Search Results

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework for Investments Supported by Financial Intermediaries In Forum’s experience, there are several fundamental problems in ensuring FI Accountability to Safeguards – Project cycle bound timely release of project information in a meaningful manner for local peoples FIs need to ensure that environmental and social due diligence is implemented at the highest standards by their clients On issues of non-compliance, an independent and responsive redress mechanism has to be in place to ensure remedy for affected peoples. Keeping these three principles in mind the following comments have been made to the AMF- In the introductory section of the AMF, the lack of implementation of Equator Principles has been cited as a clear gap in FI accountability. We would recommend that the shift from guidelines for FIs to binding requirements should be emphasized in this section to strengthen the conceptual framework for this AMF. In line with comments from Accountability Counsel, we re-echo the need for learning to be upfront in this document for the AMF (Section 12, pg 4). For the AMF to work effectively it has to be able to learn from each case and make the necessary reforms to strengthen implementation. The issue of lessons learned and feedback loops built into the AMF system to help reform the structure will be critical to bringing diverse types of FI’s to compliance. On the issue of FI Sub-project categorization (pg.8) there is a need to ensure that a comprehensive ESIA is conducted to ensure the ‘Big B’ Category projects are deemed Category A. This is a potential risk especially for Infrastructure Funds, examples can be drawn from the Emerging Asia Fund of the AIIB and IFC, which has been tapped by Summit Power Group to retrofit several coal plants and build 4 new power generation facilities, which are fossil fuel based. The impacts from these projects will be long term and immediate and will require comprehensive ESIAs to ensure Safeguards are implemented. FIs and there parent funding institutions such as commercial banks and multilateral banks should have a strict monitoring role over their clients on environmental and social due diligence. The current practice of client-led safeguarding and self- reporting is no longer a viable model to ensure that AMF objectives are reached, thus we strongly recommend that monitoring and evaluation roles by FIs and their parent financial institutional investors should have an overseeing function. This is maybe done through further elaborating on a governance framework for FIs and their FI Clients, with detailed monitoring requirements in place. We are noticing for both ADB and AIIB projects that the Grievance Redress Mechanisms are often not effective at the local level. For MDBs it has been a real challenge to ensure that local GRMs have worked effectively; this will be a bigger challenge for an FI client to ensure. In this case, we recommend that project level GRMs should be – Meaningfully accessible for local communities Ensure complainants protection from backlash and retaliation Ensure remedial response The paper recognizes the shortcomings of GRMs - "However, GRMs are often poorly designed or implemented, and thus create mistrust and conflict between communities and the project executing agency. Finally, it must be noted that project-level GRM is not a substitute for an accountability mechanism at the institutional (financial intermediary) level, because the GRM cannot determine whether the financial intermediary has complied with its own environmental and social policies, standards, and procedures." Thus it has to be explicitly stated that accessing local GRMs should not be made a pre- requisite for local communities to trigger the Accountability Mechanism for an FI project. As mentioned earlier the fundamental problem with FI non-compliance to Safeguards is the lack of Time Bound Disclosure of project information to local people. At present local communities have no way of assessing whether FI subprojects are indeed FIs and what policies and mechanisms are entailed in their operations. From a community perspective, the following information has to be provided pre-project approval – Area and scale of the project Clear description of project cycle, construction, environmental and social impacts Clear assessment of project benefits sharing, compensations and allocations Clear understanding on rights, privileges and redress mechanisms for communities in cases of violations. All of language needs and ensuring that poor and vulnerable groups such as women, children and people with disabilities are made aware of all project related information. This is where the governance structure of this AMF will prove