NGO Forum on ADB is a network of Asian civil society groups promoting accountability, transparency, and people-centered development in ADB and AIIB projects across Asia-Pacific. NGO Forum on ADB Solidarity Statement for the people of Nepal NGO Forum on ADB stands in solidarity with the people of Nepal and mourns the loss and damage caused by the deadly disaster that hit the nation. Our thoughts are with the families searching for the missing, and with the communities now facing the urgent work of recovery. The scale of loss demands an urgent, timely, and community-centered response that addresses immediate needs for relief and recovery, restores access to basic services, and supports families as they rebuild their homes and livelihoods. Read More ADB fueling the energy crisis, locking Asia into decades of destruction Forum Network Statement on the 21st Asia Clean Energy Forum As communities across Asia struggle with spiralling electricity prices, debt, displacement, and climate devastation, the Asian Development Bank continues to deepen the very fossil fuel dependence driving the crisis. The Bank’s Asia Clean Energy Forum 2026 marks its 21st year under the theme “Beyond Transition: Building Secure, Resilient, Inclusive, and Intelligent Systems.” Once again, the forum positions itself as a platform to shape the future of Asia’s energy systems, particularly in the Bank’s developing member countries. However, the Bank does so in the shadow of a deep, compounding global energy crisis. The ongoing war in West Asia has fractured global fuel supply chains, sent energy prices up, and exposed with brutal clarity how profoundly Asia’s economies remain entrenched in imported fossil fuels. For developing countries in the region, it is a daily economic emergency, with rising electricity costs, fuel shortages, ballooning import bills, and mounting debt burdens that fall most heavily on communities already living on the margins of survival. Read More Forum at the 59th ADB Annual Meeting At the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), civil society groups and community advocates will hold two key sessions on May 3, 2026 to highlight urgent issues on safeguards, accountability, and climate justice. The first session, “Structural Challenges to Safeguards Implementation and Accountability Mechanism Operations at ADB,” will run from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM (UZT), moderated by Rayyan Hassan (NGO Forum on ADB) and featuring Titi Soentoro (Aksi! for Gender, Social, and Ecological Justice), Hussain Jarwar (Indus Consortium), Indira Shreesh (Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group), Sukhgerel Dugersuren (Oyu Tolgoi Watch), Radhika Goyal (Accountability Counsel), Aaron Pedrosa (Philippine Movement for Climate Justice), Chinara Aitbaeva (Public Union of Nash Vek Youth Movement), Ramanie Kunanayagam (ADB Compliance Review Panel), and Bruce Dunn (Asian Development Bank). The discussion will highlight persistent gaps in safeguard implementation, including weak enforcement, limited community participation, and barriers to accountability, while engaging ADB representatives in a dialogue on needed reforms. In the afternoon, from 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM (UZT), the session “ADB’s Commitment to a Just Transition and Paris Alignment” will examine whether ADB’s energy policies truly support a fair and climate-aligned future. Also moderated by Rayyan Hassan (NGO Forum on ADB), the session will feature Nazareth Del Pilar (NGO Forum on ADB), Hasan Mehedi (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Merete Looft (Urgewald), Yuki Tanabe (Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society), Hemantha Withanage (Centre for Environmental Justice / NGO Forum on ADB), Jaybee Garganera (Alyansa Tigil Mina), Marjorie Pamintuan (Recourse), and Priyantha Wijayatunga (Asian Development Bank). Speakers will highlight both progress and continuing concerns, especially around fossil fuel financing and risks to vulnerable communities. Together, these sessions call for stronger accountability and a people-centered approach to development—one that ensures no community is left behind. Read More Fridays from the Field As the Asian Development Bank (ADB) gears up for its 2026 Annual Meeting in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, the Forum network and its allies are launching a series of reports highlighting community experiences from Indonesia, Nepal, India, and Northeast India. Titled “Fridays from the Field,” the online series highlights community voices and the real effects of development projects on the ground, especially those funded by ADB. Read More Read Read Read

