Hemantha Withanage, NGO Forum on ADB
This is a very special year for the Asian Development Bank as it commemorates a very important milestone: its 40th founding anniversary. And it’s quite symbolic to celebrate it in the heart of Japan, arguably the country with the biggest stake in the ADB in terms of “ownership and influence.” Japan (together with the United States) is the biggest shareholder of the Bank. Japan enjoys 15 percent of the capital subscription and casts 12 votes during important Board decisions. Contrast this with most countries in Asia and the Pacific that only have less than one vote. Japan also controls a number of the Bank’s Special Funds. And historically, Japan has always been given the choice position of ADB presidency; no other member-country has had this privilege.
Since its birth in 1966, this development bank has always aimed very high. Whether it has hit those ambitious marks is entirely a different matter. Its founders envisioned the ADB to financially assist and lead struggling Asian economies towards progress, through development projects and programs. By helping create these “miracle economies,” the Bank will systematically conquer the poverty situation in the region. However, during ADB’s early years up to the late 1980s, sector and safeguard policies that guide the Bank’s operations in developing member countries (DMCs) have not been fully institutionalized yet. The absence of strong policies has had far-ranging consequences to the implementation process and operational stages of ADB-funded projects and programs in a number of countries. Compounding this situation was the onset of globalization near the end of the 20th century. The Bank has attached loan conditionalities to borrowing countries like structural policy adjustments that promote deregulation, privatization of public utilities, and reduction of trade barriers. Annually, the Bank has paraded impressive growth sheets per its developing countries to demonstrate that its mission is on the right track but usually at the unfortunate expense of the environment, affected communities, and vulnerable groups like women and children.
For the Civil Society sector, it is worth marking ADB’s 40th anniversary if only to highlight the Bank’s apparent underperformance as regards its development agenda focusing specifically on genuine poverty alleviation. Have the so-called economic benefits of ADB activities trickled down to the grassroots level?
Can the Bank’s repeated claims of lowering the poverty incidence or magnitude in several DMCs be validated by the realities happening on the ground? Was it worth sacrificing natural resources, rich biodiversities, and precious ecosystems to give way to large-scale dams, road corridors, power plants, and irrigation systems, to name a few, in the name of ADB’s growth-oriented development paradigm?These concerns and issues provided the impetus for civil society organizations to frame advocacies against the highly-questionable operations and activities of the Bank at the DMC level. NGOs, people’s organizations and local communities began to monitor closely ADB projects and policies that have serious social and environmental impacts.
In response to the growing CSO concern and close scrutiny, the ADB began to formulate policies that would guide its project cycles and ensure the accountability of the borrowing country, executing agency, and the Bank itself. Perhaps, to further underscore its efforts to improve the lives of the peoples of Asia and the Pacific, it adopted an anti-poverty mission. But the change in overarching goal was just to mask the Bank’s real agenda of spreading neo-liberal policies, prioritization of the private sector, and further opening up of markets to global multinationals and corporate giants that have negative effects on local economies. Further, it continues to heavily promote large-scale infrastructure projects with high socio-environmental risks, through regional cooperation on trade, energy and transportation. It goes without saying that the Bank’s bias for profitable ventures has caused harm to the environment as well as infringement on human rights. Let’s consider the following information and statistics:
Since 1994, ADB-funded infrastructure projects have displaced almost 1.77 million people. Since 2003, ADB projects have displaced 100-150 thousand people annually. These figures came from the findings of the Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department.
The ADB and JBIC-assisted Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka displaced more than 5,000 people.-The Chasma Right Bank Irrigation project in Pakistan project has had serious social and environmental impacts, foremost of which is massive flooding. Concerned stakeholders have been protesting about this project over the last five (5) years.
ADB loaned about $150 million for a lignite-fired power station in the 1970s in Thailand. The Mae Moh Power Plant is one of the largest point-sources of poisonous sulphur dioxide emissions in Southeast Asia. At least 42,000 people near the plant suffer from chronic respiratory diseases. In 1996, six villagers from the Mao Moh valley died of blood poisoning. Around 300 people have already died.
The Nam Theun-Hinboun Dam in Laos is a US$280-million hydropower project approved by the ADB in 1994. The lives and livelihoods of close to 6,000 people in 25 villages have been affected negatively by the project.
These are but a few cases only.
While ADB has consistently projected itself as a pro-poor development agency in the region, a number of social indicators seem to belie that. For example, around 1.9 billion Asians live below the poverty line. Two-thirds of the region’s population — or a total of 1.5 billion people -– still do not have access to basic sanitation.
In 1992, a broad group of NGOs, community-based and people’s organizations in Asia and the Pacific have banded together to challenge ADB’s top-down development strategies and make it responsible for the damages brought about by its interventions. Over the years, this Asian-led loose organization galvanized its efforts and formulated action plans to monitor and advocate against projects/programs of the Bank that threatens to destroy the environment and displace communities and Indigenous Peoples. Later on, it soon became a large network called the ‘NGO Forum on ADB’ that provides the platform for ADB-related advocacy and lobbying efforts. The Forum is also the local people’s venue for amplifying their voices against ADB’s harmful and destructive activities and practices. It also serves as a venue for every stakeholder to call for the Bank to promote genuine economic, social and environmental sustainability to ensure the future of the succeeding generations. At the policy level, the Forum has continuously and constructively engaged with the Bank in the formulation safeguards and sector policies that refer to international best practices and conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At present, the Bank is doing a consolidated review of its safeguard policies namely, Environment, Indigenous people and Involuntary Resettlement.
There has been intense pressure from some shareholders to even do away with the Safeguards Policies! The ADB is intentionally doing this to weaken these policies so that it can disburse more loans to DMCs. This is quite contrary to the pro-poor goals of the Bank. The social and environmental rights of the people are now at stake. Please urge the Japanese government to compel the ADB to “UPHOLD THE EQUAL SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS OF EVERY CITIZEN OF THE ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION.”
Likewise, the Bank is revising its Energy policy that still supports coal power plants. This is against the Kyoto Protocol signed in this City in 1996. As citizens of Kyoto and Japan, please ask ADB to “HONOUR THE KYOTO PROTOCOL.”
Over the last four (4) decades, ADB has loaned some USD 110 billion, most of which have gone to destructive projects and programs as well as promoted harmful macroeconomic policies. The large amounts of development aid that Japan contributes to the Bank is sourced from Japanese tax payers. It is only fair that every Japanese citizen question their government’s use of public money to support ADB’s operations, regardless of the negative impacts it brings to communities, societies and ecosystems of Asia and the Pacific. In so doing, the Bank might finally come to the realization that only activities that adhere to sustainable development model will address the poverty problem of the region.
Otherwise, the CSOs will continue their tireless yet steadfast campaign to stop ADB’s anti-poor practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment