Search Results

Introduction 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 organised 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 organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders who face a significant risk of retaliation under oppressive regimes. We, as representatives of CSOs, trade unions, and community 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: 1. 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 organised in a pro forma manner to ‘check a box’ or to meet an internal requirement. It should be underpinned by a clear matrix which 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 is 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 making, 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). 2. Outline a clear, unambiguous plan on offline mechanisms for consultation. The current SEP Draft recognises 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 countries it would take place. Good practices of meaningful consultation warrants 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 modernise 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. 3. 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. 4. There is also a need for wider outreach on direct engagements via different communication formats, including traditional media in case of the 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. 5. 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 set up, information and messaging as well as promoting participation and inclusivity. For best practices see the Save the Children Child Consultation Toolkit. 6. 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, intransparency, 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 stipulates that stakeholders should be given sufficient time to review the information across regions and countries before being asked to express their views. 9. Meaningful inclusion of more and 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 peoples with disabilities, sexual and gender diverse groups, and children. Due diligence must be given to: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. We strongly urge the ADB SDCC to take into consideration the points above to ensure that the Stakeholder Engagement Plan is fit to purpose for ensuring a comprehensive and meaningful review of the ADB SPS. Best Regards, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB SIGNATORIES Bank Information Center (BIC) Building and Wood Workers International Asia Pacific CEE Bankwatch Network Centre for Environmental Justice Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) Coalition for Human Rights in Development Freedom from Debt Coalition Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Growthwatch Mekong Watch Oyu Tolgoi Watch Public Services International (PSI) Urgewald Download PDF version here.

ADB has pledged US$29.0 billion in COVID-19 assistance, the vast majority of which is public sector support. While the NGO Forum on ADB and its members are pleased to see a proactive approach from ADB in supporting member countries' roadmaps to recovery, concerns have been raised over accountability, transparency, and efficacy of the COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program. The Forum will share key findings of its studies in Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines to understand the function and impact of these loans on public expenditures and debt. Discussions will account for climate change impacts, particularly in climate-vulnerable states.

While climate disasters are plaguing the world, ADB has spent roughly US$10 billion on fossil fuels under its 2009 Energy Policy. Considering ADB’s historical responsibility to the climate, the current Energy Policy review provides the opportunity to significantly shift its role as an Asian climate finance bank and help borrowing governments meet the Paris Agreement on Climate Change goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The NGO Forum on ADB will explore on the political appetite among donor countries for a fossil-free ADB and developing Asia, and unpack the pitfalls of false solutions in climate finance.

The Media and Communication Support Liaison will play an important role in supporting the implementation of NGO Forum on ADB’s Communication Strategy and Plans. The Media and Communication Support Liaison will work closely with the campaigns team. Duties and responsibilities Support in the development, writing, and editing of communications materials, like press releases, blog posts, and social media content Improve and maintain media/press database of NGO Forum on ADB Maintain media archives including media landing, photos, and videos Take and document meeting minutes (as needed) Work with communications coordinator to implement communications strategies, plans, and campaigns Provide support in promoting communications materials through appropriate social channels Attend and cover live events if applicable Other projects and duties as assigned Qualifications Graduate of Communications, Journalism, or any related course Knowledgeable in media production work like radio, newspaper, and social media creative content creation Must possess writing skills and be able to compose engaging and accurate content Must be organized and has time management skills Strong communicator who works well independently and with a team Must be resourceful and take initiative even when given minimal direction Ability to think strategically and identify ways to improve communication efforts Location: Telecommute. Interested candidates are invited to submit their CV and letter of interest to secretariat@forum-adb.org on or before 16 April 2021, Friday, 5:00 PM (PHT). Only short listed applicants will be notified.

I. ADB SPS REVIEW 2020: Rationale In 2020, the Independent Evaluation Department has carried out an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the 2009 policy and the reform objectives of the Safeguards Policy Update (SPU) of 2011. Since its approval almost a decade ago, the ADB’s portfolio has changed considerably and reliance on sovereign financing to deliver on development outcomes have shifted. With an increase in non-sovereign portfolios using new modalities such as FIs, RBLs and Multitranche facilities, the ADB SPS is in need of modernisation to reflect these transitions in development. According to the 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 FIs in submitting their safeguard reports with very little 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 delivered across all operations. In order 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. In cases of non-compliance to the SPS the communities will seek out the policy to ensure that harm is avoided, and their rights are protected. Therefore, the consultation process is the first step through which the ADB should ensure that the most vulnerable and critical voices are given utmost priority in the upcoming Safeguards Policy Statement review. The following input articulates our reflections on the Safeguards Review Process 2020-2022 which is being envisioned by SDCC and a list of recommendations on how consultations should be conducted. II. Safeguards Review Process 2020 – 2022: Reflections & Recommendations Issues with video consultations & the current consultation process: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the way we work and interact. This has also impacted and in many cases replaced face-to-face dialogue. As more interactions and consultations shift to online and remote communication, we as CSO organisations are concerned about this sole dependency on this form of communication for the Safeguards Review Process. Colleagues who had attended the information session and video consultations organised by the ADB have communicated a lack of coherence in the methodology and approach across different dialogues. Much of the responses received from the “Consultation” team on grave issues such as project categorisation, the use of country safeguard systems, the introduction of new financial modalities such as Financial intermediaries and many more have been met with vague, contradictory, and defensive responses. Many of