Re: ADB’s Draft Guidance Note on Large Hydropower – Collective
Civil Society Response
Submitted to: Asian Development Bank Energy Sector Group, c/o Priyantha Wijayatunga, Chiefof Energy Sector Group, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, ADB
Date: 13 March 2023
Together, we are writing in response to the draft Guidance Note on Large Hydropower Plants
disclosed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), a document that is supposed to support staff
engaged with borrowers and project proponents prior to - and post - approval of proposed
assistance for large hydropower dam developments. After reviewing this draft guidance onhydropower associated with the ADB’s 2021 Energy Policy, we are calling for a thoroughoverhaul of the current text.
As it stands, the Guidance Note fails to indicate any shift towards incorporating aprecautionary approach that would prioritize avoidance of harm, to reflect on the current or
past harms raised by ADB dam project-affected communities or to take into account therepeated calls of civil society groups to undertake robust, comprehensive assessments ofalternative options that do not destroy the region’s critical rivershed ecosystems and thelivelihoods of the millions of people across the region who depend upon them. It also fails tobase provisions on more stringent guidelines developed by peer MDBs – with which the ADB
enters into co-financing agreements – such as the EIB. Instead, it appears the ADB is
prepared to adopt weaker standards that position it as a significant laggard in terms ofrespect for biodiversity, recognition of the rights of riparian communities, and of alignment
with current climate science.
Furthermore, the Guidance Note claims that the build-out of large dams would enableborrowing member countries to progress on the pathway towards Paris-alignment and awayfrom fossil fuel dependency. Yet, most especially in light of the overwhelming financial,
climate, energy and food crises with which populations across the region are confronted, as
well as illegitimate debts burdening the governments of borrowing members of the ADB, theseassertions significantly lack consideration of several practical realities, including that:• significant greenhouse gas emission releases are known to occur within the first 20
years of dam operations (i.e. this large ‘pulse’ in emissions therefore occurs within thevery same window of time we have to rapidly shift towards decarbonizing energy
systems to avoid catastrophic global heating),• the construction of dams remains inherently dependent on fossil fuels,• the damming and consequential dewatering of vast stretches of rivers leads toirreversible losses to freshwater biodiversity,• the land and watersheds that provide sustenance for riparian communities areconsequently inundated; depriving people of the very basis of their resilience in timesof crisis, and• the development of dams and associated facilities has been consistently linked torepression and other human rights violations committed against local communities,
most especially when they raise questions, grievances or withhold consent (See forexample, a recent report published by the Business and Human Rights Resource
Center, “Drying up: Tracking the environmental and human rights harms caused byhydropower in the Caucasus and Central Asia” and a statement submitted to the ADB
in January 2023 initiated by the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, the International WorkGroup for Indigenous Affairs and Struggle Against Marginalization of Nationalities,“Stop State brutality against the Tamang Indigenous Peoples and Locals: Stop theconstruction of Tamakoshi-Kathmandu 220/400 kV Transmission Line Project in
Shankharapur-3, Kathmandu”).

