Search Results

MANILA, June 17 – NGO Forum on ADB, an Asian-led network of over 250 civil society organization (CSOs) around the world, is demanding the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to ensure that community and civil society voices are meaningfully heard and that their views are incorporated into the Bank's Energy Policy. Earlier this week, the group collectively decided to disengage from the session designated within Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) for CSOs to discuss the Bank's energy policy. Since the release of the ADB Draft Energy Policy a month ago, the ADB Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) has not made any information publicly accessible detailing the timeline for consultations or the process by which input will be duly taken into account before final revisions are made. Vidya Dinker from the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and Growthwatch, India, says that "There is not even a respectable semblance of inclusivity or transparency of process in the ACEF, despite it being the big event for them to both showcases and have meaningful consultations on their energy policy draft. We do not see any reason to participate in such a charade." Civil society groups worldwide have no clear understanding of when and how the ADB management will take comments and critiques into account before the final policy is released later this year. Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, stated that "based on an assessment of the limitations created by a non-interactive technical platform, lack of lead-up time, and unclear details about key procedural issues, we had concluded the only practical option available at this time would be to make this regrettable but firm decision." Hassan also added that "civil society groups and communities from across Central, South, and Southeast Asia do not consider the review process a transparent, inclusive, and meaningful opportunity for a consultation." The Forum network pointed out the systematic failure of the Bank to undertake meaningful consultations with local communities on project planning, lack of pre-project information disclosure, and the lack of human rights due to diligence assessment from the onset. These are critical issues that have led to community resistance and threats and reprisals against those who raise project-related questions or concerns. Regarding the draft energy policy, the network acknowledges the Bank's formal withdrawal of financing for coal projects as recommended by the ADB's own Independent Evaluation Department (2020). However, it leaves open a range of options for supporting new and expanded infrastructure for gas (especially LNG), complex geothermals, destructive large-scale dams, and harmful incinerator projects. The environmental, social, and economic burdens associated with gas-powered generation along with the required infrastructure build-out are too high to rely on it as a bridge fuel across Asia and the Pacific. The ADB suggests that LNG infrastructure is so costly that other options may be pursued, including but not limited to large hydro and waste-to-energy incinerator projects. Gerry Arances from the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines, explained that "such investments risk jeopardizing international efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in line with IPCC pathway 1 and the ecosystem-based resilience of communities dependent on coastal, riparian, land, and forest-based ecologies." He also added, "Equally concerning is the fact that the draft Energy Policy fails to provide any assurances concerning how private sector operations and dispersed investments made via financial intermediaries will avoid being implicated in coal, oil, or gas projects that would jeopardize Paris climate commitments and ensure compliance with the ADB's own social and environmental safeguards." The Forum network urges the ADB to take the current ADB Energy Policy Review as an opportunity to gear its support towards a clear transition pathway, bolstering the shift from coal towards reliance on appropriately scaled solar and wind-powered renewable energy. The group also demands the Bank to undertake the Energy Policy Review process to establish a portfolio that steers investments towards a future in which the transition to renewable energy will be timely, just, and inclusive, leaving coal, gas, and oil in the ground. Lastly, NGO Forum on ADB also emphasized that false solutions such as WTE incinerators, large hydro, and carbon capture should be discarded in the ADB's 2021 Energy Policy, and accordingly, the ADB proves it can - support a just, equitable, forward-looking green recovery. There is not even a respectable semblance of inclusivity or transparency of process in the ACEF, despite it being the big event for them to both showcases and have meaningful consultations on their energy policy draft. We do not see any reason to participate in such a charade.

Preamble As the Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2021 gets underway, the NGO Forum on ADB, along with our member civil society organizations and allied communities, advance the following statement – providing a brief overview of our collective concerns with the ADB's recent draft Energy Policy, and the inherent challenges of the opaque consultation process surrounding the Energy Policy Review to date, including as integrated into the ACEF schedule. This statement, therefore, is explicitly articulated concerning the three main pillars of ACEF 2021: "technology roadmaps to achieve the NDCs, impact of COVID-19 and green recovery, and consultations to make the ADB Energy Policy more relevant". On Technology Roadmaps We note with concern that within ACEF, achieving borrowing member country ambitions for carbon neutrality by 2050/decarbonization is treated primarily as a question of finding the right mix of techno-fixes that can be advanced through a process of market liberalization. Yielding control to the private sector for developing energy solutions is suggested as the most suitable way to launch into the commercial deployment of experimental carbon capture technologies, wide-scale reliance of urban populations on EVs with accompanying charging infrastructure, meeting the service needs of vast industrial parks, and putting the systems in place to enable regional power trade. However, these options rely on the rollout of large-scale infrastructure and, in several examples featured within ACEF sessions, promote collaboration with a number of primary corporate interests implicated in gross human rights violations and significant environmental destruction (e.g., proposals to partner with Shell in Myanmar and engage in initiatives with Shell, Total, BP and other oil majors involved in trials of carbon capture technology). They also serve to reinforce the ADB's current lopsided focus on meeting the needs of resource-intensive industries, rather than on appropriately scaling solutions for the 'last mile projects,' as noted in the recent report by ADB's Internal Evaluation Department on energy. Furthermore, the land required for widespread commercial application of carbon capture (yet to be proven technologically possible), the resources needed to enable mass EV usage across the region, and the populated, forest, and river landscapes that span across border zones, mean that such initiatives can only be expected to lead to widespread dispossession and unsustainable resource-intensive practices. Ultimately then, the blueprints being suggested for the future within ACEF 2021 fail to be grounded in a comprehensive assessment of what is required to meet the real day-to-day needs of communities, let alone provide forward-looking roadmaps in line with what climate science and a rights-based approach requires at this juncture. On the Relevance of the Draft Energy Policy We acknowledge that the draft Energy Policy formalizes a withdrawal of financing for coal projects as recommended by the ADB's own Independent Evaluation Department (2020) but leaves open a range of options for supporting new and expanded infrastructure for gas (especially LNG), geothermal, large-scale dams and incinerator projects. The environmental, social, and economic burdens associated with gas-powered generation along with the required infrastructure build-out are too high to rely on it as a bridge fuel across Asia and the Pacific. Indeed, in the draft Energy Policy, the ADB suggests that LNG infrastructure is so costly that other options may be pursued, including but not limited to large hydro and waste-to-energy incinerator projects. Yet, these too are typically riddled with the exact high social and environmental costs, thereby undermining possibilities for meaningful just transitions within borrowing member countries. Such investments risk jeopardizing international efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in line with IPCC pathway 1, as well as the ecosystem-based resilience of communities dependent on coastal, riparian, land, and forest-based ecologies. Equally concerning is the fact that the draft Energy Policy fails to provide any assurances in relation to how private sector operations and dispersed investments made via financial intermediaries will (i) avoid being implicated in coal, oil, or gas projects, thereby jeopardizing Paris climate commitments, and (ii) ensure compliance with the ADB's own social and environmental safeguards. Moving forward, we urge the ADB to take the current ADB Energy Policy Review as an opportunity to gear its support towards a clear transition pathway, bolstering the shift from coal towards reliance on appropriately scaled solar and wind-powered renewable energy. On the Lack of Meaningful Consultation and Transparency Since the release of the ADB Draft Energy Policy a month ago, on May 15th, the ADB SDCC has not made any information publicly accessible detailing the timeline for consultations or the process by which input will be duly taken into account before final revisions are made. This means that civil society groups from across Asia and beyond have no clear understanding of when and how the ADB management will take our comments and critiques into account before the final policy is released later this year. We also note that there is no way for input to be made via encrypted PGP/GPG options that would allow for a greater degree of digital security for civil society groups operating within a range of challenging contexts. Adding to the general lack of transparency surrounding the consultation process are questions regarding the content and information expected to feature in staff guidance notes related to the screening criteria for project financing. Without access to drafts of these guidance notes (e.g., for Gas, Hydro, and WTE funding), the considerations and standards for selecting these projects remain unknown. To date, no commitments have been forthcoming from the ADB to make these documents publicly available - subject to scrutiny and input - before finalization. Future ADB energy investments must be prioritized for renewable energy and community microgrids, not fossil fuel expansion. The ADB is continuing its financing for fossil gas power plants, including, amongst others, considerable investments in the controversial Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - India (TAPI) gas pipeline project. We also note with due concern the track record of the Bank in this regard, for example, in relation to support for the Rupsha 800 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant in Bangladesh, which was advanced despite its proximity to the Sundarban Mangrove Forest while threatening the very livelihoods of approximately 1,500 fisherfolk communities due to the effluent waste. Furthermore, although the ADB touts waste-to-energy projects as clean, renewable energy options -- including those in the Maldives and Cebu -- on-the-ground evidence has revealed that these operations pose significant health and environmental risks, contaminating air, water, and soil in fragile coastal ecosystems that remain among the most climate-vulnerable sites worldwide. Overall, the Forum and its member groups continue to be concerned about the systematic failure of the Bank to undertake meaningful consultations with local communities on project planning, the lack of pre-project