADB to explicitly end its consideration of gas as transition fuel, and to incorporate it accordingly as a high carbon emitting source into the ETM pre-feasibility assessments. Gerry Arances of the Philippine-based Center for Energy, Ecology and Development further asserted: "The ADB should acknowledge once and for all that there is no place for new gas in a just energy transition. There is no justice in a power sector that ties consumers to decades more of high electricity prices, communities to continued pollution, or countries like the Philippines that have been battered far too much already by catastrophic climate disasters to greater climate vulnerability fueled by fossil-based energy. The greatest service that ADB can render is to ensure a 1.5°C aligned transition to 100% renewable energy at the soonest time possible for its member countries. No detours, no false solutions." Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development stated: “Fossil gas expansion is toxic and unsustainable for Asia. It will not be a solution to energy access and the energy crisis but would instead exacerbate climate change, contrary to what gas energy investors and financiers like the ADB, are claiming. New gas projects will lock in greenhouse gas emissions for years, delay the clean energy transition, and undermine energy security and sustainable development.” Mayang Azurin of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives-Asia Pacific (GAIA-AP) highlighted and reiterated the position of GAIA-AP member organization, the Alliance of Indian Wastepickers – that a just transition for wastepickers would include the end of support for incineration plants. She elaborated further, explaining: “The continued burning of recyclable wastes for Waste-to-Energy incineration destroys millions of wastepickers’ livelihoods and undermines the potential for inclusive circularity of natural resources and climate resiliency. Therefore, beyond ending support for building out WtE, equally important is that wastepickers need to be recognized and integrated in decentralized waste management”. Concluded Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of the NGO Forum on ADB: “We immediately have to turn the ship on how we frame the notion of Just Transition. In the context of Asia, a cold technical approach to transition will not work. The workers in fossil fuel plants, the local economy built around them, the women and children dependent on the projects and the economy all have to be factored into the just transition plan. This can only be done by bringing local communities into the decision making processes. This is not a time to experiment with schemes and designs which are not responsive and accountable to local people and the environment. The ADB has to get out of corporatizing climate solutions as the current ETM stands, and start being conscious of the vulnerability of the locality of where they are operating.” Watch the video below ⬇️

As we gear up for the 56th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Meeting, scheduled from 2-5 May 2023, let's make our voices heard loud and clear. It's time to put our demands front and center. Join our Forum Network Word Cloud Against ADB! We will generate a word cloud that describe what is ADB for us CSOs and impacted communities. The objective is to gather descriptive words that encapsulate the Asian Development Bank (ADB) from the perspective of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and communities directly impacted by its operations. These words will be grouped into clusters and visualized using varying font sizes. The larger and bolder a word appears, the more frequently it is mentioned in the text, and the more significance it carries. Feel free to repeat words that you believe best capture the essence of the ADB. Here's how you can participate: Grab your laptops, tablets, or mobile phones and head to https://www.menti.com/ and enter the voting code - 4883 5270 Or go to https://www.menti.com/al9xeg3e2nbr Share one word that best describes the ADB for you (feel free to answer multiple times) All the answers will form a word cloud that reflects the ADB from the perspective of civil society organizations (CSOs) and impacted communities. You can monitor the LIVE RESULT of the WORD CLOUD HERE ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ The Mentimeter presentation will be open for 7 days, starting from today, 26 April 2023 (Wednesday) until 3 May 2023 (Wednesday). On 5 May 2023 (Friday), during the 'Meeting between Civil Society Organizations and ADB Senior Management', we will send this word cloud to the ADB President Masatsugu Asakawa and the Bank's senior management. Let's come together and amplify our demands to the Bank. Your participation counts!

The 56th Asian Development Bank Annual Meeting is underway, from 2 -5 May 2023, in Incheon, South Korea. This year NGO Forum on ADB is hosting two-panel sessions - Challenging Ways Forward: Asserting Communities' Considerations on Just Transition Discussants from the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan and India will raise critical questions about the plans being put in place to spur on the retirement or 'repurposing' of coal power projects, including the need for public accountability, transparency and remedy, pivot away from not only dependence on fossil fuels but also false solutions such as waste-to-energy incineration and mega-dams. Speakers will also provide perspectives on what just, sustainable and rights-based transformations would look like if systematically marginalized sectors were at the helm of decision- and policy-making processes. Senior ADB Management will be on hand to respond. Speakers include - Gerry Arances | Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED) Kabir Arora | (Alliance of Indian Waste Pickers) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives - Asia Pacific Tanya Roberts-Davis | NGO Forum on ADB Andri Prasetiyo | Trend Asia Fiza Qureshi | Indus Consortium Lidy Nacpil | Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Ahmed Saeed | Vice-President for East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, Asian Development Bank Moderated by Rayyan Hassan, NGO Forum on ADB Approaching the Last Mile Efforts for a Strong Safeguards Policy By May, ADB is expected to release its draft Environmental and Social Framework for public comments as part of its Safeguard Policy Statement review. This session aims to present CSOs’ perspectives on the proposed changes; their recommendations on strengthening the policy to align with global climate goals and international humanitarian standards; and to provide a venue for ADB’s project–affected communities to raise their concerns related to indigenous peoples’ rights, gender, and labour. Speakers include - Titi Soentoro | Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice Ritu Thapa | Indigenous Women LegalAwareness Group (INWOLAG) Dr. Rene Ofreneo | Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Radhika Goyal | Accountability Counsel Bruce Dunn | Sustainable Development and Climate ChangeDepartment, Safeguards Division, Asian Development Bank Chantale Wong | US Executive Director, Asian Development Bank Moderated by Annabel Perreras | NGO Forum on ADB Meeting between Civil Society Organizations and ADB Senior Management The Forum Network will actively participate in the Meeting between Civil Society Organizations and ADB Senior Management, demanding accountability and transparency from ADB President Masatsugu Asakawa and the entire senior management team. We will seize this opportunity to voice our concerns and hold them accountable for their actions. Their welcome message will be met with tough questions from us and like-minded CSO representatives, demanding answers on topics such as ADB's impact on local communities, environmental sustainability, and social justice. We will not hesitate to challenge ADB's support for development that disregards the rights and well-being of marginalized communities. We will advocate for meaningful engagement with civil society and demand concrete actions to address the social and environmental impacts of ADB's projects. The network will not back down until ADB's senior management hears our demands for a just and sustainable development approach.

If you have the skills, smarts, and dynamism to coordinate a network of skilled campaigners in Asia working on getting Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) finance out of fossil fuels, here’s an exciting job for you. We’re looking for someone with a good grasp of climate and energy finance and an understanding of civil society campaign strategy and tactics. You are a clear communicator, a self-starter, a coalition-builder, and comfortable working in diverse cultural settings. The Fossil Fuel Campaigner will support the Forum members working on ADB and AIIB Fossil fuel projects, especially Gas and LNG. The campaigner will also work with the Forum Project Database and develop an analysis for high-level advocacy with the banks on derailing financing from fossils. You will initiate, support, and coordinate joint campaigning on fossil fuel finance at the regional level and support the growth of the Forum network, facilitating training and skill-sharing among campaigners. The preferred location for this position is virtual in Asian time zones. INTERESTED? You may send your cover letter and Resume to secretariat@forum-adb.org with the subject line - [APPLICATION] Fossil Fuel Campaigner Please address your cover letter to Mr. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB. APPLICATION DEADLINE IS ON 30 JUNE 2023 | FRIDAY | 5:00 PM (PHT) WE WILL ONLY CONTACT SHORT LISTED APPLICANTS.