ADB’s Guidance Note on Large Hydropower as currently worded decisively fails to veer awayfrom business as usual, instead following a route towards further ravaging of river ecologies
as well as the dispossession of land- and river-dependent peoples, without any precautionary
provisions – blatantly lacking, for example, any requirement for staff to initially assess
national power generation capacity and realistic demands, before considering building out
new power generation infrastructure. We urge the ADB to go back to the drawing board,undertake a much wider, inclusive consultation process – including with communities
impacted by the ADB’s current hydropower portfolio, and civil society groups that have beenmonitoring the situation at these sites for years – and develop a new draft reflecting guidance
provisions crucial for staff to consider before moving forward with any further support for
proposed hydropower project investments.
Lack of Clarity of Scope
In terms of scope, we would expect the ADB to explicitly clarify the application of its guidanceto (i) associated facilities of dams (including quarries, roads, cofferdams, transmission lines,etc), and (ii) dams that are associated facilities of transmission lines (e.g. the Erdeneburen
dam in the case of the proposed Erdeneburen-Mayngad-Uliastai 220kV Transmission Line)
directly financed by the ADB or through intermediaries.
We also note support for hydropower dams through intermediaries risks becoming
increasingly common in the future under the ADB’s expanding range of climate-related
financing modalities and programs. As it stands, however, there are no provisions in theguidance note indicating the type of diligence required to engage with current financial
intermediary borrowers that are – or may in the future – be investing in large hydropower
projects, in order to ensure compliance with ADB policies and standards, nor to ensure
affected communities are aware of options to seek remedy for grievances through the ADB’s
Accountability Mechanism or disclosure of information through ADB’s established channels.
Going forward, we urge the ADB to incorporate clear conditionalities into the guidance note
which would explicitly exclude hydropower projects from consideration for support via
financial intermediary facilities.
Overall, we are particularly alarmed that the ADB fails to:• Clearly state from the outset the crucial requirement for a precautionary approach –to do no harm — when considering the development of hydropower projects, andprioritizing avoidance in the mitigation hierarchy, or explicitly state the corollary, that
where harm is committed, the ADB bears the duty to remedy harm.
• Acknowledge best international practices as those which adhere to the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169, and other UN Conventions, such as theConvention on Biological Diversity, integrate compliance with all core labor
standards, refer to other relevant UN Declarations, including on Human Rights
Defenders, and specifically follow the comprehensive recommendations outlined in
the World Commission on Dams Final Report.
• Clearly state how ADB staff will ensure that where Indigenous Peoples’ lands,
territories and resources – or the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples – are affected byhydropower developments, they will first establish whether communities haveprovided free, prior and informed consent and require due diligence procedures incases where consent is unverified or being withheld (i.e. engaging with project
proponents to pause, redesign or halt the project). As mentioned above, provisions
outlined in ILO C-169 and UNDRIP should be adhered to when projects are proposedin areas that would impact Indigenous Peoples’ communities and livelihoods.
• Explicitly confirm that ensuring project compliance with environmental, social andclimate-related standards must be required from the earliest stages of project
2

•

•

•

conception, and that project approval should not rely on the assumption that there will
be eventual compliance with relevant standards. In this regard, the ADB’s GuidanceNote as it stands does not identify that, for example:
o From the outset, current national power generation capacity and unmet
demands should be verified, and options assessments should be thoroughwith credible, evidence-based justifications, inclusive of a no project option.
o Thorough cumulative, basin-wide, transboundary, and strategic environmental
and social assessment studies as well as human rights and reprisal risk
assessments must be undertaken and disclosed in local languages as well as
English before proceeding.
o The human rights and environmental track records of borrowers/clients andassociated project proponents should be thoroughly assessed, with a view to
specifically considering those with grievances filed against them by other
MDBs or in local/national courts, as ineligible for support.
o Where dam rehabilitation/expansion is being considered, outstanding legacy
issues, in coordination with other project proponents, must be identified andaddressed before proceeding.
Clearly indicate that project footprints encompass impacts upstream, downstream,and in the riversheds/watersheds surrounding the site, and the need to consider
sector-specific economic / livelihood forms of dispossession (such as the loss ofaccess to wild fish catch, and to other riparian food sources), as well as sector-specificcultural implications (such as the loss of sacred river-related sites and water spirits).
Clarify that unutilised hydropower potential in the region should not be considered by
ADB staff as an accurate guide for future public or private sector investment
opportunities, as it is not equivalent to the actual reality of possible dam developments(as for example, it is detached from any cumulative, basin-wide or climate adjusted
assessments, as well as practical considerations related to critical habitats, protectedecological zones, Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral territories, and transboundary
implications, among others).
Provide clear criteria for when and where the ADB will not engage in providing any
technical or other consultative services for proposed projects and will refrain fromconsidering being involved in any capacity (including greenfield hydropower projects
and expanded or associated facilities).
o We note, for example, EIB guidelines on hydropower dams explicitly excludes
development of hydropower projects in UNESCO World Heritage Sites, andmakes reference to avoiding impacts to other internationally recognizedcritical habitats (e.g. areas where the Inventory of Important Bird Areas applies,
and where wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention – or qualifying
for such protection – are located). Similarly, we urge the ADB to identify areas
excluded for the development of hydropower projects and associatedfacilities, including but not limited to (i) free-flowing rivers, (ii) spawning
grounds of endemic, vulnerable and/or endangered species, (iii) critical or atrisk habitats, (iv) intact primary forests and vulnerable secondary forest areas,(v) Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, (vi) Indigenous Peoples’
Territories where free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained, (vii)
Key Biodiversity Areas, areas where the Inventory of Important Bird Areas
applies, and areas recognized by international conventions and agreements,
including but not limited to Emerald sites, the Bonn Convention, Ramsar
Convention, World Heritage Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity,
as well as (viii) closed security/militarized zones or disputed territories withinborrowing member states (e.g. West Papua). For a comprehensive set of
exclusion zones that civil society groups have consistently called upon the ADB
to respect, please refer to the Banks and Biodiversity No Go Zone Policy.