to be critical to ensure that Clients are complying with the disclosure needs at the local level. Provisions should also be made upstream in the project cycle to ensure that information disclosure needs are all met before a project is approved for implementation. The Forum re-echos Accountability Counsels recommendation on following the best practice example from the Green Climate Fund - which works with FIs, or accredited entities – The GCF has adopted a high degree of disclosure in line with international best practice, including time-bound disclosure of crucial project information – such as environmental and social impact assessments – ahead of approval. The degree and timing of disclosure are calibrated according to the risk profile of the investment: with more and better disclosure for the highest risk (Category A). The following excerpts from its 2016 Information Disclosure Policy describe the degree of disclosure: “Environmental and social reports. With respect to the project and program funding proposals that have an environmental or social impact, the Accredited Entities (AE’s) shall disclose and announce to the public and, via the Secretariat, to the Board and Active Observers: in case of Category A projects, the Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA) and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; in the case of Category I-1 programs, the Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)2 at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; in the case of Category B projects, the ESIA3 and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)4 at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; and in the case of Category I-2 programs, the ESMS at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier.” The Forum recognizes the independence embedded in the structure proposed in this AMF and would make the following recommendations on the mechanism proposed- In the submission of a complaint, there should be a provision for complaints to be filed by international and regional representatives as authorized representatives for local and in-country representatives who are unable to step forward due to security risk and conflict scenarios. In cases where the IRM has proved that there have been issues on non-compliance, then all consultations between the client and the community MUST have the IRM present to ensure power equity in information exchange. This has to be an integral part of ensuring that a complaint process and remedial action are done objectively. In it’s entirety this AMF is an innovative and needed effort in holding FIs accountable. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. STRATEGIC PLAN 2020 Ang NGO Forum on ADB ay nakatakdang ipatupad ang "Roadmap to Strategic Campaigning 2014-2020: Tungo sa pangmatagalang at sistematikong pagbabago." Sa susunod na anim na taon makikita ang Forum na nagsusumikap na magsagawa ng sistematikong pagbabago sa loob ng ADB, at sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalawig ng mga kliyente nito upang tumugon sila nang may higit na pananagutan sa mga pangangailangan sa pag-unlad at mga lokal na konteksto ng mga komunidad sa Asya. sa ngalan ng mga apektadong tao, na ang mga kahinaan ay nadagdagan ng baluktot na agenda ng pag-unlad ng ADB. Ang isang focal point para sa Working Groups at Member Organizations ay ang pagpapalakas ng boses at kapasidad ng mahihirap, kababaihan, grupong etniko at marginalized na sektor. PROSESO NG PAGPAPLANO Ang forum ay nagsimulang mag-strategize sa framework, campaign plan, at organisasyonal na disenyo nito noong Disyembre 2012 sa pamamagitan ng preparatory meeting sa Bangkok, Thailand. Matapos isagawa ang mga pagpupulong sa bansa at rehiyon ay nagtapos ang proseso noong Nobyembre 2013 sa pamamagitan ng isang workshop sa pagpapatupad sa Silang, Cavite, Pilipinas. Ang International Committee (IC) / Board of Trustees at ang executive director ay gumabay sa pangmatagalang proseso ng pagpaplano ng estratehiko. Isang team ng diskarte, na binubuo ng isang lead strategist, ang IC convener, at Secretariat staff, ang namamahala sa pagsasagawa at pagkumpleto ng isang taon na pagpaplano. Ang huling resulta ng masinsinang, participatory at dynamic na prosesong ito ay ang “Roadmap,” na epektibong pumapalit sa Long-Term Strategy Plan ng 2006. KONSULTASYON SA BANSA Ang mga pagpupulong sa diskarte ay ginanap sa Armenia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pilipinas, at Sri Lanka. Isang sub-national na konsultasyon ang naganap sa Northeast India. Nagkaroon ng pag-uulat ng isang country situationer sa Cambodia, Myanmar, at Nepal sa 2013 Forum Annual Meeting. Naunawaan ng mga Country Working Group ang mga pambansang pananaw sa pagpaplano ng mga aktibidad sa