Submitted to: Asian Development Bank Energy Sector Group, c/o Priyantha Wijayatunga, Chief of Energy Sector Group, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, ADB Date: 13 March 2023 Together, we are writing in response to the draft Guidance Note on Large Hydropower Plants disclosed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), a document that is supposed to support staff engaged with borrowers and project proponents prior to - and post - approval of proposed assistance for large hydropower dam developments. After reviewing this draft guidance on hydropower associated with the ADB’s 2021 Energy Policy, we are calling for a thorough overhaul of the current text. As it stands, the Guidance Note fails to indicate any shift towards incorporating a precautionary approach that would prioritize avoidance of harm, to reflect on the current or past harms raised by ADB dam project-affected communities or to take into account the repeated calls of civil society groups to undertake robust, comprehensive assessments of alternative options that do not destroy the region’s critical rivershed ecosystems and the livelihoods of the millions of people across the region who depend upon them. It also fails to base provisions on more stringent guidelines developed by peer MDBs – with which the ADB enters into co-financing agreements – such as the EIB. Instead, it appears the ADB is prepared to adopt weaker standards that position it as a significant laggard in terms of respect for biodiversity, recognition of the rights of riparian communities, and of alignment with current climate science. Furthermore, the Guidance Note claims that the build-out of large dams would enable borrowing member countries to progress on the pathway towards Paris-alignment and away from fossil fuel dependency. Yet, most especially in light of the overwhelming financial, climate, energy and food crises with which populations across the region are confronted, as well as illegitimate debts burdening the governments of borrowing members of the ADB, these assertions significantly lack consideration of several practical realities, including that: significant greenhouse gas emission releases are known to occur within the first 20 years of dam operations (i.e. this large ‘pulse’ in emissions therefore occurs within the very same window of time we have to rapidly shift towards decarbonizing energy systems to avoid catastrophic global heating), the construction of dams remains inherently dependent on fossil fuels, the damming and consequential dewatering of vast stretches of rivers leads to irreversible losses to freshwater biodiversity, the land and watersheds that provide sustenance for riparian communities are consequently inundated; depriving people of the very basis of their resilience in times of crisis, and the development of dams and associated facilities has been consistently linked to repression and other human rights violations committed against local communities, most especially when they raise questions, grievances or withhold consent (See for example, a recent report published by the Business and Human Rights Resource Center, “Drying up: Tracking the environmental and human rights harms caused by hydropower in the Caucasus and Central Asia” and a statement submitted to the ADB in January 2023 initiated by the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs and Struggle Against Marginalization of Nationalities, “Stop State brutality against the Tamang Indigenous Peoples and Locals: Stop the construction of Tamakoshi-Kathmandu 220/400 kV Transmission Line Project in Shankharapur-3, Kathmandu”). ADB’s Guidance Note on Large Hydropower as currently worded decisively fails to veer away from business as usual, instead following a route towards further ravaging of river ecologies as well as the dispossession of land- and river-dependent peoples, without any precautionary provisions – blatantly lacking, for example, any requirement for staff to initially assess national power generation capacity and realistic demands, before considering building out new power generation infrastructure. We urge the ADB to go back to the drawing board, undertake a much wider, inclusive consultation process – including with communities impacted by the ADB’s current hydropower portfolio, and civil society groups that have been monitoring the situation at these sites for years – and develop a new draft reflecting guidance provisions crucial for staff to consider before moving forward with any further support for proposed hydropower project investments. Lack of Clarity of Scope In terms of scope, we would expect the ADB to explicitly clarify the application of its guidance to (i) associated facilities of dams (including quarries, roads, cofferdams, transmission lines, etc), and (ii) dams that are associated facilities of transmission lines (e.g. the Erdeneburen dam in the case of the proposed Erdeneburen-Mayngad-Uliastai 220kV Transmission Line) directly financed by the ADB or through intermediaries. We also note support for hydropower dams through intermediaries risks becoming increasingly common in the future under the ADB’s expanding range of climate-related financing modalities and programs. As it stands, however, there are no provisions in the guidance note indicating the type of diligence required to engage with current financial intermediary borrowers that are – or may in the future – be investing in large hydropower projects, in order to ensure compliance with ADB policies and standards, nor to ensure affected communities are aware of options to seek remedy for grievances through the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism or disclosure of information through ADB’s established channels. Going forward, we urge the ADB to incorporate clear conditionalities into the guidance note which would explicitly exclude hydropower projects from consideration for support via financial intermediary facilities. Overall, we are particularly alarmed that the ADB fails to: Clearly state from the outset the crucial requirement for a precautionary approach – to do no harm — when considering the development of hydropower projects, and prioritizing avoidance in the mitigation hierarchy, or explicitly state the corollary, that where harm is committed, the ADB bears the duty to remedy harm. Acknowledge best international practices as those which adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169, and other UN Conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, integrate compliance with all core labor standards, refer to other relevant UN Declarations, including on Human Rights Defenders, and specifically follow the comprehensive recommendations outlined in the World Commission on Dams Final Report. Clearly state how ADB staff will ensure that where Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories and resources – or the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples – are affected by hydropower developments, they will first establish whether communities have provided free, prior and informed consent and require due diligence procedures in cases where consent is unverified or being withheld (i.e. engaging with project proponents to pause, redesign or halt the project). As mentioned above, provisions outlined in ILO C-169 and UNDRIP should be adhered to when projects are proposed in areas that would impact Indigenous Peoples’ communities and livelihoods. Explicitly confirm that ensuring project compliance with environmental, social and climate-related standards must be required from the earliest stages of project conception, and that project approval should not rely on the assumption that there will be eventual compliance with relevant standards. In this regard, the ADB’s Guidance Note as it stands does not identify that, for example: From the outset, current national power generation capacity and unmet demands should be verified, and options assessments should be thorough with credible, evidence-based justifications, inclusive of a no project option. Thorough cumulative, basin-wide, transboundary, and strategic environmental and social assessment studies as well as human rights and reprisal risk assessments must be undertaken and disclosed in local languages as well as English before proceeding. The human rights and environmental track records of borrowers/clients and associated project proponents should be thoroughly assessed, with a view to specifically considering those with grievances filed against them by other MDBs or in local/national courts, as ineligible for support. Where dam rehabilitation/expansion is being considered, outstanding legacy issues, in coordination with other project proponents, must be identified and addressed before proceeding. Clearly indicate that project footprints encompass impacts upstream, downstream, and in the riversheds/watersheds surrounding the site, and the need to consider sector-specific economic / livelihood forms of dispossession (such as the loss of access to wild fish catch, and to other riparian food sources), as well as sector-specific cultural implications (such as the loss of sacred river-related sites and water spirits). Clarify that unutilised hydropower potential in the region should not be considered by ADB staff as an accurate guide for future public or private sector investment opportunities, as it is not equivalent to the actual reality of possible dam developments (as for example, it is detached from any cumulative, basin-wide or climate adjusted assessments, as well as practical considerations related to critical habitats, protected ecological zones, Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral territories, and transboundary implications, among others). Provide clear criteria for when and where the ADB will not engage in providing any technical or other consultative services for proposed projects and will refrain from considering being involved in any capacity (including greenfield hydropower projects and expanded or associated facilities). We note, for example, EIB guidelines on hydropower dams explicitly excludes development of hydropower projects in UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and makes reference to avoiding impacts to other internationally recognized critical habitats (e.g. areas where the Inventory of Important Bird Areas applies, and where wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention – or qualifying for such protection – are located). Similarly, we urge the ADB to identify areas excluded for the development of hydropower projects and associated facilities, including but not limited to (i) free-flowing rivers, (ii) spawning grounds of endemic, vulnerable and/or endangered species, (iii) critical or at-risk habitats, (iv) intact primary forests and vulnerable secondary forest areas, (v) Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, (vi) Indigenous Peoples’ Territories where free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained, (vii) Key Biodiversity Areas, areas where the Inventory of Important Bird Areas applies, and areas recognized by international conventions and agreements, including but not limited to Emerald sites, the Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as (viii) closed security/militarized zones or disputed territories within borrowing member states (e.g. West Papua). For a comprehensive set of exclusion zones that civil society groups have consistently called upon the ADB to respect, please refer to the Banks and Biodiversity No Go Zone Policy. Acknowledge and address the dismal track record of approaches to ascertaining ‘no net loss’ – and the associated practice of allocating alternative lands to set aside as ‘biodiversity offsets’ – most recently for example, at the Nam Ngiep 1 site, by taking an approach which recognizes that the imposition of loss of land or water-based biodiversity requires meaningful reparative measures (excluding consideration of offsets altogether as a valid way to remedy loss). Explicitly explain how transboundary impacts will be accounted for, monitored and addressed accordingly, given that it implies discussions with neighboring states, and intensive engagement with downstream/upstream users, as well as clear identification of all affected communities/land areas (e.g. through the preparation of an up to date evidence-based cadastre). Explain how considerations for rehabilitation of an existing hydropower project will be measured against decommissioning options, and where information on such justifications will be disclosed in local languages as well as English. Include provisions to clearly show the justification for the expansion of a project when it is considered (in local and English languages), and to clarify the need to undertake new impact assessments as well as ensuring community consent will be sought and respected. Provide clear information about when and how projects are categorized as highly complex and sensitive, as well as the decision-making channels in place to establish independent advisory panels / panels of experts. Provide