Search Results

Frankfurt, Germany –Deafening silence rose when leader of project-affected communities, Sim Pov raised his community’s issues on the US $ 42 million loan to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for the Cambodia Railway Rehabilitation Project.  The project aims to restore Cambodia’s railway infrastructure by rehabilitating existing railway tracks and associated structures, reconstructing the destroyed railway line to Thailand. Sim Pov brought a sample of the murky water from the Battambang resettlement site and handed it to President Nakao during a dialogue with civil society organizations on the 49th Annual Governors Meeting being held in Frankfurt. The community leader and high school teacher asked the President to help the 4,000 displaced families living in dire conditions due to poor compliance on safeguards measures on involuntary resettlement issues. In November 2011, ADB received a complaint on failure to comply with adequate compensation and restoration of livelihood. Displaced families waited for years to be receive compensation for lost properties that were heavily undervalued forcing them to take debts in order to survive. They were placed in inhabitable resettlement areas far from employment opportunities, access to clean water and near dump sites exposing them to health risks. “What do you think if your family has to live with this kind of water?”  Sim Pov raises the bottled water containing dirty water during the CSO dialogue with Nakao. He and his family would drink the water he took from the resettlement site. He closed his query by saying that “I strongly believe that Mr. President with your leadership you will take immediate action to address our urgent situation”. The complaint filed by the communities triggered a safeguards review to which a Compliance Review Panel, after a 17-month investigation, admitted that ADB committed errors in its due diligence processes. The Panel found that families affected by the Railway project “suffered loss of property, livelihoods, and incomes, and as a result have borne a disproportionate cost and burden of the development efforts funded by ADB.”  According to the Panel, ADB’s “inadequate attention to addressing the resettlement, public communications and disclosure requirements of its own policies…has led to significant yet avoidable adverse social impact on mostly poor and vulnerable people.”. The Panel issued clear recommendations to the ADB Management to comply with safeguard policies and address the issue. After six years, however, displaced families have found themselves unable to recover their way of life.  The livelihood restoration project based on a debt refinancing scheme managed by Vision Fund failed to restore the economic status of affected communities as it only covered 35 families. Families, however, were unable to pay due to many factors that were compounded by poor compensation schemes. A displaced family merely receives US$25 a month as compensation. The Safeguard Policy Statement requires compensation for lost assets and loss of income and livelihood, decent relocation, restoration of livelihood such that displaced families’ economic and social future will generally be at least as favorable with the project as without it, provided with appropriate land, housing, infrastructure, and other compensation, comparable to the without-project situation and full disclosure to resettlement and compensation options. The complaint and the current economic and social status of project-affected families tell a glaring picture of gross implementation of ADB projects without careful planning and disregard to safeguard measures. In the same dialogue, the NGO Forum on ADB, a network of 250 civil society organizations raised the possible rise in displacements, human rights violations especially of vulnerable sectors brought by a strong focus on large scale infrastructure projects in ADB and in other multilateral development banks (MDBs). ADB has just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the new Chinese-led multilateral development bank, Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank whose draft safeguard policy was deemed to be inadequate and dangerous by many CSOs.

The Royal Cambodian Railway is already operational offering several services including passenger accommodation going to different destinations of Cambodia.  In fact, large numbers of people who ride the train are tourist going to Sihanoukville, 221.7 km away from Phnom Penh.  The place known as Krong Preah Sihanouk and is popular for its beaches, tropical islands and the mangrove jungles of Ream National Park. However, more than 4000 families are still in dire condition due to the lack of compensation that was given to them by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the government.  A large number of families are now in so much debt that they have resulted to mortgage their relocation homes even without the presence of the land title.  An immobile resident from Poipet, a relocation site 411.3 km from Phnom Penh, near the borders of Cambodia and Thailand depressingly narrated how she is now asking/waiting for scraps of food from her neighbors because she can no longer support herself.  Invalid from the waist down, alone and without any support from her family she compared her situation before she went to the relocation site, according to her “at least when I was in my old place, I can grow vegetable, corn, root crops and that would be enough for me to survive.  The next day I do the same because I get by…”. This is not a new story for most people in the relocation site, aside from problems that go with the territory of being relocated like access to transportation, job availability or another source of income and livelihood, electricity and clean drinking water, what makes the Cambodian affected families “unique” is that they are indebted to different lending agencies and even persons.  Some families even took a second mortgage to pay off the first mortgage, until it has become a vicious cycle.  Also, the presence of informal lenders, who let the affected families borrow money using the resettlement plot as collateral makes the situation even more complicated.  This resulted in the call of the people regarding the government promise of granting the ‘land title’ after 5 years of living in the resettlement site.  A community leader from one of the resettlement site said that it has been due since 2013 because they have been living there since 2007, but four years have passed there is still no word on the land title.  He even claimed that on their part they have followed up diligently to the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC) regarding the matter but they were not addressed properly, worst they feel that their grievance is being ignored. A father of three who’s only source of income is driving a cab around the city barely makes 100,823 KHR (about 25$) a day, and he has to pay 100,823 KHR (250$) a month for his 24,197,500 KHR (roughly 6000$), the same story goes with the woman who has roughly 4000$ and has to pay the 200$ a month, her source of income is making rags, that sells 2,016.45 KHR (50¢) a piece. In a day they can make between 50 to 60 pieces that are if they will work none stop for 12 hours. The loan situation is so alarming that VisionFund Cambodia – supported by the Government of Australia – has implemented a program to help ease the loan problems of the families in the 5-resettlement sites.  But VisionFund has terminated its program and will end it this year (2016). VisionFund Cambodia found out that the most affected households do not meet the requirements or eligibility criteria to participate in the program. The eligibility criteria include- Adequate income earnings to be able to repay the monthly installments Continuous residence in the resettlement site Indebtedness level which should not be too high so that debt workout can be achieved within the financial envelope and the The willingness of informal lenders to sign off the agreement. When the affected families were asked on how to address or solve their dreadful situation, they humbly asked the government of Cambodia and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to help them in any way they can.  A community leader and a mother of 4 added that they “comply with the recommendation of the government, the ADB, and the Australian Aid to relocate because they were promised that their lives would be better” and these are agencies which they trust initially, but after years of struggle and making ends meet they are too tired in doing the same thing over and over again.  And they are even more afraid that their children, grandchildren would encounter the same.  As a matter of fact, most youths in the relocation sites has stopped their education taking on the responsibilities of putting food on the table.

