Asian Development Bank Financed Road Project ( Imphal, India ) - Violation of ADB Safeguard Policy (2009)- A Satellite Based Social Audit Evaluation.

The ADB and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India both are determined to protect Environment and Social issues for the survival of the human mankind on this planet. But, this is challenge if ADB is not monitoring correctly its projects in India and outside India. The evaluation   photographs number 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 11 have been appended here to examine the problem of the situation. There is some where negligence of ADB in monitoring the project. This also demonstrates the  poor quality of Social & Environmental Safeguard in ADB. This quality is required to be improved in the  ADB.  We hope that the ADB shall reciprocate in positive way and improve the weak area. The ADB can conduct a Third Party Social Audit to evaluate the  damages encountered in Environment and Social side.   

                                                           * BIRENDRA K JHA 

( Birendra K Jha,  is a Pan India Practitioner on the "Social Impact Assessment Audit"; "ESG Audit" & "Sustainable Practices".  He is a Qualified & Certified  Social Auditor from the Institute of Social Auditor of India (ISAI -ICAI). He is also certified professional on the:  ESG; Environment Accounting; Environment Law; Carbon Emission Accounting;  Carbon Tax ; Sustainable Practices; and Social Risk covering Human Resource & Labor Law. He is based at Delhi-NCR.  He may be approached at: birendrajha03@yahoo.com )

The ADB ( Asian Development Bank ) 1995 Forestry Policy is a vision document. The Para B (4) of this policy states that the ADB Bank prior to financing any forestry project, carry out Social Impact Assessment and necessary social design studies in accordance with the standard Bank procedures. Further, Para 2 ( B) of the ADB Forestry policy states that the Bank will not finance any rural infrastructure or other public investment project that contributes significantly, directly or indirectly, to deforestation or to the degradation and depletion of forests. This Policy also states that, the Bank will not support construction of roads in old-growth forests. 

An evaluation, conducted with the high resolution satellite images, exhibits the ADB Policy compliance is completely missing at the Imphal  Road Project. The  road  has been constructed in old-growth forests by the ADB financed project. The element of "care" is missing here. Large numbers of green standing trees have been removed here. This is "deforestation", "degradation" and "depletion" of forests, completely banned under the ADB Policy.

Not to mention, environment loss, damages the social benefit of peaceful human mankind living. This has been demonstrated in number of researches. The present social audit report is a partial examination of the ADB financed site in India at Imphal ( Manipur ),  through satellite. Most of the Social Auditors are not trained how to use satellite correctly in understanding the Environment and Social problems related with any project. This satellite report evaluation is given in "Before" and "After" evaluation method. The evaluation is the picture itself, which is speaking one.  

PL Howard in 2010 demonstrated healthy ecological relationship with social growth as development in human well being. This was attested by M. Padmanabhan and R Thaman in 2011 and 2014.  KS Zimmerer along with Haan, AD Jones, Creed- Kanashiro and others again demonstrated in 2019 that good environmental and social dimensions of sustainability,  have deep relation with the  global food security. PL Howard, in 2010 again demonstrated along with S. Pilgrim and J.N. Pretty that, the social loss on account of erosion or disappearance of human language, has direct relation with the environment loss. The above cited important researches  indicted very clearly that environment loss, directly impacts the social development process also. 

These great researches are true as environment loss, do increases temperature, which is sufficient cause of threat for the human survival. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is well aware of this problem on deforestation of forest which is essential for the human survival.  In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs Union Of India & Ors in 1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has  given important order to protect the forest land  from deforestation through illegal activities. This is the great significant order  so far on the protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country.  The Hon'ble Court formed the opinion that the matters required a further in-depth hearing to examine all the aspects relating to the National Forest Policy. However, it considered that certain interim directions were necessary in respect of some aspects, to oversee the enforcement of forest laws across the nation. 

The directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this important  case is for the sustainable use of forests and created its own monitoring and implementation system through regional and state level communities for  preserving the nation's forest. The Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act  specifies that no state government or other authority may allow the use of any forest land for any non-forestry purpose without the prior approval from the Central Government. 

