Search Results

Manila, Philippines - As the first part of Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) 2020 Annual Meeting commences today NGO Forum on ADB urges ADB President Masatsugu Asakawa to take immediate action to address ADB's influence on Asian debt, GHG emissions, and adverse environmental and social impacts of its project operations. NGO Forum on ADB observed that the ADB's USD 20 billion-recovery package is predominantly loans with only 2 billion USD as grants! Both the IMF[1] and G20 have committed to debt relief measures as of May 2020[2]. The Forum network calls out President Masatsugu Asakawa 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. Sreedhar Ramamurthi, from Environics Trust, India stated that “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 their 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’”. Regarding ADB’s energy investments, Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB states that the “ADB Energy Policy 2009 is draconian and outdated and heavily embedded in coal and fossil fuels.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.” Gerry Arrances, from Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) Philippines states “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.” Director Hassan further states ‘Post Pandemic the ADB must emphasize on clean energy infrastructure and transition to zero emissions immediately. Renewable energy-driven microgrid communities (solar and wind) is the future of energy investment, ADBs recovery plan must decouple from all fossil fuel use immediately’. At the ADB project impact level, NGO Forum on ADB cites ‘lack of meaningful consultations’ with affected communities in the ADB infrastructure project design phase of as the main reasons for its adverse impact on nature and people. The Forum calls out to the ADB President Masatsugu Asakawa on this 53rd annual meeting, to ensure proactive information disclosure and meaningful consultation with local communities and civil society in all ADB projects from design to implementation phases. The Asia wide network also urges the ADB President to uphold the critical commitment of ‘No Dilution’ to the SPS 2009, to uphold human rights and environmental sustainability. This message was reinforced by Muatar Khaydarova, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, Tajikistan “an important aspect of ADB activities remains access to public information on ADB projects, consultations with civil society, as well as involving CSO and affected population to the participation in the decision-making process and during the implementation of the projects by ADB in Central Asia.” Prabindra Shakya from Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network, Nepal says “COVID-19 pandemic has seriously threatened our civilizations and ways of life and revealed our weak economic and public health systems. While countries such as Nepal have been struggling to fight back and contain the spread of the coronavirus, the marginalized population groups such as daily wage earners, farmers, indigenous communities and migrant workers are not only more vulnerable to the disease but have also been disproportionately impacted by the virus containment measures and hardships thereof." Vidya Dinker, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India 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 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 will the bank be able to address the development question, which it intends to solve. Mr. President, it is the quality of life of the people and the environment that are the true indicators of development outcomes not the fractions of national GDP rise. According to Apolinar Tolentino of Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI), “as the ADB will certainly take part in the post-COVID-19 recovery program particularly strengthening medical and health physical infrastructure, it must ensure that not only workers and trade union rights are freely exercised in these projects but also asbestos-containing materials are not used at all”. NGO Forum on ADB hopes that the Bank is learning from this bitter experience of its misdirected export-oriented development paradigm, and is looking towards to turn the ship to meet the climate crisis, address people's vulnerability and head towards a 'true' sustainable development pathway. [1] https://eurodad.org/covid19-debt-FAQ [2]https://www.devex.com/news/g20-imf-deliver-on-debt-relief-but-more-is-needed-experts-say-97021

The Coalition for Human Rights in Development calls on all development finance institutions (DFIs) to ensure that the funding and support they provide for the Covid-19 response, and during the economic recovery period, respects human rights and leads to economic justice for those who are most vulnerable. We are a global coalition of 98 social movements, grassroots groups, and civil society organizations advocating nationally and internationally for development to respect human rights and to be community-led. We work closely with communities affected by programs, policies and projects supported by DFIs, including multilateral development banks, national development banks, export credit agencies, and other international financial institutions. We see that Covid-19 and the ensuing economic lockdowns are having unequal impacts, hurting already vulnerable communities the most and exacerbating issues around inequality, violence, militarisation, and surveillance. DFIs have committed to contribute billions of dollars as part of the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic. While we recognize that the pandemic necessitates an urgent response, members and community partners of our coalition have concerns about the implications of DFI support and how this money will be spent 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 We therefore call on all DFIs to ensure that the funding and support they provide as part of the Covid-19 response, and during the economic recovery period, respects human rights and leads to economic justice for those who are most vulnerable to the pandemic and its social, economic, and political consequences. 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 militarisation risks, or threaten sustainable livelihoods and food security. Taking a human rights-based approach to 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. Recognizing that there are real challenges to meaningful consultation and participation due to the pandemic, especially in communities that are worst hit by the crisis, DFIs should take additional steps to support communities' access to the information, power and resources they need to determine their own development paths and priorities now, after the lockdowns, and in the aftermath of the pandemic, where changed contexts may impact civil society and community participation in development processes. This means DFIs should take steps to plan for the changed environment around reprisals and restricted freedoms, and ensure that their Covid-19 response supports, and does not hamper, communities’ ability to hold DFIs, governments, and other actors accountable, now and into the future. Accordingly, we urge all DFIs to: 1. Uphold human rights: Commit to and operationalise the human right to development, and other human rights principles in the appraisal, design, implementation and evaluation of supported projects and policies, during the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent recovery. Assess the human rights implications of financing decisions in a global context of heightened risks due to the Covid-19 crisis. Conduct ex ante human rights due diligence and risk assessments in project investments and in support for economic reform policies or programs. Ensure that these assessments are developed in close consultation with affected communities, and are updated iteratively based on changing conditions and new information. Engage with clients to ensure that development is participatory and rights respecting, and provide clients with additional support to implement rights-based approaches to projects, programs and policies, including delivery of services. 2. Provide immediate relief: Prioritize supporting immediate relief measures that enable access to adequate housing, food, water, sanitation, medical care, education, sustainable livelihoods, and other essentials during the Covid-19 health crisis and economic disruption. Where necessary, lift stringent criteria on financial returns to provide immediate relief. 3. Support the most vulnerable: Ensure inclusive and equitable access to social protection, relief, and recovery programs by targeting aid and other support toward those in greatest need, especially those who are most vulnerable to Covid-19 and the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. Notably, women, children, older people, people living with disabilities, LGBTQ people, Indigenous Peoples, people with precarious livelihoods, people living in slums and other informal settlements, people in conflict areas and other groups who are marginalised face unique challenges, related to higher risk of exposure to Covid-19 and vulnerability to economic disruptions, lockdowns, violence, militarisation, and surveillance. Examples of targeted support include: emergency shelter for those experiencing gender-based or domestic violence, mental health care and psychosocial support for groups at high risk, and sexual and reproductive health services. Ensure that Covid-19 related responses do not redirect resources from financial commitments and support that had been earmarked for vulnerable populations prior to the pandemic. 4. Support existing DFI affected communities: Communities and workers affected by ongoing DFI supported projects can be among the most vulnerable populations, sometimes facing increased risk because of past or ongoing harms related to DFI support. For example, communities who have been displaced or had their livelihoods disrupted by large industrial projects, or workers who suffer from health risks triggered by pollution from the projects, can have increased vulnerability to Covid-19. Take steps to address these increased vulnerabilities, including immediate consultations with communities and workers affected by projects that have verified findings of non-compliance and providing community-led, context-specific support. 5. Address growing poverty and inequality: Prioritize strengthening public institutions to support the social determinants of health, promoting universal access to essential services and fundamental needs, focussing on the most at-risk populations. Ensure that DFI support will not exacerbate inequality of access to health care through privatisation or public-private partnerships when they redirect resources away from public systems for delivery of health and other essential services. Additionally, support socio-economic programs -- like social protection floors, minimum basic incomes, and tax, fiscal and other policies that target those most in need -- that address the issues of rising poverty and inequality. 6. Uphold safeguards, transparency and accountability: In all ongoing and new projects, including existing projects being repurposed and funds channelled through financial intermediaries, require clients and sub-clients to: (a) comply with social and environmental safeguards (b) follow heightened levels of transparency and accountability standards, including by requiring clients and sub-clients to publicize involvement of DFIs in their activities and advertising the existence of the DFIs’ independent accountability mechanisms (c) carry out ex-ante human rights risk assessments and document management plans for heightened environmental, social, inequality and violence risks during the Covid-19 pandemic, and (d) indicate clearly and systematically which new projects are Covid-19 crisis related and also when existing projects are being repurposed to respond to the pandemic and its impacts. Monitor for corrupt practices at a level commensurate with the heightened risk of misuse and misappropriation of funds in crises. Enhance iterative disclosure processes, with concerted effort to provide updates to fill existing gaps in information on an ongoing basis, and timely translations of project documents into national and local languages of affected communities and Indigenous Peoples. 7. Communicate with communities and civil society: Ensure that projects, programs and policies use appropriate means of communication -- including through the use of radio, digital, and other communication technologies during lockdowns -- to secure participation from project-affected communities and civil society organisations, and free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and other communities who have similar rights. Reach out to communities and civil society to learn from them what they need to monitor development finance projects, policies and programs given Covid-19 related restrictions. Use safe and secure channels when communicating sensitive information or when there are risks of reprisals. Consider innovative ways and mediums of communication, including for different technological, socio-economic and cultural contexts, and ensure that such outreach specifically seeks to include people who experience discrimination and exclusion. 