An operational review of the Safeguard Policy Statement by the ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department found substantial gaps in safeguard delivery and safeguard failures at the project level due to lack of due diligence. Key problems with the ADB’s safeguard policy, according to the Independent Evaluation Department, include a lack of meaningful consultation at the project design phase, gaps within environmental and social impact assessments and a lack of time-bound project-related information disclosure to affected communities.
Almost half the world’s population lives in a country that spends more on external debt service than on investments in health or education, the report said. If these countries were to invest resources at the levels needed to meet internationally agreed climate and development goals, many of them would become bankrupt in the next five years.
Scientists estimate that global biodiversity declined by 2 to 11 per cent, largely due to land-use changes, but climate change will be the primary driver of biodiversity loss by mid-century.
For the past two years, civil society organisations have been engaging with the environmental and social framework review process and the ADB’s Office of the Safeguards. We have raised concerns about current safeguard gaps and challenges in implementation and formally submitted comments and recommendations.
We also voiced our clear stance on strong safeguards when it comes to climate impacts, climate-induced migration, projects on disputed land, cultural impacts, gender impacts, labour standards and just energy transitions, among others.
The ADB released its draft policy paper for comments last September. Far from our expectations, the paper proposes a weak framework that has raised concerns among stakeholders due to the dilution of existing safeguard standards.
The draft gives more flexibility to borrowers and clients in implementing environmental and social safeguards, which could lead to reduced accountability, inconsistent application of standards and higher risks of environmental degradation and social harm.
The draft also removed some existing protections established under the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement, a move which diminishes the rights of communities affected by the bank’s projects, making them more vulnerable to social injustices, conflicts and forced displacement. For example, it eliminated mandatory environmental impact assessments before board approvals, even for high-risk projects. This may result in inadequate risk assessments and uninformed decision-making, increasing the likelihood of environmental and social harm.
The draft’s proposed changes, under the guise of more flexibility, suggest a significant weakening of the environmental and social standards that have guided the bank’s projects. The overall effect is likely to be less accountability in project implementation, reduced protection of community rights and inadequate assessment of project impacts.
It is not just important but critical that development institutions adopt strong environmental and social safeguards amid the multiple challenges humanity is facing. We are being destabilised from so many different directions at once. We need progressive, future-proofed safeguards that take into account all forms of social and environmental risks and impacts.
Lidy Nacpil is coordinator of Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development
Rayyan Hassan is executive director of the NGO Forum on ADB