Search Results

Last September 24, 2019, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) sent their official reply regrading the letter sent NGO Forum on ADB and Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI) about the labor violations committed by the ADB funded Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility Project. As per information from the ADB the designated agent assigned by the Government of India for the project is Grant Thornton India LLP. You can read the letter here. . .

BWI affiliates from India, All Himachal PWD-IPH & Contractual Workers Union (AHPWDIPHCWU) delegation today met ADB directors in its Head office in Manila to discuss the workers' complain on back wages occurred on ADB funded road project in Himachal Pradesh State (India), Kiratpur-Nerchowk Four Lanining Road Project (NHAI). The delegates headed by Mr. Sita Ram, President- AHPWDIPHCW, Himachal Pradesh State, India including Mr. Arun Kumar one of the aggrieved worker of IL&FS from the ADB funded project in Himachal Pradesh, included; Mr. Rayyan Hussan Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, Annabel Perreras, Advocacy Coordinator & Mr. Tilak Jang Khadka- BWI South Asia Campaign Officer. The BWI has already filed complaint to the ADB on 26 June 2019 on the labor violation in the ADB funded project Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility in Himachal Pradesh, India. The project was implemented through the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) contractor Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). The complaint is now in the ADB Compliance Review Panel -CRP and assessment is going on of its eligibility which will be released on or before 26th of September 2019. The delegation met and interacted with Mr. Jacob Henderson, US Adviser to ADB and compliance committee. Similarly the delegation also met and interacted with Dr. Kshatrapati Shivaji- Indian Executive Director to ADB who also represents Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. As the union, "All Himachal PWD-IPH & Contractual Workers Union (AHPWDIPHCWU)" has been raising the issues of work site workers, Forced labor beyond working hours, Absence of legal labor contracts, Forced weekend work Absence of social security coverage for the workers and their families, Violation of core labor standards, Non-compliance with the norms of freedom of association and collective bargaining, No specific facilities for women workers, Gross violation of occupational health and safety (OHS) and first-aid facilities at the work site. Due to its management issues the principal contractor of the project: IL&FS abandoned the worksite in July/August 2018 on grounds of financial crisis/bankruptcy, leaving the workers with thousands and thousands of rupees unpaid wages and benefits. After failing to resolve issues locally, they now come to ADB Headquarters to share their grief. There is more than 22 million Indian Rupees (about 300 thousand USD) back wages of workers in the project. As a responsible union leader from India, Brother Saini requested to the ADB officials to take step forward to solve the labour issues and also requested to resume the work and provide the employment opportunity to the workers who are eagerly waiting out there in project site in Himachal. The grass root workers who worked for the ADB funded project are out of wages for several months, now they are facing challenges to their survival, and needs immediate solution to releasing their back wages. It is also a matter of humanitarian issues and urgent atteion. During the interaction with ADB officials Brother Sain highlighted that how his union- AHPWDIPHCWU is supporting to the project sites by creating awareness on OSH, rights and responsibilities at the worksite as well as fair treatment of labour and social dialogue for productivity and quality of work. He further assured to the ADB officials that Unions are not against any development programs but they support to make it more good governance, sustainable, transparent and inclusive to its stakeholders. The union has big hope and full trust with ADB for its consideration to address such issues. Union also urge ADB to improve and regulate its safeguarding policy for workers like them who have nowhere to go when the company/contractor abandons the worksite and also the workers.

Via electronic mail President Jin Liqun Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank B9 Financial Street Xicheng District Beijing 10033 People’s Republic of China 13th September 2019 Copied to: Mr. Joachim Von Amsberg, Vice President, jvonamsberg@aiib.org Dr. D.J. Pandian, Vice President, djpandian@aiib.org Mr. Dong-Ik Lee, Project Team Leader, dongik.lee@aiib.org Mr. Hamid Sharif, Director General, CEIU, hsharif@aiib.org Mr Calvin Quek, Principal Communications Officer, calvin.quek@aiib.org Mr. Henri de Branche, Senior Environmental Specialist, henri.debranche@aiib.org Members of the Board of Directors of the AIIB Re: The AIIB’s investments in financial intermediaries: Urgent reforms needed Dear President Jin Liqun, We write to you as representatives of civil society organisations to draw your attention to concerns associated with the AIIB’s investments via financial intermediaries (FIs), and to request that the AIIB institute urgent reforms to manage the heightened social and environmental risks associated with this hands-off form of investing. This letter follows from our initial letter to you of 18 January 2018[i] on this issue. To date, around 10 per cent of the overall AIIB investment portfolio is supporting FIs - a figure which has risen dramatically in the last two years. The AIIB’s equity strategy makes clear that FI lending will become an increasingly significant part of the AIIB’s aim to mobilise funding from the private sector and institutional investors. At the same time as the AIIB’s FI portfolio is growing, there is an important opportunity to ensure the standards governing its implementation are fit for purpose: the forthcoming review of the AIIB’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) provides the chance to make sure that the AIIB is following best practice and is taking on board lessons from other peer institutions on FI lending. While investing in FIs can help mobilise funds and attract private capital for economic development, this form of third-party or ‘hands-off’ lending also comes with significant risks - in particular around clients’ adherence to environmental and social (E&S) safeguards. In recent years, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) - over 50 per cent of whose investment portfolio is to FIs - has been forced to acknowledge these risks and has taken some steps to address them. Following critical findings from both the IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) and from civil society groups, the IFC’s CEO, Philippe Le Houérou, has committed to reduce high-risk lending through FIs, including reducing investments linked to coal. The IFC is currently consulting with clients, shareholders and civil society on a new ‘Green Equity Approach’ to help to transform not only its own lending but that of its FI clients, shifting away from fossil fuels and towards greener investment. These are important developments and we urge the AIIB to learn from the IFC’s problematic experience with its FI portfolio and its efforts towards reform. At the same time, other institutions, such as the Green Climate Fund – which lends 100 per cent through FIs – have developed robust policies, for example around information disclosure, that the AIIB could emulate. Apart from these developments among the AIIB’s peers, we also wish to draw to your attention experiences to date with the AIIB’s own FI investments. Civil society groups have been working with local communities to monitor certain AIIB FI investments, including the IFC Emerging Asia Fund[ii], the India Infrastructure Fund (now renamed North Haven)[iii] and the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund[iv]. A number of common concerns arise from analysis of these projects: Lack of information disclosure: The AIIB does not include information about sub-projects funded through any client FIs on its website. No information at all is publicly available on the sub-projects supported by the two Indian FIs, for example. This leaves potentially affected communities in the dark about their rights to know both who is behind the project affecting them, and that the AIIB’s E&S standards should be applied. Though the AIIB has committed to release information ‘within 12 months’ of such projects’ approval, this is too late to help third parties and potentially affected people to identify and raise concerns up front, and lags behind best practice at other institutions. Exposure to fossil fuels: though the AIIB aims to be a ‘green’ bank, there is a significant risk of FI investments ending up backing