8. Protect civil society space and ensure safety from reprisals: Recognizing the critical role of civil society and human rights defenders in upholding accountability and supporting communities to engage with DFIs: ensure governments receiving emergency funds safeguard the ability of civil society organizations and human rights defenders to operate freely without fear of risk or retaliation; communicate with clients about change in the risks for defenders and communities due to the Covid-19 crisis, and stress the institution’s zero tolerance to reprisals; continuously monitor for changes in the risks (including issues related to militarisation, increased surveillance, or patterns of abuse by private or state actors) for defenders or anyone raising their voices around activities financed by DFIs, and adapt operations such that they do not exacerbate those risks during the pandemic, and the recovery; especially during lockdowns, avoid or suspend activities that exacerbate reprisal risks or where reprisal risks are higher, for example, if communities have raised environmental and human rights concerns, or where the DFI is unable to adequately respond to communities’ concerns, or where consultation with affected communities cannot be conducted at a level required according to DFI standards; if activities with reprisal risks are considered necessary for the immediate Covid-19 response, based on objective and transparent criteria, consult closely with affected communities and civil society, and make best efforts to eliminate reprisal risks, including by meaningfully addressing the communities’ underlying concerns about the projects, programs or policies; ensure that Covid-19 response funds do not support the use of digital contact tracing or other surveillance technologies, unless: such technologies are scientifically justified and genuinely effective in curbing the spread of Covid-19, meet necessity and proportionality standards for restrictions on privacy and other rights, are non-discriminatory and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent abuses; and include clauses in financing agreements that explicitly describe expected client behaviour around risks of reprisals and reprisal allegations. 9. Protect the planet: Ensure that support from DFIs does not go towards projects and subprojects that threaten the right to a healthy environment through environmental destruction and degradation, and jeopardize ecosystems and ecological resources, which Indigenous Peoples and local communities may depend on for their livelihoods. In recognition of the climate crisis and that the most marginalised communities are often hurt first and worse by climate change, any support should be in alignment with the Paris Agreement on climate change 10. Private sector support should reach the most vulnerable: Ensure, through contractual and other means, that funds going to the private sector, including to financial intermediaries, are linked to and directed towards protecting the most vulnerable, for example, to support re-tooling manufacturing facilities to make personal protective equipment, or to support workers. Require clients and sub-clients to maintain payroll and other commitments to workers (including sub-contracted workers), and incorporate better worker protections, including paid sick and family leave, occupational health and safety, and where applicable childcare, health insurance, and other protection measures. Prohibit using the funds to support stock buybacks, executive bonuses and other practices that disproportionately benefit shareholders and executives over other stakeholders and rights holders. Require clients to disburse funds in a timely manner to intended beneficiaries who are most affected by the crisis rather than stockpile money to protect their own balance sheets 11. Cancel public debt payments: Ensure that any support provided will not exacerbate the debt profile of beneficiary countries, including by focussing on grants or highly concessional lending that takes into account changing macroeconomic conditions such as exchange rates and other factors. Cancel debt payments for borrowing countries at least until the end of 2020, and beyond if necessary to protect access to health, water, sanitation, food, education, and other essential social services. Collaborate with other DFIs to support a call for debt cancellation by private sector actors, and take other steps to support countries to address challenges in servicing existing debt due to the pandemic and its response. Ensure that support during Covid-19 response and recovery will not result in cutbacks in public expenditure that will negatively impact human rights in the long-run. Download the pdf version here.

by Ammar Ali Jan We are passing through one of the gravest crises faced by humanity to which no one can afford to be indifferent and neutral. The crisis has been exacerbated in Pakistan due to the economic disparities in society, the authoritarian structure of the state and the incompetence of the current government led by Imran Khan. The result is widespread panic and fear as people struggle to come to terms with a drastically transformed reality. The large class divide in Pakistan makes it impossible to create a “national” response to the crisis. The abrupt lockdown announced by the government last month created a particularly difficult situation for food-insecure households, as the state failed to create adequate welfare schemes for those on the margins. What is worse is that factories began dismissing thousands of workers minutes before the lockdown was announced in order to avoid paying their salaries for the period of the closure. The incident highlights the precarious nature of work in contemporary Pakistan, as jobs remain insecure and workers disposable for the bosses. The result is that millions are caught between choosing hunger and disease, as desperation mounts across working class neighborhoods. Sporadic protests have occurred in Karachi and Lahore, with hungry people becoming even more vulnerable to catching the deadly virus in order to fight for their lives and those of their loved ones. For an economy with large numbers of insecure, uninsured, temporary, daily wagers and part-time workers to receive health care alongside universal basic payments, we need radical redistribution of wealth. Yet, instead of considering wealth redistribution, richer neighborhoods have started patrolling their entry points to ward off unwanted elements (essentially the poor). This policy follows a longer history of “social distancing” in the region based on class and race. In Lahore, the first urban check-posts were built by the British at the Mian Mir Cantonment to keep locals away from British officers, as the former were feared to be vectors of dangerous diseases. The nexus of hygiene, militarization and apartheid then have a long history in South Asia that is coming into sharp relief during the current crisis. It should be kept in mind that Pakistan is the 7th most vulnerable country in the world when it comes to climate change. Yet, our excessive indebtedness forces the state to improve its balance of payments in order to increase exports. Since Pakistan does not have a large-scale industrial base, we are forced to open up our natural resources to foreign companies in order to pay back the impossible debts they have accumulated. Moreover, the drive to increase exports also leads to unsustainable practices of agriculture that produce quick profits in the short term but result in ecological ruin in the long run, adversely affecting the poorest sections in the countryside. What is clear is that Pakistan must abandon the illusion of endless growth that has been thrust upon us for the past seventy years since independence. In our desire to “catch-up” to the West, successive governments have facilitated the country’s industrial elites while neglecting social sectors and repressing demands for wealth distribution. Although we were told that the generation of wealth at the top would trickle down in the form of jobs and taxes, we have instead witnessed the emergence of monstrous monopolies that have little regard for labour or environmental laws, and are notoriously efficient at escaping the tax net. The achievement of this “development” acquired after decades of subsidies to the elites is that we have not even managed to provide safe drinking water to citizens, with 40 percent of deaths occurring in Pakistan due to waterborne diseases. There are also murmurings of discontent over the bloated budget of the military. The cost of our military budget has exposed the inadequate attention paid to our health and education sectors, as well as leaving few funds for productive economic development. With COVID-19 and other epidemic and climate catastrophes on the horizon, it is clear that Pakistan cannot afford to perpetuate fantasies of regional domination or carry the burden of bloated militaries that are more often used against our own people. The centrality of the military (as well as the police) within the state apparatus has led to fears that the lockdown could provide the state with an opportunity to strengthen its authoritarian grip over society. Indeed one of the darkest discussions on the lockdown and coronavirus has revolved the authoritarian structure of the state. These discussions have been led by activists from the marginalized provinces of Balochistan and Sindh, where hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances have taken place. These missing persons are often abducted by the security officials but their presence is not officially acknowledged, suspending them in a liminal place between life and death. With coronavirus, this invisible space has acquired a medical reality, as activists ask the subversively naïve question on whether the missing persons are being kept in quarantine. It appears that COVID-19 has the magical power to render visible those whose existence was erased from official statistics. Much like other South Asian countries, WhatsApp groups are now the central sites promoting doubts about government and medical claims regarding COVID-19. However, in a society that has faced repression for decades and has authoritarian social and political structures, it is to be expected that rumours and doubts will always have a potent life in the public imagination. But the confusion intensified due to the chaotic manner in which the country’s populist leader, Imran Khan, directs the fight against the virus. Khan’s strategy could be considered rather comical if the repercussions weren’t so dire. In the initial phase of the crisis, the Prime Minister remained silent about the impending threat posed by the virus. Indeed, until mid-March, the only major debate on health was the government’s attempt to privatize the healthcare sector at the behest of the IMF, which prompted protests by health workers across the province of Punjab. Yet, as the government of the southern province of Sindh led by Khan’s rival PPP gathered praise for its swift response to the crisis, the federal government began contemplating its strategy. Khan eventually addressed the nation on the seriousness of the crisis, while at the same time insisting that a lockdown is not possible due to the state of the economy. The following day, a lockdown was announced by the government, fueling rumours that the country’s real powerbroker, the military, was undertaking “political distancing” from the prime minister’s erratic conduct. The situation, however, provides Khan with an opportunity to distance himself from the difficult decisions being taken. He can claim to be opposed to a crackdown on religious congregations while his police battles extremists, and disagree with a lockdown even as his administration puts the country to a halt. Pakistan under Khan is a classic example of exercising sovereignty without responsibility as the state abandons the public in the midst of this unprecedented emergency. The result of this double game is that the government machinery is nowhere to be seen as desperate people wait for government support in the form of food and funds. Perhaps it is this persistent uncertainty that transforms the virus into an unknown entity that is shaking reality as we know it. The absence of a concrete enemy deprives the public of the language to explain this force that has shattered the flow of time, creating a linguistic crisis as well. We try to understand this novel threat by borrowing language from the past, mapping the virus onto historically existing cleavages in society and amplifying social fissures in the process. Yet, incredible grassroots initiatives are being taken by ordinary people to help the most vulnerable households. I have volunteered with the Haqooq-e-Khalq Movement’s Labour Relief Campaign, an initiative providing solidarity to working class families while demanding that the government provide job security and social welfare. Mutual aid groups led by the youth are springing up across the country, with hundreds of people volunteering their services in scenes reminiscent of a spiritual awakening. Such efforts offer a glimpse into a very different Pakistan, one premised upon horizontal solidarity among citizens united in the pursuit of justice and dignity. The coronavirus is not a politically neutral issue. As one of the gravest threats to modern civilization, it has emerged as the most concentrated expression of the social, economic and political contradictions that shape our global order. We cannot treat it as an aberration in the generally smooth functioning of the system. More health crises are looming, while a climate catastrophe threatens the very fabric of our existence. There is no point of return from these crises. Our current uncertainty is accelerating the process in which a section of humanity is deemed disposable, cementing apartheid for the poor as well ethnic and religious minorities. On the other hand, the pervasive feeling that the old world has lost its vitality in the face of COVID-19 has the potential to open up possibilities for imagining a radically different, and perhaps better future. Such an ambitious undertaking would paradoxically require an immensely humbling admission. At the moment, we no longer possess the language to even comprehend the present, let alone one that can allow us to plan for the future. Ammar is a writer, historian, teacher and member of Haqooq e Khalq Movement.