Good Morning Mr. President. Thank you for making time to sit with civil society in this year’s 49th AGM as you have done so in the past with us -- the NGO Forum on ADB -- an independent network of 250 civil society organizations of grassroots organizations, social movements, and affected communities across South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and caucuses in Australia, Europe, and the USA committed to holding the ADB accountable since 1992. We are witnessing the unprecedented flow and focus of private capital from among the Banks for infrastructure development. Large-scale infrastructure projects if developed without careful attention to impacts on the environment, economies and communities carry severe risks of mass impoverishment, permanent loss of livelihoods, violent conflict, and human rights violations, as well as irreversible environmental damage. This includes the destruction of forests, biodiversity, coastal areas and river systems, as well as massive greenhouse gas emissions. This causes irreparable harm to women, children, persons with disabilities in the vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples and burden taxpayers into unsustainable debt payments. And yet, here we are, hearing the same approach that has put the Asian region in a situation more precarious than 49 years ago Nearly 750 million people in the region still survive on less than $1.25 a day while income inequality has risen more than 20% in the last 20 years. Despite the overbearing presence of the private sector in the delivery of public goods and services, lower-income groups have inadequate access to basic services in health care, education, or safe drinking water and sanitation. We have also crossed four of the nine planetary boundaries: deforestation; the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and the flow of nitrogen and phosphorous. IPCC figures show that we have crossed 390 limits to over 400 parts per million volume of CO2 – a level which has not happened in 650,000 years but happened in the last 50 years.  And yet, ADB continues to fund coal power and build mega infrastructure against the wishes of the people to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees. Forum witnessed the displacement of 58,301 families as a result of ADB’s large-scale infrastructure projects in 13 countries from 2010-2016 alone.  Furthermore, we are aghast that the ADB has yet to comply with Core Labor Standards leading to violations of workers’ rights in the very projects believed to be reducing poverty in the region. The increasing use of opaque, private and ungoverned funds  supports the current economic architecture that brought us in the first place to pervasive poverty, rising inequality, economic and environmental crisis. Private capital led infrastructure development merely financed the connectivity and energy needs of global supply chains and not poor peoples whose needs are irrigations, schools, affordable houses or basic bridges needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Our Network was born in the wake of mass poverty, unemployment and loss of livelihood, social unrest, and human rights violations brought by displacements from the building of large dams, trains, highways, and ports -- owned by private capital on previously public domains.  The communities suffered from this approach that was replete with risks to people and the environment and yet the Bank is treading the same path in greater levels. That this is happening in a ground reality of an increasingly limited space for civil society in our regions should compel us to rethink how truly close we are in achieving inclusive development especially in borrowing states with severed democracies such as Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Laos, among others. Thus, we thank you, Mr. President, for providing us with this critical space to raise our immediate concerns: ADB SPS 2010 delivery is still in question and we are still yet to see institutional reform which ensures ADB Safeguard staff to be on the ground throughout the project cycle to ensure ADBSPS2010 compliance. Do note Mr. President we recognize that the ADB SPS 2010 arguably remains the torch bearer on binding requirements on environmental and social safeguards among all the MDBs on paper. Thus, will you Mr. President pledge that there will be NO DILUTION of the ADB SPS 2010? We continue to observe that ADBs is shifting more and more of its lending to private sector operations and actors. On the issue of ADB SPS 2010, the provision of self-reporting by the private sector and FIs has failed to ensure delivery on the ground. We demand the ADB apply the equal requirements and institutional response on ADB SPS2010 to all private sector lending projects. There must be ADB permanent Safeguard specialists on all ADB project sites to ensure safeguards of communities and the environment. In light of 1.5-degree consensus in COP 21, we urge the ADB Stop lending any and all forms of Coal Power Plant Projects. We urge the ADB to recognize its MOU with ILO on the CLS and demand that the ADB include CLS in all levels of its Operations. Delivered by Mr. Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director - NGO Forum on ADB, May 1, 2016.

Know the tale of the Bagkut Crab from Marinduque. #MarcopperDisaster #Mining #Marinduque #Philippines

Name of Project: PHULBARI COAL PROJECT Date of Construction: 2007 Location: Bangladesh Total Cost: $100 million Private Sector Loan; $200 million ADB Project Type: LOAN The Phulbari Coal Project would have been an open-pit coal mine in Bangladesh proposed by Asia Energy Corporation (the Bangladeshi subsidiary of GCM Resources, a company with coal interests in Bangladesh, South Africa, and China, as well as "uranium interests in West Africa, Sweden, and Australia) and will be partly funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The project was said to include a 500-megawatt (MW) coal plant. Last 2007 a press conference hosted by ADB, with then country director Hua Du, expressed the ADB's eagerness for the quick decisions in favour of big Indian corporate giant; Tata's proposals related to gas and coal, and the British-based company Asia Energy's (AEC) Phulbari Coal Project (PCP). After the news went public, 70,000 people gathered in Phulbari on August 26, 2006, to express their protest against the proposed open-pit mining project. The event caused three persons to be killed and hundreds wounded because law enforcers opened fire on them as they were returning home from the protest rally. No open pit mining will be allowed anywhere in the country”Despite what happened more people took to the streets their protest regarding the possibilities of an open-pit coal mine. The violent actions of the law enforcers left twenty people wounded was the tipping point for the Bangalee, Adivasi (indigenous), women, men, senior and children who walked the streets and expressed their disagreement towards the ADB-financed projects due to historic social contract that stated that “ and that “Steps will be taken for development and utilisation of coal only after proper consultation with the people keeping national interest intact”. The mass uprising causes the government to enter into an agreement with the protestors represented by National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas Mineral Resources, Port and Power. The result was the cancellation of the Phulbari project because of environmental, economic and legal grounds. WHAT’S UP? ​​After the fierce resistance in 2007, a 2010 WikiLeaks cable revealed US diplomats were secretly pushing the Bangladeshi government to re-open plans for the mine since Asia Energy, the company behind the Phulbari project, has sixty percent U.S. investment. And upon checking the GCM Website back in 2011, the company stated that it is awaiting approval of the project. Is the Phulbari Coal Project really over? Or is it a dormant problem waiting to happen? #isADBgoodorbad? SOURCES: http://www.adb.org/projects/documents/phulbari-coal-project-seia http://www.countercurrents.org/muhammad190507.htm http://www.ghd.com/global/projects/phulbari/ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Phulbari_Coal_Project#cite_note-GCM-4 http://www.gcmplc.com/our-business http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/feature/phulbari-coal-project/ Photo Credits to: http://www.accountabilitycounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/demo-against-GCM-2.jpg http://www.accountabilitycounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Anha-F-Khan.jpg #ADB #AsianDevelopmentBank #Safeguards #Phulbari #OpenPitCoalMine #Mining #Bangladesh

