Explore how communities and civil society organizations engage with the AIIB’s Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM), with analysis from NGO Forum on ADB highlighting gaps in accessibility, transparency, and accountability in addressing project-related harms. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА The AIIB Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM) was established as the bank’s accountability framework to address complaints from communities harmed by AIIB-financed projects, aiming to provide redress and uphold the bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) commitments. However, civil society organizations have raised serious concerns about its accessibility, independence, and effectiveness. Since its inception in 2019, only a handful of cases have been formally registered—most notably, the 2022 complaint filed by CLEAN and the NGO Forum on ADB regarding the Bhola IPP project in Bangladesh, which alleged coerced land acquisition, environmental damage, and lack of consultation (CLEAN & Forum on ADB, 2022). Critics argue that procedural barriers—such as the requirement to exhaust project-level grievance mechanisms first—and vague timelines for response undermine the PPM’s credibility (Urgewald, 2023). Furthermore, the PPM is structurally embedded within AIIB’s management, raising doubts about its independence compared to more autonomous accountability mechanisms at institutions like the ADB or World Bank (Recourse, 2022). As AIIB expands its project portfolio, particularly in sectors like fossil gas, large hydro, and waste-to-energy, civil society advocates urge the bank to reform the PPM to ensure it can meaningfully serve communities affected by harmful infrastructure and to strengthen enforcement of safeguard violations, not merely mediate them. References: CLEAN & Forum on ADB. (2022). Formal complaint to AIIB on Bhola IPP project. https://www.forum-adb.org Recourse. (2022). Accountability in Multilateral Development Banks: Comparative Analysis. https://www.re-course.org Urgewald. (2023). AIIB Watch: North Dhaka Waste-to-Energy. https://www.urgewald.org FAQs on AIIB's PPM What is the PPM? The PPM is the AIIB’s accountability mechanism, created to address complaints from individuals or communities who believe they have been adversely affected by an AIIB-financed project. It is designed to uphold the bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). Who can file a complaint? Any two or more affected individuals (or their representative) who believe that an AIIB project has caused them harm related to environmental or social issues may submit a complaint to the PPM. What issues can the PPM investigate? The PPM can examine whether AIIB has failed to follow its own Environmental and Social Policy, leading to harm. It does not address corruption, procurement disputes, or policy disagreements. Is it independent of AIIB management? This is a point of contention. While the PPM is technically separate from project operations, it is structurally housed within AIIB’s management, unlike more independent mechanisms at other multilateral banks (Recourse, 2022). What’s the process for submitting a complaint? Complainants must first attempt to resolve issues through the Project-level Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). If unresolved, they can then file a request for compliance review or problem-solving with the PPM. Are there any real examples of PPM complaints? Yes. In 2022, civil society groups CLEAN and Forum on ADB filed the first known complaint against the Bhola IPP gas plant in Bangladesh, citing coerced land acquisition, waterlogging, and a lack of meaningful consultation (CLEAN & Forum on ADB, 2022). What are the limitations of the PPM? Civil society organizations have raised several concerns: Difficult access and awareness for affected communities Delays and vague response timelines Requirement to first exhaust local remedies Lack of structural independence from AIIB Outcomes that may lack enforcement power What reforms are being demanded? Forumnetwork call for the PPM to be: More independent from AIIB management Easier to access for marginalized communities More transparent, with timely responses Able to enforce remedies and monitor compliance Read - NGO Forum on ADB’s Comments on the AIIB Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) Civil Society Open Letter to IAMNet - A Call to Defend the Independence of IAMs NGO Forum on ADB Joint Submission, AIIB ESF Review Phase 2 NGO Forum on ADB, AIIB ESF Review Phase 1 Input Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) Paper on the Accountability 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 WATCH Information Disclosure of Multilateral Development Banks in the New Era 6 May 2017 | Yokohama, Japan

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

ЗАХИРАХО 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 декабр сентябр июн март 2019 декабр сентябр июн март Дар ҷустуҷӯи як масъалаи кӯҳнаи Bankwatch? Нусхаи онро аз secretariat[at]forum-adb.org пурсед.

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.

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES БАНГЛАДЕШ БАНГЛАДЕШ Манбаъ: Бангладеш: Барномаи вокуниши фаъоли COVID-19 ва дастгирии хароҷот 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

