Search Results

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 The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Public Communications Policy (PCP) guides the ADB’s external relations when it comes to transparency and in its operations. The PCP, also known as the policy on information disclosure, intends to provide greater access to project information documents and related information. It ensures participation by project-affected people in the development intervention of the ADB in their respective communities. It mandates all project-related documents to be posted on the ADB’s website. Access to project-related information by local people allows them to participate actively and effectively in decision-making processes related to the development agenda of international financial institutions such as the ADB in their respective communities which could adversely affect the environment and disrupt their living conditions. Issues with the PCP Though it has been stating that it values transparency and is committed to increasing information disclosure, the ADB has fallen short on its commitment to respecting the rights of the people’s right to information. The PCP does not expressly recognize public access to information is a right. Experiences on the ground have shown that the Bank lacks both the political will and the resources to respect this right. Documents identified by the ADB as publicly available are only accessible through its website. This has prevented poor communities from getting project-related information since the internet facility remains a luxury for them. Civil society groups believe that this manifests the pro-business bias of the Bank’s disclosure policy. The PCP also provides a long list of exceptions. Not all exceptions identify the serious harm to a clearly and narrowly defined, and broadly accepted, an interest that is sought to be avoided by non-disclosure. Below are NGO forum on ADB's submission, communication, and other documents on its campaign on a just ADB PCP - 05 Apr 2018 | Joint Submission of NGO Forum on ADB and Both ENDS Comments on the 2nd draft of the Public Communications Policy 14 Jan 2018 | NGO Forum on ADB's Summary Comments on the PCP Review 28 Nov 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Summary Comments (meeting with PCP Review Team) 16 Jul 2017 | NGO Forum on ADB Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the Review of the Public Communications Policy (PCP) 12 Jul 2017 | Summary of questions and comments during the country consultations 26 Mar 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's submission on PCP Review 23 Jul 2017 | ADB's response to Forum's Letter to the ongoing consultations related to the review of the PCP (dated 17 July 2017) 17 Aug 2017 | Comments of NGO Forum on ADB on the draft staff instructions 30 Nov 2016 | NGO Forum on ADB Submission on the Draft Public Communications Policy of the Asian Development Bank 10 May 2016 | Public Communications Policy Review 04 May 2011 | NGOs warn ‘safety valve’ may impede ADB’s small success in transparency 13 Jan 2011 | ADB Must Clinch the Opportunity for Bolder PCP Reforms 22 Sep 2010 | Letter to PCP Review Team 31 Jan 2010 | Practice What You Preach 31 Jan 2009 | Statistical highlights on the Asian Development Bank’s Public Communications Policy Implementation (August 2005 to February 2009)

