Search Results

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

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

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

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

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 Civil Society Input and Recommendations on the Stakeholder Engagement Plan Transparent and meaningful consultation guided by international practice is a cornerstone of good governance and informed decision-making. It also embeds a sense of ownership into the development process. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have developed frameworks to strengthen their stakeholder engagement in the recent years. Moreover, the World Bank and EBRD have developed standalone policies and requirements for what constitutes a meaningful stakeholder consultation and engagement. It is imperative that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) strengthens its overall approach to ensure stakeholder engagement is inclusive, transparent and robust. Colleagues who had attended the virtual information sharing session on April 12 and 13 of 2021 organized by the SDCC Department of the ADB and the Consultation Team argued that the webinar formatting chosen had felt disempowering and disengaging. This is because the online format did not allow for full transparency on the participant list of the meeting and the relevant questions asked during the various sessions. This inaccessibility to the participant list is of major concern to stakeholder groups such as civil society organizations (CSOs) and human rights defenders who face a significant risk of retaliation under oppressive regimes. We, as representatives of CSOs, trade unions, and communities around the world hold this review process with utmost importance and attentiveness. While the Bank’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) presents promising reforms, we are disconcerted that the current approach outlined in the present draft has not reflected international good practice and remains amiss on a number of salient issues. Collectively, we raise these points before the process leads to an SPS with tremendous substantial and procedural problems when the current demand is to reform toward international laws, standards, and norms. In pursuit of the shared objective of reforming the safeguard system, we forward our key recommendations: Include a definition of Meaningful Consultation underpinned by duly established policy and practice. The SEP outlines that it is based on “firm principles of meaningful consultation…”(pg.3). Meaningful Consultation should not be organized in a pro forma manner to ‘check a box or to meet an internal requirement. It should be underpinned by a clear matrix that upholds the utmost importance of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) prerequisite criterion recognised in the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and supported by genuine consideration for stakeholders’ views and concerns. We are requesting that the term ‘Meaningful Consultation’ in the SEP be asserted by a clear definition and matrix which draws on duly established policy and practice. A clear definition of Meaningful Consultation can be found in the Safeguards Policy Statement Glossary and states that it is “A process that (i) begins early in the project preparation stage and is carried out on an ongoing basis throughout the project cycle; (ii) provides timely disclosure of relevant and adequate information that is understandable and readily accessible to affected people; (iii) is undertaken in an atmosphere free of intimidation or coercion; (iv) is gender-inclusive and responsive, and tailored to the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and (v) enables the incorporation of all relevant views of affected people and other stakeholders into decision makings, such as project design, mitigation measures, the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, and implementation issues.” This definition should underpin the Safeguards Policy Review and Update (SPRU) and the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). Outline a clear, unambiguous plan on offline mechanisms for consultation. The current SEP Draft recognizes inaccessibility to online means of communication for many stakeholders and makes an effort to mention offline mechanisms for consultation. This is not supported by a clear plan of how these stakeholders groups will be reached for consultation, nor does the SEP make clear the schedule for the offline consultations, or the countries it would take place. Good practices of meaningful consultation warrant having an inclusive space for multi-stakeholder engagement. This includes ensuring that prior information is given to the stakeholder group (community or CSOs) in a clear, time-bound manner, and in a language that is easily understandable. To modernize the policy and make sure it upholds the highest social and environmental standards, efforts must be made to consult with Project Affected Persons (PAPs) through offline mechanisms. We urge the Bank to take this into consideration and clearly outline the list of countries it aims to hold offline consultation. Due diligence must be given specifically to projects which have gone into compliance review. Avoid reliance on demand-driven consultation. Demand-driven consultation plans will prove to be problematic as various key thematic dialogues may not be held unless civil society groups themselves