Search Results

Preamble The Forum at the onset of this submission would like to state that this Phase 1 input process fails to meet the policy commitment of an ‘overall’ ESF review as articulated in the AIIB ESF[i] and as committed to in the AIIB Articles of Agreement. It also needs to be mentioned that The AIIB has not provided any clarity on the methodological approach of this ESF Review and the response we have received from the Strategy and Policy Department of the Bank[ii] has been inadequate to explain what it means by a targeted update. For the last four years of AIIB Operations, the ESF delivery has been riddled with structural challenges in implementation in its projects in China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and others. Civil society has tried to engage with AIIB management, project team leaders and concerned officials on ESF to resolve the plethora of issues and have been left wanting of meaningful responses on the ground. The lack of ESF delivery was found evident in AIIB stand-alone projects such as Beijing Gas and the Bhola IPP in Bangladesh, as well as co-financed projects such as the Myingyan Gas Power Plant with other MDBs such as ADB and IFC, where civil society groups have flagged their concerns on AIIBs lack of clarity on ESF delivery. Project impacts have been severe environmental damage, adverse gender impacts, land grabbing and resettlement, pollution, lack of project information disclosure, lack of meaningful consultations and in one instance death and accident of labor forces within a project. For the sake of brevity the NGO Forum on ADB will focus on this input around the standalone Bhola IPP project, and use it as an example to illustrate the ground realities around AIIB ESF delivery for a standalone project. Bhola IPP, Bangladesh, Safeguard Category B Sapoori Palonji Group, an Indian Group of Companies, submitted a proposal to AIIB in 2017 for private sector financing in implementation of Bhola Independent Power Plant (Bhola IPP). AIIB approved the project on 9 February 2018. The power plant will use pipelined natural gas from Shahbazpur Gas field owned by Sundarban Gas Company Ltd. (SGCL) as primary fuel and High Speed Diesel (HSD) from Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC) as a backup fuel to generate 220-225 MW power. The plant acquired 35.49 acres of land for the project in which 13.22 acres leased from BPDB and 17.43 acres has been purchased from local land owners. Most of the people in the area are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood (52.6%) in which 43.1% are marginal farmers and other 9.5% are laborers. Fishing is the second highest occupation (8.5%) followed by Paan farming (6.2%). The people residing beside the power plant include women and children who are mostly dependent on beetle leaf farming. Construction of the power plant has led to blockages of river channels and streams which were being used by communities for irrigation, washing and cleaning purposes. As of now the river beds have silted up, and waste release from the power plant has led to pollution, leading to an unhygienic and toxic environment. Bhola IPP Harms and adverse impacts While a detailed report[i] and a video documentary[ii] has been submitted to AIIB by NGO Forum on ADB and CLEAN entitled ‘Voices from the Ground’ regarding the Bhola IPP impacts, for the sake of this input a short summary is being provided of the adverse impacts: Lack of meaningful consultation and time bound release of project related information to local communities. Coercion and lack of transparency in land acquisition, resulting to livelihood displacement and economic losses. Environmental harm and damage: siltation and blockage of natural river streams due to construction debris. Waste effluent release into Mandartoli Shakha Khal river stream leading to unhygienic and toxic environment affecting women and children living near the power plant. Non - functional local Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). Occupational hazard leading to death of a laborer working in Bhola IPP (violating Core Labor Standards). No specific measures taken to address gender impacts caused by the Project. ESIA reports were mistranslated and not provided to local communities, the only copy of the ESIA is NBBLs office in Dhaka city which local community have no access to. Bhola IPP, Violation of ESS2: Involuntary Resettlement. The local people whom we interviewed in the Phase 1 land acquisition (as detailed in the submitted report) have stated they did not know any details about the project. Furthermore the lands were acquired at under value of the market price violating national laws. There were no titles provided and the NBBL subcontracted a third party to acquire the land who used political influence, threat and coercion to acquire the lands. These facts were later corroborated by the AECOM audit report commissioned by Bhola IPP for this project and AIIB had been made fully aware of these issues through letters, face to face meetings and submissions. Bhola IPP, AIIB and NBBL, Violation of Information Disclosure and Meaningful Consultation provisions in the ESF Articles 57,58, 59, 60, 61. In case of Bhola IPP the lack of meaningful consultation with local communities surrounding the size scale and potential impacts of the project is one of the core reasons as to why people are still suffering around Bhola IPP. Being a standalone project the AIIB Safeguards delivery has failed to ensure that people understood the potential environmental and social risks around this project. The ESIA report was found to be an exact copy of an earlier ESIA report for the Bhola IPP 1 project, the translation into Bengali was so poor that pages after pages made no sense even to civil society let alone affected communities. Consultation which were allegedly held were not attended by actual people who were affected, the outreach was not adequate by NBBL, and no records were provided on the nature of the consultations. As these issues were later raised with NBBL and AIIB, mitigation measures were reactively taken unfortunately the response was delayed and not able to address the harms which had been done. While NBBL was clearly non-compliant to the AIIB ESF and ESP provisions and clearly violated Article 57-61 no actions were taken to hold the client accountable. Thus leading to question the veracity of the ESF and the ESP itself. For a standalone project the Bhola IPP was supposed to showcase AIIBs ESF vision and objectives. What is left is a polluted river stream, clogged with waste and garbage directly impacting women and children. A completely ruined beetle leaf farming system, which was a source of livelihood for 12 villages with 7000 inhabitants. Hindu communities forced to sign away their land to local political elites in the face of threats and oppression. And an irreparable damage to AIIBs reputation on being green and clean. We strongly recommend that for the Phase 1 Input of the ESF the AIIB should address the following issues as fundamentals to the ESF review: 1. Binding requirements on time bound project related information and meaningful consultation with local communities for Category A and Category B projects. This should apply to FIs, standalone as well as co-financed projects. If AIIB funds are involved, AIIB should ensure that its ESF will apply in providing local people with all information regarding the project, as it pertains to the project cycle. This means release of ESIA to local people for commenting within a 120 day period, and the ESIA including Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Gender Action Plan must be translated into local languages and disseminated through public consultations which are culturally and gender sensitive to the locality. 2. The local GRM has to be effective and should ensure immediate response and ensure anonymity. AIIB should have monitoring and due diligence in evaluation of the GRM and ensure compliance at all levels of the project operations. 3. An assessment between applicable national laws and AIIB’s ESS should be diligently undertaken and the better standards should be applied in a transparent and public manner. Non - compliance by Clients and their sub - contracting agencies in the implementation of AIIB’s ESF should be addressed and impose punitive measures whenever applicable. 4. At the onset of construction, key information on the project financier should be clearly posted in the project site. This is one of the first steps of ensuring transparency and for project affected persons to be informed and to allow them to know where they can possibly raise any concern without any threat or intimidation. This should also include pertinent information as to details of the project level grievance mechanism including contact persons to which affected persons can easily access. 5. The Bank must ensure that local communities have meaningful access to project design through meaningful consultation, so that their livelihoods and environments are safeguarded throughout the project cycle and post implementation. The draft reports should also be disclosed to allow project persons and other key stakeholders to meaningfully integrate their comments into the process. 6. A laborer in this standalone AIIB Bhola IPP project has died due to lack of Occupational Safety measures. The lack of clear binding language in the ESP ensuring Core Labor Standards shows how weak this ESF is in the context of ensuring social safeguards for laborers in AIIB funded infrastructure projects. The CLS has to be made a binding policy in the new ESF. 7. Using Client systems for ensuring safeguards has to supplement with binding requirements explicitly in the ESF. People and environment cannot be left neglected in cases of non-compliance by clients, the AIIB has to hold its client accountable and ensure environmental and social justice to the local communities. Annex: ESF Policies applicable to Bhola IPP: A list of broken promises The Bank aims to work in a cooperative manner - by providing expert advice and oversight from its staff, supplemented by specialized consultants - to support its Clients in integrating consideration of environmental and social risks and impacts into their Projects (para. 10). The Bank supports Clients in the effective implementation of such plans (environmental and social management) for their Projects, through active field - based supervision, monitoring and verification, implementation support and institutional strengthening (para.11). The Bank supports its Clients to identify potential gender - specific opportunities as well as gender - specific adverse risks and impacts under their Projects and develop mitigation measures to avoid or reduce such impacts and risks (para. 14). The Bank recognizes the importance of enhancing or restoring ecosystem services where appropriate. Through its financings, the Bank assists its Clients in maintaining the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and other affected communities whose access to, or use of, biodiversity or natural resources may be affected by a Project (para. 17). ESP violations: Note: Land acquisition law in Bangladesh If the Bank determines that the relevant environmental and social requirements of the country in which the Project is located are more stringent than the requirements of the ESP or ESSs, the country's own requirements will apply, provided that they are not in violation of the Bank's Articles of Agreement (para. 9). On due diligence: The Bank conducts a review of environmental and social risks and impacts associated with the Project, regardless of the categorization being considered (para. 12). The Bank conducts environmental