Explore the timeline of NGO Forum on ADB, highlighting key milestones, advocacy efforts, and achievements in promoting accountability, sustainability, and social justice in ADB and AIIB operations. Based in Quezon City, the Forum has been a leading voice for civil society since 1992. ФОРУМИ СҒДҲОИ БОР ДАР СОЛҲО

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 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. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 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 БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

Tracking the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to expose harmful projects and policies, and advocate for transparency, justice, and sustainable development in Asia-Pacific. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More

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.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 01 ESF December 2024 02 ESF Policy Paper 03 Environmental and Social Framework (September 2024 - Revised Draft) 04 ESF Consultation Draft 05 Safeguard Policy Statement Review and Update Policy Architecture Study 06 Safeguard Policy Statement Review and Update Stakeholder Engagement Plan 07 Safeguard Policy Statement Review and Update Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Version 2) 08 Access Information Policy 2018 ADB Safeguard Spotlight The Story of ADB Safeguards Related Documents ADB Project Tracker COVID19 Loan Tracker 2010 Forum’s Comments on the Operations Manual of the new Safeguard Policy Statement (February 2010) 2009 OM Language Recommendations of the Forum (31 July 2009) Comments on the Forum on R-Paper of the Safeguard Policy Statement (14 July 2009) Detailed recommendations for the improvement of the SPS R-paper (15 July 2009) Safeguard Policy Statement: updated Safeguards (June 2009) Comments on the 2nd draft Safeguard Policy Statement United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 8 January 200 2008 Comments on the 2nd draft Safeguard Policy Statement US Department of Treasury, 17 December 2008 US Department of Treasury, 7 December 2008 Gender Action, 5 December 2008 Public Services International, 4 December 2008 International Accountability Project, 4 December 2008 Consolidated IP-SPU workshop participants, 4 December 2008 Forest Peoples Programme, 4 December 2008 NADI, 4 December 2008 World Resources Institute, 4 December 2008 Bank Information Centre, 4 December 2008 NGO Forum on ADB, 4 December 2008 NGO Forum on ADB’s initial comments on the draft Safeguards operations manual, 4 December 2008 Centre for Environmental Justice, 4 December 2008 Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-Law), 3 December 2008 Environmental Defense Fund, 2 December 2008 Central Asia and Caucasus NGOs, 27 November 2008 International Network on Displacement and Resettlement, 20 November 2008 Japan Center for Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), 13 November 2008 ADB’s response to Forum’s proposed agenda for the second round SPU consultation, 22 August 2008 Forum’s proposed agenda for the second round SPU consultation, 25 July 2008 Forum’s response to ADB’s consultation plan, 4 July 2008 Safeguards Down the Drain, Hemantha Withanage ADB Environmental Safeguards in Reverse Gear!, Avilash Raoul Country Safeguard Systems approach at the ADB, Jennifer Kalafut Involuntary Resettlement & the Asian Development Bank, Joanna Levitt Safeguarding Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Rowena Soriaga Forum’s comments on the Draft SPS, 28 April 2008 BIC’s Comments on the Draft SPS, 30 March 2008 E-Law’s Comments on Draft SPS, 21 March 2008 Downing and Scudder Expert Opinion on ADB SPU, 20 March 2008 ADB’s response to Forum’s Call for Revision of SPS, 7 March 2008 Burmese Civil Society Groups’ Letter to the ADB on SPU, 4 March 2008 Vietnam NGOs’ letter on SPU consultation, 25 February 2008 IAITPTF’s Letter to the ADB on the Draft Safeguard Policy Statement, 22 February 2008 IAP’s Comments on the Draft Safeguard Policy Statement, 19 February 2008 German Economic Minister Letter on the ongoing SPU, 11 February 2008 Forum’s letter to ADB President calling for the revision of the SPS draft, 7 February 2008 Forum’s letter to SPU Team calling for the revision of the SPS draft, 7 February 2008 2007 Act Now! Demand for Greater Safeguards, 23 November 2007 ADB’s Country Safeguards System, November 2007 ADB’s response to Forum’s letters on SPU process, 6 November 2007 Forum’s letter to ADB regarding