clear requirements to assess and address the reprisal risk situation, and identify protocols in place when reprisals are reported, so that urgent and decisive action can be taken in consultation with civil society organizations. Specify the need for continuous monitoring of grievances, most especially when projects entail high river fluctuations due to routine hydro-peaking. Incorporate the requirement for borrowers, clients and sub-clients, to disclose the information about the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism and project specific redress mechanisms among project-affected communities through easily accessible materials (audio-visual, written) in local, community-specific languages. Incorporate clear provisions highlighting the sector-specific implications for women, and processes for engaging with women community members to address concerns and grievances over the course of project lifecycle Explain clearly the types of emergency measures borrowers must develop to provide clear and timely warnings (SMS alerts and alarm systems) to communities around and downstream of the dam site, as well as those living in close proximity to tributary rivers, and Specify the need for a detailed decommissioning plan to be developed in consultation with surrounding communities, outlining steps that will be taken, expected timelines and financing prior to a project being approved by the ADB Board of Directors. Climate-Related Realities In considering the carbon footprint, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change implications of large hydropower dams, we would expect the ADB to: Take into consideration the reality that there is a large pulse of methane emissions released within the initial 10-20 years of dam operations, which coincides with the precise limited window of time we have to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid overshooting 1.5C. A build out of hydropower at this time would decisively contribute to undermining the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Assessment Report 6) and the concerted global effort to comply with provisions of the Paris Agreement. Take into account the natural carbon sequestered by flowing rivers and surrounding ecosystems, as opposed to automatically categorizing the building of dams as a ‘climate mitigation’ measure. Assess emissions using a project lifecycle approach – rather than simply averaging GHGs over a 100 year period – by applying alternative methodologies that would more accurately account for significant sources of emissions released over time, inclusive of – but not limited to – construction, land clearing and inundation of land, the initial pulse of GHG releases in the first 20 years of project operation, and the increasing emissions from eutrophication in reservoirs as dams age, as well as decommissioning. As it stands, the proposed methodology for GHG estimations in the Guidance Note fails to consider these evidence-based nuances of emissions pulses and increases over time. Require emissions calculations to be all encompassing - not only from the reservoir (differentiated over time, as explained above), but also from waters released downstream (degassing at turbines), loss in GHG sequestration capacity by vegetation submerged by reservoir, construction activities and associated facilities, such as quarries, as well as the processes related to decommissioning (for example, from methane released when reservoir sediments that have accumulated behind the dam wall are exposed). Incorporate provisions for direct, continuous on-site monitoring of GHGs throughout the project lifecycle, with attention to the initial 20 years of dam operations (i.e. when a large pulse of methane gasses can be expected to be released), increases in surface emissions released in later years (as aging dam reservoirs typically become more eutrophic), and decommissioning processes. Take a precautionary approach towards installing floating solar as associated facilities on the reservoirs of large hydropower projects to avoid, for example, impacting bird and aquatic species, or exacerbating tensions related to water access for local communities. Document and disclose instances from across the region where ADB supported hydropower projects are being rendered idle due to drying rivers, or when severely affected by flood surges and heavy rains, along with remedial measures ADB is taking. Referencing Other Sectoral-Specific Guidance As drafted, the Guidance Note provides references to documents published by the International Hydropower Association (an international organization representing the hydropower sector industry) and selected resources from the World Bank Group, but fails to take into account key internationally accepted, sector-specific standard setting documents, such as the World Commission on Dams Final Report, and guidance developed by peer MDBs, such as the EIB Environmental, Climate and Social Guidelines on Hydropower Developments, resources on cumulative impacts tailored to the hydropower sector published by the IFC, or IFC Standard 6 and the accompanying Guidance Note on Biodiversity. The Guidance Note also fails to consider seminal publications on global best practices produced by the governmental bodies of member states, such as those published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Commission (e.g. “Advice on Better Decision-Making about Large Dams” and “Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainable Development of the Hydropower Sector”), as well as highly relevant sector specific assessment tools, reports and books produced by civil society organizations, such as “Riverscope”, “Rivers for Recovery: Protecting Rivers and Rights as essential for a Green and Just Recovery”, and “Dead in the Water: Global Lessons from the World Bank's Model Hydropower Project in Laos,” and relevant examples of community-issued guidelines for respecting free, prior and informed consent that are reflective of customary decision-making processes, such as the “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent Protocol”. Finally there is no reference to highly relevant recent academic literature reviewing / assessing the global and regional status of key sector-related issues, such as dam safety, human rights related implications of hydropower dams, biodiversity impacts of dams, the significance of retaining fluvial connectivity and GHG emissions associated with dams. Furthermore, we find it particularly disconcerting that the Guidance Note considers only two dams from the Mekong region and two from China as ‘representative’ of the ADB’s portfolio of investment over the past twenty years, with the only source of referenced information being ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department. For example, the description of Song Bung 4 as successful – despite the Guidance Note enumerating the “excessive health risks, resulting in at least 6 fatalities,” water flows “insufficient for fishing as a productive endeavor below the dam” and the fact that biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and effluent treatment “did not materially meet ADB safeguard requirements” – appears questionable at best. Meanwhile, no references are provided to reports from the Panel of Experts/Independent Advisory Panels established by the ADB at specific sites, for instance for Nam Theun 2 and Nam Ngiep 1, that have already a well documented trail of information raising concerns and lessons with regards to ADB’s hydropower investments. On the Drafting Process of the Guidance Note Finally, we reiterate our position that the comment period has been too short, as well as that the process surrounding the development and call for public input on the draft Guidance Note has been marred by a lack of clarity as well as limited flow of information in relation to the drafting process, timelines and public disclosure of the actual text. Comment periods should be more extensive (e.g. a minimum of 60 days), announced by ADB’s Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) and the NGO & Civil Society Centre (NGOC) openly, and posted on the ADB’s online events listing. Likewise, if virtual, hybrid or in-person consultations are to be scheduled, they should be announced openly with advance notice (subsequent to the text being posted online). We also reaffirm our call for the approved version of this guidance note – along with the other Guidance Notes associated with the 2021 Energy Policy (Paris Agreement Alignment, fossil gas and waste-to-energy) – to be publicly disclosed on the ADB’s website, alongside the 2021 Energy Policy. Other MDBs have published their guidelines on financing for hydropower dams; there is no reason for the ADB to not follow suit, and provide subsequent versions when updates are made. In conclusion, we reassert our call for the Guidance Note to be fully overhauled with a second draft that would require staff to take a precautionary approach from the get-go and that would be reflective of input collated from wider, meaningful discussions with civil society groups and communities affected by ADB's hydropower projects. We look forward to receiving a response and are open to discussing these issues at further length. Submitted by the following organizations based in Asia and beyond (listed in alphabetical order): Accountability Counsel, Global Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Regional/Asia Bai Indigenous Women’s Network, Philippines Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center, USA CEE Bankwatch Network, Czechia Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Global Centre for Research and Advocacy - Manipur, India CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Climate Watch Thailand, Thailand Community Legal Education Center, Cambodia Community Resource Centre (CRC), Thailand DamSense, USA Environmental Public Society, Armenia Environics Trust, India Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda Friends of the Earth-Japan (FOE-Japan), Japan Friends of the Earth-US (FOE-US), USA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Regional/Asia Pacific Growthwatch, India Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), Global Indigenous Peoples Organisation Australia, Australia Indian Social Action Forum, India Indigenous Women's Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal Indus Consortium, Pakistan Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh INSPIRIT Creatives NGO, Germany International Accountability Project, Global/USA International Rivers, USA Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas, Philippines KRuHA, Indonesia Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Friends of the Earth Philippines, Philippines Manushya Foundation, Thailand / Laos Mekong Watch, Japan Moro Christian People's Alliance, Philippines Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan NGO Forum on ADB, Regional/Asia North-East Affected Area Development Society (NEADS), India Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch NGO, Mongolia PacificwinPacific, Australia Pakaid, Pakistan Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Panaghiusa Philippine Network to Uphold Indigenous Peoples Rights, Philippines Peace Point Development Foundation (PPDF), Nigeria Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER), Mexico Recourse, Netherlands Rivers Without Boundaries Coalition (RwB), Global Rivers Without Boundaries (RwB) Mongolia, Mongolia Save The World's Rivers/Save The Colorado, USA Sandugo Movement of Moro and Indigenous Peoples for Self-Determination, Philippines urgewald, Germany Download PDF here.

Last 14-15 November 2022, NGO Forum on ADB had its Forum Annual Meeting (FAM) 2022 in Bali, Indonesia. Although the situation was challenging, the network conducted a meaningful annual meeting. After a heartfelt welcome from Hasan Mehedi, the Forum International Convenor, for day one, the network was able to cover the following – Annual Report Video Updates on bank engagements Updates on the Safeguards campaign Discussion on ADB & AIIB Fossil Gas Investments: Perspectives from Asia Session A brief roundtable discussion focusing on the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh A panel on ‘Asserting Justice in the Face of ADB and AIIB Energy 'Transition' Financing The Forum ADB Gas & LNG Tracker was also launched, which aims to help members in their advocacies and other related activities. The day ended with a breakout session regarding the network plan for ADB Energy Campaign: and AIIB Energy Sector Strategy, where they shared ideas and plans for the future. For day two, several panels were organized to share updates, lessons learned, best practices, and ways forward. The panels are - Cases on Accountability Mechanism: Lessons Learned Ongoing project monitoring: Challenges and opportunities Information sharing and advocacy support Sri Lanka Debt Crisis Discussion on retaliation and reprisals Day two ended with a profound discussion regarding Forum Strategy 2030. Below are some snaps of the two day event.

