Search Results

by Rayyan Hassan The public outcry echoing around the world from panic-stricken hospitals of Italy, New York, Philippines, Bangladesh, were all the same. Doctors and frontline workers were ill equipped and getting infected and dying of COVID-19. Scores and scores of people frantically rushed towards their nearest health care centers, looking for treatment, fearing infection and carrying symptoms. Media reports across Asia mention how doctors and hospitals were at maximum capacity and were forced to refuse incoming patients due to lack of resources, beds and protective gears. According to the WHO the need for clinical testing and quarantine measures is considered critical to slow the spread of the virus. Asian countries especially lower income countries have fragile and limited health care systems, as a result slowing down the spread would be the only way to stop health care centers from being overwhelmed. Unfortunately with struggling fiscal health, and lack of public health infrastructure Asian governments are opting to use the heavy handed method of police and military crackdowns to enforce quarantine protocols, violating human rights and basic political freedoms. As this article is being written activists and journalists in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines among many others are being persecuted, silenced or jailed for speaking the truth and exposing government failures. Recognizing the importance of the issues above, this article will try to focus on the issue of debt and development finance and its impact on COVID-19 response by lower income and developing countries in Asia. With the marching orders from WHO to ‘flatten the curve’, governments enforcing lockdowns were now destined to bear the economic brunt of shutting down most manufacturing, industry, consumer markets, agriculture, transport and trade. According to recent reports 85% of the global workforce has been hit by full and partial lockdowns due to this pandemic of which 125 million full time workers are from Asia. Lack of Economic Diversification Whether it was due to poor planning or lack of political will; many lower income Asian governments, who had not diversified their economies for decades, have suffered more because of the lockdowns. Governments having been coupled through single export sectors to the global market such as- tourism for Nepal, over seas migrant worker flows for the Philippines, ready-made garments sector for Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, are in deep crisis for closing of European and US markets and air travel. The lockdowns have led to crippling unemployment and deep losses especially for small firms associated with these sectors to fall into bankruptcy with no lifelines from the state. State bailouts have often targeted the bigger corporations leaving small business owners and their workers behind. This was most evident in the US bailout for the airlines industry in the early March pronouncements by the Trump administration. Thus with the ‘go to’ revenue generators being stalled for lower income Asia, the only option would be to reach out to international development community for grants and loans. It is evident that the current public health crisis compounded by the economic crisis, and global climate crisis has Asian governments frantic and reeling. ‘We were not prepared’ is probably what country leaders are saying to each other in hindsight. Why did we not invest in public health infrastructure? Where can we find quick funds for testing kits? Where are the PPEs? We cannot afford an indefinite lockdown, what are we going to do? What are we going to do? Truly this crisis has caught lower income Asia off guard. The Fourth Wave of Debt Ayhan Kose (et.al 2020) identifies waves of debt accumulation have been a recurrent feature of the global economy over the past fifty years. The first wave of debt came in the form of the Latin American debt crisis of the 1970s, the second wave was the 1997 Asian Financial crisis, and the third wave of debt was during the Global Financial crisis of 2008. It is being estimated that the fourth wave of debt began in 2010 and as of 2019 September the global debt stands at a staggering 263 trillion USD. The authors recognized a positive correlation between high debt and financial crisis, which has proven true for all three of the preceding waves of debt. This fourth wave of debt is being considered by the IMF and the World Bank as the most severe and widespread of the previous three. As the global economy continues to contract with extended lockdowns, a financial crisis maybe fast approaching gaining momentum everyday. The global debt of 263 trillion USD boils down to a 32,500 USD debt burden of each individual for all 7.5 billion people inhabiting planet earth. Being in Asia it begs to be mentioned that 32,500 USD individual debt hits you quite differently based on where your livelihood is located (for ex: a construction worker, teacher, or a CEO). The depreciation of local currencies, stagnation of wages for the working class, the rising prices of housing, health care are leading to ‘gig’ work in the form of multiple jobs in pitiful conditions to make ends meet. The unending working hours and poor living conditions are putting working people further at risk to getting infected by the virus. Thus high paid CEOs and global celebrities on social media posting lockdown chronicles fail to reflect the telling signs of disaggregated impact of the global debt and lockdown on the working people. There is unfortunately never a good time to be hit by a pandemic and this is possibly the worst of times from a global historical debt perspective. Billions to Trillions in Infrastructure Loans According to the IMF the debt was triggered because of low interest rates and loose financial conditions over the past decade. 2010 global finance was heralding the mega infrastructure asset class boom, and the prescriptions were spearheaded by the World Bank’s former president Jim Kim announcing the Billions to Trillions agenda in Korea, 2017. China announced its 2013 Belt Road Initiative, and the former ADB President Nakao in the 2015 ADB Annual Governors Meeting in Baku announced the 27 trillion USD gap in infrastructure in Asia. The Asian governments lapped it all up, as the loans were plenty and fluid. Modalities such as public private partnership, infrastructure equity funds, special purpose vehicles and blended finance became buzzwords for new forms of loans inciting private investment into mega infrastructure. There were also new loan sources included various new lenders outside the Bretton Woods and the Paris club, this included a wave of Japanese, Korean and Chinese quick money lending with low restrictions flooding the market. As a result Asian governments have accrued large amounts of foreign debt, which could only be sustained through rolling economic activity and regular debt servicing payments. No one could predict in 2019 that a global pandemic would bring global economy to a halt, and immediate loan repayments would be life threatening for lower income countries in 2020. The sheer size of the loans and the rising cost of debt maybe one of the contributing factors for governments like India and Bangladesh flirting with reviving the garments sector, and issuing statements indicating early easing of quarantines and removing lockdowns at the real risk of coronavirus flare up/ second wave. Structural Weaknesses of State Financial Systems ‘We were not prepared’ that haunting sentiment will continue to keep repeating within Asian government officials offices, and it should make them reflect of the structural weaknesses which they have neglected to reform over the past decades. Endemic corruption in the Philippines, India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Laos, were found to be the breeding ground for state emergency response failures. Lack of coordination between municipalities and central governments, with supply chain bottlenecks due to corruption, had not been rectified, all contributed to the stark failure in ensuring critical services and information to reach local people. It needs to be highlighted that these systemic challenges pre-existed the COVID-19 pandemic for most of these countries. According to the recent World Bank report on debt the following structural weaknesses of state financial systems have been further identified - poor revenue collection, widespread tax evasion by big corporations, monetary financing of fiscal deficits using international loans, corruption in food warehouses and stockpiling, and populist policies to subsidize sectors like fossil fuel energy most often in the grips of politically embedded private sector enterprises. The issues cited above resonate strongly for South Asia and South East Asia, where there is high inequality and mass agrarian communities. As the loans started pouring into