fossil fuels, as evidenced in the case of the IFC Emerging Asia Fund. For example, one client, Summit Power in Bangladesh, has a portfolio that is 100 per cent fossil-fuel based. Delegation of control to FI clients/co-financiers: the AIIB delegates decision-making around risk classification and E&S management entirely to the FIs in which it invests. Such lack of oversight can exacerbate problems and can lead to risks being ignored or overlooked, as has happened at the IFC. Research[v] demonstrates that many FIs do not put adequate environmental and social management systems in place and fail to apply standards at the project level. This can result in projects causing harms – such as land conflicts – even when investments appear ‘green’, such as large-scale renewables. Such issues with implementation arise in part because of policy gaps. To date, the AIIB has not disclosed any documents that reveal how it assesses, prepares and finalises potential FI investments. It is important that the AIIB adopt a systematic and transparent approach to its FI lending. As mentioned, the forthcoming review of the AIIB’s ESF provides an ideal opportunity both to address these gaps and to ensure that AIIB staff are equipped with the guidance they require to ensure FI investments do no harm. We urge the AIIB to address these concerns by: enhancing information disclosure in FI lending; expanding the ESF to include detailed requirements for FI lending; ensuring that FI lending does not open the door further to fossil fuel investments; and introducing ring-fencing of FI investments to support specific projects that are low-E&S risk and have genuine development impact, ensuring this ring fencing is legally enforceable and traceable. In the enclosed Annex, we identify examples of existing good practice at the AIIB’s peer institutions relating to these common concerns, as well as recommendations on how the AIIB could begin to address policy and implementation gaps. We look forward to your response to these concerns and your commitment to ensuring that the AIIB takes on the lessons learned at IFC to reduce high risk FI lending. Yours sincerely, Kate Geary, Co-Director, BIC Europe and the following organisations: 350.org Abibiman Foundation Accountability Counsel Action Paysanne Contre la Faim Aksi! Alliance Sud Amnesty International Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (BAPA) Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) BankTrack Both Ends Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO) CAFOD Centre for Environmental Justice Centre for Financial Accountability Centre for Human Rights and Development China Latin America Sustainable Investments Initiative Christian Aid CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) Conseil Régional des ONG de Développement Equitable Cambodia Eurodad Friends of the Earth Japan Friends of the Earth US Gender Action Global Responsibility (AG Globale Verantwortung) Green Advocates International Inclusive Development International Indian Social Action Forum Initiative for Right View International Rivers Lumière Synergie pour le Developpement Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan Manushya Foundation NGO Forum on ADB Odisha Chas Parivesh Sureksha Parishad Oil Change International Oxfam Rivers without Boundaries Shankar Sharma (individual) Social Justice Connection Sri Lanka Nature Group Srijan Lokhit Samiti Umeedenoo Urgewald Witness Radio Organisation Working Group on IFIs (network of organisations working on IFIs in India) Youth for Environment Education and Development Foundation ANNEX: Financial intermediary lending: existing good practice at peer institutions and recommendations for how to address gaps Information disclosure Current AIIB policy: The ESF only commits to disclose information about projects supported via FIs in a “timely manner”. FI staff at AIIB are proposing to interpret this as disclosing sub-projects within 12 months of their approval. Best practice at peer institutions: International financial institutions recognise the importance of transparency not only in improving accountability to shareholders and citizens, but in helping to avoid and manage risk. According to President Jin, "Transparency and accountability are the two main pillars of AIIB’s governance." Transparency has been a particular challenge in financial intermediary lending, given the longer chain from investor to project; conversely, transparency is all the more important in this type of lending given its higher risk profile. When risks are spotted early on, they are more easily avoided or mitigated, leading to better project outcomes and lower reputational risk. The Green Climate Fund The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a highly relevant institution for the purposes of comparison with the AIIB’s FI lending, since 100 per cent of its lending is carried out through intermediaries (or as the GCF calls them ‘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 is 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 project and programme 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 programmes, 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 programmes, the ESMS at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier.” The GCF expects its conditions to be met when working with other multilaterals, raising the possibility of the AIIB being obliged to improve disclosure if it works with the GCF. For example, in the case of the GCF’s involvement with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Green Cities Project, the GCF’s Board stipulated additional conditions: “In relation to each Category A public sector sub-project to be funded under the Facility, the Accredited Entity shall disclose the Project Summary Document, Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA) and Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP), and, as appropriate, inclusive of the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and/or Land Acquisition and/or Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP or RAP), and any other associated information required to be disclosed in accordance with the Accredited Entity’s Public Information Policy (“Project Disclosure Package”). The Accredited Entity, 120 calendar days in advance of its Board meeting, shall disclose, in English and the local language (if not English), the Project Disclosure Package on its website and shall require that the Borrower does so in locations convenient to affected peoples, and provide the Project Disclosure Package to the GCF Secretariat for further distribution to the Board and Active Observers and for posting on the GCF website.”[vi] The World Bank The World Bank invests in FIs and requires and practices a high degree of disclosure, including of sub-projects supported through commercial banks. Under the disclosure clause of the World Bank’s 2013 Operational Procedure BP 4.03, the World Bank requires its FI clients to disclose as well as permit, in writing, the World Bank to disclose the summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of any sub-project considered high risk (Category FI-1 and FI-2). In practice, however, the World Bank seems to go beyond summaries by disclosing full reports of impact assessments, mitigation, and resettlement plans.[vii] Examples include the World Bank’s investments in Turkish banks, TKB and TSKB, for which the World Bank disclosed 208 documents relating to the investments and their sub projects. The International Finance Corporation The International Finance Corporation (IFC) discloses different information depending on the type of FI client. It has made several significant reforms over the past five years, largely in response to civil society pressure and a number of highly-damaging cases.[viii] For private equity fund clients: in its 2012 Performance Standards, IFC committed to “periodically disclose a listing of the names, locations and sectors of high-risk sub-projects that have been supported by IFC investments through private equity funds, subject to regulatory constraints and market sensitivities.” This was updated in 2015 when in response to pressure from civil society, IFC started to disclose all sub projects supported via its private equity fund clients, stating: “with input from CSOs and other stakeholders, we have improved transparency by now disclosing all private equity fund sub-projects.”[ix] In 2017, the IFC applied this new rule retrospectively to all PE fund clients since 2012: “We publish the name, sector and location of every investment of our funds’ portfolio companies. In 2017, IFC fulfilled 100 percent of this requirement for the 63 fund investments initiated since 2012, and published information on more than 387 funds’ portfolio companies.”