26th October 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 AIIB Board of Directors – Via Email – As the AIIB Annual Meeting 2022 opens, we are writing collectively – as civil society groups representing constituencies across the AIIB’s membership – to reiterate and follow up on a series of unresolved policy and project related concerns. We acknowledge the scheduling of a 90 minute by-invitation-only meeting between CSOs with the CEIU on October 26th, and a 90 minute time slot for a Management-CSO discussion on October 27th. Though civil society organizations will be joining the sessions in good faith, we collectively assert that this format is far too constrained to enable meaningful engagement between senior Bank representatives and local, national, regional as well as international civil society groups on either specific project concerns or substantive policy related questions. We note that both sessions are scheduled in the evening for Asia time zones and that both will take place in English, leaving limited options available for joining, most especially for those who have after-hours caregiving duties, those who would require interpretation (including ASL), and those who do not have access to stable internet connections. Indeed, over a year ago, last September, you received a letter signed by over 40 civil society organizations based in countries across the Bank’s membership, in the lead up to the Annual Meeting 2021, in which we called on senior management to take steps towards ”[e]nsuring that meaningful space and time is opened up for dialogue with CSOs and affected communities at all upcoming AGMs. This should include not only a free-flowing overarching dialogue with management, but also project-related meetings with staff, and meetings with senior management to discuss key policy revisions, with simultaneous translation.” At the time, the letter also called for “an autonomously organized civil society meeting with the Bank’s management” and for translation options to be made available for all public sessions. No substantive response to this letter was provided, nor were any of these issues proactively addressed last year. We would have hoped that one year on, such suggestions would have at least been taken into consideration by management in the planning and design of the 2022 Annual Meeting. Unfortunately, as per the schedule posted on the AIIB’s website, it does not appear this is the case. We are therefore bringing to your attention the following points related to Bank policies, projects and processes, which we consider warrant a deeper, more meaningful exchange of perspectives than will be conceivably possible within the confines of the online sessions allocated for CSO engagement at this year’s Annual Meeting. We hope you will duly take note, and respond this year in a timely manner, so that we are not left having to raise precisely these same points again in 2023. With regards to the Energy Sector Strategy Update, which we understand will be approved at the end of November, following COP 27: We reiterate our call for the revised draft to be released publicly and open for a period of comment. This is standard practice from peer MDBs, such as the Asian Development Bank, which for example would typically release an initial ‘W’ Paper followed by an ‘R’ paper, with clearly defined parameters for public input on both versions, enabling a greater degree of engagement and transparency as well as channels for concerns to be addressed before the text is finalized. We note that there is no indication how management intends to resolve concerns of civil society raised about the severely flawed consultation period in the future, including but not limited to the absence of time set aside to: listen directly to people already affected by AIIB’s energy sector investments and consider their recommendations for moving forward, enable CSO participants to engage with responsible staff on questions related to regional nuances in the AIIB’s energy sector portfolio, or to associated portfolios (e.g. water and urban sectors and those categorized as financial intermediary facilities), and address specific questions on (i) the gendered implications of energy sector financing and future/planned projects in the pipeline, and (ii) the critical lack of attention to gender considerations in the overall energy sector portfolio of the AIIB to date (underscored by the fact that no time was allocated for dialogues with civil society on this issue as requested – nor was any gender specialist staff present during the ‘virtual consultations’). We have reviewed the “Summary of the Consultations on the AIIB Energy Sector Strategy”. With all due respect, we do not agree that it accurately reflects or addresses critical aspects of CSO input, including, but not limited to: widespread calls on the Bank to stop financing fossil fuel dependent projects (and associated facilities) as well as large-scale dams, clarity on how the AIIB intends to use the MDB Just Transition High-Level Principles to guide energy financing, the need for all projects to incorporate gender indicators, clarity on why the Strategy has retained the section on “Analysis of the Issues and Challenges in Asia”, while still suggesting that it applies to all members (i.e. rather than including details of specific regional approaches and priorities that take into consideration the vastly different energy situations, issues and challenges across its borrowing membership), the need for a specific provision within the policy to address reprisal risks where projects are sited, the call for incorporating a “No Go Policy” into the Environmental and Social Exclusion List--and referencing it explicitly in the updated Energy Sector Strategy (for more details, see: “The Banks and Biodiversity No Go Policy”), and specific recognition that prior to site development as well as throughout the project cycle, the free, prior, informed and continuous consent of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities must be ascertained. With regards to the AIIB’s Commitment to Paris Alignment: We continue to seek clarity on if and how the Bank will ensure its guidance for aligning investments with the Paris Agreement by July 2023 will adhere to the imperatives of climate science as per the IPCC’s P1 scenario. We also urge the AIIB to publicly disclose corresponding institutional guidance materials in draft format, open to a period of meaningful public input (as outlined, for example, in a letter sent by over 30 organizations to the AIIB in August 2022). With regards to AIIB’s (lack of) response to the risk of reprisals: Despite the May 2022 “Statement on Retaliation,” disturbingly: information brought to the attention of the AIIB Management and the Board in August regarding the specific case of reprisals against a community rights advocate in Mongolia has been met with silence. We are still awaiting a response. There remains no clarity on what actions will be taken by AIIB Management and staff to prevent and react to cases in the future, nor on who within AIIB senior staff is specifically tasked as a point of contact to respond when CSOs raise such concerns. We await clarificatory measures to be taken and posted accordingly on the AIIB’s website. With regards to AIIB’s project investments: We have repeatedly witnessed a lack of management response, due diligence and monitoring when concerns are raised directly by project affected people as well as by groups working in - and with - these communities. Concerningly, in cases where the AIIB is co-financier, it appears that the Bank consistently delegates responsibility for addressing grievances of project affected people to partner institutions. Specifically, we urge the AIIB to withdraw the following projects from its proposed list of investments: Uzbekistan: 1560MW Surkhandarya Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Project This high risk gas project is expected to become operational in 2026, and would undermine the AIIB’s own stated pursuit of Paris alignment as well as joint MDB climate commitments: construction for new fossil gas infrastructure is incompatible with the action required to meet the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global heating to 1.5C. We also note the absence of any calculation for estimated methane emissions (CO4), a potent GHG that would be produced by the project and should be accounted for through scientifically sound measures. The project site is located alongside the 10km2 Uchkizil irrigation reservoir. Construction has already been announced. It is therefore unclear what assurances AIIB can provide that all other options for non-fossil fuel dependent energy generation were duly considered nor how the Bank will ensure adherence to its own Environmental and Social Framework in light of the project developments already getting underway. Bangladesh: 584MW Unique Meghnaghat Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Project This Category A fossil gas power project is being built on land that has been usurped from local communities, without providing due compensation, let alone seeking their consent. This means that if approved for a loan of US$ 75 million from the AIIB, the Bank would be shouldering a project where violations of its ESF have already been reported and documented by local community organizations. GHG accounting appears to have been limited to carbon dioxide calculations, without any indicative information about expected methane emissions, leaving a serious gap in the information provided about the actual carbon footprint of the project. In addition, the reliance on LNG imports means that it fails to heed not only climate science (i.e. undermining possibilities for Bangladesh - and for the Bank’s investments - to align with a credible 1.5C pathway), but also to even be practical in economic terms, given the current context of gas price volatility. Georgia: Nenskra Hydropower Project This Category A hydropower dam site is located in a geologically unstable area, yet the risk of avalanches, mudflows and landslides has not been adequately assessed. If built, the project not only would create major fiscal risks to Georgia’s state budget, but also would dispossess Svan communities of ancestral land relied upon not for livelihood sustenance and also the survival of their culture. They have not given consent for the project to proceed. Already investigations carried out by the European Investment Bank’s Complaints Mechanism and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism found the project non-compliant with a significant number of environmental and social policy requirements related to the protection of cultural heritage, gender impacts, the assessment and management of environmental and social impacts, labor influx, information disclosure, and participation of local communities and other stakeholders. Moreover, both mechanisms found that their policy requirements regarding Indigenous Peoples would be violated if the project were to go ahead as planned. In light of these serious issues already on the record, and the range of unaddressed construction-related concerns, AIIB should withdraw any further consideration of the Nenskra Hydropower dam, removing it from its project pipeline altogether. We also urge the AIIB to address concerns of civil society groups raised in regards to the following already approved projects: Bangladesh: IDCOL Multisector On-Lending This financial intermediary loan to the largest energy and infrastructure financing company in Bangladesh, Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd (IDCOL), is intended to support the development of infrastructure subprojects in the power, ICT and transport sector among others, and expected by the AIIB to “promote sustainable infrastructure development”. Yet to date, this investment is beset by major questions surrounding transparency and accountability. Despite the fact that civil society groups have filed official right to information requests with the Government of Bangladesh to gain clarity on its investments, responses have failed to be forthcoming. There are also several pending cases of land grabbing in connection with the LNG