Bangladesh is one of the World’s most densely populated countries with a total population of around 170 million. Bangladesh had its first case of COVID-19 reported on 7 March 2020. The spread of infections saw a steep rise in April. As of May 1, there are a total of 8238 confirmed cases, and 170 deaths in the country (IEDCR). Experts have warned that the number of test conducted is largely insufficient, which may lead to a humanitarian crisis in terms of public health. On 22 March, Bangladesh declared a 10-day shut down effective from 26 March to 4 April. This was later extended to 5 May. Lockdown measures in Bangladesh (though flexible in nature) have largely exposed the deeply embedded economic and social inequality of the society. The already vulnerable living conditions of the informal sector workers have massively deteriorated during the lockdown period. The lack of institutional capacity of the state, along with the lack of social safety nets for low-income communities have made the situation even worse. We have observed lately that the measures of an aggressive lockdown model even with a very high economic cost associated with it, are considered to be reasonably acceptable in the high-income societies. However, the low-income countries like Bangladesh are structurally dissimilar in terms of demographic and socio-economic composition. As a large number of people in these countries are associated with the informal sector, operating on daily wages; experts have previously warned that a Western style ‘lockdown’ model with no supplementary emergency food relief efforts from the government could cause widespread hunger and malnutrition, ultimately leading to an exponential spread of the virus. The collapse of the informal sector In Bangladesh, as much as 86 percent of the workforce depends on the informal sector activities primarily operating under daily contracts, sub-contracts or sometimes with no contract (BBS, 2018). These ‘informal’ economic activities are casual, unskilled, low income, largely fluctuating and seasonal, with no fixed working hours. A large number of workers in Dhaka city, either stay in informal settlements, make shift slums, construction sites, or other worksites which expose them to a number health hazards. Many sleep in public places, parks, streets and sidewalks, and the degree of vulnerability is worsened by the hostile treatment by urban authorities. The capacity of informal sector workers to adjust to lockdown measures is severely restricted due to already existing conditions of vulnerability linked with their legal, economic, and social status associated with the characteristics of the informal sector employment which assures no guaranteed protection in case of sudden termination. Migrant Workers (construction/garments/domestic) It is estimated that more than 3.5 million workers in Bangladesh work in the construction sector including the carpenters, technicians, electricians, machine operators, and shutter workers (BBS, 2018). As most construction workers in the city work under a temporary sub-contract basis, they lack formal appointment records. Mojibor, a 28 year old construction worker living in a construction site in Dhanmondi reveals that the contractor asked as many as 60 of them (residing in the same site) to go back to their homes right after the shutdown was announced. None of them received full payment for the month of March. According to Mojibor, almost all workers residing in that particular site are migrant workers who shifted to the city in recent months. As they were given a place to stay, and had no other place to go, the only choice left for them was to move back to their respective villages. As daily wage workers, often with no savings, they ended up spending the little money they had on their desperate plight to reach home. Meanwhile, the other migrant workers (mostly, garments workers) chose to leave the city after the government’s announcement of a 20 days shutdown. Due to the limited number of vehicles and restrictions placed on transportation, these workers had no other choice but to put themselves at risk of contracting the virus as they were exposed to massive crowds and crowded buses on their journey back home. The rest who decided to stay back ran out of money in a week or so, and were forced to come out to streets to look for food. Either way, this population was exposed. Currently, the returned workers are either being viewed as the subject of pity, or as the ‘carrier of Corona’ in their own hometowns. A recent report revealed that Naraynganj has seen a steep rise of COVID-19 cases after a large number of textile workers returned to their hometowns. This particular situation has also led to widespread stigma against the returned workers. Thousands of domestic workers in Dhaka as well lost their employment during the crisis. Most gated communities or building authorities have prohibited domestic workers from entering these establishments. Some have received payments for the full month, others have not. No one had an idea when they would be able to start working again. Large numbers of them are seen to be searching for food on the streets of Dhaka. Retail and Wholesale Around 8.6 million people are working in both the retail and wholesale sectors in Bangladesh (BBS, 2018). Many of these workers work in the small local stores, motor repair shops, and roadside tea stalls. A large number of them also work as street vendors or vegetable/fruit sellers. Hundreds of vendors in Dhaka run shops outside permanent structures, and carry their commodities in small hand carts. Abdul Karim, a 45 year old door-mat seller, broke into tears when asked about his loss of income during the lockdown period in the Mirpur area. He revealed that as many as 5 people are dependent on his income and he currently has no money left to buy food. In his words, “we have been eating only boiled potatoes for the last 5 days. My children are hungry. I never begged in life, but now I am left with no other choice but to beg.” The several street vendors whom I have managed to talk to during the lockdown period in Dhanmondi all revealed similar realities. Most seemed angry as they felt completely left out. Many felt that a hurried plan for a ‘lockdown’ should have been followed by a proper scheme of relief programs for the informal workers. Transport and Agriculture It is important to note that an estimated 5.2 million workers are employed in the transport sector which includes drivers and helpers working in nearly 2 hundred thousand buses, trucks, minibuses, pick up vans, ambulances, and other different categories of human haulers. The lockdown announcement not only led to the loss of income for the transport workers, the stagnation in transportation has also caused a tragic collapse of the food supply chain. Firstly, farmers are unable to transport their grown vegetables to the wholesale market. Taking advantage of the transport crisis, a type of syndicate has quickly been formed with the intention of purchasing vegetables and other food grains from the farmers at a very low cost. Meanwhile, local administrations have shown no real commitment or capacity to keep the local supply chain functional. As a result, a massive amount of seasonal vegetables remain unsold in the villages. While farmers have fallen into deep distress with their seasonal produce rotting in the field, the price of vegetable skyrocketed in the capital city. Starvation, on the other hand, is in sharp rise. Recovery and Reality It is important to note that the Bangladesh government has declared several financial recovery packages to tackle the resulting economic crisis. A $5 billion dollar loan package is announced for the export oriented industries (including garments, shrimp, and leather) at a subsidized interest rate, while the agricultural sector has been majorly neglected (Daily Star, 2020). The informal sector employees are promised to be given a direct cash benefit of $90 million (New Age, 2020) which is clearly not sufficient for the 20 million people who have been directly affected by the crisis. Even if the package were rightly disbursed to the affected ones, each family is expected to receive a mere 3 dollars from the package. This is perhaps a classic example of the state’s sheer lack of commitment and accountability to the working class. COVID-19 has revealed a number of important realities in Bangladesh. Firstly, a decade of high economic growth has completely failed to distribute its benefits among the majority of the population. The collapse of the health sector and the insufficiency of existing social safety nets have exposed the lack of institutional capacity of the regime which has exclusively focused on the construction of highly expensive mega infrastructure development projects for more than a decade. It is clear that only a small section of the society in Bangladesh can afford to remain at home, while millions are left with no other choice but to search for food on the streets, exposing themselves to further risks of infection. While the health sector is struggling to keep up with the spiraling number of cases, loss of income and lack of access to food has compelled thousands of informal sector workers in the country to defy lockdown measures, leading to potentially rapid transmission of the virus. In other words, high levels of social inequality and an absence of social safety nets have made a ‘Western style lockdown model’ disproportionately hazardous to most Bangladeshis. References: (BBS) Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Labor Force Survey, Bangladesh 2016-2017. Ministry of Planning. 2018. Daily Bonikbarta. Kormohin Pray dui Koti Bekar (Around 20 million without work). March 31, 2020. Daily Star. PM unveils Tk 72,750cr package to address the impact of corona virus. April 5, 2020. (IEDCR) Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research. Government of Bangladesh. New Age. Tk 760cr cash incentive for jobless informal workers: PM. April 13, 2020

