ASIA-PACIFIC PEOPLES’ TRIBUNAL ON ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
ADB: Development for the People or for Profit?
May 2-3, 2009
Udayana University Faculty of Medicine Auditorium
Denpasar-Bali, Indonesia
ALIANSI GERAKAN REFORMA AGRARIA
(AGRA), ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
OF NUSANTARA/INDONESIA, ASIA PACIFIC
RESEARCH NETWORK (APRN), ASIAN PEASANT
COALITION (APC), ASIA PACIFIC FORUM ON
WOMEN, LAW AND DEVELOPMENT (APWLD),
ASIA SOUTH PACIFIC ASSOCIATION FOR BASIC
AND ADULT EDUCATION (ASPBAE), ATKI JAKARTA,
BANGLAPRAXIS, E-NET FOR JUSTICE, FORUM ON
WOMEN’S NGOS IN KYRGZSTAN, FRONT MAHASISWA
NASIONAL (FMN), GREEN MOVEMENT OF SRI LANKA,
GCAP INDONESIA, HIMALAYAN AND PENINSULAR
HYDROECOLOGICAL NETWORK (HYPEN), IBON,
INDONESIAN WOMEN COALITION, INTERNATIONAL
NGO FORUM ON INDONESIAN DEVELOPMENT (INFID),
INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES
(INDIES), MIGRANT CARE, PARIVARTAN, RESIST!,
ROOTS FOR EQUITY, VOICE, SOLIDARITY WORKSHOP
(INTERNATIONAL), URBAN POOR CONSORTIUM/UPLINK,
WATER AND ENERGY USER'S FEDERATION (WAFED),
WATER FOR THE PEOPLE NETWORK (WPN)
Complainants,
- versus - CASE NO. 01-2009
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH, THE GOVERNMENT OF SRI LANKA, THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
INDICTMENT
COMPLAINANTS, in solidarity with the oppressed people of the Asia-Pacific region, by the panel of the public prosecutors, unto the Honorable Peoples’ Tribunal, most respectfully aver:
I. PREFATORY STATEMENT:
Poverty is the world’s foremost and fundamental problem.
Half of the world population lives on less than $2 a day and 1.3 billion on less than $1 a day.
Hunger and death are products of poverty.
The FAO’s State of Food Insecurity Report in 2002 reveals the frightening figures of the state of world hunger:
3.5 billion are malnourished
1.2 billion are suffering from extreme poverty
835 million are hungry
840 million people were undernourished from 1998-2000
o 11 million in industrialized countries
o 30 million in countries in transition
o 799 million in the developing countries.
6 million children under the age of 5 die each year due to hunger
in the worst affected countries, a newborn child can look forward to an average of barely 38 years of healthy life
Ironically, almost four-fifths of the hungry are the very producers of food – those who till the land and depend on agriculture to make a living. To top it all, almost all of them live in countries that are actually producing food surpluses. These countries can be found in what has been known as the Asia-Pacific region.
It was for this reason – the reduction of poverty – that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) was established in 1966 by 31 country members with the vision of creating a financial institution that would be “Asian in character” to foster growth and cooperation in a region that back then was one of the world's poorest. After more than forty (40) years, membership to the ADB spans 67 countries, with 19 countries coming from Europe and America, and 48 countries coming from Asia.
The United States and Japan are by far the ADB’s most powerful members and equally divide between themselves 31.2 percent of total subscribed capital and 25.6 percent of total voting power.
As an international financial institution, the ADB supposedly has poverty and development as its reason for being in the region. It is supposedly committed to “improving the welfare of the people in Asia and the Pacific, particularly the 1.9 billion who live on less than $2 per day.” Where ADB is present, it is engaged in strategic areas such as environment, finance sector development, regional cooperation and integration, education, and infrastructure (including water, sanitation and waste management).
During its 41st Governors’ Meeting in Madrid in 2008, ADB’s corporate vision of “An Asia and Pacific Free of Poverty” was endorsed. Also known as the Strategy 2020, this long-term framework will lead to nothing but higher price tags on basic social services due to loan conditionalities and increased poverty by removing restrictions on trade.
However, contrary to the vision it espoused, instead of improving the lives of the people of the Asia-Pacific, ADB worsened the economic crisis in the region. It has not only created social and environmental destruction in many countries in Asia and the Pacific, but also increased debt dependency that eventually undermined the peoples’ rights through many projects that have had detrimental outcomes for poor and marginalized communities.
Unfortunately, the various governments of the countries in the Asia-Pacific regions, wittingly or unwittingly, supported ADB’s programs despite the ill-effects they have wreaked to their economies and the violations of the individual and collective rights of their people.
Despite numerous protests, the ADB and the governments of these countries have consistently turned a deaf ear on the people’s demands in the region such as respect for human rights, an alternative financial mechanism, equal and fair economic governance structure, and compensation for communities affected by ADB-funded projects, among others. There is a need, therefore to step up initiatives in order that the voices of the poor and marginalized of Asia are heard.
It is for this reason that the people of the Asia-Pacific are bringing this suit against ADB to the people’s tribunal, as they could not achieve justice in the local courts. There is likewise no international instrument or body that could make ADB and the government accountable for their acts.
II. THE PARTIES:
1. The Complainants:
This is an Indictment brought by the people of the Asia-Pacific region especially the peasants, farmers, fisher folks, agricultural workers, peasant women, indigenous peoples and the other oppressed and exploited people as complainants, through the Panel of People’s Prosecutors. Specifically, this suit is brought by the different peoples’ organization, non-government organizations, and institution who, in one way or another, are involved in the promotion of the rights and interest of the poor and marginalized people not only in the countries where they are based or in the Asia-Pacific regions but also in the whole world. These peoples’ organization, non-government organizations and institutions are as follows:
Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria (AGRA), an organization of farmers based in Indonesia;
Alliance of Indigenous People of Nusantara/Indonesia, an association of indigenous communities in Indonesia engaged in the struggle against the loss of indigenous people’s rights and pride due to state policies, laws and activities and the globalization policies of multilateral institutions and the developed countries. It promotes the rights of indigenous people to self-determination in Indonesia.
Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN), a network of leading research NGOs in the Asia-Pacific active in promoting exchange, coordination and capacity building support in research. It has 37 leading research organizations in 17 countries in Asia Pacific and is still growing;
Asian Peasant Coalition (APC), a coalition of peasant organization in Asian countries that struggle for rights of the farmers, farmworkers, fisherfolk and forest based indigenous peoples' against all forms of imperialist and feudal oppression and exploitation;
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APLWD), an independent, non-government, non-profit organization. It is committed to enabling women to use law as an instrument of social change for equality, justice and development. It has a consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC);
Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE), a regional association of organizations and individuals engaged in both formal and non-formal adult education, working with and through government agencies, universities, NGOs, community groups, trade unions, indigenous peoples’ and women’s organizations, the media, and other institutions across the Asia-Pacific region comprising of around 640 organizations and individuals as members, and operates in 30 countries of the Asia-Pacific region;
Atki Jakarta, a mass organization of Labor-Indonesian migrant workers who work in various domestic placement that campaigns to uphold the recognition and protection of rights of Indonesian migrant workers and other migrant workers throughout the world.
Banglapraxis, a public interest research, policy analysis and solidarity organization based in Dhaka, Bangladesh;
Education Network or E-NET for Justice, an alliance of NGO that works to promote the rights to education and education for all. The actual campaign of E-net for justice is promoting rights of teachers; oppose privatization and commercialization on educations.
