Search Results

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES Isang online bulletin system at page ng pagbabahagi ng kaalaman na nakatuon sa pagsubaybay sa Asian Development Bank (ADB) at Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) COVID19 recovery loans at disbursement na maaaring gamitin ng mga stakeholder para sa pagsusuri at pagsusuri. SIMULAN ANG PAGSUNOD BANGLADESH PAKISTAN PILIPINAS INDONESIA

Open Call Background Asian People's Call Venue Session TAWAG ANG MGA TAONG ASYA: PAGHAHAMON SA IMUNITY NG ADB Abril 20, 2017 Preamble Mula noong 1966, inilalako ng Asian Development Bank (ADB) ang ilusyon na ito ay isang institusyong nakatuon sa paggawa ng rehiyon na malaya sa kahirapan. Ayon sa Bangko, nakakilos ito ng higit sa USD 250 bilyong halaga ng mga pamumuhunan sa imprastraktura, pananaliksik, at pagbabahagi ng kaalaman sa kalahating siglong operasyon nito sa Asia at Pasipiko. Ang ADB ay walang kahihiyang nagpapatuloy sa pag-iwas ng mga hindi lehitimong utang sa mga kasaping bansa kahit na mayroon itong mapaminsalang proyekto at mga resulta ng patakaran. Ang 50 taon ng mga operasyon ng ADB ay nag-iwan ng track record ng mga taong nawalan ng tirahan, naghihirap, malnourished, at nagugutom. Ang mga mapanirang epekto ay kumakalat sa lahat ng aspeto ng kapaligiran: kagubatan, ilog, karagatan, mga lupang taniman kabilang ang mga nanganganib at malapit sa pagkalipol na mga species ng hayop at halaman sa kanilang mga tirahan. Ang ADB ay nagkasala rin sa pag-ambag sa global warming sa pamamagitan ng pagpopondo nito sa mga maruruming proyekto sa enerhiya. Kami, ang mga kinatawan ng komunidad, mga asosasyon ng kabataan, mga mag-aaral at mga organisasyon ng lipunang sibil ay nagtipon dito noong 19- 20 Abril 2017 sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas SOLAIR ay nagpapahayag na, Ang ADB ay may mapagsamantalang modelo ng pag-unlad - Ang modelo ng negosyo ng ADB ay may makitid na pananaw sa pag-unlad na tumitingin sa estado bilang pangunahing tagapagtulak ng paglago ng ekonomiya. Ginamit nito ang ideyang ito sa pamamagitan ng pag-set up ng Country Partnership Strategies (CPS) at mga reporma sa patakaran (Structural Adjustment Programs, Technical Assistances on policy, financial and governance reforms) na tumukoy sa mga pangunahing sovereign sector at resources na sasamantalahin para sa export-oriented na tubo sa pamamagitan ng mga manlalaro ng pribadong sektor. Pinipilit ng ADB ang mga pamahalaan (inaabuso ang kapangyarihan nito bilang tagapagpahiram) na kumuha ng mga likas na yaman at gumawa ng isang kathang-isip na salaysay ng pagdepende ng gobyerno sa ADB; lahat para sa layunin ng pagtulak ng mga pautang at pag-unlock ng mga pagkakataon sa pribadong sektor. Sinusuportahan ng ADB ang Tyranny - Ang ADB ay nagsasalita ng mabuting pamamahala at demokrasya; gayunpaman, patuloy itong nagpapahiram ng mga awtokratiko at mapang-aping rehimen sa mga marupok na lugar ng tunggalian tulad ng Myanmar, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, North East India, Afghanistan, at Pakistan. Sa pamamagitan ng mga pagpapahiram na ito, tinutulungan at kinukunsinti ng ADB ang paniniil at ang paggamit ng mga instrumento ng estado para mang-agaw ng mga mapagkukunan, supilin ang mga karapatang pantao at supilin ang lipunang sibil at lahat ng boses ng hindi pagsang-ayon. Nagbibigay ang ADB ng False Solutions - Ang Bangko sa kanyang hubris ay iniisip ang sarili