© Markus Spiske By Carmina Flores-Obanil The COVID19 pandemic has drastically changed how we all work and live. In the last two months, measures like social distancing, working from home, proper hand-washing, wearing masks and personal protective equipment, have permeated our daily lives. Governments of different countries have encouraged adoption of these measures to contain the spread of the virus which can be lethal, has no known cure yet, and is highly communicable. In some countries though, these measures were simply not enough to curb the spread of the virus, prompting governments to impose further control by adopting different and sometimes harsher versions of quarantines and lock downs. In Manila, Philippines where I am based, the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) imposed by the Duterte administration meant near total lockdown. All forms of public transportation were suspended, schools and malls were closed, and all businesses and stores considered non-essential were shuttered. Having experienced how hard it was living under a lock down, I wanted to better understand how grassroots and frontline communities are coping with the COVID19 situation and see how I can work in solidarity. I work as the Asia Regional Coordinator for the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, a global coalition of social movements, civil society organizations, and grassroots groups working together to ensure that human rights are at the center of development. In this capacity, I also coordinate our Community Engagement Partnerships, through which we collaborate with communities affected by internationally financed development projects to exchange strategic information and resources, strengthen capacities, and engage in collective action to defend human rights and promote community-led development. As we started hearing about the coronavirus and the lockdowns, we reached out to our community engagement partners to inquire about their situation and to assess if there were collective ways for us to support each other. I share below a small selection of the information we received and the trends below. Food and livelihoods remain the primary concern for communities, including those affected by internationally financed projects Hunger and loss of livelihoods are the most immediate concerns for the communities we reached out to. Across countries, the closure of businesses and non-essential industries due to lockdown and quarantine measures meant that people were forced to temporarily stop working. Daily wage earners in the informal sector including vendors, hawkers, transport drivers, and construction workers were most affected. Several of our community partners have been further affected because of the projects they have been resisting. “We received reports that the indigenous Dumagat-Remontados in Quezon province, within whose ancestral domain the controversial China Exim Bank funded Kaliwa Dam Project will be built, were being prevented from gathering food, medicine and firewood from their ancestral forest areas,” said Zeena Maglinong, secretary general of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), in the Philippines. "The restriction of movement around the dam site was put in place prior to the lockdown, but the Covid-19 quarantine exacerbates the Dumagat-Remontados already dire situation. The heavy presence of police and the military due to the quarantine has made it doubly hard for them to secure what they need from their forests." In Bangladesh, labourers of at least six (6) different coal power plants that are under construction are in a similarly difficult situation. "When the government declared the lockdown, some construction companies still continued operations and only stopped when the media published their violation of the government order. This left some workers stranded in the construction sites because they were not notified of the sudden closure. Some were told that construction work would stop but were not provided advance payment or compensation. The unavailability of public transport has left them stranded and their companies failed to provide any support," said Hasan Mehedi, Member Secretary of Bangladesh Working Group on Energy and Development (BWGED). Worsening already precarious health situations The spread of COVID19 is creating additional health risks for those with pre-existing health conditions due to environmental pollution from energy and extractives projects. “Coal power plant affected communities in the Philippines have no option but to simply cope with their existing health concerns. Prior to COVID19, these communities were already suffering adverse health impacts due to coal ash and smoke from the coal-fired power plants in their areas. With COVID19, people in the area are doubly vulnerable because their immune system have already been weakened due to the coal plant’s continuous operation. A few of our community members were rushed to the hospital emergency room last week due to difficulty in breathing, but were sent home after first aid, because public hospitals are full,” said Derek Cabe, a community organizer with the Coal Free Bataan Movement (CFBM), a province-wide coalition working with coal-impacted communities in Bataan, Philippines. “How can you be healthy when you are living in a polluted environment and you have no money to buy nutritious food?”, asks Cabe. “While the government is advising people to remain healthy, it is near impossible for the communities we are working in to stay healthy.” Projects are going ahead without meaningful community participation, but local organizations are still trying to find ways to engage Project construction on many projects that face resistance from local communities are still continuing as are approvals for new infrastructure development projects, despite restrictions on civil society to participate. “While civil society organisations and rights defenders are observing quarantine, government has continued issuing mining permits and mining activities are continuing. At least three different communities we are working report seeing an increase in illegal mining activities being conducted under the radar, especially by Chinese mining companies. These situations have resulted to increased tensions and added to the emotional and psychological burden of communities under quarantine.,” said Jaybee Garganera from Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), a national coalition of organizations and groups fighting destructive large-scale mining in the Philippines. “The Tanzanian government has adopted measures to fight the spread of Covid-19, which put limited restrictions on people. We have no information about how development projects are progressing and development financial institutions (DFIs) have also not stopped approving funding for different development projects, and with these circumstances, engagement with DFIs is difficult,” said Maria Matui, Coordinator of the Tanzania-based Network, Women Action Towards Economic Development (WATED). “The Ministry of Health initiated a virtual meeting with CSOs to discuss strategies and modalities to curb Covid-19, in particular, gender based violence issues. And we are using phone calls, messages and hopes to initiate radio programs to continue connecting with communities and continue engagement with government.” “In Uganda, the lockdown is negatively affecting our operations because no meetings are allowed, government institutions including courts have restricted operations, and public transport is curtailed. This is an advantage to evictors because they can more easily engage in arbitrary arrests and detention, , without communities being able to organise on the ground or seek relief from courts,” said Geoffrey Ssebaggala, Executive Director of Witness Radio, a Ugandan organization which investigates land investments projects with negative impacts on communities. Working online is limiting and not secure Lockdowns, social distancing and quarantine policies have required the closure of physical offices and larger meetings, forcing communities and civil society organizations (CSOs) they collaborate with to take their work online. Unfortunately, this has limited the interventions that communities and allied organizations can undertake. Many are using emails, phone calls, texts, video and call conferencing to communicate with partners, and their advocacy targets like governments. Our partner organisations in Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Laos and other places report working online is not easy given that many of them are working with rural communities and indigenous peoples’ who may not have access to the range of tools that enable one to work online. Many grassroots groups and local organisations do not have access to computers, laptops, smart phones, and reliable internet connectivity. These have made communication between communities and their partner organisations difficult and problematic. There are also increased risks of hacking, and surveillance, which increases risks for organisations and defenders who are working in sensitive and high-risk situations. One of our partners working with communities related how their virtual meeting was hacked and how they had to stop the meeting and restart again. Curtailed freedoms The lockdown has led to the curtailment of fundamental freedoms including, freedom of assembly, freedom of information, and even freedom of speech. “In Mongolia, we have seen the police stop any attempt to voice a protest even with just one or two persons doing live streaming,” said Sukhgerel Durgunsen, Director of Oyu Tolgoi (OT) Watch. “There have been arrests and people were detained without court orders while projects opposed by the public are being moved forward using lock down situation.” "The security forces have been deployed to impose the quarantine and those who violate the lockdown have been arrested.," reports Durga Yamphu, from the Lawyers' Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP). "There is insufficient information about COVID19 for indigenous peoples. COVID19 materials have not been translated into different indigenous languages. This coupled with police arrests have raised indigenous peoples’ psychological fears about the disease. Indigenous communities such as Shanthal, Ghale, Gurung, Tharu, Thakali decided to act through their own traditional institutions on how to cope with this pandemic and imposed village quarantines and lockdown, while coordinating with the government to deal with the pandemic." There is still hope Fortunately, there is still hope even in the bleakest situation. In all the countries we reached out to, CSOs and local community organizations have taken on the challenge of supporting the communities they have been working in or with. In the Philippines, organizations like FDC, CFBM, ATM, provided financial aid and relief packages for marginalized fisher folk communities, indigenous peoples. The Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) in Kolkata, has organized food aid for shopkeepers who already lost their source of income when they were temporarily displaced by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Project (KEIIP). The Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), a civil society network in Bangladesh pooled their salaries to respond in these tough times for the communities they were working with. The money was used to provide food assistance, handwashing soaps and sanitizers. NGO Forum on ADB, a regional organization doing advocacy and campaign with Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) also initiated a fund drive to help their members respond to the needs of the communities they are working with. Additionally, despite the odds, several communities are continuing to fight for their rights, and even having successes. For example, Ssebaggala shared “A petition lodged with the Lands Ministry in Uganda resulted in Lands Minister Betty Kamya announcing that there will be no evictions during the COVID19 lockdown.” New Normal Unfortunately, if the number of people infected daily is any indication, the COVID19 pandemic is far from over and the crisis and its impacts will remain for the immediate future. The stories shared by communities are real, and demand immediate solutions. An unnamed Filipina interviewed by a TV news reporter was asked why she is out and whether she was not afraid of getting COVID19 replied quite candidly, “kung bahay lang po ako at di lalabas para maghanap ng ikabubuhay, hindi nga po sa virus, pero sa gutom naman po kami mamamatay.” (If I will stay at home and stop working, we will not be killed by the virus, but we will also die because of hunger.) This is the new normal and it is a challenge for all of us. A challenge to seek ways to ensure that the rights of communities are still protected, and that their most immediate needs are addressed. A challenge to stop the inhumane and unequal system which the pandemic has exposed from continuing into a post-Covid world. A challenge to make sure our collective energy and resources, and the governments and the financial institutions who act in our names, work for those amongst us who are most vulnerable. Carmina is the Asia Regional Coordinator of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.