Forum on Women’s NGOs in Kyrgyzstan, a network of women's organizations in Kyrgyzstan facilitating information exchange and help groups cooperate with each other and assisting group members in writing grants and project proposals and sponsoring conferences and seminars on topics concerning women;
"Front Mahasiswa Nasional" (National Student Front) or FMN, a students’ organization campaigning for the rights to education for all student and youth in Indonesia specifically for increase of national budget for education, the right to jobs; and opposes privatization and commercialization of education;
Green Movement Of Sri Lanka, an organization concerned with Environmental Conservation and Awareness Creation. It is a consortium with 153 non-governmental organizations, community based organizations and other groups spread around the Island involved in natural resource management. Further, it is a part of a network of 78 international organizations as well;
Global Call Against Poverty of Indonesia or GCAP, a network of NGO that works to promotes Millenium Development Goals in Indonesia;
Himalayan and Peninsular Hydro-Ecological Network (HYPEN), a regional network known composed of the water project-affected groups, campaigners, activists, experts, teachers, professors, scientists, human rights and environmental lawyers, and lay supporterscovering the South Asian land and water mass south of the Himalaya spread over Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well as China to the north). HYPHEN’s main objective is to intervene in issues related to water—rivers, coasts, wetlands and other water bodies— particularly in protecting them and securing the well being of communities dependent on them against the rampant and destructive forces committed to the dogmas of gigantic development. HYPHEN also recognizes climate change as one of the fundamental problems of humanity directly arising from this dogmatic development paradigm and proposes environmentally oriented alternative solutions;
IBON, a research-education-information development institution. It undertakes the study of socio-economic issues that confront Philippine society and the world today. It explores alternatives and promotes a new understanding of socio-economic issues that best serve the interests and aspirations of the Filipino people. IBON commits to bring this knowledge and information to the greatest number so that the people may effectively participate in building a self-reliant and progressive Philippines, a nation that is sovereign and democratic;
Indonesian Women Coalition, an organization of women’s organization in Indonesia, which aims at bringing about equality and justice between men and women as, befits a just, democratic, prosperous and civilized society;
International Ngo Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), an open and pluralistic network of NGOs from Indonesia and various member countries of the Consultative Group for Indonesia as well as of international organizations and individuals with an interest in and commitment to Indonesia. INFID aims at facilitating communication between NGOs inside and outside Indonesia in order to promote policies to alleviate structural poverty and to increase the capacity to improve conditions of the poor and the disadvantaged in Indonesia;
Institute For National And Democratic Studies (INDIES), an institution formed to address some of the people sovereignty issues in Indonesia. Its establishment was facilitated by some individual members of the Indonesian social activist and academician. Its vision is to uphold people sovereignty through social movements. Its mission is to facilitate social transformation through research, advocacy, education and networking activities;
Migrant Care, an Indonesian NGO that works on the development of regional networks and advocacy for migrant workers in Southeast Asia. The main purpose behind these activities is to develop regional and bilateral agreement among Southeast Asian countries on the protection of migrant workers and to seek for the global justice for these workers;
Parivartan, Parivartan is a Delhi based citizens’ movement trying to ensure a just, transparent and accountable governance. It is a people’s movement for reinforcement of democratic values. It stands and strives for strengthening of practices and systems, which encourage participatory democracy including transparency and accountability;
RESIST!, an international campaign network against neoliberal globalization and war;
FMN or UPC/UPLINK or Urban Poor Consortium/Urban Poor Linkages, a non-government organization (NGO) working with the urban poor communities in Indonesia and campaigning for right to housing, rights to jobs, rights to travels, and against state-sponsored forced-displacement and forced-eviction of the urban poor communities in many cities in Indonesia;
Water And Energy User's Federation (WAFED), Nepal, an independent national network of Water and Energy projects-affected people and local concerned groups in Nepal. It also has a membership of individual activists engaged in the field of human rights, environment and development in Nepal and internationally;
Water For The People Network (WPN), a campaign network that supports the various water-related struggles at the grassroots in order for them to achieve national and international projection. It also serves as an information and resource center as well as a coordinating body for joint actions and campaigns on the national and international levels. WPN seeks to put forward a "People's Water Code", an alternative paradigm to private, foreign corporate-led development, management and operation of water resources and services. It upholds the human right to water and the people's collective rights to manage their water;
The Indictment is also endorsed by Roots For Equity of Pakistan; Voice; and Solidarity Workshop (International).
The respondents:
The respondents in this case are the following:
The Asian Development Bank (ADB). ADB is a multilateral financial institution established in 1966 and is the region’s main international development finance institution and its third largest source of such funding after Japan and the World Bank (WB). It has 67 member countries, 44 of whom it categorizes as developing countries, including 19 members from outside the region in North America and Europe. The United States and Japan are by far the ADB’s most powerful members and equally divide between them 31.2 percent of total subscribed capital and 25.6 percent of the total voting power. In turn, the 23 OECD member countries in the ADB cumulatively account for 64.5 percent of total subscribed capital and 58.5 percent of voting power. These dominant powers have ensured that the ADB pushes their desired social, economic and financial policies including supporting the investments and profits of their corporations;
The Government of Japan. It is one of the most powerful members of the ADB, and together with the Government of the United States have equally divide between them 31.2 percent of total subscribed capital and 25.6 percent of the total voting power;
The Government of the United States of America. It is one of the most powerful members of the ADB, and together with the Government of Japan have equally divide between them 31.2 percent of total subscribed capital and 25.6 percent of the total voting power;
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It was the 5th biggest cumulative borrower of ADB in 2007 and 2008. The approved loans in 2007 amounted to US$ 8.9 billion, and in 2008, US$940 million;
The Government of Indonesia. It was the biggest cumulative borrower of ADB in 2007 with approved loans totaling US$21.1 billion. In 2008, it was the 4th largest borrower amounting to US$1.1 billion.
The Government of India. It was the 3rd largest cumulative borrower of ADB in 2007 with approved loans totaling US$18.5 billion. In 2008, it was the biggest borrower amounting to US$2.9 billion.
The Government of Sri Lanka. It is a significant borrower of ADB and has implemented projects of the same within its jurisdiction.
The Government of Bangladesh. It is a significant borrower of ADB and has implemented projects of the same within its jurisdiction.
III. CHARGES AND VIOLATIONS:
The complainants hereby charged the respondents of the following:
I. Widespread and systematic violation of the economic, social, and cultural rights of the people in the Asia-Pacific region.
II. Gross and systematic violation of the civil and political rights of the people in the Asia-Pacific region;
III. Gross and systematic violation of the people’s national sovereignty and the right to self-determination.
The aforesaid acts and omissions constitute violation of:
a. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the People or the Algiers Declaration of July 1976;
b. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948;
c. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966;
d. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966; and
e. The generally accepted principles and norms of international law
IV. ALLEGATIONS:
i. General and specific allegations of gross and systematic violation of the economic, social and cultural rights of the people of the Asia-Pacific region.
After more than four decades of existence, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has wrought more havoc than bringing about development in the region. With a membership spanning 67 countries, the ADB is the third largest source of development finance in the Asia Pacific region, next only to the World Bank group and Japan. Lending from ADB, amounting to billions of dollars annually, go into projects that leave a trail of human rights violations- displaced communities, loss of livelihood, exorbitant rates for basic social services, environmental ruin, and undermining the rights of communities to self-determination.
Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. {2}
ADB exacerbates poverty and hunger and caused massive dislocation of communities.
Asia has more poor people than any other regions. Looking back as early as 1970s, one would reckon that more than half the population of the region was poor. Today, the percentage of poor people has decreased to nearly one-third of its population. Of the 3.7 billion Asians, nearly 1.9 billion are still living on less than US$2 a day. Nearly 600 million are still living below US$1 a day.
IBON Foundation, in its May 2009 issue entitled “The ADB, Debt And Underdevelopment In The Asia-Pacific Region has stated:
“The reality however is that the ADB has greatly contributed to increasing and deepening poverty as well as worsening the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people in Asia and the Pacific. There are 3.5 billion people living in the region. It is home to an estimated 550 million hungry and 1.7 billion poor people. Yet these are likely even serious underestimates as our individual country experiences will attest to. In any case, two-thirds of the world’s poor and half its undernourished people are reportedly in Asia and the Pacific. The region also accounts for 40 percent of children who die before age 5, 60 percent of those without safe water and 70 percent of those without access to improved sanitation.