the video consultation meetings arranged so far have been organised in a webinar format where interaction from CSO & guest attendees is minimal or limited. This does not create a space which is conducive to an open, inclusive, and meaningful dialogue. Furthermore, most of the meetings scheduled by the Bank have been allocated 90 minutes out of which a meagre 30-minute space is given to CSO attendees. In fact, in most cases CSO attendees were asked to submit their questions beforehand and are given no time to elaborate or reflect on the information relayed by the bank staff. We, as CSOs, feel that this way of communication has allowed for an unequal & hierarchical power symmetry. We are concerned that this practice of one-way, insulated form of communication will be perpetuated further during the formal consultation process of the Safeguards Review Process. So far plans divulged by the Safeguards Consultation Team have shown a sole reliance on online consultation for the Review process under the pretence of COVID19. We are not undermining the severity of the COVID19 pandemic; however, we feel like this will exclude many organisations and individuals who do not have access to reliable electricity supply and internet access. All consultations on the Safeguards Review Process are scheduled to be conducted in the English language. The region the ADB operates in is a region that is rich in culture and diverse in languages. As a leading development institution in the region, this richness and diversity should be reflected in the way business is conducted and consultations are taking place. The use of the English language as the sole means of communication during the Safeguards Review Process will fail to reach the target communities on the details of the Safeguards. Development literature and standard discourse proposes a number of meanings to the word “to consult”. For the purposes of brevity, this paper will focus on the practice of involvement and dialogue. Involvement and Dialogue A review of development literature would indicate that meaningful consultation with community members and civil society organisations (CSOs) is a prelude to effective engagement. This has been recognised with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), which the Bank lends its support to. Such consultation goes beyond simply ‘informing’ both community and CSOs of its plan, be it at a project, policy, or simply consultation level. Meaningful consultation means that the lending agency staff, community, and CSOs enter into a dialogue with a level-playing field and with the intention of incorporating the ideas and priorities communication in this exchange. The final design of the project, policy, and plan should reflect the responses received during these consultative dialogues. This process not only leads to active participation, but also local ownership and authority throughout the development process. Meaningful consultation, when it is an open and inclusive dialogue, also corroborates the principle of “leaving no one behind” underpinning the 2030 Agenda. III. Recommendations We believe that a transparent and accountable process for reviewing the Safeguards Policy is fundamental in realizing the inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and Pacific declaration lauded by the Bank. In the support of our common interest, we ask that you consider the following recommendations: The ADB should release an approach paper for the upcoming Safeguards review process detailing the clear process of how the consultation will be conducted, the evaluation matrix, and clear process on how input collected will be used and integrated into the new Safeguards Policy. This approach paper should be shared publicly for commenting at least 60 days before the actual consultation process. Consultations should not be conducted using the webinar’ format as this limit the space for an open, inclusive, and meaningful dialogue. The use of English as the sole means of communication in these consultations will fail to reach the target communities the SPS is aimed to protect. The ADB should ensure that consultations occuring at a regional and national level in English are offered in national or other languages which are acceptable to community and CSO participants including sign language interpretations. Translations should be provided for all relevant communication materials and documents including the approach paper. The ADB should not only rely on disseminating information on the consultation process through online means such as the website, social media, and email. The Bank should make reasonable efforts to reach affected communities living in remote locations with limited or unreliable access to electricity and internet services. This is conducive to effective and community-centered development. The consultation process should give due emphasis to listen to communities who have been deeply affected by ADB Operations with due emphasis to those aggrieved since the implementation of the SPS post-2009. We firmly believe that project affected communities who filed eligible complaints using the Compliance Review Function especially on ADB SPS 2009 violations and Public Communication Policy violations should be listened to and learned from during this SPS review as these cases showcase the failures of the policy, an integral process to an modernising process. The consultation process should be undertaken over a minimum of 6-12 months to allow for the COVID19 pandemic to subside and plans for face-to-face dialogues with the diverse groups across Mekong, South Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Island countries should be taken into consideration. The current approach to consultation outlined by the Consultation team is fragmented and disengaged. Having three phases of consultation on segregated issues does not ensure that the outcome of the consultation is reflected in the drafting process. To ensure that the outcomes of the consultation are included in the drafting process, a two-round consultation should take place in each phase. After the first round, feedback should be provided to rights holders and external stakeholders on how their comments and inputs have been addressed in an updated draft. The updated draft should then be disclosed for another second round of consultations. Consultations should pay extra attention to ensure the inclusion of vulnerable groups, especially Indigenous Peoples, gender groups and people with disabilities. Steps should be taken to facilitate the participation of local communities as well as civil society groups and other stakeholders. The Bank should ensure that all consultations are conducted in an accessible, impartial, and culturally appropriate way which enables the most vulnerable and marginalized populations to actively participate and provide input in an informed manner. The Bank should publish a detailed budget for the consultation process in order to demonstrate that the Bank is dedicating the necessary resources to this process. The Bank should make the consultation agendas open for public comment in advance of meetings. The Bank should allow participants to contribute anonymously in countries where risk of reprisals and repercussions for critiquing the government exist. At the conclusion of consultation meetings, the Bank should circulate draft minutes & recording to all participants and provide time for comment (suggestion: 30 days) to ensure their opinions have been accurately reflected. We hope that the respected ADB Board will remain steadfast in their commitment towards the highest standard safeguards, accountability, and transparency for the benefit and protection of the most marginalized stakeholders in Asia and the Pacific. We look forward to discussing the above-mentioned recommendation with you and ADB management to ensure a meaningful and robust consultation process is outlined for the upcoming SPS review process. Best regards, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB ENDORSED BY: Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) CEE Bankwatch Network Urgewald Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific Download PDF version here.