The year was 1969, Marcopper Mining Corporation (MMC) began their mining operation in Marinduque, Philippines. With a $40-million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Placer Dome, Inc., promising 30,000 tons of run-of-mine output per day. Placer Dome, which is 40% owner of MMC, secured and guaranteed the loans from the ADB. During its operation, the Marinduqueños experienced a series of environmental mining-related disasters.​​ In spite of numerous actions made by local communities and non-government organizations (NGOs), and surviving cease-and-desist orders by the National Pollution Control Commission during the Martial Law, MCC continued its operation. It was later found out that 50% of the company was owned by the late president Ferdinand Marcos through four front companies. (Roja Salvador, 2001) Later on the ADB and Placer Dome agreed to transfer the bank’s interest to MR Holdings, Ltd., which is a company created by Placer based in the Cayman Islands. (Keith Damsell, May 1999) Around US$20 million was paid to the ADB. After the payment of the outstanding loan and return of the Covenant, the project documents at the Bank were no longer accessible. ADB stated that it is no longer involved in the project and the project is not covered by the 1994 Information Disclosure Policy. (James Esguerra, July 2003).​​ The ADB washed off its hands from the tragedy. AFFECTED COMMUNITIES Calancan Bay For 16 years, Marcopper dumped 200 million tons of mine tailings in Calancan Bay via surface disposal. This was done without the consent of the villagers whose main source of food and livelihood rely on the bay. The mine spill covered 80 square kilometers of the rich corals and sea grasses of the bay. This affected 2,000 fishing families, leaving them in the brink of starvation. (Catherine Coumans, 2005) Houses and rice fields were covered with dust storms. Mogpog River A dam was constructed in the Maguila-Guila Creek in 1991 inspite of the protests by the local communities because of its potential negative impact on their food source and water. The project aimed to hold back the contaminated silt from the San Antonio pit. After two years, the dam collapsed. Downstream villages were flooded, houses were swept away, livestock, poultry, and crops were destroyed. Two children were also swept by the flash flood. The collapse of the dam did not only cause contamination of the river but also eruption of skin diseases, plastic anemia and metal poisoning of the villagers. (Aguillon, 2004) Placer Dome denied its responsibility, blaming the tragedy to typhoon Lando. However, the rehabilitation of the dam included an overflow, which is in a way acknowledging that faulty engineering caused the disaster. (Coumans, 2005) Bagtuk, a specie of crab that people consume for subsistence, completely disappeared after the tragedy. Boac River Massive tailings spilled into the 26-km long Boac River in 1996. The river was contaminated with three to four million tons of metal enriched and acid generating tailings immediately after a badly-sealed drainage tunnel at the base of Tapian pit burst. This translated to around 1.6 million liters of waste that spilled into the river, killing the river instantly. This prompted a team from the United Nations to investigate the extent of the impact that the Marinduque Mine Spill, as what the tragedy has been called ever since, has caused the environment and the townsfolk. UN identified unacceptable levels of heavy metals in some parts of the river and toxic wastes leaching into the river due to faulty waste rock siltation of the dam. The Department of Health and the University of the Philippines (DOH-UP) the following year, 1997, conducted health studies and concluded heavy metal contamination due to the use of the river as run-off for Marcopper’s disposal site since the 1970s.(Aguillon, 2004) The DOH-UP investigative team found out unacceptable lead and mercury level in seven of the 22 children tested; two adults tested positive for lead contamination. They also collected blood, air and soil samples in and 7 km out from the causeway. All of the 59 children tested proved to have unacceptable levels in their blood; 25 percent of them had unacceptable blood cyanide levels. Also, the soil samples have unacceptable levels of lead, cadmium and elevated levels of copper and zinc. Lead values were present in the air samples, exceeding the standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency. (Aguillon, 2004) Placer Dome spent almost US$80 million for compensation, medical treatment, infrastructure development, river rehabilitation, flood risk assessment and water projects. However, it still maintains its position that it has no responsibility for the tragedies in Calancan Bay and Mogpog River, claiming these events as accidents. The people of Marinduque will forever be reminded of this tragedy and how the funder of the project bailed out on them when things starts crumbling down. Then we ask the question #isADBgoodorbad? References: Aguillon, Rowil. “Mining Debt: A Victim’s Point of View.” 1/31/04. (www.jubileesouth.org/journal/mining.htm) Coumans, Catherine, Ph.D. “Phillipine Province Files Suit Agains Placer Dome – Background.” 10/4/05. (www.miningwatch.ca) Esguerra, James. “Case Study Four: Marcopper Mining Corporation (Philippines).” ADB and the Environment: A Monitoring Framework for the ADB’s Environment Policy. PRRM, NGO Forum on ADB: Manila, 2003. Salvador, Roja. “Undermined.” Community & Habitat. Is. 9. PRRM: Manila. 2001. Photo credits to: http://miningwatch.ca/blog/2013/10/18/philippines-marinduque-pushed-wall-barrick-gold http://marinduquegov.blogspot.com/2013_02_01_archive.html http://globalnation.inquirer.net/118506/nevada-high-court-hears-marinduque-mine-disaster-lawsuit http://news.abs-cbn.com/image/nation/regions/03/24/16/20-years-after-marcopper-disaster

MR. MASATSUGU ASAKAWA President Asian Development Bank (ADB) Dear Pres. Asakawa, On behalf of 57 civil society organizations (CSOs) across different regions endorsing this letter, the NGO Forum on ADB would like to be among the first to welcome you on your new role. NGO Forum on ADB (“Forum”) is a network of over 250 CSOs that have been monitoring the projects, programs, and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and has been active since 1992. We are looking forward to working with you closely, especially on addressing the needs of communities affected by problematic ADB funded projects. For years, the Forum has been actively engaging the ADB on different levels. In 1994, the Forum conducted the first NGO regional consultation on ADB policies in issues, and by 1995 NGO Forum network members created a critique of ADB’s draft policies on information disclosure, involuntary resettlement, energy, forestry, fisheries, and women[i]. Two years later, in 1997, NGO Forum on ADB has made its involvement with the Bank official by conducting a series of parallel events titled ‘Questioning ADB at 30: Myth vs Reality’. This was during the 30th ADB Annual Meeting in Fukuoka, Japan. By 2004, as the ADB aimed to strengthen its relationship with CSOs, NGO Forum on ADB had its first panel session during the 37th governor’s meeting in Jeju, South Korea. NGO Forum on ADB has also been on the frontline when it comes to providing critical analysis on the ADB Accountability Mechanism in 2008, as well as the Public Communications Policy in 2011. The Forum has also submitted a critical analysis about the Bank’s Strategy 2030 and has participated in the consultation process. In 2018, NGO Forum on ADB has taken an active role in ADB’s energy investments. Through the ‘Decarbonize ADB’ campaign, the Forum has continued to put pressure to the Bank to shift from fossil fuel investment towards renewable energy. In terms of direct engagement with the ADB, the NGO Forum on ADB has maintained active dialogue at all levels of operations and management of the bank. Our network structure entails our local civil society organization members to actively engage project developers, local government authorities, project staff and ADB resident missions across South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central Asia. While our members are actively involved in the ground, our international secretariat is located here in Quezon City, which allows us direct access to the ADB Headquarters in Ortigas. We have raised project and policy issues with the ADB Board of Directors, especially the US, Japan, Europe and donor government shareholders. Consequently, we have an ongoing dialogue with the operations departments of South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central Asia. Along with affected communities and local civil society we have met with respective project leads and Director Generals of the bank throughout the years and we hope to continue those constructive discussions to address project-related issues and concerns. On the policy advocacy side, the NGO Forum on ADB is actively in dialogue with the Sustainable Development and Climate Change (SDCC) Department, especially on the ADB Safeguards Policy and Energy Policy and Program review processes. Similarly, we also engage the ADB Independent Evaluation (IED) Department on their current evaluations of the above policies and provide them with ground information coming from our members. The NGO Forum on ADB also engages the Accountability Mechanism function of the bank and maintains a constructive engagement with the Compliance Review Panel and the Office of the Special Project Facilitator. On the overall civil society