kampanya hinggil sa mga isyung nauugnay sa ADB. Nag-istratehiya ang mga miyembro kung paano makamit ang pagpapalawak at muling pagsasaaktibo ng network, pinataas na presyon ng publiko sa Bangko, at ang pagpapatuloy ng mga kampanya sa kani-kanilang bansa. MGA REHIYONAL NA KONSULTASYON Ang pagpaplano ng diskarte ay naganap sa mga rehiyon ng Central Asia at Caucasus (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan), Southeast Asia (Bangkok, Thailand) at South Asia (Dhaka, Bangladesh). Idinaos din sa Bangkok ang isang sub-regional grouping meeting para sa Mekong na nilahukan ng mga delegado mula sa Cambodia, Vietnam, at INGO na nakabase sa rehiyon. Ang mga Regional Working Group ay nagbigay-priyoridad sa mga pangunahing paksang lugar, kabilang ang mga transboundary linkage, kung saan ang pagkakasabay at pagkakatugma sa mga adbokasiya ay maaaring maitatag. Nagbigay-daan ito sa kanila na bumuo ng limang taong pinagsama-samang plano ng aksyon at interbensyon. ANIM NA TAONG ESTRATEHIYA PLANO Ang "Roadmap" ay gumagabay sa Forum sa pagpapatakbo ng nagpapatuloy at hinaharap na mga panrehiyong pampakay na kampanya. Nagbibigay ito ng mekanismo para sa pagsubaybay at pamamahala sa epekto ng adbokasiya nitong wok. Katulad nito, nagsisilbi itong higit pang pag-aaral ng Forum vis-à-vis sa mga resulta ng epekto ng mga aksyon nito. Ang forum ay nagtatayo at nagdaragdag ng halaga sa mga adbokasiya sa Gitnang Asya, Timog-silangang Asya at Timog Asya sa limang tema ng trabaho: tubig, enerhiya, pagbabago ng klima, urbanisasyon, at karapatang pantao. Ang mga pag-iingat (kapaligiran, involuntary resettlement, Indigenous Peoples) at kasarian ay natukoy bilang cross-cutting na mga isyu. Inaasahan na pagsapit ng 2020, ang boses at ahensya ng mga mamamayan ng Asya, lalo na ang mga mahihirap at marginalized, ay itataas sa isang napapanatiling kapasidad na makisali sa ADB tungo sa mas pangmatagalan at sistematikong pagbabago. Ito ay dahil mabisang itinulak ng Forum ang ADB at ang mga nanghihiram nito na maging tunay na may pananagutan, transparent, bukas at handa sa kanilang mga nakabubuo na dialogue sa civil society at iba pang stakeholder.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News Latest Publication ADB Project Tracker Latest Events/Activities Media CSOs from across the Asian Region urge the ADB to Stop Financing False Climate & Energy NGO Forum on ADB is hosting a virtual press conference in the midst of the Asian Development Bank (ADB)’s Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2022. We invite you to join us as civil society groups from across the Asian region collectively urge the ADB to stop financing false climate and energy solutions that undermine inclusive and sustainable community-centered just transitions Read Press Release

Explore key terms used in the Forum Network infographics on ADB energy projects. This glossary explains financing modalities, grants, loans, equity investments, and technical assistance in simple terms. Glossary of Terms in the Forum Network Infographics on ADB Energy Projects This glossary provides key terms used in the Forum Network infographics on ADB energy projects. These terms describe various financial instruments and approaches used by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its operations. E (Equity Investment) | Direct investment in a company or project, making ADB a shareholder to support development goals. Financing Modality | The specific method or instrument used to fund development projects and programs. Grant | Financial aid that does not need to be repaid, typically used for projects that support low-income countries, environmental sustainability, or social development. Loan | Borrowed funding that must be repaid, used to finance development projects in ADB member countries. Modality | ADB's financing or operational approach for projects, programs, or technical assistance, tailored to the needs of member countries. TA (Technical Assistance) | Support for capacity building, policy advice, and project preparation in member countries, often provided through grants or expert guidance.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. TUNGKOL SA ATIN Kasaysayan | Istraktura ng Network | International Committee | Secretariat | Mga FAQ ISTRAKTURA NG ORGANISASYON Forum Taunang Pagpupulong International Committee Executive Director Policy Advocacy Coordinator para sa ADB Policy Advocacy Coordinator para sa AIIB Administrative at Finance Coordinator Program Coordinator para sa Komunikasyon Admin at Opisyal ng Pananalapi Pagpapanatili ng Opisina Mga tauhan

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES BANGLADESH BANGLADESH Source: Bangladesh: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program LATEST NEWS UPDATES 19 November 2021 ADB approves $500million loan to help Indonesia improve human capital 5 April 2021 ADB approves $450 M loan to help Indonesia deliver effective COVID-19 vaccines