these weak financial systems it manifested bubbles of wealth inequalities. As a result the evident neglect in Asia’s development narrative were public health services, education, water and sanitation, food security and basic social safety nets on wages and pensions. Clearly the pandemic induced ‘hunger’ uprisings are symptomatic of the decades of mismanagement, false development strategies, undermining the poor and the intended promotion of systemic corruption through the state-private capital system. Currency Depreciation Going back to international development loans, it needs to be mentioned that most Asian countries have opted to borrow in hard foreign currencies especially the USD and the Euro from the ADB, World Bank, AIIB and bilateral banks such as JICA, JBIC, CDB and others. As the economies are forced to contract due to the lockdowns the debt service obligations are now facing steep currency depreciations. The currency crisis is exacerbating everyday, and with falling prices of fossil fuels this will further deepen the stake into the economy. The state response will be a rise in inflation, and increase of local currency in the money supply, with a dry foreign reserve the potential for a defaulting economy is very very high. Consequently, the AIIB in a recent report on Asia’s infrastructure outlook cited that foreign currency loans in themselves are attractive and end up as a key issue for stalled projects. Poorer economies tended to hold onto hard currencies and not roll out infrastructure project investments to ensure build up of foreign currency reserves. This often delays the inevitable, as this measure to strengthen local currency is often short term, and continues to accrue interest in loan payments in the long run without any movement in spending in the real economy. This line of the argument tends to promote the idea that lower income countries in times of economic strain (with low foreign reserves and rising inflation) sometimes tend to also augment fiscal deficits with international development project loans. In other words big dollar loans are used by lower income countries to address national budget shortfalls, this often leads to balance sheet mismatches, over invoicing of procurements, which further lead to stranded assets and short term wealth bubbles. All of which are often untracked due to weak banking regulations and poor monitoring frameworks. Public Risk in Mega Infrastructure Financing The mega infrastructure solution has not yielded the desired economic returns and had furthered environmental and social destruction in Asia. Civil society movements globally have argued over base load energy investments on coal, big hydro and fossil fuel, leading to deepening corruption, rising climate risk and widening debt GDP ratios. Over the last decade the MDBs have focused on private sector led project financing, which often had commercial goals over development goals, this is quite telling of ADBs new Strategy 2030 which has a committed chapter for unlocking private capital in infrastructure investment. Thus what we see in terms of project financing selection is commercial priority given to gas pipelines in Azerbaijan, export-processing zones in Myanmar, and massive investments in trans boundary connectivity road projects in Central Asia and South Asia. What is left often undermined is the small-scale road project linking the village to the hospital as it is deemed as a ‘non-bankable’ investment. COVID-19 has exposed the dire need for a long-term plan for public health infrastructure, unfortunately with abundance of credit lines over the past decades there were no meaningful investments made in this sector. Click here to read part two of this article.

by Rayyan Hassan ADB 20 Billion USD COVID 19: A Quick Glance The ADB initially earmarked 6.5 billion USD for COVID 19 on March 18 and by April 13 they have increased it to a staggering 20 billion USD under the COVID-19 response banner. The ADB has yet to provide detailed breakdowns for the fund, but initial information on the website raise the following issues of concern: Only 2 billion USD of the 20 billion USD is in concessional and grant forms 2 billion USD has been allocated explicitly for private sector (no details on how that will be unpacked) All Developing Member Countries may apply for loans An example of how lucrative the loans are made to appeal to struggling governments can be gleaned from the recently inked 1.5 billion USD loan to the Philippines government. The interest rate is 2% for the loan, which is one of the lowest rates ever issued by the ADB. The conditions were made further lucrative with up to 3 years of grace periods and extended periods of maturity from 5 to 10 years for different tranche disbursements. Explicit favor for private sector in the ADB COVID-19 loan general criteria: Providing select private firms, microfinance institutions, and small- and medium enterprises with access to working capital; Ensuring sufficient trade and supply chain financing is available as the global economy experiences a major economic shock from the pandemic; In case of the medical response the ADB may continue preferring private health care systems which will only be accessible by those who can afford it, leading to a question of systemic deprivation of the poor from gaining access to the much needed health services at this critical time. In terms of direct economic support the loans clearly earmark the private sector and emphasizes trade and supply chain financing of what we can assume are already pre-existing sectors of investment coupled to fossil fuel use. So in terms of critical areas of innovation, which is addressing public health care infrastructure, and sustainable and green energy systems we are not seeing any real transformation from the ADB. A detailed inspection of the loan agreements and subsequent projects is underway, and various civil society groups and researchers are analyzing the portfolio as it unfolds in the days to come. At this stage it would be fair to argue that the ADB is very much taking a ‘business as usual’ approach in it’s COVID-19 response and is undeterred in its mega infrastructure privatization and fossil fuel pathway. COVID-19 and Belt Road Initiative In terms of the China led BRI, work has stopped along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Cambodia’s Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone has been suspended, the Payra coal power plant in Bangladesh has been delayed and projects across Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar have been stalled indefinitely. The lack of travel facilities for Chinese labor has been attributed as a key factor in this process, with thousands of Chinese workers unable to return to work on BRI projects across Asia and Europe. A media report in India claims that over 130 countries have placed restrictions on the entry of Chinese citizens travelling from China, which has significantly hampered all Chinese financed infrastructure projects including BRI projects. According to a US think tank, Council for Foreign Relations of CFR, in its recent report titled ‘What the Covid-19 Pandemic May Mean for China’s Belt and Road Initiative’; the Covid-19 crisis has also hampered China’s manufacturing supply chains, and it is no secret that BRI projects are primarily reliant on Chinese, rather than local material and supplies. It can be assumed that this will make it more difficult for borrowing Asian governments to support the existing BRI projects. It maybe further argued that this would create pressure upon China to either write-off BRI loans or restructure them significantly. It seems that Covid-19 spread has led BRI and China to use the same corridors, ports and logistics hubs to provide medical support to partner countries in need as Beijing attempts to position itself as a global leader in healthcare. This is being interpreted as a ‘charm offensive’ move which Chinese President Xi Jinping calls the Health Silk Road’. BRI and AIIB The issue of digital security and the role of China in the global debate around big data mining are challenges which, surround us in the fourth industrial revolution along with the fourth wave of debt, global pandemic and the overarching climate crisis. Surrounded deep in controversy the BRI Health Silk Road needs a multilateral front to continue bolstering its acceptance across the world around the issues cited above. In order to achieve these objectives the China led AIIB will be influential to demonstrate this new commitment to multilateralism and public welfare. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), of which China is the largest shareholder, has created a USD 5 billion crisis recovery fund to support countries and businesses during the pandemic. In line with the agenda of being the multilateral front of the Chinese BRI agenda the AIIB has announced two recovery loans, to the cities of Beijing and Chongqing. Consequently the AIIB is now considering similar packages for Indonesia, Bangladesh and India. Most of the 2020 AIIB loans are looking at public health infrastructure, and policy reform loans in the health and connectivity sector. AIIB Aside from the COVID-19 response loans, in 2019-2020 the AIIB has approved several projects in line with the BRI namely - Bangladesh: Dhaka and West Zone Transmission Grid Expansion Project, Lao People’s Democratic Republic: National Road 13 Improvement and Maintenance Project, Belarus: Rehabilitation and Upgrading of National Road R46, Tajikistan: Obigarm-Nurobod Road Project. The projects have also been supplemented with various AIIB financed infrastructure fund facilities for Asia and specific Singapore, India, Indonesia. Debt Relief? Considering the nature of this global pandemic, debt relief has been considered as a possible solution. Both the IMF and G20 have committed to debt relief measures as of May 2020, but the scale and scope of the measures are limited to less than 25 selected countries, the debt relief needs to be much wider in order to be effective and should include the MDBs, and other bilateral banks in the effort. Unfortunately as of May 2020,Multilateral Development Banks such as the ADB, World Bank, AIIB, BRICS and the bilateral banks of Japan, China, and Korea have continued to collect debt payments for 2020 form overburdened Asian governments and have not signaled any movements towards debt relief solutions for states amid this escalating crisis. Conclusion Considering the global financial system and it’s constraints MDBs and even the BRI are looking to shift slightly away from traditional infrastructure and lean towards more health and public health infrastructure to retain economic dominance. In that shift the trend in future health loan and recovery investments are being aimed at private Sector; this is evident for both the ADB and AIIB loans. Unfortunately this risks embedding the status quo of the elite-government-capital nexus and neglecting the people from the decision making process. Therefore what needs to be demanded through social movements globally is that the financial architecture entails free and public access to health care for the poor and most vulnerable, through meaningful dialogue and transfer of control over design of the recovery solutions. The role of civil society, free press and social movements will be integral in voicing these demands. We have to realize that MDBs and the BRI as institutions are each trying desperately to survive the COVID-19 economic recession and impending financial crisis. The name of the game is now COVID-19 recovery and people around the world should be vigilant that ‘recovery’ loans aimed towards financially weak governments are not to ensure development bank profitability but actual sustainable development and public health care objectives. The proposed loans will need to be carefully investigated and continually challenged to meet people’s needs. There is no doubt global capital is vulnerable and maybe its time to tip the balance in the people's favor. Click here to go to part one of this article.

NGO Forum on ADB, a network of over 250 civil society organizations across Asia calls out the Asian Development Bank to end its green posturing and make real commitments towards a Paris aligned policy and appropriate clean energy investments. This demand coincides with this year's Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2020 which started yesterday, June 16. This year ACEF’s thematic focus is centered upon building an inclusive, resilient sustainable energy future, recovering and rebounding from the social and economic crisis of the pandemic. Yet, the stark reality is that the ADB's policies and practices effectively fail to reflect such a vision, undermining rather than upholding the just, appropriately scaled, and participatory energy transition urgently needed by these times. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB states that the “ADB Energy Policy 2009 is draconian and outdated and heavily embedded in coal and fossil fuels. The old policy is a complete contradiction to the Paris Agreement! A new ADB Paris 1.5 degree aligned Energy Policy is urgently needed to support Asia's renewable energy pathway to reach its NDC targets.” ADB’s carbon-intensive energy portfolio is rooted in the fact that its “clean” energy agenda is a grave misnomer. “There is no such thing like "clean coal"- coal still stays the dirtiest energy resource. Even the newly announced Chinese Green Bonds will exclude so-called "Clean Coal" projects from their portfolio. ADB should not stay behind” says Nora Sausmikat of Urgewald, a Germany based NGO. Although climate change is considered as a key issue in the ADB Energy Policy of 2009, the Bank itself admits that not all of its clean energy investments are considered climate investments. Without strict criteria for “clean” energy and a firm exclusion for the financing of coal projects, the 2009 Energy Policy has enabled the Bank to make dirty commitments, providing a crutch for the next generation of advanced coal and gas power plants. Gerry Arrances of Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) Philippines explained that “ADB must pursue and promote a 1.5°C Pathway—reaching a global CO2 emissions decline of 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and net-zero CO2 emissions by mid-century—without false solutions”. Hemantha Withanage from Center for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka said that “ADB has spent over USD 5 billion for dirty coal power plants and it has a historical responsibility for climate-induced migration. It is expected that over 200 million will become climate refugees by 2050 and ADB should make its energy policies to reverse this situation”. And it is also undeniable that the COVID 19 pandemic impacts the climate crisis. According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report in 2017 on climate risk in Asia, it was estimated that global flood losses are expected to increase to $52 billion per year by 2050 from $6 billion in 2005. The ADB report also identified that food shortage due to climate impacts could increase the number of malnourished children in South Asia by 7 million. According to Sreedhar Ramamurthi, from Environics Trust, India “the ADB (as with most of the MDBs) seems to be desperate to make use of the crisis and enhance its opportunities to lend. The ADB must realize that bigger loans for the same kind of destructive mega infrastructure projects cannot help the people nor the economy. In the case of India, the ADB in its tick-box mentality, claim that the emergency COVID19 fast track loans are in tune with the country strategy! I will caution the bank and appeal to the ADB Board to ensure safeguards are not compromised in the name of an emergency or ‘unprecedented" situation’”. The greenwashing approach of ADB in the climate policy space is now apparent. ADB’s climate responsibility is not in its statements in various global platforms but rather revealed through its energy sector investments. The ADB has heavily invested in fossil gas and related infrastructure in the last 3 years across Asia and is now facing the reality of stalled construction and rising environmental & social costs. There is also the issue of lack of meaningful consultations with local communities on project planning, and lack of pre-project information disclosure; two critical issues which have led to a disconnect from real sustainable development outcomes. It needs to be noted based on our assessment from 2010-2020 clean energy infrastructure in public health is an immediate need, which has seen nothing but neglect for a decade from the ADB. Vidya Dinker of India based Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) explained that "ADB has spent over 40 million USD in strengthening capacities in India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, etc., yet not a single Country Safeguard Systems (CSS) is optimal for Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) delivery. We hope the ADB will continue to take responsibility for delivering its own SPS until CSS achieve equivalency as articulated in the SPS 2009." The future of ADB Energy investments is in renewable energy and community microgrids and it has no space for fossil fuels especially coal. The ADB should take a deep look at its lending portfolio in the energy sector and makes an immediate shift towards renewable energy pathways for a Paris Aligned COVID19 recovery. Data suggests renewable energy will create more jobs and is cheaper to produce. Long-term investments in the sector are needed to ensure sustainable energy access for the most vulnerable. The age of fossil fuel baseload power generation has come to an end and ADB must take action in these last 10 years towards the 2030 IPCC P1 pathway.