and social due diligence, as an integral element of its appraisal of the Project, and in a manner that is a) appropriate to the nature and scale of the Project; and b) proportional to the level of the Project's potential environmental and social risks and impacts (para. 16). As part of its due diligence, the Bank reviews the Client's environmental and social assessment and documentation in order to determine the extent to which a) all key potential environmental and social risks and impacts of the Project have been identified; b) effective measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, offset or compensate for the adverse impacts are incorporated into the Project's design and ESMP (para. 17). Note: Cross - reference this to the gaps in the ESIA document that not all key social risks and impacts were identified particularly to the harm against the Betel leaf farmers. Hence there are no corresponding baseline information and mitigation measures for these 400 farmers. On information disclosure: The Bank requires the Client to make information on the Project available during project preparation and implementation, including the environmental and social assessment and ESMP (and ESMF, if applicable), in accordance with para. 57 (para. 29). The Bank requires the Client to ensure that relevant information about environmental and social risks and impacts of the Project is made available in the Project area in a timely and accessible manner, and in a form and language (s) understandable to the Project - affected people, other stakeholders and the general public, so they can provide meaningful inputs into the design and implementation of the Project… The Bank requires the Client to disclose in the same manner on a regular basis any updated information, along with information on any material changes in the Project (para.57). The Bank posts online the Client’s documentation on the Project as provided in para. 57. It posts … other approved forms of documentation prior to or as early as possible during the Bank’s appraisal of the Project; and other documentation referred to in para. 57 in a timely manner. (para. 58). The Bank requires the Client to complete and furnish the Bank with the following environmental and social documentation, as required for the Project prior to, or as early as possible during the Bank’s appraisal of the Project: the draft environmental and social assessment report, including the record of consultations; the draft ESMP or ESMF (if applicable); and the drafts of any required resettlement plan, Indigenous Peoples plan, RPF and IPPF (if applicable) (para 69). On consultation: The consultation covers Project design, mitigation and monitoring measures, sharing of development benefits and opportunities on a Project - specific basis and implementation issues. The Bank requires the Client to engage in meaningful consultation with stakeholders during the Project’s preparation and implementation phases, in a manner with stakeholders during the Project’s preparation and implementation phases, in a manner commensurate with the risks to, and impacts on, those affected by the Project… For each Project with a) significant adverse environmental and social impacts; b) Involuntary Resettlement, the Bank may participate in consultation activities to understand the concerns of the affected people and to ensure that the Client addresses such concerns in the Project’s design and ESMP or ESMF (as applicable). The Bank ensures that the Client includes a record of the consultation and list of participants in the environmental and social assessment documentation (para. 59). On Grievances: The Bank requires the Client to establish a suitable grievance mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of the concerns or complaints of people who believe they have been adversely affected by the Project’s environmental or social impacts, and to inform Project - affected people of its availability… The grievance mechanism may utilize existing formal or informal grievance mechanisms, provided that they are properly designed and implemented and deemed by the Bank to be suitable for the Project… The mechanism is designed to address affected people’s concerns and complaints promptly, using an understandable and transparent process that is gender - sensitive, culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all affected people. The grievance mechanism includes provisions to protect complainants from retaliation and to remain anonymous, if requested… If the Project is a private - sector Project, the Bank also requires the Client to establish a grievance mechanism to address workplace concerns (para. 63). On involuntary resettlement: If the Project involves involuntary resettlement, the Bank requires the Client to prepare a resettlement plan or RPF. The resettlement plan or RPF complements the broader coverage of social risks and impacts in the environmental and social assessment and provides specialized guidance to address the specific issues associated with Involuntary Resettlement, including land acquisition, changes in land use rights, displacement and need for livelihood restoration (para. 31). The Bank will not finance Projects that it determines do not comply with the ESP and ESSs. The Bank will not knowingly finance a Project that a) either involves or results in forced evictions; b) involves activities or items specified in the list set forth in the attached Environmental and Social Exclusion List (para. 72). On mitigating impacts: The Bank requires it (the Client) to develop measures to manage and mitigate the impacts and reflect them in an ESMP, all as required under the ESS 1 (para. 39). The Bank requires the Client to a) describe specifically in the ESMP individual mitigation and monitoring measures and assignment of institutional responsibilities; b) integrate these measures into the Project’s overall planning, design, budget and implementation schedule; c) where appropriate, provide for adaptive management to address issues that may arise as the Project is implemented (para. 40). The Bank requires the Client to a) identify the Project’s potentially adverse impacts; b) determine the requirements for ensuring that those impacts are addressed in an effective and timely manner; xxx; d) disclose the draft ESMP in the manner required of it under para. 57 of this ESP and engage in consultation on the ESMP (para. 41). The level of detail and complexity of the ESMP should be proportional to the risks and impacts of the Project… The ESMP and its related plans contain a selected set of measurable outcomes and targets or performance indicators that can be monitored on a regular basis by the Client and reviewed by the Bank (para. 44). The Bank a) screens each Project to assign an environmental and social category to it; b) undertakes environmental and social due diligence regarding the Project as provided for in this ESP; c) reviews the Client’s environmental and social documentation required under this ESP and applicable ESSs, to determine whether appropriate measures are in place to avoid, minimize, mitigate, offset or compensate for adverse environmental and social risks and impacts in compliance with this ESP and applicable ESS; d) determines the feasibility of the Bank financing for the Project and e) monitors and supervises the Client’s compliance with its environmental and social obligations until completion of the Project (para. 65). On Monitoring and Reporting The Bank requires the Client to implement the Project in compliance with the ESMP or ESMPF (or both), and any resettlement plan or RPF and to furnish the Bank with periodic monitoring reports on the Client’s performance under the Project (para. 62). The Bank reviews Project performance against the Client’s obligations set forth in the legal agreement governing the Project. Monitoring and supervision of environmental and social aspects of the Project are integrated into the Bank’s supervision plan for the Project. The Bank monitors the Project on an ongoing basis until Project completion (para. 23). This includes periodic site visit, comprehensive field - based reviews, periodic monitoring reports, consults with Client on corrective measures and preparation of a completion report. ESS 1: Environmental and Social Assessment and Management Conduct an environmental and social assessment for the proposed Project to identify direct, indirect, cumulative and induced risks and impacts to physical, biological, socioeconomic and cultural resources in the Project’s area of influence; these include impacts on air and water quality, including environmental health; natural resources; including land, water and ecosystems; livelihoods; vulnerable groups; gender; worker and community health and safety; and cultural resources (para. 4, Environmental and Social Assessment). Assess potential transboundary and global impacts, including climate change as they relate to the Project (ibid). Ensure that the scope and depth of the assessment is commensurate with, and proportional to, the nature and magnitude of the Project’s potential risks and impacts and the categorization assigned by the Bank (ibid). As part of the environmental and social assessment, conduct an assessment of its legal obligations under national law (including international agreements adopted by the member) applicable to the Project (ibid). Make environmental and social information on the Project available, in an accessible manner, and in a form and languages(s) understandable to affected people and other stakeholders, during preparation and implementation of the Project so as to provide an opportunity to broadly identify and address environmental and social risks and impacts, those involving Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples, and including community health and safety issues… Regularly disclose updated environmental and social information, in the same manner, along with information on any material changes in the Project (para. 4, Information Disclosure). Carry out meaningful consultation with Project - affected people and facilitate their informed participation in the consultations… Continue consultation with stakeholders throughout Project implementation as necessary on issues related to environmental and social performance and implementation of the Project - level grievance mechanism (para. 4, Meaningful Consultation). Establish a suitable grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of the concerns of people who believe they have been adversely affected by the Project’s environmental and social impacts and inform Project - affected people of its availability… Design the mechanism to address Project - affected people’s concerns and complaints promptly, using an understandable and transparent process that is gender sensitive, culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all Project - affected people (para. 4, Grievance Mechanism). Undertake a broad assessment of potential environmental risks and impacts, both positive and adverse, associated with the Project. This includes direct and indirect impacts on the physical and biological environment, recognizing they are closely linked with social and economic conditions (para. 4, Environmental Coverage - Environmental Risks and Impacts). Consider direct and indirect Project - related impacts on biodiversity, for example habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, invasive species, overexploitation, hydrological changes, nutrient loading, pollution and incidental take, as well as projected climate change impacts. Also take into account the differing values attached to biodiversity by affected communities and other stakeholders (para. 4, Environmental