[x] IFC is in the process of developing a new strategy on disclosure, which will include: “a voluntary initiative with our financial intermediary clients exposed to high-risk projects for the next two years to promote disclosure of such high-risk sub-projects initiated from IFC lending, including the name, sector, and host country of the project.”[xi] Proposal for reform to ESF: The AIIB should adopt an ESF that commits to principles of disclosure and transparency and enshrines best practice, including: Requiring time-bound disclosure of project information in advance of approval, in line with best practice; Disclosure of the name, sector and location of higher risk sub-projects financed via FIs on the AIIB’s website and on the client’s website; Disclosure of the AIIB’s involvement in sub-projects at the project sites, ensuring that it is clearly visible and understandable to affected communities. Risk categorisation, ring-fencing and supervision Current AIIB policy: The ESF delegates responsibility from the AIIB to the FI Client to categorize sub-projects as Category A, B or C and monitor the corresponding E&S risks associated with these sub-projects. Best practice at peer institutions: Given the documented problems with FI mis-categorisation of projects (the incentive is to categorise the projects at a lower risk level to avoid costly due diligence), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has developed a ‘referral list’[xii] for higher risk projects, to ensure it both assesses risk categorisation and monitors E&S standards implementation itself in higher risk sub-projects. Proposal for reform to ESF: Adopt a ‘referral list’ approach, where higher risk sub-projects are automatically flagged and given higher attention, including by bank staff. This should include all large-scale infrastructure, including large-scale renewables projects. EBRD language requires the bank to engage as follows “EBRD will assist FIs with the appraisal of these [referral list] subprojects. EBRD environmental/social specialists will review the due diligence information collected by the FI, determine any additional information needed, assist with determining appropriate mitigation measures and, if necessary, specify conditions under which the subprojects may proceed.” The AIIB could adopt a similar approach Additional requirements should be included in the ESMP/ESM Planning Requirement for FI projects to have clearly defined responsibilities for the FI Client, sub-project client and the Client's contractor. The AIIB and its FI client must ensure that the hired contractors are also adequately equipped to implement the ESF. Implement ring-fencing of FI investments to support specific projects that are low-E&S risk and have genuine development impact and ensure this ring fencing is legally enforceable and traceable. Climate mitigation Current AIIB policy: The AIIB’s Energy Sector Strategy and the ESF commit to align with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Addressing AIIB lending through FIs is crucial in ensuring both direct and indirect investments uphold this commitment. Current policies do not exclude coal and the ESF is weak on climate mitigation. Best practice at peer institutions: The International Finance Corporation The CEO of the IFC, Philippe Le Houérou, is instituting a number of significant reforms at the IFC aimed at reducing its fossil fuel exposure, including in its FI business. In its Interpretation Note for FIs from November 2018, the IFC states: “The Exclusion List can be extended by adding more excluded activities, as part of the E&S risk management efforts. For instance, in case of any targeted products IFC will exclude coal related sub-projects including coal mining, coal transportation or coal-fired power plants, as well as infrastructure services exclusively dedicated to support any of these activities. In case of projects involving collective investment vehicles such as PE Funds, the coal related investments will be either excluded up front or when this is not feasible IFC will opt out from such investments.” The IFC also committed in the Interpretation Note to improve disclosure around coal exposure, including by requiring FI clients to report annually to the IFC: “For an FI, E&S performance reports to IFC should typically include: ... Where relevant, the FI clients’ exposures to high risk activities (e.g. coal related activities, palm oil, etc.)” The IFC also commits to make this information on coal exposure public: “We will require new equity financial intermediary clients exposed to coal projects to publicly disclose their total exposure in this sector.”[xiii] In February 2019, the IFC went further and shared a draft Green Equity Strategy with civil society (it is expected to be finalised soon). Commitments include: an aim to reduce coal exposure to zero; not to invest in FI clients that do not have a plan to phase out investments in coal; a new strategy for equity clients that includes specific targets on phasing out coal in clients’ entire portfolios. The UK government development finance institution (DFI) CDC’s policy [xiv] states “Where CDC invests in banks or other Financial Intermediaries (FIs) and where CDC reasonably expects a significant proportion of that FI’s funds to be used to fund coal-fired power … the general presumption will be that CDC would seek a ‘carve out’ to exclude CDC funds being used for any new coal-fired thermal power plants.” Significant proportion “means that more than 10% of the FI’s current or predicted future loan portfolio is for coal-fired thermal power investments”[xv]. The Dutch DFI, FMO, states: “FMO can provide loans to banks and non-bank financial institutions that provide loans to coal-fired power projects, coal mines and dedicated thermal coal transport/infrastructure, to a maximum threshold of 20% of the Financial Intermediary’s total balance sheet or total investment portfolio”[xvi]. Proposal for reform to ESF: In this rapidly-developing space, the AIIB has the opportunity to join the leaders in ensuring the transformation necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. To do so, the AIIB should: Adopt a requirement for all FI clients to track and disclose coal and other fossil fuel investments; Ensure that none of its investments results in an increase in coal use: whether for power generation or industrial uses, or for associated facilities such as transmission lines and railways or ports primarily meant for the transportation of coal. Exclude upstream oil and gas; Not invest in clients with more than 5 per cent portfolio exposure to coal; Invest only in FI clients who commit to develop a portfolio decarbonisation plan to achieve emissions reductions in line with targets set under the Paris Climate Agreement. [i] See: https://bic-europe.org/news/aiib-urged-to-take-on-lessons-learned-in-risky-lending/ [ii] See: https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Moving-beyond-rhetoric_FINAL.pdf and https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Financing-development-in-Myanmar-FINAL.pdf [iii] See: https://bic-europe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Risky-Venture_FINAL.pdf [iv] See: https://www.cenfa.org/publications/briefing-note-aiibs-investment-in-the-niif-why-is-it-a-risky-venture/ [v] See: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/newsroom/documents/FIAUDIT.htm and https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/what-we-do/campaigns/outsourcing-development/ [vi] Green Climate Fund GCF/B.21/34 p 71 Annex XV List of conditions and recommendations. [vii] Oxfam (2018) Open Books See https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620559/bp-financial-institutions-disclosure-161018-en.pdf [viii] See for example: AgriVie case in Uganda (http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=180); GMR Kamalanga case in India (http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=165); RCBC bank in the Philippines (http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=1266); Ficohsa Honduras (http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=209) and Dragon Capital Cambodia (http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=212). [ix] IFC (2015) IFC’s Work with Financial Intermediaries; see: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1c3013804a260251bf70bfe54d141794/IFC_FI_FactSheet_April2015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [x] IFC (2017) Sustainable Practices for Private Equity Funds Business see: https://medium.com/@IFC_org/sustainable-practices-for-private-equity-funds-business-5d841850f7c5 [xi] Le Houérou, Philippe (2018) in Devex see: https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-a-new-ifc-vision-for-greening-banks-in-emerging-markets-93599 [xii] The EBRD referral list is as follows: PR9 Annex 2 The FI Referral List The financing by FIs of the following environmentally or socially sensitive business activities financed with EBRD funds is subject to referral to EBRD: The principal Performance Requirement that proposed transactions