Forum Network’s Statement to the ADB for its 58th Annual Meeting

At the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), civil society organizations (CSOs) from across Asia and the Pacific led by NGO Forum on ADB network raised a united voice to demand an end to destructive development practices and false climate solutions.

NGO Forum on ADB, alongside grassroots communities, labor groups, human rights defenders, gender justice advocates, and environmental justice movements, denounced the ADB’s ongoing support for projects that drive climate collapse, displace communities, and undermine fundamental rights.

Forum Network urges newly appointed ADB President Masato Kanda, the Board of Directors, and senior management to break from a legacy of harm and commit to urgent, transformative action that centers justice, safeguards ecosystems, and ensures real accountability for affected peoples.

The Forum Network and allies issued three core demands as critical steps toward ending harmful development and reclaiming public finance for people and the planet -

1. A full and time-bound fossil fuel phase-out, including fossil gas

Despite ADB’s 2021 Energy Policy update, the institution failed to close the gaps in coal-related investments and continues to finance fossil gas projects, undermining its climate commitments and the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The current policy has loopholes for indirect fossil fuel financing, particularly through financial intermediaries, that could lead to support for captive coal facilities and fossil gas and oil infrastructure. Moreover, the Bank’s Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) has raised significant concerns due to its skewed structure in favor of corporate bailouts, the prolonging of fossil fuel use through plant refurbishing with co-firing technologies, and the reinforcement of companies with deep entrenchment in the fossil fuel sector.

While the policy excludes new coal power generation, it permits investments in gas infrastructure, including pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, gas distribution networks, and gas-fired power plants. Between 2015 and 2021, the ADB allocated approximately $4.7 billion to gas projects, with 96% directed toward activities such as construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of gas infrastructure; procurement of gas-related technology; and technical assistance to support gas sector development.

Forum and allies urge the ADB to align its operations with the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement by closing all loopholes for coal financing, adopting a clear and time-bound gas exit strategy, and ensuring that the current coal retirement scheme facilitates the just transition to renewable energy. Ultimately, ADB must cease all direct and indirect fossil fuel investments and redirect funds toward renewable energy solutions that are increasingly cost-competitive and environmentally sustainable.

Incidentally, ADB's 2021 Energy Policy is scheduled for review in 2025. This review presents an opportunity to align the policy with the ADB’s and its shareholders’ obligations under customary international law and the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the policy should explicitly prohibit financing and guarantees for upstream, midstream, and downstream fossil fuel projects, including coal, LNG, and natural gas plants, that contribute to exceeding the 1.5°C threshold.

Furthermore, the policy must mandate rigorous alternative analyses for all contemplated fossil fuel energy projects. These analyses should assess the economic and technical feasibility of renewable options and incorporate the societal cost of carbon to determine the true cost of the project. The ADB should prioritize funding for renewable energy solutions that are socially just, environmentally sustainable, and aligned with community needs—ensuring technical and economic feasibility does not override the imperative for a just energy transition.

To facilitate the transition to renewable energy, the ADB Energy Policy should also compel and incentivize the enhanced deployment of renewable energy. This includes supporting member countries in planning for the early retirement of coal power plants and investing in renewable energy infrastructure.

2. Binding environmental and social risk assessments before project approval

The ADB's recently approved Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) has been heavily criticized for failing to mandate Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (EIA/SIA) before loan approvals or disbursements, particularly in high-risk sectors like energy, transport, and infrastructure. This omission raises serious concerns, as it allows potentially harmful projects to proceed without a comprehensive evaluation of their environmental and social impacts, exposing vulnerable communities and ecosystems to significant risks.

The absence of mandatory EIA/SIA requirements in the ESF reflects a broader trend in development financing where the emphasis on procedural compliance often outweighs the actual protection of people and ecosystems. This trend is exacerbated by the vague and non-binding language used in the framework. Terms such as "materially consistent," "timely," and "where applicable" essentially create loopholes that permit projects to bypass essential safeguards. These flexible terms undermine the core principles of accountability and transparency, enabling harmful projects to go ahead without fully addressing the risks associated with them.