the SPU Process, 25 October 2007 Forum’s letter to ADB regarding the SPU Process, 24 October 2007 Consultation Draft of the Safeguard Policy Statement, October 2007 Forest People’s Programme’s comments on the OED Special Evaluation Study on the Indigenous Peoples Policy In Search of Middle Ground: Indigenous Peoples, Collective Representation and the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, Annex to FPP’s comment to the OED Special Evaluation Study on IP Policy, by Marcus Colchester and Fergus MacKay, Forest Peoples Programme, August 2004 A Call to Safeguard Equitable and Sustainable Development in Asia: Collective statement by NGO Forum on ADB regarding the ADB Safeguard Policy Update, March 2007 2006 Comparative Matrix – Environment Policy Weekend Standards Yes to Accountability, 20 April 2006 Open Letter to the ADB president on the Safeguard Policy Update, 16 March 2006 Comparative Matrix – Indigenous Peoples Policy Comparative Matrix – Involuntary Resettlement Policy ADB Resettlement Policy Comparative Matrix, International Accountability Project, November 2006 Snapshots of ADB Disasters Development Debacles Civil Society Says, “No to 2005 ADB Discussion Note- October 2005 ADB Response by Mr. Albab Akanda, Team Leader- 28 September 2005 Civil Society Organization’s letter to ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda – 22 July 2005 Board Approval for the Consolidated Review of the ADB Safeguards Policies – July 2005 Window Dressing for Business? The Asian Development Bank Safeguard Policy Implementation Review by Grace Mang ADB and the Environment (NGO FORUM ON ADB Publication) Indigenous people and the ADB (NGO FORUM ON ADB Publication ) ADB Documents ADB Response by SPU Team on discussion note (28 September 2005) Discussion Note: Safeguard Policy Statement (October 2005) Consultation Draft of the Safeguard Policy Statement (October 2007) ADB’s response to Forum’s Call for Revision of SPS (7 March 2008) ADB’s response to Forum’s proposed agenda for the second round SPU consultation (22 August 2008) Preliminary Draft Operations Manual Section, Draft Safeguards Review Procedures (3 October 2008) ADB SPU: Report on Stakeholder Consultations (Comments-response matrix) (8 October 2008) 2nd Draft Safeguard Policy Statement (October 2008) Working Paper: Safeguard Policy Statement (January 2009) Safeguard Policy Statement (June 2009) Statement (October 2007) Safeguards Operations Manual (January 2010) Older Safeguards Documents

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES БАНГЛАДЕШ БАНГЛАДЕШ Манбаъ: Бангладеш: Барномаи вокуниши фаъоли COVID-19 ва дастгирии хароҷот LATEST NEWS Read the latest COVID-19 Research produced by Growthwatch, India from the Philippines and NGO Forum on ADB. Download UPDATES 22 February 2022 ADB lends record USD 4.6 bn loans to India in 2021 1 December 2021 ADB approves $1.5 B for COVID-19 vaccines in India 21 November 2021 Why is India taking out loans for covid-19 vaccines? 24 November 2021 Govt of India, Asian Development Bank sign $300 million loan 21 May 2021 ADB commits record USD 3.92 billion loan to India in 2020

Dive into AIIB-funded infrastructure projects across Southeast Asia with analysis from NGO Forum on ADB, focusing on project monitoring, community rights, environmental impacts, and civil society efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and just development. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА North Dhaka Waste to Energy Project COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD100 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The North Dhaka Waste-to-Energy Project is a 42.5 MW incineration facility situated near the Amin Bazar landfill, co-financed by the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a $100 million non-sovereign loan, and the New Development Bank (NDB), aiming to process municipal solid waste into energy through four 750-ton/day incineration lines and twin 35 MW turbo-generators connected to Savar’s grid. It is Bangladesh’s first large-scale waste-to-energy venture, categorized as AIIB Environmental & Social Category A, necessitating an ESIA, ESMP, and corrective action plan to address legacy land-acquisition issues and ongoing environmental risks. However, civil society watchdogs like CLEAN and urgewald have raised alarm over potentially higher greenhouse gas emissions (estimated at 8.3 million tons CO₂ equivalent over 25 years), toxic air pollutants (dioxins, heavy metals), and poor waste-quality control, which may undermine Bangladesh’s climate commitments. Critics also point out that weak waste