will be expected to meet is indicated in italics. (i) Activities involving involuntary resettlement - EBRD Performance Requirement 5 (ii) Activities that occur within or have the potential to adversely affect an area that is protected through legal or other effective means, and/or is internationally recognised, or proposed for such status by national governments, sites of scientific interest, habitats of rare/endangered species, fisheries of economic importance, and primary/old growth forests of ecological significance - EBRD Performance Requirement 6 (iii) Activities within, adjacent to, or upstream of land occupied by indigenous peoples and/or vulnerable groups including lands and watercourses used for subsistence activities such as livestock grazing, hunting, or fishing - EBRD Performance Requirement 7 (iv) Activities which may affect adversely sites of cultural or archaeological significance -EBRD Performance Requirement 8 (v) Activities in the nuclear fuel production cycle (uranium mining, production, enrichment, storage or transport of nuclear fuels)101 (vi) Energy generation using nuclear fuels (excluding electricity import/export)102 (vii) Activities involving the release of GMOs into the natural environment – EBRD Performance Requirement 6 (viii) Any micro, small or medium-sized HPPs that do not trigger Category A requirements – EBRD Eligibility Criteria for Small Hydropower Plant Projects (ix) Any Category A projects included as Appendix 2 to the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy [xiii] Le Houérou, P (2018) A new IFC vision for greening banks in emerging markets, in Devex 8 October 2018. [xiv] CDC Group (2014) Policy on coal-fired power generation [xv] CDC Group (2014) Policy on coal-fired power generation [xvi] FMO (2016) Position Statement on Coal Power Generation and Coal Mining

September 2, 2019 MR. TAKEHIKO NAKAO President Asian Development Bank (ADB) Dear Pres. Nakao, We are writing to you regarding the Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility in Himachal Pradesh, India, with project number 47083-002, approved on October 21, 2013. The project was implemented through the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) contractor Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). The project’s goal was to alleviate poverty and provide an important infrastructure link between people and markets. Instead, the project has caused major problems to more than one hundred affected workers, leaving them with months of unpaid back wages and other legal benefits. As of February 2019, the project owes the affected workers a total of 22 million Indian rupees. The project has resulted in other labour violations, including 1. No employment contracts 2. Forced overtime without pay 3. Forced weekend work 4. No social security coverage for the workers and their families 5. Violation of the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining 6. No specific facilities for women workers 7. Gross negligence on occupational health and safety (OHS) and first-aid facilities The project has also violated rules laid out in the ADB Social Protection Strategy, which guarantees compliance with core labor standards and minimum legal protections. The Social Protection Strategy also requires all ADB-funded projects to have a ground-level grievance mechanism, however, this project never had such a mechanism. A complaint was also filed to the ADB Accountability Mechanism Office of the Special Project Facilitator last May 30, 2019, by the affected workers regarding this project. We would like to request your office to look into this matter and address the issues most especially the unpaid back wages of the affected workers as the IL&FS is currently inaccessible. We hope that you can fulfill ADB’s vision of improving the quality of life of the people in Asia and the pacific by addressing this problem. We look forward to your response. Respectfully, NGO Forum on ADB Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) Supported by: Aksi Ekologi dan Emansipasi Rakyat (AEER), Indonesia Aksi!, Indonesia Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development Associated Labor Unions (ALU), Philippines Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) Bank Information Center, USA Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers Federation (BBWWF) BIC Europe Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL), Bangladesh Center of Bird Lovers, Armenia Central Asia and Caucasus NGO Forum on ADB, Armenia Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), Sri Lanka Centre for Financial Accountability, India Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Bangladesh Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM) Community Empowerment and Social Justice (CEMSOJ) Foundation, Nepal Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Construction & General Division, Australia Construction Labourers Union, India Environics Trust, India Environmental Public Society, Armenia Equitable Cambodia Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF), France Focus on the Global South Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan Gender Action Global Social Justice, Belgium Globalization Monitor, Hong Kong Hosiery Workers Unity Centre, India Indian National Rural Labour Federation (INRLF) Indian Oil Petronas Contractor Shramik Union, India Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India Indigenous Perspectives, India Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ) Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) Korea Federation for Environmental Movements, South Korea Lumiere Synergie pour le Developpement (LSD), Senegal Nash Vek Public Foundation National Building and Wood Workers Union, Sri Lanka Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia Pakistan Federation of Building and Wood Workers (PFBWW) Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Philippines Programme on Women's Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (PWESCR) International Project Affected Peoples Association (PAPA), India Public Interest Law Center - PILC - TCHAD, Chad Rivers without Boundaries, Mongolia SERBUK - Indonesian Federation of People Labour Unions Shevaroys’ General Employees Union (SGEU), India Sri Lanka Nature Group Struggle Forum for Informal Sector Workers, India The Oakland Institute, USA The People's Coalition for Fisheries Justice (KIARA), Indonesia Union of Forestry Employees of Sarawak, Malaysia Urgewald, Germany We Women Sri Lanka WomanHealth Philippines Working Group on International Financial Institutions, India Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan Sent via electronic mail and hard copy to the following: Pres. Takehiko Nakao - President, Asian Development Bank (ADB)ALL Executive Directors, ADB ALL Alternate Directors, ADB Board Compliance Review Committee (BCRC), ADB Marvin Taylor-Dormond, Director-General, Independent Evaluation Department, ADB Jennifer Francis, Principal Institutional Coordination Specialist, South Asia Operations Department, ADB Preety M. Bandhari, Director, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Division, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, ADB Nessim J. Ahmad, Deputy Director General, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, Concurrently Chief Compliance Officer Dingding Tang, Chair, Compliance Review Panel, ADB Dr. Bambang Susantono, Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development, ADB Shixin Chen, Vice-President (Operations 1), ADB Hun Kim, Director-General, South Asia Regional Department, ADB Wendy Walker, Technical Advisor for the Social Development Thematic Group, ADB

NGO Forum on ADB, a civil society network of over 250 organizations across Asia expresses its deep concern at the growing humanitarian crisis in Narmada valley, Central India, where thousands of families are being evicted without rehabilitation for the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power (Narmada dam financed by World Bank). We also express our solidarity and deep concern for the health of the inspiring leader of the movement Medha Patkar, who is into her 6th day of indefinite fast. The Narmada dam has been financed by World Bank violating all forms of social and environmental safeguarding, leading to over 32,000 families facing displacement and awaiting rehabilitation. NGO Forum on ADB strongly believes that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has been pivotal in triggering multilateral development banks (MDBs) to adopt safeguard policies and accountability mechanisms, and continues to be an inspiration to social movements globally on the art of non-violent struggle. We stand in solidarity with the movement and people involved in the Narmada struggle. We demand the Government of India, and concerned state governments to address the demands of the struggle and avoid a further humanitarian crisis.