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More MEKONG Read More CENTRAL ASIA Read More

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES BANGLADESH BANGLADESH Source: Bangladesh: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program LATEST NEWS Read the latest COVID-19 Research produced by Growthwatch, India from the Philippines and NGO Forum on ADB. Download UPDATES 22 February 2022 ADB lends record USD 4.6 bn loans to India in 2021 1 December 2021 ADB approves $1.5 B for COVID-19 vaccines in India 21 November 2021 Why is India taking out loans for covid-19 vaccines? 24 November 2021 Govt of India, Asian Development Bank sign $300 million loan 21 May 2021 ADB commits record USD 3.92 billion loan to India in 2020

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES BANGLADESH BANGLADESH Source: Bangladesh: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program LATEST NEWS Read the latest COVID-19 Research produced by Freedom from Debt Coalition from the Philippines and NGO Forum on ADB. Download Download UPDATES 15 January 2022 PH foreign borrowings, grants vs COVID-19 hit P1.3T 22 December 2021 Philippines borrows at least P32.6 billion for COVID-19 booster, kids’ shots 19 November 2021 ADB approves $600-million loan for Philippines’ universal health care 29 April 2021 Govt to get $3.9-B loans from Asian Development Bank 23 March 2021 What you need to know about Duterte’s COVID-19 loans WEBINAR SERIES: PHILIPPINES Dr. Rene Ofreneo from Freedom from Debt Coalition discussed the government’s response to the Covid pandemic – a long-running quarantine program and a “four-pillar socio-economic strategy”. He later zeroed in on what is happening in the health and economic sectors and the situation of the citizenry, with a special focus on the situation of the Filipino working population and the country’s progress in containing the virus spread and in promoting resilient economic recovery.

RESOURCES 2022 December Special Issue September June Marc h 2021 December September June March 2020 Disyembre Setyembre Hunyo Marso 2019 Disyembre Setyembre Hunyo Marso Naghahanap ng mas lumang isyu sa Bankwatch? Humingi ng kopya sa secretariat[at]forum-adb.org.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News Sign the 1M Petition Related Documents Backgrounder ADB Project Tracker COVID19 Loan Tracker In 2024, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is amidst Phase 3 of its process for revising the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), presenting the first draft of the W paper after two years of consultations. However, the draft falls significantly short of expectations, failing to ensure robust environmental and social safeguarding. The draft ESF’s ‘Vision’ does not commit to the fundamental principle of ‘Do No Harm’ in ADB operations. This omission reflects the disregard for feedback from consultations. Terms like 'materially consistent', 'timely', and 'where applicable' are used ambiguously throughout the document, undermining environmental and social safeguarding accountability. These terms should be replaced with clear, mandatory, and time-bound standards. Despite investing over 40 million USD in Country Safeguard Systems over the past decade, the ADB has not demonstrated successful application of these systems for SPS 2009 implementation. This underscores the need for stringent implementation of the SPS 2009 and the new ESF. Financing should not be approved if borrower systems are less stringent, and any flexibility in applying these systems must be revoked from the ESF. The ESF should prioritize avoiding harm and restoring affected communities and environments to pre-project conditions or better. Its objective should not be aligned with green economic growth, which other ADB policies cover. The ESF must act as a safeguard to prevent and mitigate environmental and social risks comprehensively and on time. The draft ESF introduces the Mitigation Hierarchy without definition and omits critical components such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA). These assessments are central to the SPS 2009 but are absent in the 170-page document, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed framework. The ESF draft fails to clarify the ADB Project Cycle and its approach to addressing project-related harms. The proposed Common Approach for Co-Financing with other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) lacks commitment to the highest safeguard standards, potentially allowing lower standards to prevail. ADB must ensure the highest social and environmental