Search Results

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media 2009 after the approval of the new ADB’s Accountability Mechanism (AM) was approved in December 2003, replacing the 1995 Inspection Function. Although a review of the policy was scheduled in 2006, it was postponed until 2008 and later rescheduled. The ADB officially started its policy review when ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda made an announcement during its Annual Meeting in Tashkent in May 2010. The ADB conducted a series of multi-stakeholder consultations in Asia, Europe, and the United States from September to November 2010. It also held consultations with affected people in selected countries. In April 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the consultation draft policy paper. Civil society organizations, however, criticized the ADB for coming up with a draft Working Paper–a draft policy version submitted to the ADB Board of Directors for review–two days after the deadline for submission of public comments on the consultation draft policy paper. In May 2011, after Forum’s continuous pushing and lobbying, the bank decided to put the review process on the right track by inviting public comments on the draft Working Paper. In June 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the first Working-Paper. In July, ADB released its second Working-Paper which is currently open for public comments. Forum members have been using the AM to register local communities’ complaints on the Bank’s lapses in terms of its policies, programs, and projects. While there was not a single complaint filed in 2008, out of the 13 cases in 2009, four of which were filed by Forum members. Accountability mechanism related documents - 21 Oct 2019 | NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework 17 Mar 2019 | ADB’s 10 years of Accountability Mechanism is not worth celebrating 17 Jan 2019 | Does ADB's Accountability mechanism work? 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Greater Mekong Subregion: Mekong Tourism Development Project 14 Nov 2010 | Holding ADB Accountable: A look at the Present Accountability Mechanism 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Mechanism Sixth Road Project: Not Eligible 12 Nov 2010 | Accountability Counsel Comments on the Asian Development Bank Accountability Mechanism Policy Review 14 Sep 2010 | Submission to the Accountability Mechanism Review 09 Sep 2010 | Effectiveness of the Accountability Mechanism in Central Asia and the Caucasus এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES বাংলাদেশ বাংলাদেশ সূত্র: বাংলাদেশ: কোভিড-১৯ অ্যাক্টিভ রেসপন্স অ্যান্ড এক্সপেন্ডিচার সাপোর্ট প্রোগ্রাম LATEST NEWS UPDATES 22 December 2022 Pakistan, ADB sign agreements worth $1.5bn for various projects 19 October 2021 Pakistan in deep economic crisis, needs $51.6 billion external financing over two year period 6 August 2021 ADB approves $500m loan to help Pakistan procure Covid-19 vaccines 10 June 2021 ADB approves $500m emergency loan for Pakistan