Coverage - Biodiversity Consideration). Note: Is there a part of the project that is considered as a critical habitat, natural habitat or protected area? If yes there are also specific provisions in the ESS requirements for Environmental and Social Assessment and Management. Assess the sustainability of land and water use in the area of the Project and in immediately adjacent areas. Where feasible, locate the Project, particularly if it involves land clearing, on land that is already converted or highly degraded, provided that any resulting Involuntary Resettlement us limited and meets the requirements for an abbreviated resettlement plan.. Review risks and impacts to the quantity, quality and ecology of surface and groundwater resources, including the use of environmental flow studies as appropriate (para. 4, Sustainability of Land and Water Use). Minimize and manage waste generation and release of hazardous materials from production, transportation, handling and storage (para. 4, Pollution Prevention). Design and implement the Project so as to minimize emissions in accordance with the aims of the Paris Agreement of December 2015. Develop mitigation or adaptation measures to reduce risk of climate change, as relevant. Assess the impacts of the Project on climate change, including emissions, as well as the implications of climate change for the Project (para. 4, Climate Change). Assess social risks and impacts that affect vulnerable groups or individuals, and any discrimination toward groups or individuals in providing access to development resources and Project benefits, particularly towards vulnerable groups. As necessary, incorporate measures to ensure that any discrimination is mitigated to the extent possible (para. 4 Social Coverage - Vulnerable Groups and Discrimination). Identify any potentially adverse gender - specific impacts of the Project, and develop mitigation measures to reduce these. Where relevant, use gender disaggregated data and analysis, and consider enhancing the design of the Project to promote equality of opportunity and women’s socioeconomic empowerment, particularly with respect to access to finance, services and employment (para. 4 Social Coverage - Gender). Access economic and social impacts relating to the involuntary taking of land or restriction on access to natural resources under the Project, risks or impacts associated with land and natural resource tenure and use, including (as relevant) potential Project impacts on local land use patterns and tenure arrangements, land access and availability, food security and land values, and any corresponding risks related to conflict or contestation over land and natural resources. Take gender into account regarding land ownership and customary rights to natural resources (para.4 Social Coverage - Land and Natural Resources). If adverse environmental, social or economic impacts from Project activities involving loss of access to assets or resources or restrictions on land use that do not fall within the definition of Involuntary Resettlement under ESS 2 are identified… If these impacts are found to be significantly adverse at any stage of the Project, develop and implement a management plan to restore livelihoods of affected people to at least pre - project level or better. (para. 4. Social Coverage - Loss of Access to Assets or Resources or Restrictions on Land Use) Note: Need to double check on this. ESS 2: Involuntary Resettlement If adverse environmental, social or economic impacts from Project activities involving loss of access to assets or resources or restrictions on land use that do not fall within the definition of Involuntary Resettlement are identified, such impacts are avoided, or when avoidance is not feasible, they are at least minimized, mitigated, or compensated for, through the environmental and social assessment under ESS 1. If these impacts are found to be adverse at any stage of the Project, the Client is required to develop and implement a management plan to restore the livelihoods of affected persons to at least pre - Project level or better (para. 3). The Client is required to undertake the following actions in relation the Project (para. 4, Requirements): Planning - Determine the required scope of Involuntary Resettlement planning, through a survey of land and assets, a full census of persons to be displaced, and an evaluation of socioeconomic conditions specifically related to Involuntary Resettlement risks and impact. This establishes baseline information on assets, productive resources and status of livelihoods. Take gender into account in conducting the above . Resettlement Plan - Prepare a resettlement plan elaborating on displaced persons’ entitlements, income and livelihood restoration strategy, institutional arrangements, monitoring and reporting framework, budget and time - bound implementation schedule. Proportionality - Ensure that the resettlement plan is proportional to the extent and degree of the impacts. The degree of impacts is determined by a) scope of physical and economic displacement; b) vulnerability of the persons to be displaced by the Project. o Consultation - Carry out meaningful consultations with persons to be displaced by the Project, host communities and NGOs and facilitate their informed participation in the consultations. Consult with all persons to be displaced on their rights within the resettlement process, entitlements and resettlement options and further participation process... Pay particular attention to the needs of vulnerable groups, especially those below the poverty line, the landless, the elderly, women and children, Indigenous Peoples and those without legal title to land and ensure their participation in consultations. Grievance Mechanism - Establish a suitable grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of the concerns of persons displaced by the Project and inform them of its availability. Scale the grievance mechanism to the risks and impacts of the Involuntary Resettlement… Design the mechanism to address displaced persons’ concerns and complaints promptly, using an understandable and transparent process that is gender - sensitive, culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all affected people. Livelihood Restoration - Improve or at least restore the livelihoods of all persons displaced by the Project through a) cash compensation at replacement value for land, … d) capacity building programs to support improved use of livelihood resources and enhance access to alternative sources of livelihood. Resettlement Assistance - includes security of tenure, transitional support and development assistance and civic infrastructure and community services as required. Improve the standards of living of the poor and other vulnerable groups displaced by the Project.. In rural areas provide them with legal and affordable access to land and resources. Endorsed by the following organizations – Aksi!, Indonesia Aksi Ekologi dan Emansipasi Rakyat, Indonesia Accountability Project, Global Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh BothEnds, The Netherlands Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI), Global Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO), Uganda Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Environics Trust Inc., India Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Sri Lanka Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty (FEMAPO), Tanzania Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth US, USA Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda Green Advocates International, Liberia groundWork, South Africa Indian Social Action Forum, India Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh International Accountability Project, USA/Global Jamaa REsource Initiatives sign on the letter NGO Forum Cambodia, Cambodia OTWatch, Mongolia OXFAM, Global Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan Progressive Plantation Workers Union (PPWU), India Safety and Rights Society (SRS) Sri Lanka Nature Group, Sri Lanka Umeedenoo, Pakistan Urgewald, Germany VedvarendeEnergi, Denmark 1. Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan [i] CLEAN Report [ii] Video Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXzx5-Nmjo8 [i] “Review of the ESF. Based on the experience gained from the application of the ESP and ESSs to individual Projects during the first three years of the Bank’s operation, the Bank will, at the end of this period, conduct a review of the overall Environmental and Social Framework (para. 4, ESF)”. [ii] VP Von Amsberg’s response to our ESF letter via email. Download PDF here.

Yokohama, Japan - As the Asian Development Bank (ADB) celebrates it 50 years of operation in Asia, NGO Forum on ADB together with CSOs and affected communities from the ground are asking critical questions on its lending portfolio for the past half decade. During the President’s Dialogue held during the Annual Meeting of ADB, Mr Rayyan Hassan, the Executive Director of Forum has asked President Takehiko Nakao for an assurance if the Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) 2010 will not be diluted and whether ADB would remedy the harm done by projects prior to the approval of its Safeguards and Accountability Mechanism. To highlight the question, a representative of Marinduque Council for Environmental Concern (MACEC), an affected community related her experiences on the past ADB funded project that is still causing harm and misery to them. The Marcopper Mining Project in Marinduque, Philippines took effect in 1969 but was later closed down due to a fracture in the drainage tunnel of a large pit containing leftover mine tailings that discharged of toxic mine waste into the Makulapnit-Boac river system. The disaster also caused heavy floods to communities along its path, displacing over 400 families, and the evacuation of over 20 villages. According to Ms. Adeline Angeles, a resident living in Mogpog, Marinduque “the ADB funded project continuously cause suffering in the province, especially in terms of health and safety”. She reported that just last February 23, 2017, the same communities have expressed their alarm to the local government because of a crack that has developed in one of that dams that are now threatening another spillage. ADB was also asked about its intentions to decarbonize Asia. The Forum is pushing the bank to support the member governments to achieve its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and fulfill the Paris agreement of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Hassan has reminded the bank to fulfill its promise made last Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2016 in Manila where Philippines Country Director Richard Bolt said that it ‘ADB will honor Conference of the Parties (COP 21)’. The Forum also pointed out ADB’s involvement with autocratic regimes whether it would withdraw its lending to these governments that oppress human rights and rights of indigenous people and marginalized groups. Lastly, the Forum conveyed to President Nakao the Asian People’s Call on Challenging ADB’s Immunity, which started in Manila, Philippines last week (April 19-21, 2017) where civil society organizations, academics, affected communities, and youths demanded to Strip ADB’s Immunity. Mr. Hassan finished with the question “despite ADB’s Safeguards and Accountability Mechanisms, we have experienced ADB’s immunity to be an obstacle to achieving meaningful remedy to affected communities and be accountable for its failures. Do you think after 50 years it is time to reconsider ADB’s immunity clause in order to ensure justice, transparency, and accountability of all its operations in Asia?”