Under the new interpretation of forest land under  Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, states could no longer de-reserve protected forests for non-forestry purposes without permission. Any cutting of trees  in  forest is not permitted  except in accordance with the working plan approved by the Central Government. The Hon'ble Court further placed complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from the  north eastern states of the country either by rail, road or water ways.

A Social Audit has been conducted through modern scientific tool satellite at  the ADB financed road project site  at Imphal. The ADB Safeguard Policy Statement in 2009 has mandated clearly the protection of environment, which puts strong enclosures on the social protection. Clause 14 of the ADB Safeguard policy,  further seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts, including protecting the rights of those likely to be affected or marginalized by the development process. If this ADB policy on safeguard  is read with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order, then the ADB financed Imphal Road project has no permission to cut any tree from the forest land without the explicit Central Government permission. And if permission is given, then the trees should must not be cut in careless ways damaging the whole sustainable approach. 

The satellite picture enclosed here demonstrate, large scale violation of the Supreme Court Order on the Environment protection. Further, when there is complete blanket ban on the movement of any cut tree by road, rail and water, as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Order, then how cut trees moved out of this site ?     

The satellite pictures endorsed here clearly demonstrate that there has been extreme carelessness in cutting trees as seen in Image Number: 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9.  The carelessness allowed cutting of trees blindly, which could have been saved otherwise. This carelessness has no mandate or approval, either in ADB Safeguard policy or in the Law of the Land. 

This demonstrates clearly that there has been violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Order on protecting the forest. This is not only environmental loss but great social loss also. This is just visible tip of the whole iceberg hidden under the sea. The Asian Development Bank, has reason to introspect and come honestly in conducting Third Party Independent Social Audit, where Impact Assessment on Environment and Social side damage can be measured in whole. This shall help the Asian Development Bank to plan its projects in India and outside India in excellent way. The ADB has also the onus to comply with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Order. The ADB should ensure that the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order has been complied with honestly.     

☝Image One: The top in 2020 and bottom in 2022 taken at near M.Chahnou Village location at Imphal ( India) where the ADB financed Ring Road  project has been completed. As you move up this road, one shall witness large scale forest loss.   

☝Image Two: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2022 taken near Paul College. Here this is appreciated that the work is good . The road has been carved carefully without damaging the forest. But, as you move up this road wide damage of  the forest  is seen.  

☝Image Three: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2022. Large scale forest loss is seen at this site. The element of care, sustainability, innovation of minimum loss as seen in Image Two is completely missing here. The site looks unsupervised and assignment given to untrained people. Cutting of tree at this forest location is violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order. There is also blanket ban to carry by road, water or rail the destroyed trees. How the trees moved from this location, when there is blanket ban by Hon'ble to move cut trees via road, rail and water ?  

☝Image Four: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2022. Large scale forest loss in the middle of the photograph down the road. In 2018, this was green pocket. Loss of trees far down the road  in the middle of the photograph is disgusting. The principle of "minimum loss" is missing here.  Near about 14 houses are also removed here at this site. 

☝Image Five: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2022. This is the extended image of "Image No. four". Look the extreme left side deforested land in 2018. This size has dramatically increased in 2022. Just below the road, it has extended deep down, where tree cutting was not necessary. while removing the 14 houses, large scale trees have been removed.  The element of care missing here completely. One diversion road is  seen constructed below the main road in 2022. For constructing this diversion road, trees  have been removed. The construction of diversion road says, the work plan is defective. 

☝Image Six: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2022. The careless deforestation is clearly visible. Left hand side two de-forested area. Again in the middle side four pocket areas. In 2018 when satellite took the picture of this time a cloud patch is visible, but this shows clearly thick forest area.  

☝Image Seven: The top in 2018 and bottom in 2024. The careless deforestation is also clearly visible. here. Picture speaks lot. A the right side where road is forming inverted V shape, just down the road,  where green pocket was there in 2018, completely removed in 2024 image. As you move from this spot to further area at the left side , similar careless deforestation is seen. 

☝Image Eight: The top in 2019 and bottom in 2024. The bottom photograph middle point, where road is forming English letter U or V shape is showing large scale mass destruction of forest. This pace of tree cutting is moving down the valley, whereas in 2019 large pocket of trees were here. This is clearly forest loss without mind.   