Statement to the Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Regarding Preliminary Information Session and the Consultation Process The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the way we work and interact. This has also impacted and in many cases replaced face-to-face dialogue. As more interactions and consultations shift to online and remote communication, we as CSO organisations are concerned about this sole dependency on this form of communication for the Safeguards Review Process. Colleagues who attended previous information sessions organised by your department, Sustainable Development and Climate Change (SDCC) at the ADB and other video forms of consultations have iterated a lack of inclusivity, coherence in the methodology and approach across different dialogues. Much of the responses received from the “Consultation” as well as the “Technical” team on critical issues such as project categorisation, the use of country safeguard systems, the safeguard requirements of financial modalities such as Financial intermediaries and many more have been met with vague, contradictory, and defensive responses. Many of the video consultation meetings arranged so far have been organised in a webinar format[i] where interaction and input from CSO & guest attendees were minimal and limited because of the structural design of the sessions. The sessions had failed to create a space which was conducive to an open, inclusive, and meaningful two-way dialogue. Furthermore, most of the meetings scheduled by the Bank had been allocated 90 minutes out of which only a meagre 30 minutes were left forCSO input and interaction. In fact, in most cases CSO attendees were asked to submit their questions beforehand and were given no time to elaborate or reflect on the information relayed by the bank staff. We have articulated our reservations in a number of informal chats with your department and yet, the same format has been once again adopted for the “Preliminary Information Session on April 12”. We, as CSOs, feel that this way of communication has allowed for an unequal & hierarchical power asymmetry. We are deeply concerned that without a complete revision in approach by SDCC this practice of one-way, insulated form of communication will be perpetuated further during the formal consultation process of the Safeguards Policy Statement Review Process. A review of development literature would indicate that meaningful consultation with community members and civil society organisations (CSOs) is a prelude to effective engagement. This has been recognised with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), which the Bank lends its support to. Such consultation goes beyond simply ‘informing’ both community and CSOs of its plan, be it at a project, policy, or simply consultation level. Meaningful consultation means that the lending agency staff, community, and CSOs enter into a dialogue with a level-playing field and with the intention of incorporating the ideas and priorities communicated in this exchange. The final design of the project, policy, and plan should reflect the responses received during these consultative dialogues. This process not only leads to active participation, but also local ownership and authority throughout the development process. Meaningful consultation, when it is an open and inclusive dialogue, also corroborates the principle of “leaving no one behind” underpinning the 2030 Agenda. These principles have been abandoned by your department time and again. The review of the Safeguards Policy Statement should be informed by the people whose lives, communities & livelihoods will be affected by ADB-supported projects and the wider CSO community supporting them and representing their interests. Given the significance and far-reaching implications of this review, there should be a robust consultation process and public disclosure of relevant documents. Unfortunately, to date, neither has been envisioned. We ask your department, SDCC, to ensure that the upcoming review is transparent, meaningful, and inclusive, by: Extending the timeline of the review to allow for a more robust process; Publicly disclosing the full Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan and other documents pertaining to the review such as Background and Analytical studies, including relevant timelines prior to any formal information-sharing or consultation sessions; Including adequate opportunity for feedback and equipping the Review Team with robust means of collecting and reviewing comments; Including several opportunities for in-person consultation and holding outreach meetings to solicit input not just from CSOs but also local communities and project-affected peoples undergoing or have undergone compliance review since the implementation of the Safeguards policy. First, we understand that this consultation process will take place over a relatively short period of time. Considering the challenges, we face due to the COVID19 pandemic we ask your department to reconsider this timeline to ensure that the SPS review is legitimate and robust, incorporating the recommendations outlined above. We are deeply concerned that, given the lack of transparency in this process, the Review Team’s report and recommendations will not be disclosed before the Board. Given the far- reaching implications of this review process, stakeholders must have an opportunity to see and provide feedback on the recommended changes. Second, we are deeply disturbed that the full Stakeholder Engagement & Communication Plan and other relevant documents to the review process have not been disclosed prior to your Information-Sharing Session on April 12. Some of the signatories to this letter participated in a brief informal introductory meeting with the Review and Consultation Team tasked with examining and analysing the ineffectiveness of the SPS policy of 2009 and fostering a working relationship with your department for a mutual benefit. While the participants appreciated the opportunity to meet with the team, meaningful engagement was difficult because the participants lacked information about the Engagement Plan and the issues under consideration. Moreover, although there has been subsequently a public announcement with some details of the review, it is still difficult for the broader public to know the full suite of the issues of the Safeguards Policy currently being examined. The secrecy behind the review sets a dangerous precedent with respect to transparency and hinders stakeholders’ ability to be useful to the Review Team. For stakeholders to participate in this process effectively and meaningfully, they must know the full parameters and be able to raise any issue concerning those parameters or overlooked during the Review process. The review process must not be veiled, and we request the full Plans and the findings of the Analytical Studies carried out for this review to be published immediately. Third, the Review Team should have a structured means of receiving input from global communities and CSO stakeholders, and input should be gathered over a designated and broadly publicized comment period. Posting an announcement on the ADB website with an email address and form to send feedback is just not enough. Although the guidelines and toolkit for stakeholder outreach (found in Strengthening participation for development results: An Asian Development Bank guide to participation, 2012) is imperfect and has also suffered from a lack of transparency, it has at least incorporated good practice of combining electronic and written consultations with face-to face methods in a representative sample. In addition, the Review Team should have the ability to meet with stakeholders around the world, prioritising project complainants and local communities (for eligible cases triggering the SPS 2009 non-compliance through investigations by the Compliance Review Panel). Not having these opportunities hinders the Review Team’s ability to understand community perspectives and experiences with the Safeguards Policy of 2009. This lays the groundwork for an incomplete review and will be a disservice to those of whom ADB are accountable. Finally, we are deeply concerned that, given the lack of transparency in this process, the Review Team’s report and recommendations will not be disclosed before the Board. Given the far- reaching implications of this review process, stakeholders must have an opportunity to see and provide feedback on the recommended changes. We look forward to the ongoing engagement with SDCC and hope you will ensure the principles of an open, strong, inclusive, and meaningful two-way consultation process are upheld during this very important policy review. Best Regards, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB _____________________________________________ [i]ADB Philippines CSO FGD on Accountability Mechanism and Safeguard. With the following dates - Environment Safeguards and Accountability to Project Affected Persons - 29 January 2021; Involuntary Resettlement and Accountability to Project Affected Persons - 3 February 2021; and Indigenous Peoples and Accountability to Project Affected Persons - 3 February 2021. Download PDF version here.