information disclosure -- in particular when financing is rolled out via bonds and other indirect modalities of investing -- and the lack of human rights due diligence assessment from the onset. These are critical issues that have led to community resistance and threats and reprisals against those who raise project-related questions or concerns. Significantly, there is an urgent gap in investments in the clean energy infrastructure required to support meeting universal public health needs. Yet, according to the Forum's own assessment of the Bank's track record from 2010-2020, this is a critical area that has seen nothing but neglect. In effect, then, there is a glaring disconnect between what is being financed within the Bank's current energy portfolio and what is required for authentic, sustainable development outcomes. Spurring Onwards Just Community-Driven Energy Transitions Aligned with 'Real Zero' Paris Climate Goals: COVID - 19 Recovery Pathway In recognizing that this year's ACEF incorporates a pillar on the impacts of COVID 19 and the need for a 'green recovery,' we note that green, just recovery requires the financing of projects appropriately scaled to meet the needs of communities, grounded in robust community consultations from the outset, and accompanied by mechanisms to avert reprisals of those who give input or raise critical questions and concerns. Relying on extracting the planet's finite resources is neither sustainable nor rights-based, as it is communities that depend on these commons for their very survival. In this context, we reiterate the Oxford Working Paper findings on Post COVID Green Recovery. This working paper surveyed 231 financial experts, central bank officials, and asset managers from G20 countries to assess 300 stimulus policies in relation to the associated climate impacts. The survey revealed that only 4 percent of stimulus packages could be considered green, while 92 percent were categorized as 'colorless' (maintaining status quo). The paper further identified that for desired economic multipliers, critical investment areas to focus on for middle-income and lower-income countries in the future include healthcare investment and clean energy infrastructure compared to traditional transport and infrastructure or support for large corporations involved in new and new and ongoing fossil fuel development. It was further identified that for a USD 1 million investment in renewable energy projects, 7.49 jobs could be generated, while similar investments in energy efficiency projects could generate 7.72 jobs, compared to 2.65 jobs from investing in fossil fuels. The documentation provided in this paper stands among a number of recent, globally relevant evidence-based studies that demonstrate the potential of economic recovery through a clean energy future. Conclusion Against the backdrop of a significant human health crisis and the ongoing climate crisis, this year's ACEF is the time when the ADB can be expected to demonstrate its readiness to move forward with an approach to energy finance that will set Asia on the path of Paris 1.5 alignment. In this context, we urge the ADB to undertake the Energy Policy Review process to establish a portfolio that steers investments towards a future in which the transition to renewable energy will be timely, just, and inclusive, leaving coal, gas, and oil in the ground. To do so, the ADB must ensure that community voices and civil society are meaningfully heard and that their views are incorporated into the ADB Energy Policy; as in the end, they are the ones whose lives are at stake because of the ADB's operations. We hope that false solutions such as WTE incinerators, large hydro, and carbon capture are abandoned in the ADB's 2021 Energy Policy, and accordingly, the ADB proves it can - and will - support a just, equitable, forward-looking green recovery. Endorsed by the following organizations – 350 Pilipinas, Philippines 350.org Asia, Asia Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia An organization for Socio Economic Development, Bangladesh Asian Energy Network, Philippines Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional / Asia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt, Bangladesh CEE Bankwatch Network, Czech Republic Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines Centre For Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Chairperson Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Change Initiatives, Bangladesh CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Climate Watch Thailand, Thailand Collective for Economic Justice, India Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), India Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Community Resource Centre, Thailand Consfound, Mongolia EarthRights International, Mekong Region Environmental public society, Armenia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Food first Information & Action Network (FIAN), Sri Lanka Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Fresh Eyes, United Kingdom Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) - Asia Pacific, Asia Pacific region Green Advocates International, Liberia Green Alternative, Georgia Grootouders voor het Klimaat, Belgium Growthwatch, India Integrated Community & Industrial Development Initiative, Bangladesh Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India International Accountability Project, USA International Association of People's Lawyers, Australia International Rivers, United States Kilos Maralita, Philippines Life Haven Center for Independent Living, Philippines Law and Policy of Sustainable Development, Vietnam Mangrove Action Project, USA Nash Vek, Kyrgyzstan Oil Change International, United States Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Baku,Azerbaijan Oxfam in Cambodia, Cambodia Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia People's Health Movement Nepal, Nepal Peoples Development Institute, Philippines Prantojon, India Progressive Plantation Workers Union (PPWU), India Public Services International, India Recourse, Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries, Russia Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Umeedenoo, Pakistan University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies, Program on Alternative Development (UP CIDS AltDev), Philippines urgewald e.V., Germany WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Youthnet for climate justice Bangladesh, Bangladesh YPSA, Bangladesh Download PDF version here.

Dr. Yongping Zhai Chief of Energy Sector Group Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) Asian Development Bank Dear Dr. Zhai, Congratulations on convening this virtual Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2021 amid challenging conditions related to the ongoing pandemic. In this context, we write to raise specific concerns after having been informed on June 7th of a potential window within ACEF for a virtual discussion session on the ADB Energy Policy scheduled for June 15th. We have been discussing the ACEF engagement with you since last year, and as we had hoped that we would be provided meaningful options for engagement, we were looking forward to your response. We regret to inform you that we are declining to engage in this dialogue based on our assessment of the platform, timing, and the lack of clarity in the way it is being rolled out. As a network of civil society groups and communities from across Central, South, and Southeast Asia as well the Pacific region and beyond, we do not consider this transparent, inclusive, meaningful opportunity for a consultation. Below, our key contentions related to the procedural lack of clarity and the limitations of the digital platform are elaborated. On Process Firstly, in regards to the process surrounding the coordination of this virtual session: Forum member groups have been diligently checking the ADB's website on the Energy Policy updates section over the past few weeks, waiting to see when more information would be available about scheduling civil society consultations, inclusive of all regions. Based on the stated intention by SDCC to designate a session during this year's ACEF for an open, participatory civil society consultation during our dialogue on June 4th, Forum members have additionally been monitoring the ACEF website to remain alert as to when such a dialogue would be allocated and how they could participate in providing input from their respective groups. Disappointingly, despite the assurances provided at that time by SDCC, the given session within ACEF was not publicly identified on the website until Friday, June 11th. Most significantly, it has never been clarified how the input provided during a moderated panel and moderated Q&A session would be duly accounted for and reflected as suggested revisions on the energy policy draft. Nor has it been clear if the SDCC intends to pitch it as the time when input from the Asian CSOs was provided, thereby limiting further engagement opportunities. We regret to inform you that we are declining to engage in this dialogue based on our assessment of the platform, timing, and the lack of clarity in the way it is being rolled out. Consultation Platform Used The chosen platform for the consultation is a conference app and thus has a minimal function if used for consultation. As per information from the technical coordinator of the event, the participants can only send their questions via chat box and cannot participate via voice or dialogue. Also, quoting the technical advisor, 'it is just one way and does not function like Zoom Meeting.' In addition, the only individuals who will have access to microphones are the speakers, and those attending can only use the chatbox section of the platform, which the Bank moderates all incoming content. There is also the limitation of translation; the platform does not have translation options for local groups or impacted communities. To continue our constructive collaboration around the ADB Energy Policy review, we hope to reconvene a consultation later. In the meantime, we are closely reading the draft policy and will be sharing with you our comments shortly. It would be effective to have a deeper dive after you have received our formal comments so we may have a more comprehensive and constructive discussion. Respectfully, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by: Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Association Green Alternative, Georgia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Building and Wood Worker's International, Asia Pacific CEE Bankwatch Network Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) Philippines Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Change Initiative, Bangladesh CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Peru Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal Environics Trust, India Environmental public society, Armenia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Fair Finance Philippines, Philippines Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Asia Pacific Growthwatch, India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Rivers KRuHA - people's coalition for the right to water, Indonesia Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Philippines Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Recourse, Europe Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Rights) Urgewald, German Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Cc: Office of the President Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Vice-President for Private Sector and Public-Private Partnerships Vice-President for Administration and Corporate Management Vice-President for Finance and Risk Management Vice-President Operations 1 & 2 Office of the Managing Director-General Director-General, Sustainable Development, and Climate Change Department Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Division Director, Safeguards Division Director-General of Independent Evaluation Department Director, Thematic and Country Division Chair, Compliance Review Panel (CRP) Head, NGO and Civil Society Center Deputy Director-General, Sustainable Development, and Climate Change Department Principal Safeguards Specialist, Portfolio, Results and Quality Control Unit All Executive Directors All Alternate Executive Directors Download PDF here.