Preamble As the Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2020 gets underway, the NGO Forum on ADB and our partner CSOs and communities advance the following statement -- marking our significant concerns with the ADB's energy investment track record, current and pipeline portfolio, policy framework and priorities ahead. We acknowledge this year's thematic focus is centered upon building an inclusive, resilient sustainable energy future, recovering and rebounding from the social and economic crisis of the pandemic. Notably, it kick-starts with a session facilitated by UNESCAP, SE4All, and development partners about sustainable and green finance futures. Yet, the stark reality is that the ADB's policies and practices effectively fail to reflect such a vision, to date, undermining rather than upholding the just, appropriately scaled, and participatory energy transition urgently needed by these times -- and the diverse peoples of the region. The Forum also notes that this year the ACEF has shifted to an online virtual platform, which we recognize is necessary for light of the COVID 19 pandemic. However, the current format has failed to provide appropriately inclusive options for civil society groups in many member countries to participate. Therefore, in order for their future forums to be more inclusive, from the get-go, they must first and foremost consider improvements on how under the “new norms” of operating they can engage in more robust, inclusive ways with concerned communities and civil society. Worsening climate crisis amidst the pandemic According to the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, (ERIA), the current pandemic directly threatens the region’s physical and economic health. The postponement of the 2020 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) to 2021 has been viewed by civil society as a major setback for global action aiming at new pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goal. Aside from the COVID - 19 pandemic impact, the climate crisis still looms hauntingly overhead for the region. According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report in 2017 on climate risk in Asia, it was estimated that global flood losses are expected to increase to $52 billion per year by 2050 from $6 billion in 2005. The ADB report also identified that food shortage due to climate impacts could increase the number of malnourished children in South Asia by 7 million. As the effects of increases in anthropogenic pollution and climate change intensify, environmental crises are increasingly devastating the lives, health, and livelihoods of people around the globe, especially those who are most marginalized, including women, Indigenous peoples, and people living in poverty. As such, the Forum urges the ADB to take full account for coordinating a community responsive restoration of the devastating environmental and social implications of the ADB's past and present energy portfolio, but also revisit and revise financing ventures in the pipeline/approved that are yet to be rolled out, as the majority to date fail to seriously take account of the finite resources, appropriately scaled and expressed concerns of communities and just energy transition required. We urge ADB to support communities, governments, and other actors to implement robust and rights-respecting climate mitigation and adaptation policies. 2009 Energy Policy and recent developments Unfortunately, the ADB’s carbon-intensive energy portfolio is rooted in the fact that its “clean” energy agenda is a grave misnomer. Although climate change is considered as a key issue in the ADB Energy Policy of 2009, the Bank itself admits that not all of its clean energy investments are considered climate investments. Without strict criteria for “clean” energy and a firm exclusion for the financing of coal projects, the 2009 Energy Policy has enabled the Bank to make dirty commitments, providing a crutch for the next generation of advanced coal and fossil gas power plants. The ADB is ramping up its financing on fossil gas power plants such as controversial Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - India (TAPI) gas pipeline project under the pipeline. The bank has also funded the Rupsha 800 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant in Bangladesh despite its close 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 a couple of waste - to - energy projects touted as renewable projects but poses risk in contaminating air, water, and soil in Southern Thailand as well as dam infrastructure on climate fragile environments in the Pacific Islands and Nepal. Among the many justifications for carbon-intensive projects under the ADB 2009 Energy Policy are: Energy efficiency, which includes improvements in fossil fuel-based power plants such as Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB), flue gas desulfurization (FGD), Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), High-Efficiency, Low-Emission (HELE) or Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical Technology, CTL, and Combined Heat and Power (CHP). The need for reliable and affordable energy, which is supposedly supplied by coal power plants at least cost for base-load demand. Commercialization of the coal sector to ensure that coal plants have enough supply of coal for captive use. Funding marginal and already proven oil fields, should the fields turn out to be commercial eventually. Maximizing access to energy for all as an all-encompassing justification for financing fossil fuels. For ACEF 2020, we, NGO Forum on ADB, urge the ADB to abandon all the justifications cited above. The future of ADB Energy investments is in renewable energy and community microgrids and it has no space for fossil fuels especially coal. Also, the use of “counterbalance” mechanisms such as carbon sequestration and offsets, both of which are unacceptable when considered against the reality that destroyed ecosystems cannot simply be replaced. ADB's Climate Responsibility Response Despite its carbon-intensive energy-lending portfolio, ADB has positioned itself as a climate leader among international financial institutions (IFIs) by making pronouncements and commitments on climate financing. Notable climate developments are: 2011 – Joint MDB Approach for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Finance Reporting: While this is a step forward, it still included energy-efficiency improvements and retrofitting of fossil fuel power plants as climate mitigation activities; June-July 2015 – MDB and IDFC Common Principles for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Finance Tracking. It retained a lenient list of mitigation activities which have a fossil fuel pathway. November 2015 – Framework for a Harmonized Approach to GHG accounting. Once again the ADB set bottom range shadow carbon prices compared to other MDBs; September 2016 – Asian Development Outlook 2016 Update, where immediately after its remarkable climate initiative launch, ADB derogated from the 1.5°C goal; July 2017 – Climate Change Operational Framework 2017-2030, which fails to integrate an urgent review of the 2009 Energy Policy; July 2018 – ADB Strategy 2030, which lacks any strategy on terminating active fossil fuel investments and canceling, proposed fossil fuel investments to achieve the Paris 1.5 goal. The greenwashing approach of ADB in the climate policy space is now apparent. ADB’s climate responsibility is not in its statements in various global platforms but rather revealed through its energy sector investments. The ADB has heavily invested in fossil gas and related infrastructure in the last 3 years across Asia and 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 these issues of lack of meaningful consultations with local