This persistence of poverty is tragic but unsurprising. The last decades in particular have seen economic and social policies systematically biased against the region’s peasants, workers, indigenous peoples and other marginalized sectors and instead for the benefit of foreign capital and domestic elites. The ADB has been among the most consistent promoters of such anti-people policies as well as a major pillar of the region’s debt and underdevelopment problem.
Asia has in recent years been heralded as some kind of new and rising center of economic prosperity and even of political power. The region has supposedly seen rapid growth and great structural transformation in the last three to four decades. Asia’s share of global gross domestic product (GDP) has been increasing and has even been forecast to reach over 40 percent by 2015.
Yet the rapid economic growth recorded merely reflects greatly increased commerce and other economic activity whose benefits have accrued to a few. Indeed the last decades have also seen widening disparities within and between countries in the region. These are not accidental and are the necessary result of the distorted economic model pushed by the ADB, among others, through its loans.
Over four decades of ADB lending has resulted in vast amounts of debt used for projects hurtful to people and communities as well as harmful to the environment. Loans have been used to leverage policy conditionalities which have made public utilities prohibitively expensive, undermined social services of health and education, and destroyed local agriculture and industry. There has even been debt which was effectively just borrowing to repay past debt. The ADB has also provided loans to support repressive governments, aside from uncounted amounts which have been lost to corruption.
The ADB’s lending has in short not gone towards development. The people of the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Pacific region remain deeply indebted, endure intensifying poverty, and suffer economic backwardness. As it is, the underdeveloped ADB member countries had a combined foreign debt of US$344.2 billion in 1988 (39 countries) which increased five-fold to US$1,635.2 billion in 2006 (44 countries). ADB loans constitute a significant part of this debt and billions of dollars go to debt payments for these.”
Hence, the ADB’s claim about this progress in the region is unacceptable. On the other hand, keeping poverty as its overarching goal would ensure continuous business for ADB’s development partners.
ADB is not in Asia for humanitarian reasons. But it serves as a financial mechanism for countries to obtain development assistance and concessional loans.
The way the ADB has disbursed its lending money in the last four decades has clearly set out what are its priorities. It was not for the reduction of poverty but for accumulation of profits.
The types of large-scale infrastructure projects approved under its supposedly pro-poor goal - road corridors traversing environmentally-sensitive areas, large dam projects, coal-powered plants - caused hardships to and dislocation of affected communities as well as damages to the environment and natural resources.
Since 1999, the ADB has been claiming that its projects have been consistent with its overarching goal of poverty alleviation. However, though the projects may have been completed, poverty remains. After the completion of the projects, governments are made to pay for the expenditure as well as their interests. And these payments were sourced from the taxes, which they levy from the people.
Some projects have even worsened the poverty situation in some communities, especially in cases where people were displaced both physically and economically.
The ADB was and still is the major driving force of “open economy” in Asia and the Pacific. Its steady promotion of free trade and open economy that includes “full cost recovery” and “private sector participation” has further compounded the woes and miseries of affected people.
As part of its efforts in achieving its poverty reduction agenda, the ADB has set up the Asian Development Fund (ADF). It is the largest soft loan granting facility of the Bank. Member countries access this financing modality mainly for infrastructure and provision of basic human needs.
Since 1973, total contributed ADF resources amounted to US$26.6 billion which is about 27 percent of the Bank’s total lending. According to the ADB, 31 of its members have provided direct contributions to ADF. The largest contributors are Japan, the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, France, and the United Kingdom. There are 28 ADF borrowers that have access to ADF IX resources, 19 of which had either borrowed and/or received grants from the ADF from 2005 to end-August 2007. Major borrowers included Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.
In its new long-term strategy, ADB will raise the portion of its operations tied with the private sector to 50 per cent by 2020, which presently stands at around 12 percent. On the other hand, 30 percent of operation will focus on the regional cooperation, while only 20 percent of its operations will be available for basic needs such as health, education and other infrastructure activities. The ADB is expecting that most countries in the region will become middle-income countries by 2020. Clearly, ADB’s priorities favor the large corporations and not the poor people of the Asia Pacific region.
ADB and its donor countries use the ADF to keep the sovereign countries under their control through financing and imposition of market principles to continue looting from them. Poverty is the main course that international financial institutions and their donor countries use to create businesses for their corporations and jobs for their consultants, and to control these countries with conditionalities tied with their loans and development assistance.
The ADB Loan for Tree Crops brought misery to the farmers of Indonesia.
The Tree Crop Small-holder Sector Project (TCSSP) came from an ADB loan, which was approved in November 1992 and amounted to US$ 135 million. The project was supposedly designed to reduce poverty by improving the income and employment prospects of the rubber and tea smallholders and landless rubber tappers in the project area by increasing their production through the introduction of improved crop varieties and cultivation practices. In other words, it intends to assist the farmers to plant good quality rubber and tea trees. The project ended in 2001, and the ADB had reported in its Project Completion Report for TCSSP (PCR: INO 22290) in July 2002 that the project was rated as successful.
However, contrary to what ADB has reported, various data point to the fact of a project-failure. The funds did not go to the project beneficiaries, seedlings that were provided were bad seeds, and farmers cannot get their land certificates that were taken by the authorities as collateral.
The project completion report (PCR) for TCSSP reported that the project achieved all of its development objectives and met all of its physical targets, which is, to alleviate poverty by assisting farmers to plant good quality rubber and tea trees. However, a study of the project in the province of Bengkulu, Sumatra, indicated otherwise. Poverty in that area has not been alleviated and the project had failed. Also in Kalimantan, one project site, ADB’s own document showed that the project is not as successful as the PCR has claimed.
In Bengkulu, the initial target was to plant 5,000 Ha of rubber in South Bengkulu. However, it expanded to 12,850 Ha in North Bengkulu to compensate the area reduction in South Kalimantan. At the beginning of the project, the farmers were enthusiastic to participate in this project with the hope of getting a better income. Many farmers in Bengkulu enrolled in the project. But to the farmers’ disappointment, ten years later, during harvest time, the trees only produce very little rubber. According to the farmers, this was due to the bad seedlings. They could only harvest 50 kg (total) of rubber per week at the maximum and they sell it for Rp 2,000 to Rp 2,400 per kg. (US$ 1 = Rp 9,000 approximately). Subsequently, most of the farmers cannot pay their debts. Only a very little amount of the debts was collected (see Table 2).
In East Kalimantan, the rubber production was not satisfactory either. After looking at the land quality, planting season, and maintenance activities, the project officers concluded that the problem might not be the seedlings. It was also discovered that the seedling contractor was using a grafting technique instead of the correct method of inoculation.
As such, the study report concluded that the TCSSP was designed and implemented in the conventional top-down manner. The people did not participate in the planning or monitoring. Lack of trust also prevailed, and there was no effort to control dishonest business practices. The farmers were simply technology users; there was no systematic improvement in their knowledge on plantations.
As a result, the PCR reported that the debt collections were very low in all of the project areas. The approximate monthly payment of each farmer is Rp. 60,000 – Rp 80,000 for rubber, and Rp 40,000 – Rp 50,000 for tea. Meanwhile, the estimated appraisal of the monthly payments is about Rp 111,200 for rubber and Rp 39,250 for tea. Table 2.2 shows the total due debt (principal loan plus interests) and the amount collected.
Because of the debt burden that they carry and the other implications that go with it, in December 2001, the farmers in Bengkulu filed a complaint to the Government of Indonesia (Plantation Service). They asked the government and the ADB to conduct a field investigation and solve their problem. Both parties obliged and sent their teams to review and conduct a survey on the area. The re-classification team that was formed by the Governor of Bengkulu on March 12, 2003 concluded that 80% of the seedlings did not match the standard seeds as stated in the agreement. The review was then reported in ADB document “Aide Memoir of ADB Follow-up Review Mission for Loan 1118-INO: Tree Crop Smallholders Sector Project”.