bilang isang tagapagbigay ng kaalaman sa Asia at naging napakaaktibo nitong nakaraang dekada sa pagbibigay ng mga maling solusyon sa pamamagitan ng tinatawag nitong malinis na pamumuhunan sa enerhiya at portfolio ng panlipunang pamumuhunan (kalusugan, edukasyon, at agrikultura). Ang lahat ng mga instrumentong ito ay tungkol sa pag-unlock ng pribadong kapital sa mga sektor ng panlipunang pag-unlad na humahantong sa pagtaas ng mga bayarin ng gumagamit at pagtaas ng hindi pagkakapantay-pantay at utang. Sa pakikipagkumpitensya nito sa Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), ang ADB ay nakakaramdam ng banta at nagtutulak para sa higit pang walang ingat na mga pautang sa trans-boundary na mga proyektong pang-imprastraktura at patuloy na namumuhunan sa maruming fossil fuel sa harap ng nasusunog na planeta. Ang Bangko ay nananatiling stoic sa kanyang walang hanggang pagtanggi sa Mga Karapatang Pantao at hindi ginagamit ang termino sa alinman sa mga patakaran at alituntunin sa pagpapatakbo nito. Sa ika-50 taon nito, nananatiling matatag ang ADB sa hindi pagsunod sa mga pangunahing pamantayan ng paggawa sa alinman sa mga proyekto at operasyon nito sa buong Asya. Sa mga taon ng kritikal na pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga mekanismo ng panloob na pamamahala ng ADB, nakita namin na ang lahat ng mga huling desisyon nito tungkol sa pagsunod ng Bangko sa mga patakaran at pamamaraan ay nakasalalay sa Lupon ng mga Direktor ng ADB. Ang ADB kung gayon, ay sarili nitong imbestigador, hukom, at hurado, na walang mga obligasyon sa panlabas o pampublikong pananagutan. Binibigyang-daan ng ADBs Immunity ang sarili nitong walang pigil na kalayaan bilang isang internasyonal na organisasyon, ngunit sa 50 taon ng patuloy nitong mapanirang track record sa pagpapatakbo, kritikal na hamunin ang kaligtasang ito. Paggalugad sa mga mapanirang Epekto ng ADB Immunity sa mga temang sektor, napapansin namin na, 1) Pagpopondo sa mga Dam, Pag-aalis, at Pagkasira Ang pananalapi ng ADB sa mga dam ay nagdulot ng maraming sakuna sa mga apektadong komunidad. Ang isang karaniwang obserbasyon sa Bangladesh, Nepal, Kyrgyz Republic, Cambodia, at Laos ay ang mga pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng mga pangako ng ADB at ng mga realidad na nararanasan sa lupa. Sa kaso ng Laos, Bangladesh, at Kyrgyzstan, ang mga proyekto ng ADB ay humantong sa pagkasira ng kapaligiran na nagresulta sa kabuhayan ng mga tao ay apektado. Sa partikular, ang kalidad ng tubig sa ibaba ng Xe Bang Fai River sa Laos ay nagresulta sa mga tao sa malapit na komunidad na nakakaranas ng mga sakit sa balat. Bukod sa pagkasira ng kapaligiran, ang kompensasyon sa mga komunidad ay hindi naihatid, huli, o hindi tumugon sa kalagayan ng mga komunidad na apektado. Walang mga konsultasyon sa mga komunidad ng ADB. Sa halip na ipatupad ang mga patakaran na para sa kapakinabangan ng mga komunidad, ang mga proyekto ng ADB sa mga lugar na ito ay nagresulta sa pagkasira ng kapaligiran, pagkawala ng kabuhayan, sakit, at kawalan ng karapatan ng komunidad. Nagreresulta pa ito sa mga paglabag sa Karapatang Pantao. Ang mga apektadong tao ay walang access sa mga mekanismo ng pananagutan dahil sa mga sitwasyong pampulitika at panlipunan, tulad ng sa kaso ng Laos. Sa Bangladesh gayundin sa Cambodia, nagsampa ng mga reklamo ngunit ang mga problema ay hindi pa natutugunan hanggang ngayon dahil sa mabagal na gumaganang