Brief Context The ADB has declared itself committed to helping its developing member countries achieve green energy access for all but the reality of investments shows a different picture. The ADB lags behind many other MDBs and bilateral development banks in aligning its energy finance to the Paris Agreement. 2021 provides an opportunity to push the ADB to overhaul its energy policy and demonstrate a real commitment to tackling sustainable renewable energy access and the energy transition. The ADB’s energy policy revision gives us an opportunity to build on the momentum from the successful EIB campaign, recent UK announcement, and upcoming COP 26 to establish the norm that climate leadership and energy transition require an end to fossil fuel financing. This campaign can also start to lay the groundwork for future campaigns to end fossil fuel financing by governments in the region. Under its 2009 Energy Policy, ADB has been financing high-carbon development projects and strategies. The Energy Sector is its top investment sector in terms of committed resources (approximately USD 68,114 million) and third in terms of the number of funded projects (600 projects). Out of all the energy generation projects, only 19% are fossil fuel projects. However, when measured in terms of installed capacity, fossil fuels comprise 50% of all ADB-funded energy generation projects' total installed capacity in the past decade. At present, the ADB is considering amplifying its "Clean Energy" lending portfolio to USD 80 billion in the next ten years, according to former President Nakao. While these proclamations seem promising, unfortunately, these have limited application as ADB's definition of "clean energy" also includes supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants under the banner Clean Coal Technology (CCT), which claims to have less CO2 emissions. The ADB continues to invest in dirty energy and fossil fuel using its outdated ADB 2009 Energy Policy, which has fossil fuel provisions, including coal and coal - related infrastructure. The IED evaluation recently concluded in 2020 also came up with the recommendation for a coal ban to the ADB energy lending portfolio, which is a critical piece in the narrative moving forward towards just transition. Meanwhile, the NGO Forum on ADB ("Forum") consolidates its work since 2018 to remain vigilant and organize concerted effort with groups and coalitions worldwide to ensure fossil fuel exclusion, including coal and gas, in the ADB Energy Policy Review of 2020-2021. Recently, among the multilateral development banks (MDBs), the European Investment Bank (EIB) revealed a strategic shift in its energy lending policy, which essentially will pull the plug on all finance for infrastructure dedicated to coal, oil, and gas by the end of 2023. With the recent Biden election win in the US, we expect to see a revival of US Climate ambitions, which is likely to cascade into MDB energy positions, including the ADB Board of Governors. Resonating this on-going momentum among the MDBs, civil society is also closely looking at 11.7% shareholding of the EU at ADB. If the EU position on coal exclusion stays true across their MDB portfolios, this is an effective leveraged as a strong position in the ADB Board for the upcoming ADB Energy Policy review. We have the opportunity to influence the content of the energy policy which is currently being drafted. The draft policy will be circulated for internal review and to the board for their feedback before being publicly released in April. Public consultation is slated for April - June 2021. The policy is expected to be submitted for Board consideration from September - November 2021. This could potentially be delayed because of COVID-19. As such, a concerted effort by the Forum is seen as a formidable force that can compel the Bank to attune its energy policy with the agenda of communities and civil society organizations campaigning for climate justice and towards clean, accessible, and affordable energy for all. Purpose of the Conference: The conference will provide an avenue where members and allies of the Forum can share their country positions, current campaigns on energy that may have a connection with the ADB directly or indirectly taking into consideration key events such as the ADB Annual Governors Meeting in May 2021 and Asia Clean Energy Forum in June 2021 and others. Objectives: By the end of the Campaign Conference, Forum members would have: Identify on-going energy campaigns and advocacy in each country Determine collaboration/synergy within country and sub-Asia region Ascertain the most effective strategies for a well-coordinated energy campaign Map out a plan for Regionally Coordinated Actions/Campaigns (Asia-wide) Download PDF version here.