3

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

•

•

•

Acknowledge and address the dismal track record of approaches to ascertaining ‘nonet loss’ – and the associated practice of allocating alternative lands to set aside as‘biodiversity offsets’ – most recently for example, at the Nam Ngiep 1 site, by taking
an approach which recognizes that the imposition of loss of land or water-based
biodiversity requires meaningful reparative measures (excluding consideration of
offsets altogether as a valid way to remedy loss).
Explicitly explain how transboundary impacts will be accounted for, monitored andaddressed accordingly, given that it implies discussions with neighboring states, andintensive engagement with downstream/upstream users, as well as clear
identification of all affected communities/land areas (e.g. through the preparation ofan up to date evidence-based cadastre).
Explain how considerations for rehabilitation of an existing hydropower project will
be measured against decommissioning options, and where information on suchjustifications will be disclosed in local languages as well as English.
Include provisions to clearly show the justification for the expansion of a project when
it is considered (in local and English languages), and to clarify the need to undertakenew impact assessments as well as ensuring community consent will be sought andrespected.
Provide clear information about when and how projects are categorized as highly
complex and sensitive, as well as the decision-making channels in place to establish
independent advisory panels / panels of experts.
Provide clear requirements to assess and address the reprisal risk situation, andidentify protocols in place when reprisals are reported, so that urgent and decisive
action can be taken in consultation with civil society organizations.
Specify the need for continuous monitoring of grievances, most especially when
projects entail high river fluctuations due to routine hydro-peaking.
Incorporate the requirement for borrowers, clients and sub-clients, to disclose theinformation about the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism and project specific redress
mechanisms among project-affected communities through easily accessible
materials (audio-visual, written) in local, community-specific languages.
Incorporate clear provisions highlighting the sector-specific implications for women,
and processes for engaging with women community members to address concernsand grievances over the course of project lifecycle
Explain clearly the types of emergency measures borrowers must develop to provide
clear and timely warnings (SMS alerts and alarm systems) to communities around anddownstream of the dam site, as well as those living in close proximity to tributary
rivers, andSpecify the need for a detailed decommissioning plan to be developed in consultation
with surrounding communities, outlining steps that will be taken, expected timelines
and financing prior to a project being approved by the ADB Board of Directors.