mekanismo ng karaingan ng Bangko. Malinaw na ang paglago ng ekonomiya ay nakikita bilang isang prayoridad kaysa sa kapaligiran, buhay, at kabuhayan ng mga tao. 2) Hindi pagkakapantay-pantay, Utang, at paglilipat ng yaman sa pribadong sektor Habang ang mga proyektong pinondohan ng ADB ay may pananagutan para sa mga negatibong epekto sa lipunan at kapaligiran, sila ay may pananagutan din sa pagpiyansa sa mga utang ng pribadong sektor at paglabag sa mga karapatang pantao. Nagreresulta ito sa pagtaas ng mga utang ng gobyerno, mga pagkaantala sa proyekto na nauwi pa rin sa hindi naabot na mga target, at hindi pagprotekta sa mga benepisyaryo mula sa hindi makatarungang mga gawi ng mga korporasyon, kawalan ng pangangalaga sa kapaligiran at kalusugan. Ang muling pagpapatira ng mga pamilyang lumikas ay hindi kailanman napatunayang epektibo sa pagpapanumbalik ng kabuhayan, at sa halip ay naging sagisag ng mga nabigong pangako na nagdulot ng higit na pinsala kaysa sa pag-unlad. Ang kaligtasan ng ADB ay dapat hamunin ng pag-audit sa utang. Ang mga prinsipyo sa pagdedeklara ng isang hindi lehitimong utang ay itinuturing na ngayong mga internasyonal na prinsipyo. Samakatuwid, hinihiling namin ang pagsuspinde ng mga serbisyo sa utang, at sa kalaunan ay kanselahin ang lahat ng hindi lehitimong utang. 3) Ang krisis sa klima at pag-decarbonize ng ADB sa 50 taon Ang patuloy na suporta ng ADB para sa sektor ng karbon ay ginagawang mas mahina ang mga Asyano sa pagbabago ng klima, kalusugan, at panganib sa kapaligiran. Ito ay nagtulak sa mga tao na palabasin sa kanilang mga tahanan at naging mga migrante/mga refugee sa klima na dulot ng klima. Isa itong matinding paglabag sa karapatang pantao kabilang ang karapatan sa isang malusog at malinis na kapaligiran. Samakatuwid, hinihiling namin sa ADB na ihinto ang pagpopondo sa sektor ng karbon at simulan ang pag-decarbonize sa Asya. Hinihiling din namin sa ADB na unahin ang pagsuporta sa mga proyekto ng napapanatiling enerhiya na nakabatay sa komunidad. Hinihiling din namin ang ADB na maging ganap na responsibilidad para sa kontribusyon nito sa pagbabago ng klima at mga migrante/refugee na dulot ng klima. 4) Kakulangan ng transparency, pang-aapi, at lumiliit na espasyo ng CSO Ang ADB ay nagpapalaganap ng arkitektura ng immunity at impunity sa pamamagitan ng pagpapataw ng mga kondisyon, kabilang ang pag-amyenda ng mga batas upang bigyang-daan ang pagbabahagi ng benepisyo sa pribadong sektor, pagkabigong matiyak ang pagsunod kahit sa sarili nitong mga patakaran at sa mga pambansang batas at patakaran. Nais naming ihinto ng lahat ng pamahalaan ang paggamit ng kapangyarihan upang baguhin ang mga batas na pumapabor sa interes ng korporasyon at interes ng pribadong sektor. Hindi dapat suportahan ng ADB ang mga proyektong lumalabag sa mga batas at prinsipyo ng karapatang pantao. Hindi dapat makipagtulungan ang ADB sa mga gobyerno para itulak ang mga proyekto sa halaga ng militarisasyon at korapsyon. Sa halip na pagkunsintihin, suportahan, at itaguyod ng ADB ang gayong mga rehimen, dapat magsalita ang ADB sa mga kritikal na isyu tulad ng mga paglabag sa karapatang pantao at sapilitang pagkawala ng mga mapang-aping rehimen. Ang immunity ng ADB ay humahantong sa impunity, na nagpapahintulot sa mga developer ng proyekto at mga aktor ng estado na balewalain ang mga karapatan ng mga tao, at mga korporasyon na labagin ang mga pambansang batas at sirain ang