Name of Project:  MUNDRA ULTRA MEGA POWER PROJECT (UMPP) Date of Construction:  2007 Location: Gujarat, India Total Cost: US$4,140 million Status: OPERATIONAL ​​They say it’s a small price to pay for a new era of cheap energy to drive India’s growing economy. They say that it will fulfill the call 'Power for all' in India.  They say that Tata Mundra would be the pioneer of low-cost energy for the country.  Most of all it was supposed to be an energy-efficient, coal-based thermal power plant, so they say. Let us put a face to this small price to pay claim, which includes: Displacement of villagers, loss farmland & access to communal grazing land, and families from the 3 communities who have to give up their homes to give way to the location to where the mega plant was built. But the people behind the mega plant described these losses, as “marginal” considering the benefits that power plant will give the country.  This is human rights violation. Forcibly evicting people from their homes in lieu of ‘something better’?  Though the villagers were not ‘forcibly’ evicted, it is as if they were given any other choice. The displacement of Waghers (a Muslim minority whose history on the coastline where the power plant was built dates back 200 years).  Though they only live in makeshift houses, the area where they lived in is also where they conduct their means of living; traditional fishing. The warm water discharged by the mega plant has driven fish away from the intertidal zone.  It also destroys mangroves that act as a breeding ground for fish and a natural barrier against cyclones.  This affects the economic state of the people from the villages around the mega plant.  Before the mega plant came to be, in one day, the fisher folks used to catch three times as much fish, as soon as the mega plant operated the catch has lowered incredibly that they have to have the same catch for 7 days. Ashes falling from the sky that settles on fish left out to dry, rendering them inedible. There was a definite increase in the respiratory problems of people living in the area, the elderly are the worst affected.  Children are also not exempted there is a 20% rise in severe respiratory diseases in the villages near Tata Mundra mega power plant. The coal dust and fly ash are putting the lives of people, animals and horticulture at risk. Based on Ernst and Young, the estimated baseline CO2 emissions and reductions for the Project would be 30.796 million tons per year (baseline value) and 29.293 million tons per year, which would make it India’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.  The people around the area are stating that they are forced to adapt to the change in climate (no pun intended), in the morning and at night, steam coming from the outfall channel, the area around the mega plant is described as ‘always warm’, which is of course, not natural. Lastly, Tata Mundra Power Plant has failed the assessment of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO),  various assessments had failed to adequately consider the Wagher people or the plant’s potential impact. Then we ask, is it really a small price to pay?  The struggle with Tata Mundra Mega Power Plant is not exclusively happening in Gujarat, India alone, this is a struggle experienced by almost all poor countries who see's the intervention of international financial institutions like ADB as a way towards development. #isadbgoodorbad? Sources: http://www.adb.org/projects/41946-014/main#project-pds http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/16/why-the-mundra-power-plant-has-given-tata-a-mega-headache http://www.tatapower.com/cgpl-mundra/home.aspx http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=16026 http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/feature/tata-mundra-power-plant/ http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/worldbank-evicted-abandoned/india-uncounted http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/world-bank-lawsuit_n_7130130.html Photo credits to http://www.sierraclub.org/international/tata-mundra (Photo courtesy of Joe Athialy

By Tea Soentoro This is the second of a two-part story of Ming Chhin’s struggle to get her life back after being involuntary displaced by an ADB funded Highway One Project in Cambodia [1]. MANILA, PHILIPPINES, 22 Feb 11 — With a promise of better life through the new Highway One Road project funded by the Asian Development Bank, Ming Chhin and her neighbors are still waiting. Though Ming Chhin has received compensation amounting to US$1,700, it was not enough to make their lives better off. Ming Chhin continued her story, “We had to fight hard to get our lives back. Before the project came into our lives, we had peaceful lives, we had jobs, we had stores, we had our homes, we lived close to our neighbors, we had an enjoyable community life. Now, we have to fight that the Project should keep the that promise [of better life].” To get their lives back, Ming Chhin together with 63 other families of Stung Slot and Kraing Khok communities of Prey Veng province submitted a complaint to the Office of Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) of ADB Accountability Mechanism in July 2007. The OSPF declared their complaint eligible[2] and in its Review and Assessment Report (RAR) dated 24 October 2007, it subsumed its findings in two issues: land title and impoverishment[3]. Moreover, Ming Chhin and members of their communities also talked directly to ADB about their problems. “I went to meetings to tell ADB about our problems; at the ADB Annual Governors’ Meeting in Kyoto and visited ADB office in Manila. We were supported by NGOs to meet ADB people to raise our problems. We also demanded from them to give us land title for security, solve our debt problem which arose because of the delay in compensation. They should help us restore our livelihood means which we lost because of the Highway 1 Road project. We wanted our lives and community back,” Chhin said. End of 2009, Ming Chhin finally received the news about ADB’s income restoration program which aims to helping affected communities to deal with their accumulated debt burdens and reestablish their livelihood activities. Chhin said she felt that ADB could finally fulfill its promise and her dream for a better life after years of hardships caused by the Highway One Road project. Acknowledging that involuntary resettlement for the Highway One Project had caused impoverishment and debt trap for the 63 families of Stung Slot and Kraing Khok communities, the ADB provided US$500,000 worth of grant for a Technical Assistance that would be implemented over 24 months from November 2009 to October 2011.[4] However, it is wrong to think that this TA would be solely for the restoration of the income and livelihoods of the affected communities. The TA is composed of two main components: (1) Improvement of social research and analysis skills for the executing agency of the project and other line ministry staff; and (2) Improvement of livelihoods of affected people in selected pilot communities. The latter will include: livelihood skills training, payment of debt to informal money lenders, access to credit by developing a community for seed funds.[5] Though this TA is a proof of the ADB’s acknowledgement of its failure to prevent the impoverishment of affected communities, the financing plan of this TA shows that only US $100,000 of the US$500,000 provided by ADB was allocated for the community seed fund; the per-diem of international consultant that implements the TA was allocated for US $150,000 and local consultant for US$64,000.