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

Stand with affected communities facing displacement and livelihood loss. Support urgent needs while they pursue justice and accountability. ФОНДИ ҶАМЪИЯТИИ КОРҲОИ ФАВКУЛОДИИ COVID-19 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. Дастгирӣ Top 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 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 *** 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

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

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

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.

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

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА This section features formal submissions made by NGO Forum on ADB network and allies during the ADB Safeguard Policy review process. It includes joint statements, policy critiques, and detailed recommendations advocating for robust, rights-based, and environmentally sound safeguards. These documents reflect the collective efforts of civil society to influence ADB's policies to better protect communities and ecosystems affected by development projects. The fight for stronger safeguards Forum network recommendations on the ADB website Statement of concern regarding the proposed WB/ADB FMRF and its significance in relation to the ADB ESF Collective Civil Society Statement on ESF Draft: Calling for an Overhaul and immediate redrafting NGO Forum comments on ADB ESF R-paper ADB's Response to the Forum Network's Draft ESF Comments Submission Collective Civil Society Statement on ESF Draft: Calling for an Overhaul and Immediate Redrafting PH CSO Statement re: ADB’s Draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) Ripple Effect: Exhibition to Highlight Damaging Impact of Asian Development Bank (ADB) Projects Joint civil society statement for a robust, rights-based and just safeguards policy at the ADB 1 Million Signature for a robust, rights-based and just ADB safeguards policy! Civil Society Input and Recommendations on the Stakeholder Engagement Plan ADB Safeguard Spotlight The Story of ADB Safeguards Related Documents ADB Project Tracker COVID19 Loan Tracker

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

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

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