proactively reach out to the ADB SDCC and the Consultation Team. The first question which arises is whether the ADB SDCC will be able to conduct a comprehensive outreach on the SEP at the national and global level to ensure that thematic and remote groups across various cultures, languages, and political contexts are aware of the ‘demand driven’ stipulations? In the current context of the pandemic, this seems very unlikely. Without a prescribed list of thematic consultations announced for each country and region, the chances of getting specialized groups to organize dialogue with ADB SDCC on their own volition without compromising their exposure to risk and scrutiny will also be a deterrent for them stepping forward. We strongly recommend the removal of the ‘demand driven’ approach as it potentially passes the burden of convening the consultation solely on the stakeholder and not on the ADB SDCC, the department responsible for convening and managing this update process. There is also a need for wider outreach on direct engagements via different communication formats, including traditional media in case of offline events. Heavy reliance on online means of communication such as social media and websites to advertise for consultation risks losing the critical voices of PAPs and communities living in remote areas. We urge the Bank to make active and reasonable efforts to include traditional means of media such as newspapers and national television advertisements in their communication plan. Meaningfully engage with young people in the consultation process. Consultations with children and young people are important about their experiences, and therefore need to be set up in a child-friendly manner that promotes the rights and respect of the child in a sensitive manner. There should be age-appropriate targeting in terms of setup, information, and messaging as well as promoting participation and inclusivity. For best practices see the Save the Children Child Consultation Toolkit . Include the Private Sector Operations Department in its internal consultation process. The ADB has announced, in its Strategy 2030, an expansion of its private sector portfolio to reach one-third of total Bank operations by 2024. Private sector operations are riddled with noncompliance, transparency, and lack of information disclosure. We have witnessed the death of 6 workers in the PSOD-led project, Nam Ngiep 1, in Laos due to failures in labor safeguarding. Similarly, the Tata Mundra Coal Project led by PSOD had critically endangered marine ecosystems and displaced thousands of local fishermen in 2014. It is imperative that ADB SDCC takes a critical look at ensuring consultations between CSOs and PSOD staff and their respective borrowing clients and subcontractors in the course of this SEP and SPRU. The OHCHR Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should lie at the heart of this dialogue between the Bank, private sector, and CSOs. Publicize ALL consultation comments and extend the timeline for commenting to 60 days. The SEP mentions that a summary of consultation comments will be disclosed on the SPRU webpage for two weeks. In the absence of a clear matrix on how summaries are prepared, We as CSOs are concerned that this will obscure some of the salient comments and recommendations received during the consultation process. Access to full consultation comments should be made available in addition to the summary of consultation comments to ensure full transparency. We are also requesting that the timeline for commenting is extended to 60 days to make sure that relevant stakeholders groups with minimal comprehension of the English language are able to translate the documents and submit their comments. Extend the timeline for commenting on the draft W-paper and the R-paper and subsequent revisions to a period of two months/ 60 days respectively. Good practices on meaningful consultation stipulate that stakeholders should be given sufficient time to review the information across regions and countries before being asked to express their views. Meaningful inclusion of more urgent safeguards issues supported by coherent analytical studies. We welcome the broadening of the themes to include labor, climate change, and sexual abuse and harassment in the list of analytical studies as a response to the progressing international laws, standards and norms. We urge the Bank to avoid the reliance on the blanket term of ‘vulnerability’ and misuse of terminologies such as ‘crosscutting’ to assess the varying risks affecting different groups such as peoples with disabilities, sexual and gender diverse groups, and children. Due diligence must be given to: Risk of reprisals. The silencing of critical voices through reprisals and retaliations - or the fear thereof - seriously calls into question the possibilities for a consultation to be meaningful: when these critical voices are coming from the ground and would be communicating operational risks, a climate of fear puts operations at risk, too. Similar to the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the ADB needs to have a clear zero tolerance position against reprisals, either as part of the SEP or as a more general statement that the SEP is bound by. In order to operationalise this zero tolerance position, the SEP needs to go beyond just alluding to it in reference to PAPs. It needs to commit to (1) carrying out contextual risks assessments, for all the different contexts in which consultations will be taking place with people deemed