[6] So whose income will actually be improved by this TA? In their modesty, affected people were grateful for the TA because they thought that their problem would finally be resolved. Ming Chhin was happy that her debt to local money lenders was paid. Also the debt of other families. For their survival, because the full compensation was four years late, they were forced to borrow money from money lenders with very high interest rates: 20% per month. The scary moment for her, and for others as well, was the time when the local creditors sued them before the local court because they could not pay them back. They were relieved that the court rejected the complaint, and ADB had paid their debt to money lenders. Ming Chhin borrowed US$300. At the end, debt reached US$1,625 due to interests. After 8 months since the start of the Income Restoration Program, Ming Chhin’s new hope of her life improving, faded slowly. “The process is very slow. Many times I think that we won’t get the money at all. If we ask when we will get the money, the community facilitator said that ADB doesn’t send the money to Cambodia yet. If they want to be involved in the discussion about the fund, they were rejected; if they complained, the community facilitators said that they have to go to the program leader. If this slow process continues, I am afraid that we will go back to borrowing from money lenders again because we don’t have any alternative.” Eleven years of promise, Ming Chhin and members of her community are still waiting. Ming Chhin was in Manila recently. She knocked on the doors of ADB Executive Directors asking for the promise of better life made by the ADB to her and members of her community. But it seems that Ming Chhin and her communities have to wait longer until ADB keeps its promise. Endnotes 1 Based on several interactions with Ming Chhin in Kyoto, San Pablo and Quezon City 2 ADB. Office of the Special Project Facilitator, Consultation Phase of the Accountability Mechanism, Annual Report 2009, p. 4-5, at: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Consultation-Accountability-Mechanism/ OSPF-annual-report-2009.pdf 3 ADB. June 2010, Final Report of the Special Project Facilitator on The Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project in Cambodia ADB Loan 1659-Cam(Sf) (15 December 1998) (Complaint received 30 july 2007) at: http://www.adb.org/Documents/SPF-Reports/CAM/CAM-FinalReport.pdf 4 ADB, October 2009, Capacity Development Technical Assistance (CDTA), Kingdom of Cambodia: Capacity Development for Income Restoration Programs, p.3 at http://www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/CAM/43174- CAM-TAR.pdf 5 Ibid. Appendix 1, Matrix of Design and Monitoring Framework, p. 6 6 Ibid, Appendix 2, Cost Estimates and Financing Plan, p. 8.

By Nina Somera After two days of discussion, we finally arrived at the heart of the matter. Melamchi, a farming village in central Nepal emerged after we struggled through rugged terrains that were only softened by the neat tracts of wheat terraces, the bright yellow mustard fields, the unassuming brick houses and the humbling sight of women climbing the hills with dukos on their backs. The path to the house of a community leader, who would host us for the night, was likewise uneasy. With no source of light other than flashlights, we walked through the edge of the terraces. The house was Spartan. There were neither jalousies nor grills on the window, except for the three chambers that had no doors. In fact, as one-steps in, the foyer was immediately cut short by stairs that lead to another storey. A few more steps were a stable where the goats were already in the pasture of their dreams. On the right side were two chambers; the sleeping quarter reserved for us women and the other a hearth where the two women of the house were busy negotiating with the kiln for the strangers’ dinner. As soon as our tortured sit bones felt the velveteen bed covers, we were offered tin cans of black tea by one of the women. It was not until the morning after that we would fully grasp the ingenuity at the core of the house’s construction and the extraordinary labor behind a hearty meal and warm home. That evening we were served with Japanese rainbow trout that was delicately seasoned with herbs with pungent and citrus aromas, juicy stewed mutton and roasted potatoes that were coated in curry and other spices. Our host insisted that we have some fried rice wine, which I took as I start to Durga with the hay stocks. Shiver with the cool mountain breeze. While we relished the feast, our host parried our questions on the rough road we took and the proposed dam, both supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). How and when did you learn of the projects? Were there documents shown to you? Who communicated with you? What were the terms that were laid out? Have they been met? Basic questions that required basic answers. Though the latter are a little beyond yes or no, the answers were far from satisfactory, even degrading for a community that has taken what is just enough from the mountains, forests and streams and has given more for posterity in the midst of so-called backwardness. The road has been in the making for several years. But instead of cemented slopes and fixed drainage systems, bumpy rides around mountain ranges await any traveler. The road was also empty save for. In the course of finger-full bites, our host, who happens to be the head of the village, added that the community was largely unaware of such massive projects. And when it realized that the village’s river was to be drained in the name of Kathmandu’s development, the people remained in the dark of such undertaking’s impact on their families, homes, fields and livelihood. They never even knew that both the road and the dam were actually loans, until much later. They never met anyone from ADB to this day. When our host asked us if we would like to have rice, I politely declined pointing to my stomach, which was already full of gratifying dishes. As I excused myself and descended the stairs, I just felt the urge to wash. The coldness and darkness outside were not enough to keep me inside, especially after a four-hour journey from Dhulikel to Melamchi. A colleague immediately thought of bathing in the Melamchi River. But seeing its breadth while our bus traversed a ridge and unaware of its depth, I begged off and instead thought of the canals that irrigate the fields. Goma, one of the women led us to a field but the way was just too slippery. I feared that we might find ourselves sitting in the mud just after we washed. So we went towards another direction, farther from the house along a canal that was partially covered by banana fronds and two boulders. Trusting that only the full moon watched us, we undressed, letting the cold water and the cool breeze wash away the dust, sweat and soreness that until then coated our hair strands, skin and limbs. We never minded anymore what our very own traditional medicine says on the cataclysmic impact of hot and cold. We only hoped that we were not badly contaminating the fields, the fronds or the river where the water from the canals and streams eventually go. Although we felt much lighter on our way back to the house, none of us could match the agility of Goma. Like a bird who knew every perchable branch and solid ground in a forest, never did she show any neither awkward nor uncertain movement. Sure with every step, she looked back at us every now and then, lending her hand at some moments, pointing out with her foot the prickly outgrowth that must be avoided. The last to know. As we were about to retire, our host offered a plateful of rice and lentils, which Rima prepared while we were on our search for a stream. Again, we politely declined, adding that we were full; that we already brushed our teeth, and that we were about to sleep. But just two hours later, one colleague and I ventured outside, checked a basin that we previously filled with water and wild flowers for a full moon bath. Every now and then the host would emerge, telling us that we would not have any more security, as he was about to sleep. But we stayed on and even watched Goma leave for the mountain where she lives with her family. As in the fields, she was once again swift and sure, judging from the moving light — which could