“There should be a platform for people, governments and multilateral development banks (MDBs) to realize that the target of 1.50 is feasible. However we need various approaches much sooner than we thought of before,” according to Hemantha Withanage of Centre for Environmental Justice based in Sri Lanka. The latest 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report have sparked stronger renewed calls calling for a rapid decarbonization to limit the warming temperature of the planet. Accordingly climate – related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security are projected to increase with the global warming. The economic loss from global disasters will cost more than the usual in 2017. Consequently the loss and damage caused by severe droughts, floods, landslide and the coastal sea level rise will have irreparable impacts. It is part of this context that multilateral development banks particularly the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have made several pronouncements on their commitments to Paris Agreement. AIIB being “born” after the landmark Paris Agreement have proudly publicly stated that, “there are no coal projects in our pipeline.” Whereas ADB’s Chief Energy Sector Group have recently released an opinion piece stating that while the 51 – year old bank will meet its own climate finance targets, “ADB’s lending portfolio has no place for dirty energy.” However despite these declarations are ADB and AIIB remiss in translating these commitments into the fiber of their respective institutional policies and actual lending portfolio? Debunking these banks’ narratives In the strategy meeting convened by NGO Forum on ADB, an independent coalition of CSOs holding the ADB and AIIB accountable, the myths purported by these banks were demystified. ADB’s outdated 2009 Energy Policy provides that the bank “will selectively support coal – based power plants if cleaner technologies are adopted.” The ADB have a history of financing coal – fired power plants using clean coal technology (CCT) and complaints have been filed to ADB’s Accountability Mechanism in this regard. These include the ADB – backed 4, 000 MW Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in Gujarat, India, which claims to use supercritical technology under its Private Sector Operations Department. World Bank’s private sector arm, International Finance Corporation (IFC) also co – financed the same project and a US Supreme Court case has been filed challenging the absolute immunity of IFC. The ADB also financed the 200 MW Visayas Base – load Power Development Project in Cebu, Philippines that also used circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler technology, which is also a type of CCT. Despite being the dominant buzzword for MDBs, using CCT will not be able to prevent significantly greenhouse gas emissions that have detrimental impacts both to the environment and on affected communities’ health. In the case of the supposed green bank, AIIB has approved 6 natural gas projects or roughly 19% of its portfolio in its first 3 years of operation. This is also consistent with the trend across MDBs of shifting their respective energy lending portfolios from financing the construction or rehabilitation of coal – fired power plants to natural gas, which is perceived as “more environment – friendly” as compared to coal. “There have been claims that consultations have taken place but voices from the people have not been adequately heard,” according to Hasan Mehedi of Coastal Livelihoods and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) based in Bangladesh that is monitoring the AIIB – backed Bhola Integrated Power Plant Project. The MDBs are also using the same language as CSOs, peoples’ movements and communities fighting against harmful projects. The strategy meeting called for stronger energy policy language reflected in MDBs actual lending portfolio without any room for exceptions. Clear and unambiguous phase out plan of fossil fuel to just transition to renewables by 2030 and beyond has been the rallying cry of NGO Forum on ADB and its partner members. MDBs are also using this narrative particularly on the supposedly advances made on renewables. These broadly include solar farms, wind parks, waste – to – energy, geothermal, carbon capture and storage to attain the vision for Asia’s low – carbon growth. Strengthening the case for renewables There is no question that the viability of renewables in the long – term to meet the Paris Agreement. However civil society has also strongly denounced renewables with damning impacts both to the environment, cause land grabbing or any human rights violations. According to the Nationally Determined Contributions of Indonesia, the projected energy mix by 2027 shows an increase on renewables particularly for geothermal which is approximately estimated to be at USD 25 billion investment. Nonetheless as pointed out by veteran activist Titi Soentoro of Aksi, “The country already has a fragile ecosystem and the number of geothermal power plants in the pipeline in a highly sensitive environment might be a disaster in the making.” The other myth espoused by MDBs and the fossil fuel industry is the intermittency issues of renewables. However, “Krabi Province in Thailand is an example wherein it is projected that by 2026, the province is 100% self – dependent on renewables. There are alternatives such as solar rooftops but definitely not solar farms as well as maintain the strong opposition to coal is feasible to attain the just transition,” according to Suphakit Nuntavorokan of Healthy Public Policy Foundation based in Thailand. The potential for renewables according to Philippine government data shows 250 GW of capacity. Recent developments have shown that renewables are not only getting to be cross – competitive but it is also cheaper. “Coal is no longer the king in the Philippines. Community – based renewable energy systems used to be difficult to argue because it is expensive but now the narrative is different,” according to Gerry Arances of Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED) based in the Philippines. Lead up to 2030 The multilateral development banks, the private sector, fossil fuel industry and governments are intensifying their own version of narratives with respect to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless for CSOs, peoples’ movements and communities at the forefront of this battle, it is about stopping coal – fired power plants and other fossil fuel including natural gas as well as fight for the space for acceptable renewable investments to thrive in. The conversation on energy is all about social justice, protecting our rights and the story of mankind’s survival. Download the pdf here. #Energy #CleanEnergy #ADB #AIIB #decarbonizeADB #decarbonize Annabel Perreras is the Policy Coordinator on AIIB of NGO Forum on ADB, you may reach her via her email ann.perreras@forum-adb.org.

24 June 2019 Dr. Joachim von Amsberg Vice - President, Policy and Strategy Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) B9 Financial Street Xicheng District Beijing 10033 People’s Republic of China Re: CSOs’ request for a meaningful dialogue in the Annual Meeting Dear Mr. von Amsberg, It was good meeting you and having interesting discussions in Berlin, Germany. In our meeting, we discussed several concerns about the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), its link to the Policy on Public Information (PPI) and the problems we face in monitoring a number of AIIB-funded projects. The challenges we encounter in dealing with these projects also depend on whether the said project is co-financed with another multilateral development bank, a standalone project, or if it involves financial intermediation. Although we value having this discussion with you, as European civil society groups, we are of the strong belief that our meeting in Berlin, a similar one in London or elsewhere are not a proper substitute for a genuine and meaningful dialogue on these topics at the Annual Meeting. It is striking to note that CSOs from regional member states are encountering hurdles to meaningful interaction with AIIB Senior- or Mid-level Management. In view of the foregoing and on behalf of the 20 signatories from civil society organizations, we would like to request a meeting with you in Luxembourg on the following topics: 1. Implementation and review of the ESF The ESF provides that, “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 ESF (para. 4, ESF) [Emphasis added].” We would like the AIIB to disclose an Approach Paper similar to the practices of other multilateral development banks (MDBs) in carrying out an evaluation or review process for a critical policy document. This Approach Paper would determine the timeline, methodology and scope of the review process. Given its importance to ensuring a genuinely open and consultative process, we would also request the Bank to consider CSO inputs as early as possible in the drafting of this Approach Paper and ensure a meaningful consultation process thereafter. 2. Policy gaps arising from significant concerns about AIIB-funded projects CSOs have consistently requested more in-depth meetings with Project Team Leaders during the Annual Meeting. It is of vital importance that, like other multilateral financial institutions, the AIIB make Project Team Leaders available to meet with affected people and NGOs. While we have not received any favorable responses to these meeting requests (except on the issue of FI lending), we would like to bring to your attention and discuss with you the ESF policy gaps based on our experiences in monitoring a number of AIIB- funded projects1. We hope that the AIIB will act urgently to help to resolve these project concerns and issues on land acquisition, lack of meaningful consultation, poor quality of information disclosure, faulty grievance redress mechanisms, environmental harm and labour violations, to name a few. As the Vice-President for Policy and Strategy, we equally hope that you can ensure that these lessons be learned and fed into the ESF review, and that the AIIB ensure the robust implementation of the ESF. 3. Timely and accessible information on projects for affected communities and civil society We would like to highlight this cross-cutting issue of the lack of timely and accessible information, in particular relating to the time-bound disclosure of information relating to social and environmental impacts of projects on affected communities. The lack of, or slow response to project queries and the low quality of project documents being disclosed also pose significant risks in ensuring that likely adverse harm will be avoided, if not mitigated. We would also like to discuss with you our concern about the rushed technical amendments to the ESF with respect to information disclosure, which were undertaken without public notice or consultation, and the likely ramifications of their implementation. We know that a broader meeting between Management, mainly the President and civil society has been scheduled. However, we would like to have a focused meeting on the issues listed above with you as the Vice-President in charge of Policy and Strategy and project leads/specialists would make such a meeting very productive. Having known our organizations already from your tenure as Vice-President at the World Bank, you know that our main objective is to get the voices of affected communities heard and to help the AIIB to achieve better results in fighting poverty and fulfilling its mandate. Looking forward to your reply. Sincerely, Knud Voecking (Urgewald) 1 Indicatively, we would like the following to raise ESF policy gaps and project concerns on the following: i) Myingyan Power Plant Project; ii) Emerging Asia Fund - Shwe Taung cement plant; iii) National Investment and Infrastructure Fund; iv) India Infrastructure Fund; v) Tarbela 5 Hydropower Extension Project; vi) Bhola IPP; vii) National Slum Upgrading Project; viii) Beijing Air Quality Improvement and Coal Replacement Project; ix) Gujarat Rural Roads Project; x) Colombo Urban Regeneration Project; and Nenskra Hydropower Project. Co-signatories: NGO Forum on ADB BIC Europe IDI - Inclusive Development International Centre for Financial Accountability India CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) Both ENDS Bretton Woods Project Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED) International Accountability Project (IAP) Sri Lanka Nature Group (SLNG) Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum OT Watch, Mongolia SustainableEnergy (VedvarendeEnergi, Denmark) Gender Action Verein für sozialökologischen Wandel Bank Information Center Arbeitsgemeinschaft Globale Verantwortung, Austria Ulu Foundation Crude Accountability *Download the letter here.