End ADB Greenwash The ADB’s greenwashing in the climate policy space is apparent. The ADB's response to the climate crisis should not be determined by its statements on various global platforms, but is revealed through its energy sector investments. For the past three years, the ADB has invested heavily in fossil gas and related infrastructure across Asia. It is now facing the reality of stalled construction and rising environmental & social costs. With the COVID-19 pandemic, communities with pre-existing health conditions due to environmental pollution from fossil fuel energy plants and extractives projects are doubly vulnerable. There are also other issues, such as lack of meaningful consultations with local communities on project planning; lack of pre-project information disclosure, in particular concerning the shift towards financing via bonds and other indirect modalities of investing that remain highly opaque in their specific details; and the lack of human rights due diligence assessments from the onset. These critical issues have led to communities' opposition to ADB projects, leading to threats and reprisals against them, a glaring disconnect from real, sustainable development outcomes. We need a clean, just, and fossil free ADB Without strict criteria for clean energy or a firm exclusion of financing for oil, gas, and coal projects, the 2009 Energy Policy enabled the Bank to make dirty commitments, locking in a fossil fuel pathway for the next generation and undermining the Paris 1.5°C goals. While climate disasters are plaguing the world, the ADB is continually ramping up its financing of fossil gas, including for 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 the livelihoods of about 1,500 fisherfolk communities due to the effluent waste. The ADB is also financing controversial waste-to-energy projects in Thailand, the Maldives, and the Philippines, all of which are touted as renewable projects, but pose a risk in contaminating air, water, and soil, and undermining livelihoods. As civil society organizations and people’s movements from Asia, Europe, North America, and Australia, we urgently call on the ADB to replace this draconian, anti-people, and anti-environment energy policy with one that is clean, just, and fossil free. As a public bank, the ADB must uphold a gold standard for climate action. This means leapfrogging fossil fuels and supporting a rapid and just transition to a renewable energy future. We, the undersigned civil society groups from across the planet, demand the ADB to shift its Energy Policy towards the following broad objectives: As a public bank, the ADB energy policy must be aligned with the Paris 1.5°C goal or an even more ambitious goals. The new ADB Energy Policy must align all lending and operations with a high-probability and equitable pathway that limits warming to well below 1.5°C. This means ensuring projects are compatible with reaching a global CO2 emissions decline of at least 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and net-zero CO2 emissions before mid-century pursuant to the P1 Scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1.5°C Special Report, without relying on false or unproven solutions such as carbon capture storage and energy efficient fossil fuel technologies. Country partnership strategies (CPS) should also be updated to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement, and projects should be screened to ensure they align with both CPS and national decarbonization pathways that go through robust public consultations. The ADB portfolio must decarbonize its energy supply by ending fossil fuel finance. The new ADB Energy Policy must exclude support for gas, oil and coal projects across the supply chain—including but not limited to (i) coal for industrial use, such as coal mined and used for a captive power plant, (ii) projects adopting energy efficient, carbon capture and storage, or other mitigating technologies, and (iii) projects using co/tri-generation technology. This must likewise include indirect support through related infrastructure, advisory services, technical assistance, or financial intermediaries. The new ADB Energy Policy must systematically account for GHG emissions on a project-level by screening other carbon-intensive projects. Strict emission performance standards should be applied to all power projects, including renewable energy projects. The new policy must impose a shadow carbon price of at least USD 80/tCO2 by 2020 and USD 100/tCO2 by 2030, coupled with a faster and higher rate of increase. ADB should provide concessional finance and technical assistance to help DMCs formulate and pursue just transition policies and strategies for workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels. ADB should assist DMCs in ensuring that workers’ rights and interests are upheld by providing technical assistance on formulating just transition policies and strategies and creating its own energy transition package, similar to the EIB. The energy transition package should prioritize funding for reconversion of abandoned coal sites, retraining and support for displaced workers, and other initiatives that will give rise to new employment opportunities. In the middle of a pandemic, billions of workers are already facing a high risk of falling into poverty. ADB's new energy policy must promote community microgrids and public ownership of renewable energy systems to support Sustainable Development Goal 7 (universal energy access) and ensure a swift, equitable and just transition within the energy sector. As the costs of solar and wind technologies have decreased exponentially and have become competitive with fossil fuel technologies, community microgrids allow for faster and broader deployment of solar and wind power technologies. Therefore, ADB should be prioritizing community microgrids as attractive investments aligned with meeting DMCs' commitments to the Paris Agreement. The ADB must also make grants available for DMC governments and communities to directly own and operate renewable energy systems and associated infrastructure to ensure decent work and affordable energy. ADB's new energy policy must meaningfully support innovative renewable energy technologies and infrastructure, and ensure all projects uphold free prior and informed consent of impacted communities. The new energy policy must prioritize upgrading existing grids into smart grids with increased capacity to maximize the integration of more variable renewable energy. *** Further details on most of the recommendations above can be found in LEAVING BEHIND ADB’S DIRTY ENERGY LEGACY: Civil society critical reflections and recommendations, a publication by Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED). Consequently, this statement brings together specific demands by local, national, and international civil society groups across key thematic areas of the ADB Energy Sector investment portfolio. The Bank must ensure the following demands are reflected into binding policy language in the new ADB energy policy: ON COAL FINANCING Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) A complete withdrawal of coal involvement should cover both stopping the financing of new coal projects and phasing out participation from existing and already operational projects. Financing of fossil fuel projects has mostly been in the form of loans. In addition