Stand with affected communities facing displacement and livelihood loss. Support urgent needs while they pursue justice and accountability. কোভিড-১৯ কমিউনিটি ইমার্জেন্সি ফান্ড ক্লিক এখানে প্রতি সাহায্য আমরা উদ্বেগজনক প্রতিবেদন পাচ্ছি যে সমগ্র এশিয়া, বিশেষ করে দক্ষিণ এশিয়া এবং দক্ষিণ পূর্ব এশিয়া জুড়ে ADB এবং AIIB প্রকল্প-আক্রান্ত সম্প্রদায়গুলি চরম সংকটের মধ্যে রয়েছে । বলবৎ লকডাউনের কারণে, তাদের কোন কাজ বা স্যানিটাইজার এবং খাদ্য সরবরাহের অ্যাক্সেস নেই। তাদের সম্পূর্ণরূপে উন্মুক্ত এবং COVID-19 মহামারীর জন্য ঝুঁকিপূর্ণ রেখে দেওয়া। রাষ্ট্রীয় প্রতিক্রিয়া ধীর এবং কিছু ক্ষেত্রে অস্তিত্বহীন। আমাদের সদস্যরা তাদের অত্যন্ত প্রয়োজনীয় মৌলিক সরবরাহ পেতে তাদের যথাসাধ্য চেষ্টা করছে, কিন্তু তাদের সর্বোত্তম প্রচেষ্টা সত্ত্বেও, সংস্থানগুলি প্রসারিত এবং আরও অনেক কিছুর প্রয়োজন। আমরা এখন আপনার সাহায্য প্রয়োজন. জরুরী তহবিল সম্পর্কে জরুরী তহবিল সম্পর্কে সমর্থন আপডেট Top Recipients কে সাপোর্ট পাবে যে পরিমাণ অনুদান সংগ্রহ করা হবে তার উপর নির্ভর করে, ADB-এর এনজিও ফোরাম 1) ADB এবং/অথবা সক্রিয় AIIB প্রকল্পগুলির দ্বারা প্রভাবিত প্রকল্প-আক্রান্ত সম্প্রদায়গুলিকে সমর্থন করতে অগ্রাধিকার দেবে; এবং 2) ফোরামের স্থানীয় অংশীদার যারা তাদের নিজ নিজ কোভিড - 19 দ্রুত প্রতিক্রিয়াও করছেন (যেমন ফুড ড্রাইভ পরিচালনা করা, স্বাস্থ্যসেবা কর্মীদের পরিবহন পরিষেবা প্রদান করা ইত্যাদি)। ফোরাম অংশীদার CSO-কে উল্লিখিত আর্থিক সহায়তার মাধ্যমে কোর্স করবে। অংশীদার CSO-কে দান করার পরিমাণও সুযোগ এবং/অথবা ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত পরিবারের সংখ্যার উপর পরিবর্তিত হবে। উল্লিখিত আর্থিক সহায়তা আমাদের অংশীদার সম্প্রদায়গুলিতে COVID-19-এর প্রভাবগুলি কমাতে সাহায্য করার জন্য দ্রুত প্রতিক্রিয়ার জন্য হবে। এই সহায়তা ফেস মাস্ক, সাবান, অ্যালকোহল, স্যানিটাইজার বা ফুড প্যাক কেনার জন্য ব্যবহার করা হবে। অংশীদার সিএসও প্রস্তুত করবে ১ - প্রদত্ত অর্থের মধ্যে কী কেনা হয়েছে, উল্লিখিত সহায়তা এবং অন্যান্য আনুষঙ্গিক খরচ যা ব্যবহার করা হয়েছিল (যেমন পরিবহন, ইত্যাদি) দ্বারা কতগুলি পরিবারের কাছে পৌঁছানো হয়েছে তার বিবরণ সহ সহায়তার পৃষ্ঠার প্রতিবেদন। আপনি কিভাবে সাহায্য করতে পারেন জানুন হালনাগাদ এর জন্য অনুসন্ধান করুন উপরে ফিরে যাও আপনার সমর্থন ব্যাপকভাবে প্রশংসা করা হয় COVID-19 এর প্রতিক্রিয়া জানাতে প্রচেষ্টা। ধন্যবাদ! আপনি নিম্নলিখিত তথ্য ব্যবহার করে আপনার অনুদান জমা করতে পারেন - ব্যাংকের নাম : ফিলিপাইন দ্বীপপুঞ্জের ব্যাংক ঠিকানা: 114 কল্যাণ অ্যাভিনিউ, দিলিমন, QUEZON CITY, ফিলিপাইন হিসাবের নাম : এনজিও ফোরাম অন ADB, INC. USD এর জন্য: 1994-0097-84 | ইইউ এর জন্য: পিএইচপি এর জন্য 1994-0551-31 : 1991-0039-12 সুইফট কোড: BOPIPHMM উপকারী ঠিকানা : 85-এ মাসিকাপ এক্সটেনশন, বারংয়ে সেন্ট্রাল, কুইজন সিটি 1100, ফিলিপাইন সুবিধাভোগী যোগাযোগ নম্বর: +63 2 84361858 | +63 2 89214412 এছাড়াও আপনি PayPal এর মাধ্যমে আমাদের সমর্থন করতে পারেন *** এডিবিতে এনজিও ফোরাম সংবেদনশীল ব্যক্তিগত তথ্য সংরক্ষণ করে না, যেমন মেইলিং ঠিকানা, অ্যাকাউন্টের পাসওয়ার্ড ইত্যাদি। ভুলবেন না দয়া করে আমাদের আপনার জমা স্লিপ একটি কপি পাঠান. অনুগ্রহ করে secretariat@forum-adb.org এ ইমেল করুন। উপরে ফিরে যাও Donate সমর্থন

ADB GAS & LNG PROJECT TRACKER ACCESS REQUEST FORM Name Country Organization Email Purpose of access to the tracker Submit Thank you for submitting! We will get back to you with you passcode.