Pakistan also failed to submit Intended Nationally Determined contributions (INDCs) before the Paris Agreement. So for in National and International interest the country needs to monitor coal power projects in Pakistan. Here is an overview of projects that destroys both the human lives and the environments in Pakistan: Thar II coal power plant For Thar II coal power project, the Government of Pakistan requested a $ 820m loan from China Development Bank and Construction Bank of China, at the rate of 3.3 pc and produce electricity at the rate of 9.5 cent per unit. The unit price is high in all South Asian country as well in Pakistan. Power plant is critical in nature and has many environmental issues. A 95.5 sp km mining area will create air pollution. Gojra-Shorkot-Khanwal Motorway In the construction of this highway, the government is displacing 36 villages, cutting off 60000 trees and spoiling 62 km of agriculture land. In its second phase Shorkot to Khanewal a 64 km agricultural land will be destroyed and will affect of hundreds of small land owner. This section is co financed by the ADB and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) the first project of the two banks in Pakistan. Port Qasim coal power plant The Pakistan Port Qasim Power Project is a 1,320 megawatt construction that comprises two 606 megawatt supercritical coal power plants[1], which have been under construction since May of last year (2015) as part of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The project is destroying a huge coastal area of Pakistan and ‘making land’ for project in the sea via reclamation. This project is also a threat for environment as well as the coastal life. Sahiwal coal power plant The Sahiwal Coal Power Project is a coal power plant project 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) to the northeast of Sahiwal in Pakistan's Province which is currently under construction, the 1320 MW coal plant is being financed by Chinese banks. The planned project is located on most agricultural land of Pakistan and is 1,400 km away from the sea and would require the construction of a railway line to transport imported coal for supply. There are no EIA and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) filed due diligence procedures in fact the EIA is the most confidential document of this project. Water scarcity will become a serious problem as the Plant will use around 23 lac cubic ft irrigation water for its operation. So there is an immense need to advocate for sustainable and environment friendly projects in Pakistan by China and Other IFI’s. There is a need to deepen our understanding of Chinese banks and IFI’s policies and relevant governmental decision-makers of projects financed by these banks, and the level of environmental and social impacts and safeguards essential to the sustainable survival of local communities. Coal-based power plants MUST qualify and should be ADMISSIBLE under the joint implementation and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) rules and Paris agreement to earn carbon credits. [1] http://english.cec.org.cn/No.106.1550.htm

Prior to the COP21 in Paris in 2015, the G20 meeting in Brisbane in November 2014 had pronounced its goals for achieving 2% GDP growth of its economies by 2020. This leads to the question whether development financing will address the climate crisis or continue its business as usual of economic growth outcomes and raises fundamental questions about what kind of energy sources will be used to achieve these aims? The seismic shifts in global development financing, specifically in relation to Asia’s developing economies and private entities have raised the ante on the governance mechanisms of multilateral banks, particularly given that in the global context, private banking institutions are committing to end or phase out investments in fossil fuels and non-renewables. Likewise, there is a real struggle in holding private investors accountable especially in the realm of development financing. The establishment of fresh lending institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB) and the ascension of China as an economic and political superpower seems to signal a new order in the continent’s aid architecture with an increasing role and share of private finances. The Billions to Trillions in Mega Infrastructure as promoted by the World Bank and other IFIs such as AIIB is emphasizing the expansion of ports, industrial parks and trade routes. In recent media reports, Chinese investments in the Kuantan Port in Malaysia have led to doubling of its cargo volume and revenue since 2013. Similarly, port city investments are being financed by commercial banks and IFIs some of the target industries within these industrial parks/port cities are – Energy Technologies High-end equipment manufacturing Manufacturing of Advanced Materials High Carbon Steel production plants etc. The nature of these industries would suggest an increased demand for high base load energy. “The Forum is gravely concerned with these seismic shifts in global development financing, specifically in relation to Asia’s developing economies. The intrusion of private capital in development finance, have raised the ante on the governance mechanisms, or lack thereof, of multilateral banks especially the ADB. There is a real struggle in holding private capital accountable especially in the realm of development financing. The Forum believes this lack of accountability of private capital is a telling sign for all future investments in Trans-boundary Infrastructure and Energy intensive projects being championed by the AIIB and the One Belt One Road Initiative.” The ADB at present is reviewing its Strategy 2030 and has had made considerable shifts in its lending in the energy sector. ADB has set up a controversial clean technology fund or CTF through which in 2013 it has financed - without meaningful consultation or attention to environmental or social safeguards - over 150 Million USD in geothermal energy projects in Indonesia alone. The CTF committed this finance despite the fact that, according to the CTF: "a similar previous project between ADB, WB and GoI were carried out in 2010 (via PIP of MoF) which was not successful". In 2016, the ADB through its ADB CTF Private Sector Geothermal Program: Indonesia & Philippines was attempting to seek further funding, again without the mandatory meaningful public consultation required by the ADB. In addition, ADB has provided direct support in the name of "clean energy" for the notorious mega-infrastructure Financial Intermediary, PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur, (PT SMI) with a well-documented track record of violations of environmental and social safeguards. Given that the majority of geothermal projects in Indonesia are targeted at forest areas inhabited by Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples, lack of attention to the environmental and social impacts is a tremendous problem. We also note with extraordinary concern that the ADB is currently attempting to place Indonesia's entire National Energy Company (PLN) under "borrower system" rules instead of requiring mandatory implementation of all ADB Safeguards. Given the dismal environmental and social track record of PLN and the borrower system, this call into question any claims of a focus on clean technology with meaningful environmental and social safeguards[1]. The ADB has also a track record of financings dirty fossil fuel projects such as the Tata Mundra Coal Power Plant in India, Visayas Coal Project in the Philippines, and many other investments in gas projects in the region. At present, ADB is looking to invest in the CHP5 Coal Power Plant in Mongolia. The bank has also sent a team to see the feasibility of the Upper Karnali Hydropower Dam in Nepal as a possible investment venture. In fact, the majority of its 41 energy pipeline projects published online, are based on the extraction of fossil fuels or other forms of retrogressive energy investments, including large hydro and waste to energy (incineration) projects. We reiterate our call from 2017 ACEF on the ADB to provide a clear plan of action on transitioning from Fossil Fuel energy to fully renewable energy investments and to ensure and publicly commit that these investments - including existing investments as described above -- are carried out under fully implemented ADB safeguards with mandatory meaningful consultation with affected communities, strict avoidance of forced resettlement, and with careful and documented adherence to environmental safeguard requirements, including the protection of forest and forest peoples, and mandatory social safeguards for the protection of the lives and livelihoods of affected communities, with a specific focus on women, Indigenous peoples and the vulnerable as required by ADB safeguards. The transition from Fossil Fuel to RE must have clear indicators and targets with mandatory indicators including gender-disaggregated documentation of environmental and social impacts and the prevention of those impacts, including information disclosure, consultation, avoidance of land evictions. In addition, we call for clean energy transition indicators in line with countries and their respective NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) as per the Paris Agreement. ENDORSED BY: CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) SDG Watch, Bangladesh Jal Sarokar Manch – Nepal Indigenous Perspectives - India Manipur Cycle Club - India Environics Trust – India Environmental Public Society – Armenia Nash Vek Public Foundation – Kyrgyztan Both Ends – Netherlands Pakistan Fisher Folks Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center – Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KsK/Friends of the Earth-Philippines) Umeedenoo Pakistan NGO Forum Cambodia #ADB #ACEF #CleanEnergy [1] http://www.safeguardcomments.org/borrower-systems.html

Forum finds itself once again at the forefront of civil society engagement on Safeguards with the ADB, four years after a successful campaign to strengthen the said policy. An omnibus policy encompassing environment, involuntary resettlement, and Indigenous People policies, 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement protects the people and the environment from any harm caused by ADB operations. It officially took effect in January 2010. SPS Internal Evaluation In the first half of 2013, the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Department or IED commenced an internal evaluation process of the SPS. ADB expects to end it by September 2014, in time for the mid-term review of the Asian Development Fund XI in the last quarter of the year. The first phase is an operational assessment of its Country Safeguards System and Financial Intermediary investment in selected client countries. Based on ADB’s original timeline, this process should have been completed in December 2013, with the release of an Approach Paper. Bank insiders said the Approach Paper will most likely be released by April 2014. This means that the process has been delayed by four months. The second phase of this internal evaluation will be a full policy review of the SPS. Both are being undertaken by IED under the supervision of the Development Effectiveness Committee (DEC). Historically, Forum Network members and partners have spearheaded efforts of civil society actors in the creation of these safeguard policies. They have led the fight to enhance policy provisions as well as preserve these provisions in both letter and spirit. In the last Safeguards Policy Update that lasted from 2005 to 2009, Forum has successfully pushed for the following: the elaboration of requirements for meaningful consultation; the provision for the improvement of lives and livelihoods for involuntary-displaced people, a more detailed description of processes and requirements in regard to CSS; safeguard requirements for other financing modalities including FI; and the improvement of gender language. However, some of the Network’s concerns particularly those related to the language of the involuntary resettlement policy has remained a point of contention. Concerns and Issues The forum is closely following the SPS evaluation process (and subsequent reviews) to ensure that the SPS remains a reliable tool of protection for peoples and ecosystems unwittingly displaced, disrupted or destroyed by the Bank’s development agenda. Forum advocates against any dilution of the SPS and urges the Bank to resist caving in to pressure from its public and private clients to water down the policy. After the SPS became effective in 2010, more borrowers have complained about the long process and strict safeguards requirements for a project or program loan. Hence, there is both increased pressure from these clients for less stringent safeguards requirements. The ADB is also threatened by the possibility of these clients getting loans from other banks with no safeguard conditionality's at all. Furthermore, ADB financing in the form of project loan and technical assistance grants are increasing in many countries. A weaker SPS increases the vulnerability of communities and marginalised groups to social, economic and environmental problems, especially in the face of escalating climate-induced disasters. Process-wise, an issue that has repeatedly surfaced pertains to how transparent and inclusive of external stakeholders, particularly civil society and affected communities, this internal evaluation is. Compared to the last Safeguards review process, which went on for more than five years, this process has less transparency and inclusivity. Likewise, Forum recognises that IED’s role as of the SPS evaluation/review is in compliance with SPS Paragraph 82. This was a last-minute addition of the ADB to the SPS document prior to its final approval. This precluded Forum members from intervening on or questioning the appointment of IED. Under the policy, IED is mandated to conduct the 3-year operational review and the 5-year full policy review upon the effective date of the SPS, which was January 2010. As indicated in the IED approach paper , however, the evaluation will be delivered 4 years and not 5 years after the 2009 approval of the SPS. This is because ADF donors have requested the finalisation of the evaluation before the ADF XI mid-term review in late 2014. It should be emphasised that the IED web page has not updated its timeline despite the delays in the process. Similarly, there is no significant information about the SPS operational review on the web page of the Safeguards Policy. While it is an internal process, Forum believes that civil society and other stakeholders deserve transparent and up-to-date information on this operational review. In this regard, Forum has lobbied and sent official correspondence to ADB Board members, top Management officials, and IED to involve civil society in the internal SPS evaluation. ADB’s reaction is limited to getting case studies on its CSS and FI implementation from Forum or other CSOs. Similarly, Forum has urged the Bank to undertake a full-scale policy review and meaningful stakeholders’ consultation to further strengthen the policy language and provisions of the current SPS.