☝Image Nine: The top in 2019 and bottom in 2024. The yellow circle pocket is showing deforested impact in 2024 image, whereas this side is green pocket in 2019. This is careless removal of trees. 

☝Image Ten: The top in 2011 and bottom in 2023. Good mind has been applied here. Bridge is constructed here which is visible in 2023, but absent in 2011. This bridge has saved forest. The work is appreciated here.  

☝Image Eleven: Before: Before status when the ADB Road Project has not commenced. The jungle was filled with  compact  thick trees. After Picture:  After the ADB Funded project commenced work , the forest was damaged even from that place where road is not passing. This is careless damage of trees.   

Reference:

1. Howard, P.L. 2010. Culture and agrobiodiversity: understanding the links. In S. Pilgrim and J.N. Pretty, eds., Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections, 163–84. London: Routledge.

2. Padmanabhan, M. 2011. Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity: a feminist social–ecological approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40(6): 968–76

3. Prem, B., Michel, G. and Jansen, H. 1999. The ‘multifunctionality’of agriculture: recognition of agriculture as a public good or position against trade liberalization. Food and Agriculture Organization Conference, The Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. The Hague: Citeseer, 12–14

4. Thaman, R. 2014. Agrodeforestation and the loss of agrobiodiversity in the Pacific Islands: a call for conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 20(2): 180–92

5. Zimmerer, K.S., de Haan, S., Jones, A.D., Creed-Kanashiro, H., Tello, M., and Jiménez Olivencia, Y. 2019. The biodiversity of food and agriculture (agrobiodiversity) in the anthropocene: research advances and conceptual framework. Anthropocene 25: 1–16

6. Isakson, S. 2009. No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(4): 725

7. Upreti, B. and Upreti, Y. 2002. Factors leading to agro-biodiversity loss in developing countries: the case of Nepal. Biodiversity & Conservation 11(9): 1607–21.

8.Jones, A.D. 2017. Critical review of the emerging research evidence on agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low- and middle-income countries. Nutrition Reviews 75(10): 769–82.

9. Pongsiri, M.J., Roman, J., Ezenwa, V.O., Goldberg, T.L., Koren, H.S., … and Salkeld, D.J. 2009. Biodiversity loss affects global disease ecology. Bioscience 59(11): 945–54

10. Rohr, J.R., Barrett, C.B., Civitello, D.J., Craft, M.E., Delius, B., … and Tilman, D. 2019. Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nature Sustainability 2(6): 445–56.

11. Fu, Y., Chen, J., Guo, H., Hu, H., Chen, A. and Cui, J. 2010. Agrobiodiversity loss and livelihood vulnerability as a consequence of converting from subsistence farming systems to commercial plantation-dominated systems in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China: a household level analysis. Land Degradation and Development 21(3): 274–84

12. Müller, F. 2010. Verhandelte Geschlechterverhältnisse: Gender in der internationalen Biodiversitätspolitik. Femina Politica–Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft 19(1): 32–42.

13. Thornton, P.K., Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A.M., Campbell, B.M., Mercado, L., Shackleton, S. and Kavikumar, K. 2019. Rural livelihoods, food security and rural transformation under climate change. Rotterdam and Washington, DC: Global Commission on Adaptation, https://hdl.handle.net/10568/105762 (accessed 13 June 2020)

14. Carolan, M.S. 2013. Reclaiming Food Security. London: Routledge.

15. Herforth, A., Johns, T., Creed-Kanashiro, H.M., Jones, A.D., Khoury, C.K., and Reyes-García, V. 2019. Agrobiodiversity and feeding the world: more of the same will

result in more of the same. In K.S. Zimmerer and S. De Haan, eds., Agrobiodiversity: Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future, 185–210. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.

16. Ahmed, S., Stepp, J.R., Toleno, R.A. and Peters, C.M. 2010. Increased market integration, value, and ecological knowledge of tea agroforests in the Akha Highlands of Southwest China. Ecology and Society 15(4): 27.

17. Ahmed, S., Stepp, J.R., Orians, C., Griffin, T., Matyas, C., … and Unachukwu, U. 2014. Effects of extreme climate events on tea (Camellia sinensis) functional quality validate indigenous farmer knowledge and sensory preferences in tropical China. PloS one 9(10): e109126