to potentially be at risk, looking particularly at reprisal risks, (2) devising measures to mitigate risks identified and finally it needs to include a (3) reprisal response protocol that seeks to use the leverage the bank has to address any reprisal that may occur. Human rights. Despite the IED evaluation recommendation that “the modernized SPS should also clarify the safeguard components of other key ADB objectives, which have increased in importance since the SPS, such as climate risk mitigation and adaptation, disaster risk management, the needs of disabled people, human rights, and supply chains” as well as the increasing human rights challenges and risks in the region, the SEP makes no mention of addressing anything related to human rights. We recommend a dedicated analytical study as well as consultations on the safeguard components of human rights. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a set of guidelines for States and companies to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses committed in business operations. In 2020, the United Nations Global Compact announced support for mandatory human rights due diligence. The same year, the IGWG developed the second draft of an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Currently, hundreds of large businesses, associations & investors in the EU have supported mandatory human rights due diligence legislation. It demonstrates an increasing demand to address human rights in development projects, which the ADB can not ignore. Risk Categorization. The current SEP list of thematic issues for analytical studies should include an evaluation on ADBs Risk Categorization decision making and implementation practice. As per the IEDs findings the ADBs current categorization process lacks a comprehensive risk-based approach. This leads to arbitrary risk assignment. Unless Quality at Entry documentation of a project such as EIA,IEE, SIA, IPSA have gone through layers of independent checks, arbitrary risk assessment and consequent categorization will remain a structural flaw. We urge the Bank to review the Effectiveness of the 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement for an understanding of the historic and systemic flaws plaguing Risk categorisation at the project level. A need for clear distinction between financing modalities and special issues. As outlined before, MDBs such as the ADB have cited their increased focus on promoting transparency in development financing. However, decades of CSO monitoring of private sector & FI Operations by CSOs have shown a lack of transparency. The current scope and objectives of the ‘Financing modalities and special issues’ study does not clearly define what aspects of financing modalities are being assessed adequately. Project implementation in fragile and conflict affected situations (FCAS) and small island developing states (SIDS) is an important issue which should be given due consideration and therefore we urge the Bank to make a clear distinction in its engagement and analytical approach. 11. Maintain resolute consistency with Human Rights Principles. Meaningful stakeholder consultation is enshrined in the international human rights architecture and elucidated across various conventions, resolutions, and declarations. ILO Convention 169 (1989) which deals exclusively with Indigenuous Peoples states that “they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programs… which may affect them directly.” These principles were affirmed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP 2007) which upholds and emphasizes on the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) prerequisite criterion. Similar principles were also outlined for other groups including The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child which elucidates that “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. ADB should ensure that the financed projects don’t contribute to human rights abuses violations, assaults on local communities and human rights defenders, and shrinking civil society space. The Bank should incorporate in their SEP a clear strategy on Human Rights to protect communities, Indigenous Peoples, and human rights defenders, and enhance public participation. This strategy should detail how human rights risks and impacts are considered, prevented and mitigated at all stages of the project-cycle, with special attention given to fragile and conflict-affected settings. The strategy should clearly spell out how the Bank will promote and implement a human rights-based approach among its stakeholders, clients and counterparts. In order to achieve that, ADB should employ sound human rights due diligence at project level, undertake Human Rights assessments, quick response mechanisms and numerous already available Human Rights tools. The Bank should consult with relevant stakeholders on best approaches to make the requirements for HR protection part of the client’s obligation under the new Safeguards Policy. 12. Ensure safe and free from retaliation space for the stakeholders to raise their concerns under the consultations process. Comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation plan should be developed for every online and offline event of stakeholder engagement, considering the national and/or group-specific context. The participants, in particular, the affected persons and communities should be properly informed about any potential risks and mitigation measures developed by the ADB to ensure their security.