Broad NGO Coalition Unites to Call Out ADB Designated Energy Policy Session Manila, June 15, 2021 - As the Asian Clean Energy Forum gets underway, NGO Forum on ADB, an Asian-led CSO network, affirmed its collective decision to disengage from the session designated within ACEF for CSOs to discuss the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) energy policy. A statement signed by different organizations around the world explained that based on an assessment of the limitations created by a non-interactive technical platform, lack of lead-up time, and unclarified details about key procedural issues, they had concluded the only practical option available at this time would be to make this regrettable but firm decision. The network also added that civil society groups and communities from across Central, South, and Southeast Asia do not consider the review process a transparent, inclusive, and meaningful opportunity for a consultation. Since the release of the ADB Draft Energy Policy on May 15th, the ADB Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) has not made any information about the timeline for consultations or the process by which input will be duly taken into account before final revisions are made publicly accessible. Civil society groups from across Asia and beyond have no clear understanding of when and how the ADB management will take in comments and critiques into this review process before the final policy is released later this year. As Vidya Dinker from the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and Growthwatch, India firmly stated: “The ACEF continues to be a public relations jamboree for the ADB -- to have more of the same in 2021 is just not acceptable. Are they expecting that communities wronged all these years by their portfolio of dirty projects and lack of standards will now simply sit back, trusting the ADB to magically scrub Asia clean because they are drafting a new energy policy?! And that this document will somehow save us all from the precipice of a climate emergency?! There is not even a respectable semblance of inclusivity or transparency of process in the ACEF, despite it being the big event for them to both showcases and have meaningful consultations on their energy policy draft. We do not see any reason to participate in such a charade.” The organizations affiliated with NGO Forum on ADB have all acknowledged that while the ADB’s draft Energy Policy formalizes a withdrawal of financing for coal projects as recommended by the ADB's own Independent Evaluation Department (IED) in 2020, it alarmingly leaves open a range of options for supporting new and expanded infrastructure for gas (especially LNG), geothermal, large-scale dams and incinerator projects. "We are very concerned about the ADB’s draft energy policy, and we are not happy with the ADB's highly confusing public consultation process. It seems they use the COVID pandemic lockdown period to escape from real public consultations,” explained Hemantha Withanage from the Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka. Hasan Mehedi from the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) Bangladesh, added: "ADB is continuing to finance fossil fuels including Liquified Fossil Gas and Waste to Energy while global scientific communities warn about any further investment for fossil fuels. ADB is yet to reach out to the project-affected communities on the ground. Without consulting the affected communities and local civil society, how come ADB finalizes such an important policy which has a direct impact on the local communities and environment?" Gerry Arances from the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development in the Philippines elaborated further, saying: “Such investments risk jeopardizing international efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in line with IPCC pathway 1 and the ecosystem-based resilience of communities dependent on coastal, riparian, land, and forest-based ecologies.” He also added, “Equally concerning is the fact that the draft Energy Policy fails to provide any assurances concerning how private sector operations and dispersed investments made via financial intermediaries will avoid being implicated in coal, oil, or gas projects that would jeopardize Paris climate commitments and ensure compliance with the ADB's own social and environmental safeguards”. “The future of ADB energy investments must be focussed on renewable energy and community microgrids. There is no space for fossil fuels, especially coal, oil, and gas,” concluded Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB.

We, the undersigned, condemn the brutal killing of at least five and the grievous injury to more than 50 workers of the Banshkhali coal-fired power plant in Chattogram (Chittagong), Bangladesh. At least five people were killed, and numerous others gravely injured when state security forces started shooting live ammunition at the construction workers of the coal-fired power plant (currently under construction) of the S. Alam Group in Chattogram's Banshkhali. The Banshkhali Coal Power plant site has witnessed previous two occasions in 2016 when local people were killed by law enforcing agencies for protesting against land acquisition by the project itself, fearing negative impact on their lives. Our inquiries reveal that the workers were acting within their democratic rights by staging a protest over several legitimate demands, including the non-payment of wages due. NGO Forum on ADB and the undersigned civil society groups, strongly condemn this event, which is a significant violation of human rights and the provisions in the Constitution of Bangladesh on peaceful assembly. Using deadly force against workers protesting for their due wages and dignified working conditions is against the rule of law. This brutal killing by the police is nothing but abuse and unlawful use of power. According to the Constitution of Bangladesh, state security forces or police do not have the right to shoot at innocent civilians and workers who are protesting within their lawful rights. According to Police Regulations 1943, police are allowed to use minimum force as a last resort for democratic assemblies, which they deem a severe security concern; but the purpose of using the minimum force would be breaking the assembly apart and under no circumstances should be intended to kill anyone. As of late, police brutality against civilians has extended beyond the limits of the law in Bangladesh, and yesterday's action was a clear demonstration of that. Yesterday's incident is a clear violation of the law by state security forces. As the country struggles with the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the life of the working class has turned into a living nightmare. In such a time, workers not being paid their due wages constitutes a serious violation of the Bangladesh Labour Law and fundamental human rights. The fact that one of the country's top industrialists, S. Alam Group has failed to pay their workers and settle their dues, despite the ongoing lockdowns in the country amid the holy Ramadan month is wholly unacceptable and deserves a full, independent, and transparent investigation. It is now incumbent upon the state to decisively withdraw its agreement with the S Alam Group for the Banshkhali coal-fired power plant to be built in light of the failure of the S Alam Group to duly comply with its legal obligations as an employer, as they have proven themselves as an unfit project developer fully lacking in due diligence -- prepared to violate both social and constitutional norms. Our Demands We demand that all the workers be paid their due wages immediately and that they be compensated not only for lost wages but also for the delays in payments over the past year. More importantly, we demand compensation not only for the delayed payments but also for the sheer loss of lives of all the workers (aged 18, 24, 28, and alike) and those who have been injured. It has come to our attention that the police after yesterday’s incident has filed criminal cases against 3000 plus workers and have labeled them as unidentified 'miscreants'. This labeling and criminalization of peacefully protesting workers will stigmatize them for the rest of their lives. We demand an immediate withdrawal of all 3000 plus harassing legal cases against the workers. We demand that the strictest legal measures be taken by the government against S. Alam group, SEPCO III, the HTG Development Group involved, and the state-supported security forces for depriving the workers of their legitimate dues, pushing them to protest, and eventually unleashing the use of deadly force on unarmed civilians. Consequently, we demand that all workers have effective access to remedy through a fair, neutral, and transparent investigation of this event by an independent judicial probe committee leading to punitive action against the police officers involved, HTG Development Group, SEPCO III, and S Alam group, with guarantees of non-repetition, reparations, as well as due recourse and restitution to the workers along with the grieving families. We further demand that all financiers of the project including BOC, ABC, CHEXIM, CCB, CDB, CMB, PAB are held accountable for their lack of safeguarding of the workers. This appalling incident at the site of the Banshkhali Coal Power Plant comes just days before the “Leaders’ Summit on Climate” hosted by US President Biden, where the Government of Bangladesh, along with state representatives