collection systems could threaten plant operations, while energy tariffs set at over twice the current cost may burden taxpayers. Local environmental groups have emphasized deficiencies in public consultation, community grievance mechanisms, and transparency—citing AIIB’s historical track record of excluding affected communities during project approvals. As Bangladesh seeks sustainable waste solutions, the North Dhaka WtE project's technical ambitions must be balanced with stronger social and environmental accountability to ensure it genuinely serves both urban sanitation and climate-resilient development. Read the AIIB Observer Volume 3 Balakot Hydropower Development Project COUNTRY: Pakistan APPROVED FUNDING: USD250 million FINANCING TYPE: Sovereign The Balakot Hydropower Project in Pakistan is a 300 MW run-of-river initiative on the Kunhar River, financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a $250 million sovereign loan alongside a $300 million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), intended to boost renewable energy generation (1143 GWh annually) and local employment. Despite its clean energy aims, the project has drawn widespread local backlash: residents and local councils are protesting ongoing land acquisition practices, demanding that affected families receive fair compensation, employment opportunities, and respect for ancestral sites—threatening to block major roads in response. Authorities have reportedly demolished structures and deployed police to protect Chinese engineers and workers amid community tensions. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government has also issued delay notices to contractors due to slow progress. Critics contend that although AIIB and ADB classify the project as environmentally sound under their frameworks, on-ground realities suggest weak community engagement, inadequate grievance redressal, and contested livelihood impacts. As such, Balakot offers a cautionary tale: major hydropower projects financed by global banks must pair technical and environmental standards with meaningful local accountability to avoid marginalizing host communities. Read the factsheet . Bangalore Metro Rail Project - Line R6 COUNTRY: India APPROVED FUNDING: USD335 million FINANCING TYPE: Sovereign The Bengaluru Metro’s ORR–Airport Line (Phases 2A and 2B), stretching 58.19 km from Central Silk Board to Kempegowda International Airport via KR Puram, is a transformative infrastructure project aimed at easing urban congestion and improving airport connectivity. Funded by a mix of public and external sources—including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and controversially, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—the project has drawn scrutiny from civil society organizations like Growthwatch, which have raised concerns over AIIB’s opaque financing practices and lack of strong accountability safeguards. While ADB has provided a $500 million loan and a $2 million grant to support inclusive, transit-oriented development, and JICA has offered ₹3,717 crore, AIIB’s growing footprint in Indian infrastructure is criticized for prioritizing geopolitical interests over local participation and environmental transparency. Construction began in 2021, with official targets set for completion by 2026, though delays—especially in Phase 2B—remain a concern. Growthwatch has also flagged issues with land acquisition, labor conditions, and the need for greater community consultation. Despite these challenges, the metro line is expected to benefit over 1.6 million daily commuters and reduce dependence on road transport. However, as Bengaluru’s transport infrastructure grows, the role of financial institutions like AIIB must be critically examined to ensure democratic oversight, equity, and long-term sustainability in urban development. Read - Growthwatch Letter to AIIB Derailed by the Accountability Ciap The Students of the Technical Training Centre for the Deaf (TTCD) in Bangalore, India Impact assessment of Bangalore Metro Rail Project (Reach 6) on vulnerable communities at the Cantonment Metro station BMRP & TTCD Narrative Bangladesh Bhola IPP COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD60 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The Bhola Independent Power Producer (IPP) project in Bangladesh is a 220 MW combined-cycle gas-fired power plant developed on Bhola Island by Nutan Bidyut (a subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji) under a Build-Own-Operate (BOO) model to address the country’s chronic power