projects in which IDCOL is involved. In addition, the sheer size of its fossil gas related portfolio far overshadows its involvement in renewable energy infrastructure developments. In order to undertake due diligence on it’s claim that this financing is for ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ infrastructure, it is incumbent upon the AIIB to require IDCOL to publicly disclose all subprojects proposed to be financed via this on-lending facility with corresponding environmental and social impact assessments and other key project details ninety days prior to approval. It is also critical that AIIB verify that none of its financing is exposed to IDCOL’s investments in LNG developments, given the imperative to align financing with a credible 1.5C pathway and concerns related to violations of the rights of affected communities. Bangladesh: Bhola IPP Communities affected by this 220MW combined cycle gas turbine project have officially filed a complaint under the AIIB’s Project Affected Peoples’ Mechanism. Key concerns include: (i) coercion and intimidation faced by local communities, (ii) land acquisition practices in violation of national laws (including grabbing of lands relied upon by communities without payment), (iii) siltation of the local canal due to negligent construction practices, and (iv) loss of ability to use land for farming, grazing of livestock, and for household purposes due to water-logging, effluent and waste discharged into surrounding areas. However, in mid-2022, existing project financing provided by AIIB was replaced by commercial bank debt provided by a syndicate of multinational banks. We urge the AIIB to provide assurances that it will duly follow through with addressing the concerns raised by affected communities, given that the grievances are ones which have arisen since project inception. Brazil: BDMG Renewables and Connectivity Facility This financial intermediary on-lending investment has no clear definition of the parameters guiding what kind of renewable energy and connectivity-related infrastructure will be developed, instead delegating full responsibility of information disclosure as well as selecting and managing subprojects to Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais (BDMG). To date, there is also no indication on BDMG’s website about the nature of the subprojects to be financed through this facility. Although senior AIIB staff have suggested in exchanges with concerned civil society groups that the focus would be limited to Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) projects like solar and wind, to date these remain verbal commitments. In light of this situation, civil society groups are still waiting to hear how the AIIB will provide due diligence assurances that subprojects will not undermine its own ESF nor how standards outlined in regionally specific environmental and human rights treaties such as the Escazu Agreement (“Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean”), to which Brazil is a state signatory, will be upheld. We also await clarity on how the Bank will ensure clear channels are opened for affected communities to avail of the AIIB’s Project Affected Peoples’ mechanism if / when grievances arise at the subproject level. Cambodia: PRASAC COVID-19 Response Facility and ACLEDA Emergency and Crisis Response Facility We understand the AIIB management dispatched a recent due diligence mission to Cambodia in response to concerns brought to their and Board members’ attention by civil society groups about severe and adverse social and economic impacts related to the microfinance sector. Concerningly, the mission did not reach out to any civil society organizations to inform them of the visit, let alone seek their input. There is also no clarity on what provisions the AIIB has in place to protect those who spoke to the mission from reprisals. We request clarity on both of these critical oversights, and for a report on the mission to be made public. India: Bangalore Metrorail-Line R6 (co-financed with the European Investment Bank) In November 2019, the Technical Training Centre for the Deaf (TTCD) in Bangalore was demolished to make way for Line R6. The plans to close and demolish the school without practical alternative options in place meant that from 2018 onwards, 43 students faced an abrupt end to their progress towards Industrial Training Institute certification and eventual job placement. As most of them belong to socially and financially marginalized families, the job opportunities they could have pursued after the two year program were considered as a key to greater financial security and a dignified future. In effect, then, the students have fallen through the cracks created by this project, as from the outset there was no practical social impact assessment conducted and a complete disregard for safeguard standards. Over a year ago, this situation was brought to the attention of the AIIB as well as EIB in order for the Banks to duly step in and address the safeguard violations accordingly. However, to date, we are uncertain if anyone at the AIIB has taken any concrete action despite several email communications and online meetings on this matter. Now, nearly three long years since the demolition of the Training Centre, the Bangalore Metrorail Project has yet to adequately address the rehabilitation needs of these students. As a result, the students and their families are now seeking to have their grievances addressed through the EIB Complaints Mechanism’s mediation process. As Bank Management, it remains incumbent on you to clarify how and who at the AIIB is monitoring this process as a responsible co-financier. Among the demands being advanced by the students, their families and allied civil society organizations, is the call for reparations for the time lost as well as mental and emotional anguish experienced. It remains an open question whether the AIIB is prepared to take due responsibility while the process of redressal on behalf of the impacted students proceeds. We urge you to provide decisive information about how the AIIB will keep tabs on the situation and clear responses to questions raised by the students, families and civil society advocates. India: OSE InvIT (co-financed with IFC) Although this Category A private sector transport project was approved in 2018, project information disclosure was made only in March 2020. In 2019, Oriental InfraTrust (InvIT) acquired 5 highway road projects which were already built and operational at the time of acquiring. Under this infrastructure investment trust model, the IFC and AIIB only became involved after the projects were already built, meaning the shareholders must believe that the standards to which the IFIs are committed can be applied in retrospect, including seeking and obtaining Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior and informed consent both before and during construction. Given that civil society research has uncovered glaring violations of IFC’s performance standards at the time of building the 5 road projects, including carving up biodiverse forests, flawed consultations, the displacement of Indigenous Peoples(Adivasis), safety risks, obstruction of access to public services, problems with land acquisition and compensation, and wholly inadequate Environment and Social Due Diligence reports, the question remains: how will these environmental and social standards be applied retroactively especially when the construction and acquisition of land took place over a decade ago? Despite these critical questions remaining unanswered and without a full investigation into this financing model, AIIB recently approved another InVIT project, the Kotak Infrastructure Investment Fund, for energy, transport, digital infrastructure and water sector infrastructure projects, all of which could potentially have devastating impacts on the rights of local communities and local ecologies. The AIIB should urgently: Suspend any further IFI investments into InvITs while concerns about application of standards, the balance of risks and benefits in ‘public-private partnerships’, and wider social and economic impacts are addressed, Launch an immediate investigation into the harms caused by the five road projects of OSE InvIT, identifying where gaps exist between the Performance Standards and impacts on the ground, specifically through conducting extensive consultations with affected communities, and publish the resulting report in full; Ensure full and fair redress for affected communities who have suffered harm as a result of the construction of projects, and Develop a compendium of lessons learned to inform future investments, in consultations with civil society. While the above list of projects is not exhaustive, it is intended to highlight key project related concerns that we would have hoped to discuss further at this year’s Annual Meeting. Many other projects, including the Greater Malé Waste-to-Energy Project in the Maldives (co-financed with ADB) and the Multi-country Everbright Infrastructure Investment Fund II – both of which involve the development of waste-to-energy incinerators – also raise serious concerns related to irreparable damage to peoples’ health as well as the environment, and have remained unaddressed by the Bank to date. In closing, we urge the AIIB Management to: be accountable and responsive to the concerns of project-affected communities and broader civil society actors across the Bank’s membership - starting with responding to pending CSO letters as referenced above, increase transparency in policy revision processes and project-related matters (including for financial intermediary facilities and capital market investments), and engage in heightened due diligence prior to project and policy approval to avoid systematic complicity in human rights violations and locking borrowing members into reliance on resource-intensive infrastructure that is neither ecologically nor economically sustainable. We look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, BRICS Feminist Watch | Global Building and Wood Workers International | Global (Switzerland) Gender Action | Global IBON International | Global International Accountability Project | Global International Rivers | Global Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights | Global Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development | Asia Regional CEE Bankwatch | Regional (Czechia) Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives – Asia Pacific | Regional Latinoamérica Sustentable | Latin America Regional (Ecuador) NGO Forum on ADB | Asia Regional Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition | Regional Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice | Indonesia Amazon Watch | Ecuador Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad | Colombia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt | Bangladesh Both ENDS | Netherlands Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights | Cambodia Centre for Financial Accountability | India Centre for Human Rights and Development | Mongolia Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network | Bangladesh CooperAcción | Perú Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana | Ecuador Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones para la Defensa de la naturaleza y el medio ambiente| Ecuador Equitable Cambodia| Cambodia Environmental Public Society | Armenia Environics Trust | India Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies| Argentina Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales | Argentina Fundación Banco de Bosques | Argentina Green Alternative | Georgia Growthwatch | India Indian Social Action Forum | India Initiative for Right View| Bangladesh Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union | Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch | Mongolia Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum | Pakistan Protection International Mesoamérica | Guatemala Pueblo Indígena Shuar Arutam | Ecuador Recourse | The Netherlands Sustentarse| Chile urgewald e.V. | Germany We Women lanka | Sri Lanka WomanHealth Philippines | Philippines Download pdf version here.