On July 25, 2005, the ADB announced that it was conducting an ‘update’ of its safeguard policies for purposes of “enhancing its effectiveness, and ensure its relevance to changing client needs and new lending modalities and instruments.”1 The ADB recognizes that the implementation of its policies on the ground has been a problem. A key aspect of the update is a plan to streamline operations and consolidate the three safeguard policies into one. At present, ADB’s Social and Environmental Safeguard Division (RSES) within the Regional Sustainable Development Department (RSDD) is leading the safeguard policies update. A steering committee, and internal and technical working groups were formed to facilitate and discuss the safeguard issues. They are in charge of distilling the principal policy elements of the SPU and drafting the policy paper (also known as the W-Paper). ADB’s expects to finish the entire update process is in November 2007 where the Board is expected to review the final policy paper. Between July and October 2006, the ADB will have its own internal consultations. After which, the Bank will conduct external consultations. ADB’s Safeguard Policies The ADB’s safeguard policies require the Bank to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts from its funded projects extended to its Developing Member Countries (DMCs) in Asia and Pacific region. Currently, the ADB has three safeguard policies: Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) Indigenous Peoples Policy (1998) Environment Policy (2002) The Involuntary Resettlement Policy states that forcible resettlement should be avoided whenever possible. Resettlement plans must be developed in consultation with affected communities. Affected people should be fully informed about the resettlement. They should be justly compensated and provided with appropriate land, housing and infrastructure, among others. Affected communities must be at least as economically and socially well off after the project as they were before the project. The Indigenous Peoples Policy states that the ADB should ensure that equal opportunity for indigenous peoples are provided. Projects should be implemented with the informed consent and participation of the IPs. Interventions that will affect the IPs should be consistent with their needs and aspirations. The Environment Policy states that the environmental impacts of projects should be evaluated and minimized. The public should be involved in the evaluation of environmental impacts. Environmental impact assessments should be conducted and disclosed to the general public. The safeguard policies are very important to the civil society organizations (CSOs), concerned stakeholders and affected communities because these are the basic guiding principles that ensure the Bank’s accountability as regards the environmental and social impacts of its projects. When the operational policies and procedures are violated, affected communities and concerned stakeholders can file a complaint with the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism. Complaints are filed with the Office of Special Project Facilitators for problem-solving purposes, and elevated to the Office of Compliance Review Panel for compliance. Problems with the Safeguard Policies There are some key problems with the safeguard policies. One is that they do not allow communities to say “no” to a certain project. The policies only help lessen potential social and environmental impacts. Another one is that the ADB has a poor track record in implementing its own policies. Despite the existence of the safeguard policies, evidence suggests that many ADB projects have damaged the environment and caused social and economic harm to vulnerable communities. Some high profile ADB-funded projects have exposed serious shortcomings, such as the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) in Sri Lanka, Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project (CRBIP) Phase III in Pakistan, and the Samut Prakarn Wastewater Management Project (SPWMP) in Thailand, just to name a few. Another issue is the lack of accountability for safeguard compliance. In STDP (Sri Lanka), ADB’s own Compliance Review Panel (CRP) reported that “the ADB management has not complied with most of the proposed remedial action in the CRP report prepared in July 2005 to solve the problems of the STDP.” The ADB rarely sanctions its clients or its own staff and management for failure to comply with the safeguard policies. CSOs’ concerns with the Update CSOs are concerned that the update will weaken the safeguard policies that could result in ADB being less accountable for its projects and interventions. CSOs believe that the present update is related to ADB’s ability to successfully compete with export credit agencies and other development financiers in the region that do not require borrowers to follow stringent safeguard policies. CSOs are also concerned that the ADB is following what the World Bank did in the mid-1990s when the latter initiated a similar process and resulted in the simplification of its safeguard policies. Another concern of the CSOs is ADB’s adoption of a ‘country systems’ approach in addressing social and environmental safeguard issues. This approach means that for certain projects it finances, the Bank will rely on the borrowing government’s own environmental and social systems rather than its own safeguard policies. National systems will be evaluated against a set of the Bank safeguards and if judged ‘equivalent’, they will be used for project preparation and implementation. Although CSOs have always advocated the strengthening of social and environmental standards and the building of institutional capacity at the national level, they have been concerned that the shift towards country systems will result in a dilution of the Bank’s own responsibilities for its safeguard policies. What Do CSOs Want? CSOs want the ADB to stop supporting highly destructive projects and to be held responsible and accountable for social and environmental damages its projects bring. The ADB should seek the informed consent of affected communities before developing projects, and retain this strong voice throughout the project cycle. These strong requirements, among others, should be part of the safeguard policies. CSOs want the ADB to view environmental and social planning as a way to minimize problems arising in the future, rather than as a constraint on competitiveness. In evaluating the effectiveness of its safeguard policies, CSOs believe the ADB needs to listen to the voices of project affected people and civil society from developing countries. In response to ADB’s Discussion Note in March 2006, forty eight CSOs sent an open letter to the ADB, expressing concerns about the update. The letter contained a number of recommendations for the ADB to strengthen its environmental and social standards and hold ADB management accountable for policy implementation. These include: complying with international human rights, labor and environmental laws, conventions, and norms; developing clear and comprehensive social and environmental policy frameworks; establishing mechanisms for compliance and ensuring accountability for results on the ground; and protecting the rights of all affected communities and ensuring respect for indigenous peoples’ internationally guaranteed rights. (Footnotes) 1 See http://www.adb.org/Safeguards/policy.asp 2 For more information on the recent trends at the World Bank, see Shannon Lawrence “Retreat from the Safeguard Policies: Recent Trends Undermining Social and Environmental Accountability at the World Bank,” January 2005, available at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4279_RetreatSafeguardPolicies_0105.p

To: President Jin Liqun Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank B9 Financial Street Xicheng District Beijing 10033 People’s Republic of China ljin@aiib.org CC: Joachim Von Amsberg, Vice President, jvonamsberg@aiib.org Michaela Bergman, Principal Social Development Specialist, michaela.bergman@aiib.org Stephen Lintner, Senior Environmental and Social Adviser, slintner@aiib.org Hamid Sharif, Director General, CEIU, hsharif@aiib.org Via electronic mail Subject: Change in reprisal risks under government responses to Covid-19 Dear President Jin Liqun, The COVID-19 pandemic has forced global actors to respond nimbly to rapidly changing conditions. We are aware of efforts the AIIB has made to support developing economies in this moment of crisis. It is critical that these efforts pay particular attention to and accommodate the individuals most vulnerable to abuses associated with development finance. To date we have not seen any statements clarifying how the AIIB is adapting its approach to risks of reprisals. The current context requires, however, concrete precautionary measures as we have seen increased reprisal risks, including: Defenders in lockdown being easier to find and target by authorities, security forces and other potential violators; Arbitrary arrest and detention of Defenders under pretext of violation of lockdown rules Increased stigmatisation of marginalised groups as contributing to the spread of Covid-19 (i.e., LGBT, Roma people, HIV-positive people, etc.) Suspended courts resulting in limited legal recourse (e.g. in cases of arbitrary detentions), and closed-door hearings resulting in loss of transparency around the legal system; Limited movement of people resulting in the inability for civil society organisations or international organisations (including EU delegations) to meet and offer support to defenders and communities at risk; Measures taken by authorities to limit freedom of expression and of assembly impacting the capacity of defenders to hold authorities and companies to account, and mobilise; Increased militarisation to enforce the response measures - resulting in shrinking space for public participation and disproportionate and abusive measures used against more vulnerable members of communities (including defenders); Pressure from certain sectors that are considered essential during the epidemic to decrease safeguards in the name of ensuring they are able to operate without hindrance; Hacking of digital communications; Pressure to streamline approval of loans (and potentially streamline and weaken the application of safeguards); Self-censorship by activists concerned about the security of their electronic communications; Daily struggle for survival of defenders, as they lose their livelihoods, hindering their ability to raise their voices. In consequence we would like to know how you are taking these new challenges into account. Any adaptation of approaches towards human rights defenders (HRD) should, at a minimum, involve assessment and ongoing monitoring of the implications of the current situation in terms of reprisal risks and reprisals and propose measures to mitigate those risks (in line with our recommendations). Specifically, the AIIB should: Reach out using secure channels to groups at higher risk of reprisals (more vulnerable impacted communities or more vulnerable members of those communities) Evaluate the availability of secure channels in contexts where investments are underway, including, potentially, engaging with social media firms to understand any “backdoor” access governments may have to activists’ accounts Ensure information on investments is reaching impacted groups, allowing them the opportunity to engage with the bank in a safe way Screen for abuses taking place around the sectors financed (eg. targeting of bloggers/journalists reporting on health sector response to Covid-19, when financing health sector) Actively monitor and send out, as part of any message to clients/promoters about the Covid- 19 situation, a reminder that your bank will not tolerate reprisals, especially given the potentially increased reprisal risk Clarify to all borrowers that the use of assistance funds and other finance spent in the COVID-19 response shall not be used to intimidatingly surveil communities. As members of the Defenders in Development Campaign we look forward to your response and would welcome an opportunity to discuss this topic with you in the near future. Yours sincerely, Kate Geary Co-Director, Recourse Rayyan Hassan Director, NGO Forum on ADB Download the letter here.