of 40 other nations, will discuss the critical issues of climate change, Paris Alignment, and COP26. At this event, it is expected that the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, will receive formal recognition for her leadership in tackling climate change concerns. The NGO Forum on ADB, as an international network, hopes that after this heinous incident around a coal power plant, the Government of Bangladesh will use this global platform and demonstrate authentic climate leadership. For those bereaved and struggling at Banshkhali and all the climate-vulnerable people of Bangladesh, we urge the Prime Minister to announce an immediate end to all socially unacceptable coal and thermal power plants in the country and suspend the construction of the Banshkhali Coal Plant immediately. UPDATE: Last May 27, 2021, Faruk Ahmed, the Chief Coordinator of Banshkhali Power Plant, filed the case under sections 25, 29, and 31 of the Digital Security Act, alleging "offensive and false disclosure, creating animosity, instability, and chaos." Case No. 48/173. According to the statement of the case, Engineer Shahnawaz Ahmed, a resident of Gandamara, wrote in a Facebook post on May 26, 2021, at 3:00 pm: "Breaking News: The people of Banshkhali thought that the environmentally destructive coal power plant which already has killed 12 lives, would have made the Gandamara Union floating in the tide of development. But in reality, Gandamara is drowning in the tidal surge. The youth of Banshkhali should play a leading role against injustice and for development through fearless writing." Through this post, Shahnawaz Ahmed has expressed his opinion on the project and called on the youth to stand against injustice through writing which is in no way an aggressive, false, or unreasonable attempt to create unrest and chaos. There are enough reasons to believe that the Banshkhali police have arrested him on a baseless and contemptible case filed by a coal power project officer under the controversial sections of the Digital Security Act to suppress the dissent forcibly. CSOs monitoring the development of this incident are seriously concern that no impartial investigation and effective legal action has been taken in the adventure of killing and injuring villagers and workers by the police firing in Banshkhali. Instead, the project owners and the police have filed cases accusing 3,562 unarmed workers and locals, creating opportunities for continued harassment. Besides, two lawsuits filed in favor of the victims in 2016 have been quashed by the district judge's court due to the administration's hostility. NGO Forum on ADB stand in solidarity and fully support the rights of the people of Banshkhali to lives, livelihoods, property, and environment and demand that - Respecting the order of the Honorable Court, the case filed in the name of Engineer Shahnewaz Ahmed should be immediately withdrawn, and he should be released; Repeal oppressive and unconstitutional Digital Security Act 2018; Police members responsible for the April 17 shooting must be identified and brought to justice; A case must be filed on behalf of the victims in Banshkhali; The environmentally destructive Banshkhali coal-fired power plant must be scrapped, and appropriate action must be taken against the mismanagement and illegal actions of the sponsor companies; Adequate compensation and rehabilitation of the dead and injured should be arranged. Endorsed by the following organizations: 350.org Asia, Asia 350.org Pilipinas, Philippines Advocate, India Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Bangladesh AEER, Indonesia All India Union of Forest Working People AIUFP, India Anu Chenoy, india ASD-Bangladesh, Bangladesh Asian Energy Network (AEN), Philippines Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Bangkok, Thailand Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers Federation (BBWWF), Bangladesh Bangladesh Institute of democracy and development, Bangladesh Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh BINDU, Bangladesh BWI Asia Pacific, Philippines CADTM India, India Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Philippines Center for Environment and Participatory Research - CEPR, Bangladesh Center for rural child development (CRD), Bangladesh Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Financial Accountability, India CEPHED, Nepal Charmian Beabout, Australia CLEAN ( Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh COAST Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh Conseil Régional des Organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement, DRC Construction Safety Campighn IK, UK CPI ML Liberation, India DY Patil International University, India Environics Trust, India Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh [EquityBD], Dhaka, Bangladesh Families Against Corporate Killers, United Kingdom Financial Express, Bangladesh Focus on the Global South, Thailand Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines FRESH EYES, United Kingdom Growthwatch, India Harvard Chan School of Public Health, USA Healthy Public Policy Foundation, Thailand HK Social Security Society, Hong Kong Human Rights and Peace Activist, India Independent Consultant, Activists, Bangladesh Indian Community Activists Network (ICAN), India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Integrated Social and Agriculture Development Organization (ISADO), Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA ISDE Bangladesh, Bangladesh Karmojibi Nari, Bangladesh KRuHA - people's coalition for the right to water, Indonesia Labour Education Foundation, Pakistan Mangrove Action Project, USA Market Forces, Australia Market Forces, Australia Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, United Kingdom MAUSAM Movement for Advancing Understanding of Sustainability And Mutuality, India Mineral Inheritors Rights Association, India Mines mineral and people, India Mongla Nagorik Somaj, Bangladesh Nash Vek, Kyrgyzstan National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), India National Fisheries Solidarity Movement, Sri Lanka New Trade Union Initiative, India NUJ, UK OHSA Gujarat, India OHSA Gujarat state, India Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pabna University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh Pakistan Fisher Folk Forum, Pakistan Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy, India Pakistan Kissan(Farmer) Rabita Comittee, United Kingdom Peoples Training & Research Center, India Phulbari Solidarity Group, Bangladesh and Britain PROGRAMME, Bangladesh Recourse, Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Russia Rivers without Boundaries Coalition (Mongolia), Mongolia Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Bangladesh Shramik Mukti Dal, India Social Economic Development Society [SEDS], Bangladesh Society for Participatory Education and Development (SPED), Bangladesh Songshoptaque, Bangladesh Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL), Philippines TuK INDONESIA (Supervisory Board), Indonesia UK Hazards Campaign, United Kingdom University of Barishal, Bangladesh University of Dhaka, Bangladesh urgewald, Germany WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Women & Child Development Organizatio (APARAJITA), Bangladesh Worker's Initiative, India YouthNet for Climate Justice, Bangladesh YPSA, Bangladesh

Mr. Woochong Um Managing Director General Asian Development Bank Mr. Kaoru Kasahara Senior Transport Specialist South Asia Department Asian Development Bank Mr. Saugata Dasgupta Project Management Specialist Asian Development Bank Mr. Ashwin Hosur Viswanath Senior Project Officer (Urban) India Resident Mission Asian Development Bank Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey Associate Operations Analyst India Resident Mission Asian Development Bank Subject: Postpone implementation of new Bengaluru Metro Rail Airport Line (Phase 2A & 2B) amidst a humanitarian crisis Ref: Project Number 53326-001 Sir, I write to you as a resident of Outer Ring Road (ORR), Bangalore, therefore one of the intended beneficiaries of the Bengaluru Metro Rail Phase 2A and 2B from Silk Board to KR Puram and then onto the Airport, as and when it is operational. However, when the Central Government approval of the project made headlines in all national dailies amidst a raging pandemic on 21st April 2021, I was baffled and disappointed at the misplaced priorities of the Centre and State Governments alike. As on April 21, 2021, the second wave of the pandemic was on a sharp rise with 23,558 new cases in Karnataka of which 13,640 cases were from Bangalore city and daily reported deaths were 116 and 70 respectively. A CITY IN DISTRESS As I write this, there is immeasurable grief, pain and suffering surrounding us. India’s daily coronavirus cases rose by 263,533, while deaths are still high with 4,329 deaths in the last 24 hours. India’s total infections have now crossed 25 million, while total fatalities have reached a sad figure of 2,78,719. While the pandemic is raging and ravaging this country, Bangalore is at the epicenter. It has been referred to as the COVID capital with 9,83,519 infections and 8,690 deaths. In addition, the Department of Computational and Data Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has predicted that by June 11, the death toll in Bengaluru could climb up to 14,220. And now a rare but serious fungal infection, Black fungus, is rising among Covid patients in Bengaluru. In addition, there is a severe shortage of