shortages. Co-financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—which approved a $60 million non-sovereign loan in 2018—alongside the Islamic Development Bank and local financiers, the project was expected to generate over 1.3 TWh of electricity annually and began commercial operations in late 2019. While AIIB classified the project as Category B, implying limited environmental and social risks, and adopted frameworks for resettlement and stakeholder consultation, civil society organizations have strongly contested this assessment. In particular, CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), working with BWGED and NGO Forum on ADB, has played a central role in documenting serious harms caused by the project—including coerced land acquisition, destruction of farmland, waterlogging, river siltation, loss of grazing lands, and the absence of meaningful consultation or grievance redress mechanisms. In 2022, CLEAN co-filed the first formal complaint to AIIB’s Project-Affected People’s Mechanism, directly challenging the bank’s risk classification and safeguard enforcement. These findings have been echoed by international media, including Climate Home News, which criticized AIIB’s continued investment in fossil gas projects like Bhola IPP while sidelining renewable alternatives. Beyond research, CLEAN has also mobilized civil society campaigns and public actions urging AIIB to stop fossil fuel financing and adopt community-driven, sustainable energy models. Critics argue that the Bhola IPP reflects deeper structural issues in AIIB’s development approach—namely, opaque financing, weak local accountability, and inadequate environmental and social protections—particularly in contexts where civic space is limited. As such, the Bhola case serves as a warning of how large-scale, fossil-intensive energy infrastructure can disproportionately burden marginalized communities, underscoring the urgent need for transparent, inclusive, and rights-based alternatives in global energy investment. Read: Lessons learned: Filing Bhola IPP complaint in AIIB’s project affected people’s mechanism Unique Meghnaghat IPP COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD110 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The Unique Meghnaghat Power Plant in Bangladesh is a 584 MW combined-cycle gas-fired facility located along the Meghna River near Narayanganj, developed to strengthen the country’s electricity supply. While framed as a modern and “transition-ready” energy project—with features like hydrogen capability—it has faced criticism from civil society groups due to its environmental and social impacts. The project involved the acquisition of more land than officially reported, including agricultural fields and riverside areas crucial to local fishing communities. Many affected families reportedly received compensation far below market value, and the construction has led to issues like sand deposition on farmland, blocked grazing routes, and restricted river access. Although supported by international lenders under the banner of clean and reliable energy, the project has raised serious concerns about long-term fossil fuel dependency and the marginalization of local voices. Critics argue that the plant represents a continuation of top-down energy planning that prioritizes investment returns over community well-being and ecological sustainability. Read: The Meghnaghat Power Plant: A Looming Burden on Bangladesh

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES БАНГЛАДЕШ БАНГЛАДЕШ Манбаъ: Бангладеш: Барномаи вокуниши фаъоли COVID-19 ва дастгирии хароҷот LATEST NEWS Read the latest COVID-19 Research produced by Freedom from Debt Coalition from the Philippines and NGO Forum on ADB. Download Download UPDATES 15 January 2022 PH foreign borrowings, grants vs COVID-19 hit P1.3T 22 December 2021 Philippines borrows at least P32.6 billion for COVID-19 booster, kids’ shots 19 November 2021 ADB approves $600-million loan for Philippines’ universal health care 29 April 2021 Govt to get $3.9-B loans from Asian Development Bank 23 March 2021 What you need to know about Duterte’s COVID-19 loans WEBINAR SERIES: PHILIPPINES Dr. Rene Ofreneo from Freedom from Debt Coalition discussed the government’s response to the Covid pandemic – a long-running quarantine program and a “four-pillar socio-economic strategy”. He later zeroed in on what is happening in the health and economic sectors and the situation of the citizenry, with a special focus on the situation of the Filipino working population and the country’s progress in containing the virus spread and in promoting resilient economic recovery.