However, up to now, the farmers have not yet received any compensation for the re-classification that was promised to them. Many of the farmers, particularly the farmers from the transmigration areas, could not get the land certificates that they gave to the PMUs as collateral. Consequently, more than 90% of farmers became labourers in private Rubber Plantation Companies (PT Air Muring, PT. Agrisinal, PT Agromuko etc).
Moreover, the case that the farmers filed in the Court of First Instance in Bengkulu proves that some of the project funds were corrupted by the authorities. The court’s verdict declared that the corruption from the TCSSP wherein the funds for drainage and road building were corrupted has inflicted a loss to the country and it had also caused a deficit to 3,470 farmers by corrupting the procurement of the seedlings, reducing the fertilizers, purchasing equipment that is below standard, and for withholding the land certificates of the TCSSP participants.
The ADB funded Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh caused massive displacement, loss of livelihood and basic services
According to ADB management, Phulbari Coal Project would create approximately 50,000 affected people (12,000 affected households, including 2,200 indigenous peoples) in the project area, out of which 43,000 people will be physically displaced. According to the December 2006 version of the Resettlement Plan for the Coal Mine Area of the Phulbari Coal Project prepared by Asia Energy PLC, compensation would be provided to legal owners of land and houses, and other socially recognized agricultural land users and sharecroppers would receive livelihood restoration grants for a period of two years.
However, the Expert Committee formed by the Government of Bangladesh to evaluate Asia Energy’s project documents found that 129,417 persons will be directly affected by the project and 220,000 persons will be indirectly affected due to the de-watering of the mine area and because the primary source of water in this area is tube wells.
In addition to displacement, severe loss of livelihoods will result, as the land proposed for the project is one of the most fertile and populated areas in a country that is prone to chronic water-logging and where much of the land is uncultivable for many months of the year. Out of the total land proposed for the Phulbari open-pit mine, 78% is agricultural land and there is limited possibility for land rehabilitation. The majority of affected people will not be employed by the mine and projections of multiplier effects of such an operation are based on spurious grounds.
The ADB funded Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh also caused Environmental Degradation
The Project will also cause severe environmental consequences.
First, no practical ground level tests appear to have been conducted on the actual impact of dewatering in the mining area and thus long term impacts of such a procedure on desertification in the area remain highly uncertain. The Expert Committee Report indicates that arsenic contamination of water could be a real possibility during and after the mine life of 30-35 years given the depth of the coal extraction (656-1028 ft). Asia Energy PLC documents suggest that land will be filled after extraction and the company will leave a freshwater lake at the end of the mine life. However, environmental experts maintain that neither the land (dredged and rehabilitated) nor the ensuing “lake” will be conducive to agriculture or other activities such as fisheries given the toxicity level of both. The depletion of groundwater will impact approximately 314 sq km. Though Asia Energy claims that it will re-inject water in the area, its discussion on this issue is based on speculative hydrological and climactic projections.
Second, the main coal off-loading facility will be at Akram Point, a deep water anchorage site situated within the Sundarbans Reserve Forest. The Sundarbans are a World Heritage Site given its biodiversity and marine habitat. Equally disturbing is the admission in the SEIA that shipping channels “…will pass at least 1.5 km from these protected areas” (SEIA, page 7). Moreover, preventive measures suggested in the SEIA deals inadequately with rail and river accidents frequently associated with mining activity of this scale, not to mention response to sudden large-scale natural disasters as Bangladesh has recently witnessed.
Finally, though the ADB continues to maintain that the EIA and SIA “have been carried out to a very high international standard by the sponsor” both the EIA and the SIA have been commissioned by the same company, which wishes to extract the coal; hence, serious conflict of interest issues remain endemic in the project. This is especially so given that Asia Energy’s leadership is dubious and it has no pre-existing record of operating a coal mine.
ADB funded Community Empowerment for Rural Development Program (CERD) exacerbated landlessness.
The Community Empowerment for Rural Development Program or more commonly known by its abbreviation CERD, financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) was introduced in the Sirenja sub-district of Donggala district located at the western coast of Central Sulawesi since 2003 to 2006. CERD is essentially divided into two programs, that is, the construction of roads leading to production centers or to support farming activities with total budget of Rp 212,000,000/village aimed at facilitating local communities/farmers in selling their agricultural produce and the establishment of savings and loan cooperatives in villages known as LSPBM or community-based savings and loan institutions with budget allocated for the economic development of village communities.
In Sirenja sub-district, CERD has been launched in eight villages (Tondo, Tanjung Padang, Sipi, Lompio, Lende, Sibado, Tompe and Dampal) from the 11 villages found in the area. The three remaining villages not under this program are Balintuma, Jono Oge and Ombo.
The program however was fraught with numerous problems due to improper field practices, rampant corruption and manipulation committed either by implementing agencies or relevant district government bodies, which in this case was the BPMD or Village Community Empowerment Agency as the institution in charge of the program at the district level. Program funds from BPMD are funneled to villages through sub-district facilitators and village-level working groups. Roads constructed to open up access for local farmers were badly damaged, as is the case in Sibado village where the local people then turned them into a volleyball court and roads in Lende were practically inaccessible. All these are prompted by policies adopted by the Donggala BPMD, which sub-contracted the program to a third party.
The misappropriation of funds has resulted in the incompletion of the program, which includes the unfinished construction of the LSPBM office, and roads leading to production centers are already in a dismal state. This is because the construction project was tendered by the program’s lead agency to a third party (contractor) without involving community self-help organizations or implementing groups (appointed through the village deliberative meeting).
Initially intended to build community self-reliance as well as to develop and empower local residents, CERD has failed to alleviate poverty in the area but instead has added to the economic difficulties of local communities. Farmers were robbed of their rice fields and arable lands thriving with commercial crops such as coconut and cocoa trees. Forced eviction was also widespread for the purpose of ensuring the smooth implementation of the program.
Land appropriation occurred in almost all eight villages targeted by CERD where many local residents such as the case of Irwan from Sibado village who in 2005 had to surrender their lands and homes. Local properties were cleared out to make way for road construction without prior consent from owners.
CERD has failed to engender benefit to local communities particularly in comparison to the sacrifices made by local residents who were forced to relinquish ownership rights to lands for the construction of roads and offices. It is therefore not surprising that the program is now no longer being carried out.
ADB’ policy on water utilization and privatization undermines the right of the people to water and basic right to social service
The Policy of ADB on water provides:
"ADB will adopt a cautious approach to large water resource projects - particularly those involving dams and storage – given the record of environmental and social hazards associated with such projects."
The ADB’s water policy states that the Bank will adopt a “cautious approach” to large water resource projects. However, rather than adopting a cautious approach to development, the ADB’s policy on water utilization which essentially calls on the privatization of water supply that has wreak havoc to the lives of the people in the Asia Pacific region.
According to IBON, ADB loans have been used to push the privatization of power, water and health. Policy changes have been imposed and specific projects financed. The main beneficiaries have been foreign capitalist monopolies in the power and water industry and their domestic big business partners. Reducing public health spending in turn has effectively freed up resources for use in debt servicing.
The Melanchi Water Supply Project in Nepal:
The Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) is an inter-basin water transfer project aiming to divert 170,000 cubic meters/day of water (62 million cubic meters/year) from the Melamchi River to Kathmandu valley through a 26.5 km tunnel, to quench the thirst of the 1.6 million population of Kathmandu valley. This volume of water diversion will be tripled by the end of 3rd phase from the Yangri and Larke rivers. The Melamchi River, which is a part of the larger Indrawati river basin that originates from the high Himalayas is, located about 42 km to the northeast of Kathmandu.
The initial cost was estimated to be USD 464 million and revised upwards in 2005 to USD 531 million. On January 2008 it was revised downwards to USD 317.3 million with a 32 percent (146.7 million) reduction from the original cost of USD 464 million.