to the grave impacts and implications of its fossil fuel financing on people, communities, and on the climate - we are also profoundly concerned that ADB's fossil fuel financing also has, in the process, exacerbated the debt burdens of its member countries. It is only fitting that the ADB Energy Policy Review also addresses the loans involved in its fossil fuel financing. We call on ADB to adopt a policy and take action that will address several issues - 1) accountability for impacts of ADB-financed coal projects 2) withdrawal of involvement from existing coal projects, 3) easing the debt burden created by ADB lending, especially lending to harmful projects. This can be done by converting the outstanding balance of ADB loans to coal projects into grants for renewable energy. This policy will also serve as an incentive and fiscal assistance for the developing renewable energy by its DMCs. ON GAS FINANCING When it comes to gas financing, it is important to understand that expansion of gas demand in the long term is not compatible with a 1.5°C degree pathway. For many reasons, the ADB should not treat gas as a transition fuel: Scenarios aligned with the Paris Agreement (1.5°C, no overshoot) largely require today’s global gas demand to decrease, not increase, by 2030, implying a decrease in gas consumption in many developing country markets. 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 production. Carbon footprint and shadow carbon pricing methodologies used by multilateral development banks (MDB) and development finance institutions (DFIs) often neglects these upstream – Scope 3 – emissions and uses conservative assumptions around the global warming potential of fossil gas. Replacement of coal generation with fossil gas will not achieve the necessary emissions reductions even if methane leakage is kept to a minimum. As the costs of renewables fall below the cost of gas, there is a risk of replacing one uncompetitive energy source with another. Newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels. The dramatic and ongoing cost declines for wind and solar disrupt the business model for gas in the power sector. While cost has been a constraint in the past, today, wind and solar are the cheapest forms of bulk energy supply in most major markets. As a consequence, renewables will become cheaper than existing coal and gas in most regions before 2030, including countries, but not limited to, China, India, Vietnam, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Against this backdrop, and as a public bank with a mission of achieving a “prosperous, sustainable, inclusive and resilient” Asia and the Pacific, the ADB should cease to invest in gas altogether. ADB is best positioned to instead focus on enabling alternative, “best-of-a-kind” renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions. In particular, the ADB has an important role to play in bringing down cost of capital and risk mitigation around wind and solar in emerging markets and to support a just energy transition for fossil-fuel dependent regions. Instead of considering investments in gas-based heating, ADB should prioritize innovative clean solutions that can be used in district heating (DH) or individual heating, that the Bank already has good experience with in its recent projects PRCs, (for example with solar collector plants and SDH, enhanced utilization of low-grade excess heat as a structural energy efficiency measures). ON WASTE TO ENERGY Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) No Burn Pilipinas Ecowaste Coalition Zero Waste Europe We urge ADB to divest from WTE projects and stop urging the DMCs to pursue thermal-based technologies of energy conversion from waste, including the provision of technical assistance in Asia due to its proven health, social, environmental, and climate risks. To help DMCs align with the Paris Agreement, ADB needs to refocus its investment on higher tiers of the waste hierarchy, which have significantly lower GHG emissions than technologies involving thermal conversion. Ongoing support to WTE also overrides national and international efforts and policies transitioning toward a circular economy and health and climate mitigation and adaptation measures. Developing countries lack strong legislation on internationally recognized pollution prevention and control standards and monitoring and enforcement capacity to deal with residual, emissions and toxic wastes from WTE. Henceforth, we also strongly call for the removal of WTE as one of the projects deemed as climate mitigation and adaptation options in its green bonds, SDG bonds, and other programs and portfolios in the same way that the European Commission excluded WTE incineration from the draft EU Taxonomy Regulation and other countries and territories like Guam and the Philippines that have banned waste incineration. Click this link to learn the full demands on Waste-to-Energy (a letter addressed to the Executive Directors of ADB; signed by 53 international, regional, and national organizations). ON HYDROPOWER CEE Bankwatch Rivers Without Boundaries ADB must stop supporting greenfield hydropower in its countries of operation, as it has continuously led to mass-scale destruction of communities and rivers across Asia. Water ecosystems, especially in Asia, are increasingly scarce and fragile, with ever-increasing human competition for exploiting their diverse resources. Therefore destructive uses, which have the same alternative options, should be phased out to give way to more compatible activities and no viable alternatives. This first of all relates to greenfield hydropower projects (including those which may be described as "multipurpose" storage dams that are not practical or sustainable in today's ecological, climate, and economic realities of Asia. Hydropower can be in most cases easily substituted by less destructive (and often less expensive) alternative technologies meeting the same human needs, such as wind, solar, smart grids, combined with energy storage projects, etc. Instead of wasting resources on usually unsustainable new hydropower projects, we strongly recommend that the ADB puts their development on hold or, better, inscribes them on the exclusion list. In 2020-21 more than 380 organizations from 80 countries supported the "Rivers for recovery" Call and Report, explaining why greenfield hydro has no place in post-COVID recovery efforts (see https://www.rivers4recovery.org). R4R Report demonstrates that 95% of hydropower put online in 2019 has serious negative environmental, social, economic, and geopolitical consequences. Develop an environmental framework to guide hydropower modernization The ADB needs to develop a responsible framework to assist clients in improving the social and environmental performance of upgraded projects, otherwise "modernized" facilities will continue to exert negative impacts, and the ADB will be responsible for that. For example, in regards to dams, mainly hydropower, such framework may address facilitation to fish migration; ecological requirements to temperature regime; basin-wide ecological optimization of water management schemes, public consultations on full-spectrum of dam impacts, restoring environmental flows, etc. Develop stringent standards on environmental flows When dealing with hydropower assets and other water infrastructure, the ADB strategy must incorporate an objective not