Tracking the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to expose harmful projects and policies, and advocate for transparency, justice, and sustainable development in Asia-Pacific. এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More

ADB Energy Policy Review Scorecard Why This Matters This year marks a decade since the Paris Agreement — yet the Asian Development Bank (ADB) still falls short of the 1.5°C goal. ADB’s Energy Policy Review proposes dangerous rollbacks, including: Reviving extractive industries Lifting the ban on nuclear energy investments Promoting co-firing and other false “transition” technologies Keeping loopholes for coal and gas As the world nears a climate tipping point, ADB continues to lag behind its own claims as a “climate bank.” What’s ADB’s Score? That’s for you to decide. Each Forum network member and ally can grade ADB’s Energy Policy Review process and proposed revisions based on their alignment with real climate action — or lack thereof. How to Participate Download the Score you give ADB in the Scorecard drive . Grade ADB’s performance on its Energy Policy Review and proposed revisions. Post your score publicly with any of these hashtags - #ADBFailingDClimateTest #ADBFossilFail #ADBClimateScore Tag ADB Facebook: Asian Development Bank X (Twitter): @ADB_HQ LinkedIn: Asian Development Bank Explain your score in one line. Example: “We give ADB a failing grade for pushing fossil fuels.” Let us know if your organization is joining so we can amplify your post. If you don’t have social media, NGO Forum on ADB can post your score on your behalf, with full credit to your organization. Need Help? If your schedule is tight, fill out this short form and we’ll prepare and post your materials for you — all you have to do is share. You can also check the Scorecard meanings below - Here is an example -

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media WATCH Unpacking the Delivery of ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement 8 May 2019 | Nadi, Fiji এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

সম্পদ 2025 December September June March 2024 December September [Special Edition] June March 2023 December September June March 2022 December Special Issue September June March 2021 December September June March 2020 ডিসেম্বর সেপ্টেম্বর জুন মার্চ 2019 ডিসেম্বর সেপ্টেম্বর জুন মার্চ একটি পুরানো Bankwatch সমস্যা খুঁজছেন? সচিবালয়ে [at]forum-adb.org-এ একটি কপির জন্য জিজ্ঞাসা করুন।

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং Latest News Latest Events/Activities Civil society slams ADB’s “clean energy” claims at ACEF 2025 As the Asian Development Bank marks 20 years of the Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF), civil society groups across Asia are calling it two decades of greenwashing. In a powerful joint statement, they denounce ADB’s continued backing of fossil fuels, harmful technologies, and corporate polluters, warning that false solutions like gas, mining, and incineration are worsening the climate crisis. With the bank’s energy policy review underway, they demand a real shift toward justice, equity, and people-powered renewable systems. Read Press Release

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework for Investments Supported by Financial Intermediaries In Forum’s experience, there are several fundamental problems in ensuring FI Accountability to Safeguards – Project cycle bound timely release of project information in a meaningful manner for local peoples FIs need to ensure that environmental and social due diligence is implemented at the highest standards by their clients On issues of non-compliance, an independent and responsive redress mechanism has to be in place to ensure remedy for affected peoples. Keeping these three principles in mind the following comments have been made to the AMF- In the introductory section of the AMF, the lack of implementation of Equator Principles has been cited as a clear gap in FI accountability. We would recommend that the shift from guidelines for FIs to binding requirements should be emphasized in this section to strengthen the conceptual framework for this AMF. In line with comments from Accountability Counsel, we re-echo the need for learning to be upfront in this document for the AMF (Section 12, pg 4). For the AMF to work effectively it has to be able to learn from each case and make the necessary reforms to strengthen implementation. The issue of lessons learned and feedback loops built into the AMF system to help reform the structure will be critical to bringing diverse types of FI’s to compliance. On the issue of FI Sub-project categorization (pg.8) there is a need to ensure that a comprehensive ESIA is conducted to ensure the ‘Big B’ Category projects are deemed Category A. This is a potential risk especially for Infrastructure Funds, examples can be drawn from the Emerging Asia Fund of the AIIB and IFC, which has been tapped by Summit Power Group to retrofit several coal plants and build 4 new power generation facilities, which are fossil fuel based. The impacts from these projects will be long term and immediate and will require comprehensive ESIAs to ensure Safeguards are implemented. FIs and there parent funding institutions such as commercial banks