Dear ADB President Asakawa, Managing Director Woochong Um, VP Ashok Lavasa (Private Sector Operations), and Members of the ADB Board of Directors, We are writing to collectively urge an immediate reconsideration of the proposed financing for a new waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration project in Binh Duong Province, Viet Nam (Project Number: 56118-001). Formally reported as “Viet Nam: Binh Duong Waste Management and Energy Efficiency Project”, once operational, this project is expected to burn 200 tons of industrial and municipal solid waste per day. This letter outlines the key reasons why the project should be urgently put on hold until it is revised rather than proceeding to the Board for approval, specifically: 1) in light of the absence of a finalized guidance note on WTE as mandated by the new 2021 Energy Policy (required to provide specific screening measures at all stages of the project cycle) to meet the requirements of paragraph 71 of the policy that the choice of feedstock is a result of a prudent order of waste management and WTE will be the last option, approving this project would be a breach of due process; 2) the lack of any evidence-based information to illustrate how the project will actually tackle climate change and support making cities more liveable as per operational priorities of ADB’s Strategy 2030 (see the Project’s Initial Poverty and Social Analysis); 3) the unsubstantiated claim that WTE incineration is a viable source of renewable energy source; 4) high risk of safeguards violations in light of the lack of clarity how the implementing company’s own ESMS can be relied upon when across the region, WTE incineration plants systematically circumvent national pollution control laws while undermining standards upheld by international conventions. Below, we elaborate why deploying the ADB’s limited resources to facilitate the building of such an unnecessary, risky, and resource-intensive project lacks foresight — most especially given the urgent need to support borrowing member countries to rapidly scale up options for reliance on locally relevant, decentralized renewable energy generation, and waste management systems. 1. Background: Missing guidance notes on WTE incineration We are alarmed by the fact that this project is proposed in the absence of the staff guidance note on WTE. Until today, the guidance note has not been finalized and made publicly available. In our latest conversation with senior management-level staff in the Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, it was made clear that the guidance notes will be applied before the approval stage of a project cycle. As mandated by the new Energy Policy, the staff guidance will elaborate upon the screening criteria for ADB operations involving natural gas, large hydropower plants, and WTE plants. On WTE, the guidance note should provide criteria to ensure that the feedstock used in ADB’s proposed projects on WTE incineration will follow “a prudent order of waste management priorities”. This means, before WTE incineration is considered to be installed, ADB operations must ensure first the reduction of waste generation, material reuse, and recycling to take place. The guidance note on WTE must reinforce and not undermine paragraph 71 of the new Energy Policy, ensuring prioritization of waste management options in which WTE incineration is the last option. WTE incineration is an end-of-pipe solution to waste. Its existence does not stimulate higher and more important solutions for waste management which are reduction, reuse, and recycling. In fact, it disincentivizes upstream solutions due to its huge financial implications for local governments’ budgets through the high cost of construction and operational costs. In many cases, national governments need to subsidize the tipping fee, feed-in tariff, or false renewable energy subsidy. There is no clear evidence-based rationale for the Board to approve the WTE incineration component of this non-sovereign loan worth USD 7 million before the guidance note is in place and duly adhered to by ADB staff. The project does not indicate any means to reduce waste generation, such as first supporting the implementation of a ban on single-use products and packaging, a deposit-refund system, or local programs to promote reuse and refillable containers, food loss and food waste prevention — all of which could in fact help make the cities in the project area more livable. The project also does not include a component of material recycling for recyclable metal, plastic, paper, and cardboard. Additionally, it is also unclear whether the composting plant will treat source-separated waste or mixed waste — a critical factor in ensuring a high-quality organic management process. Lastly, there is no initial analysis on waste composition and generation conducted to justify that the WTE component has followed a prudent order of waste management priorities. Given the absence of a guidance note, there is no way for civil society to verify how the implementing company, BIWASE, will adopt the best internationally available standards in accordance with international conventions as mandated by the new Energy Policy. In this regard, we note with concern that the company’s website also does not list any intent to follow international guidelines for emissions or other environmental, health, and safety standards. Support for WTE incineration would also hamper efforts to avoid harming livelihood opportunities for the poorest of the poor working along the waste value chain as required in the new Energy Policy. WTE incineration facilities create the least jobs compared to composting, recycling, remanufacturing, and repair. Therefore, it will most likely lead to an extensive loss of employment and loss of livelihood for those working in the informal waste sector. Furthermore, the presence of incineration plants also typically lead to a drastic loss of income for the informal waste sector. This happens because incinerator plants demand a constant and huge amount of waste with high-calorific content which is found in recyclables. Expansion of WTE incineration capacity would also contradict Viet Nam’s national recycling targets. 2. WTE incineration is not a low-carbon investment The claim that this project is aligned with the operational priorities of ADB’s Strategy 2030 —in particular the key operational priority on tackling climate change— is very concerning to us as civil society organizations directly advocating for climate, energy, social and economic justice. Waste incineration projects are heavily reliant on burning plastic. This makes WTE incineration plants no different than any other fossil-powered energy generation system. Incinerating plastic which is 99 percent made of fossil fuels emits 2.7 tonnes of CO2e for every tonne of plastic burned. Further, when energy is recovered, incinerating one tonne of plastic still results in 1.43 tonnes of CO2e — way higher than real renewable sources such as wind and solar. WTE incineration is not a low-carbon technology; in fact, it is more emission-intensive than the average emission intensity on the grid, including coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. In both the U.S. and the E.U., WTE incineration is considered among the dirtiest sources of energy and the most emissions-intensive form of power generation on the grid. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour than coal-fired, natural-gas-fired, or oil-fired power plants. A recent scientific paper further proves that incinerators emit more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced than any other power source. This finding is corroborated by a study on European incinerators which shows that the carbon intensity of electricity produced from WTE incinerators is twice the current European Union average electricity grid intensity — significantly greater than energy produced through conventional fossil fuel sources. Lastly, waste incineration has no place in any decarbonization plans. WTE incineration facilities are expected to operate for about 25 years with significant GHG emissions as explained above — causing both carbon lock-in and feedstock lock-in effects. This hinders countries from achieving their climate targets and improving their waste prevention and recycling rate. This process would also encourage more extraction of resources, since discarded materials have been destroyed rather than recovered, thus indirectly contributing to more emissions. 3. Municipal and industrial solid waste is not a renewable energy source The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines renewable energy as energy created from natural processes that do not get depleted, such as bioenergy, direct solar energy, and those derived from wind, or ocean. IPCC also states that only the organic component of municipal solid waste is considered renewable. Hence, fossil components of waste streams such as plastic materials are non-renewable. In the case of this project, 840 tons per day of organic waste would be taken by the composting facility. Thus, it is likely that WTE will rely on burning non-organic waste fraction, especially fossil-derived plastic. Additionally, both municipal and industrial solid waste contains recyclable and reusable materials lost from the economy that needs to be re-mined, re-grown, and re-manufactured which incinerators destroy. Reuse and recycling also save more energy and prevent more greenhouse gas emissions compared to waste incineration. Therefore, investments in burning discarded materials such as plastic, paper, and glass that are derived from finite natural resources undermine climate goals. Labeling WTE incineration as a renewable energy source project has severely unjust energy transition implications. This fact is well reflected in the U.S. where waste incineration is considered one of the most expensive ways to generate energy. A more recent study also shows that WTE incineration is nearly four times higher than solar power and onshore wind energy and 25 percent more expensive than coal-fired power plants. WTE incineration also reflects the weak financing model for an industry that has become increasingly dependent on renewable energy subsidies to stay afloat. 