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 WATCH Unpacking the Delivery of ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement 8 May 2019 | Nadi, Fiji 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. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 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. МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 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 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 ADB Safeguard Spotlight The Story of ADB Safeguards Related Documents ADB Project Tracker COVID19 Loan Tracker The Asian Development Bank (ADB) recently concluded its review of the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), a framework designed to prevent harm to communities and the environment from development projects. While the review aimed to address emerging challenges and align with international best practices, civil society organizations (CSOs), notably NGO Forum on ADB, have expressed concerns about the process and outcomes. NGO Forum on ADB, a network monitoring ADB's projects and policies, actively engaged in the safeguard policy review process. They, along with other CSOs, raised issues regarding the draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), highlighting shortcomings such as - Lack of clear accountability mechanisms Insufficient stakeholder engagement Absence of a human rights-based approach Weakened environmental and social protections Dilution of gender considerations Inadequate climate change standards Opaque financial intermediary lending practices These organizations urged the ADB to overhaul the draft ESF to ensure it reflects forward-looking safeguards grounded in international human rights and environmental standards. NGO Forum on ADB emphasized the need for the ADB to prioritize the well-being of affected communities and the environment over the interests of private sectors and borrowing governments. They called for meaningful consultations, transparency, and robust human rights protections in ADB's operations. As the ADB moves forward with implementing the updated safeguard policies, it is imperative that the bank listens to the voices of affected communities and civil society organizations. Strengthening environmental and social safeguards is essential to ensure that development projects contribute to equitable and sustainable outcomes, rather than exacerbating existing inequalities or environmental degradation. Why Engage with Safeguards? Engaging with ADB's safeguard policies is crucial for ensuring that development projects do not harm communities or the environment. Active participation by civil society and affected communities can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes. By understanding and monitoring safeguard implementation, stakeholders can hold ADB and its clients accountable, ensuring that projects adhere to agreed-upon standards and genuinely contribute to development goals. Overview of ADB's Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) The SPS outlines ADB's commitment to - Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts of projects. Enhance environmental and social benefits. Support borrowers in strengthening their safeguard systems and implementation capacity. The SPS applies to all ADB-financed and/or ADB-administered projects, including private-sector operations. Key Safeguard Areas Environment - Projects must avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Environmental assessments are required, and information must be disclosed to stakeholders. Involuntary Resettlement - The policy aims to avoid involuntary resettlement where possible. When unavoidable, it ensures that displaced persons receive assistance to improve or at least restore their livelihoods and standards of living. Indigenous Peoples - ADB seeks to ensure that Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits from projects and that adverse impacts are avoided or mitigated. Country Safeguard Systems (CSS) ADB may use a country's existing safeguard systems for project implementation, provided they are equivalent to ADB's SPS and adequately implemented. This approach aims to strengthen and use the borrower's systems for managing environmental and social risks. Recent Developments ADB is currently reviewing and updating its SPS to address emerging challenges and align with international best practices. The review process includes consultations with stakeholders to enhance protections related to climate change, gender-based violence, disability inclusion, and other areas. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

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 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 1991 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 1994 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 1997 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2000 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2004 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2008 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2011 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2016 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2018 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2020 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2022 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР). Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР бори аввал ба сифати Гурӯҳи кории ТҒД (NWG) дар БОР таъсис дода шуд. 2023 1988 Эътилофи созмонҳои ҷамъиятии Осиё барои ислоҳоти аграрӣ ва рушди деҳот (ANGOC) ва Институти сиёсати экологӣ (EPI) ба шарикӣ ворид шуда, масъалаҳои марбут ба Бонки бисёрҷонибаи Рушд (БРБ), тамаркуз оид ба Бонки Осиёии Рушд (БОР).

ADB Energy Policy Countdown Letters to ADB Board Members This campaign unites local groups and allies to send coordinated, collective letters to ADB Board members as part of the ongoing Energy Policy review. By acting together, we create visible pressure on decision-makers, showing that concern for responsible energy policy is widespread and urgent. This pressure is crucial because it encourages the Board to prioritize public interest, climate action, and accountability, increasing the chances that the draft will reflect these priorities before it is finalized. Send Your Letter 1. Choose and download the letter that fits your focus Depending on your campaign focus, you can target your letter to the most relevant decision-makers at the ADB. This could be the Executive Director (ED) and Alternate Executive Director (AED) representing your country, or the ED and AED responsible for the specific project you are monitoring. Selecting the right recipients ensures that your message reaches the people with the authority to influence the policy or project, making your advocacy more effective. By Country (for Board of Directors and their alternates) Australia / Azerbaijan / Cambodia / Georgia / Hong Kong, China / Kiribati / Federated States of Micronesia / Nauru / Palau / Solomon Islands / Tuvalu Canada / Denmark / Finland / Ireland / The Netherlands / Norway / Sweden Austria / Germany / Luxembourg / Turkey / United Kingdom Armenia / Cook Islands / Fiji / Indonesia / Kyrgyz Republic / New Zealand / Niue / Samoa / Tonga Republic of Korea / Papua New Guinea / Sri Lanka / Taipei, China / Uzbekistan / Vanuatu / Vietnam Kazakhstan / Maldives / Marshall Islands / Mongolia / Pakistan / Philippines / Timor-Leste Belgium / France / Italy / Portugal / Spain / Switzerland/Israel Japan Afghanistan / Bangladesh / Bhutan / India / Lao People's Democratic Republic / Tajikistan / Turkmenistan Brunei Darussalam / Malaysia / Myanmar / Nepal / Singapore / Thailand United States People's Republic of China By Theme. You can select a letter based on the specific theme or issue you want to emphasize. Each letter is addressed to the Board of Directors, ADB, but you can choose which individual Board member(s) to send it to—whether it’s your country’s ED and AED or those responsible for a project you are monitoring. The available themes are Nuclear Energy Critical Minerals False Energy Solutions & Energy Transition Mechanisms (ETM) Strengthening Coal Prohibition Waste-to-Energy 2. Customize Your Letter. Fill out the two sections below the PDF and click Save. 3. Copy and paste the text below into your email - Dear Executive Director/Alternate Executive Director, We are writing to share our letter regarding the ongoing ADB Energy Policy review. We hope that you will take our perspectives into account as the Board considers the draft policy. Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. 4. Attach your PDF Letter 5. Send your letter to your intended recipient using your organization’s (or your own) official work email. Send us a short email letting us know which ADB ED or AED you want to send your letter to, and we will provide you with the correct contact address. Do not share the ADB Board of Directors’ emails publicly—unauthorized circulation may violate privacy rules. The information is intended for your personal use only to ensure your letter reaches the right decision-maker. Don't hesitate to get in touch with Denn (dennis@forum-adb.org ) or Jen (jen@forum-adb.org ), and they will give you the information. Send your letters by October 3, 2025 — when the Board will review the Draft ADB Energy Policy for approval