and multilateral banks should have a strict monitoring role over their clients on environmental and social due diligence. The current practice of client-led safeguarding and self- reporting is no longer a viable model to ensure that AMF objectives are reached, thus we strongly recommend that monitoring and evaluation roles by FIs and their parent financial institutional investors should have an overseeing function. This is maybe done through further elaborating on a governance framework for FIs and their FI Clients, with detailed monitoring requirements in place. We are noticing for both ADB and AIIB projects that the Grievance Redress Mechanisms are often not effective at the local level. For MDBs it has been a real challenge to ensure that local GRMs have worked effectively; this will be a bigger challenge for an FI client to ensure. In this case, we recommend that project level GRMs should be – Meaningfully accessible for local communities Ensure complainants protection from backlash and retaliation Ensure remedial response The paper recognizes the shortcomings of GRMs - "However, GRMs are often poorly designed or implemented, and thus create mistrust and conflict between communities and the project executing agency. Finally, it must be noted that project-level GRM is not a substitute for an accountability mechanism at the institutional (financial intermediary) level, because the GRM cannot determine whether the financial intermediary has complied with its own environmental and social policies, standards, and procedures." Thus it has to be explicitly stated that accessing local GRMs should not be made a pre- requisite for local communities to trigger the Accountability Mechanism for an FI project. As mentioned earlier the fundamental problem with FI non-compliance to Safeguards is the lack of Time Bound Disclosure of project information to local people. At present local communities have no way of assessing whether FI subprojects are indeed FIs and what policies and mechanisms are entailed in their operations. From a community perspective, the following information has to be provided pre-project approval – Area and scale of the project Clear description of project cycle, construction, environmental and social impacts Clear assessment of project benefits sharing, compensations and allocations Clear understanding on rights, privileges and redress mechanisms for communities in cases of violations. All of language needs and ensuring that poor and vulnerable groups such as women, children and people with disabilities are made aware of all project related information. This is where the governance structure of this AMF will prove to be critical to ensure that Clients are complying with the disclosure needs at the local level. Provisions should also be made upstream in the project cycle to ensure that information disclosure needs are all met before a project is approved for implementation. The Forum re-echos Accountability Counsels recommendation on following the best practice example from the Green Climate Fund - which works with FIs, or accredited entities – The GCF has adopted a high degree of disclosure in line with international best practice, including time-bound disclosure of crucial project information – such as environmental and social impact assessments – ahead of approval. The degree and timing of disclosure are calibrated according to the risk profile of the investment: with more and better disclosure for the highest risk (Category A). The following excerpts from its 2016 Information Disclosure Policy describe the degree of disclosure: “Environmental and social reports. With respect to the project and program funding proposals that have an environmental or social impact, the Accredited Entities (AE’s) shall disclose and announce to the public and, via the Secretariat, to the Board and Active Observers: in case of Category A projects, the Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment (ESIA) and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; in the case of Category I-1 programs, the Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)2 at least 120 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; in the case of Category B projects, the ESIA3 and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)4 at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier; and in the case of Category I-2 programs, the ESMS at least 30 days in advance of the AE’s or GCF’s Board decision, whichever is earlier.” The Forum recognizes the independence embedded in the structure proposed in this AMF and would make the following recommendations on the mechanism proposed- In the submission of a complaint, there should be a provision for complaints to be filed by international and regional representatives as authorized representatives for local and in-country representatives who are unable to step forward due to security risk and conflict scenarios. In cases where the IRM has proved that there have been issues on non-compliance, then all consultations between the client and the community MUST have the IRM present to ensure power equity in information exchange. This has to be an integral part of ensuring that a complaint process and remedial action are done objectively. In it’s entirety this AMF is an innovative and needed effort in holding FIs accountable. এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