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

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.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT History Network Structure International Committee International Secretariat FAQ Райян Хасан Мудири иҷроия Райян Ҳасан шаҳрванди Бангладеш аст ва мудири феълии Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР мебошад. Вай дорои маълумот дар омӯзиши муҳити зист ( NSU, Дакка, Бангладеш ) ва магистр дар тағирот ва рушди иҷтимоӣ ( UOW, Австралия ). Ҳоло ӯ дар риштаи доктори илмҳои сиёсӣ дар донишгоҳ таҳсил мекунад Донишгоҳи Филиппин дар Дилиман , вақте ки ӯ шабакаи Форум ва маъракаҳои онро назорат мекунад. Ҳамчун як ҳимоятгари ҷомеаи шаҳрвандӣ, ӯ мунтазам бо сиёсатмадорон дар БОР ва AIIB ва саҳмиядорони асосии онҳо; масъаладои чамъиятро ба мадди ав-вали мубодисадои тараддй додан. Тавассути дастгирӣ ва роҳнамоии Кумитаи Байналмилалии Форум, ӯ пайвастан ба иттиҳодҳои навро идома медиҳад ва бо гурӯҳҳои ҷомеаи шаҳрвандӣ дар платформаҳои маҳаллӣ, минтақавӣ ва ҷаҳонӣ маъракаҳо мегузаронад. Кори ӯ дар Форум дар таъкиди аҳамияти адолати экологӣ ва иҷтимоӣ ва масъулияти ММБ устувор боқӣ мемонад. Шумо метавонед бо ӯ дар rayyan [дар] forum-adb.org тамос гиред. ҶЕН ДЕРИЛЛО Ҳамоҳангсози барнома оид ба алоқа Ҷен зиёда аз 15 сол ҳамчун профессори донишгоҳ кор кардааст. Донишгоҳи Политехникии Филиппин, Коллеҷи Сан Себастиан-Реколетос, Коллеҷи ҳикмати илоҳӣ, Донишгоҳи Адамсон, Коллеҷи Ангеликум ва Коллеҷи Рӯҳулқудс аз ҷумлаи муассисаҳои таълимӣ мебошанд, ки ӯ имкон дошт бо онҳо ҳамроҳ шавад. Аввалин дучори кори рушд бо ӯ буд Филиппин Misereor Partnership Inc. воқеъ дар Манила, Филиппин. Вай дараҷаи иртиботи пахши Донишгоҳи Политехникии Филиппин дорад ва дараҷаи магистр дар соҳаи коммуникатсия ва инчунин фарҳанги ВАО аз Донишгоҳи Маастрихт , Нидерландия. Ҳоло ӯ дараҷаи магистрии худро дар соҳаи антропологияи фарҳангӣ ва таҳқиқоти рушд аз он ба итмом мерасонад KU Leuven, Белгия . Барои дидани портфели ӯ лутфан клик кунед Ин ҷо. Шумо метавонед ба ӯ дар тамос шавед ҷен [дар] forum-adb.org. ТАНЯ ЛИ РОБЕРТС-ДЕВИС Стратегияи маъракаҳои энергетикӣ Якҷоя бо аъзоён ва иттифоқчиёни Форум, Таня барои тағир додани сиёсати энергетикӣ ва маблағгузории БОР ва AIIB кор мекунад, ки аз имконоти васеъмиқёс, захираҳои серталаб ва ба сӯзишвории истихроҷшуда вобаста аст. Дар тӯли чанд сол, вай як қисми гурӯҳҳои ҷамъиятӣ, созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ ва ҳаракатҳои иҷтимоӣ буд, ки аз муассисаҳои молиявӣ ва корпоратсияҳои фаромиллӣ барои зарар ва беадолатӣ ба ҷомеаҳо ва экосистемаҳои маҳаллӣ масъулият талаб мекунанд. Дар гузашта, вай инчунин бо аъзоёни Форум ва дастаи котибот барои баррасии портфели энергетикии БОР кор кардааст, брифингҳои сиёсӣ навиштааст ва ба талошҳои тарғиботӣ дар қароргоҳи БОР дар Манила саҳм гузоштааст. Таня дараҷаи бакалавриро