communities on project planning, lack of pre-project information disclosure in particular in relation to the shift towards financing via bonds and other indirect modalities of investing that remain highly opaque in their particular details, and the lack of human rights due to diligence assessment from the onset. These are critical issues which have led to opposition of communities, in turn leading to threats and reprisals against them, which is a glaring disconnect from real sustainable development outcomes. It needs to be noted based on our assessment from 2010-2020 clean energy infrastructure in public health is an immediate need, which has seen nothing but neglect for a decade from the ADB. We are wary that there is only one session dedicated to looking at Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) commitments of countries in the region. We hope that in ACEF 2020 we will see an end to the Bank’s green posturing and real commitments will be announced towards a Paris aligned policy and the appropriate clean energy investments to follow it through. Lowering Oil and Gas Prices and Just Community-Driven Energy Transition to 1.5 degrees Paris Goals: COVID - 19 Recovery Pathway Like the Forum, we emphasize that recovery must be centered upon principles that emphasize finance scaled to the needs of communities, and formulated based on robust community consultations with mechanisms to avert reprisals of those who give input; not built on extracting the finite resources of the planet: According to an Oxford Working Paper on Post COVID Green Recovery, the dramatic declines in global economic activity have reduced energy demand and the use of fossil fuels, which supply 85% of all energy demands. The collapse in oil demand has deepened market imbalances and contributed to Brent crude prices dropping to their lowest level in over two decades. The working paper surveyed 231 financial experts, central bank officials, and asset managers from (G20 countries) who assessed 300 stimulus policies from the perspective of climate impact. The survey revealed that only 4 percent of stimulus packages could be considered green, 4 percent brown, with 92 percent being colorless (maintaining status quo). The paper further identifies that for desired economic multipliers more favorable areas of investment for Middle Income and Lower-Income Countries are – Health care investment, Disaster preparedness, Clean Energy Infrastructure, research, and development, etc. Compared to least favorable sectors such as – airline bailouts, traditional transport and infrastructure, and income tax cuts especially for large corporations coupled to fossil fuels. It was further identified that for a USD 1 million investment in renewable energy projects 7.49 jobs could be generated and similar investments in energy efficiency projects could generate 7.72 jobs, compared to 2.65 jobs from investing in fossil fuels. This demonstrates the potential of economic recovery through a clean energy future. Conclusion We demand that, if ADB genuinely intends to be a climate leader across multilateral development banks, it should consider financing evidence-based ecosystem restoration for projects that have already impacted the environment. Simultaneously the ADB must ensure that robust mechanisms for information disclosure and community and civil society consultations are embedded at all stages in the project cycle. In light of the issues highlighted in this statement, we hope that in this upcoming ACEF 2020 the ADB conducts a thorough review of its lending portfolio in the energy sector and makes an immediate shift towards renewable energy pathways for a Paris Aligned COVID-19 recovery. The ADB should ensure steps for withdrawing projects in the pipeline that fail to meet the climate criteria. As the data suggests renewable energy will create more jobs and is cheaper to produce; long-term investments in the sector are needed to ensure sustainable energy access for the most vulnerable. The age of fossil fuel baseload power generation has come to an end and ADB must take action in these last 10 years towards the 2030 IPCC P1 pathway. There is an opportunity here this ACEF 2020 for the ADB to listen to the communities and do the right thing, it should seize the moment because it might not get a second chance. Endorsed by: Action Paysanne Contre la Faim, Democratic Republic of the Congo Aksi!, Indonesia Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN Burma), Myanmar Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional (based in the Philippines) Bangladesh Nari Pragati Sangha (BNPS), Bangladesh Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha - BJVJ, India Bird Lovers, Armenia Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI) Asia Pacific, Philippines Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines Center for Environment and Participatory Research CEPR, Bangladesh Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development (, Mongolia CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Coaliciòn Regional por la Transparencia y Participaciòn, Perù, Bolivia, Brasil y Colombia Collective for Economic Justice, India Community Development Friend (CDF), Bangladesh Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Community Initiatives for Development in Pakistan-CIDP, Pakistan COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding, Nigeria Conseil Régional des Organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement, DRC Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR), Perù DIGNIDAD Coalition, Philippines Environics Trust, India Environmental Public Society, Armenia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Fresh Eyes, United Kingdom Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Gender Action, Global Global Social Justice, Belgium Growthwatch, India Hape Development and Welfare Association, Pakistan India Climate Justice platform - ICJ, India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Indigenous Perspectives, India Indigenous women Legal Awareness Group, Nepal Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA International Association of People's Lawyers, Australia International Association of People's Lawyers, France, France International Rivers, USA Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan Khaydarova Muatar, ICNL Advisory Council Member, Tajikistan Life Haven Center for Independent Living, Philippines Lumiere Synergie Developpement, Senegal MiningWatch Canada, Canada Movement for Advancing Understanding on Sustainability And Mutuality - MAUSAM, India Narail Kantho Online Newspaper, Bangladesh Nash Vek, Kyrgyzstan Nepal Integrated Development Initiatives (NIDI), Nepal Nepal Integrated Development Initiatives (NIDI), Nepal, Nepal NGO Forum Armenia, Armenia l'Observatoire d'Etudes et d'Appui à la Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, Democratic Republic of the Congo Oil-Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oxfam International Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisher Folks, Pakistan Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN, Bangladesh Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Philippines Recourse, Europe Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia Rural Development Policy Institute (RDPI), Pakistan Safety and Rights Society, Bangladesh Shabolombi, Bangladesh Sustainability and Participation thru Education and Lifelong Learning, Philippines Umeedenoo, Pakistan WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Women Leader Foundation, Mongolia Download the statement here.

A Webinar organized by NGO Forum on ADB and Asia Europe People's Forum (AEPF). JUNE 4, 2020 | THURSDAY | 10:00 AM Belgium | 01:30 PM India | 04:00 PM Philippines. Register here https://bit.ly/2MjKGNn.