Discover the “Seven Cardinal Sins” of ADB through field publications and civil society voices, revealing gaps in safeguards, energy policy, and accountability. ADB Annual Meeting 2026 NGO Forum on ADB is participating in the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, to push for stronger accountability and people-centered development. Forum network will surface real experiences from communities to expose gaps in safeguards implementation and accountability systems, while calling for concrete reforms that ensure projects do not harm people or the environment. It will also challenge ADB’s current energy direction by advocating for a truly just transition aligned with climate goals—one that moves away from harmful investments and puts communities first. Through these discussions, Forum aims to amplify civil society voices and push ADB to deliver development that is fair, inclusive, and accountable to the people it is meant to serve. Seven Reflections – A Curated Digital Series Seven recurring failures, unfolding across safeguards and energy policies, quietly challenge the Asian Development Bank’s promise to “Do No Harm.” From what remains unseen to who remains unheard, these “Seven Cardinal Sins” reveal patterns that shape how development is experienced on the ground. Step into these stories and read the short reflections of members and allies of NGO Forum on ADB—voices that bring clarity, urgency, and a human face to what is too often left unspoken. Read the Reflections Advancing ADB’s Safeguards and Accountability This session will explore key gaps in safeguard implementation, assess how the ESF and Accountability Mechanism respond, and examine governance reforms needed to strengthen accountability. - May 3 (Sunday) | 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM (UZT) - ADB’s Commitment to a Just Transition and Paris Alignment This session will examine ADB’s energy reforms and climate finance trends, including the role of governance in shaping climate strategies and key gaps in advancing a just transition. - May 3 (Sunday) | 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM (UZT) - Fridays from the Field In the lead-up to ADB's 2026 Annual Meeting in Samarkand, Fridays from the Field set out to bring something often missing from official narratives into clear view: the lived realities of communities affected by ADB-funded projects. Now captured in a series of publications, these stories speak of delayed disclosures, rushed consultations, fear in raising concerns, and grievance systems that fall short when they are needed most. More than documentation, these pieces trace the deeper patterns behind these experiences—revealing how gaps in safeguards, accountability, and oversight continue to shape outcomes on the ground. Together, the publications stand as both record and reminder: that development is not measured by commitments alone, but by the lives it touches and the harms it must prevent. Download Watch the Sessions Forum Led Sessions Publications Debt, Delays, Dependencies: Why Public Banks Should Not Support Nuclear Power Urgewald & Ecodefense The world does not need new nuclear power. Yet institutions like the World Bank, the ADB, and other development banks are stubbornly marching towards an economic disaster that creates toxic waste and exacerbates the climate crisis by redirecting scarce resources away from technologies that have long proven themselves cheaper, faster, cleaner, and more effective. Download Partners in gas: How the ADB’s investment in Clifford Capital continues to support fossil gas in Asia Recourse, Trend Asia, NGO Forum on ADB, and CLEAN - Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network This publication, “Partners in Gas: How ADB’s Investments in Clifford Capital Continue to Support Fossil Gas in Asia,” examines how the ADB financial intermediary lending can indirectly support fossil fuel expansion. Using the case of Clifford Capital, it highlights how opaque subproject disclosure, securitisation structures, and indirect financing pathways may allow continued investment in fossil gas projects despite ADB’s climate commitments. Download Who Pays for Energy Transition? The briefing argues that the “clean energy” transition still harms communities because it depends on critical minerals mining, which often causes displacement, pollution, and rights violations in the Global South. Framed as ADB’s “Seven Cardinal Sins,” these issues show systemic problems. The paper calls for a just, transparent, and community-led energy transition. Download Read the Forum Statement to ADB At the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, discussions take place amid rising global uncertainty. The ongoing global conflict in the Middle East, which began on February 28, 2026, has disrupted the existing world economic order, sending ripple effects to supply and value chains across the world. Asia and the Pacific have been hit severely and are facing intensified economic pressures, compounded by climate risks. In this context, civil society perspectives from across the region highlight the importance of carefully considering the