kapaligiran. Hindi maaaring maghugas ng kamay ang ADB mula sa mga paglabag na ito at magtago sa likod ng kaligtasan nito. 5) Ang pagsasamantala ng ADB sa paggawa Naranasan namin na ang ADB at mga pribadong kumpanya ay hindi iginagalang ang mga karapatan sa paggawa dahil pinahintulutan nito ang mga paglabag sa mga pamantayan sa paggawa sa buong mga proyekto nito. Ito ay partikular na nakikita sa halimbawa ng Pilipinas kung saan ang mga distrito ng tubig ay isinasapribado o isinara nang walang nararapat na konsultasyon sa mga lokal na opisyal, manggagawang unyon, at lokal na komunidad. Kaya naman hinihiling namin sa ADB na ibalik ang mga serbisyo sa pampublikong sektor at ipakilala ang higit pang mga makabagong hakbang ng publiko sa publiko o public to people partnership sa paghahatid ng mga pampublikong kalakal at kagamitan. Nabigo pa rin ang ADB na ipatupad ang mga pamantayan ng Core Labor, na humahantong sa mga pangunahing paglabag sa mga karapatan. Ang mga paglabag na iyon ay hindi maaaring hamunin sa mga lokal na sistema ng hukuman dahil sa kaligtasan ng ADB. Samakatuwid, hinihiling namin sa ADB na igalang ang mga pangunahing pamantayan ng paggawa ng ILO sa lahat ng operasyon nito at hinihiling din na ihinto ang paggamit ng kaligtasan sa sakit upang makatakas mula sa mga singil ng mga paglabag sa karapatang paggawa. 6) Social inclusivity at mga epekto ng ADB sa mga mahihinang grupo Walang tunay na partisipasyon sa mga mahihinang komunidad sa mga operasyon ng ADB. Walang tunay na pagsisikap ang ADB na ibaba ang mga konsultasyon sa mga mahihinang grupo tulad ng kababaihan, mga may kapansanan, at mga katutubo. Partikular sa kaso ng People with Disabilities, ang ADB ay may napakakaunting mekanismo na nagpapatupad ng empowerment at accessibility. Ang mga kababaihan ay mas mahina sa kahirapan dahil sa mga proyektong relokasyon. Ang mga katutubo ay nakakaranas din ng mga paglabag sa mga karapatan sa halip na isulong ang kanilang kapakanan partikular na sa mga lugar ng ancestral domain. Ang partikular na alalahanin ay ang mga konsultasyon sa mga komunidad kung saan nagkaroon ng mga kaso ng pamimilit (militarisasyon). Sa ilang sitwasyon, binansagan ang mga CSO bilang mga komunista, terorista, at militante na naglalarawan ng pag-target sa mga kritikal na boses na humahantong sa pagliit ng demokratikong espasyo. Samakatuwid, hinihiling namin na ito ay dapat matugunan sa pamamagitan ng pagtingin sa "Road To 2030 na diskarte" ng ADB at paglalagay ng mas malakas na diin sa pagtataguyod ng buong hanay ng mga karapatang pantao at pagbibigay-daan sa demokratikong espasyo para sa diyalogo. Nanawagan ang mga Asian People sa Hinahamon ang Imunidad ng mga ADB Ipinapahayag pa namin na ang mga pakikibaka at ebidensya sa itaas ay nagpapakita na ang ADB ay nabigo nang husto sa mga responsibilidad nito sa mga mamamayan ng Asya at walang batayan upang mapanatili ang kaligtasan nito. Oras na para tawagin ang maling pag-angkin ng Immunity ng ADB saanman sa buong Asya. Ipinagkanulo nito ang tiwala nito bilang katuwang sa pag-unlad sa mga umuutang na pamahalaan at kanilang mga tao at dapat na ganap na panagutin ang lahat ng mga aksyon at epekto nito. Kaya naman kami, ang Asian Peoples ay nananawagan sa aming mga gobyerno at mga kinatawan ng mamamayan na Tanggalin ang Immunity ng ADB at panagutin ito sa lahat ng mga aksyon nito laban sa aming dignidad, aming mga karapatan, aming soberanya, at aming inang lupa.