to exceed the carrying capacity of aquatic ecosystems at basin-wide and local sc, limiting them to alteration of ecosystem processes and preventing loss of biodiversity. (e.g., 2018 Environmental flows Handbook for Hydropower published by the WB Group). Unfortunately, the ADB has not done an excellent job recently applying this standard in Uzbekistan. Basin-wide planning Any large-scale water infrastructure may be usefully modernized, designed, and assessed only in the context of a more comprehensive river basin management plan and\or strategic basin-wide assessment, which should focus on ecological integrity and ecosystem restoration. Therefore basin-wide evaluation of freshwater ecosystem carrying capacity and restoration needs should be the basis for any ADB intervention in the hydropower sector. Exacerbating Unsustainable Development The ADB should stop supporting bias towards hydropower in countries already over-reliant on hydro such as Tajikistan, Georgia, Nepal, etc. More than 50% of hydro in their energy systems makes these countries extremely vulnerable to climate fluctuations, developing single (and quite outdated) renewable technology. The higher cost of hydropower construction makes countries more vulnerable to debt crises can even increase poverty. Currently, ADB supports or considers for support extremely expensive and this uneconomic 15 MW Tina River Hydro in Solomon islands, highly questionable (in the context of overall hydropower bonanza) Balakot Hydro in Pakistan, three uselessly small but very ecologically disruptive hydropower dams in Uzbekistan, non-compliant with FPIC Tanahu hydropower project in Nepal, environmentally destructive and non-compliant with human rights Nenskra Project in Georgia, etc. ADB also supports the feasibility study of extremely destructive Kherlen river pumped storage hydro in Mongolia and the Obigarm-Nurobod road in Tajikistan, an associated facility to infamous Rogun Hydropower Dam, which is expected to ruin environmental and social stability in Aral Sea Basin. As civil society, we call on the ABD to stop investing in greenfield hydropower projects and adopt more comprehensive and environmentally responsible policies towards modernization of existing facilities and basin-wide energy system planning. ON GEOTHERMAL ENERGY Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice People's Coalition for The Rights to Water (KRuHA) Solidaritas Perempuan The recent death of a three-year-old girl and four other villagers after poisonous gas leaked from geothermal extraction in Sorik Merapi, North Sumatra, on Monday, January 25, 2021, reiterates the danger of extraction of geothermal as an energy source. In Indonesian experiences, geothermal as an energy source is not environmental, social, and economically sustainable but a financial, environmental, and socially risky energy source: deforestation, pollution, earthquake, loss of investment (note: environmental and social cost due to loss of communities' livelihood and income, usually not included in the investment for extraction). The geothermal industry also increases gender inequality, thus, compound further gender injustices. As a development bank financed by public money, ADB should be accountable to the public, prioritize the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of people in the recipient countries, and be responsible for the human rights violations committed during its profit-seeking business. Therefore, geothermal must not be acknowledged and not included as a clean and affordable energy source. Geothermal should be put in an exclusion list of ADB energy financing in ADB's new energy policy. ON JUST TRANSITION Freedom From Debt Coalition, Philippines As fuels for powering electricity generation and economic development, renewables have become cheaper than GHG-emitting coal, oil, and gas. However, transforming the existing power sector (structure, systems, infrastructures, and uses) to go green and renewable has become a difficult development challenge. This is especially true in countries where the major power players are well entrenched politically and economically. These power players will only embrace the transformation challenge if pressures from above (global such as the Paris Agreement targets) and from below (strong peoples’ movement for climate justice and clean energy) have become strong. As it is, many Asian governments and policymakers are tip-toeing their way to the 2030/2050 zero-emission goals haphazardly and uncertainly. As a result, workers' jobs and lives in the existing power industry (those affected by privatization, reengineering, power plant closures/shifting, etc.) are not adequately addressed. And there are no clear transition programs for those working in industries affected by "green restructuring," e.g., the transport sector. Nor are there clear systems of getting the support of host communities to renewable projects. The transformation, transition, adjustment, and adaptation issues are many and adversely affect the numerous poor the most. It is high time that governments, at both the national and local levels, together with the power industry players and partner development agencies, give serious attention to how to address the just transformation, transition, adjustment, and adaptation challenges in a holistic manner. Getting the views, suggestions, and support of the people on the ground is an initial must policy step. ON NON - SOVEREIGN LENDING INCLUDING FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES There has been a growing concern across CSOs monitoring the safeguards of multilateral development banks (MDBs) with respect to private sector financing and financial intermediaries (FIs). Information disclosure, accountability mechanism and meaningful consultation via FIs at the ADB are particularly poor. There is still a glaring gap that needs to be addressed on the lack of analysis on the individual FI sub – projects during project preparation. Several layers of intermediation without adequate disclosure of information in the guise of protecting commercial interests further complicates risk management. This poses grave concerns on how the ADB, the clients and sub – projects adequately ensure that communities are protected. The changes in the new lending modalities have led to a more diverse portfolio but it is not immune from complex social and environmental risks which are further amplified in the energy portfolio. ADB’s Strategy 2030 identified that in addition to renewable energy projects, private sector operations will pursue projects for energy efficiency, waste to energy, battery storage, other emerging energy technologies and climate adaptation. However, we as civil society will keep on ringing the alarm bells that moving towards greater transparency will yield better development impact and protect communities directly affected by these investments. Unless all these demands are met and vividly reflected in the ADB's Safeguard and Energy policies, DMCs, and their communities will continue to suffer from climate impacts, remain poor, and find it difficult to recover from the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, defeating the very purpose and reason for the Bank’s existence as a development financing institution. Endorsed by the following organizations – Download the PDF version here.

Download PDF version here.

Download PDF version here.