embedded risks of current policy directions, project operations, and financing approaches. This moment is a critical juncture in Asia’s development trajectory. ADB must make prudent and far-sighted strategic decisions with its financing in order not to derail the region from meeting its SDG targets and Paris Alignment goals. This is not the time to embed the region into imported fossil fuel supply chains, and experiment with high-risk energy solutions such as Nuclear and Critical Minerals extractivism, both sectors that severely threaten the ADB's performance-based Safeguards standards. The Bank must prioritise basic development needs: poverty alleviation, public health, human rights, food security, water and sanitation, and climate change over large-scale commercial project interests. Global Economic and Geopolitical Context The genocide in Gaza, and the armed conflict-related deaths in Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and others, all illustrate the failure of the international system to protect Human Rights. To this end, ADB, as a multilateral development partner committed to sustainable development in Asia, must hold the line in upholding Human Rights in all of its operations. Consequently, transport disruptions of energy resources in the global economic system have led the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to issue warnings that emerging markets and developing nations will be hit hardest by rising energy costs and supply chain disruptions. Growth forecasts for developing economies have been revised down, inflation expectations have risen, and vulnerable nations are grappling with tighter budgets, higher debt burdens, and unprecedented food supply concerns. In this context, even a sustained 10% increase in oil prices could raise global inflation by 0.4 percentage points and reduce global output by 0.1–0.2%, further tightening the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries, according to the International Monetary Fund (2026). Further, ADB’s Asia Outlook projected that if the war persisted through the third quarter of the year, developing countries would experience a 4.7% decline in growth. Simultaneously, the International Energy Agency has reported that this conflict has caused the largest oil supply disruption on record, driving crude prices above $100 per barrel. Additionally, UN Trade and Development statistics show that rising interest payments have reduced government revenue available for other public expenditures in 99 developing countries between 2018 and 2024. Implications for Developing Member Countries Farmers across Asia are queuing for hours, carrying their irrigation pumps, in search of a drop of diesel. Their woes are compounded by a sweeping fertiliser shortage, which is likely to prove ominous for the next harvest. All this is driving rising food prices and panic among urban and rural communities. Due to oil supply shortfalls, educational institutions, offices, factories, and markets are all closing down early and reducing working hours to manage energy supply needs, leading to loss of wages and depreciating household incomes. Additionally, the reactive push for further fossil fuel supply procurement is contributing to the climate crisis, as each new fossil fuel project, justified as “energy security”, deepens import dependence, heightens the risk of stranded assets, and pushes countries further from a just transition and their Paris targets. In this ADB AGM, ongoing dialogue with civil society is vital, not optional. Independent civil society voices, such as the Forum and its allies, are mandated to speak truth to power at the ADB. Our goal is to assert to the decision makers of ADB that all bank operations must focus on protecting people’s livelihoods, food security, and access to critical social services such as health and education. Thus, ADB operations must be grounded in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and internationally ratified human rights conventions, including core ILO standards. We are urging the ADB to rethink and curtail its privatisation agenda and prioritize the public interest amid this turbulent time. The Forum in this AGM calls into question the fundamental objectives of the ADB: Who benefits from ADB's projects and who bears the losses? Who bears the heaviest burden of risk, and who accumulates wealth risk-free? Read the Statement ADB's Seven Cardinal Sins Development, at its best, promises progress without harm—a careful balance between growth and responsibility. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has long embraced this vision, grounding its work in safeguards meant to protect people, communities, and the environment. Yet across projects and policies, a different story often emerges—one shaped by silences, gaps, and missed accountabilities. This page traces two parallel narratives through what we call the “Seven Cardinal Sins.” One set reflects the fractures within ADB’s safeguards and accountability systems—where transparency falters, consultations exclude, and remedies remain out of reach. The other turns to ADB’s energy and climate agenda, where commitments to a just and sustainable transition are tested by practices that risk leaving communities behind. Together, these “sins” are not merely a list of failures, but a pattern—one that reveals how structural weaknesses in governance and oversight can erode even the strongest principles, including the promise to “Do No Harm.” They invite us to look closer, to question deeper, and to imagine what accountability could truly mean. As you explore this page, we invite you to read the short reflections of members and allies of the NGO Forum on ADB—voices grounded in lived experience, bearing witness to the impacts of development, and calling for change that is not only promised, but realized. Because when accountability fails, it is not policies that bear the cost—but people, communities, and futures that cannot be undone. 