NGOs organize panel discussion on ADB safeguards
17 May 2007
At the 40th Annual Asian Development Bank (ADB) AGMs, CSOs outlined major gaps in existing ADB standards and discussed what the ADB should do to meet and surpass the highest international standards as ADB gears up to revamp its Safeguard Policies.
Listen to the entire panel discussion:
The Bank Information and Oxfam Australia co-hosted a Panel entitled: ADB's Revision of Environmental, Indigenous, Resettlement Policies: Is Social and Environmental Security at Stake? at the ADB’s 40th Annual General Meeting.
The Panel brought together policy analysts from civil society organizations (CSOs)[1] such and project-affected people (for a list of the panelists, see…) as well as a senior ADB representative to address concerns regarding ADB plans to revamp its three major policies that aim to “safeguard” the environment and communities where the ADB is involved. Collectively, the three policies are known as “Safeguard Policies” and the ADB process to revise them is called the “Safeguard Policy Update” (link to SPU tracker.)
It was highlighted at the outset of the panel that the ADB’s own Operations and Evaluations Department (OED) has concluded that existing ADB safeguards have a poor track record of protecting the environment and social rights of people and communities where the ADB funds projects. And, safeguards are often the only means by which communities can hold the ADB accountable to uphold any type of environmental and social protection standards. There are concerns that the existing SPU process may result in a further dilution of safeguard policies as the ADB attempts to bring them together under one umbrella, rather than three stand-alone policies. Moreover, increasing pressure from influential borrowing countries is requiring the ADB to reduce the number of mandatory procedural requirements used to implement these policies. This is in light of these countries to be able to acquire funding from other sources where less stringent standards on environmental and social concerns.
Toshi Doi of Mekong Watch
Nessim Ahmad, ADB’s Director of the Environment and Social Safeguards Division in the Regional Sustainable Development Department, outlined several key outputs from the SPU. According to Ahmad, ADB hoped to 1) improve effectiveness of safeguards 2) focus on delivery 3) balance between “procedural requirements” of the ADB to meet safeguard obligations versus changing procedural demands to meet client (developing country borrowers) needs and 4) ensure that compliance of safeguard policies is improved.
He also highlighted that the ADB hopes to come out with new operational procedures, a new Involuntary Resettlement Handbook and a “Bank-wide corporate plan for delivery” of a sustainable safeguards framework.
Joanna Levitt, Director of Programs of the International Accountability Project highlighted that the focus of the current involuntary resettlement policy resulted in mitigation of damage rather than prevention and that the ADB needed to move away from “least-cost” alternatives and a “do no harm” policy to actively improve peoples lives. Ms. Sin Chhin, a resettled person from ADB-funded Highway One Project in Cambodia recounted how the project had resulted in lost livelihood, indebtedness and inadequate compensation. Levitt reiterated that the Highway One project illustrated clearly how “the poorest and those that are least able to defend their rights suffered the most” through ADB projects that failed to properly safeguard communities.
Ramananda Wangkeirakpam from the Northeast Alliance on Trade Development and Fiance represented an Indigenous Peoples Network. He stated that consultation and participation was a major shortcoming of the Bank and that not just “consultation” but “consent” was needed for the ADB to meet some of the higher UN standards upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their development. He insisted that it was time that ADB made a commitment to uphold the highest standards of International Law as a major International Financial Institution that should be subject to International Law.
Mr. Shafiqul Islam, a project-affected person from the Khulna Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project (KJDRP) from Southwest Bangladesh,[2] depicted the extent of flooding that had increased and created livelihood disruption since the funding of KJDRP. He reiterated that the ADB’s failure to properly integrate local knowledge into environmental impact assessments and during implementation had resulted in exacerbating environmental problems in the area. Moreover, he reiterated that EIAs had not been made public in the early phases of KJDRP.
Dr. Stephanie Fried, Senior Scientist of environmental NGO Environment Defence, summarized that the need for flexibility in environmental project designs that integrated local knowledge was necessary and outlined several areas where the ADB needed to improve its environmental policy. She also stressed that there was a growing concern that the ADB was moving towards massive investment in infrastructure which underpinned the need for strengthened, not weaker, safeguards. She also asked for a commitment from the ADB that the SPU would not result in weaker standards and that the demand by borrowing countries to use their own rules to safeguard the environment would not result in less accountability of the ADB towards its projects. Mr. Ahmad assured the audience that the safeguards would not be diluted and the ADB would not relinquish its own accountability towards the projects it funds. Dr. Fried concluded by presenting a collective statement of over 53 NGOs, part of the NGO forum on the ADB that underpin CSO concerns regarding the SPU.
[1] Stephanie Fried, Environmental Defence; Joanna Levitt, International Accountability Project, Ramananda Wangkheirakpam, North East Alliance on Trade Development and Finance (in conjunction with Forest Peoples Program)
[2] with an introduction from Mr. Ashraf Ul Alam Tutu of the Coastal Development Partnership, based in Khulna Jessore