Organized by BWGED (Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt), Democratic Budget Movement (DBM), Japan Center for Sustainable Environment and Society, NGO Forum on ADB, and Urgewald. 2 June 2020, Tuesday 5:00 PM Bangladesh Time (UTC 12:00 PM). Register here https://forms.gle/48YqXw2qSdHPyM1w6.

Hemantha Withanage, Centre for Environmental Justice World is expecting some 8  trillions loss due to the Corona outbreak. ADB press release issued on 15 May 2020) state “The global economy could suffer between $5.8 trillion and $8.8 trillion in losses—equivalent to 6.4% to 9.7% of global gross domestic product (GDP)—as a result of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.” Even before COVID has done its impacts the ADB has forecasted the impacts to the economy. Its press release dated April 3 state the Asian Development Outlook 2020, forecasts significant headwinds for Sri Lanka’s economy as it fights the spread of COVID-19, which comes less than 12 months after the terror attacks in April 2019. Sri Lanka’s economic growth is projected to fall to 2.2% in 2020 and recover moderately to 3.5% in 2021. It further state “With the domestic outbreak of COVID-19, Sri Lanka’s growth projection comes with significant downside risks—growth could be lower by another 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points, depending on the severity and the duration of domestic infection. However, quick measures to contain the domestic spread of the virus and policy action to provide relief to those adversely affected could mitigate the fallout.” The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has allocated a $600,000 grant from the Health System Enhancement Project to the Government of Sri Lanka to finance preventive and response efforts to fight a potential novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the country. The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors approved the $128.6 million Sri Lanka COVID-19 Emergency Response and Health Systems Preparedness Project to help the country prevent, detect, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and strengthen its public health preparedness. The project includes a $35 million loan from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) through the World Bank Group’s COVID-19 Fast-Track Facility and a $93.6 million credit from the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank’s concessional credit window for developing countries. The Ministry of Health and Indigenous Medical Services will implement the project with support from United Nations agencies and other stakeholders engaged in emergency response, prevention, and readiness.( https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/04/01/world-bank-fast-track-support-covid19-corona) Meanwhile,  China has  granted Sri Lanka a concessionary loan of $500 million, to combat COVID-19. They also announce that they will they will rescue the country and with the government request China first stepped up. The once who donated a large amount of masks, PPE, and test kits  are China Merchants Port Group (CMPort), the parent company of Colombo International Container Terminals (CICT) and Hambantota International Port Group (HIPG); CHEC Port City Colombo  etc. Of course, they have a special interest. The United States has pledged to spend up to $100 million in existing funds to combat the COVID-19  and the European Union also provided some  EUR 22 million grant to Sri Lanka. Meanwhile the COVID – 19 Healthcare and Social Security Fund‘s balance has now surpassed Sri Lankan Rs. 1 Billion. COVID funds doesn’t come free. China certainly will benefit from more businesses, and constructions. Last week Government of Sri Lanka  announced that they will bring the Colombo garbage to Aruwakkaru again which was abandoned after the technical faults  and public protests. It seems that more than GOSL, China is interested to get this going as they have a huge claim for the days project was hold due to public protests. I believe there are other sources as well. Monitoring COVID funds doesn’t seems to have a mechanism in any country. There is no mechanism to find how they spend money. According to World Bank Blog entitle  “Advancing accountability for special emergency funds to address COVID-19” dated May 6 2020, written by SURAIYA ZANNATH  and SRINIVAS GURAZADA May 06, 2020 “In some countries, these categories of funds are kept fully within the oversight of government systems, while in others they are kept as a trust or managed through other similar arrangements. Under the latter approach, the funds largely remain unrecorded. Since money into them does not constitute government revenues, it bypasses parliamentary budget oversight and government financial management controls and processes. And that opens opportunities for corruption.” “The World bank group has proposed few key principles that governments should consider when creating emergency relief funds that are outside the regular government budget. Ensure complementarity in expenditure across various sources: A high-level national or subnational decision-making body dealing with the COVID-19 crisis could ensure complementarity of funding between the budget and any emergency funds. Processes need to be in place to ensure that there is no double dipping of funding for the same transaction from multiple sources. For example, having a single budget allocation and release, financial report and audit for expenditure could both sources would help minimize the risk. When there is a need for exceptions, protocols also need to be enhanced: For transactions that do not follow regular government processes, appropriate protocols need to be in place for higher-level authorization to minimize risk of waste, fraud and corruption. The details of these protocols need to be communicated clearly. Financial reporting arrangements should link to outputs and outcomes: The government must commit to publishing how the money from donations is spent.   It will be appropriate to establish mechanisms for reporting the amounts co-financed through the emergency fund at each spending agency level. The total expenditure on COVID-19 from both regular government budget and the emergency fund need to be reported along with output and outcomes. Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) and private sector auditors can establish credible oversight: There is concern over accountability when an SAI’s mandate does not explicitly require an audit of this category of funds. Appointing the SAI to be the auditor of the emergency fund, where possible, would significantly enhance the credibility of the oversight. Where SAI is not involved, the audit needs to be conducted by a credible external audit firm. Civil society can help improve accountability: Civil society organizations can play a crucial role, both as supporting actors as well as monitoring and information sharing bodies. Governments should encourage engagement and dialogue with civil society organizations and citizens openly and transparently, especially when decisions related to the government’s response to the pandemic are involved.”  (SURAIYA ZANNATH  and SRINIVAS GURAZADA May 06, 2020). Such principles are important to maintain strong institutions to hold leaders and their management of the COVID-19 response accountable. It’s necessary for the government to declare the conditions laid by various agencies when making new fund or converting existing fund to COVID response funds. It requires a transparent and accountable process to spend public money.  If not COVID might end Sri Lanka further deep into the debt trap. Reference: https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/advancing-accountability-special-emergency-funds-address-covid-19