only be her flashlight — ascending behind the bushes and trees. Seeing how much she and Rima had done for us in the last several hours and recalling the many more women we encountered in different times and places, we could only wish that they were part of our ritual, when at the strike of midnight, as the full moon was directly above our heads, we undressed once more, splashing the cold and fragrant water. And like the witches millions of moons ago, we whispered our desires. In the morning, I woke up, sensing the busy movements in the kitchen. Goma and Rima were once the village, one with a sickle began clearing the ground of grass since the planting season was setting in. We tried to converse with her, despite our different languages. She even allowed me to try my hand at it. Meanwhile, another woman, whom we knew only as Durga was collecting hay from what we mistook as a house the night before. As we sat on those bundle of hays and showed her the pictures that I took, she held my hand. Then and there, from the deep furrows on her palm, I knew that hers were those who knew hard work quite well. Then just below the hill where the house stood were Goma and another woman meticulously weeding the potato field. During our brunch of porridge, potatoes and black tea, our host explained how the river has provided the building materials of his charming house. The stones that at first glance uniformly made up the walls were hardly fashioned to a specific cut. He said that he and some men just collected the stones that were more or less of the same size. Holes have been deliberately left especially in the kitchen as these serve as chimneys. Meanwhile, the mud that is layered every year cools the floor. The same mud smooth’s the unevenness of the walls, affecting a sturdy appeal. Wooden beams spaced by less than a foot buttress the upper storeys. At that time I understood why the house, especially the upper storeys, is better left without jalousies or grills. Every opening frames the perfect picture of the valley, the hill and the fields, all capturing the roaring sound of the river. Back at the ground floor, a free-range chicken was being dressed. Then in the kitchen, Goma was boiling some rice, scooping the excess water, which will be turned, into another dish. Rima, on the other hand was exerting all her might as she ground the chilies and other spices with stone. It did not take a while before lunch was served, this time with trout’s that were deep-fried in mustard oil, stewed chicken and seasoned potatoes. Conversations about the proposed road and dam continued. Asked what their demands were, should there be no way to stop the construction of the dam, the men from the village were straightforward and specific. First they wanted to know how the water would be discharged to have an idea of what the dam’s impact on their lives would be. But of course, if they had their way, they would not want any dam to be built, especially now that the water flowing through the Melamchi River is no longer as much as it used to be. The men also feared that once the dam spells dryness in the surrounding terraces and streams, disaster would soon strike women and girls with the lure of migration and sex trafficking. Moreover, the community remains out of the picture in the current project plans. While the village is being made to supply water and energy to the capital, there is no talk of directing even a bit of such resources to Melamchi. It is for this reason that, assuming the proposed dam pushes through, the community insists at least a 20 per cent cut from the revenues as a benefit-sharing scheme. But beyond these logical demands is a bigger aspiration that is founded on the rather unfair prioritization of the government. Our host remarked, why not transfer Coca-Cola and mineral water bottling companies and other industries in Melamchi and other provinces to decongest Kathmandu and somehow spur development in the countryside? Around this time, both Goma and Rima were beginning to breathe, with the tin plates and glasses now filed and the kitchen cleared. There were no more meals to be prepared in big servings. Only some sheets and mats to clean and stow away once the last guest steps out. So I chanced upon them and finally asking how they were, with the help of a translator. It was only this time when I learned that both are already mothers, whose children are in school, some of them in Kathmandu, where probably the best secondary schools are located. Their younger brood stays with them though, walking for at least an hour through the hills and mountains just to study.

By Tea Soentoro A story of Ming Chhin’s struggle in getting her life back after being involuntarily displaced by the ADB-funded Highway One Project in Cambodia [1] MANILA, PHILIPPINES, 15 Feb 11 — “I would extend my coffee shop, paint it with new bright colors, put more chairs and tables. I would by a new kitchen set, so food will be served too, not only coffee. I will bake cookies which I will sell in the market. I can do many things. My shop is along the Steoung Slaut River, so if I make my coffee shop nicer, I would get more customers. If only I can get the money soon.” This is a dream of Ming (aunt) Chhin, 60 years old, who is waiting for a fund from the Income Restoration Program [2] of the Asian Development Bank that was introduced in October 2009. This is Ming Chhin’s last hope to restore her livelihood after the Highway One Project ruined it. After eleven years, she is still waiting for a promise made by the ADB that her life, together with those of her neighbors, will be made better off through Highway One Project in Cambodia which was funded by the bank[3]. Ming Chhin is one of the affected people by the ADB-funded road project which stretches from Phnom Penh in Cambodia to Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. At the Cambodian part, this Project included reconstruction of around 105 km of road from Neak Leoung to the border with Viet Nam at Bavet. It affected 1,068 households.[4] “They promised our lives would be better off with the new road. We were told to relocate in year 2000. So, we moved our home. But they did neither gave us full compensation nor a new land for our house,” recounted Ming Chhin. At first, they received what they called a resettlement cost because they lived on a state/public land. “I received around US$340 before the relocation. The amount was so little to buy a new land or build a new house,” she added. According to Chhin, most of them were able to afford renting a small place to live, and they had to move from one place to another for several times. “Some of us, at first, had to live on land that was flooded in the rainy season, or had to squat on someone’s land, fearing to be kicked out any time. Others had to pay a high rent. We had to spend much money on each relocation.” Recalling her experience during their displacement, Ming Chhin said, “After moving many times, finally we came to a resettlement site that was constructed in 2003. Other communities were able to move in 2006. However, our lives at the resettlement site were still difficult. “We received the full compensation only in 2006. Yes, four years after the relocation. After coming to the resettlement site, we still had to fight for land filling, toilets, and wells to improve our living conditions. Though we received the compensation money before we entered the resettlement site, still it was not enough for continuing our lives,” Chhin said. “At that time, I received US$1,400. In total, I have received around US$1,700 as compensation for giving up my land, my house and my coffee shop. Many of us used to run a small store before. We lost our stores and did not have the money to build new ones,” she recounted. Moreover, Chhin thought that many others had more difficult lives. “Some of us faced harder situation because they remained landless until now. A few members of our communities still have not received compensation for their lost of land. They could not even join us in the Resettlement Site. I still do not understand why they cannot get new land.” 1 Based on several interactions with Ming Chhin in Kyoto, San Pablo and Quezon City 2 ADB, October 2009, Capacity Development Technical Assistance (CDTA), Kingdom of Cambodia: Capacity Development for Income Restoration Programs at http://www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/CAM/43174-CAMTAR.pdf 3 Formally, the Project is called Kingdom of Cambodia and Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project. Information about the Project can be obtained at http://www.adb.org/projects/project.asp?id=30513 4 ADB, Completion Report, December 2007, Kingdom of Cambodia and Socialist Republic of VietNam: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project, para 64, p.18 at http:// www.adb.org/Documents/PCRs/VIE/30316-VIE-PCR.pdf