This approach not only puts communities and ecosystems at risk but also threatens the credibility of the ADB as a development institution committed to sustainable and equitable outcomes. Research consistently shows that failing to conduct thorough environmental and social assessments leads to adverse long-term effects, including increased displacement of communities, ecosystem degradation, and human rights violations. These impacts often exacerbate existing inequalities and hinder the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to climate action, poverty eradication, and social justice.

Moreover, the lack of mandatory and binding EIA/SIA requirements undermines the ADB's stated commitment to uphold international environmental, labor, and human rights standards. The ADB is one of the largest financiers of development projects in the Asia-Pacific region, and its actions have a profound impact on the environment and the lives of millions of people. By failing to ensure that environmental and social risks are assessed and mitigated before projects are approved, the bank risks perpetuating cycles of harm that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, women, and the poor.

Forum network and allies have repeatedly called for stronger safeguards, emphasizing that risk assessments must be compulsory, time-bound, and publicly disclosed. These assessments must be grounded in internationally recognized standards, ensuring that projects are not just economically viable but also socially and environmentally responsible. Without these safeguards, the ESF risks becoming a hollow procedural tool, allowing the ADB to continue funding projects that may contribute to environmental destruction, human rights violations, and social harm.

For the ADB to restore its credibility and truly align with its mission of promoting sustainable and inclusive development, it must strengthen the implementation of the ESF through more rigorous requirements in the Guidance Notes. These assessments should be conducted before any financing is locked in, ensuring that the environmental and social costs of projects are fully understood and mitigated. This is not just a regulatory matter—it is a fundamental issue of justice and accountability. 

Guidance material and other accompanying documents must be formulated with the objective of creating stronger and rigorous implementation and monitoring of the ESF on the ground. The ADB spent over four years in the safeguards review, and all the work put into creating policy language will be a waste of time and resources if implementation on the ground is not done properly. CSOs monitoring projects have consistently observed that project level findings differ from what is noted in policy and reporting documents. Only by taking decisive action to strengthen the ESF can the ADB fulfill its role as a leader in sustainable development finance and safeguard the future of the communities and ecosystems it aims to support.

3. An Independent, Binding, and Reparative Accountability Mechanism

The ADB’s accountability mechanism has been widely criticized for its limited effectiveness in providing remedies and redress for affected communities. Restrictive eligibility requirements, opaque processes, and a lack of independence continue to hinder the mechanism’s ability to deliver justice.

The ongoing review of the Accountability Mechanism presents a pivotal opportunity to transform it from a procedural formality into a genuine tool for justice. Communities harmed by ADB-financed projects urgently require mechanisms that deliver enforceable remedies, not just paperwork.

As ADB continues its policy reviews and embarks on a new chapter under President Kanda’s leadership, the Forum network and its allies emphasize that bold, systemic reforms are not optional—they are imperative. The following actions are critical to ensuring that ADB operations uphold justice, prevent harm, and deliver real accountability to communities across the region -

• Implement a binding grievance redress mechanism across all operations. This includes both public and private sector projects. Current systems often fail to provide effective remedies, leaving affected communities without recourse.

• Ensure full public disclosure of review documents and assessments. Transparency is crucial for accountability. Without access to comprehensive information, communities and stakeholders cannot effectively engage with or challenge ADB-funded projects.

• Transparency is key—as without disclosure, communities do not know they have a right to access remedy. The new AM Policy should ensure that the availability of the AM as a recourse mechanism is clearly communicated in local languages and in a manner and format accessible to local communities at subproject sites so that affected communities are aware of the ADB’s involvement and that they can make a complaint if needed and how.

• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for reprisals against complainants. There have been numerous instances where individuals and communities face threats or retaliation for raising concerns about ADB projects. The ADB must take immediate action to prevent and address such reprisals, ensuring the safety and rights of all stakeholders are upheld.

• Include financial intermediaries, associated facilities, and co-financed projects under full safeguard compliance and remedy responsibilities. Projects involving multiple stakeholders often fall through the cracks of accountability. ADB must ensure that all entities involved in its projects adhere to the same rigorous standards of environmental and social responsibility.

• Respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes full recognition of their right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in accordance with international human rights standards. The ADB must ensure the protection of Indigenous lands, territories, and resources from exploitation, and support development that is culturally appropriate, non-impositional, and free from harm or displacement. This must include jurisdictions without formal recognition of indigenous identity. A clear expression of non-consent by Indigenous Peoples must be recognized as final and determinative. FPIC is a substantive right—not a procedural formality—and must serve as a prerequisite for project approval. Any denial of consent must halt project advancement entirely, without being subjected to repeated consultations or reframed engagement efforts aimed at reversing the decision.

• Ensure gender justice and transformative gender approaches across all projects. ADB must move beyond inclusion and toward the redistribution of power, addressing structural gender inequalities and ensuring the full participation of women, girls, and gender-diverse people in all stages of project planning, implementation, and monitoring.

• Establish strong safeguards for critical mineral extraction projects. ADB should explicitly remove support for critical minerals under climate finance mechanisms, recognizing that such framing risks legitimizing harmful mining practices. The Bank should uphold Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ right to FPIC, including their right to say no. Furthermore, any engagement with transition minerals must align with international human rights and environmental standards, prioritizing community-led just transition pathways over extractive models.

These demands are not merely procedural; they are essential to uphold the ADB's commitment to sustainable development and human rights. Without these reforms, the ADB risks perpetuating harm and undermining its credibility as a development institution.

Under the leadership of newly appointed President Kanda, ADB stands at a critical crossroads. The decisions made now will determine whether the Bank continues to finance projects that contribute to climate destruction and human rights violations or whether it chooses the path of genuine transformation.

Signed by the following organizations -

350.org, Asia

350.org Pilipinas, Philippines

Aksi! for gender, social, and ecological justice, Indonesia

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippines

Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Regional, Asia

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Regional, Asia

Bangladesh Food Security Network-—KHANI Bangladesh, Bangladesh

Bangladesh Working Group on Ecology and Development (BWGED), Bangladesh

Bank Climate Advocates, United States

Bank Information Center, United States

Bantay Kita, Inc., Philippines

Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan

Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Philippines

Center of International Environmental Law (CIEL), United States/International

Centre for Community Mobilization And Support NGO, Armenia

Centre for Environment and Participatory Research -CEPR, Bangladesh

Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka

CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh

Conseil Régional des organisations Non Gouvernementales de Développement, RDC

Ecological Public Society, Armenia

Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia

Forum on Ecology and Development (FED), Bangladesh

Fresh Eyes, United Kingdom

Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan

Friends of the Earth, US

Friends with Environment in Development, Uganda

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Asia-Pacific

Growthwatch, India

Inclusive Development International, USA

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), Indian

Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG), Nepal

Indus Consortium, Pakistan

Inisiasi Masyarakat Adat (IMA), Indonesia

International Rivers, Global

Integrated Social Development Effort Bangladesh (ISDE), Bangladesh

Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan

Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia

Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP), Nepal

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Friends of the Earth Philippines, Philippines

MATI, Bangladesh, Bangladesh

Mekong Watch, Japan

Nadi Ghati Morcha - India, India

Nashvek, Kyrgyzstan

National Development Programme (NDP), Bangladesh

Oil-Workers’ Rights Protection Organization PU, Azerbaijan

Onnochitra Foundation, Bangladesh

OTWatch Mongolia, Mongolia

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan

Participatory Research & Action Network- PRAAN, Bangladesh

Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF, Nigeria

People's Coalition for The Rights to Water (KRuHA), Indonesia

Prakriti Ecological Agri-Enterprise, Bangladesh

PRANTOJON, Bangladesh

Program on Alternative Development, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (AltDev UPCIDS), Philippines

Rivers without Boundaries, Mongolia

Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Bangladesh

Society for Peace and Sustainable Development, Pakistan

SoDESH, Bangladesh

SONGSHOPTAQUE, BANGLADESH

Transparency International Anticorruption Center, Armenia

Terranusa Indonesia, Indonesia

Trend Asia, Indonesia

Urgewald, Germany

Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, Germany/Uzbekistan

WomanHealth Philippines, Philippines

Yayasan Lembaga Terranusa Indonesia, Indonesia

Young Power in Social Action ( YPSA ), Bangladesh

YouthNet Global, Bangladesh