1 Reflections Betrayal Nazareth Del Pilar | NGO Forum on ADB I believe that the cardinal sins of the ADB are persistent and have been sharpened by the current war in West Asia and broader tensions involving the West. In times of crisis, neoliberal institutions fall back on protecting markets and profits over people, with a clear form of betrayal where climate commitments and the “Do No Harm” principle are sidelined. The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up fuel prices and exposed Asia’s dependence on fossil fuels, yet instead of using this as a turning point for renewables, the ADB frames it as an “energy security” issue to justify continued support for fossil fuels and costly technologies. This approach is even reinforced in policy. The 2025 Energy Policy Review failed to close loopholes and instead expanded support for nuclear energy and critical minerals mining, with no real commitment to move away from fossil fuels. This reflects both betrayal and oversight failure, as weak accountability sustains these contradictions, while the ADB’s technology-agnostic stance allows it to appear ‘Paris-aligned’ even as it deepens reliance on extractive and carbon-heavy systems. 2 Accountability Gap Marjorie Pamintuan | Recourse The ADB insisted that fossil gas is a transition fuel during the mid-term review of its Energy Policy. Despite evidence saying otherwise, the bank still kept its doors open to fossil gas through direct investments and opaque financial intermediary projects. This Annual Meeting happens in the midst of the ongoing wars in the Middle East which again presents massive evidence that fossil gas is expensive, unreliable and impedes the just transition to renewable energy. Ordinary people suffer and literally pay the price of the resulting economic shocks. It is time that the ADB reflect. Do better by shutting direct and indirect financial flows to fossil gas, and double down on its support for just renewable energy transition in developing countries to avoid future fossil fuel crises. 3 Impunity / Lack of Remedy Yuki Tanabe | Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) Fifteen years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, its impacts are far from over. Around 300 square kilometers remain under evacuation, and more than 20,000 people are still unable to return to their homes. What was once a place of everyday life has become a long-term exclusion zone. Unlike typical nuclear plants that are decommissioned decades after shutdown, Fukushima presents a far more complex reality. With melted nuclear fuel still inside the reactors, the decommissioning process is expected to take centuries—stretching the consequences of a single disaster across generations. This raises difficult but necessary questions for the region. Can countries in Asia truly prepare for emergencies of this scale? And is it possible to ensure meaningful consultation and protection for the vast number of people who would be affected? Daniel Willis | Recourse At the Annual Meeting, as in years gone by, affected communities and CSOs will bring many examples of how ADB-financed projects have caused devastating social and environmental harms. Many communities have brought official complaints to the ADB's Accountability Mechanism to seek justice. However, research by Accountability Counsel shows that remedial action has been taken in only 3% of closed cases. One problem is that many complaints are deemed ineligible due to the onerous requirements of the Mechanism's policy. There is an opportunity to change this, though, with the ongoing review of that policy, which is sure to be a key topic of debate in Samarkand. ADB should listen to the testimonies of harm from affected communities, and to their demands for a more accessible Accountability Mechanism that investigates complaints and delivers on remedy. 4 Gender inequality / exclusion of women and vulnerable groups Titi Soentoro | Aksi! for Gender, Social, and Ecological Justice ADB speaks of building a “prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable” Asia-Pacific, yet the reality on the ground often reflects a gap between commitment and practice. Development approaches frequently remain top-down, prioritizing corporate interests while communities bear environmental and social costs, with women and vulnerable groups disproportionately affected and often excluded from meaningful consultation. These challenges underscore the need for stronger accountability—ensuring genuine participation, especially of women, and establishing grievance mechanisms that effectively address gender-related impacts. Ultimately, a truly just and inclusive approach requires the ADB to move beyond policy commitments and take responsibility for the indirect, long-term, and cumulative harm linked to its projects. 