дар омӯзиши феминистӣ ва сиёсати ҷаҳонишавӣ дар Канада, магистр дар Қонуни байналмилалии ҳуқуқи инсон дар Донишгоҳи Созмони Милали Муттаҳид барои сулҳ дар Коста-Рика ва LLM дар соҳаи ҳуқуқҳои иқтисодӣ, иҷтимоӣ ва фарҳангӣ дар Донишгоҳи Мактаби Эссексро хатм кардааст. қонун дар Британияи Кабир. Шумо метавонед ба вай расед дар таня [дар] forum-adb.org. SARMIN BRISTY Project Data AnalysT ДЕННИС ПУЛ Корманди алоқа ва дастгирии ВАО Деннис дар радио, чоп, рӯйдодҳо ва маркетинг таҷриба дорад. Хатмкардаи риштаи иртибототи Коллеҷи ҳикмати илоҳӣ, пеш аз Форум, муҳаррири мудирияти Remate News Online буд ва дар он ҷо ба азнавташкилдиҳӣ ва такмили шӯъбаи ахбори онлайн сарварӣ мекард. Вай инчунин дар ребрендинги шӯъбаи ахбори онлайн муҳим аст. Вай инчунин дар ифтитоҳи шӯъбаи ахбори рақамии RMN News Online кӯмак кардааст. Денн собиқ директори иҷроияи миллии Садои ҷавонон , як созмони ҷавонон буд, ки тавассути иттилоот, илҳомбахшӣ, ҷалб ва тавонмандсозии ҷавонон ба тағйироти мусбати иҷтимоӣ мусоидат мекунад. Денн инчунин як радиои ботаҷриба барои барномаҳои гуногуни радиои ҷавонон дар DZXL RMN, DZIQ, DWDD ва Brigada News FM мебошад. Вай инчунин як сухангӯи ҳавасмандкунандаест, ки дар суханронии оммавӣ, пахши радио ва бренди шахсӣ барои шуғли тарафаш тахассус дорад. Шумо метавонед ба ӯ дар тамос шавед Деннис [дар] forum-adb.org. ХАЙРИЯИ КАНТИЛО-ДЕЛА ТОРРЕ Ҳамоҳангсози маъмурӣ ва молиявӣ Хайрия ё Лала моҳи июли соли 2003 ба Форум ҳамроҳ шуд. Вай тақрибан бист сол таҷрибаи корӣ дар рушди иҷтимоӣ дорад. Лала қисми он буд GABRIELA , ташкилоти чатронаи гурӯҳҳои занон аз бахшҳои гуногун, аз соли 1991 то 1993. Вай бо Бунёди Канлунган, Inc. , як маркази бӯҳронии муҳоҷирон, аз соли 1993 то 2000. Лала инчунин дар муддати кӯтоҳ бо Ҳаракати деҳот ва барқарорсозии Филиппин (PRRM). Шумо метавонед ба ӯ дар тамос шавед lcantillo [дар] forum-adb.org. Патрисия Родульфа Симон Корманди маъмурӣ ва молия Патрисия Родулфа Саймон дар давоми шаш соли охир дар Форум буд. Вай а хатмкардаи BS муҳосибӣ ва мудирият ва молияи шабака мебошад. Вай хондан, ихтиёрӣ карданро дӯст медорад ва масъалаҳои компютерӣ/технологиро ҷолиб меҳисобад. Шумо метавонед ба Патти дар Патти (дар) расед forum-adb.org.

Клик кунед ИН ҶО БА ЁРӢ Мо гузоришҳои нигаронкунанда мегирем, ки ҷамоатҳои аз лоиҳаи БОР ва AIIB зарардида дар саросари Осиё, бахусус Осиёи Ҷанубӣ ва Осиёи Ҷанубу Шарқӣ дар ҳолати мутлақи бӯҳрон қарор доранд . Аз сабаби муҳосираи маҷбурӣ, онҳо кор надоранд ва дастрасӣ ба антисептикҳо ва маводи ғизоӣ надоранд. Онҳоро ба пандемияи COVID-19 комилан дучор ва осебпазир мегузоранд. Ҷавобҳои давлат суст ва дар баъзе мавридҳо вуҷуд надоранд. Аъзоёни мо тамоми кори аз дасташон меомадаро мекунанд, то ба онҳо маводи асосии заруриро дастрас кунанд, аммо сарфи назар аз саъю кӯшишҳои онҳо, захираҳо зиёданд ва бисёр чизҳои дигар лозиманд. Мо ҳоло ба кӯмаки шумо