By Hemantha Withanage and Dr Avilash Roul The report was prepared after a two-day meeting from 4-5 September 2010 with affected people and petitioners along the 128-kilometre stretch of the ADB-funded Matara-Colombo Highway, more popularly known as the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) by Hemantha Withanage of Centre for Environmental Justice and Dr Avilash Roul of the NGO Forum on the ADB. COLOMBO, 15 Sep 10–The Southern Transport Development Project, famously known as STDP, has been the only project which has tried and tested the two phases of the ADB’s 2003 Accountability Mechanism (AM) as well as the 1995 Inspection Function. The Joint Organisation of the Affected Communities of the Colombo–Matara Highway (JOACMH) filed the case to the Special Project Facilitator (SPF) in June 2004. Although the SPF declared the complaint as eligible on 5 July 2005, unhappy with procedures during consultation phase, affected communities simultaneously went to the Compliance Review Panel (CRP) on 14 November 2004. The CRP declared the case as eligible in December 2004. However, the OSPF concluded the consultation in February 2005 after failing down the mediation process. Since the filing of the STDP case in OSPF and later in CRP, several aspects of effectiveness of AM including its principles, processes and administration issues have been put to test. Last month when the CRP sent a review mission to STDP, the petitioners refused to meet them. Failure of the SPF is due to mishandling of the mediation process by a facilitator who was biased towards ADB. And the failure may also be attributed to the Mediator hired by the OSPF who was incapable of handling such mediations. People feel much of the issues would have been settled if the mediation was done well. One problem they encountered is that there was only one mediator. Perhaps more than one mediator would have given a better opportunity to settle the problems raised in the complaint. “AM is part of the ADB. If the government claims that it follows ADB policies and their respective provisions, and the AM follows the government as it is happening in Sri Lanka, where will they find solution?” This has been the quagmire for the affected people in Sri Lanka. The CRP’s effectiveness has been mixed in the case of STDP. In their opinion, the petitioners are fortunate to use the AM in getting justice. In general, those who filed the case are not the only project-affected people. There have been many more which the AM has not been able to address as they never signed nor they ever filed the case. This gives an indication of the AM’s extent of responsiveness to project-affected people when considering the whole project. Information on AM must be mandatory in each project “We are not aware of the AM.” This has been the opinion of project-affected people even if the STDP case has been filed in both phases of the AM. Most people were not aware of the mechanism. Even until now, many people in the resettlement area near the Highway are complaining about the impacts of the construction of the road. They have been communicating their problems to the Road Development Authority (RDA)–the implementing Agency–as well as to the ADB country director in 2009. They are still waiting for a hearing from the executing agency. In their opinion, if they have been aware of the AM at the earlier stages of the project, prior their resettlement in 1999, they could have addressed their concerns to the mechanism. “If the affected people have been informed about the AM at an earlier stage of the project, many people could have been better off,” said one petitioner. Although some indirectly affected people are in communication with the ADB resident mission they have not been informed about the AM but asked to contact the Project officer who is not willing to meet them. While there is a need of information on AM, the technicalities of the AM process has to be simplified. The CRP procedures as well as the language used are too technical. Projectaffected people are incapable of understanding such technical terms in filing their cases to the AM. While there is a guide to file a case to the OSPF, how come a similar guide is not available for CRP? There is an urgent need to simplify the CRP language and procedures. People think that the availability of the AM should be informed at the very beginning of the project implementation. Immediate response Although people affected by the STDP filed the case to the OSPF and CRP, project implementation went on which resulted in additional burden to affected people. The the project must have been stopped while awaiting the declaration of the case’s eligibility, unless the grievances has been addressed completely and satisfactorily with utmost participation of project-affected people. The process of the OSFP and CRP took a long time to resolve the issues on the STDP. This could have been addressed at the earliest stage of the project–preparation stage–with less procedural time frame for the OSPF and CRP. CRP: Monitoring, investigation and its function The CRP monitoring and investigation process has not been satisfactory. During the last CRP mission to STDP, all petitioners refused to meet them. It was suggested that the CRP team needs technical expertise to evaluate the specific issues under the complaint. Many were in the opinion that CRP must have a technical advisory team to deal with technical issues such as compensation, value of land and property, environmental know-how, and so on. It is believed that there is a limitation in the function of the CRP. The 2006 CRP monitoring report on STDP shows that ADB management and the RDA did not comply with most of the remedial action proposed by the CRP report issued in July 2005. The report stated that the management has fully complied with three recommendations and partially complied with six specific recommendations. However, it also stated that the management has not complied with three general recommendations and seven specific recommendations that include: “Management should require that all affected persons be fully compensated by actual payment before they are moved.” According to the people, the CRP visit last month was the final one for STDP. Yet, two of the recommendations were not fulfilled. People argue how the CRP can abruptly stop monitoring at this stage. If ADB management does not respect the CRP’s recommendations, how will the AM deliver any good? What control does the ADB have once a given project becomes under the control of the executing agency and the borrowing government? The best explanation for the failure of the AM could be “bureaucracy.” Although the degree of independence of the CRP has been ensured by their appointment by the Board of Directors, it is recommended that the CRP must be allowed to appoint its Secretary, instead by the management, who will assist them in their tenure. Claimants believe that the previous Secretary has controlled over CRP’s decisions due to his biastowards the ADB for being its long-time staff The scope of the CRP must not be confined to “direct” project-affected people but should also include ”indirect” project-affected people. The responsibility of the CRP must be clearly mentioned in the policy. While people expected a sort of relief from the CRP, the later couldn’t deliver. The CRP has no power to directly address the grievances of affected people. Claimants’ think they were badly treated due to their involvement in the AM complaint. The CRP must have an emergency fund, approved by the Board of Directors, to address