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 ADB Project Tracker Media Sign the 1M Petition The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Public Communications Policy (PCP) guides the ADB’s external relations when it comes to transparency and in its operations. The PCP, also known as the policy on information disclosure, intends to provide greater access to project information documents and related information. It ensures participation by project-affected people in the development intervention of the ADB in their respective communities. It mandates all project-related documents to be posted on the ADB’s website. Access to project-related information by local people allows them to participate actively and effectively in decision-making processes related to the development agenda of international financial institutions such as the ADB in their respective communities which could adversely affect the environment and disrupt their living conditions. Issues with the PCP Though it has been stating that it values transparency and is committed to increasing information disclosure, the ADB has fallen short on its commitment to respecting the rights of the people’s right to information. The PCP does not expressly recognize public access to information is a right. Experiences on the ground have shown that the Bank lacks both the political will and the resources to respect this right. Documents identified by the ADB as publicly available are only accessible through its website. This has prevented poor communities from getting project-related information since the internet facility remains a luxury for them. Civil society groups believe that this manifests the pro-business bias of the Bank’s disclosure policy. The PCP also provides a long list of exceptions. Not all exceptions identify the serious harm to a clearly and narrowly defined, and broadly accepted, an interest that is sought to be avoided by non-disclosure. Below are NGO forum on ADB's submission, communication, and other documents on its campaign on a just ADB PCP - 05 Apr 2018 | Joint Submission of NGO Forum on ADB and Both ENDS Comments on the 2nd draft of the Public Communications Policy 14 Jan 2018 | NGO Forum on ADB's Summary Comments on the PCP Review 28 Nov 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Summary Comments (meeting with PCP Review Team) 16 Jul 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the Review of the Public Communications Policy (PCP) 12 Jul 2017 | Summary of questions and comments during the country consultations 26 Mar 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's submission on PCP Review 23 Jul 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the review of the PCP (dated 17 July 2017) 17 Aug 2017 | Comments of NGO Forum on ADB on the draft staff instructions 30 Nov 2016 | NGO Forum on ADB Submission on the Draft Public Communications Policy of the Asian Development Bank 10 May 2016 | Public Communications Policy Review 04 May 2011 | NGOs warn ‘safety valve’ may impede ADB’s small success in transparency 13 Jan 2011 | ADB Must Clinch the Opportunity for Bolder PCP Reforms 22 Sep 2010 | Letter to PCP Review Team 31 Jan 2010 | Practice What You Preach 31 Jan 2009 | Statistical highlights on the Asian Development Bank’s Public Communications Policy Implementation (August 2005 to February 2009)

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 questions ADB’s intent to shift towards using country safeguards systems without any ‘assessment’ and ‘equivalency’ with its own safeguards systems as presented by the Strategy and Policy Department of the ADB. This alarming move towards using country systems prematurely will have disastrous impacts on local communities and the environment especially in autocratic regimes where civil society voice is suppressed and persecuted, and national instruments are riddled with corruption and weak implementation. ADB in doing so will also be in violation of its own ADB Safeguards Policy Strategy SPS 2010, where it clearly indicates ‘equivalency’ and ‘assessment’ to be conducted for Country Systems with ADB standards before they are considered for use in any ADB project. In ADB’s own study on Country Systems in 2015, it indicates that in six upper-middle-income countries UMICs, the use of country systems are not feasible as they are far from ADB SPS 2010 standards. The ADB is faced to provide competitive lending rates with the rise of new banks and abruptly moving towards using Country Systems is a way by which the Bank is trying to reduce loan approval times and “costs” by compromising due diligence requirements which put human rights, public safety, environmental sustainability and national economies at risk. Read the Strategy 2030 related documents below : 21 Aug 2018 | Pillars for the Future of Development Finance in Asia 08 May 2018 | Joint Submission of Comments on ADB’s Draft Strategy 2030 02 Feb 2017 | ADB Strat 2030 Letter 29 Mar 2017 | ADB response to letter regarding ADB's new corporate strategy 30 Jun 2016 | ADB criticized for holding questionable consultations on its new corporate strategy 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. 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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News ADB Project Tracker Media Sign the 1M Petition Civil Society Input and Recommendations on the Stakeholder Engagement Plan Transparent and meaningful consultation guided by international practice is a cornerstone of good governance and informed decision-making. It also embeds a sense of ownership into the development process. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have developed frameworks to strengthen their stakeholder engagement in the recent years. Moreover, the World Bank and EBRD have developed standalone policies and requirements for what constitutes a meaningful stakeholder consultation and engagement. It is imperative that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) strengthens its overall approach to ensure stakeholder engagement is inclusive, transparent and robust. Colleagues who had attended the virtual information sharing session on April 12 and 13 of 2021 organized by the SDCC Department of the ADB and the Consultation Team argued that the webinar formatting chosen had felt disempowering and disengaging. This is because the online format did not allow for full transparency on the participant list of the meeting and the relevant questions asked during the various sessions. This inaccessibility to the participant list is of major concern to stakeholder groups such as civil society organizations (CSOs) and human rights defenders who face a significant risk of retaliation under oppressive regimes. We, as representatives of CSOs, trade unions, and communities around the world hold this review process with utmost importance and attentiveness. While the Bank’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) presents promising reforms, we are disconcerted that the current approach outlined in the present draft has not reflected international good practice and remains amiss on a number of salient issues. Collectively, we raise these points before the process leads to an SPS with tremendous substantial and procedural problems when the current demand is to reform toward international laws, standards, and norms. In pursuit of the shared objective of reforming the safeguard system, we forward our key recommendations: Include a definition of Meaningful Consultation underpinned by duly established policy and practice. The SEP outlines that it is based on “firm principles of meaningful consultation…”(pg.3). Meaningful Consultation should not be organized in a pro forma manner to ‘check a box or to meet an internal requirement. It should be underpinned by a clear matrix that upholds the utmost importance of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) prerequisite criterion recognised in the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and supported by genuine consideration for stakeholders’ views and concerns. We are requesting that the term ‘Meaningful Consultation’ in the SEP be asserted by a clear definition and matrix which draws on duly established policy and practice. A clear definition of Meaningful Consultation can be found in the Safeguards Policy Statement Glossary and states that it is “A process that (i) begins early in the project preparation stage and is carried out on an ongoing basis throughout the project cycle; (ii) provides timely disclosure of relevant and adequate information that is understandable and readily accessible to affected people; (iii) is undertaken in an atmosphere free of intimidation or coercion; (iv) is gender-inclusive and responsive, and tailored to the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and (v) enables the incorporation of all relevant views of affected people and other stakeholders into decision makings, such as project design, mitigation measures, the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, and implementation issues.” This definition should underpin the Safeguards Policy Review and Update (SPRU) and the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). Outline a clear, unambiguous plan on offline mechanisms for consultation. The current SEP Draft recognizes inaccessibility to online means of communication for many stakeholders and makes an effort to mention offline mechanisms for consultation. This is not supported by a clear plan of how these stakeholders groups will be reached for consultation, nor does the SEP make clear the schedule for the offline consultations, or the countries it would take place. Good practices of meaningful consultation warrant having an inclusive space for multi-stakeholder engagement. This includes ensuring that prior information is given to the stakeholder group (community or CSOs) in a clear, time-bound manner, and in a language that is easily understandable. To modernize the policy and make sure it upholds the highest social and environmental standards, efforts must be made to consult with Project Affected Persons (PAPs) through offline mechanisms. We urge the Bank to take this into consideration and clearly outline the list of countries it aims to hold offline consultation. Due diligence must be given specifically to projects which have gone into compliance review. Avoid reliance on demand-driven consultation. Demand-driven consultation plans will prove to be problematic as various key thematic dialogues may not be held unless civil society groups themselves proactively reach out to the ADB SDCC and the Consultation Team. The first question which arises is whether the ADB SDCC will be able to conduct a comprehensive outreach on the SEP at the national and global level to ensure that thematic and remote groups across various cultures, languages, and political contexts are aware of the ‘demand driven’ stipulations? In the current context of the pandemic, this seems very unlikely. Without a prescribed list of thematic consultations announced for each country and region, the chances of getting specialized groups to organize dialogue with ADB SDCC on their own volition without compromising their exposure to risk and scrutiny will also be a deterrent for them stepping forward. We strongly recommend the removal of the ‘demand driven’ approach as it potentially passes the burden of convening the consultation solely on the stakeholder and not on the ADB SDCC, the department responsible for convening and managing this update process. There is also a need for wider outreach on direct engagements via different communication formats, including traditional media in case of offline events. Heavy reliance on online means of communication such as social media and websites to advertise for consultation risks losing the critical voices of PAPs and communities living in remote areas. We urge the Bank to make active and reasonable efforts to include traditional means of media such as newspapers and national television advertisements in their communication plan. Meaningfully engage with young people in the