Follow the AIIB energy campaign led by NGO Forum on ADB and allies, spotlighting civil society efforts to push the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank away from fossil fuels and toward just, community-centered renewable energy transitions. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА The Forum network maintains that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) ongoing support for fossil gas projects locks member countries into carbon-intensive energy systems and exposes them to global market volatility—an approach that is environmentally and economically irresponsible given AIIB’s limited resources and climate commitments (Urgewald, 2023; CLEAN & Forum on ADB, 2022). The network is also concerned that AIIB may increasingly shift toward high-risk sectors like large hydropower, waste-to-energy incineration, and geothermal, which have significant environmental and social costs. In particular, large hydro projects have a long record of displacing communities, damaging ecosystems, and generating conflict over land and water (International Rivers, 2021). The Forum calls for stricter financing criteria and meaningful consultation to ensure AIIB aligns with the goals of a just, community-centered energy transition. Read - Unpacking ADB and AIIB’s false narrative in COP29 Digital infrastructure for whom? Unpacking ADB and AIIB’s digital push AIIB Climate Advocacy Letter Critical Concerns on the Occasion of AIIB's Annual Meeting 2023 Open Statement on Collective Concerns Re: AIIB’s 2022 Energy Sector Strategy Update Re: Virtual Consultations Hosted by AIIB on the Energy Sector Strategy Update AIIB asked to go green, turn back on fossil fuels AIIB’s Extended Deadline for Public Input on the Energy Sector Strategy Update Collective Statement For the Energy Sector Strategy Update Collective Call for a New Forward-Looking AIIB Energy Sector Strategy Joint Submission by NGO Forum on ADB & Urgewald on the AIIB Environmental and Social Framework

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Latest News ADB Project Tracker Media Sign the 1M Petition The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Public Communications Policy (PCP) guides the ADB’s external relations when it comes to transparency and in its operations. The PCP, also known as the policy on information disclosure, intends to provide greater access to project information documents and related information. It ensures participation by project-affected people in the development intervention of the ADB in their respective communities. It mandates all project-related documents to be posted on the ADB’s website. Access to project-related information by local people allows them to participate actively and effectively in decision-making processes related to the development agenda of international financial institutions such as the ADB in their respective communities which could adversely affect the environment and disrupt their living conditions. Issues with the PCP Though it has been stating that it values transparency and is committed to increasing information disclosure, the ADB has fallen short on its commitment to respecting the rights of the people’s right to information. The PCP does not expressly recognize public access to information is a right. Experiences on the ground have shown that the Bank lacks both the political will and the resources to respect this right. Documents identified by the ADB as publicly available are only accessible through its website. This has prevented poor communities from getting project-related information since the internet facility remains a luxury for them. Civil society groups believe that this manifests the pro-business bias of the Bank’s disclosure policy. The PCP also provides a long list of exceptions. Not all exceptions identify the serious harm to a clearly and narrowly defined, and broadly accepted, an interest that is sought to be avoided by non-disclosure. Below are NGO forum on ADB's submission, communication, and other documents on its campaign on a just ADB PCP - 05 Apr 2018 | Joint Submission of NGO Forum on ADB and Both ENDS Comments on the 2nd draft of the Public Communications Policy 14 Jan 2018 | NGO Forum on ADB's Summary Comments on the PCP Review 28 Nov 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Summary Comments (meeting with PCP Review Team) 16 Jul 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the Review of the Public Communications Policy (PCP) 12 Jul 2017 | Summary of questions and comments during the country consultations 26 Mar 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's submission on PCP Review 23 Jul 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the review of the PCP (dated 17 July 2017) 17 Aug 2017 | Comments of NGO Forum on ADB on the draft staff instructions 30 Nov 2016 | NGO Forum on ADB Submission on the Draft Public Communications Policy of the Asian Development Bank 10 May 2016 | Public Communications Policy Review 04 May 2011 | NGOs warn ‘safety valve’ may impede ADB’s small success in transparency 13 Jan 2011 | ADB Must Clinch the Opportunity for Bolder PCP Reforms 22 Sep 2010 | Letter to PCP Review Team 31 Jan 2010 | Practice What You Preach 31 Jan 2009 | Statistical highlights on the Asian Development Bank’s Public Communications Policy Implementation (August 2005 to February 2009)