Free, prior and informed consent of the local affected people before making decisions is the fundamental essence of public participation. The project has not made sincere efforts to obtain public consent by ensuring their effective and meaningful participation in the decision-making process. The project invited only selected persons in a few public consultations. Local NGOs and individuals criticizing the project were neither invited nor consulted. Disclosure of information is also inadequate. People have been fighting for basic project documents for years but without any significant achievement. Only little information is available in local language. Even these documents were made public after making all decision on the project. Information in local language is not available and there is lack of proper and authentic information. Indigenous people are totally neglected during project decision. They were neither consulted nor are their consent taken on land acquisition, compensation and resettlement. There is also no adequate study or income generation program for, over 50 Majhi families – a fish-dependent ethnic group who will be displaced.
In this project, ADB has caused the privatization of Nepal Water Supply Corporation (NWSC) and the management of the public water management structure should be replaced by a private operator. It also increased water tariff three-fold.
Simply, the policy has effectively shut down the right of the people, into free access to water supply. The policy has replaced social service with the drive to earn more profit. The policy has also lead to the loss of resources for agricultural production, the loss of employment and of future opportunity for development of other rural enterprises based on water-use. There will be loss of agricultural food production, reduced food security, and loss of employment and rural livelihood. It also resulted to unequal distribution of benefits between rural poor people at the source and the affluent people of the Kathmandu. There was also loss of productive assets due to permanent acquisition of 80 hectare of agricultural land by the project.
Likewise as a result of the project, agricultural production on about 110 hectares of spring paddy and nearly 15 traditional water mills (Ghatta) along the Melamchi River were adversely affected between February to May due to the reduced flow in the Melamchi River after water diversion. The compensation package will not provide any benefit to those who rent in land for cultivation.
The project is also not environmentally sound. The construction of the 26.5 kilometer long tunnel through the mountain will cause irreparable loss to the surrounding environment. The whole mountain range lies within the seismically sensitive region. Natural disasters like earthquakes and landslides may become frequent and intense once the construction work begins, since from experience it is known that soil structure in the region is highly unstable.
The violation of the economic, social and cultural rights of the people affected by Melanchi Water Supply Project
The local traditional village women were exposed to vulgar western culture and life-style and were offered only the low-level and low-paid household work at the residence of Impregilo masters. No letters of appointments or contracts were given to workers and labourers in accordance with the Nepal Labour Act. Hiring and firing were the terms and conditions for them, in violation of all domestic and international labour laws and standards. Minimum basic pay and benefits were also denied. The Head of Impregilo once said that it had no obligations to respect any domestic, international or the ADB rules and regulations on labour and safeguard policies. The displaced people had no choice but to accept whatever money was made available for compensation. There was, and still is, no provision for the true representation of affected people in the land acquisition and compensation processes. Small number of Bote indigenous peoples was provided neither proper resettlement, compensation nor guaranteed jobs. Instead, they had to loose their traditional livelihoods permanently. The planned income-generation programs were also not adequately implemented. Some of the few houses built for some Bote families do not have basic facilities like electricity supply, toilet and water. Even the houses are built so badly that they could collapse at anytime. The project also failed o release the agreed amount of water downstream.
Kali Gandaki 'A' Hydroelectric Project in Nepal
The Kali Gandaki 'A' (KGA) is Nepal's largest hydroelectric project, 144 MW, built in the western region of Nepal with conditional loans from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Japanese Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund (OECF), now Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). Began in 1997 and completed in 2002, this project is considered as costly, compared to the original forecast. The reasons are the delays, the cost-over-run and corruption.
The cost escalated from US $250 to US $360 millions by the time of completion. The civil construction cost was increased by 67%.
The ADB, instead of supporting cost reduction measures, was mainly concerned to ensure compliance with its conditionalities and increases in the electricity tariff.
In this project, ADB had violated its own safeguards policies, its involuntary resettlement policy, its policy on environment and accountability mechanism.
Access to documentation and information was likewise prohibited. Only few document like loan agreement were available which has no use to local people, as they were all in English, except for some small informatory booklets. None of the documents were available during the time of decisions. Other basic project documents and information like the feasibility studies, cost-benefit analysis and EIA reports, as well as copies of contracts are not yet available even after the completion of the project.
Many false promises were also provided to the local people. They were completely denied of critical project documents and information. Even the requests for information by local elected bodies were repeatedly dismissed.
ADB’s role in the formulation of the National Water Policy of Sri Lanka
The National Water Policy approved by the Cabinet of Sri Lanka on March 28 2000 - prepared with the assistance of the ADB - advocates the issue of transferable water entitlements. No consultation, however, has been initiated by the government at any level on this issue, least of all with the subsistence farmers who will be the most seriously affected by such a policy.
There is no question on the urgent need to initiate a broad dialogue on equitable and efficient water management, which would lead to the formulation of appropriate national policy. Yet the proposed policy has ignored public participation at the conceptual and planning stage, and appears to dismiss equity as either irrelevant or automatically ensured.
Here, as elsewhere, there remains a wide gap between the ADB's policies and rhetoric and the implementation processes actually adopted. For instance, the ADB President's August 2000 Report and Recommendation to the Board of Directors on the proposed US $19.7 million loan to Sri Lanka "for the Water Resources Management Project" states categorically that:
"The first and most important lesson is that, despite a wide range of interests and conflicting mandates, through a process of consultation and participation it is possible to reach consensus among the stakeholders for improved governance in the water sector."
Yet this is precisely what has been absent so far in the project formulation and planning process, leading a diverse group of local organizations to raise fundamental objections to the secretive nature of the entire process.
This has led to panic and fear among local communities - who have been left in the dark as to the nature and extent of the proposed water taxing mechanisms - which allows unscrupulous politicians and government officials to make money.
For instance, villagers of a war-affected "border" area in the Polonnaruwa district in North-East Sri Lanka told us that a single meeting - held under the aegis of the ADB in early 2000 - had become the rationale for the enforced deduction of costs/user fees for common wells from welfare payments under the Samurdhi scheme, in order to subsidize mismanagement and corruption by officials in the region. A women's group which resisted this coercion has been threatened, both physically, and with the promise that their welfare subsidies will be withdrawn.
The ADB proposal states its objective as: "to strengthen the Government's capacity to manage its water resources in a sustainable, transparent, and participatory way, and to mitigate the effects of past uncoordinated water use". However the two parts of the project do not appear to manifest this objective in any but the most cursory and ad hoc manner. There is also the - now mandatory - reference to poverty alleviation:
"From a poverty point of view, the existence of a functioning water resources apex body will provide the forum for participatory and transparent consultations in water allocation. The poorer segments of society will especially benefit from the opportunity to enunciate their water resource needs and the assurance that, to some extent, they will be met. In real terms, this means that both the rural and the urban poor will have a voice in determining their access to a resource that is essential to their physical and economic well-being and advancement."
In light of the inspirational language of the project proposal, there are a number of questions for which concerned groups in Sri Lanka are seeking answers. In particular they want explanations from the Bank about how the policies and practices will ensure equity, participation and transparency.
The Left Bank Outfall Drainage (LBOD) Project in Pakistan
In a study conducted by Zulfigar Halepoto, Forum for Conflict Resolution (FCR), Sindh, Pakistan entitled “Experimenting with the Lives of Poor” ADB’s Role in the Disastor of Coastal Communities in Pakistan where he reviewed the investment of Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Pakistan’s first and biggest drainage project, The Left Bank Outfall Drainage (LBOD) Project. According to him, the project proved to be a complete disaster for agriculture lands, ground water quality, environment and other livelihood sources of coastal communities. Under the motto of “poverty reduction” the ADB has started intervening in the water sector of Pakistan. Eight years after World Bank policy, on 16 January 2001, ADB approved its Water Policy. According to the study:
“The policy describes water as a “socially vital economic good” and (1) will – promote focus on water sector reforms across DMCs, 2) foster integrated management of water resources; and 3) improve and expand delivery of water services. The Government of Pakistan, with the Asian Development Bank, instituted the Water Resources Strategy Study. The Study began in July 2001 with the main objective of preparing a road map for future development of the water sector toward more efficient service delivery and optimum utilization of resources to meet the competing demands of all water users in the future. With this commitment ADB is willing to launch a massive financial lending in Pakistan in water sector development and it is important to review the past of the banks record of accomplishment.