Three years ago, the multilateral Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) entered the global development finance sector with high environmental ambitions. The bank’s Chinese president Jin Liqun promised the institution would be „lean, clean and green“. For the bank’s annual meetings taking place on Friday and Saturday in Luxembourg, NGOs from around the world show that the bank is undermining its own climate ambitions through backing fossil projects. The groups are demanding the AIIB makes a clear commitment to the 1.5 °C climate target the world’s nations agreed to in Paris. New research by the Bank Information Center Europe (BIC Europe) and The Big Shift Campaign shows that, out of just over $8 billion invested, 20% of the AIIB’s funding or $1.6 billion has gone towards fossil fuels, while only 8% ($660 M) has gone to renewables. Looking just at the bank’s energy lending, fossil fuels represent almost 60% of funding against just under a quarter for renewables. All of the AIIB’s direct investments in fossil fuels support natural gas projects, responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, including from methane. Most of the funding for renewables went towards large-scale projects, including hydropower, that can cause significant negative environmental and social impacts. All Results: https://t1p.de/vd1p The NGOs call on the AIIB to: Develop a Climate Change Action Plan, with clear and ambitious targets for how it will align its policies and operations with the Paris Climate Agreement. Provide a road map for the AIIB to shift direct and indirect investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy by 2020, including ruling out all financing for coal and any investment that would result in increased coal use, and matching the World Bank’s commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas. Ensure all energy projects help lift more people out of energy poverty in a sustainable way, especially by scaling up support for decentralised renewable electricity and clean cooking solutions. This should exclude large hydro dams or nuclear power plants. Significantly enhance its social and environmental safeguards and monitoring. In order to avoid severe impacts for people and nature, the AIIB shareholders must advocate a strong, independent complaints mechanism and more transparency. Anuradha Munshi from the Centre for Financial Accountability (India), says: “Institutions like AIIB have been following in the footsteps of other MDBs of the past and are fomenting the climate crisis by investing in disastrous projects like fossil fuel energy sources. This is contributing to the worst water crisis and heat wave India has ever faced leaving thousands of marginalised communites on the verge of death and starvation. These institutions need to stop this exploitation in the name of sustainable development.” Hasan Mehedi from the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) in Bangladesh: “The coastal zone of Bangladesh is currently facing adverse impacts of climate change. The AIIB's dirty investments are accelerating and aggravating these impacts.” Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of the NGO Forum on ADB (Philippines): “Since its inception in 2016, the AIIB has financed fossil fuel-related transmission infrastructure. It has also continued to proliferate gas power plants in the Asia region, especially in Myanmar and Bangladesh. While AIIB has also invested in energy efficiency projects, there can be no half way measures to achieve a Paris alignment to 1.5 degrees. The AIIB must commit to a time bound phase out plan from all forms of fossil fuel investments.” Kate Geary from the Bank Information Center - Europe (BIC Europe): "Our evidence shows a heavy AIIB bias to fossil fuel projects over renewables. This should be unacceptable to European shareholders, for example the UK government which has just declared a climate emergency. The house is on fire - will the AIIB fuel the flames or help put them out?“ Knud Voecking from the German human rights and environment NGO Urgewald: “We witness a very worrying trend in global development finance, initiated by the AIIB. Its standards for transparency, human rights and the environment fall well short of those of other multilateral banks. Already now, this leads to a 'race to the bottom' in environmental and social standards. Especially the European shareholders in the AIIB, who give the Bank international credibility, must stop this dangerous course.” Jo Mountford, speaking for The Big Shift Campaign: “According to the most recent IPCC report, fossil fuels need to be phased out urgently for us to meet the 1.5°C Paris Climate Agreement target. The AIIB needs to support clean and sustainable renewable energy which could help achieve the Sustainable Development Goal to provide energy access for all by 2030. It urgently needs to shift its energy finance out of planet-warming fossil fuels and into distributed, renewable energy projects that will provide clean energy for people across Asia.” Ekkehart Schmidt from Etika Luxembourg: "European shareholders in the AIIB like Luxembourg should use their influence and insist on compliance with minimum standards for environmental protection and human rights.” Further Reading Research Results on the AIIB’s Fossil vs Renewables Finance: Report: https://t1p.de/vd1p; Infographic: https://t1p.de/e46e Study on 3 Years AIIB: https://t1p.de/txxq Petition addressed to the AIIB‘s President Jin Liqun: https://bigshiftglobal.org/aiib

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is having its 4th Annual Meeting in Luxembourg this week. NGO Forum on ADB along with its member networks demands that the infrastructure Bank disclose its plans to address the climate crisis, including alignment with the Paris Agreement on climate change. Despite AIIB’s efforts to align its activities with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement it is still is lagging behind other financial institutions. In contrast to other MDBs, the AIIB has not yet made public a plan for how it will address the climate crisis. Despite claiming to be a “green” bank, there is little evidence of how the AIIB is seeking to ensure that its policies and operations support efforts to address climate change, rather than undermining them. The failure of the Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) to exclude funding for coal and its emphasis on reliance on natural gas is of deep concern. Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB stated that “Since its inception in 2016, the AIIB has financed fossil fuel-related transmission infrastructure. It has also continued to proliferate gas power plants in the Asia region, especially in Myanmar and Bangladesh. While AIIB has also invested in energy efficiency projects, there can be no halfway measures to achieve a Paris alignment to 1.5 degrees. The AIIB must commit to a time-bound phase-out plan from all forms of fossil fuel investments.” To date only 8% of the AIIB’s total investments have gone towards renewable energy, a figure vastly outstripped by its investments in fossil fuels, currently at a fifth of the total portfolio. This translates into almost 60 percent of AIIB’s energy sector investments going towards fossil fuels and just a fifth going to renewable energy. This figure excludes funding through financial intermediaries (FIs), which would boost the fossil fuel total still further. In Bangladesh, one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries the AIIB has approved over $400 million in funding but none has gone towards renewable energy. Instead, the AIIB has funded a greenfield natural gas and diesel power plant and a host of other gas and heavy