Search Results

ADB Energy Policy Review Scorecard Why This Matters This year marks a decade since the Paris Agreement — yet the Asian Development Bank (ADB) still falls short of the 1.5°C goal. ADB’s Energy Policy Review proposes dangerous rollbacks, including: Reviving extractive industries Lifting the ban on nuclear energy investments Promoting co-firing and other false “transition” technologies Keeping loopholes for coal and gas As the world nears a climate tipping point, ADB continues to lag behind its own claims as a “climate bank.” What’s ADB’s Score? That’s for you to decide. Each Forum network member and ally can grade ADB’s Energy Policy Review process and proposed revisions based on their alignment with real climate action — or lack thereof. How to Participate Download the Score you give ADB in the Scorecard drive . Grade ADB’s performance on its Energy Policy Review and proposed revisions. Post your score publicly with any of these hashtags - #ADBFailingDClimateTest #ADBFossilFail #ADBClimateScore Tag ADB Facebook: Asian Development Bank X (Twitter): @ADB_HQ LinkedIn: Asian Development Bank Explain your score in one line. Example: “We give ADB a failing grade for pushing fossil fuels.” Let us know if your organization is joining so we can amplify your post. If you don’t have social media, NGO Forum on ADB can post your score on your behalf, with full credit to your organization. Need Help? If your schedule is tight, fill out this short form and we’ll prepare and post your materials for you — all you have to do is share. You can also check the Scorecard meanings below - Here is an example -

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING 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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING 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. PROYEKTO MONITORING 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 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting PROYEKTO MONITORING 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

Monitoring ADB’s actions in Asia-Pacific to fight harmful projects, protect communities, and ensure sustainable, people-centered development. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More MEKONG Read More CENTRAL ASIA Read More

Explore critical insights into AIIB-funded infrastructure projects in South Asia, with monitoring and analysis from NGO Forum on ADB, highlighting community impacts, transparency challenges, and civil society demands for accountability and sustainability. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting PROYEKTO MONITORING Hin Kong 1,400MW Gas-fired Independent Power Producer Project COUNTRY: Thailand In January 2022, over 50 civil society organizations sent a unified letter to AIIB’s leadership urging them to halt proposed funding for the 1.4 GW Hin Kong gas-fired power plant and 33 km pipeline in Thailand. The letter raised serious concerns that the project, classified as high-risk, lacked updated demand forecasts, ignored Thailand’s latest energy and climate commitments, and contradicted AIIB’s own Paris-aligned financing objectives. The project sponsors, linked to corporations with histories of environmental and social harms—including involvement in a dam collapse in Laos—were flagged as high-risk actors. The letter also highlighted inadequate public consultation amid pandemic-related constraints and unclear access for affected communities to AIIB’s grievance mechanism. Civil society argued that investing in this oversized fossil fuel infrastructure would entrench volatility, perpetuate emissions, and siphon scarce finance away from decentralized, clean energy alternatives better suited to Thailand's evolving energy landscape. The letter urged AIIB to join multilateral peers in stepping back from this ill-suited investment and refocus on climate-conscious, community-aligned energy solutions. Read AIIB Withdraw Proposed Financing for 1.4GW Gas Project and Pipeline in Thailand Everbright Infrastructure Investment Fund II COUNTRY: Multi-Country APPROVED FUNDING: USD100 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The AIIB’s $100 million funding for China Everbright International Limited (CEIL) has sparked backlash due to Everbright’s long-standing record of corruption, pollution, and unethical conduct—both in China and abroad. Critics highlight CEIL’s waste-to-energy projects as emblematic of this troubling history: community exclusion, environmental contamination from fly-ash, and schemes that suppress local dissent—impacting farmers and waste-pickers. Despite AIIB’s green financing commitments, CEIL has also invested in coal plants, exposing inconsistencies in the bank’s safeguards and transparency. The partnership with Everbright Bank—a state-owned institution recently implicated in high-level corruption cases—raises deeper concerns around due diligence and ethical standards. Calls for greater accountability are growing, demanding that AIIB prioritize planetary health and community rights over short-term corporate gains in the face of a global climate emergency. Read AIIB’s Troubling Partner: China Everbright bank’s history of corruption raises serious concerns

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING 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. PROYEKTO MONITORING 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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) 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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING 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 BANGLADESH BANGLADESH Source: Bangladesh: COVID-19 Active Response and Expenditure Support Program 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

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING 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