testing kits, hospital ICUs are overcrowded, there is shortage of oxygen with people gasping and struggling to stay alive. Families are running from hospital to hospital to find ICU beds and ventilators; very often to lose their loved ones in the end. There are long winding queues at the crematoriums with dead bodies lined up one after another. VACCINATION SHORTAGE As per BBMP (Bangalore Municipality), Bangalore has a serious vaccine shortage that is hindering efforts to inoculate its residents against Covid-19. There is fear and panic as people scramble to get themselves vaccinated with limited slots that open up on the government's online registration platform; they get filled within seconds. Even the most educated with the capacity to pay for their vaccines are unable to get themselves vaccinated for lack of slots. The poor with no access to the website are another matter altogether. For them the cost of vaccination is beyond monetary, it is the struggle to figure out the process and system. On May 7 2021, the State of Karnataka decided to utilize their complete supply of vaccines from GOI, for vaccination of only persons above 45+ years (second dose). Further to that on 12th May 2021, they once again decided that the vaccines procured for 18-44 years will be used only for beneficiaries over 45 who are due for their second dose6. In light of the above facts and statistics, it is only prudent that the Government in a democratic nation and a welfare State prioritises “welfare”. Life is more precious than transport infrastructure; prioritising a metro project by tree felling over public health sends a wrong message to the citizens who are already in severe distress. CHRONOLOGY The chronology below is a testimonial to the apparent desensitization by numbers. While we are still seeing severe impact of the virus, this choice of action is preposterous in terms of priority. 23/04/2021: Karnataka imposes weekend curfew and night curfew until May 4 starting 9 PM with a semi lockdown on weekdays. The government urged people to stay home. 30/04/2021: Notice released by Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) inviting objections to the removal of trees in the Bangalore Metro Rail Project, Phase 2A, Package 2, that eventually links to the Airport. The notification provided 10 days for the public to send in their comments and objections to this removal of 1026 trees which would be 10/05/2021. 10/05/2021: 14 day “stricter lockdown” comes into effect in Bangalore - “As Covid-19 cases are surging in the state, corona curfew was not successful. A complete lockdown will be imposed from 6 am on 10 May till 6 am on 24,” says CM Yediyurappa 10/05/2021: The last day to file objections to the tree removal, a day that saw 490 deaths and 47,930 fresh infections. On this very day our government and leaders were busy fixing deadlines for the Metro projects - 2A and 2B, and the newspapers reported that a work order was likely to be released the very next week. We are appalled at the priority of the government, lending and executing agencies responsible for large infrastructure projects such as the metro. What is the urgency to commence the metro project in the midst of a pandemic? Bangalore has been under a curfew since April 23, 2021, then a lockdown since April 30, 2021 and as we write this note, the citizens are homebound until May 24 2021 with yet another extension very likely. Meanwhile, the CM of Karnataka directed that officials prepare for the third wave that is expected to hit in a few months’ time. It’s been more than a year since the pandemic and lockdowns were enforced. Our roads have been quite desolate ever since. LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME: In November 2020, BMRCL acknowledged the low traffic in the city and subsequent difficulty in assessing ridership volumes. The government-owned consultancy firm RITES Ltd. that had been appointed to prepare a detailed project report (DPR) for Bengaluru Metro’s Phase III project was facing difficulties in the preparation of the DPR as the volume of traffic was considerably lower than the Pre-Covid days. “We had allotted the work about three months back. In view of low traffic due to the pandemic, traffic and ridership assessment has been found to be difficult,” Ajay Seth, BMRCL Managing Director, told Bangalore Mirror. Presently, it is but obvious that the ridership assessments of the past will not be a true reflection of the ridership of the future. Current ridership is of no relevance as the operational lines are either shut due to lockdown or working on limited ridership with social distancing. BMRCL has suffered losses of 74 Crores in fare and non-fare revenue during the lockdown in April and May 2020. BMRCL’s disclosure to National Stock Exchange notes that: Revenue generation would be difficult due to the strict social distancing measures even after starting the operations fully. Covid would impact the revenues of BMRCL in the present financial year not just due to revenue losses due to lockdown but also because of the difficulty of operating costs recovery in the near future. BMRCL is running into losses that are being offset/supported by taxpayers money. For 2019- 2020, the government is expected to fund BMRCL upto Rs. 40 Crores. WORK FROM HOME The Bengaluru Metro Rail Project 2A and 2B Airport line was conceived, presented and heavily supported in the pre-pandemic era. And hence all the traffic demand analysis, modeling and forecasting are from a time and lifestyle that we cannot hope to go back to. Moreover, it's from a time when Work From Home (WFH) in IT capital Bangalore was bound by government restrictions and company policies. In November 2020, the Government of India (GoI) removed all constraints and compliances for the tech industry to work from home (WFH). The PM himself stated - “These steps will further flexibility and productivity.” In addition, The Ministry of Commerce and Industry is likely to take a call on permanent WFH for IT SEZs by end May 2021. NASSCOM (trade body of the Tech Industry), has been seeking a permanent work from anywhere arrangement for units within SEZs, from where nearly 60% of IT services are exported. The industry is seeking relaxations and clarity on the SEZ rules and related tax procedures so that it can implement a long-term blended work model with remote working as a key component, especially due to the second Covid-19 wave now on in the country. In such a scenario, heads of IT organizations are struggling to adjust and re-adjust with As Sundar Pichai, CEO Google said in his email communication to his employees - The future of work is “flexibility”. Going forward, many IT companies would allow, even encourage a large section of its employees to WFH while some others may bring in their employees on a rotational basis. These options would point to a blended working model for the IT industry, which requires flexibility in approach. Many of the large companies on the ORR stretch have already made changes to their WFH policy. Microsoft, Cisco, Dell are some examples of those who have already expanded their WFH and made it permanent for staff. Outer Ring Road during Lockdown in 2020 (Source:https://theprint.in/opinion/lesson-india-covid-crisis-how-to-build-real-smart-city/398771/) Hence, the ridership estimates of the Bangalore Metro in this stretch will be severely impacted, making this quantum of investment into the project indefensible in a time of acute crisis. We therefore urge you to: Maintain status quo on the Bengaluru Metro project for Phase 2 A & 2 B until the pandemic subsides. Prepare a fresh DPR by appointing competent independent experts Conduct a new Comprehensive Traffic Assessment vis-a-vis the current policy of IT companies to encourage Work-From-Home. While there is poor or no ridership for the Bangalore Metro on even its other lines, why this rush to hustle the project along in these times of great distress?! For those still reeling from the calamitous impact of the pandemic, and with respect for those who lie beneath the undying embers of the burning pyres in Bangalore, please pause the project. Divert each and every effort, resource, material and human resource to bolster and enhance the health infrastructure for the country to emerge out of this colossal humanitarian crisis. Till then let us prioritise people over projects and profits. Regards, Sandhya Balasubramanian Growthwatch India https://www.mohfw.gov.in (https://www.news18.com/news/india/with-9-5-lakh-cases-bangalore-pips-pune-to-become-worst-covid-affected-district-3730424.html) https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-bengaluru-covid-cases-bengalurus-covid-19-cases-to-peak-by-may-17-city-likely-to-witness-over-14000-deaths-next-month-experts-karnataka-bangalore-lockdown-2021-2889672 https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2021/may/18/179-black-fungus-cases-14-deaths-in-8-bluru-hospitals-2303971.html https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/shortage-serious-can-t-carry-out-covid-19-vaccination-drive-says-bbmp-984968.html https://twitter.com/DHFWKA/status/1392520526472437763?s=20 https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/phase-iii-metro-gets-rites-of-way/articleshow/79180271.cms https://www.deccanherald.com/city/bengaluru-infrastructure/bmrcl-seeks-rs-500-cr-overdraft-from-banks-846273.html https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/20-of-workers-at-google-to-work-from-home-60-to-be- hybrid/story/438487.html Download PDF version here.