This case study is a unique document in a sense that perhaps LBOD is the only foreign funded project, which received a muscular consortium of International Financial Institutions (IFIS) to fund the project, which was the largest undertaking in Pakistan’s water and drainage resources in 1980 and 1990. Eight international donors financed the project: the World Bank (International Development Association. IDA); the Asian Development Bank (ADB); the Department for International Development (DFID-Formerly ODA) of the United Kingdom; the Swiss Development Corporation; the Saudi Fund for Development; the Islamic Development Bank; the Canadian International Development Agency; and the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) Fund.
Unfortunately the project was completely failed to deliver. Perchance, never ever in the history of water and drainage sector in Pakistan such a huge loaning, funding or lending came with that huge face.
In the project description ADB has recognized the need of improvement in agriculture production and socio-economic conditions of the coastal communities. (A project preparation report was prepared with assistance from United Development Programme and the World Bank). Later on in the recent water sector development plans and strategies, ADB has again emphasized on the same commitments. But the end result of the funding is migration, displacement of local coastal communities, and shortage of drinking water due to seawater intrusion and mixing of affluent water in the irrigation and drinking water supplies. Agriculture land damages due to water logging and salinity and, other environmental disasters are another episode of the sad story of disaster.
Pakistan is an agriculture country, which consumed its 90% of the total water for agriculture. Pakistan is one of the world’s most arid countries with an average rainfall of under 240 mm per year. The entire economy populations depend on the water of river Indus system, mostly derived from the snowmelt of western Himalayas. At the time of independence 5000 cu/m of water was available for each Pakistani, which has now reduced to 1000 cu/m because of uncontrolled population growth. For the irrigation purposes, in 1950 a big quantity of 5300 cubic meters per capita surface water was available which came down to 1400 cubic metes in 1988. However, the minimum requirement is 1000 cubic metes to avoid "water short country list" it is feared that by 2005, Pakistan will face acute water shortage. On the one hand there is a stern intra-state conflict on the issue of large dams and reservoirs to save the water and on the other hand there is a serious controversy between lower riparian province Sindh and the Upper riparian Punjab on the projects of drainage, which are causing serious threats to the flow of fresh water of river Indus due to discharge of entire drainage in to the sea through river Indus beds.”
The Mekong Power Grid Undermine People’s Rights to Water
The ADB is leading the development of a Mekong region power grid fueled primarily by hydropower. Twelve hydropower projects are proposed to connect to the grid, including the controversial Nam Theun Dam in Laos, two dams on the Upper Mekong in China and Tasang Dam in Burma. The Bank claims that the Mekong power grid will provide cheap, reliable and environmentally sustainable power for Thailand and Vietnam. However, critics are concerned that the hydro projects will forcibly displace tens of thousands, decimate fisheries and destroy the cultures and rights of ethnic minorities.
ADB is pressing forward to implement the Mekong power grid despite uncertainties regarding project data, without consultation with civil society in the region and without adequate analysis of its social, environmental and economic impacts.
The Mekong power grid initiative is an ambitious plan – recommending the construction of 12 hydropower projects and hundreds of miles of transmission lines across the region and costing an estimated $43 billion. According to the ADB, this initiative will provide cheap, reliable and environmentally sustainable power for Thailand and Vietnam. However, the ADB has not proven that this initiative is economically, environmentally or socially sustainable. The ADB has promoted this initiative through a poor process of development, violating its own safeguard policies on energy, water and indigenous peoples, and contravening its poverty reduction strategy, and strategic environmental framework.
CHARGE II. General and specific allegation of gross and systematic violation of the civil and political rights of the people in the Asia-Pacific region.
Poverty results to death.
And poverty in Asia-Pacific region could be attributed to the erroneous policies adopted by ADB and supported by the respondent government.
The policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization that were the main agenda of ADB in granting loans had proven detrimental to poor countries. These had led to increase hunger and poverty. It resulted to the onslaught of massive landlessness and dislocation of farmers in the countryside and in rural economies.
As can be seen in the above-discussion, the ADB has been a tool for oppression against the toiling masses of the Asia-Pacific region. None had benefited from its policies except the rich and powerful countries and the big multinational corporations. It is a means whereby they can protect their business interest at the expense of the right of the people of the world to life, liberty, livelihood, dignity and freedom from want.
The global policies of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization had proven disastrous to the people of the developing countries. Yet, the ADB still actively compel the developing countries to adopt the said policies before granting of loans and concessions.
The deaths, destructions, and dangers that globalization generated is more than enough that evidence of the wickedness of the said policy. Profits should be secondary to people’s lives and health; profit should be secondary to protection of the environment and the planet. Profit should be secondary to freedom and dignity.
And since the policy was deliberately crafted, well-planned and vigorously implemented by the defendants, they have caused and are continuously causing deaths en masse of the people of the Asia-Pacific region.
ADB’s Project for the management of reserved areas and wild life conservation in Sri Lanka claimed numerous human and animal lives.
There are about 9700 square km protected area in Sri Lanka. About 85.1% of the area and under the management of the Department of Wild Life Conservation. The rest of the area is managed by the Department of Forest Conservation. The project management of protected areas and the wild life conservation was commenced in 2001. This project is primarily funded by the ADB. The total estimated budget of this project US$ 33.5 million. This project started in 2001 and scheduled to be completed on 31st December 2006.
The project, which was meant for the concentration of wildlife, turned out to be a confusing and destructive one. It has also caused lot of mistrust and disbelief and was implemented without in secrecy. It was a project full of corruption.
The conservation policy of ADB in this project had been blatantly violated by the project director.
ADB and the Sri Lankan government caused the construction of road that traversed through the rich wild life and fauna and flora area thereby destroying their habitat. Many wild elephants were killed when they were transferred from one park to the other. Despite the opposition of environmentalists, academicians and Non-Government Organizations, the project office and the ADB ignored them.
During the implementation of the project, various villages in Sri Lanka were affected. It has also claimed human and animal lives. Recorded data showed that for the six years implementation of the project, from 2001-2006, two hundred eighty persons lost their lives sixty while almost eight hundred fourteen elephants were killed.
Likewise, as reported by the Green Movement of Sri Lanka, an eighteen year old mother of an eight month old infant died instantly when a large piece of rock from a rock blasting operation that was part of the second phase of the STDP hit her. This is despite the fact that she was a full 69 meters beyond the evacuated area.
The reason for the accident was due mainly to the fact that a larger charge than was acceptable by the standards was placed in the rock bores, compulsory safety net was not in place, the geologist and the supervisor who were present were unconcerned and the ADB and its local contractors are only safeguarding their profits not the safety of the community.
This is the third such death resulting directly from work on the STDP. The disregard for standards has rendered the environment on either side of the trace into a wasteland that looks like a few tornados have hit it. Almost all children along the trace are suffering from respiratory diseases since the contractor does not want to “waste” his money due keep the dust down.
Violation of civil and political rights in Phulbari Coal Project
On 26 August 2006, around 20,000 local residents participated in a large peaceful gathering to protest the displacement of the large number of people to give way to the project. Regretfully, the Bangladesh Rifles opened fire on the demonstrators. Three people from the Phulbari area were killed, one paralyzed and over a 100 people was injured in the horrifying incident. Moreover, in February 2007, Mr. SM Nuruzzaman, one of the local leaders of the Phulbari campaign, was detained and tortured. Based on local reports, intimidation of local community members continues, preventing them from openly gathering in groups and voicing concerns regarding this project.