4. Potential safeguards violation of WTE incineration projects We question the project environment safeguard categorization as well as the suggestion in the Project Initial Poverty and Social Analysis that it will make surrounding cities more livable. The project is currently categorized as a Category B. WTE incinerators cause long-term public health and environmental damage. Case studies of waste incineration projects throughout Asia and the Pacific have unequivocally demonstrated causal connections to adverse and irreversible environmental impacts. Paragraph 36 of ADB Safeguards Policy 2009 (SPS 2009) requires borrowers to avoid any release of hazardous substances and materials subject to international bans and phaseouts. This clearly conflicts with two international conventions. Both Minamata and Stockholm conventions have identified waste incineration as a major source of mercury and dioxins which are highly toxic and must be phased out immediately. This project also does not reflect compliance with SPS 2009. In paragraph 35, the borrower is mandated to minimize the generation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste resulting from project activities. WTE incineration does not eliminate waste as it only converts domestic waste into toxic waste in the form of ash. For every four tons of waste burnt, it is expected that there will be at least one ton of toxic incinerator fly ash and bottom ash. Furthermore, paragraphs 34 and 35 also require borrowers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, and treatment (i.e. composting and recycling) — compliant with resource conservation principles and a prudent order of waste management priorities. Similarly, Viet Nam national law on Environmental Protection also mandates all organizations to prioritize upstream preventive measures. A report by IPEN shows that toxic ash and other residues from waste incineration around the globe contain dioxins, furans (PCDD/Fs), and a range of other highly toxic Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which occur at levels threatening to human health and the environment. Also, WTE incineration emits fine and ultra-fine particles that contain high amounts of toxic compounds and pose a serious threat to the environment and human health. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency released findings showing that the Norfos incineration plant has repeatedly exceeded the limit value for toxic emissions for dioxins and furans since 2014. More recent research conducted in Kaunas (Lithuania), Pilsen (Czech Republic), and Valdemingomez (Spain) show that WTE incinerators contribute to high dioxin levels in the vicinity of the plants. Long-term studies from state-of-the-art WTE incinerators in Harlingen (the Netherlands) and Sant Adrià de Besós (Spain) reveal emissions of toxic pollutants far beyond the limits set by EU laws. A similar long-term study in 2019, showed that UK incinerators breached their air pollution limits 127 times — with five different facilities reporting more than 10 permit breaches. There were 96 hours of abnormal operations where toxic pollutants such as dioxins are very likely to be released and not monitored. The toxic contamination is not incidental, but systemic as shown by the recent news of Lausanne dioxin contamination in Switzerland. The country’s fourth-largest city is currently trying to cope with the effects of a recent discovery of wide-scale soil pollution caused by toxic compounds from an old garbage incinerator. This incident has caused an EU-wide investigation into impacts at other incinerator locations and should be a wake-up call for the ADB management – it is time to end support for WTE incineration. Incinerator bottom ash from burning waste also contains significant total concentrations of elements that are a ‘high level of concern’ based on EU REACH hazard classifications. For example, studies from a municipal solid waste incinerator in Phuket (Thailand) have shown that the ash emitted contains high concentrations of dioxins. The accumulated ash is stored adjacent to the plant and near the coastline, without protective barriers to prevent dioxins from leaking into the sea. Close to the plant, it was found that some of the fish and shellfish samples, also wild bird eggs, had elevated POPs levels. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that waste incineration exacerbates microplastic contamination in surrounding areas, for example, up to 102,000 microplastic particles are found per metric ton of waste incinerated. The national regulation on industrial waste incineration also uses lower safeguards standards on dioxins emission in flue gas (QCVN 30: 2012/BTNMT). The emission standard for dioxins in flue gas is 0.6 ng TEQ/Nm3. That is six times lower than the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) of the European Parliament (EU IED) standard which set 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3 for dioxins emissions in the flue gas. Additionally, the national law on Environment Protection also only requires once a year dioxins and furans monitoring in incinerator wastewater and flue gas — which is less than what is required by the EU IED on the monitoring frequency. We note with concern that in the past, ADB has also supported one WTE project in Viet Nam which has been reported as non-compliant with ADB SPS yet remains to be in operation to this day. This first ADB-funded WTE plant in Viet Nam (Project Number: 50371-001) is located in the solid waste treatment area of Xã Trường Xuân Commune of Thới Lai District, which is 36 km from Cần Thơ City. According to the ADB’s own Environmental and Social Monitoring Report and Annual Environmental and Social Performance Report, there are several instances of significant safeguards violations (SPS 2009; Safeguard Requirement 1: Environment; paragraphs 33, 34, 35, and 36). 5. Lack of monitoring of toxic persistent organic pollutants In 2019, the operator of Cần Thơ WTE plant has signed an MoU with ADB providing assurances that the Plant shall meet the emissions limits based on the EU IED. This directive is often referred to as the best international standard on WTE incineration. In the reports, dioxins and furans are not monitored continuously, but rather only monitored once every three months by third-party laboratories. Moreover, these toxic pollutants are only measured over an average sampling period of two hours. In practice, this would only represent 0.1% of the total operation time per year. Even if the measurement of dioxins and furans meets the limitations stipulated in the EU IED, the sampling period is recorded for only six to eight hours; i.e. representing 0.4% of the annual operation at best. 6. ​​Lack of testing parameters for toxic pollutants The Environmental and Social Monitoring Report has highlighted several missing testing parameters for the incinerator bottom ash, including those related to heavy metals, dioxins, and furans. It also underscored the lack of capacity of local government authorities to manage toxic incinerator ash adequately. In fact, Cần Thơ City Government does not have any safeguard measures for securing incinerator toxic ash. Currently, the city government is still in the planning stages for developing a fly ash landfill within the solid waste treatment area in the Thới Lai District. Notably, the EU IED also requires monitoring of dioxins contained in WTE incineration wastewater. Yet, no such measurements are reported from Cần Thơ WTE. 7. Lack of meaningful consultations and insufficient information disclosure Crucially, ADB’s own Environmental and Social Monitoring Report of the respective project also indicates the need to conduct additional consultation to ensure affected communities around the site are fully informed of the project. The report highlighted that the project needs to inform local communities about the grievance system. From our perspective, it is also critically important that ADB and project staff communicate the potential risks of toxic emissions and ash released from the plants to surrounding households in a language they understand. These three concerns are indicative of the serious risks from WTE incinerators, which as recognized by international laws and growing evidence even in countries with superior regulatory environment, has to be avoided than mitigated. Without any requirement that mandates continuous sampling and information disclosure from emission monitoring activity, WTE incineration plants pose significant health risks to local communities. It is crucial to ensure the establishment of working project grievance mechanisms that enable secure, independent reporting channels to avoid risks of reprisals and retaliation. This should be accompanied with regular meaningful consultations with the affected communities, conducted in a language they understand, in spaces where they can express concerns and raise questions free of fear of reprisals. In cases where serious safeguards requirements are not fulfilled, the Board must withdraw from these projects. In light of the above information, we are calling on the ADB to 1) decisively withdraw the WTE component from the proposed Binh Duong Waste Management and Energy Efficiency Project (56118-001); 2) publicly disclose the guidance note on WTE online; and 3) include compliance with the guidance note as a mandatory provision on the project data sheet if/when new WTE projects are proposed — allowing civil society groups and local communities to follow up accordingly. At a minimum, taking these steps would help provide a basis for clarity for civil society and community groups to evaluate whether and how the Bank is diligently prepared to follow a prudent order of waste management priorities in its project investments and ensure a transparent set of screening standards are firmly in place for staff and project proponent guidance. We look forward to your timely response. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Won Myong Hong, Project Officer, Private Sector Operations Department Suzanne Gaboury, Director General, Private Sector Operations Department Christopher Thieme, Deputy Director General, Private Sector Operations Department Priyantha Wijayatunga, Chief of Energy Sector Group, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Bruce Dunn, Director, Safeguards Division Download PDF here.