standards for both standalone and co-financed projects. The draft includes problematic provisions like the treatment of Associated Facilities (AF), which are allowed to circumvent the ESF, contrary to the SPS 2009 policy. Moreover, the ESF is gender-blind, failing to address the fundamental rights and risks faced by women in project-affected areas. Binding language is needed to ensure gender safeguarding from the project design stage throughout the project cycle. Given these significant shortcomings, a full overhaul of the current draft ESF is essential. The ADB Board and Management must revisit the drawing board before finalizing the policy. The subsequent sections of this critique provide detailed analysis and specific concerns raised by civil society and labor organizations, urging a more robust and effective ESF. This comprehensive critique underscores the urgent need for the ADB to strengthen its commitment to environmental and social safeguarding in its revised ESF to ensure sustainable and equitable development outcomes.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. CASES COMMUNICATION WITH AIIB EVENTS SUGGESTED READINGS FAQ STATEMENTS LETTERS Re: Virtual Consultations Hosted by AIIB on the Energy Sector Strategy Update To: Mr. Jin Liqun, President, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Mr. Ludger Schuknecht, V.P. and Corporate Secretary, AIIB Sir Danny Alexander, V.P., Policy and Strategy, AIIB Mr. Bob Pickard, D.G., Communications Department, AIIB AIIB Board of Directors – Via Email – Over the course of last week’s virtual consultations hosted by the AIIB on the Energy Sector Strategy Update, we hoped to join and engage in discussions in good faith. However, while we appreciate this gesture from the Bank towards expanding the process for public input on the Strategy Update, several key concerns – despite being raised consistently in writing and during online discussions – have yet to be addressed. As a result, following a collective deliberation, we are writing once again to highlight key issues of contention. With all due respect, we firmly reiterate our shared perspective that the consultation sessions as scheduled do not provide an opportunity for meaningful and inclusive dialogue between diverse sectors of civil society across the institution’s membership and the responsible Bank representatives – necessary not least because of the major implications on the future possibilities for just transition and the livelihood prospects of populations across borrowing nations of the Bank’s membership as well as meeting global climate ambitions. READ MORE FORUM'S LATEST LETTERS SENT TO AIIB Civil Society Engagement and Issues of Concern Regarding Meaningful Participation at the AIIB Annual Meeting 2024 NGO Forum on ADB’s Comments on the AIIB Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) Re: AIIB’s Virtual Consultation Sessions on the Energy Sector Strategy Update AIIB’s Extended Deadline for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update AIIB response regarding the Extended Deadline for Public Input on the AIIB Energy Sector Strategy Collective Statement For the Energy Sector Strategy Update Re: AIIB’s Call for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update AIIB's Response: 'AIIB’s Call for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update' Follow Up Correspondence Concerning the 2022 Energy Sector Strategy Update Open Statement on Collective Concerns Re: AIIB’s 2022 Energy Sector Strategy Update 15th July 2022 We, the undersigned civil society groups from across Asia, the Levant, Europe, and the Americas are advancing the following key points of concern in relation to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) Energy Sector Strategy Update, specifically in light of the opaque drafting process underway and the absence of meaningful opportunities for public engagement.[1] I. Process for the Energy Sector Strategy Update: Neither Inclusive Nor Meaningful While we acknowledge that the AIIB management extended the deadline for public submissions of written comments and scheduled a series of online discussions, we firmly reiterate our shared perspective that the compressed nature of the period for public comment – including the ad hoc, last minute set of virtual consultations – has not provided the space for meaningful and inclusive dialogues between diverse sectors of civil society across the institution’s membership and the responsible Bank representatives.[2] Our reasons for raising concerns about the process at hand are numerous,[3] but include: READ MORE FORUM'S LATEST STATEMENTS SENT TO AIIB Collective Statement For the Energy Sector Strategy Update Collective Call for a New Forward-Looking AIIB Energy Sector Strategy