MANILA, May 7 -- The Asian Development Bank (ADB) through its draft energy policy announced today that it will not finance any coal mining, oil, and natural gas field exploration, drilling, or extraction activities, and it will no longer finance any new coal-fired capacity for power and heat generation or any facilities associated with new coal generation. Gerry Arances from the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED), Philippines stated “we are happy that ADB finally decided to abandon coal once and for all in this draft policy. By seeking to ‘support the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in the region’, ADB finally recognizes the need to rectify its mistake of causing the suffering of many communities in the Philippines and across Asia through the coal-fired power plants it helped build.” Hasan Mehedi from CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh said that “this is sweet victory after a long fight. We also remind ourselves that we have miles to go! ADB still has to urgently phase out fossil gas, waste to energy, and large hydro projects to achieve the Paris Goal of staying below 1.5 degrees.” Impacted communities and civil society organizations worldwide that have been urging the ADB to stop funding coal see this as a landmark decision. “It’s a victory to the civil society especially to NGO FOUM ON ADB who have advocated the ADB to make it a fossil-free bank. We continue to demand ADB stop financing other high carbon-emitting technologies such as gas and waste to energy” says Hemantha Withanage from Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka. Glenn Ymata, Energy Campaigner of NGO Forum on ADB said “we welcome the draft of the new Energy Policy of the ADB and commend the bank’s effort to consider the issues and concerns as well as the recommendations from the communities and civil society organizations, specifically on coal and nuclear financing. However, there are still other critical issues that need to be addressed like gas, geothermal and waste-to-energy, we are expecting that the ADB will continue involving the civil society in finalizing the draft because of the climate, environmental, social, and human rights imperatives.” The ADB also indicated in the draft energy policy that it would support Developing Member Countries (DMCs) to mitigate the health and environmental impact of existing coal-fired power plants and district heating systems by financing emission control technologies. “ADB at 54 is finally catching up, and we welcome that. It is a battle hard fought by communities long-suffering pollution and destruction by their projects and policies in India and across Asia, and today they can finally look forward to reparations. We reaffirm our struggles and commitment to hold ADB accountable,” says Vidya Dinker of Indian Social Action Forum and Growthwatch, India. Ikromjon Mamadov from Youth Group for the Protection of the Environment, Tajikistan said that “it is a small step towards abandoning coal today but can be a huge contribution to preserving the future of our planet and humanity.” However, Bank watchers see this policy as a reason to raise new risks for the gas industry. Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB explained that “the new draft Energy Policy announcing an end to coal finance is much-delayed justice for all the affected communities across Asia impacted by ADB Coal (Phulbari Coal mine Bangladesh, Tata Mundra Coal project India, Visayas Baseload and Masinloc Coal Project Philippines, Jamshoro Coal project Pakistan). We commend this very immediate move away from coal by the ADB in its Energy Policy review this 2021, as we are at the brink of a climate apocalypse as there is hardly any time left to avert global temperature rise beyond 1.5 degrees.” Hassan also explained that the ADB is still gridlocked in LNG and gas finance, as well as harmful WTE incinerator projects, and large hydropower plants which all contribute to increasing concentrations of GHG. “We urge the ADB to take the coal moratorium ahead and move towards a full transition to renewable energy finance through solar and wind as soon as possible.”

Meeting Between Civil Society Organizations and ADB Management 54th ADB Annual Governors Meeting The world is in a grip of the global COVID19 pandemic with an over 260 trillion USD debt burden. On top of which we are at a precipice of losing our critical climate balance if we do not act in time to reduce global temperature rise by 1.5 degrees as per the Paris Alignment. Instead of a collective global response to the threats above, we are witnessing a rising competition of geopolitical forces in the region. Military and authoritarian dictatorships taking over democracies, (as we are witnessing in Myanmar) have posed direct threats to human rights and environmental defenders across the region leading to numerous deaths and abductions. Amid this vulnerable and chaotic regional context, the ADB response in mobilizing resources as loans for COVID19 recovery and its role in the Joint MDB position in the UNFCCC begs further scrutiny from the lens of effectiveness and community needs. While civil society criticisms remain on ADB yet we commend ADBs immediate and stern response to Myanmar’s Junta military by imposing a freeze on all ADB loans and projects in the country. It is in this spirit of preserving democracy and people’s voices that we wish to have this dialogue with you Mr. President at this year’s annual governors meeting. The ADB in 2021 is reviewing its Energy Policy of 2009 and is soon to review its Safeguards Policy of 2009. Both policies will prove to be pivotal in setting the region on the path of green recovery. The theme of this year’s annual meeting is “Collaboration for Resilient and Green Recovery” but this can never be achieved not unless the fossil fuel industry, private sector, governments, and multilateral development banks including the ADB urgently heed the call to limit the warming temperature of the planet. To this end and under your leadership Mr. President we want to flag the following issues - On Coal The ADB has invested in the controversial Masinloc Coal Plant, the Visayas Base Load Coal Plant, the Tata Mundra Coal plant with disastrous impacts on GHG emissions and social environmental hazards leading to complaints being filed and investigated in the ADB Accountability Mechanism. Since 2014 the ADB has no longer invested in any new coal projects. Can ADB thus commit to a complete withdrawal from coal finance as recommended by the IED Evaluation on the Energy Policy, 2020? This ban on coal should cover both stopping the financing of new coal projects and phasing out participation from existing and already operational projects. On Gas As of 2019, gas is the leading contributor to global fossil emissions – whilst coal emissions are declining. Out of the 100-methane leakage hotspots worldwide, 50 are associated with oil and gas. ADB continues to be the second-largest gas financier in the world. Can ADB commit to a time bound phase out from gas finance? On WTE Investment in thermal Waste-to-Energy systems is a waste of energy and money. It is a fact that thermal WTE (especially waste incinerator) is the most expensive way to manage waste and a very costly method of energy generation. Scientific evidence has shown that thermal Waste-to-Energy is a dirty source of energy and carbon-intensive investments. Despite well-publicized CSO concerns on this issue, ADB still affirms support for thermal waste-to-energy systems. Can ADB show real climate leadership by excluding thermal waste-to-energy from all its investment policies and financing instruments? On Clean Energy Solutions With the heavy social and environmental impacts of Large Hydro and Geothermal projects, a deeper assessment has to be made before they are considered as renewable energy solutions. Can ADB commit to removing large hydro and Geothermal projects from being classified as clean energy and renewable energy solutions? Consultation on SPS Review Mr. President can you commit to the upcoming policy review will NOT Dilute the existing safeguards? Can the ADB also ensure that the stakeholder engagement plan for the upcoming safeguards review will ensure civil society and project-affected community voices be meaningfully consulted throughout the process, keeping in mind the need for on-site field investigations and face-to-face dialogues when pandemic restrictions are lifted? Country Safeguards Systems With over 40 million USD spent on CSS strengthening the ADB has not been able to implement CSS use in Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, or any other country. Can the ADB commit to upholding its own SPS policy until CSS reaches equivalency after due assessment? PSOD and FIs IEDs 2015 and 2020 reports give alarming results on the lack of compliance by FIs on ADB SPS? How can the new SPS ensure that FIs and Private Sector borrowers be brought to strict compliance on ADB Safeguards Policy and the ADB Accountability Mechanism? Risk Categorization IEDs report claims the ADB has de-categorized risk assessments to Bs which should have been categorized as As. How can ADB ensure that systemic checks are made to ensure that ADBs Safeguards risk categorizations have gone through a transparent and objective assessment in order to ensure that under categorization is strictly avoided? Project Concerns Tanahu Hydropower Project, Nepal: COVID-19 restrictions have delayed the investigation into the complaints filed by the Project affected communities, but the construction of the project is going ahead unhindered. The complainants’ call for suspension of the project dam construction until their grievances, which include land for land compensation and redress for impacts on collective resources and properties, are effectively addressed. KEIIP Kolkata, India: Street vendors displaced by water and drainage pipes being laid, have not been adequately compensated for their loss of livelihood over an extended period of time. With delayed construction schedules, most have not been able to resume their businesses and those few who mustered courage to reopen after a year have now been asked to bring down their tea stalls and electric shops yet again. Those along the line live in dread as to when work will commence and when they will be evicted. Meaningful consultations and information sharing prior to construction works are not being done and the vendors are left completely in the dark on what happens next. Rightful compensation due to these street vendors and support amid this crisis must be given, their forced displacement is on ADB! Ger Area Development Investment Program 47005 (3 tranches) and Affordable Housing Urban Renewal Project (49169-002), Because of the COVID-19 restrictions, it is difficult to get a clear picture of how many people are being resettled and why cash compensation is being preferred. It should be land for land with the same title or land for an adequate size apartment for the number of families living on that land with financial support for relocation, transition, and livelihood support, where necessary. No consistent and reliable information on the resettlement and relocation policy is given to the affected people; the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2018, which should apply to all affected people under this project, is not being honored by the project implementers. We are also attaching the result of the Forum network’s Make-Your-Mark Campaign, where communities affected by harmful, destructive projects funded by ADB, grassroots organizations, and other groups monitoring the Bank are encouraged to pin their location (or the location of a project funded by the ADB) and leave a message, demand/s, call, videos, photos, and research about ADB funded projects. 187 entries were recorded, submitted by individuals, groups, and communities asking the ADB to put people and planet first. Endorsed by the following organizations - 350.org Asia, Asian Region 350.org Pilipinas, Philippines Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Arab Watch Coalition, Mena Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt, Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers International Asia Pacific, Philippines Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Change Initiative, Bangladesh CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Coalición Regional por la Transparencia y la Participación, Perú, Brasil, Bolivia, Colombia Collective for Economic Justice, India Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt, India Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR), Perú Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal Environics Trust, India Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Food First Information Action Network - FIAN Sri Lanka,Sri Lanka Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), global alliance Green Advocates International, Liberia Green Alternative, Georgia Growthwatch, India Independent Consultant Khaydarova Muatar, Tajikistan Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, Global International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, Tajikistan International Rivers, United States Karmojibi Nari (KN), Bangladesh Life Haven Center for Independent living panda, Philippines Mekong Watch, Japan Muatar Khaydarova independent consultant, Tajikistan Nash Vek, Kyrgyzstan Oil Change International, United States Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Progressive Plantation Workers Union (PPWU), India Public Services International, India Public Services Labor Independent Confederation- PSI, Philippines Recourse, The Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (RwB), International Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Stiftung Asienhaus, Germany Universal Peace federation, Myanmar urgewald e.V., Germany Witness Radio - Uganda, Uganda WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan YouthNet for Climate Justice, Bangladesh You can access the live map here. You can read the generated report here. Download the PDF version of the statement here.