3 March 2021 MR. MASATSUGU ASAKAWA President Asian Development Bank Dear President Asakawa, We are at a pivotal moment in the climate emergency. The longer action is delayed, the harder it will be to avoid the worst climate impacts and ensure a just transition for workers and communities. We, the undersigned 36 organizations from 15 countries, urge you to meet this moment by ending the Bank’s financing and support for fossil fuels. We understand that the Bank is currently revising its energy policy. What the Bank decides now will set the course for whether we cut global carbon emissions by 2030 and stop harming communities with dirty fossil fuel projects, or fail to protect our planet and communities. We urge you to demonstrate meaningful climate leadership by including a provision in the revised energy policy that explicitly ends Bank financing and support for fossil fuels. The climate crisis poses the greatest existential threat to our planet and our communities. The IPCC has warned that we must cut global greenhouse gas emissions roughly in half by 2030 to avert the most catastrophic impacts. While governments and other multilateral banks are increasingly turning away from gas, coal and oil, the ADB’s continued support for fossil fuels undermines global climate action and puts local communities’ health at risk. The ADB has spent roughly $10 billion on fossil fuels since its 2009 energy policy was released. The Bank is ramping up its financing of fossil gas projects such as the controversial Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - India (TAPI) gas pipeline project. The Bank also funded the Rupsha 800 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant in Bangladesh despite its proximity to the river-systems of the Sundarban Mangrove Forest, threatening the livelihoods of about 1,500 fisherfolk communities. These large financial investments in high-risk and outdated technologies also pose a potential future risk to the ADB’s balance sheet. As the leading contributor to global fossil emissions increases, gas sector growth poses one of the greatest threats to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. Life cycle emissions from gas generate significant methane emissions. Methane is a climate crisis accelerator and is over 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2 on a 20 year basis. In 2019, methane emissions were responsible for around 20% of total GHG emissions. If the ADB continues to invest in fossil fuels including gas, the Bank will lock in emissions that we cannot afford and likely create stranded assets that will particularly burden developing member countries into the future. ADB management has conceded that its energy policy “is no longer adequately aligned with the global consensus on climate change, ongoing global transformation of the energy sector, and operational priorities of ADB’s new Strategy 2030.” During the last year, the global consensus on fossil fuel finance has radically shifted. The European Union, UK and US recently made commitments this year to stop financing fossil fuel infrastructure at home and abroad. This follows the European Investment Bank’s decision to end its financing of gas, coal and oil projects and become the world’s first climate bank. This has set a new marker for what it means to be a climate leader. As the chair of the Multilateral Development Bank Working Group on Paris Alignment, it’s critical that the Bank build on these path breaking commitments and end its fossil fuel financing. The ADB’s support for gas, oil and coal undermines its own mission to achieve “a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific, while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty.” Harvard researchers recently estimated that nearly 1 in 5 premature deaths are attributable to fossil fuel pollution. Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, communities with pre-existing health conditions due to fossil fuel pollution and extractive projects are doubly vulnerable. Communities impacted by fossil fuel projects are often excluded from project planning processes and face environmental and social impacts and human rights violations. These injustices have sparked communities’ opposition, leading to threats and reprisals – a glaring disconnect from real, sustainable development outcomes. Further, in light of the social and environmental impacts of Bank-financed hydropower, waste to energy and geothermal projects, we urge the Bank to stop financing these false solutions in the name of climate finance. Instead of continuing support for fossil fuel and other destructive projects which may become future financial liabilities, the ADB must commit to a climate safe and equitable future which puts the Bank on a sustainable course. In relation to energy, this means rapidly scaling up investments for renewable energy, including making grants available for public and social ownership of integrated systems, energy efficiency, community microgrids to maximize energy access, and just transition for workers and communities dependent on fossil fuel production. Becoming a true climate bank must include aligning all financing and activities — including private sector financing and financial intermediation — with a high probability 1.5°C emissions pathway and ensuring meaningful consultation with impacted communities. At this critical moment, we urge the ADB to demonstrate meaningful climate leadership and stop fueling the climate crisis with its financing and support for fossil fuels. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Rayyan Hassan Fossil Free ADB Coalition Cc: 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 and 2 Director General, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Division Director, Safeguards Division Director-General of Independent Evaluation at ADB Director, Thematic and Country Division Compliance Review Panel (CRP) Director-General Independent Evaluation Department NGO & Civil Society Center Executive Directors Alternate Executive Directors Download PDF here.

Last week, news reports stated that Elon Musk FRS has bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoins and that his companies will begin accepting bitcoin as a form of payment shortly [2]. Asian-led CSO NGO Forum on ADB said that they hope Musk will be mindful of Bitcoin's impact on the environment. “The Bitcoin system's current design requires more electricity than is needed to power Denmark[3], it is energy-intensive, and given its expanding condition, the rise of Bitcoin mining may directly lead to fossil fuel dependency and rising GHG emissions, unless a radical shift is taken towards decarbonizing computing power,” says Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB As the Bitcoin industry grows, the overall electricity consumption caused by every individual transaction will increase steeply. In China, for example, coal is the most significant source of electricity, which means more emissions; Digiconomist puts Bitcoin's annualized emissions at 37 million tons of carbon dioxide. The Bitcoin system's current design requires more electricity than is needed to power Denmark, it is energy-intensive, and given its expanding condition, the rise of Bitcoin mining may directly lead to fossil fuel dependency and rising GHG emissions, unless a radical shift is taken towards decarbonizing computing power. Gerry Arances, executive director of Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) Philippines, firmly pointed out that “A person leading the innovations on clean energy and cars, it shouldn’t be the case.” Even the verification process needed to trade Bitcoin is also a polluting endeavor. Social Activist Vidya Dinker of Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and Growthwatch, India explained that “Bitcoin mining and trading may hinder attempts to conserve energy and combat the climate crisis. By failing to regulate and overlooking these costs to the environment, nations are in fact subsidizing the polluters at the expense of the public”. The Forum network encourages Musk to engage in the decarbonization of Bitcoin mining and trading strongly and promote environmentally sustainable applications of Blockchain without damaging this growing sector’s value. NGO Forum on ADB also hopes that there will be a switch to pollution-free power sources that are already available and likely to accelerate.