Violation of civil and political rights in Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP)
In the Melamchi Water Supply Project, the locals’ rights to protest and to demand accountability for the project was suppressed especially when they began to demand the promised jobs and effective implementation of social and environmental mitigation plans. One of the protesting youth who joined the protesting crowd, was killed by police in the Impregilo office compound. About 32 local people demanding jobs were charged under the Public Offense Act by the local authority. They were set free upon the deposit of their personal property for bail. The charges were dropped only after the completion of the project. The formation of independent unions was virtually banned and genuine union leaders were fired for their activities, violating Nepal Labour Act/Rules and Trade Union Act. Media and activist were also prevented from meeting local people and visiting the project sites. In some cases, armed police were used to arrest and expel them from the area
The violation of civil and political rights of people affected by the Kali Gandaki 'A' Hydroelectric Project in Nepal
In this project, more than 30 people died due to the overflowing, breaches and sea intrusion during the rain in 2003 and thousands of houses were damaged and thousands of acres of agriculture crops were destroyed.
Charge III. General and specific allegation of widespread, gross and systematic violation of the people’s national sovereignty and the right to self-determination.
The ADB has collaborated with governments in developing internal policies, which violate peoples’ rights and reject long-standing demands of the communities, peoples’ organizations and movements. ADB country-0memebrs are compelled to revise, amend or modify their laws to be aligned with, and to adopt, the policies adopted by the ADB. This undermines the sovereignty of individual state at the expense of their citizens. This simply means that a state would sacrifice local laws that protect its citizens and environment in favor of laws that favor the policies of the ADB, which essentially are a business proposition and not a service oriented institution.
ADB’s power goes far beyond loan or trade — it actually forces and sets limits on how governments must regulate national economies on behalf of their citizens. In this way it affects every aspect of every person's life.
In its on governance, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) states, "The term ‘governance’ means different things to different people." In relation to the ADB, this is certainly true. The ADB’s forays into good governance over the past few years clearly show that what governance means to the ADB is quite different from what it means to millions of people in the Asia and Pacific region, who are unfortunately under its financial (and governance!) umbrella.
For most people, precepts of good governance would imply publicly accountable systems of rights, entitlements, laws, rules, distribution/use of resources, decision making, etc., that are based on universal principles of equality, equity, and justice, but which at the same time, allow for the cultural specificities of a society or nation. For the ADB, however, governance is about putting into place the required policy environments and structures in its Developing Member Countries (DMCs)--who are also its debtors--to ensure the success of ADB financed programs.
By its own admission, the ADB’s approach to governance is "economic" rather than "political;" i.e., the Bank regards good governance from the perspective of "efficient management of public resources" and "sound development management." Accordingly, good governance is about "effective management" of the development process and encompasses the functioning and capability of the public sector, and the rules and institutions that provide a framework of conduct for government, public enterprises, private business and corporations. Although its policy states that "governance is about the institutional environment in which citizens interact among themselves and with government agencies/officials," the policy neither discussed, nor recognizes a meaningful role for citizens in governance processes, frameworks and mechanisms.
The ADB does, however, articulate in considerable detail what governments--as "economic development managers"--must do in the area of good governance. The ADB claims a "legitimate and direct interest in governance issues" because of its involvement in the economic development of its DMCs. Its framework for governance both, arises from and supports, its development ideology.
The ADB is a market fundamentalist in its economic and development approaches. Its poverty reduction strategy is based on unshakable beliefs in the wonders of rapid economic growth, financial liberalization, privatization, deregulation and increased market "openness." By adding the phrase "pro-poor" to its usual range of operations, it seeks to justify its efforts towards private sector and market expansion. For example, the stated purpose of a conference in March 2002 on privatized infrastructure development was to help disseminate information on "pro-poor infrastructure development by the private sector," showcase lessons on "pro-poor contract design regulation and reform processes," and discuss current thinking on "pro-poor reform policy in infrastructure development." Appropriately, the conference was titled "Private Solutions for the Poor." It is extremely unlikely though, that the poor themselves were present at the Conference.
The Bank’s governance policy--which is considered an integral component of its poverty reduction strategy-- is in effect, a master plan of strategies, directions and actions that borrowing governments must follow in order to ensure the supremacy of market processes, structures and mechanisms in all aspects of social and commercial life. This is no secret and the ADB makes its ideas on the correct place for government, the public sector and private enterprise in economic development quite clear:
"In a market-oriented economy, the government has the obligation to see that markets function efficiently and that the playing field is level for all participants…..Market regulation by the government should ensure that the operating rules do not discriminate between individual participants or interest groups."
The ADB’s approach to governance poses serious threats to preserving autonomy and sovereignty in national policy-making. While the Bank claims that its principal activity is project lending, it argues that weak implementation capacity and poor sectoral policy frameworks in borrowing countries can negatively impact technically sound and well-designed projects. Therefore--the Bank argues--it undertakes program or policy based lending to complement its project financing activities. Such program loans cover a range of activities, from local and sectoral studies to developing plans and strategies for the reforms of entire sectors (for example, judicial, administrative, transportation, agriculture, education, etc.). According to the ADB:
"These efforts at helping DMCs ‘get policies right’ are now commonplace in the Bank, and have led it to take greater interest in the capacity of borrowing governments for policy formulation and implementation. While the policy objective in a particular DMC sector might be clear enough, knowledge of the institutional framework and its capability will be helpful in the design of reform measures."
In other words, "good governance" provides the ADB with an effective and legitimate window though which it can institutionalize the reforms needed to firmly established market capitalism among its DMCs. This involves writing new laws and regulations, developing new administrative and management systems, creating new positions and roles within government, institutionalizing new decision-making processes and in fact, doing whatever is required to ensure that the DMCs stay firmly on the path of market-led economic growth.
The ADB’s charter prohibits it from "interference" in the political affairs of its members and from being influenced by the political character of its members. Under Article 1 of the Charter, the purpose of the Bank is to foster economic growth and cooperation in the region, and the Charter clearly gives primacy to "economic considerations" in the carrying out of the ADB’s purpose and functions. By its own admission, however, the term "economic considerations" has been "widely interpreted" and ADB programs extend to any area that is deemed to have "economic effects." Accordingly, the Bank’s governance agenda too has extended into such diverse areas as the environment, education, health, judicial systems and women’s empowerment.
On the other hand, the ADB is not quite as willing to recognize the political consequences of restructuring national policy environments that form the core of its governance programs. While it is true that social and environmental programs have economic effects, all programs, economic or social, also have political effects.
Numerous examples can be found in the region where the access and rights of people and communities to crucial resources and opportunities have either been severely restricted or lost altogether as a direct consequence of ADB supported projects and programs. Policy prescriptions such as enhanced cost recovery for health, education and public utilities, water user fees in irrigation systems, the rationalization (downsizing) of civil service sectors, creating "flexibility" in labour markets, and the privatization of public sector enterprises, have resulted in the disempowerment and marginalization of large numbers of people across the region. The ADB’s strategy of "pro-poor growth" has encouraged governments to freeze minimum wages and withhold the rights of workers to association, benefits and protections. In countries such as Pakistan, India, Thailand and the Philippines, protests against ADB projects and programs have resulted in social unrest and divisions, and at times, even political harassment of those who protest.
Since the ADB’s framework of governance does not discuss the political dimensions of governance, it shows little interest in the fact that its own projects and programs may violate the constitutional rights and democratic spaces of citizens. Too often, reform regimes imposed by the ADB have acted as barriers to the accountability of governments to their own citizens, and to the protection of broad based public interest. The transformation of public sectors to serve corporate and market interests in the guise of "efficient management of public resources" undermines the obligations of governments to provide appropriately and sufficiently for their citizens. It also creates new vulnerabilities, especially among those who are already income poor and politically marginalized. Not only has the ADB not accepted its culpability in these consequences, but also, it has consistently hidden behind the privileges that its Charter provides and assumed a politically neutral face.
The ADB has taken much of its content and operational strategy regarding good governance from its sibling institution, the World Bank. Inspired by the World Bank’s "global experience with project and adjustment lending," the ADB feels confident in positioning good governance as "sound development management" necessary for "ensuring adequate returns and efficacy of the programs and projects financed."