NGO Forum on ADB Statement 55th Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors Open Statement: Critical Questions to ADB's Management during the 55th Annual Meeting Introduction At the 55th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), CSOs and communities adversely affected by the Bank's policies and projects across Asia and the Pacific take this opportunity to raise our collective concerns to you, Mr. President. From the outset, we express a deep sense of solidarity with the diverse peoples' movements across the region – including those calling attention to the debt crisis and political upheaval in Sri Lanka, the severe consequences of the recent floods in Pakistan that wreaked havoc on people's lives and livelihoods, and to the pervasive shrinking of civil society space coupled with intensifying reprisals against human rights defenders, including in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Mongolia, to name a few. As we are shifting into a post - COVID - 19 recovery period, we cannot ignore how the pandemic has deepened inequalities and exposed our fragile health system, weak governance, unsustainable dependence on resource-intensive energy systems and underdeveloped public transportation systems. Devastation of Ongoing Climate-Related Disasters Mr. President, we want to bring your attention to the super typhoon Karding (international name Noru), which blasted the Philippines' main Luzon Island, causing damage and losses of P141.38 million to the agricultural sector. Super typhoons and the pandemic have taught us that neglecting critical issues such as public health, energy access, and village-to-hospital infrastructure can lead to a massive human and capital cost; the ADB cannot pursue a pathway that remains bound to private profit in the name of development. Recently, Pakistan has also experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in the world; one-third of the country was submerged underwater, proving that the urgency of the climate crisis is upon us. According to Pakistan civil society groups, the current monster monsoon rainfall has affected more than 40 million people, causing damage to over two million homes and vast areas of agricultural land, the loss of an estimated one million livestock, damage to thousands of kilometers of road infrastructure, and the collapse of at least three hundred-and-fifty bridges in the country. It is urgent that the MDBs, including ADB, support Pakistan by systematically cancelling outstanding debts, free of any austerity conditionalities. Pakistan accounts for 0.7% of GHG emissions but is ranked the 8th most vulnerable country to climate change globally. Amidst this critical situation, ADB continues to this day to dispense financing to support the development and operations of the 600 MW super-critical coal-fired power unit of the Jamshoro Power Company Limited (JPCL)' and has also recently financed large scale hydropower schemes such as the Balakot Dam, displacing village households and destroying climate resilient river ecosystems. Pakistani civil society groups urge the ADB to bring an immediate halt to its support for all fossil fuel related facilities in Pakistan, including the Jamshoro Power Project, and reorient all the future investment portfolios towards the deployment of solar and wind energy projects for ensuring a just energy transition and sustainable economic growth. As referenced above, the Forum Network calls for greater attention to be placed on addressing the debt crisis and political situation in Sri Lanka. Mr. President, according to national civil society voices, Sri Lanka is suffering from a serious debt crisis, energy crisis, and food crisis due to the failed neoliberal policies and corrupt system of capitalism implanted in the country. Many multilateral development bank financed infrastructure projects and borrowing initiatives have become sources of corruption in the past two decades. Mr. President: ADB should take responsibility for it’s role in exacerbating these systemic problems, and as a policy imperative, should take immediate steps to cancel illegitimate and unfair debts, while encouraging other multilateral and bilateral lenders to do the same. Furthermore, it is time for the ADB to not only respond proactively to the humanitarian crisis, but also denounce draconian laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act which is being used explicitly to repress peoples’ voices in the midst of the political and socio-economic crises. Safeguards Policy Revisions The ADB is also in the midst of the Safeguards Policy consultation process with no clear indication if the new provisions will be progressive, rights-based, and pro-community. The ADB Safeguard Policy is supposed to protect the rights of development-affected communities. The ADB must consult affected people, and information must be disclosed formally. The language must be accessible to them to understand better the project plans to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental, social, cultural, and many more impacts, especially for Indigenous Peoples and marginalized communities. Yet, according to civil society groups working with – and in – ADB project-affected communities, including for example in Nepal, the Bank has repeatedly failed to meaningfully consult with local people and explain the projects' risks, consistently leading to direct adverse impacts on people and the environment. Before project approval, Mr. President, diligent meaningful consultation and information disclosure are integral – if the ADB is to deliver on upholding its own safeguard standards. Mr. President, as the current Safeguards Policy of the Bank is being reviewed, we continue to demand that the ADB develop strong safeguards now. We remind you if the Safeguards Policy is to be progressive and forward looking, it cannot turn a blind eye to the situation of human rights defenders, laborers, and a private sector operating outside the view of public disclosure. Financing for Coal Retirement The Forum Network is also raising to the fore concerns regarding the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) scheme that the Bank is preparing to pilot in the region. Mr. President, there remain ambiguities over how the mechanism will be implemented, leaving many of us skeptical. As coal and other fossil fuel prices today bring record high electricity rates amid skyrocketing costs of living, ADB and its partners must prioritize a rapid phaseout of costly coal power that will not pass on the burdens of ill health to future generations or exorbitant expenses to household level consumers, nor open the door for other carbon intensive fuels like fossil gas, blue hydrogen, waste-to-energy or woody biomass, to take coal's place. Coal companies and financiers must shoulder their part in early closure expenses, including reparative and just transition costs. Any transition mechanism must not undermine progress towards aligning with IPCC Trajectory 1 (1.5°C), but rather help to shift to affordable, accessible, decentralized energy systems in borrowing member countries, harnessing 100% renewable energy sources. We have repeatedly stated in recent years that a just, inclusive, and sustainable transition across Asia and the Pacific cannot and will not be realized if the Bank continues to finance false solutions such as WTE incinerators, large hydropower dams, fossil gas, and carbon capture schemes. In this regard, we note that the accompanying guidance notes to the 2021 Energy Policy for screening investments in hydropower, fossil gas and waste-to-energy have yet to be finalized and publicly disclosed. Mr. President, there is no excuse for delay, ADB must support an equitable, forward-looking green recovery with clear assurances of adherence to international human rights standards without exception. Shrinking Civic Space and Reprisals There is also the pervasive shrinking of civil society space and reprisals against human rights defenders across the region, including in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Mongolia. As we move towards the post - COVID - 19 era, it is undeniable that the pandemic has deepened inequalities and exposed a fragile health system, weak governance, and poorly designed infrastructure systems. For example, in the name of post-COVID-19 economic recovery, the Mongolian Minister of Justice declared on August 3, 2022, that anyone objecting to strategic infrastructure projects would be investigated for criminal acts stipulated in Criminal Code 19.4 and 19.6 as sabotage and unlawful collaboration with foreign entities and individuals. This statement was followed by opening criminal investigations and arrests of civil society and community activists. It also opened doors for businesses to file retaliatory charges against activists and community groups they consider stalling their projects, claiming payment of onerous amounts to make up for "lost opportunity costs" without substantiated evidence. Investigations, intimidation, and arrests of community rights advocates continue to date. It remains to be seen if the ADB will remain silent in the face of this context, simply continuing to provide loans and technical assistance to a government that makes reprisals an official tool for moving ahead with environmentally and socially harmful projects. Mr. President, we urge the ADB to take clear measures to respond to the unacceptable risks this situation poses to project-affected communities and their allies. In regards to broader ADB policies, we seek specific answers to the following Institutional and/or Policy Issues: On the Safeguards Review Process and Accountability Mechanism As the ADB is gearing towards the culmination of the safeguards consultation process, how can the Bank ensure that the proposed policy will be progressive, rights-based, and pro-community? Recognizing the realities of being a human rights defender and voicing dissent in these difficult times, will the Bank specifically adopt a zero tolerance of intimidation and reprisals built into the proposed policy? Similarly, we are increasingly alarmed with the opaqueness of the private sector operations department, the different financing modalities such as financial intermediaries, multi-tranche facilities, joint ventures, and bonds that the Bank is aggressively promoting. How will ADB ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place on these emerging modalities? At this point, is ADB already considering how the Accountability Mechanism will be updated, considering the several policy changes? How will ADB ensure that recourse for project-affected communities is made easier, accessible, expedient, and attuned to the actual expressed concerns of local people? On the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) According to ADB documentation, when the Energy Transition Mechanism scheme is operationalized at the project or utility level, it will provide compensatory loans for the coal project sponsors, offering incentives for retiring projects some years ahead of the original power purchase agreement terms. The project operator will need to earn proceeds over this time so they will be able to repay the loan and invest in clean greenfield investments, requiring the project to continue burning coal for an estimated 10-15 year timespan. How will the Bank avoid overpaying the coal operating company or utility company over this extensive timeline of 10-15yrs and who is supposed to pick up the tab for the harm and damage wrought on communities (including premature deaths and chronic respiratory diseases) as well as continued contamination of the surrounding air, water, and land? How will the ADB ensure its support for operating coal projects for another 10-15 years does not undermine the trajectory of 1.5 C when we know, according to recent IPCC reports, that the best chance we have to avert catastrophic global heating is to make the shift towards reliance on renewable energy? We have no time for false climate solutions; it's incumbent upon the ADB to support the financing of the infrastructure needed to make this shift – especially since the Bank itself has a history of investing in coal in the region – not supporting a dying industry. Recent news reports have revealed that in Indonesia, coal power projects will be repurposed in some cases by retrofitting the project to accommodate co-firing with ammonia, hydrogen, or woody biomass. We have also heard how battery development for energy storage is spurring the growth of coal projects to power smelting operations. Will the ADB consider co-firing options as part of the process of repurposing coal projects under the ETM? What kind of measures is the ADB taking to avoid complicity in financing energy transition technologies (false solutions) that rely on fossil fuels, delaying and diverting needed financing from long-term solutions that meet the energy needs of the populations across the region? Given that the ETM will function through a blended fund vehicle, what measures will be taken to ensure people living around the targeted pilot projects can avail of the ADB's Accountability Mechanism? For the people who continue to suffer from the impacts of ADB's investment in the Visayas Baseload Coal Power Project, including chronic pulmonary diseases (Project 43906-014), when can we expect that the ADB will finally commit to supporting project closure and a just transition at this site, including remediation of the land, retraining for workers, installation of air quality monitoring devices with that offer up to date, publicly accessible data and reparations for the harm and losses inflicted? The ADB's books may be closed, but that does not diminish the culpability of the Bank. In Cebu, communities are still mobilizing for justice and expect answers. Mr. President, in light of the above issues described, we urge you to uphold the public interest and the public need above all interests, especially given the Bank’s mandate as a public multilateral development finance institution. We remain vigilant and engaged with you and ADB management on whether ADB’s next lending phase is pro-people and pro-environment. We hope that under your leadership, you will allow the Bank to remain open to hearing critical views from the ground when it deviates from that agenda. Sincerely, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by the following organizations - 350 Pilipinas, Philippines 350.org Asia, Asia Accountability Counsel, USA Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center, United States CEE Bankwatch Network, Czechia Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network)), Bangladesh Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR), Perú Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda GAIA Asia Pacific, Asia Gender Action, Global Global Rights, Nigeria Green Advocates International, Liberia Growthwatch, India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Indus Consortium, Pakistan Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Philippines Lumière Synergie pour le Développement, Senegal Mekong Watch, Japan Nash Vek, Kyrgyzstan Observatoire d'Etudes et d'Appui à la Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, Congo Oil Change International, USA Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Peace Point Development Foundation -PPDF, Nigeria Prakriti Resources Centre, Nepal Recourse, The Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL), Philippines urgewald e.V., Germany WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Download PDF here.