MR. MASATSUGU ASAKAWA President Asian Development Bank Dear President Asakawa; Good day. According to the WHO[1] the need for clinical testing and quarantine measures is considered critical to slow the spread of the virus. You are well aware Pres. Asakawa, those Asian countries especially lower-income countries have fragile and limited health care systems. Unfortunately with struggling fiscal health, and lack of public health infrastructure, some Asian governments are opting to use the heavy-handed method of police and military crackdowns to enforce quarantine protocols, violating human rights and basic political freedoms. As this letter is being written, activists and journalists in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines among many others are being persecuted, silenced, or jailed for speaking the truth and exposing government failures. The space for civil society's voice in such places is shrinking and is now on the verge of being suffocated. To this end we thank you for allowing us the space to raise these critical issues during your ADB AGM 2020. Aside from pandemic Asia is facing a severe debt crisis and the overarching haunting impacts of the climate crisis. The clock has not stopped ticking, and reducing GHG emissions is imperative to keep the global temperature below 1.5 degree Celsius rise. ADB Projects in India, Nepal, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh have been raised on Safeguards violations to respective operations departments and management over the last year. Issues on non-payment of compensations, lack of meaningful consultation, and adverse impact on workers have been repeatedly flagged to banks with a limited response on the ground. Pres. Asakawa, the ADB’s Safeguards delivery has not met up to the standards of the policy. Through this letter the NGO Forum on ADB we would like to bring to your attention the following issues surrounding ADB’s response to debt, climate, and safeguards and we will look towards your immediate action and leadership on helping resolve these challenges. Debt The global debt of 263 trillion USD boils down to a 32,500 USD debt burden of each individual for all 7.5 billion people inhabiting planet earth. According to the World Bank’s recent report on global debt[2] it has direct effect, influencing steep depreciation of local currencies. Unable to make debt payments due to lockdown industries and work, governments are struggling to ensure people have access to housing, food, critical health care. Unless funds are accessible without conditions Asian governments will be unable to provide emergency services to its people. In this context, the ADB has announced a USD 20 billion-recovery package to address the crisis. It is sad to see that the grant allocation of the recovery page is only 2 billion USD and the majority of the fund will operate mainly as loans. Considering the nature of this global pandemic, debt relief has been considered as a possible solution for Asian governments to stay afloat and free up funds for immediately addressing public health and economic recovery concerns. Both the IMF[3] and G20 have committed to debt relief measures as of May 2020[4], but the scale and scope of the measures are limited. The debt relief needs to be much wider in order to be effective and should include the MDBs, and other bilateral banks in the effort. To this end we urge the ADB to immediately issue an order to stop the collection of ALL loan payments from DMCs for 2020, so that they may have access to unconditional funds for immediate public health care and economic recovery. ADB’s Climate Responsibility The ADB Energy Policy 2009 is outdated and heavily embedded in coal and fossil fuels and in complete contradiction to the Paris Agreement of reducing global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. New energy policy is urgently needed with the following provisions – The new ADB Energy Policy should be explicitly Paris-aligned and should pursue and promote a 1.5°C Pathway—reaching a global CO2 emissions decline of 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and net-zero CO2 emissions by mid-century—without false solutions.[5] The P1 Scenario outlined in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C eliminates false solutions while ensuring that the 1.5°C temperature goal is met. ADB should also work with experts in identifying investment opportunities for renewable alternatives that are consistent with this goal. ADB's Country partnership strategies (CPS) should be updated to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement, and projects should be screened following CPS and national decarbonization pathways.[6] As the primary platform for designing ADB operations towards delivering development results at the country level, existing CPS should be reviewed and updated to mainstream climate change considerations, specifically incorporating the 1.5°C goal. The ADB must declare a full commitment to divest from all coal mining and coal power projects—including coal mined for captive use of a power plant, coal projects considered energy-efficient or adopting a carbon capture storage or other mitigating measures, and using co/tri-generation technology. ADB should once and for all stop financial flows to projects that allow for the burning of coal—the single largest contributor to the climate crisis. The ADB must adopt a stringent emission performance standard for all power generation and CHP projects that will effectively divest other fossil fuel projects. ADB should focus its limited resources on meeting the low-carbon transition. Thus, it should review the emission performance standard of energy projects in its DMCs, and adopt a standard that will phase-out investments in other fossil fuels. The ADB must set out strict exclusion criteria for fossil gas projects, permitting only those determined to be a necessary bridge fuel for a DMC’s low-carbon transition. The IPCC’s SR1.5 provides a strict timeline for the drastic reduction of fossil gas projects under the P1 Scenario: -25% from the 2010 level by 2030, and -74% from 2010 level by 2050. ADB Safeguards NGO Forum on ADB has been engaging the ADB on its Safeguards Policy Statement and its implementation for the last decade. Issues of displacement in the Cambodia Railway Rehabilitation Project, Visayas Base Load Coal project, and its impact on public health and air pollution, Tata Mundra Power Plant impact on marine ecosystems are some of the flagship cases which have been brought to the bank’s attention. In all these cases the fundamental area of concern is the lack of meaningful consultations with affected communities in the project design phase of the project cycle. This continues to be a glaring weakness in ADB’s Safeguards delivery and has been cited by its IED’s evaluations in 2014, 2016, and the recent evaluation of 2020. Since 2013 the NGO Forum on ADB during each of the management sessions during the AGMs would look to the former ADB President to recommit to ‘No Dilution’ of the current Safeguards Policy Statement SPS 2009, and he did so without fail till his last term. We hope under your leadership we will see you uphold this critical commitment of ‘No Dilution’ to the SPS 2009 as well. The current policy does have its limitations – the language is very weak in ensuring private sector operations to be compliant to the SPS, this has also been validated by the IED 2020 report recently posted on their website. Financial Intermediaries especially have been grossly negligent of their SPS deliverables and there remain severe gaps in monitoring and evaluation from ADB on the FI borrowers. On the issue of Country Safeguards Systems the ADB has spent over 40 million USD in strengthening capacities in Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka etc., yet not a single CSS is optimal for SPS delivery. We hope the ADB will continue to take responsibility for delivering its own SPS until CSS achieve equivalency as articulated in the SPS 2009. COVID19 has also shown how vulnerable people are to health threats due to lack of adequate social protection and access to health care. To this end the most affected groups would be the project affected women, especially indigenous women, children, and people with disabilities. The other vulnerable sector coming to the forefront is the scores of workers in the project sites. Nam Ngiep 1 Vietnam witnessed an oxygen cylinder explosion leading to the death of 6 workers, yet the scope of the SPS could not even afford the families compensation let alone ensuring safety standards in the workplace. The upcoming SPS review should include binding safeguards for women, children, and people with disabilities. In the Gojra Shorkot Road Project, which was funded by ADB through an FI, the workers were left unpaid for over 6 months of wages, with several incidents of deaths due to occupational hazards. The subcontracting companies closed their doors, and the FI borrower could not hold them accountable, leaving the unpaid workers helpless without justice. The ADB pointed towards the SPS which failed to give any respite to the workers due to its ambiguous language on labor and non-binding wording on FI compliance. The SPS must have binding language on Core Labor Standards as a principal safeguard pillar. Pres. Asakawa, while ‘No Dilution’ is retained, we hope that the current gaps within the SPS policy are critically addressed in the upcoming review through a robust, open, and holistic consultation process with NGO Forum on ADB and civil society at large. The coming year will be of change and new ideas to help build a post COVID19 sustainable, healthy, and greener world. To do so, the bank must bring independent civil society voices into its planning and policy formulation. It