The Sandra Smithey Community Emergency Fund is established in honor of Sandra Smithey. Sandra was the Former Program Officer of the Mott Foundation and the Director of Programs and Philanthropic Engagement at Shine Campaign. Sandra inspired the Forum network members to make a difference in the world. She was a force of nature, ensuring that advocacies about the environment, climate, and human rights were advanced. The fund will be used for emergency relief and distributed to project-affected communities through the Forum network member organizations. For Bank donations - NAME OF BANK : BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ADDRESS : 114 KALAYAAN AVENUE, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES ACCOUNT NAME : NGO FORUM ON ADB, INC. FOR USD : 1994-0097-84 | FOR EU : 1994-0551-31 FOR PHP : 1991-0039-12 SWIFT CODE : BOPIPHMM BENEFICIARY ADDRESS : 85-A Masikap Extension, Barangay Central, Quezon City 1100, Philippines BENEFICIARY CONTACT NUMBER : +63 2 84361858 | +63 2 89214412 Please email us a copy of the deposit slip or bank transaction slip for transparency purposes. and updates. You may send it to secretariat [at] forum-adb.org.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. STRATEGIC PLAN 2020 Ang NGO Forum on ADB ay nakatakdang ipatupad ang "Roadmap to Strategic Campaigning 2014-2020: Tungo sa pangmatagalang at sistematikong pagbabago." Sa susunod na anim na taon makikita ang Forum na nagsusumikap na magsagawa ng sistematikong pagbabago sa loob ng ADB, at sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalawig ng mga kliyente nito upang tumugon sila nang may higit na pananagutan sa mga pangangailangan sa pag-unlad at mga lokal na konteksto ng mga komunidad sa Asya. sa ngalan ng mga apektadong tao, na ang mga kahinaan ay nadagdagan ng baluktot na agenda ng pag-unlad ng ADB. Ang isang focal point para sa Working Groups at Member Organizations ay ang pagpapalakas ng boses at kapasidad ng mahihirap, kababaihan, grupong etniko at marginalized na sektor. PROSESO NG PAGPAPLANO Ang forum ay nagsimulang mag-strategize sa framework, campaign plan, at organisasyonal na disenyo nito noong Disyembre 2012 sa pamamagitan ng preparatory meeting sa Bangkok, Thailand. Matapos isagawa ang mga pagpupulong sa bansa at rehiyon ay nagtapos ang proseso noong Nobyembre 2013 sa pamamagitan ng isang workshop sa pagpapatupad sa Silang, Cavite, Pilipinas. Ang International Committee (IC) / Board of Trustees at ang executive director ay gumabay sa pangmatagalang proseso ng pagpaplano ng estratehiko. Isang team ng diskarte, na binubuo ng isang lead strategist, ang IC convener, at Secretariat staff, ang namamahala sa pagsasagawa at pagkumpleto ng isang taon na pagpaplano. Ang huling resulta ng masinsinang, participatory at dynamic na prosesong ito ay ang “Roadmap,” na epektibong pumapalit sa Long-Term Strategy Plan ng 2006. KONSULTASYON SA BANSA Ang mga pagpupulong sa diskarte ay ginanap sa Armenia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pilipinas, at Sri Lanka. Isang sub-national na konsultasyon ang naganap sa Northeast India. Nagkaroon ng pag-uulat ng isang country situationer sa Cambodia, Myanmar, at Nepal sa 2013 Forum Annual Meeting. Naunawaan ng mga Country Working Group ang mga pambansang pananaw sa pagpaplano ng mga aktibidad sa kampanya hinggil sa mga isyung nauugnay sa ADB. Nag-istratehiya ang mga miyembro kung paano makamit ang pagpapalawak at muling pagsasaaktibo ng network, pinataas na presyon ng publiko sa Bangko, at ang pagpapatuloy ng mga kampanya sa kani-kanilang bansa. MGA REHIYONAL NA KONSULTASYON Ang pagpaplano ng diskarte ay naganap sa mga rehiyon ng Central Asia at Caucasus (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan), Southeast Asia (Bangkok, Thailand) at South Asia (Dhaka, Bangladesh). Idinaos din sa Bangkok ang isang sub-regional grouping meeting para sa Mekong na nilahukan ng mga delegado mula sa Cambodia, Vietnam, at INGO na nakabase sa rehiyon. Ang mga Regional Working Group ay nagbigay-priyoridad sa mga pangunahing paksang lugar, kabilang ang mga transboundary linkage, kung saan ang pagkakasabay at pagkakatugma sa mga adbokasiya ay maaaring maitatag. Nagbigay-daan ito sa kanila na bumuo ng limang taong pinagsama-samang plano ng aksyon at interbensyon. ANIM NA TAONG ESTRATEHIYA PLANO Ang "Roadmap" ay gumagabay sa Forum sa pagpapatakbo ng nagpapatuloy at hinaharap na mga panrehiyong pampakay na kampanya. Nagbibigay ito ng mekanismo para sa pagsubaybay at pamamahala sa epekto ng adbokasiya nitong wok. Katulad nito, nagsisilbi itong higit pang pag-aaral ng Forum vis-à-vis sa mga resulta ng epekto ng mga aksyon nito. Ang forum ay nagtatayo at nagdaragdag ng halaga sa mga adbokasiya sa Gitnang Asya, Timog-silangang Asya at Timog Asya sa limang tema ng trabaho: tubig, enerhiya, pagbabago ng klima, urbanisasyon, at karapatang pantao. Ang mga pag-iingat (kapaligiran, involuntary resettlement, Indigenous Peoples) at kasarian ay natukoy bilang cross-cutting na mga isyu. Inaasahan na pagsapit ng 2020, ang boses at ahensya ng mga mamamayan ng Asya, lalo na ang mga mahihirap at marginalized, ay itataas sa isang napapanatiling kapasidad na makisali sa ADB tungo sa mas pangmatagalan at sistematikong pagbabago. Ito ay dahil mabisang itinulak ng Forum ang ADB at ang mga nanghihiram nito na maging tunay na may pananagutan, transparent, bukas at handa sa kanilang mga nakabubuo na dialogue sa civil society at iba pang stakeholder.