MANILA, May 5 --As the ADB’s Annual General Meeting comes to a close, the NGO Forum on ADB and its member organizations take heed of the significant discrepancy between the Bank’s stated quest for delivering climate resilient, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable energy solutions while continuing to sink significant resources into developing outdated, unnecessary and risky cross-border energy schemes. Although the Bank’s expressed energy sector priorities include supporting borrowing member states meet the SDG 7 targets for affordable, accessible and sustainable energy for all, decisions by its Board of Directors on budget allocation and the information on the Bank’s own project databases reveal a different story. With less than 10 out of nearly 300 active energy sector projects giving mention to decentralized, off-grid, mini or micro-grid solutions in the ADB’s database as of May 2021, only a fraction of sovereign and non-sovereign financing appears to be flowing into locally relevant, appropriately-scaled energy initiatives. As an analysis published in late 2018 by Oil Change International and the Big Shift indicated, less than 25% of ADB’s energy sector financing since 2014 had been specifically geared towards providing access to power for rural and marginalized populations. For years, Forum members have consistently reported that the high voltage transmission lines, mega-dams as well as fossil gas pipelines and thermal plants, relied upon to power transnational energy trade, wreak havoc on peoples’ livelihoods and local ecosystems. ADB’s support for regional energy integration schemes has repeatedly resulted in local people and allies denouncing the lack of meaningful consultation, forced displacement, unfulfilled compensation schemes, loss of livelihoods -- and in some instances, lives -- as well as environmental destruction associated with such investments. Among these projects are the Nam Ngiep 1 hydropower dam in the Mekong region, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline in Central Asia, the Trans-Borneo Power Grid in Malaysia, and the Rupsha Combined Cycle Plant in Bangladesh as well as other power sector projects in South Asia. Beyond the impacts on local communities and the environment -- none of which can be simply compensated or off-set, these projects effectively undermine global efforts to limit climate heating to 1.5C. Based on the recently released statements of the ADB concerning energy financing under Strategy 2030, the Forum and its members remain alarmed that the chronically low level of financing for initiatives which could provide households with equitable, dignified options for energy access appears set to continue. As Avril De Torres, the Research, Policy, and Law Program Head at the Center for Energy, Ecology and Development in the Philippines explains: "We urge the bank to focus its efforts on energy systems that can make a dent in addressing climate vulnerabilities and energy access woes of Asian communities -- renewable energy micro-grids, in particular, are an innovation that must be pursued. Since they can be designed for any terrain, micro-grids have the potential to address the decades-old problem of full electrification in many developing countries. They would also empower communities by allowing them to harness power from their own backyards while managing the production and use of their electricity. ADB should see that today, the kind of development Asia needs is a sustainable one -- in which community-based renewable systems are the backbone." Abhishek Shrestha, Program Director of the Digo Bikas Institute in Nepal adds: “It is time for the ADB to support decentralized energy models that are planned, owned and operated by the local communities. In contrast, large-scale projects financed by the ADB under its South Asia regional energy integration initiative are not fit for purpose -- they displace rural communities without their consent, dispossessing them of vast swathes of community forests, fertile land used to cultivate food, access to local water sources and sacred cultural sites. For justice to be upheld in practice, local community leadership and peoples’ meaningful participation need to be respected -- not sidelined in the interests of private sector power companies or by the Bank’s own appointed experts.” Nipun Regmi, Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the Digo Bikas Institute asserts: “If rural mini-grids are designed only to address immediate needs, they fail to be sustainable, inclusive or resilient, instead leaving vulnerable communities with more financial burdens, social disparities and injustice in the long-run.” “Moving forward, we call on the ADB to align its energy financing priorities with the expressed needs of the diverse peoples across the Asia-Pacific -- shifting its funds towards supporting decentralized renewable power solutions as opposed to schemes that consistently lead to expanding oversized and unwieldy energy infrastructure” says Tanya Roberts-Davis, Inclusive Energy Planning Advocacy Coordinator for the NGO Forum on ADB. --- The NGO Forum on ADB is a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) that has been monitoring the projects, programs, and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

On the 3rd day of the Annual Governor’s Meeting, more than 200 civil society and community organizations across Asia belonging to NGO Forum on ADB told the Asian Development Bank that most of its programs and projects failed to meet its development promises in the region. “If there is one legacy that ADB has built through its decades of energy policy, that is ’climate emergency” Forum’s Executive Director Rayyan Hassan said in its statement. Based on NGO Forum’s research, ADB has poured in US$43.3 billion over the last 10 years on energy projects. At least 68% (US$29.6 billion) of which went to loans and another 24% (US$10.4 billion) to investments on energy. Looking into the ADB’s energy portfolio, the Bank is heavily putting in monies to conventional and fossil-based energy systems. “Based on the records published by the ADB, US$ 5.3 billion were spent to construct or expand power plants fueled by coal, oil and gas.” Glenn Ymata, NGO Forum’s Energy Campaigner revealed. “If you examine carefully, ADB’s financial exposure on fossil-based energy systems could reach at least US$ 10 billion taking into account other similar projects disguised in the form of Energy Efficiency and Conservation, Sector Development and Institutional Reform, and Utility Services” added Ymata. Emissions of principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) from Asia are increasing faster than those from any other continent. The largest anthropogenic source of CO2 emissions is the use of fossil fuels. Thus, energy generation and consumption is one of the most important sources of carbon emission and major driver of climate change. This prompted a number of countries to declare a climate emergency including the Philippines, Bangladesh, Maldives and even rich countries like Japan and South Korea in the Asia region. According Statisca, the largest carbon dioxide (CO2) emitter in the world is Asia Pacific, where there was 17.27 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2019. In 2009, only 13.2 billion metric tons of CO2 was recorded. “The ADB’s appetite for funding fossil fuels and related infrastructure has a strong correlation with the continuing rise of temperature as a result of increased greenhouse house gas emissions in the region. It is unacceptable that ADB is not yet aligned to the Paris 1.5 goal and we want them to be resolute about their portfolio being absolutely fossil free and to do so immediately.” said Vidya Dinker of Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF). While the ADB has promised to end funding coal projects, the region is not yet off the hook because the Bank is looking into gas investments to replace the Bank’s coal portfolio. Mehedi Hassan of Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt said “we are expecting more financing of gas projects by the ADB after they phase out of coal and we are afraid that Bangladesh will become the hot spot for gas projects in the next coming years.” Mehedi added. During the last 10 years, Bangladesh received US$ 3.5 billion of ADB loans for energy projects, the 4th largest next to India, Pakistan and China respectively. To add to the fears of communities already severely affected by climate change is the ADB’s promotion of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) systems in its claim to support countries generate clean energy while solving the waste management problem. “Investment in thermal Waste-to-Energy systems is a waste of energy and money. It is a fact that thermal WtE (especially waste incinerator) is the most expensive way to manage waste and a very costly method of energy generation.” Said Yobel Putra of Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative (GAIA). Scientific evidence has shown that thermal Waste-to-Energy is a dirtier source of energy than coal - making it a carbon-intensive investment. Despite well-publicized CSO concerns on this issue, ADB still affirms support for thermal WtE systems. The ADB is yet to finalize its new energy policy that will guide the bank in defining its energy portfolio over the next ten years or so. But the big question has to come to fore. Given the ADB’s fossil-laden legacy, can the Bank show real climate leadership by decarbonizing its lending and investment strategy and withdraw all of its investments in fossil-based projects? Will ADB hold itself accountable for all the climate impacts and tragedies that destroyed communities in Asia? For more information you may contact Glenn Ymata - 09178377625 --- The NGO Forum on ADB is a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) that has been monitoring the projects, programs, and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). *** There is a CSO Panel Session on Reviewing ADB’s Energy Policy to Meet the Paris Goal of 1.5 Degrees Celsius today, May 05, 2021, from 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM (PHT), you can watch it here. This panel session is part of the ADB 54th Annual Meeting.