the grievances of the affected people. Effects of being a complainant to OSPF/CRP The AM in its provisions mention that the OSPF or CRP will keep the identities of the requesters confidential if requested. This has not been the case. Requesters feel that due to their case, they have been intimidated by executing agencies. The safety and security of the signatories of the case was not handled properly. Many believe that due to their name in the complaint, their compensation amount has been reduced than those who were not signatories to the complaint sent to the AM. There has been a psychological pressure to affected people by the executing agencies. There are no clear provisions in the AM regarding its responsibilities in cases where the executing agencies intimidate or exert any form of pressure on affected people. It is more difficult now for project-affected people to file a case in AM in Sri Lanka due to the latest political developments. In this case, the AM is silent. Co-financing One hurdle that complainants of the STDP faced was the coordination of conflicting issues among the two major co-financiers–the ADB and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)–and the Government of Sri Lanka. The CRP recommended that ADB management should review its co-financing arrangements for the STDP to strengthen the project’s compliance to the Safeguard Policy; specifically on the environmental and resettlement policies. The panel in 2006 reported that “ADB undertook discussions with JBIC on joint strengthening of compliance in September/October 2005, with a view to ensuring strong monitoring of project compliance with the safeguard documents covering both segments of the highway…” Following this discussion, the ADB and JBIC signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on 31 March 2006. However, the panel reported that “the MOU does not address this issue; instead, the MOU states that ‘Each party will be responsible to ensure that commonly agreed standards and environmental and social safeguards would be applied in the section of the Project such party is financing.” The AM must include the cofinanciers and private banks into its fold of purview. Based on the STDP experiences on AM, it seems that the ADB is only interested in protecting themselves. The cost of the project skyrocketed than the appraisal cost. Many people lost their livelihoods and their social life has been devastated due to the fragmentation of their respected families. The road might be shining, but the accountability of ADB clearly is stained. The ADB must be held accountable to the people.

The recently updated Safeguard Policy would have been welcomed had the remaining dilutions been addressed. The ADB has failed to incorporate in the updated Safeguards the Principle of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) as defined by the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, Article 32. CSO pressure has helped push for big improvements in the approved policy compared to previous drafts. For instance, the policy’s attention to gender now sets the lead for other multilateral development banks to follow with regard to explicitly requiring gender sensitive and responsive application of safeguard policies. Lingering dilutions, however, may in ultimately put at risk the progress made in the final document. For example, the scope of the Involuntary Resettlement Policy has been reduced, greenhouse gas language made public in earlier drafts has been watered down, and the ADB’s system of categorization still does not specify that it shall be utilized for all projects and their components regardless of their source of funding. The terrain now shifts to closely monitoring the roll-out of the policy and its articles of implementation. Will the Bank allocate adequate resources for the policy’s full application? What will happen to the policy given that most of its requirements have been shifted to the operations manual? The situation now may be both dangerous and problematic since the operations manual is considered a document which the Management can change at any time without needing Board approval. The ADB used to have separate policies on Environment, Involuntary Resettlement, and Indigenous Peoples, collectively known as the Safeguard Policies. The ADB has merged the three separate policies into one Safeguard Policy Statement. The bank management embarked on its review of its Safeguard Policies in 2005 and began a series of consultations with its member countries in November 2007. As a result of continuous pressure from civil society groups, led by the Forum, the ADB came up with an updated draft of the SPS as the basis for the last round of multi-stakeholder consultation held in November 2008. RELATED LITERATURE ADB told to double its effort in strengthening its safeguards As it calls for IFIs to guard against the dilution of their respective social and environmental guidelines, the World Resources Institute (WRI) demands the ADB to double its efforts in ensuring that its environmental and social safeguards are strengthened and fully complying with international standards. ADB watchdog submits comments to second Safeguards draft Calling it a dilution of the existing Safeguard Policies of the ADB, the NGO Forum on ADB sent its official submission to the ADB Safeguards team. The ADB watchdog believes that the second draft will only result in the further impoverishment of Asia’s poor unless revised and strengthened. CSOs hit draft safeguards, ADB lawyers say safeguards are diluted The ADB received strong criticism from CSOs for diluting its existing safeguards. Forum hit the ADB for directly weakening the Safeguards, completely contradicting the ongoing efforts of other financial institutions strengthening their respective safeguard measures. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC), likewise, pointed out several dilutions on the safeguards. ADB private-sector loans only ‘partly OK’ The ADB’s Operations Evaluation Department takes on the Bank’s private-sector lending, rating it as “partly successful” due to poor impact and outcomes, low profitability and the lack or absence of safeguards. NGOs demand better Safeguards Consultation from ADB The NGO Forum on the ADB has demanded for a meaningful second round of Safeguards consultation from the ADB. In an official letter, the ADB watchdog reminded the Bank that there were disappointment and concern from civil society on the first Safeguards consultation. RELATED EVENTS ADB warned of Asia’s risks without strong Safeguards May 6, Madrid – Asia’s vulnerable communities and environment will continue to be at risk if the Asian Development Bank fails to improve its existing Safeguards that are currently being revised. NGOs Pull Out of ADB’s Mekong Safeguards Consultations 5 March 2008, Washington, DC- Groups from Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma have refused to attend the Asian Development Bank’s safeguard policy update consultations held this week in Hanoi, citing weakness of the draft. As a result, only three (3) NGOs attended the consultation adding another blow to ADB’s beleaguered efforts to pass off the consultation process as credible. NGOs Cease Talks with ADB on Crucial Environmental and Social Issues 8 February, Manila – Non-governmental organizations from different parts of the world have halted their on-going consultative talks with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) over the latter’s egregiously prepared consultation paper on its environment, involuntary resettlement and Indigenous peoples policies. ADB Responds to Forum’s Call 6 November 2007, Manila – The ADB has responded to Forum’s call for genuine safeguards consultation. On a letter sent to NGO Forum, the regional bank has said that it is willing to reschedule the following Safeguards consultations: East Asia (Beijing), Civil Society Organizations (Manila), and the Mekong and Indonesia (Hanoi). In addition, it has confirmed that it would translate the Safeguards Policy Statement into Bahasa and Vietnamese. Earlier, ADB has already translated the SPS into Russian. Ensure Genuine Safeguards Consultation, ADB Told 24 October 2007, Manila – NGO Forum on ADB