engagement with the bank, we also maintain a coordinated communication with the NGO Center of the ADB, who helps in co-creating space for civil society input in the policy review process, Annual meetings and audience with the ADB President during the Management session with civil society during the Annual Meeting. As you embark on this appointment, we call for your leadership to ensure that there will be: Meaningful consultation particularly with the project - affected persons (PAPs) in all phases of the project cycle. In the ADB 2018 Learning Report on the Implementation of the Accountability Mechanism Policy, the bank found out that 19% of the complaints received pertain to issues on information, consultation and participation (2016 - 2018). Potential adverse impacts such as displacement, payment of inadequate compensation or loss of livelihood could be reduced, if not totally avoided if these meaningful consultations are adequately undertaken. The 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement already provides a strong language on what it requires to have a “meaningful consultation” i.e. implemented in all phases of the project cycle, information is understandable and accessible to the PAPs, undertaken in an environment free of intimidation or coercion, gender-inclusive and enables incorporation of relevant views of the PAPs and other stakeholders. Under your leadership, we expect that the operations department particularly the Private Sector Operations Department will have more robust consideration and exercise due diligence in ensuring that this safeguard is protected. In the same manner, we also call for your office to continue the commitment made by then ADB President Takahiko Nakao that CSOs will be proactively consulted on major policy reviews (emphasis supplied).[ii] Ensure effective, thorough implementation and no dilution of safeguards. In the past decade, there has been a recognition of the trend for an “upward harmonization” of safeguards and environmental & social frameworks across different multilateral development banks (MDBs) for reducing risk and increasing sustainability. Unfortunately, at some MDBs, this has been translated into policies that are so flexible as to be unenforceable or at best ambiguous.[iii] It is in this light that NGO Forum on ADB expects the Bank to continue protecting the strong language on safeguards e.g. on information disclosure, gender considerations, meaningful consultation, etc., and to strengthen safeguards on climate change and resource efficiency to fully align with the SDGs and Paris Agreement 1.5 degree target. Furthermore, the bank can be a progressive MDB leader by having equally strong safeguards on gender, labor, vulnerable groups and better framework for financial intermediaries. It should maintain in exercising caution with the use of country safeguard systems and focus instead in systematically strengthening it. We remind ADB that it is in its own interest, and that of its clients, to ensure that these safeguards remain not only on paper but are properly implemented in all phases of the project cycle. End of ADB support for fossil fuels by end of 2020 and craft a transition plan with more ambitious targets to achieve carbon-neutral development in Asia. In order for ADB to be more responsive and not exacerbate the climate crisis, it must not be business as usual.Indeed, a true “progressive” approach requires urgent action to protect and conserve both people and planet by moving as fast as feasible to carbon neutrality. The Bank should adopt a Paris - aligned policy that accelerates and prioritizes clean energy and climate agenda without false solutions. Specifically, it is high time for the Bank to commit its resources to enable clients to achieve a rapid phase-out of all existing coal-fired power plants and ensure that it proactively assist developing member countries for a low-carbon transition pathway. The NGO Forum on the ADB and our CSO partners welcome the news that the ADB will refrain from allowing the use of asbestos products in projects. We hope that this decision and the introduction of rigorous compliance mechanisms will prevent the hazardous cancer-causing substance being delivered as part of infrastructure and community building projects. Asbestos has been banned in many of the ADB developing member countries for years or decades and we welcome the decision to support efforts to reduce asbestos exposure and by extension asbestos related diseases in developing member countries. Address historical accountability. In 2017 when the ADB had reached its 50th year, the NGO Forum on ADB raised the issue of the historical responsibility of ADB’s project impacts before its safeguard policies and redress mechanisms. Many projects such as the Khulna Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project (KJDRP) in Bangladesh, Marinduque Marcopper mining disaster and Masinloc coal power plant in the Philippines all are riddled with environmental and social harms that continue even until today. When the project impacts were raised to ADB management, the response was that ADB had immunity privileges from its borrowing governments and therefore would not be held accountable for projects which had phased out from operations. This response was not satisfactory and various media reports and position statements had been released inquiring further deeper into the ADB’s immunity position. We request the new president to reflect on ADB’s immunity and reassess its relevance in today's context, where it is evident that environmental and social harm often outlive project cycles and affect future generations to come. Being a bank with a 50-year track record we urge the ADB to address its historical responsibility in addressing the operational impacts over the past decades and we hope under your leadership this issue will be given its due consideration. We look forward to furthering engagement as you begin your work ensuring accountability at ADB and providing space for project-affected communities. Respectfully yours, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by: Accountability Counsel, USA Aksi!, Indonesia Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance to Stop Mining) - ATM, Philippines Bank Information Center, USA Bank Information Center Europe, Netherlands Building and Wood Workers Asia Pacific Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Bangladesh Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), USA Center of Bird Lovers, Armenia Central Asia and Caucasus NGO Forum on ADB, Armenia Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Bangladesh COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peace building, Nigeria Development Observers NGOs' Network, Mongolia Development Synergy Institute (DSI), Bangladesh Digo Bikas Institute (DBI), Nepal ECO NGO Otrazhenie, Kazakhstan Environics Trust, India Environmental Public Alliance, Armenia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia Focus on the Global South, Regional Food Information Action Network (FIAN), Sri Lanka Fresh Eyes-people to People Travel, United Kingdom Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Friends of the Earth US, US Global Social Justice, Belgium Green Advocates International, Liberia Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc., Philippines Inclusive Development International, USA Indian Social Action Forum, India Indigenous Perspectives, India Initiative for Right View (IRV), Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, Tajikistan International Rivers, USA Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC), Philippines Life Haven Center for Independent Living, Philippines Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyztan NGO Forum Cambodia, Cambodia OYu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Fisher Folks (PFF), Pakistan Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN, Bangladesh Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines Project Affected Peoples Association (PAPA), India Rivers without Boundaries, Mongolia Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Bangladesh Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD), Bangladesh Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL), Philippines Urgewald, Germany Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (VOICE), Bangladesh WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth For Environment Education And Development Foundation (YFEED Foundation), Nepal Cc: Office of the Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Office of the Vice-President for Private Sector and Public-Private Partnerships Office of the Vice-President for Administration and Corporate Management Office of the Vice-President for Finance and Risk Management Office of the Vice-President Operations 1 Office of the Vice-President Operations 2 Director General, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department Director, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Division Director, Safeguards Division Director General of Independent Evaluation at ADB Office of the Chair, Compliance Review Panel (CRP) ADB NGO Center [i] https://www.forum-adb.org/timeline [ii] Opening Remarks by ADB President Takehiko Nakao at the Meeting between CSOs and ADB Management. 2 May 2014. https://www.adb.org/news/speeches/opening-remarks-adb-president-takehiko-nakao-meeting-between-csos-and-adb-management [iii] NGO Comments on Safeguard Policies and Project Implementation http://www.safeguardcomments.org/wb-safeguard-policy-ngo-comments.html Download letter here.