ниёз дорем. ФОНДИ ҶАМЪИЯТИИ КОРҲОИ ФАВКУЛОДИИ COVID-19 Дар бораи Фонди ҳолатҳои фавқулодда Гирандагон Дастгирӣ Навсозиҳо Top ДАР БОРАИ ФОНДИ ФАВКУЛОДДА Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ дар Кумитаи байналмилалии БОР (КБ) тасмим гирифт, ки Фонди изтирории ҷомеаи COVID-19-ро таъсис диҳад. Ин ҳамчун воситаи нақлиёт барои ҷамъоварии маблағ барои кӯмаки изтирорӣ истифода мешавад, пас ин хоҳад буд тавассути созмонҳои аъзои мо ба ҷамоатҳои аз лоиҳа зарардида тақсим карда мешавад. Бо захираҳои кофӣ ва рӯҳияи ихтиёрӣ Форуми ТҒД оид ба БОР умедвор аст, ки он метавонад ба ҷамъоварии маблағ ва фиристодани кӯмак пайваста идома диҳад. Аммо ин ҳама кӯмаки шуморо талаб мекунад. МЕДОНЕД ДАСТГИРИИ ШУМО КУЧО МЕШАВАД Бозгашт ба боло About Recipients КИ ДАСТГИРЙ МЕГИРАД Вобаста аз маблағи хайрияе, ки ҷамъоварӣ мешавад, Форуми ТҒД оид ба БОР ба дастгирии 1) ҷамоатҳои аз лоиҳа зарардида, ки аз БОР ва/ё лоиҳаҳои фаъоли AIIB зарар дидаанд; ва 2) шарикони маҳаллии Форум, ки ҳамзамон вокуниши фаврии COVID-19-ро анҷом медиҳанд (масалан, интиқоли ғизо, расонидани хадамоти нақлиёт ба кормандони соҳаи тиб ва ғ.). Форум тавассути дастгирии пулии зикршуда ба СҶШ-ҳои шарик мегузарад. Маблағе, ки бояд ба СҶШ-ҳои шарик хайрия карда шавад, инчунин вобаста ба миқёс ва/ё шумораи хонаводаҳои зарардида фарқ мекунад. Кӯмаки пулии зикршуда барои вокуниши фаврӣ барои рафъи таъсири COVID-19 ба ҷомеаҳои шарики мо хоҳад буд. Ин дастгирӣ барои харидани ниқобҳо, собун, машрубот, антисептик ё бастаҳои ғизо истифода мешавад. СҶШ-и шарик 1 омода мекунад - ҳисоботи саҳифаи дастгирӣ дар бораи он, ки аз маблағи додашуда чӣ харида шудааст, тавассути дастгирии зикршуда ба чанд хонавода ба даст оварда шудааст ва дигар хароҷоти тасодуфие, ки истифода шудаанд (масалан, нақлиёт ва ғ.) МЕДОНЕД, КИ ШУМО ЧИ ГУНА КУМАК КУНЕД БАРОИ НАВОРҲО САНЧИШ КУНЕД Бозгашт ба боло Дастгирии шумо хеле қадр карда мешавад кӯшиш барои вокуниш ба COVID-19. СИПОС! Шумо метавонед хайрияи худро бо истифода аз маълумоти зерин пасандоз кунед: НОМИ БОНК: БОНКИ ЧАЗИРХОИ ФИЛИППИН АДРЕСИ: Хиёбони Калъаяан, 114, ДИЛИМАН, ШАХРИ КЕСОН, ФИЛИППИН НОМИ ҲИСОБ : ФОРУМИ ТҒД оид ба ADB, INC. БАРОИ USD: 1994-0097-84 | БАРОИ ИА: 1994-0551-31 БАРОИ PHP: 1991-0039-12 РАМЗИ СВИФТ : BOPIPHMM АДРЕСИ БЕНЕФИЦИАР: 85-А Масикап тамдид, Барангай марказӣ, Quezon City 1100, Филиппин РАҚАМИ БАРОИ БЕНЕФИЦИАР: +63 2 84361858 | +63 2 89214412 Шумо инчунин метавонед моро тавассути PayPal дастгирӣ кунед *** Форуми созмонҳои ғайридавлатӣ оид ба БОР маълумоти махфии шахсиро, аз қабили суроғаҳои почтаи электронӣ, паролҳои ҳисоб ва ғ. нигоҳ намедорад. Лутфан фаромӯш накунед нусхаи пасандози худро ба мо фиристед. Лутфан онро ба secretariat@forum-adb.org фиристед. Бозгашт ба боло Donate ДАСТГИРЙ

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

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