calls for a genuine Safeguards Consultation. In a letter submitted by the Asian-led network to ADB’s Safeguard Policy Update Team, Forum cited the bad experience of the network with the consultation processes of the Energy Strategy and the Long Term Strategy Framework (LTSF) due to initial agreements made that were not respected by the Bank. ADB to Hold Consultations on Its Ongoing Safeguards Update 8 October 2007, Manila – The ADB recently announced that it will begin its subregional consultation on the ongoing Safeguards Policy Update in November 2007 until the first quarter of 2008. View updated schedule In response to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005, the ADB decided to review its Safeguard Policies. To date, it has three Safeguard Policies, namely: Environment, Indigenous, and Involuntary Resettlement Policies. The ADB Safeguards seek to prevent environmental degradation, social costs and marginalization of vulnerable groups by its development projects. However, the ongoing review has already been mired in controversy in spite that the Bank has not yet started with its consultations. According to a report in the Financial Times, four members of its Safeguards Team have resigned in protest against the attempts of the Bank’s management to weaken the policies. This has caused alarm among civil society groups who have been campaigning for stronger safeguards. ADB’s Safeguard Policy Review In the of 2005, the ADB decided to get involved in a consolidated review of its Safeguard Policies . A team was appointed by the ADB and a discussion note was published on its website in October 2005. The bank has three safeguard policies: the Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (1995); the Policy on Indigenous Peoples (1998); and the Environment Policy (2002). The recent discussion note also mentioned that its policies for the water, energy and forest sectors also provide important safeguards. According to the discussions noted, “Pursuant to ADB’s reform agenda, there is recognition of the need to enhance the effectiveness and outcome orientation of ADB’s safeguard policies, while at the same time streamlining procedures and reducing transactions costs.” The consolidated review is coming in the context of the Middle-Income Countries (MIC) and Ordinary Capital Resource (OCR) Country Partnership Framework and the Innovation and Efficiency Initiative, which has highlighted the need to introduce procedural flexibility in the application of the Safeguard Policies while increasing country ownership/ capacity in delivering safeguard outcomes. The discussion note also stated, “Ongoing multilateral development bank (MDB) harmonization efforts have placed emphasis on the desirability for development partners to harmonize their practices and procedures around country systems, including country safeguard systems.” From the public point of view, the ADB has a bad track record when it comes to implementation of its own Safeguards. Many of its funded projects have been recently criticized for non-implementation or lack of implementation. There are many violations of the Safeguard Policies either by ADB staff or by the local executing agencies. Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka, Melamchi Water Project in Nepal, Chasma Right Bank Project in Pakistan, Tonle Sap initiative and Highway 1 Project in Cambodia and Samut Prakarn Waste Water Project in Thailand are recent examples of projects with Safeguards violations. Such cases were brought to the attention of the inspection panel of the ADB. The ADB said that they will not open its policy principle to the debate. However, it is facing strong competition with Export Credit Agencies that offer funds with less stringent conditionalities. In this context, the ADB might end up weakening its Safeguards provisions to keep its reputation as the premiere lending agency in Asia and the Pacific region. The Safeguards Team Nessim Ahmad Director Environment and Social Safeguard Division Email: njahmad@adb.org Xiaoying Ma SPU Team Leader Senior Environment Specialist Email: maxiaoying@adb.org ADB’s Safeguards Website: http://www.adb.org/Safeguards NGO contacts NGO FORUM ON ADB - secretariat@forum-adb.org Bank Information Centre - info@bicusa.org You may also visit BIC’s website at http://www.bicusa.org/en/Issue.33.aspx

The Asian Development Bank is about to embark on a review of its Public Communications Policy (PCP). Also known as the Disclosure Policy, the PCP has been the subject of debate among stakeholders and has received criticisms from affected communities and civil society. They have questioned the Disclosure Policy in terms of the merits of its content and implementation based on their experience at the ground level. Information is both power and empowering. With it, people are able to make sound and informed decisions. It allows them to participate actively and effectively in the decision‐making process, which in turn ensures that their respective communities would benefit directly from the development agenda of international financial institutions such as the ADB in their communities without causing any harm and danger to them and the environment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, has recognized the right of the people to seek and receive information. The ADB has continued to claim its support of the right of the people to access information in relation to its operations in the field. In spite of this, the ADB has continued to fall short in recognizing and respecting the right of the people to information. Experiences at the ground level have shown that the Bank lacks both the political will and the resources to recognize this right. In Northeast India, the Khasi indigenous people, who have been fighting to recover their ancestral land due to a cement project supported by the ADB, have been denied access to project documents and reports by the Bank’s review missions. In Cambodia, only a few people from the 2,000 families directly affected by the ADB’s Highway One project have been invited to consultations. In Kyrgyzstan, a local non‐government organization monitoring an ADB‐funded power and heating project has been denied access to project information. And in Aceh, women suffering from a cement facility which is a component of an ADB‐funded reconstruction project have neither been consulted nor informed about it. These are only a handful of cases clearly manifesting the ADB’s violation of people’s right to information. Access to information should not be viewed as a discriminatory privilege given to a select few. Information should be provided to the public at the least possible cost ‐‐ if not totally free ‐‐ and in the most practical manner. The Bank has been speaking of inclusiveness when it comes to its development agenda. At present, this has not been the case. The ADB has equated making information public to providing information only in its website, clearly excluding the poor who should be the foremost beneficiaries of its very existence. Adequate resources should be allocated to effectively implement the Disclosure Policy. People should be informed in the most simple and affordable way.    A long exception list that allows certain projects not to be covered by the PCP is also a strong indication of the ADB’s lack of political will to be transparent in its operations, denying people their right to be informed. Project documents should always be made publicly available. Non‐disclosure of documents should only be allowed in instances wherein the harm that could be caused by disclosing such information outweighs the interest of the public.   For sure, if one goes through the existing PCP, s/he may assume that the ADB is supporting the public’s right to information. However, taking the sideline and merely playing the role of a cheering squad is not enough. The Bank should play its role. Merely putting it on paper is not acceptable, especially to those whose houses are being dismantled; to those whose ways of life are being drastically altered; and to those whose lands have been robbed. The ADB is about to embark on a reviewing of its Public Communications Policy. It is high time to recover from what it has fallen short of.