We are alarmed and disheartened to learn that hawkers continue to be intimidated and physically attacked in various parts of the country. We have come across several news reports document-ing such incidents as well as received first-hand complaints from many members of our organisation/association/union/collective. They are being profiled and surveilled, stopped and har-assed, and heckled and beaten up by vigilante groups who are acting with complete impunity. These incidents seem to have been spurred by a maelstrom of disinformation and propaganda campaigns being run by motivated agents and spread amongst people through social media like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and WhatsApp. The rumours and hoaxes particularly seem to be targeting those belonging to the Muslim community. Cursory examination of the sampled vide-os, images, and text messages, which are being widely circulated suggests that Muslim hawkers are being blamed for the spread of the Coronavirus, resulting in their stigmatisation. It bears remembering that the Emergency Programme Director of the World Health Organisation, recently reminded the global political leadership that countries should not profile novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases in terms of religion or any other criteria and cautioned against profiling the “the cases on the basis of racial, religious and ethnic lines” on 6 April 2020. We have to remember that the virus does not care where someone was born, their status, the colour of their skin, nor the gods they worship. In the middle of the nationwide lockdown, when curtailed movement and access to basic necessities is proving to be challenge for all of us, these hawkers are our veritable lifelines. To target and attack them is not only a violation of their dignity and most basic rights but also an unconscionable act on the part of our citizenry. It is extremely unfortunate that a section of our society, whose livelihood is completely dependent on their daily earnings, are being subjected to humiliation and violence in the middle of one of the most unprecedented and challenging public health crisis facing the country. They are a key part of our supply chains who play a crucial role in improving last-mile access for millions of people every day. It is to their credit that they are continuing to their jobs in face of enormous personal risks, something that we all should be grateful about. The protection of these hardworking people is of paramount concern. We owe it to these hard-working people, now more than ever, that they are allowed to carry out their small businesses without any fear or hinderance. DEMANDS: Public campaign raising awareness on non discrimination of vendors: The Government, Union and State, should come out with strong messages that do not condone religion based discrimination especially in the time of a health and economic crisis in the country. There should be constant progressive notifications and orders being released by the Government to facilitate essential service provision to all people through fruit and vegetable street vendors/hawkers with all the safety and health precautions Emphasising the valuable contribution of fruit and vegetable vendors during the COVID lockdown: Street vendors hawking fruits and vegetables along with other essential goods are absolutely essential to the depleted food economy as of now, as not every home has access to a departmental grocery store. In this unprecedented scenario, to discriminate against Muslim vendors is an act of ignorance which should be punishable by law. Guiding the media to not propagate anti-Muslim rhetoric: The government should try and ensure the minimising of anti-muslim and communal reporting of the COVID crisis through most media outlets and should stop using one incident to demonise an entire community, espe-cially those members of society which are essential service providers. We therefore call upon the political leadership to send out a strong message among the people to cease hostility against hawkers and offer them due courtesy and cooperation. We call upon the law enforcement forces to proactively put a stop to incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence and take exemplary action against those who break the law. We call upon the mainstream media, a key stakeholder in all crisis communication, to play a positive role by working in the interest of the most vulnerable and marginalised. Finally, we call upon our fellow citizens to realise the gravity of the situation and play a constructive role in helping the country tide over this crisis. We urge everyone to keep track of government advisories and strictly follow the prescribed safety protocols to protect themselves and others from the pandemic. Sincerely, Undersigned Saktiman Ghosh President:- Advocate Colin Gonsalves Delhi 09810615811 Working President Mir Inayath Ali Baqri Telangana 9347477747 General Secretary Saktiman Ghosh West Bengal 09748585961 Dy. General Secretary Mecanzy Dabre Maharashtra 9665006429 Ghazala Jamil, Assistant Professor, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University Faiz Ullah, Assistant Professor, Centre for the Study of Contemporary Culture , School of Media and Cultural Studies Tata Institute of Social Sciences Additional G.S Anita Das Jharkhand 09396993265 Additional G.S Jayanta Das Odisha 094371600099 National Secretary, Youth Sandeep Verma Jharkhand 07992456034 President R. Sevvilam Parithi Tamil Nadu 09486 353338 State Secretary Kshetri Tama Devi Manipur 08794157110 State Secretary Md. Basheer Kerala 08606871622 State Secretary Asit Saha West Bengal 09830392189 State Secretary Murad Hussain West Bengal 09163148329 State Secretary Kirtiman Ghosh West Bengal 09674654933 State Secretary Jabbir Khan Gujarat 09377435273 Aravind Unni National Coalition for Inclusive and Sustainable Urbanisation New Delhi +91 9987580014 Adrian Dcruz National Coalition for Inclusive and Sustainable Urbanisation New Delhi +91 9711433296 Evita Das National Coalition for Inclusive and Sustainable Urbanisation New Delhi +91 9867220679 RECENT NEWS ARTICLES DETAILING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM VENDORS ‘How fake news, rumours are driving calls for ban on Muslim vendors in NW Delhi’, 8 April, 2020; Asiaville News, Print; available at https://www.asiavillenews.com/article/how-fake-news-rumours-are-driving-call-for-ban-on-muslim-vendors-in-nw-delhi-shastri-nagar-38855 ‘Covid an excuse to push Indian Muslims out of informal sector jobs. Apartheid the next step’ 9 April, 2020; The Print, E-News, available at https://theprint.in/opinion/covid-an-excuse-to-push-indian-muslims-out-of-informal-sector-jobs-apartheid-the-next-step/398236/ ‘Muslims Spitting on Food, Hiding in Mosques to Spread Coronavirus? Beware of These 8 Fake News Stories’, 6 April 2020; News 18, Print; available at https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/muslims-spitting-on-food-hiding-in-mosques-to-spread-coronavirus-beware-of-these-8-fake-news-stories-2565483.html ‘The Coronavirus Has Morphed Into an Anti-Muslim Virus’, 13 April, 2020; The Wire, Print, available at https://thewire.in/communalism/coronavirus-anti-muslim-propaganda-india ‘A Lockdown Is a Solution. In India, a Lockdown Is Also Its Own Crisis’, 11 April, 2020;The Wire, Print, available at https://thewire.in/rights/coronavirus-lockdown-authoritarianism-physical-distancing-rights-elite ‘Muslims as scapegoats’, 13 April, 2020; Qantara News, Print, available at https://en.qantara.de/content/coronavirus-in-india-muslims-as-scapegoats

We the following Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) from all over the world, are calling on the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and all bilateral, regional and multilateral development financiers of Bangladesh to suspend the realization of debt instalments for all public debts of developing countries combating the COVID-19 pandemic so that the current crisis is not aggravated. Countries, irrespective of developed, developing and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), are in a predicament due to the COVID-19 pandemic and are all facing an acute shortage of emergency protective devices and life-saving equipment. Bangladesh’s economy is also severely under stress due to the additional burden of pandemic management while the country has a budget deficit of USD 17.65 billion in the current financial year. Despite the budget deficit, the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) has allocated an additional 9.06 billion USD as a bailout to the private sector. The GoB now needs a supplementary amount of USD 8.11 billion to fight COVID-19 in the health sector alone. Another USD 1.7 billion, over and above the national budget, is required for supplying adequate food to 34 million people living below the poverty line. Considering the calamitous situation, GoB needs at least USD 1.5 billion for providing subsidies in agriculture and rural economies dominated by micro, small and marginal (MSM) producers in order to ensure the food security of the country. We want to urgently bring to your attention that the GoB budget for the current financial year is forced to allocate 6.20 billion USD for servicing external debts to International Financial Institutions. At this critical time if this servicing of public debts are suspended, the GoB will be able to put the amount into serving emergency health, food and agriculture sectors to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge all the multilateral, regional and bilateral financial institutions to follow the suggestions proposed by the World Bank and IMF and suspend servicing of the public debts for 2020, so that GoB can free its limited resources and allocate it solely for helping the people in overcoming the COVID-19 challenge. We therefore strongly demand the suspension of all instalments of public debt for at least the financial year 2020-2021 so that the country can better combat the pandemic and overcome the impact of this disaster on its citizens’ health, food and economic vulnerabilities. THIS STATEMENT IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF 117 GLOBAL CSOs, BY: Hasan Mehedi, Member Secretary, Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED). Secretariat: 4 Mallick Bari Road, Boyra-Rayermahal, Khulna 9000, Bangladesh. Email: bwged.bd@gmail.com Ziaul Hoque Mukta, General Secretary, Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Elite Daisy Paradise, Flat B5, House 839, Road 3, Baitul Aman Housing Society, Adabor, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh. Email: ziaul.mukta@gmail.com Nurul Alam Masud, General Secretary, Food Security Network (KHANI) Bangladesh, Road 8, House 560, Flat 8A, Adabor, Mohammadpur, Dhaka Bangladesh. Email: masud@pranbd.org Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, Convener, Life and Nature Safeguard Platform (LNSP), Bangladesh Supreme Court Annex Building, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Email: barua_jyotirmoy@yahoo.com Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB, 85-A Masikap, Diliman, Lungsod Quezon, Kalakhang Maynila, Philippines. Email: rayyan@forum-adb.org SIGNATORIES TO THE STATEMENT 1. 350.org, Asia 2. Aamra - Ek Sachetan Prayas, India 3. Actionaid Bangladesh 4. ADAB, Bangladesh 5. Akhil Bhartiya Prakritik Chikitsha Parishad, India 6. AOSED - An Organization for Socio-Economic Development, Bangladesh 7. Apon Foundation, Bangladesh 8. Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) 9. Association for the Development Agencies of Bangladesh (ADAB), Bangladesh 10. ATTAC Japan 11. Bandhan, Bangladesh 12. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Bangladesh 13. Bangladesh Krishak Federation (BKF), Bangladesh 14. Bangladesh NGO Network for Radio Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh 15. Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh 16. Beyond Copenhagen Collective, India 17. BINDU (Best Initiative National Development Unification), Bangladesh 18. BRICS Feminist Watch, BRICS Countries 19. Buriganga Banchao Andolan, Bangladesh 20. Campaign for Good Governance (SUPRO), Bangladesh 21. Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Bangladesh 22. Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Philippines 23. Center for Environment and Participatory Research (CEPR), Bangladesh 24. Centre for Bangladesh Studies (CBS), Bangladesh 25. Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), Sri Lanka 26. Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), India 27. Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), Mongolia 28. Change Initiative, Bangladesh 29. Christianaid, Bangladesh 30. Civil Society Women Organization (CSWO), India 31. CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh 32. Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CHRD), United States 33. COAST Trust, Bangladesh 34. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), India 35. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), International 36. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), Pakistan 37. CoreCarbonX,India 38. Corporate Accountability, United States 39. CSOs Network on SDGs, Mongolia 40. Development Observer NGO Coalition, Mongolia 41. Development Synergy Institute (DSI), Bangladesh 42. Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal 43. EnvironicsTrust,India 44. Equitable Cambodia 45. Equity and Justice Working Group - Bangladesh (EquityBD) 46. Eurodad (European Network on Debt and Development), Belgium 47. Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF), France 48. Focus on the Global South, Thailand 49. Food Security Network (KHANI), Bangladesh 50. Fresh Eyes, United Kingdom 51. Friends of the Earth, United States 52. Gandhi Ashram Trust, Bangladesh 53. Gandhi International Mission, India 54. Green Advocates International, Liberia 55. Green Course, Israel 56. Growthwatch, India 57. Harijan Sevak Sangh, India 58. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 59. Human Rights Law Network, India 60. INSAF (Indian Social Action Forum), India 61. International Accountability Project (IAP), United States 62. ISDEBangladesh 63. Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya 64. Japan Center for Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan 65. Jatiyo Sramik Jote, Bangladesh 66. Karavali Karnataka Janabhivridhi Vedike, India 67. Kendrio Krishak Maitree (KKM), Bangladesh 68. KRuHA (People's Coalition for the Right to Water), Indonesia 69. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KsK), Philippines 70. Life and Nature Safeguard Platform (LNSP), Bangladesh 71. LEDARS, Bangladesh 72. Manthan Law, India 73. MarketForces,Australia 74. MAUSAMTrust,India 75. NagorikSanghati,Bangladesh 76. NagorikUddyog,Bangladesh 77. National Development Programme (NDP), Bangladesh 78. NGOForumonADB,Philippines 79. Noakhali Rural Development Society (NRDS), Bangladesh 80. Oil Change International, United States 81. OnePeople International, Sweden 82. Online Knowledge Society (OKS), Bangladesh 83. Oxfam, Bangladesh 84. Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia 85. Paani Committee, Bangladesh 86. Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan 87. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF), Pakistan 88. Paribartan - Rajshahi, Bangladesh 89. Participatory Research and Action Network (PRAN), Bangladesh 90. People’s Forum for Food Sovereignty, Mongolia 91. Prantojon Trust, Bangladesh 92. Progoti,Bangladesh 93. Progressive Plantation Workers Union (PPWU), India 94. Public Services International (National Coordinating Committee), Bangladesh 95. Recourse, Netherlands 96. Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia 97. Right to Food Campaign - West Bengal, India 98. Rural Advancement Society (RAS), Bangladesh 99. Rural Community Development Society (RCDS), Bangladesh 100.Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Dhaka, Bangladesh 101. Saher Welfare Foundation, Pakistan. 102. Samaj Progoti Sangstha (SPS), Bangladesh 103. Serikat Nelayan (Indonesia Fisherfolk Union), Indonesia 104. Socialist Workers Association, Thailand 105. Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD), Bangladesh 106. Society for Participatory Empowerment for Development (SPED), Bangladesh 107. Songshoptaque, Bangladesh 108. SPEED Trust, Bangladesh 109. Stiftung Asienhaus, Germany 110. Suluh Muda Indonesia 111. Urgewald,Germany 112. Uttaran, Bangladesh 113. Verein für sozial-ökologischen Wandel, Germany 114. VOICE, Bangladesh 115. Women Action Towards Economic Development (WATED), Thailand 116. Women Association for Training and Service (WATS), Nepal 117. Women’s Employment Supporting Federation, Mongolia SEEKING ATTENTION AND ACTION OF THE FOLLOWING 33 FINANCIERS Agence Française de Développement (AFD) | Asian Development Bank (ADB) | Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) | Belgian Development Cooperation (DGCD) | China Development Bank (CDB) | CIDIC Group | Citigroup | Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) | European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) | European Investment Bank (EIB) | Export Finance Australia | Export-Import (EXIM) Bank of China | Export-Import (EXIM) Bank of India | Export Import (EXIM) Bank of Korea | HSBC Group | International Finance Corporation (IFC) | International Monetary Fund (IMF) | Islamic Development Bank (ISDB) Group | International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) | Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) | Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) | KfW Group | Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) | Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) | Nordic Development Fund (NDF) | Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) | OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) | Saudi Fund for Development (SFD) | Standard Chartered | Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) | Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) | United States Agency for International Development (USAID) | World Bank Group Download lettere here.

H.E. Sheikh Hasina Hon'ble Prime Minister Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Prime Minister's Office Old Sangsad Bhaban, Tejgaon, Dhaka 1215, Bangladesh Phone: +88 01555 888 555, +88 01711 520000, +88 01819 260371 Email: info@pmo.gov.bd, pm@pmo.gov.bd, ps1topm@pmo.gov.bd, psecy@pmo.gov.bd, dir4@pmo.gov.bd Fax: +88 02 811 3244, +88 02 811 3243, +88 02 811 1015, +88 02 811 1490 APPEAL FOR CONCERTED ACTION ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS Dear H.E. Prime Minister: We, the civil society representatives from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and the Pacific, heartily congratulate you on being elected as Chairperson of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a group of 48 developing countries vulnerable to climate change [1]. On behalf of local communities and environmental groups, we also express our sincerest gratitude for adopting a resolution declaring a “Planetary Emergency” in Parliament 14 November 2019, making Bangladesh the first country in the world to do so [2]. We deeply appreciate your reconfirmation on your commitment to "work towards correcting this imbalance" of the earth's climate. We would like you to reflect on the decision in the CVF Marrakesh Communique 2016, which pledged to achieve "net carbon neutrality and 100% renewable energy" by 2050 [3]. To this end, with regards to Bangladesh’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement, you pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase renewable energy use at 10% by 2021. At present Bangladesh has only met 4% of that target as of November 2019. A recent study by the Institute for Sustainable Future, World Future Council and Coastal Development Partnership (CDP), shows that Bangladesh has enough land and natural resources to generate 156 Gigawatts (GW) of electricity from solar energy only [4]. While the country has this viable but largely untapped potential for solar energy generation, unfortunately, it has been observed that the state is approving more and more fossil fuels, especially coal-based power plants, being set up by public and private companies. Recent reports indicate that Bangladesh has an overcapacity of electricity generation, and as of April 2019 more than one-third of the total installed capacity remained idle [5]. The unused power reaches 40% in 2019 [6]. Your office must be well aware that the state has had to compensate at least USD 4.45 billion in the last 6 years and USD 1.00 billion in fiscal year 2018-19 as Capacity Charge for stranded assets of the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) [7]. At present media reports and government, announcements suggest that the state has given permission to establish around 29 coal power plants in the country [8] along with hundreds of furnace oil, diesel, and gas-based power plants. Alarmingly the coal power plants alone would emit 5.3 billion tons of Co2 in their lifetime of 40 years [9]. Apart from the pollution and emission concern, we would also like to bring your attention to a specific coal power company operating with a duty exemption of BDT 31.71 billion (USD 396.36 million) [10], S.S. Power Limited (owned by S. Alam Group) [11]. S.S Power limited has been associated with the killing of at least 4 innocent villagers who were protesting on land grabbing by the power plant project developers on 4 April 2016 [12]. We hope your office will look into these serious social concerns associated with coal power plant investments in Bangladesh. Consequently, we are conveying concerns over the decision of reducing Value Added Tax (VAT) from imported coal up to 2025, by 10% to reduce the cost of electricity generated from coal power plants [13] while various International reports suggest that solar power is much cheaper than coal in Asia [14]. Subsidy schemes on coal will lead to further extraction related impacts in coal exporting countries which will be compounded by the emission of burning coal in importing countries. Honorable Prime Minister, we would like to remind you that the decision to expand coal and other fossil fuel in Bangladesh, which is one of the Most Vulnerable Countries (MVCs) due to climate change is contradictory to the spirit of the nation’s commitments in NDC as well as the international consensus of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degree Celsius through the Paris Agreement [15]. We strongly and sincerely believe that with your leadership in the CVF, you will lead the Forum by setting examples and dismantling all subsidies to fossil fuel investments in the country, and move away from all coal-based power towards a green and 100% renewable future. Urge from Global Civil Society Withdraw the approvals of Coal and other fossil fuel-based power plantsCancel all subsidies and tax exemptions offered for coal and other fossil fuelsPay the highest attention and set ambitious targets of generating power from renewable energy from 10% to 100% by 2050 and take the necessary actions to hit the target urgently.Provide adequate subsidies for home-based renewable energy systems to encourage households to initiate solar systems in urban areas in addition to those in rural households.Take necessary actions to install two-way electricity meters for energy consumers so that individual citizens can contribute to national power generation from captive renewable power systems. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Endorsed by: 350.org Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS), Australia Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh Bank Information Center (BIC) Europe Bank Information Center (BIC), USA Center for Environment and Participatory Research (CEPR), Bangladesh Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), Sri Lanka Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), Mongolia Corporate Europe Observatory, Europe Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal ECOTON, Indonesia Environics Trust, India Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Sri Lanka Forest Peoples Programme, UK Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign against Poverty, Tanzania Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines Friends of the Earth (FOE) Frontera Water Protection Alliance (FWPA), USA Gender Action, USA Global Rights, Nigeria Global Rights, USA Green Advocates International, Liberia Housing and Land Rights Network, Habitat International Coalition INSAF (Indian Social Action Forum), India Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA International Rivers Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan KRuHA (People’s Coalition for the Right to Water), Indonesia Life Haven (Center for Independent Living), Philippines Oxfam, Bangladesh Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Philippines Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), Philippines Project Affected Peoples Association (PAPA), India Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition SNI (Indonesian Fisherfolk Union), Indonesia Sri Lanka Nature Group (SLNG), Sri Lanka UmeedeNoo, Pakistan We Women Lanka, Sri Lanka WomanHealth Philippines (WHP) Za Zemiata/Friends of the Earth - Bulgaria Reference:: [1] Daily Dhaka Tribune (2019). "PM agrees to become next CVF Chair". The Daily Dhaka Tribune, Dhaka: 2 December 2019. Retrieved from https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/2019/12/02/pm-agrees-to-become-next-cvf-chair accessed on 8 December 2019 [2] Daily NewAge (2019a). "Bangladesh parliament resolved for Planetary Emergency". The Daily NewAge, Dhaka: 14 November 2019. Retrieved from http://www.newagebd.net/article/90573/bangladesh-parliament-resolved-for-planetary-emergency accessed on 8 December 2019 [3] CVF (2016). "The Marrakech Communique". Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), Majuro: 18 November 2016. Retrieved from https://thecvf.org/marrakech-communique/ accessed on 8 December 2019 [4] CDP (2019). 100% Renewable Energy for Bangladesh: Access to Renewable Energy for All within One Generation. Coastal Development Partnership (CDP), Dhaka: October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/100-Renewable-Energy-for-Bangladesh.pdf accessed on 8 December 2019 [5] Daily NewAge (2019b). "Idle power plants paid Tk 8,000cr in F19". The Daily NewAge, Dhaka: 7 September 2019. Retrieved from http://www.newagebd.net/article/83819/idle-power-plants-paid-tk-8000cr-in-f19 accessed on 8 December 2019 [6] Daily NewAge (2019c). "40pc of power generation capacity unused". The Daily NewAge, Dhaka: 30 November 2019. Retrieved from http://www.newagebd.net/article/92192/40pc-of-power-generation-capacity-unused accessed on 9 December 2019 [7] Moazzem, K.G. & Ali, M. (2019). The Power and Energy Sector of Bangladesh: Challenges of Moving beyond the Transition Stage. Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), Dhaka: 10 March 2019. Retrieved from https://cpd.org.bd/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Power-and-Energy-Sector-of-Bangladesh.pdf accessed on 8 December 2019 [8] https://scroll.in/article/943070/bangladeshs-plan-to-massively-expand-coal-based-power-plants-will-be-a-catastrophe-says-new-report [9] Daily Newage (2019d). "Six Countries turn Bangladesh into Carbon Bomb: Study". The Daily NewAge, Dhaka: 7 November 2019. Retrieved from http://www.newagebd.net/article/89989/6-countries-turn-bangladesh-a-carbon-bomb-study accessed on 8 December 2019 [10] MOF (2016). Gazette Notification: SRO No. 49, Act/2019/08.00.0000.040.22.016.18. National Board of Revenue (NBR), Dhaka: 20 February 2019 [11] New Nation (2019). "Tk 3170.87 cr duty exemption for S. Alam Group". The New Nation, Dhaka: 21 February 2019. Retrieved from http://m.thedailynewnation.com/news/207046/tk-317087-cr-duty-exemption-for-s-alam-group accessed on 8 December 2019 [12] Daily Star (2016). "4 killed in clash over setting up power plant". The Daily Star, Dhaka: 4 April 2016. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/3-killed-30-injured-clash-over-power-plant-1204543 accessed on 8 December 2019 [13] Daily Star (2019). "NBR cuts VAT on coal import for power". The Daily Star, Dhaka: 6 December 2019. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/nbr-cuts-vat-coal-import-power-plants-1836466 accessed on 08 December 2019 [14] SEI (2019). "China Power’s results show how much cheaper solar is to coal". Smart Energy International (SMI), Rondebosch: 28 August 2019. Retrieved from https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/china-powers-results-show-how-much-cheaper-solar-is-to-coal/ accessed on 8 December 2019 [15] UNFCCC (2015). Article 2(a), Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris: December 2015

NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework for Investments Supported by Financial Intermediaries In Forum’s experience there are several fundamental problems in ensuring FI Accountability to Safeguards – Project cycle bound timely release of project information in a meaningful manner for local peoples FIs need to ensure that environmental and social due diligence is implemented at the highest standards by their clients On issues of non-compliance an independent and responsive redress mechanism has to be in place to ensure remedy for affected peoples. Keeping these three principles in mind the following comments have been made to the AMF- In the introductory section of the AMF, the lack of implementation of Equator Principles has been cited as a clear gap in FI accountability. We would recommend that the shift from guidelines for FIs to binding requirements should be emphasized in this section to strengthen the conceptual framework for this AMF. In line with comments from Accountability Counsel, we re-echo the need for learning to be upfront in this document for the AMF (Section 12, pg 4). For the AMF to work effectively it has to be able to learn from each case and make the necessary reforms to strengthen implementation. The issue of lessons learned and feedback loops built into the AMF system to help reform the structure will be critical to bringing diverse types of FI’s to compliance. On the issue of FI Sub-project categorization (pg.8) there is a need to ensure that a comprehensive ESIA is conducted to ensure the ‘Big B’ Category projects are deemed Category A. This is a potential risk especially for Infrastructure Funds, examples can be drawn from the Emerging Asia Fund of the AIIB and IFC, which has been tapped by Summit Power Group to retrofit several coal plants and build 4 new power generation facilities, which are fossil fuel based. The impacts from these projects will be long term and immediate and will require comprehensive ESIAs to ensure Safeguards are implemented. FIs and there parent funding institutions such as commercial banks and multilateral banks should have a strict monitoring role over their clients on environmental and social due diligence. The current practice of client-led safeguarding and self- reporting is no longer a viable model to ensure that AMF objectives are reached, thus we strongly recommend that monitoring and evaluation roles by FIs and their parent financial institutional investors should have an overseeing function. This is maybe done through further elaborating on a governance framework for FIs and their FI Clients, with detailed monitoring requirements in place. We are noticing for both ADB and AIIB projects that the Grievance Redress Mechanisms are often not effective at the local level. For MDBs it has been a real challenge to ensure that local GRMs have worked effectively; this will be a bigger challenge for an FI client to ensure. In this case, we recommend that project level GRMs should be – Meaningfully accessible for local communities Ensure complainants protection from backlash and retaliation Ensure remedial response The paper recognizes the shortcomings of GRMs - "However, GRMs are often poorly designed or implemented, and thus create mistrust and conflict between communities and the project executing agency. Finally, it must be noted that project-level GRM is not a substitute for an accountability mechanism at the institutional (financial intermediary) level, because the GRM cannot determine whether the financial intermediary has complied with its own environmental and social policies, standards, and procedures." Thus it has to be explicitly stated that accessing local GRMs should not be made a pre- requisite for local communities to trigger the Accountability Mechanism for an FI project. As mentioned earlier the fundamental problem with FI non-compliance to Safeguards is the lack of Time Bound Disclosure of project information to local people. At present local communities have no way of assessing whether FI subprojects are indeed FIs and what policies and mechanisms are entailed in their operations. From a community perspective, the following information has to be provided pre-project approval – Area and scale of the project Clear description of project cycle, construction, environmental and social impacts Clear assessment of project benefits sharing, compensations and allocations Clear understanding on rights, privileges and redress mechanisms for communities in cases of violations. All of language needs and ensuring that poor and vulnerable groups such as women, children and people with disabilities are made aware of all project related information. This is where the governance structure of this AMF will prove to be critical to ensure that Clients are complying with the disclosure needs at the local level. Provisions should also be made upstream in the project cycle to ensure that information disclosure needs are all met before a project is approved for implementation. The Forum re-echos Accountability Counsels recommendation on following the best practice example from the Green Climate Fund - which works with FIs, or accredited entities – The GCF has adopted a high degree of disclosure in line with international best practice, including time-bound disclosure of crucial project information – such as environmental and social impact assessments – ahead of approval. The degree and timing of disclosure are calibrated according to the risk profile of the investment: with more and better disclosure for the highest risk (Category A). The following excerpts from its 2016 Information Disclosure Policy describe the degree of disclosure: “Environmental and social reports. With respect to the project and program funding proposals that have an environmental or social impact, the Accredited Entities (AE’s) shall disclose and announce to the public and, via the Secretariat, to the Board and Active Observers: (a) in case of Category A projects, the Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA) and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; “(b) in the case of Category I-1 programs, the Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)2 at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; “(c) in the case of Category B projects, the ESIA3 and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)4 at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; and “(d) in the case of Category I-2 programs, the ESMS at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier.” The Forum recognizes the independence embedded in the structure proposed in this AMF and would make the following recommendations on the mechanism proposed- a) In submission of a complaint there should be a provision for complaints to be filed by international and regional representatives as authorized representatives for local and in-country representatives who are unable to step forward due to security risk and conflict scenarios. b) In cases where the IRM has proved that there have been issues on non- compliance, then all consultations between the client and the community MUST have the IRM present to ensure power equity in information exchange. This has to be an integral part of ensuring that a complaint process and remedial action are done objectively. In it’s entirety this AMF is an innovative and needed effort in holding FIs accountable. We hope that the above-mentioned recommendations be taken into consideration. Best regards, Rayyan Hassan Executive Director NGO Forum on ADB Download the PDF here.