5 Lack of meaningful participation Chinara Aitbaeva | Nash Vek Public Foundation ADB CAREC Program aims to improve connectivity and boost economic growth across Central Asia, but it also raises important questions about who truly benefits. While large projects in infrastructure, energy, and trade are meant to support development, they often follow a top-down approach that may overlook the needs of local communities. Concerns remain about transparency, meaningful participation, and whether people affected by these projects are truly heard. As CAREC moves forward, it is important to ensure that development is not only about building roads and markets, but also about protecting communities, promoting fairness, and making sure that no one is left behind. 6 Delayed justice Indira Shreesh | Indigenous Women's Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG) The experience of the Tanahu Hydropower Project reflects what can be described as the seven cardinal sins of the ADB: first, the persistent gap between policy and practice, where strong safeguards, particularly Principle 8 and Principle 9 on Indigenous Peoples and customary land rights, remains largely unimplemented; second, the failure to recognize customary and Indigenous land rights, especially for non-titled lands; third, the weak and procedural approach to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), reducing it to consultation rather than genuine consent; fourth, inadequate and unjust compensation systems that fail to restore livelihoods; fifth, the lack of transparency and accountability in land acquisition and project implementation; sixth, delayed grievance redress and weak enforcement of accountability mechanisms, where justice is delayed and the ignoring of justice must be treated as punishable failures, and must also ensure fair and adequate compensation to affected communities; and seventh, a broader pattern of development prioritization over human rights, where infrastructure goals overshadow the dignity, identity, and rights of Indigenous Peoples. Together, these systemic failures risk turning safeguard policies into symbolic commitments rather than instruments of justice. 7 Procedural (not meaningful) consultation Hussain Jarwar | Indus Consortium Despite having clear safeguard standards, the experience on the ground often tells a different story. Consultations carried out by the Asian Development Bank have frequently remained procedural, falling short of the meaningful engagement that communities expect and deserve. Many affected groups continue to report exclusion from genuine dialogue, often justified by security or administrative constraints. This raises deeper concerns about how policies are translated into practice, as direct and transparent engagement with impacted populations remains limited. Over time, this gap not only restricts communities from fully voicing their concerns but also contributes to growing mistrust toward development institutions, highlighting the need for more inclusive and accountable approaches.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. প্রজেক্ট মনিটরিং Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media NGO Forum on ADB questions ADB’s intent to shift towards using country safeguards systems without any ‘assessment’ and ‘equivalency’ with its own safeguards systems as presented by the Strategy and Policy Department of the ADB. This alarming move towards using country systems prematurely will have disastrous impacts on local communities and the environment especially in autocratic regimes where civil society voice is suppressed and persecuted, and national instruments are riddled with corruption and weak implementation. ADB in doing so will also be in violation of its own ADB Safeguards Policy Strategy SPS 2010, where it clearly indicates ‘equivalency’ and ‘assessment’ to be conducted for Country Systems with ADB standards before they are considered for use in any ADB project. In ADB’s own study on Country Systems in 2015, it indicates that in six upper-middle-income countries UMICs, the use of country systems are not feasible as they are far from ADB SPS 2010 standards. The ADB is faced to provide competitive lending rates with the rise of new banks and abruptly moving towards using Country Systems is a way by which the Bank is trying to reduce loan approval times and “costs” by compromising due diligence requirements which put human rights, public safety, environmental sustainability and national economies at risk. Read the Strategy 2030 related documents below : 21 Aug 2018 | Pillars for the Future of Development Finance in Asia 08 May 2018 | Joint Submission of Comments on ADB’s Draft Strategy 2030 02 Feb 2017 | ADB Strat 2030 Letter 29 Mar 2017 | ADB response to letter regarding ADB's new corporate strategy 30 Jun 2016 | ADB criticized for holding questionable consultations on its new corporate strategy এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (এডিবি) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030