6 February 2020 MS. ELISEA G. GOZUN Chair Compliance Review Panel (CRP) Asian Development Bank (ADB) Dear CRP Chair Gozun, We welcome your appointment to this critical post in the ADB. The NGO Forum on ADB (“Forum”) is an Asian - led independent network of CSOs who advocate for accountability in development finance particularly in the ADB and AIIB. As part of the Forum’s over two decades of monitoring the ADB, the network has championed the rights and issues faced by project - affected persons (PAPs) adversely affected by ADB - funded projects. The Forum, in coordination with our member CSOs and communities, had sought redress using the Accountability Mechanism’s compliance review function in some of the complaints filed over the years.[i] In 2019, the Forum was also a complainant in the Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility Project in India which unfortunately was deemed ineligible. The CRP plays a crucial institutional role as the ADB’s compliance review function, investigating alleged non-compliance by the ADB with its own operational policies and procedures. As an avenue for PAPs to raise grievances over issues such as inadequate compensation, loss of livelihood, economic or physical displacement, and lack of meaningful consultation, the CRP is important to local communities. PAPs have often found their concerns go unaddressed by project implementers and Bank management, both of whom often have conflicting interests when handling project-related complaints. It is in this regard we believe the CRP has always played a role in ensuring the vital space for critical civil society voice and giving it due legitimacy at the ADB. We hope that under your leadership the CRP will remain independent from management influence and continue to ensure meaningful consultation with civil society throughout all levels of the CRP’s operations, especially during complaint investigations and remedial action plan implementation. NGO Forum on ADB and the CRP have built a relationship over the last decade, based on the foundation of factual information, trust and common agenda to help those seeking redress from ADB’s project impacts in the region. The Office of the Compliance Review Panel (OCRP) has also coordinated with NGO Forum on ADB in hosting several events such as the Independent Accountability Mechanism conference in 2016 in Manila, as well as hosting joint panel sessions at the ADB Annual Governors Meetings in 2017 and 2018 respectively. We hope we can continue these coordinated knowledge sharing efforts with CRP within your tenure as well as help enable the role of critical civil society voice. The Forum, alongside other CSOs, also recognizes the leadership of the OCRP in attempting to make the mechanism more accessible and easier to comprehend e.g. developing the guide books targeted for specific users and a sourcebook.[ii] The OCRP also played a key role in undertaking the development of a regional accountability framework for financial intermediaries (FI). While there are a few structural issues, holistically the Accountability Mechanism Framework is still an innovative and a much needed institutional reform to start holding the FIs’ more accountable.[iii] To this end, we believe that the CRP has a significant part to play to guarantee that the ADB is achieving positive development outcomes for all stakeholders. This can be reinforced by your steady leadership and guidance in ensuring that: CRP should have a proactive approach in order to protect ADB - project affected persons and complainants against any threat or instance of retaliation. The scale and forms of threat, intimidation and attacks are unfortunately increasing in the context of projects undertaken in the name of “development.”[iv] The Forum recognizes the Guidelines for the Protection of Key Stakeholders During the Accountability Mechanism process. Nonetheless, we would want the ADB to be more ambitious. Effective protection of PAPs requires not only thorough implementation of the Accountability Mechanisms Guidelines but also an institution-wide commitment and policy. The CRP can play a facilitating role to ensure that a similar measure for all of the ADB is adopted to protect PAPs in all phases of the project cycle. This is also congruent with ADB’s commitment to ensure meaningful consultation to which voicing out dissent without fear of retaliation from implementing government agency and/or project developer is an integral part of. CRP should retain its independence and guard against any potential conflict of interest to protect its legitimacy. Even the notion of perception of independence is critical to ensure that appropriate and timely redress is given to the complainants and ultimately to the community. Local communities will be reluctant to raise potential instances of non-compliance with the CRP if they perceive it as lacking independence. In the past, the Forum has raised concerns on the CRP’s engagement with the Office of the General Counsel and even with the role of the Board Compliance Review Committee (BCRC). We understand that the focus of the investigation is on alleged non - compliance and not the borrowing country, executing agency nor the private sector clients. However complaints[v] in the past, noted risks of conflict of interest when a BCRC member is also representing the constituency of the country where the project is located. While in principle the BCRC is sitting in that capacity and the focus of the investigation is on the ADB (and not the borrower), this kind of structure can result in undue influence and may affect the outcome of the investigation as well as the corresponding monitoring of the CRP. When the Accountability Mechanism policy is reviewed and/or updated, the CRP can weigh on this, pushing to add a clause that said BCRC member or chair shall recuse themselves from oversight of complaints that present a potential conflict of interest . CRP should give more emphasis on the quality and timeliness of redress provided as an indicator in gauging the “success” of implementation of the mechanism. In the past, the ADB has pointed to the low number of complaints received as compared to the total number of approved projects annually as evidence of the Bank’s success in implementing projects. However, there is a striking increase in the number of admissible complaints (88) from 2016 - 2018 as compared to the same 3 - year period from 2012 - 2015 (21), though these figures are relatively still a small number.[vi] More importantly, implementation effectiveness should also focus on important quantitative assessments of the complaints received, as the 2018 Joint Learning Report does. Taking the bar higher, it would be good if OCRP can also set parameters on how to gauge the qualitative aspects of the complaints received in its next 2019 - 2022 report i.e. how an “effective” project - level grievance mechanism is measured; whether ADB Management and operations have adopted necessary reforms both at institutional and implementation - level to cope with CRP’s findings on alleged non - compliance, etc. In addition, despite consistent efforts on outreach and materials published by OCRP, there is still a sense of limited awareness both on the existence of the policy and how it works. Can complainants first attempt to reach out to the mechanism be construed as an exercise of their “good faith efforts”? CRP should robustly incorporate the lessons it had seen and learned when the policy will be set for review. The above mentioned points are some of our key concerns which we have raised with the ADB CRP over the years, and we wanted to flag them to you for your consideration. You may also be interested in the analysis on accountability and access to remedy through mechanisms at other development finance institutions (DFIs) in the report Glass Half Full? The State of Accountability in Development Finance. For an accountability system to function effectively for those who may be negatively affected by development projects, both the institution – its leadership and management – and its independent accountability mechanism must meet their respective responsibilities. The report evaluates the policies and practices of 11 DFIs and their corresponding mechanisms, including the ADB and the Accountability Mechanism. The full report and its annexes are available at glass-half-full.org. We look forward to further our engagement with your office as you embark on your new journey in ensuring accountability at ADB and providing space for project-affected communities. We hope we can continue this dialogue further through our meeting next week, so that we may learn more of your vision regarding the CRP and the role of civil society. Thank you. Respectfully yours, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by the following organizations: Accountability Counsel, USA Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia Aniban ng Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (AMA), Philippines Bangladesh Nari Progati Sangha (BNPS), Bangladesh Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication, Bangladesh Bank Information Center, USA Building and Wood Workers Asia Pacific, Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Bangladesh Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Bangladesh Center for Bird lovers, Armenia Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), The Netherlands CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh CNV International, Netherlands, Indonesia Representative Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding, Nigeria Development Observer NGO Coalition, Mongolia Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia FIAN Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Gender Action, USA Green Advocates International, Liberia Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc., Philippines Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Indigenous Perspective, India Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group(INWOLAG ), Nepal Integrated Development Society Nepal (IDS- Nepal), Nepal International Accountability Project, USA International Rivers, USA National Food Coalition, Philippines NGO Forum Armenia, Armenia Oyu Tolgoi Watch (OT Watch), Mongolia Pakistan Fisher Folks (PFF), Pakistan Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN- PRAN, Bangladesh Peoples Development Institute, Philippines Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines Programme on Women's Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (PWESCR), India Project Affected Peoples Association (PAPA), India Recourse, The Netherlands Rivers without Boundaries Coalition (RwB), Mongolia Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Bangladesh Sri Lanka Nature Group (SLNG), Sri Lanka Umumeedenoo, Pakistan Urgewald, Germany Witness Radio Organisation, Uganda Youth Group on Protection of Environment (YGPE), Tajikistan Cc: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) NGO Center ADB [i] ) Nenskra Hydropower Project (December 2017); ii) Promoting Economic Use of Customary Land and Samoa Agribusiness Support Project (April 2016); iii) Greater Mekong Subregion: Rehabilitation of the Railway in Cambodia (August 2012 and September 2015); iv) Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (October 2013); v) Visayas Base - load Power Development Project (May 2011) [ii] https://www.adb.org/site/accountability-mechanism/publications [iii] NGO Forum on ADB. Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework for Investments Supported by Financial Intermediaries. October 2019. https://www.forum-adb.org/post/ngo-forum-on-adb-comments- safeguard-compliance-and-accountability-mechanism-framework [iv] Coalition for Human Rights in Development. Uncalculated Risks: Threats and Attacks against Human Rights Defenders and the Role of Development Financiers. 2019. https://rightsindevelopment.org/uncalculatedrisks/ [v] Samoa: Promoting Economic Use of Customary Land and Samoa Agribusiness Support Project (2016); Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (2013) and the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Program (2012) [vi] ADB. 2018 Learning Report on the Implementation of the Accountability Mechanism Policy. August 2019. https://www.adb.org/documents/2018-accountability-mechanism-learning-report Download letter here