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 Letter on ADB’s flawed July 22 CSO consultation Two decades in ADB’s ACEF: a race away from 1.5°c - NGO Forum on ADB Statement on the ADB Asia Clean Energy Forum 2025 Forum Network urgent concerns on ADB Energy Policy Review 2025 Forum Network Letter – Concerns on ADB CM2CET Value Chains Approach Unpacking ADB and AIIB’s false narrative in COP29 Re: Climate-Smart Mining for a New Climate Economy (Project 57273-001) Latest News Latest Events/Activities

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

RESOURCES 2022 December Special Issue September June Marc h 2021 December September June March 2020 Disyembre Setyembre Hunyo Marso 2019 Disyembre Setyembre Hunyo Marso Naghahanap ng mas lumang isyu sa Bankwatch? Humingi ng kopya sa secretariat[at]forum-adb.org.

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 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. 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. PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media 2009 after the approval of the new ADB’s Accountability Mechanism (AM) was approved in December 2003, replacing the 1995 Inspection Function. Although a review of the policy was scheduled in 2006, it was postponed until 2008 and later rescheduled. The ADB officially started its policy review when ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda made an announcement during its Annual Meeting in Tashkent in May 2010. The ADB conducted a series of multi-stakeholder consultations in Asia, Europe, and the United States from September to November 2010. It also held consultations with affected people in selected countries. In April 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the consultation draft policy paper. Civil society organizations, however, criticized the ADB for coming up with a draft Working Paper–a draft policy version submitted to the ADB Board of Directors for review–two days after the deadline for submission of public comments on the consultation draft policy paper. In May 2011, after Forum’s continuous pushing and lobbying, the bank decided to put the review process on the right track by inviting public comments on the draft Working Paper. In June 2011, Forum submitted its comments on the first Working-Paper. In July, ADB released its second Working-Paper which is currently open for public comments. Forum members have been using the AM to register local communities’ complaints on the Bank’s lapses in terms of its policies, programs, and projects. While there was not a single complaint filed in 2008, out of the 13 cases in 2009, four of which were filed by Forum members. Accountability mechanism related documents - 21 Oct 2019 | NGO Forum on ADB Comments: Safeguard Compliance and Accountability Mechanism Framework 17 Mar 2019 | ADB’s 10 years of Accountability Mechanism is not worth celebrating 17 Jan 2019 | Does ADB's Accountability mechanism work? 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Greater Mekong Subregion: Mekong Tourism Development Project 14 Nov 2010 | Holding ADB Accountable: A look at the Present Accountability Mechanism 14 Nov 2010 | Review on Accountability Mechanism Sixth Road Project: Not Eligible 12 Nov 2010 | Accountability Counsel Comments on the Asian Development Bank Accountability Mechanism Policy Review 14 Sep 2010 | Submission to the Accountability Mechanism Review 09 Sep 2010 | Effectiveness of the Accountability Mechanism in Central Asia and the Caucasus 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. PROYEKTO MONITORING 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 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) 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. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 PROYEKTO MONITORING Latest News Latest Events/Activities Civil society slams ADB’s “clean energy” claims at ACEF 2025 As the Asian Development Bank marks 20 years of the Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF), civil society groups across Asia are calling it two decades of greenwashing. In a powerful joint statement, they denounce ADB’s continued backing of fossil fuels, harmful technologies, and corporate polluters, warning that false solutions like gas, mining, and incineration are worsening the climate crisis. With the bank’s energy policy review underway, they demand a real shift toward justice, equity, and people-powered renewable systems. Read Press Release

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 Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) and Change Initiatives in Bangladesh Download UPDATES 22 January 2022 Bangladesh to approach ADB for $940m in fresh aid 29 November 2021 ADB extends $150 million loan to help small enterprises to recover 18 November 2021 $150m ADB loan to support Covid-hit small enterprises in Bangladesh 3 November 2021 AIIB to extend $250 million loan for economic recovery 24 September 2021 ADB Approves $250 Million Loan for Bangladesh Economic Recovery Program 26 June 2021 ADB Approves $940 Million for Bangladesh COVID-19 Vaccines WEBINAR SERIES: BANGLADESH Hasan Mehedi from CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh shares the findings of the research ‘Country Assessment Report on COVID-19 recovery loans provided by Bilateral and Multilateral Financial Institution in Bangladesh’. The research aims to revitalize Governance and Public Interest in the COVID19 Recovery External Debts provided by International Financial Institutes (IFIs).