consultation process. Consultations with children and young people are important about their experiences, and therefore need to be set up in a child-friendly manner that promotes the rights and respect of the child in a sensitive manner. There should be age-appropriate targeting in terms of setup, information, and messaging as well as promoting participation and inclusivity. For best practices see the Save the Children Child Consultation Toolkit . Include the Private Sector Operations Department in its internal consultation process. The ADB has announced, in its Strategy 2030, an expansion of its private sector portfolio to reach one-third of total Bank operations by 2024. Private sector operations are riddled with noncompliance, transparency, and lack of information disclosure. We have witnessed the death of 6 workers in the PSOD-led project, Nam Ngiep 1, in Laos due to failures in labor safeguarding. Similarly, the Tata Mundra Coal Project led by PSOD had critically endangered marine ecosystems and displaced thousands of local fishermen in 2014. It is imperative that ADB SDCC takes a critical look at ensuring consultations between CSOs and PSOD staff and their respective borrowing clients and subcontractors in the course of this SEP and SPRU. The OHCHR Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should lie at the heart of this dialogue between the Bank, private sector, and CSOs. Publicize ALL consultation comments and extend the timeline for commenting to 60 days. The SEP mentions that a summary of consultation comments will be disclosed on the SPRU webpage for two weeks. In the absence of a clear matrix on how summaries are prepared, We as CSOs are concerned that this will obscure some of the salient comments and recommendations received during the consultation process. Access to full consultation comments should be made available in addition to the summary of consultation comments to ensure full transparency. We are also requesting that the timeline for commenting is extended to 60 days to make sure that relevant stakeholders groups with minimal comprehension of the English language are able to translate the documents and submit their comments. Extend the timeline for commenting on the draft W-paper and the R-paper and subsequent revisions to a period of two months/ 60 days respectively. Good practices on meaningful consultation stipulate that stakeholders should be given sufficient time to review the information across regions and countries before being asked to express their views. Meaningful inclusion of more urgent safeguards issues supported by coherent analytical studies. We welcome the broadening of the themes to include labor, climate change, and sexual abuse and harassment in the list of analytical studies as a response to the progressing international laws, standards and norms. We urge the Bank to avoid the reliance on the blanket term of ‘vulnerability’ and misuse of terminologies such as ‘crosscutting’ to assess the varying risks affecting different groups such as peoples with disabilities, sexual and gender diverse groups, and children. Due diligence must be given to: Risk of reprisals. The silencing of critical voices through reprisals and retaliations - or the fear thereof - seriously calls into question the possibilities for a consultation to be meaningful: when these critical voices are coming from the ground and would be communicating operational risks, a climate of fear puts operations at risk, too. Similar to the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the ADB needs to have a clear zero tolerance position against reprisals, either as part of the SEP or as a more general statement that the SEP is bound by. In order to operationalise this zero tolerance position, the SEP needs to go beyond just alluding to it in reference to PAPs. It needs to commit to (1) carrying out contextual risks assessments, for all the different contexts in which consultations will be taking place with people deemed to potentially be at risk, looking particularly at reprisal risks, (2) devising measures to mitigate risks identified and finally it needs to include a (3) reprisal response protocol that seeks to use the leverage the bank has to address any reprisal that may occur. Human rights. Despite the IED evaluation recommendation that “the modernized SPS should also clarify the safeguard components of other key ADB objectives, which have increased in importance since the SPS, such as climate risk mitigation and adaptation, disaster risk management, the needs of disabled people, human rights, and supply chains” as well as the increasing human rights challenges and risks in the region, the SEP makes no mention of addressing anything related to human rights. We recommend a dedicated analytical study as well as consultations on the safeguard components of human rights. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a set of guidelines for States and companies to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses committed in business operations. In 2020, the United Nations Global Compact announced support for mandatory human rights due diligence. The same year, the IGWG developed the second draft of an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Currently, hundreds of large businesses, associations & investors in the EU have supported mandatory human rights due diligence legislation. It demonstrates an increasing demand to address human rights in development projects, which the ADB can not ignore. Risk Categorization. The current SEP list of thematic issues for analytical studies should include an evaluation on ADBs Risk Categorization decision making and implementation practice. As per the IEDs findings the ADBs current categorization process lacks a comprehensive risk-based approach. This leads to arbitrary risk assignment. Unless Quality at Entry documentation of a project such as EIA,IEE, SIA, IPSA have gone through layers of independent checks, arbitrary risk assessment and consequent categorization will remain a structural flaw. We urge the