This year Asian Development Bank (ADB) is celebrating its 54th year of operations in Asia and the Pacific, at the same time, it is also conducting a review and update of its 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS). Despite the aspirational promise to enhance the systems which prevent and minimize damage to the environment and communities, NGO Forum on ADB network thinks that it could do more. According to the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) report of 2015, the ADB has not delivered its safeguards effectively due to its heavy reliance on consultants. The report also identified the non-compliance of Financial Intermediaries (FI) in submitting their safeguard reports, with minimal action being taken by ADB to hold FIs accountable. Consequently, the IED has also recommended in its 2020 report that Country Safeguard Systems are not ready in the region to deliver on ADB SPS. Therefore the onus remains on ADB to ensure that its Safeguards are provided across all operations. Titi Soentoro from Aksi!, an organization focused on gender, social and ecological justice in Indonesia, explained that the “safeguards review should address the problems identified by the IED report in 2015 and 2020 about non-effective safeguards delivery, noncompliance of FI and ignorance of the weaker CSS of the borrowing countries. If the root causes of those problems are not addressed, even the new 'modernized' SPS (as the ADB safeguards team loves to say) would face the same problems in the implementation”. She also added that “ADB safeguards should not be aspirational safeguards with promising wording to protect people and environment from its operation, but really implementable safeguards. The safeguard review has to look at this problem to see the structural barriers and failure to implement those requirements. And, I would like to suggest that you look first at the Safeguard Operation Manual.” The same sentiments were also expressed by NGO Forum on ADB Policy Analyst Nadeen Madkour focusing on affected communities, “Bank’s projects particularly those operationalized by the Private Sector Operations Department (PSOD) have been linked to the grave human rights violation. In 2017, a gas cylinder blast claimed the lives of six Vietnamese workers in the ADB-funded Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project in Borikhan, Lao.” Madkour also made mention of a similar incident in Cambodia where the Bank ignored impending warnings from both their resettlement consultants and CSOs on the social and physical cataclysm following the resettlement of more than 4,000 families living on the dilapidated railway tracks. These warnings later transpired resulting in the death of three resettled children. There is also the impact of the COVID-19, the pandemic replaced face-to-face dialogue. As more interactions and consultations shift to online and remote communication, there is much concern about this sole dependency on this form of communication for the Safeguards Review Process, resulting in a weak and diluted policy. M. Zakir Hossain Khan from Change Initiative and Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) said “During the pandemic time equitable governance is key for proper using of external debts effectively and it is crucial for both lending entities like ADB and the governments who are historically weak in the governance to adopt proper safeguards against any anomalies. However, it has been observed that neither DFIs nor the governments took adequate measures during preparedness to respond to Covid 19 and that led to not only unabated erosion of integrity in the procurement but also reduced access of the general citizens in public health”. Khan also emphasized that there are many instances that the debt provided for both emergency responses and budget support has been misused due to weak accountability. “A new global pact or deal is required to ensure the meaningful accountability of both supply and demand sides of external debts, citizens-led independent assessment of debt-needs and monitoring of utilization as an integral part of any external funding to ensure transparency.” To ensure vulnerable groups, women, children, Indigenous Peoples, and people with disabilities are not harmed by ADB operations, the upcoming ADB SPS review has to ensure that project-affected communities and civil society are meaningfully consulted in the process. In essence, the ADB SPS is about the communities and the civil society advocates who support and advocate for them throughout ADB operations. Yesterday, in the Meeting Between Civil Society Organizations and ADB Management at the 54th Annual Meeting of the ADB, ADB’s President, Masatsugu Asakawa, made an explicit commitment to zero dilution on the Safeguards Policy. Despite the favorable response from the Bank, Madkour asked “ADB’s President Masa has committed the Bank to zero dilution of the Safeguards Policy in yesterday’s CSO event but will it deliver?” --- The NGO Forum on ADB is a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) that has been monitoring the projects, programs, and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). *** There is a CSO Panel Session on Civil Society Reflections on ADB’s COVID-19 Operations today, May 04, 2021, from 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM (PHT), you can watch it here to get more information. This panel session is part of the ADB 54th Annual Meeting.

MANILA. May 4 - NGO Forum on ADB, an Asian-led network of over 250 civil society organizations across Asia, is calling out the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) to fulfill its claim that it is a bank that is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific, while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. The ADB is celebrating its 54th year of operation in Asia and the Pacific today, with the theme ‘Collaboration for Resilient and Green Recovery’. However, members of the NGO Forum on ADB network are questioning if the Bank understands its theme. Vidya Dinker from Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and Growthwatch, organizations based in India, said that “The humanitarian catastrophe brought on by COVID-19 has come at the worst possible time. The world is already in debt burden of a 260 trillion USD, and in terms of critical climate balance, we are almost over the brink, as we do not act concertedly enough to keep global temperature rise within 1.5 degrees as per the Paris Agreement.” The Forum network also pointed out that while climate disasters are plaguing the world, the ADB is ramping up its financing of fossil gas, including the controversial Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - India (TAPI) gas pipeline project. The Bank has also funded the Rupsha 800 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant in Bangladesh despite its proximity to the Sundarban Mangrove Forest, threatening about 1,500 fisherfolk communities effluent waste. In Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, the ADB funded Ulaanbaatar Urban Services, and Ger Areas Development Investment Program - Tranche 1 2 and 3 has impacted families amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The road project violated ADB’s own social and environmental standards and caused numerous problems related to inadequate land acquisition, compensation, and resettlement plans, property damage, and poor road construction safety standards. According to Sukhgerel Dugersuren from OT Watch Mongolia, “Because of the COVID-19 restrictions, it is difficult to get a clear picture of how many people are being resettled and why cash compensation is being preferred. It should be land for land with the same title or land for an adequate size apartment for the number of families living on that land with financial support for relocation, transition, and livelihood support, where necessary. No consistent and reliable information on the resettlement and relocation policy is given to the affected people; the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2018, which should apply to all affected people under this project, is not being honored by the project implementers”. The same concerns are expressed by indigenous Magar and local communities from Nepal affected by the Tanahu Hydropower Project co-financed by the Bank with the European Investment Bank and Japan International Cooperation Agency. “While the COVID-19 restrictions have delayed the investigation into the complaints filed by the Project affected communities, the construction of the project is going ahead unhindered,” says Prabindra Shakya from Community Empowerment and Social Justice (CEmSoJ) Network, Nepal. “The complainants’ call for suspension of the project construction until their grievances, which include land for land compensation and redress for impacts on collective resources and properties, are effectively addressed has not been heard.” The ADB’s response in mobilizing resources as loans for COVID-19 recovery and its role in the Joint Multilateral Development Banks (MDB) position in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begs further scrutiny from the lens of effectiveness and community needs. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, stated, “the COVID19 pandemic has demonstrated that public health infrastructure, poverty, lack of access to water, electricity, sanitation, and lack of decent housing, were all contributing factors to the widespread infection across Asia.” He also added that “ADB has been in operation for 54 years in the region, and it begs to ask, where have they really been? The development model which ADB has espoused over the years has been single-mindedly driven by commercial and private interest; this has derailed local communities from sustainable development and now has left them exposed to a global pandemic of unprecedented scale.” The ADB must turn around its focus quickly to a pro-people and pro-environment agenda. Forum Network is looking at 2021 as a defining year for ADB as it is reviewing its Energy Policy of 2009 and its Safeguards Policy of 2009. Both policies will prove pivotal in setting the region on the path of green and just recovery. Unless the fossil fuel industry, private sector, governments, and multilateral development banks, including the ADB, urgently heed the call to limit the warming temperature of the planet, this collaboration for resilient and green recovery pronouncement of ADB can never be achieved. Consequently, the ADB then has to focus on social protection, health, labor, and real access to public services if it wants to be a meaningful partner to the SDGs. --- The NGO Forum on ADB is a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) that has been monitoring the projects, programs, and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Watch the event here.