The World Bank’s Charter also prohibits it from engaging in political activities and directs that decision-making be based on economic considerations alone. But given the emerging track record of poor management and project quality, negative project and program impacts, and allegations of corruption in numerous World Bank financed initiatives, the World Bank is indeed a poor role model of governance for any multilateral institution.
The ADB has identified four elements of good governance for its purposes: Accountability, Participation, Predictability and Transparency. All four elements are operationalized by policy and sectoral reform programs that promote private sector needs over public interest priorities. For example, "The litmus test [for Accountability] is whether private actors in the economy have procedurally simple and swift recourse for redress of unfair actions or incompetence if the executive authority." And, "Access to accurate and timely information about the economy and government policies can be vital for economic decision making by the private sector." Predictability is about developing legal frameworks, especially to support private sector development.
The ADB claims that its "bread-and-butter business" is assisting the public sector in DMCs. This assistance is geared primarily towards the reform of public enterprises, with a concomitant process of reconstructing an "appropriate" role for the State in a market-friendly economy. Maximizing profits, minimizing costs, preserving markets, market-friendly economic reforms, promoting market mechanisms in the provision of services, competitive operating environments, enhanced cost recovery, divestiture and privatization, are the main concerns that guide the ADB’s assistance to the public sector, and the operationalization of the ADB’s elements of good governance.
The ADB’s governance policy is vehicle for entrenching sectoral reform and reconstructing the public domain. It is also fundamentally contradictory. While the Bank claims to eschew involvement in political aspects of governance, its core mandate—promoting economic development—is a deeply political phenomenon. Economic development plans determine the distribution of a society’s wealth, opportunities and challenges, who gains and loses, and how power is realigned or entrenched. It is both delusional and self-serving for the ADB to project that the political and economic dimensions of governance can be separated in policy and reality.
The ADB’s policy on good governance offers no prescriptions for its own institutional governance. Accountability, Participation, Predictability and Transparency are the buzzwords for governments, but appear not to apply to the ADB’s own conduct or operations. ADB insiders have revealed that the institution is increasingly plagued by poor and irresponsible performance by Bank staff and Management, and a lack of clarity about its own operational policies and procedures. Questions have been raised in meetings of the ADB’s Board of Directors about the appropriateness of Bank conduct in formulating, processing and implementing projects. Controversies surrounding a number of ADB projects and programs--from the Chashma Canal Project in Pakistan to reform programs in the Pacific Island States—reveal that the ADB’s commitment to good governance is at best a lie and at worst, antagonistic to nationally meaningful and accountable governance structures and mechanisms.
Evidently, there is a lot for the ADB to learn and acknowledge about the implications of its specific version of governance. The ADB is well advised to clean its own house and demonstrate its accountability to citizens and their governments before imposing its version of governance on the people of the region.
ADS’ policies undermines national sovereignty and right to self-determination
The ADB had actually funded the Indian government’s process to develop the National Environment Policy which was rejected by the civil society groups and which resulted in further diluting the entire process of according environmental clearance to development projects and in the adoption of a pro-corporate stance.
With a growing demand in India to look for alternative development finance as opposed to accepting external aid from World Bank, ADB and such IFIs which contributes to less than 2 percent of our GDP, the ADB is trying hard to negotiate its existence by collaborating in downgrading its own policies and developing anti-people country policies.
These are but just a few of the acts and omission committed by the respondents against the people of the Asia-Pacific region. There are others that remained undocumented but which the same pattern of violations.
The aforesaid acts and omissions violate international conventions and treaties, among which include:
1) The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the People or the Algiers Declaration of July 1976;
2) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948;
3) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966;
4). The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966; and
5) The generally accepted principles and norms of international law
In sum, these charges against the defendants constitute complete disregard of the rights of the plaintiff to life, liberty, and livelihood and to live decently, with dignity and freedom from want and poverty.
V. EVIDENCE
These general and specific allegations shall be substantiated and proven before the Asia-Pacific Peoples’ Tribunal through testimonies of victims, material witnesses, and their relatives and documentary and object evidence including videos, power point presentations, publications, fact sheets, affidavits, fact-finding mission reports, judicial records; and the reports and/or studies of the organizations who participate in the Tribunal.
The People will establish that the respondents, despite their knowledge of their atrocities and their corresponding obligations under the various instruments of international law and of their responsibility to protect the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of the Asia-Pacific region, specifically the rights of the peasantry, the farmers, the indigenous peoples and the rural peoples of the world, not only failed to prevent the commission of such crimes but on the contrary committed, tolerated, abetted and encouraged the same.
Call to Action
The People, after establishing the complicity of the respondents to the acts and omission for which they were charged, respectfully pray from the Honorable Tribunal to recommend/order the following penalties, sanctions and measures:
i) To ORDER the ADB and other respondents to respect the rights of peoples over their lives and resources.
ii) To ORDER the ADB and other respondents to SCRAP and JUNK its policies of liberalization, privatization, and deregulation;
iii) To ORDER the ADB and other respondents to compensate, indemnify, rehabilitate, restitute the material and moral damages sustained by the people and issue a sincere public apology to the people as well as to the other oppressed and exploited peoples of the Asia-Pacific region;
iv) To ORDER the ADB to cease and desist from interfering in the affairs of and committing acts of aggression and infringement of sovereignty against the people of the Asia-Pacific region and other freedom loving peoples worldwide;
v) To ORDER the ADB and other respondents to immediately stop all controversial/disputed ADB projects, especially those that directly threaten people's livelihoods and economic and social security;
vi). To CHARGE the respondents before the United Nations and its pertinent committees and Special Rapporteurs, the International Criminal Court (ICC) under the Rome Statute, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC);
vii) To ORDER the ADB and the respondents to uphold the rule of law, respect the civil, political, economic, social and human rights of its citizens, which are protected and guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the local States and of International human rights and humanitarian law and desist from adopting policies or measures that restrict, infringe upon or impair such rights.
viii. To ORDER the ADB to put into place transparent and universally accessible arbitration/grievance procedures through which it can be held accountable for violations it has committed against the people.
OTHER RELIEF, as may be deemed proper under the premises, is likewise sought and prayed for.
April 20, 2009, Bali, Indonesia.
ALIANSI GERAKAN REFORMA AGRARIA (AGRA)
Complainant
ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NUSANTARA/INDONESIA
Complainant
ASIA PACIFIC RESEARCH NETWORK (APRN)
Complainant
ASIAN PEASANT COALITION (APC)
Complainant
ASIA PACIFIC FORUM ON WOMEN, LAW AND DEVELOPMENT (APWLD)
Complainant
ASIA SOUTH PACIFIC ASSOCIATION FOR BASIC AND ADULT EDUCATION (ASPBAE)
Complainant
ATKI JAKARTA
Complainant
BANGLAPRAXIS
Complainant
E-NET FOR JUSTICE
Complainant
FORUM ON WOMEN’S NGOS IN KYRGZSTAN
Complainant
FRONT MAHASISWA’NASIONAL (FMN)
Complainant
GREEN MOVEMENT OF SRI LANKA
Complainant
GCAP INDONESIA
Complainant
HIMALAYAN AND PENINSULAR HYDROECOLOGICAL NETWORK (HYPEN)
Complainant
IBON
Complainant
INDONESIAN WOMEN COALITION
Complainant
INTERNATIONAL NGO FORUM ON INDONESIAN DEVELOPMENT (INFID)
Complainant
INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES (INDIES)
Complainant
MIGRANT CARE
Complainant
PARIVARTAN
Complainant
RESIST!
Complainant
ROOTS FOR EQUITY
Complainant
VOICE
Complainant
SOLIDARITY WORKSHOP (INTERNATIONAL)
Complainant
URBAN POOR CONSORTIUM/UPLINK
Complainant
WATER AND ENERGY USER'S FEDERATION (WAFED)
Complainant
WATER FOR THE PEOPLE NETWORK (WPN)
Complainant