fuel oil plants supported by a sub-investment in Summit Power International through the AIIB’s investment in the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Emerging Asia Fund, a Financial Intermediaries (FI). Hasan Mehedi, chief executive officer of Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) said that “Coastal zone of Bangladesh is facing adverse impacts of climate change now. AIIB’s dirty investments are aggravating the impacts quickly.” The AIIB should take a proactive stance and ramp up its support for renewable energy as well as for energy access, prioritizing the needs of energy-poor communities. This should include support for decentralized renewable energy, clean cooking solutions and support for the communities living in the so-called ‘last mile’, far away from the grid– steps proven to also address gender inequality. NGO Forum on ADB calls on the AIIB to make explicit its goals and targets for ensuring the AIIB upholds its commitment to being “green” and addressing climate change by: Developing a climate change action plan, with clear and ambitious goals and targets for how the AIIB will align its policies and operations with the Paris Agreement and its goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C. This should be done in collaboration with stakeholders, including civil society. Ruling out any financing for coal, including ensuring that none of AIIB’s investments results in an increase in coal use, whether for power generation or industrial uses and associated facilities, such as transmission lines and railways or ports primarily meant for the transportation of coal. Setting out a road map for shifting investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy by 2020, including matching the World Bank’s commitment to end financing for upstream oil and gas. This should include an institutional-wide cap on all greenhouse gas and carbon emissions financed by the AIIB. Implementing an exclusion list, including mitigation measures linked to false climate solutions causing extensive social and environmental harm, such as ‘clean coal technology’, carbon capture and storage, large hydropower dams and geothermal projects. Closing the fossil fuel loopholes in FI lending, including requiring all FI clients to track and disclose coal and other fossil fuel investments; not investing in clients with more than 5% portfolio exposure to coal; and investing only in FI clients who commit to develop a portfolio decarbonisation plan within a year of investment, which aims to achieve emissions reductions in line with targets set under the Paris Agreement. Committing to investment in energy access and scaling up decentralized renewable energy, clean cooking solutions and innovative business models to provide access and control for “last mile” communities. The AIIB should set ambitious energy access targets at the portfolio and individual investment level.

Energy and climate advocates hit the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for its doublespeak on clean energy, as the Bank hosts the Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) with USAID and the Korean Energy Agency (KEA) in its Manila Headquarters. “Despite its professed commitment to ‘clean energy’, ADB’s energy legacy remains to be its funding of fossil fuels, especially coal,” said Gerry Arances, Executive Director of the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED). “To this day, coal-fired power plants in Masinloc, Zambales, in Naga, Cebu, and Calaca, Batangas remain in operation, with its negative effects on the health and livelihood of communities, its increasing cost, and decreasing reliability.” Arances also criticized ADB’s co-organizers, USAID and KEA, as both the US and South Korea remain adamant supporters of coal despite its apparent endorsement of renewable energy sources. “The US remains a stumbling block for decarbonization, even backing out the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, South Korea, which owns 51% of Korea Electric Power Corporation, is responsible for two coal power projects in Cebu alone and South Korea Engineering & Construction is proposing to set up and expand coal operations in the Quezon province.” Fossil fuels incompatible with climate crisis, groups say "Governments and investors need to realize that coal is a sunset industry. Continuing to invest in coal-based power, given the current context of falling renewable energy costs and shifting policy landscape in response to the climate crisis, runs the risk of producing stranded assets,” said Zeena Manglinong, FDC Executive Director. “If this happens, and there is a great likelihood it will, ordinary citizens might end up paying for the losses associated with them. We must not forget that in the Philippines we are still paying for stranded debt and stranded contract costs under EPIRA," she continued. “ADB has to decide whether its part of the problem or part of the solution,” said Rayyan Hassan of the NGO Forum on the ADB. "ADB, which has been the largest coal financier in the region, has been claiming that it has not done any coal since 2013. But the truth is that ADB continues to also finance in fossil fuel related transmission infrastructure such as gas pipelines and railways leading to coal mines. It has also continued to proliferate gas power plants in the region especially in Myanmar and Bangladesh.” “With expanding energy markets and investments unparalled in any region of the world, Asia holds now in balance the world’s future on climate change,” said Philippine Movement for Climate Justice Ian Rivera. “Asia is a region which is home to many climate vulnerable countries but also hosts governments welcoming dirty energy projects which further worsen the climate crisis,” said Rivera. Governments should lead energy transition, not companies Rivera also hit the Duterte administration, particularly DOE Sec. Alfonso Cusi, for its continued support for coal projects and its continued belief in clean coal. “Despite yet another study has labeled the Philippines as the country most threatened by the climate crisis, not only has the administration rolled back in its participation in climate negotiations, it is also doubling down on its dirty energy policy.” “ADB has no track record to speak with regards to shifting investments to expedite the end of fossil fuel. But time is not too late for this institution to become relevant. But our government cannot simply remain passive recipients or even active defenders of dirty energy investments. It is still the obligation of the Asian governments to push the swift energy transition,” he said. The groups remain dissatisfied with the promised $7 Billion worth of “clean energy investments” from companies to be mobilized by the ADB and USAID, as per the agreement they signed last Tuesday. “Public finance is being used to power dirty energy projects like coal plants and renewables are being left in the hands of the private sector,” said Sanlakas Secretary-General Atty. Aaron Pedrosa. “Without ensuring that renewable energy projects remain public in character, specifically by setting up community-based and community-owned renewable energy projects, ‘clean energy’ will still mean problems in accessibility and cost as it will still primarily serve profit,” Pedrosa continued. “Not only do we demand from finance institutions and the ADB an immediate phase out of coal projects, we also call on the dedication of financing to renewables owned and managed by consumers themselves,” said CEED’s Gerry Arances. “Renewable energy’s transformative potential will be undermined if it is subject to the same conditions as fossil fuels, which failed to address the peoples’ energy and development needs.”

The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) is holding its 14th Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) this week from 17 - 21 June 2019. The NGO Forum on ADB along with its member partners demands the ADB to meaningfully act on the urgency of climate crisis in the Asia - Pacific. In 2018, multilateral development banks (MDBs) including the ADB created a joint framework for aligning their activities with respect to the goals of the Paris Agreement [1]. In ADB’s Strategy 2030 it has increased its committed operations supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation to 75% in 11 years time and set to prioritize investments for a low - carbon economy. “However despite this rhetoric, ADB’s deafening silence on retiring coal-fired power plants it had earlier funded in the region and banning financing for fossil fuels speaks in stark contrast with this commitment,” Annabel Perreras, Advocacy Coordinator, NGO Forum on ADB. CSOs demand that ADB, as a standard bearer for other MDBs, should adopt stringent measures in accordance with the 1.5 degree pathway. According to Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, “In order for the Bank to demonstrate its commitment in unambiguous terms, it should have a time-bound phase-out plan for natural gas and intensify investments on renewable energy projects that are neither harmful to the environment nor to the affected communities.” The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) has been calling out the ADB in exposing the “clean energy” myth of the Bank. The 600 MW coal-fired power plant in Masinloc, Zambales in the Philippines was tagged as a clean investment and was rehabilitated by the ADB. According to Ian Rivera, PMCJ National Coordinator, “The plant annually releases 3,766,177 mt of CO2 emission and while ADB claims that it is no longer funding coal, it should be held responsible for the harmful impacts that it had caused in hastening climate change and putting the lives of people at risk.” “It is imperative for ADB to be true to their legacy, getting out of the business of dirty energy,” added Bernadette Zeena Manglinong, Women & Gender Coordinator of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC). Sreedhar Ramamurthi, NGO Forum on ADB International Convener and Executive Director of Environics Trust, India strongly stated that “ACEF has an important role in transforming the Asian energy portfolio. Asia is one of the most potential regions for further growth in energy consumption. The choice of a right path in the context of global climate and developmental impacts will be imminent”. In a study made by E3G, the independent climate change think tank has pointed out that Southeast Asia is at the frontline of the global decarbonization challenge – and is lagging behind many other regions of the world [2]. The region is experiencing rapid economic growth and increasing energy demand. “ADB should use its country-level work and its Country Partnership Strategies to be more proactive in supporting countries achieve the Paris Agreement compliant pathway,” according to Sonia Dunlop, E3G Senior Policy Advisor. According to Gerry Arances, Executive Director of Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED), “It is high time for ADB to make use of decentralized renewable energy microgrids like in the case of the Philippines. These have been proven to be an effective alternative in providing clean, affordable and accessible electricity particularly among unelectrified and remote households, small island grids and impoverished communities and even in metropolis like Metro Manila where electricty prices is rising”[3] Lastly, CSOs demand that the ADB should start pursuing distributed renewable energy systems because it maximizes energy access and advances energy democracy. It is designed on the principle of doing no harm to the environment, supports local economies and contributes to the health and well-being of all people. By investing in distributed renewable energy systems, essentially this also contributes to fulfilling ADB’s commitment to improving governance and meet the Bank’s stated objective of ensuring energy access for all. “ACEF should find and foster more finances, technologies, and skills for decentralized and people owned energy systems. That’s the need of the hour!” Ramamurthi ended. [1] The MDBs’ alignment approach to the objectives of the Paris Agreement: working together to catalyze low-emissions and climate-resilient development http://bit.ly/2FgmqIZ [2] The Asian Development Bank: Asia’s future climate bank? How the Asian Development Bank can become “Paris aligned” in Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. [3] Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development. Decarbonizing the ADB.

The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) is holding its 14th Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) this week from 17 - 21 June 2019. The NGO Forum on ADB along with its member partners demands the ADB to meaningfully act on the urgency of climate crisis in the Asia - Pacific. In 2018, multilateral development banks (MDBs) including the ADB created a joint framework for aligning their activities with respect to the goals of the Paris Agreement [1]. In ADB’s Strategy 2030 it has increased its committed operations supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation to 75% in 11 years time and set to prioritize investments for a low - carbon economy. “However despite this rhetoric, ADB’s deafening silence on retiring coal-fired power plants it had earlier funded in the region and banning financing for fossil fuels speaks in stark contrast with this commitment,” Annabel Perreras, Advocacy Coordinator, NGO Forum on ADB. CSOs demand that ADB, as a standard bearer for other MDBs, should adopt stringent measures in accordance with the 1.5 degree pathway. According to Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, “In order for the Bank to demonstrate its commitment in unambiguous terms, it should have a time-bound phase-out plan for natural gas and intensify investments on renewable energy projects that are neither harmful to the environment nor to the affected communities.” The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) has been calling out the ADB in exposing the “clean energy” myth of the Bank. The 600 MW coal-fired power plant in Masinloc, Zambales in the Philippines was tagged as a clean investment and was rehabilitated by the ADB. According to Ian Rivera, PMCJ National Coordinator, “The plant annually releases 3,766,177 mt of CO2 emission and while ADB claims that it is no longer funding coal, it should be held responsible for the harmful impacts that it had caused in hastening climate change and putting the lives of people at risk.” “It is imperative for ADB to be true to their legacy, getting out of the business of dirty energy,” added Bernadette Zeena Manglinong, Women & Gender Coordinator of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC). Sreedhar Ramamurthi, NGO Forum on ADB International Convener and Executive Director of Environics Trust, India strongly stated that “ACEF has an important role in transforming the Asian energy portfolio. Asia is one of the most potential regions for further growth in energy consumption. The choice of a right path in the context of global climate and developmental impacts will be imminent”. In a study made by E3G, the independent climate change think tank has pointed out that Southeast Asia is at the frontline of the global decarbonization challenge – and is lagging behind many other regions of the world [2]. The region is experiencing rapid economic growth and increasing energy demand. “ADB should use its country-level work and its Country Partnership Strategies to be more proactive in supporting countries achieve the Paris Agreement compliant pathway,” according to Sonia Dunlop, E3G Senior Policy Advisor. According to Gerry Arances, Executive Director of Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED), “It is high time for ADB to make use of decentralized renewable energy microgrids like in the case of the Philippines. These have been proven to be an effective alternative in providing clean, affordable and accessible electricity particularly among unelectrified and remote households, small island grids and impoverished communities and even in metropolis like Metro Manila where electricty prices is rising”[3] ​ Lastly, CSOs demand that the ADB should start pursuing distributed renewable energy systems because it maximizes energy access and advances energy democracy. It is designed on the principle of doing no harm to the environment, supports local economies and contributes to the health and well-being of all people. By investing in distributed renewable energy systems, essentially this also contributes to fulfilling ADB’s commitment to improving governance and meet the Bank’s stated objective of ensuring energy access for all. “ACEF should find and foster more finances, technologies, and skills for decentralized and people owned energy systems. That’s the need of the hour!” Ramamurthi ended. [1] The MDBs’ alignment approach to the objectives of the Paris Agreement: working together to catalyze low-emissions and climate-resilient development http://bit.ly/2FgmqIZ [2] The Asian Development Bank: Asia’s future climate bank? How the Asian Development Bank can become “Paris aligned” in Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. [3] Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development. Decarbonizing the ADB.