is through listening to the voices on the ground that the bank will be able to address the development question, which it intends to solve. Pres. Asakawa, it is the people and the environment that are the true test of development outcomes, not the fractions of GDP rise. We hope the ADB is learning from this bitter experience of its misdirected export-oriented development paradigm and is looking to turn to meet the needs of vulnerable people and communities. The former president had committed publicly that all policy reviews by ADB will have civil society meaningfully consulted; we would not expect anything less from you. We wish you a productive and constructive AGM and hope your leadership can bring us to a better, inclusive, sustainable, and equitable Asia. Respectfully, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by: 350.org, Asia 350.org Pilipinas, Philippines ADAB (Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh), Bangladesh Akhuwat-E-Kissan Pakistan, Pakistan Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippines Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development, Asia Association des Démocrates Thaïlandais Sans Frontières, France Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center, United States of America Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda BWI Asia Pacific, Philippines Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines Center for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Change Initiative, Bangladesh CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Collective for Economic Justice, India Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt, South Asia Community Development Friend (CDF), Bangladesh Community Empowerment and Social Justice (CEMSOJ) Network, Nepal Development Synergy Institute (DSI), Bangladesh DIGNIDAD Coalition, Philippines Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal Environmental Public Society, Armenia Environics Trust, India Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Friends of the Earth US, US Gender Action, Global Global Social Justice, Belgium Growthwatch, India Hape Development and welfare Association , Pakistan Human Rights Law Network, India Indian Social Action Forum, India Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, United States International Association of People's Lawyers, Australia International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, Tajikistan Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-KsK Friends of the Earth, Philippines Life Haven CIL , Philippines Lumiere Synergie pour le Developpement, Senegal Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan National Development Programme (NDP), Bangladesh Nepal Integrated Development Initiatives (NIDI), Nepal NGO "Youth Group on Protection of Environment" , Tajikistan NGO Forum Cambodia, Cambodia NIDAN, India Observatoire d’Etudes et d’Appui à la Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale (OEARSE), Congo Oil Change International, International Oil-Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Phenix Center for Economic Studies, Jordan Program on Alternative Development, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative & Development Studies, Philippines Progressive Plantation Workers Union, India Recourse, The Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries SPELL-Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning, Philippines Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Urgewald, Germany WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth For Environment Education And Development Foundation (YFEED Foundation), Nepal Cc: ADB Executive Directors ADB Alternate Executive Directors 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 Vice-President Operations 2 Chief of Energy Sector Group, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Director General, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Director, Safeguards Division Director-General of Independent Evaluation at ADB Director, Thematic and Country Division ADB's NGO and Civil Society Center (NGOC) [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/mass-testing-alerts-and-big-fines-the-strategies-used-in-asia-to-slow-coronavirus [2]M. Ayhan Kose, Peter Nagle, Franziska Ohnsorge, and Naotaka SugawaraGlobal Waves of Debt: Causes and Consequences, World Bank Report, 2020 [3] https://eurodad.org/covid19-debt-FAQ [4]https://www.devex.com/news/g20-imf-deliver-on-debt-relief-but-more-is-needed-experts-say-97021 [5] IPCC, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, Summary for Policymakers, 14. [6] WRI, Toward Paris Alignment, 6. Download the letter here.

MR. MASATSUGU ASAKAWA President Asian Development Bank Dear President Asakawa; Good day. NGO Forum on ADB and the Coalition on Human Rights and Development (CHRD)along with other civil society organizations around the world are demanding the ADB to ensure that the funding and support they provide as part of the Covid-19 response, and during the economic recovery period, respect human rights and leads to economic justice for those who are most vulnerable to the pandemic and its social, economic, and political consequences. A significant amount of DFI support is going toward governments and other clients with poor human rights records. There are gaps in transparency and accountability. And in many cases, the money will go to corporations and banks and may never reach those who are the most vulnerable. At the same time, the focus on combating the spread of Covid-19 has created additional risks and challenges for those standing up for their rights or speaking out against development activities that are harming them and their communities. Thus, Covid-19 is both a test and an opportunity for DFIs to align their policies and practices with laws, policies, and standards on human rights and responsible business conduct. DFIs’ response to Covid-19 should support equitable and universal access to healthcare, food, water, and other essential services. This includes avoiding projects that harm the environment, displace people, increase surveillance and militarization risks, or threaten sustainable livelihoods and food security. Taking a human rights-based approach to the development will also help address project and portfolio risks, and channel funds in a way that is most impactful for people, peoples, and the planet. We have attached our official statement and demands we see significant during these trying times.  The elements in the letter should be seen as a supplemental input from civil society towards the upcoming ADB SPS review. Respectfully yours, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Read the declaration here.

Mr. Jin Liqun President Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Beijing, China Dear Pres. Liqun; Good day. NGO Forum on ADB and the Coalition on Human Rights and Development (CHRD) along with other civil society organizations around the world are demanding the AIIB to ensure that the funding and support they provide as part of the Covid-19 response, and during the economic recovery period, respect human rights and leads to economic justice for those who are most vulnerable to the pandemic and its social, economic, and political consequences. A significant amount of DFI support is going toward governments and other clients with poor human rights records. There are gaps in transparency and accountability. And in many cases, the money will go to corporations and banks and may never reach those who are the most vulnerable. At the same time, the focus on combating the spread of Covid-19 has created additional risks and challenges for those standing up for their rights or speaking out against development activities that are harming them and their communities. Thus, Covid-19 is both a test and an opportunity for DFIs to align their policies and practices with laws, policies, and standards on human rights and responsible business conduct. DFIs’ response to Covid-19 should support equitable and universal access to healthcare, food, water, and other essential services. This includes avoiding projects that harm the environment, displace people, increase surveillance and militarization risks, or threaten sustainable livelihoods and food security. Taking a human rights-based approach to the development will also help address project and portfolio risks, and channel funds in a way that is most impactful for people, peoples, and the planet. We have attached our official statement and demands we see significant during these trying times.  The elements in the letter should be seen as a supplemental input from civil society towards the ongoing AIIB ESF review. Respectfully yours, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Read the statement here.