Climate-Related Realities
In considering the carbon footprint, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change
implications of large hydropower dams, we would expect the ADB to:• Take into consideration the reality that there is a large pulse of methane emissions
released within the initial 10-20 years of dam operations, which coincides with theprecise limited window of time we have to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and avoid overshooting 1.5C. A build out of hydropower at this time would decisively
contribute to undermining the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Assessment Report 6) and the concerted global effort to comply
with provisions of the Paris Agreement.
• Take into account the natural carbon sequestered by flowing rivers and surrounding
ecosystems, as opposed to automatically categorizing the building of dams as a‘climate mitigation’ measure.
4

•

•

•

•

•

Assess emissions using a project lifecycle approach – rather than simply averaging
GHGs over a 100 year period – by applying alternative methodologies that would moreaccurately account for significant sources of emissions released over time, inclusiveof – but not limited to – construction, land clearing and inundation of land, the initial
pulse of GHG releases in the first 20 years of project operation, and the increasing
emissions from eutrophication in reservoirs as dams age, as well as
decommissioning. As it stands, the proposed methodology for GHG estimations in the
Guidance Note fails to consider these evidence-based nuances of emissions pulses
and increases over time.
Require emissions calculations to be all encompassing - not only from the reservoir(differentiated over time, as explained above), but also from waters released
downstream (degassing at turbines), loss in GHG sequestration capacity by vegetation
submerged by reservoir, construction activities and associated facilities, such as
quarries, as well as the processes related to decommissioning (for example, frommethane released when reservoir sediments that have accumulated behind the dam
wall are exposed).
Incorporate provisions for direct, continuous on-site monitoring of GHGs throughout
the project lifecycle, with attention to the initial 20 years of dam operations (i.e. whena large pulse of methane gasses can be expected to be released), increases in surface
emissions released in later years (as aging dam reservoirs typically become moreeutrophic), and decommissioning processes.
Take a precautionary approach towards installing floating solar as associatedfacilities on the reservoirs of large hydropower projects to avoid, for example,
impacting bird and aquatic species, or exacerbating tensions related to water accessfor local communities.
Document and disclose instances from across the region where ADB supportedhydropower projects are being rendered idle due to drying rivers, or when severely
affected by flood surges and heavy rains, along with remedial measures ADB is taking.

Referencing Other Sectoral-Specific Guidance
As drafted, the Guidance Note provides references to documents published by theInternational Hydropower Association (an international organization representing thehydropower sector industry) and selected resources from the World Bank Group, but fails totake into account key internationally accepted, sector-specific standard setting documents,
such as the World Commission on Dams Final Report, and guidance developed by peer MDBs,
such as the EIB Environmental, Climate and Social Guidelines on Hydropower Developments,
resources on cumulative impacts tailored to the hydropower sector published by the IFC, or
IFC Standard 6 and the accompanying Guidance Note on Biodiversity. The Guidance Note also
fails to consider seminal publications on global best practices produced by the governmental
bodies of member states, such as those published by the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Commission (e.g. “Advice on Better Decision-Making about Large Dams” and“Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainable Development of the Hydropower
Sector”), as well as highly relevant sector specific assessment tools, reports and books
produced by civil society organizations, such as “Riverscope”, “Rivers for Recovery: Protecting
Rivers and Rights as essential for a Green and Just Recovery”, and “Dead in the Water: Global
Lessons from the World Bank's Model Hydropower Project in Laos,” and relevant examples ofcommunity-issued guidelines for respecting free, prior and informed consent that arereflective of customary decision-making processes, such as the “Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent Protocol”. Finally there is no reference to highly relevant recent academic literature
reviewing / assessing the global and regional status of key sector-related issues, such as dam
safety, human rights related implications of hydropower dams, biodiversity impacts of dams,
the significance of retaining fluvial connectivity and GHG emissions associated with dams.

