Search Results

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

Monitoring ADB’s actions in Asia-Pacific to fight harmful projects, protect communities, and ensure sustainable, people-centered development. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More MEKONG Read More CENTRAL ASIA Read More

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

Explore ADB Safeguard Violations in Energy Projects This interactive page provides a visual overview of safeguard violations linked to ADB–funded energy projects in South Asia. How to use this dashboard? Click on any item—such as a country, safeguard category, or type of violation—to view detailed project information and related issues. Click the same item again to return to the full regional overview. Use the filters and visual tools to explore where and how safeguard breaches have occurred in ADB’s energy portfolio across South Asia. ADB Energy Investments In South Asia Next

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. 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

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. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Latest News Latest Events/Activities The Forum network takes the position that locking member countries into reliance on new fossil fuel infrastructure, subject to volatile international markets, is no less than an environmentally, socially, and economically irresponsible investment choice given the ADB's limited resources (both in terms of financing for direct projects and technical advice as well as intermediary financial support). The network remains vigilant that the ADB will now target problematic projects such as large hydro, waste-to-energy incinerators, and geothermal for future finance. The Forum also advocates for restricting the criteria for financing Large hydro projects which have severe impacts on local communities in terms of displacement and environmental destruction.

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

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 ADB Safeguard Spotlight The Story of ADB Safeguards Related Documents ADB Project Tracker COVID19 Loan Tracker In 2024, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is amidst Phase 3 of its process for revising the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), presenting the first draft of the W paper after two years of consultations. However, the draft falls significantly short of expectations, failing to ensure robust environmental and social safeguarding. The draft ESF’s ‘Vision’ does not commit to the fundamental principle of ‘Do No Harm’ in ADB operations. This omission reflects the disregard for feedback from consultations. Terms like 'materially consistent', 'timely', and 'where applicable' are used ambiguously throughout the document, undermining environmental and social safeguarding accountability. These terms should be replaced with clear, mandatory, and time-bound standards. Despite investing over 40 million USD in Country Safeguard Systems over the past decade, the ADB has not demonstrated successful application of these systems for SPS 2009 implementation. This underscores the need for stringent implementation of the SPS 2009 and the new ESF. Financing should not be approved if borrower systems are less stringent, and any flexibility in applying these systems must be revoked from the ESF. The ESF should prioritize avoiding harm and restoring affected communities and environments to pre-project conditions or better. Its objective should not be aligned with green economic growth, which other ADB policies cover. The ESF must act as a safeguard to prevent and mitigate environmental and social risks comprehensively and on time. The draft ESF introduces the Mitigation Hierarchy without definition and omits critical components such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA). These assessments are central to the SPS 2009 but are absent in the 170-page document, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed framework. The ESF draft fails to clarify the ADB Project Cycle and its approach to addressing project-related harms. The proposed Common Approach for Co-Financing with other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) lacks commitment to the highest safeguard standards, potentially allowing lower standards to prevail. ADB must ensure the highest social and environmental standards for both standalone and co-financed projects. The draft includes problematic provisions like the treatment of Associated Facilities (AF), which are allowed to circumvent the ESF, contrary to the SPS 2009 policy. Moreover, the ESF is gender-blind, failing to address the fundamental rights and risks faced by women in project-affected areas. Binding language is needed to ensure gender safeguarding from the project design stage throughout the project cycle. Given these significant shortcomings, a full overhaul of the current draft ESF is essential. The ADB Board and Management must revisit the drawing board before finalizing the policy. The subsequent sections of this critique provide detailed analysis and specific concerns raised by civil society and labor organizations, urging a more robust and effective ESF. This comprehensive critique underscores the urgent need for the ADB to strengthen its commitment to environmental and social safeguarding in its revised ESF to ensure sustainable and equitable development outcomes.

Track civil society engagement and critical perspectives around the AIIB Annual Meeting, with insights from NGO Forum on ADB highlighting concerns over fossil fuel financing, lack of accountability, and the need for inclusive, rights-based development in AIIB’s operations. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Civil society engagement with the AIIB Annual Meetings has remained limited, fragmented, and largely symbolic—despite the bank’s public commitment to transparency and inclusive dialogue. While AIIB has opened some space for civil society to attend side events and submit questions, these forums often lack genuine responsiveness or avenues for influence. NGO Forum on ADB network have mobilized parallel events and issued joint statements to challenge AIIB’s financing of fossil fuel infrastructure, waste-to-energy incinerators, and large hydropower projects that frequently ignore the rights and voices of affected communities. The AIIB Annual Meetings are often criticized for prioritizing image management over accountability, with little space for grassroots concerns to shape policy or project design. Civil society continues to call for institutional reforms that would allow for more meaningful engagement, better access to project data, and stronger mechanisms for communities to be heard. Without these changes, AIIB’s Annual Meetings risk becoming performative exercises that fail to reflect the realities on the ground. Read - Civil society engagement and issues of concern regarding meaningful participation at the AIIB Annual Meeting 2024 Boycott of AIIB Annual Meeting 2024 due to lack of meaningful civil society engagement Critical Concerns on the Occasion of AIIB's Annual Meeting 2023 Raising Critical Concerns on the Occasion of AIIB’s Annual Meeting 2022 Key issues regarding the AIIB Annual Meeting 2021 Letter Civil society reflections on AIIB's 5th annual meeting (virtual), 2020 CSO's request for a meaningful dialogue in the Annual Meeting 2019 NGO Forum on ADB Statement to the AIIB President and management 2017 Press Statement of NGO Forum on ADB on the First AIIB Annual Meeting 2016 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА The AIIB Observer, published by the NGO Forum on ADB, serves as a sharp-edged watchdog newsletter highlighting contested AIIB investments—such as hydropower, waste-to-energy incineration, and fossil fuel infrastructure—and demanding accountability from the bank. Its latest edition called for a boycott of the AIIB’s Annual Meeting in Uzbekistan, arguing that AIIB consistently sidelines affected communities and reduces civic dialogue to PR theater. The Observer spotlights specific projects—like forced displacement in Indonesia’s Mandalika tourism zone, continued fossil energy investments through capital markets, and the controversial Rogun Mega‑Dam—and brings to light a joint societal call from over 30 organizations to reform the AIIB’s Project‑Affected People’s Mechanism. Ultimately, the publication contends that without genuine openness, responsive grievance processes, and community empowerment, AIIB risks perpetuating environmentally destructive and socially harmful development under the guise of promoting sustainable infrastructure. Beijing 2025 Samarkand 2024 Sharm El-Sheikh 2023