Bank to review the Effectiveness of the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement for an understanding of the historic and systemic flaws plaguing Risk categorisation at the project level. A need for clear distinction between financing modalities and special issues. As outlined before, MDBs such as the ADB have cited their increased focus on promoting transparency in development financing. However, decades of CSO monitoring of private sector & FI Operations by CSOs have shown a lack of transparency. The current scope and objectives of the ‘Financing modalities and special issues’ study does not clearly define what aspects of financing modalities are being assessed adequately. Project implementation in fragile and conflict affected situations (FCAS) and small island developing states (SIDS) is an important issue which should be given due consideration and therefore we urge the Bank to make a clear distinction in its engagement and analytical approach. 11. Maintain resolute consistency with Human Rights Principles. Meaningful stakeholder consultation is enshrined in the international human rights architecture and elucidated across various conventions, resolutions, and declarations. ILO Convention 169 (1989) which deals exclusively with Indigenuous Peoples states that “they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programs… which may affect them directly.” These principles were affirmed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP 2007) which upholds and emphasizes on the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) prerequisite criterion. Similar principles were also outlined for other groups including The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child which elucidates that “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. ADB should ensure that the financed projects don’t contribute to human rights abuses violations, assaults on local communities and human rights defenders, and shrinking civil society space. The Bank should incorporate in their SEP a clear strategy on Human Rights to protect communities, Indigenous Peoples, and human rights defenders, and enhance public participation. This strategy should detail how human rights risks and impacts are considered, prevented and mitigated at all stages of the project-cycle, with special attention given to fragile and conflict-affected settings. The strategy should clearly spell out how the Bank will promote and implement a human rights-based approach among its stakeholders, clients and counterparts. In order to achieve that, ADB should employ sound human rights due diligence at project level, undertake Human Rights assessments, quick response mechanisms and numerous already available Human Rights tools. The Bank should consult with relevant stakeholders on best approaches to make the requirements for HR protection part of the client’s obligation under the new Safeguards Policy. 12. Ensure safe and free from retaliation space for the stakeholders to raise their concerns under the consultations process. Comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation plan should be developed for every online and offline event of stakeholder engagement, considering the national and/or group-specific context. The participants, in particular, the affected persons and communities should be properly informed about any potential risks and mitigation measures developed by the ADB to ensure their security.

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

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 2009 after the approval of the new ADB’s Accountability Mechanism (AM) was approved in December 2003, replacing the 1995 Inspection Function. Although a review of the policy was scheduled in 2006, it was postponed until 2008 and later rescheduled. The ADB officially started its policy review when ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda made an announcement during its Annual Meeting in Tashkent in May 2010. The ADB conducted a series of multi-stakeholder consultations in Asia, Europe, and the United States from September to November 2010. It also held consultations with affected people in selected countries. In April 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the consultation draft policy paper. Civil society organizations, however, criticized the ADB for coming up with a draft Working Paper–a draft policy version submitted to the ADB Board of Directors for review–two days after the deadline for submission of public comments on the consultation draft policy paper. In May 2011, after Forum’s continuous pushing and lobbying, the bank decided to put the review process on the right track by inviting public comments on the draft Working Paper. In June 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the first Working-Paper. In July, ADB released its second Working-Paper which is currently open for public comments. Forum members have been using the AM to register local communities’ complaints on the Bank’s lapses in terms of its policies, programs, and projects. While there was not a single complaint filed in 2008, out of the 13 cases in 2009, four of which were filed by Forum members. Accountability mechanism related documents - 21 Oct 2019 | NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework 17 Mar 2019 | ADB’s 10 years of Accountability Mechanism is not worth celebrating 17 Jan 2019 | Does ADB's Accountability mechanism work? 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Greater Mekong Subregion: Mekong Tourism Development Project 14 Nov 2010 | Holding ADB Accountable: A look at the Present Accountability Mechanism 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Mechanism Sixth Road Project: Not Eligible 12 Nov 2010 | Accountability Counsel Comments on the Asian Development Bank Accountability Mechanism Policy Review 14 Sep 2010 | Submission to the Accountability Mechanism Review 09 Sep 2010 | Effectiveness of the Accountability Mechanism in Central Asia and the Caucasus ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030