19 February 2020 Mark Dennis Y.C. Joven Member of the Board of Directors Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Cc: Dr. Joachim von Amsberg Vice – President – Policy and Strategy Hamid Sharif Complaints - Resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (CEIU) Re: Request to Extend the Deadline for the Phase 1 ESF Consultation Dear Dir. Joven, This letter strongly urges your office to delay the phase 1 of the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) review consultation as articulated on the AIIB website January 2020. As CSOs who have extensively participated in the bank’s consultation process in the past, we have not yet received a formal response in terms of the approach for this review from the ESF drafting team and AIIB Management. Considering that there is a relatively small volume of projects approved and implemented since 2016, we expected the AIIB to describe its theoretical approach and methodology on how it will conduct this critical review of its ESF vis - a vis complementing its 3 year project portfolio. Several critical questions remain: Given that the AIIB has approved over 60 projects, will the bank evaluate the extent to which they all adhered to ESF requirements? Will the AIIB evaluate its ESF delivery in relation to its time bound information disclosure requirements pertaining to the projects? Will the bank conduct (or have conducted) any internal evaluations on operational delivery of its ESF to gather lessons learnt since 2016? Without having a clear sense on how the AIIB is approaching the scope of this ESF review it seems that the process for soliciting inputs is being too rushed. It also needs to be noted that the consultation notice on the AIIB website was released mid-January with inputs being requested as near as 28 February 2020, which is extremely short notice for garnering informed, constructive and useful inputs to the ESF review. We have been actively monitoring AIIB standalone and co-financed projects extensively on the ground over the last 3 years and providing detailed inputs on ground realities on these projects will require more time for analysis and review of field data and researched material. It needs to be mentioned that on the 9th of March 2020, there is a scheduled ESF workshop to be organized by the German government with the AIIB Eurozone and Wider Europe government shareholders. Thus the 28 February input deadline would disallow for the important outcomes of this workshop to be integrated into the Phase One consultation. Considering the above mentioned concerns we urge the bank to provide us with its theoretical and methodological approach towards this ESF review and extend the Phase 1 deadline until the end of March 2020. We look forward to your utmost cooperation in this regard and are waiting to hear back from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by the following organizations: Accountability Counsel, USA Action for Ecology and People's Emancipation, Indonesia Aksi!, Indonesia Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Armenian Women for Health and Healthy Environment /AWHHE/, Armenia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh BothENDS, The Netherlands Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Bangladesh Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Friends of the Earth US, USA Green Advocates International, Liberia Inclusive Development International, USA Indian Social Action Forum Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA/Global MiningWatch Canada, Canada NGO Forum Cambodia, Cambodia OXFAM Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum Progressive Plantation Workers Union (PPWU), India Recourse, The Netherlands/Global Safety and Rights Society, Bangladesh Urgewald, Germany VedvarendeEnergi, Denmark WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines Youth For Environment Education And Development Foundation (YFEED Foundation), Nepal Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Download the letter here.

NGO Forum on ADB along with its network members around the world strongly urges the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to delay phase 1 of the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) review consultation. The said phase 1 consultation is scheduled to close on February 28, 2020, according to the Bank’s website. The Forum network stated that as CSOs who has extensively participated in the bank’s consultation process in the past, the network has not yet received a formal response in terms of the approach for this review from the ESF drafting team and AIIB Management. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of the Forum asked: “Given that the AIIB has approved over 60 projects, will the bank evaluate the extent to which they all adhered to ESF requirements?” He went on and explained, “considering that there is a relatively small volume of projects approved and implemented, the AIIB can easily craft an Approach Paper which will detail its methodology and how it will review the ESF vis - a- vis with the portfolio”. There still remain questions on AIIB ESF delivery and time-bound information disclosure of projects. Has the bank conducted an internal evaluation of the operational delivery of its ESF? Without having a clear sense of how the AIIB is approaching the scope of the ESF review it seems that the process for soliciting inputs is being rushed. “The bank is fully aware of the issues raised by CSOs and the communities on issues of lack of information, meaningful consultation and land acquisition to name a few. This ESF review should be an opportunity to rectify any policy gaps in the ESF and its implementation,” Annabel Perreras, NGO Forum on ADB’s Advocacy Coordinator on AIIB.  “The AIIB can no longer use the narrative that it is a new bank with limited staff and doing an approach in the guise of “efficiency”. AIIB should reconsider how it would want to undertake this process,” Perreras added. It also needs to be noted that the consultation notice on the AIIB website was released mid - January with inputs being requested by 28 February 2020, which is extremely short notice for gathering informed, constructive and useful inputs to the ESF review. The network is hoping that the AIIB will extend the Phase 1 deadline for at least two more weeks for inputs until the end of March 2020. ###

Indigenous communities affected by the Tanahu Hydropower Project in Nepal have filed complaints with independent watchdogs of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) -- two co-financiers of the project -- requesting an independent mediation process. The communities have alleged failure to uphold free, prior and informed consent and inadequate compensation for loss of lands and livelihoods. At least 32 affected families or landowners organized under the Directly Inundation Affected Peoples Collective Rights Protection Committee have called for ‘land for land’ and ‘house for house’ compensation, re-survey of land left out during the Detailed Measurement Survey of the project, and free, prior and informed consent in the project process, among their ten demands, they have submitted to the ADB and the EIB. The Tanahu Hydropower Project is being developed by Tanahu Hydropower Limited, which is fully owned by the Nepal Electricity Authority. The project will construct a 140-meter high concrete dam with a reservoir about 25 kilometers long on the Seti River in Tanahu District in western Nepal. The Sino Hydro Corporation constructed affiliated facilities for the project. The ADB, the EIB and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) have provided funding to the project. Sher Bahadur Thapa, a community member and one of the complainants, states: “As indigenous Magars, our lives depend on the land and natural resources. The project has and will cause direct and material harm to our ancestral land, our livelihoods, and traditional practices. Our agricultural land, structures in the farms, cremation sites, bridges, roads and trails, and our water resources will be directly affected by the project, and we will be displaced once the farming land is full of water.” Despite policies in place at the ADB and the EIB to ensure meaningful consultation in projects, indigenous communities affected by the project claim that they were not given a seat at the table. Til Bahadur Thapa, one of the complainants, states: “We did not receive adequate information and opportunity for meaningful participation and proper consultation in the project. Key documents were not provided to us in our native tongue. The form and rates of compensation were determined without our participation and as a result, are unfair, inadequate, and discriminatory against our families and thus are being imposed on us.” Indira Shreesh, a lawyer for the Indigenous Women’s Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), one of the advisors for complainants, states: "Communities have made many attempts to resolve their concerns with the company, relevant government agencies, and the operations department of the Asian Development Bank. To date, however, their demands remain unresolved. The indigenous communities seek redress through these complaint mechanisms." “The balance of power between the affected communities and the project supported by the State authorities remains highly uneven. So, the complainants have moved these complaint mechanisms seeking neutral dispute resolution as per the safeguards of the banks,” says Prabindra Shakya of the Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ). Rayyan Hassan, executive director of the NGO Forum on the ADB commented, “The ADB Problem Solving function within the accountability mechanism has often been touted to be biased towards ADB management and project developers. In the case of Tanahu Hydropower Project and the plight of the Magar people, the ADB mechanism has an opportunity to do right and address the harm and resolve the Magar people’s concerns. We hope that this time the bank delivers on its problem-solving mandate in actual practice.” According to Tom Weerachat of International Accountability Project, “When multiple development finance institutions co-fund a project, they should uphold the best performance in the preparation and implementation of the project. In reality, the community in Tanahu is struggling to have their rights respected and fulfilled. Complaints from the community affected by the Tanahu Hydropower Project is an opportunity for the financiers and their accountability mechanisms to facilitate a community-led process for problem-solving.” Original PR posted at https://www.counterview.net/2020/02/hydro-project-nepals-indigenous-people.html.