5

Furthermore, we find it particularly disconcerting that the Guidance Note considers only twodams from the Mekong region and two from China as ‘representative’ of the ADB’s portfolio
of investment over the past twenty years, with the only source of referenced information being
ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department. For example, the description of Song Bung 4 as
successful – despite the Guidance Note enumerating the “excessive health risks, resulting inat least 6 fatalities,” water flows “insufficient for fishing as a productive endeavor below thedam” and the fact that biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and effluent
treatment “did not materially meet ADB safeguard requirements” – appears questionable atbest. Meanwhile, no references are provided to reports from the Panel ofExperts/Independent Advisory Panels established by the ADB at specific sites, for instancefor Nam Theun 2 and Nam Ngiep 1, that have already a well documented trail of information
raising concerns and lessons with regards to ADB’s hydropower investments.
On the Drafting Process of the Guidance Note
Finally, we reiterate our position that the comment period has been too short, as well as thatthe process surrounding the development and call for public input on the draft Guidance Note
has been marred by a lack of clarity as well as limited flow of information in relation to thedrafting process, timelines and public disclosure of the actual text. Comment periods should
be more extensive (e.g. a minimum of 60 days), announced by ADB’s Sustainable
Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) and the NGO & Civil Society Centre(NGOC) openly, and posted on the ADB’s online events listing. Likewise, if virtual, hybrid or inperson consultations are to be scheduled, they should be announced openly with advancenotice (subsequent to the text being posted online). We also reaffirm our call for the approved
version of this guidance note – along with the other Guidance Notes associated with the 2021
Energy Policy (Paris Agreement Alignment, fossil gas and waste-to-energy) – to be publicly
disclosed on the ADB’s website, alongside the 2021 Energy Policy. Other MDBs havepublished their guidelines on financing for hydropower dams; there is no reason for the ADB
to not follow suit, and provide subsequent versions when updates are made.
In conclusion, we reassert our call for the Guidance Note to be fully overhauled with a second
draft that would require staff to take a precautionary approach from the get-go and that would
be reflective of input collated from wider, meaningful discussions with civil society groups
and communities affected by ADB's hydropower projects.
We look forward to receiving a response and are open to discussing these issues at further
length.
Submitted by the following organizations based in Asia and beyond (listed in alphabeticalorder):
Accountability Counsel, Global
Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia
Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Regional/Asia
Bai Indigenous Women’s Network, Philippines
Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh
Bank Information Center, USA
CEE Bankwatch Network, Czechia
Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka
Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Global

6

Centre for Research and Advocacy - Manipur, India
CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh
Climate Watch Thailand, Thailand
Community Legal Education Center, Cambodia
Community Resource Centre (CRC), Thailand
DamSense, USA
Environmental Public Society, Armenia
Environics Trust, India
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Philippines
Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda
Friends of the Earth-Japan (FOE-Japan), Japan
Friends of the Earth-US (FOE-US), USA
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Regional/Asia Pacific
Growthwatch, India
Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), Global
Indigenous Peoples Organisation Australia, Australia
Indian Social Action Forum, India
Indigenous Women's Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal
Indus Consortium, Pakistan
Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh
INSPIRIT Creatives NGO, Germany
International Accountability Project, Global/USA
International Rivers, USA
Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia
Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas, Philippines
KRuHA, Indonesia
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Friends of the Earth Philippines, Philippines
Manushya Foundation, Thailand / Laos
Mekong Watch, Japan
Moro Christian People's Alliance, Philippines
Nash Vek Public Foundation, Kyrgyzstan
NGO Forum on ADB, Regional/Asia
North-East Affected Area Development Society (NEADS), India
Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan
Oyu Tolgoi Watch NGO, Mongolia
PacificwinPacific, Australia

7

Pakaid, Pakistan
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan
Panaghiusa Philippine Network to Uphold Indigenous Peoples Rights, Philippines
Peace Point Development Foundation (PPDF), Nigeria
Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER), Mexico
Recourse, Netherlands
Rivers Without Boundaries Coalition (RwB), Global
Rivers Without Boundaries (RwB) Mongolia, Mongolia
Save The World's Rivers/Save The Colorado, USA
Sandugo Movement of Moro and Indigenous Peoples for Self-Determination, Philippines
urgewald, Germany
Youth Group on Protection of Environment, Tajikistan8