Search Results

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES Isang online bulletin system at page ng pagbabahagi ng kaalaman na nakatuon sa pagsubaybay sa Asian Development Bank (ADB) at Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) COVID19 recovery loans at disbursement na maaaring gamitin ng mga stakeholder para sa pagsusuri at pagsusuri. SIMULAN ANG PAGSUNOD PAKISTAN PILIPINAS BANGLADESH INDONESIA

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

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.

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).

Explore NGO Forum on ADB’s work in South Asia, advocating for accountability, environmental justice, and community rights in ADB-funded projects. Stay updated on campaigns, policy engagements, and grassroots initiatives across the region. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring South Asia Southeast Asia Mekong Central Asia and Caucasus PROYEKTO MONITORING INDIA Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Programme The Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Programme funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has raised the following issues: More than 300 small shopkeepers are temporarily displaced due to the pending construction to facilitate the sewerage and drainage line along the Mahatma Gandhi Road. The shopkeepers do not have an adequate source of income as of the moment and are unable to access loans as they have no standing assets. The Entitlement Matrix was not explained nor shared as a leaflet to the affected persons (APs). The consultation merely focused on the timeframe of the construction. Bengaluru Metro Rail Airport Line (Phase 2A & 2B) The Bengaluru Metro Rail Project 2A and 2B Airport lines were conceived, presented, and heavily supported in the pre-pandemic era. And hence all the traffic demand analysis, modeling, and forecasting are from a time and lifestyle that we cannot hope to return to. Moreover, it's from when Government restrictions and company policies bound work From Home (WFH) in IT capital Bangalore. In November 2020, the Government of India (GoI) removed all constraints and compliances for the tech industry to work from home (WFH). The PM himself stated - "These steps will further flexibility and productivity." Read Growthwatch's letter regarding the Bengaluru Metro Rail Airport Line (Phase 2A & 2B). INDIA Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility Workers in Himachal Pradesh have demanded justice on unpaid wages and other benefits, arguing that the lender – the Asian Development Bank (ADB) – has violated its labor policies, causing a negative impact on a group of 116 union members working on the project. A group of fifteen workers, who were engaged on the ADB-funded Kiratpur-Nerchowk Four Lane Road project in Himachal Pradesh, explained to the ADB’s Compliance Review Panel staff in a conference call that the collapse of the project contractor Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS) has left them millions of rupees out of pocket. Read More INDIA Wind Power Generation Project The Wind Power Generation Project in Sri Lanka is a US$ 200 million ADB – funded project which accordingly aims to provide increased access to the clean and reliable power supply by 2025. The project, which falls under the energy sector, is said to address environmentally sustainable growth and inclusive economic growth. A total of 39 wind turbines will be erected in the Mannar District area, located in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. The outputs of this investment project are: Wind power generation capacity increased System reactive power management improved and Capacity of CEB in project engineering design review and supervision strengthened. Read More SRI LANKA SRI LANKA Mahaweli Water Security Investment Program The Upper Elahera canal project funded by the Asian Development Bank has committed serious environmental safeguard violations including the construction of a 1.7 km access road inside the Beligama forest which is part of the Knuckles conservation forest without adhering to the environmental safeguards as per the safeguarding policy statement 2009. The construction company Sinohydro Corporation Ltd involves in these environmental safeguards violations. Although the environmental impact has been identified for this 1.7 km section, the construction company has not followed the conditions set during the project approval to protect the environment. The company has already cleared this sensitive forest stretch and dump debris and soil to the riverside and constructed another 1 km of the road across non-approved stretch. SRI LANKA Southern Transport Development Project The Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) is an ADB co-financed project, which includes the construction of a 128-km controlled-access expressway from Colombo to the southern city of Galle, which will link up with an existing coastal road in Matara. ADB is providing a US$ 90 million loan approved in November 1999 for 55 km of this expressway, with Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) providing funds for the rest of the stretch. The construction of the road aims to help catalyze economic growth in the southern region of Sri Lanka in general and reduce traffic and accidents on the coastal road. Read More BANGLADESH Phulbari Coal Project The Phulbari Coal Project involves the extraction of coal using open-pit mining method. It involves the construction of a 500-MW power plant. According to the ADB, at full production, about eight million tons of coal will be transported by rail and barges to an offshore reloading facility located in Akram Point. Some four million tons will be exported to India via railway. The remaining three million tons will be for domestic use. However, as much as the economic benefits it intends to bring to Bangladesh, the project will not only pose a health hazard but displace around 50,000 people. Likewise, Akram Point, where the reloading facility will be located, is in Sundarbans Mangrove Forest – a UNESCO-declared world heritage site. Transportation of millions of tons of coal through Sundarbans and Akram Point will also have serious environmental impacts Read More BANGLADESH Sundurban Biodiversity Conservation Project On January 22 and 23, Review and Planning meetings of the SBCP Watch Group were held in presence of Mr. Sardar Arif Uddin, Associate Program Coordinator, Southwest Region, of AAB at the Conference Room of CDP. Resolutions were adopted to enhance the membership of the SBCP, collect and prepare various SBCP related documents, prepare a Position Paper of the SBCP Watch Group and prepare to face the Asian Development Bank at its AGM to be held in May next at Istambul in Turkey, were adopted at the meeting. Mr. Sardar Arif Uddin also presented the plan for the Second Phase of the activities of the SBCP Watch Group and Budget for the same. CDP also compiled Newspaper Clippings on the activities of the SBCP Watch and published a book, entitled: “Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project: Peoples’ Opinions in Bangladesh.” Read More Melamchi Water Supply Project Six years after its conception, the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP), the Asian Development Bank’s pet project in Sindhupalchowk District, Nepal, is still mired in controversy. Three of the project’s original funding agencies—the World Bank, Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and Norwegian Agency for Development (NORAD) —had pulled out in the last three years brought about by several pressing issues. In fact, the water project has been on the donors’ priority list in the last two decades but was never pursued due to conflict of interests among donors, mainly between the World Bank and the ADB. NEPAL Read More NEPAL West Seti Hydroelectric Project The West Seti Hydroelectric Project is a 750 MW dam project in western Nepal (located in Baitadi, Bajhang, Dadeldhura, and Doti Districts), which has been planned by an Australian company, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC). The estimated project cost is 1.2 billion dollars, and the project is expected to receive loans and political guarantees by Asian Development Bank (ADB), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Export and Import Bank of China, Bank of China, Infrastructure Leasing, and Export Corporation (India), Industrial Bank of China, China Export and Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE). All the electricity produced will be transferred to India by the Power Trade Corporation (PTC). As a royalty, 10 % of the produced electricity (or equivalent cash) is expected to be provided to the Government of Nepal. This project has been set under Category A, as per the ADB Environment Policy, and the first Environmental Assessment (EIA) report was carried out in 1999. NEPAL Kali Gandaki “A” Hydroelectric Project Informed officials about a nearby landslide that damaged five houses. Rising to the call of duty, at half-past seven in the morning the District Administration and Police Officers arrived and took stock of the situation. The nearby cracked surfaces served as a reminder of the devastating Gorkha earthquake the previous month. More than 250 villagers were relocated to a safe spot. More landslides ensued the following day as tents were provided for affected residents. Whilst sleeping in the temporary camp, the residents of Basari village got another rude shock at half-past two in the morning. This time an even more colossal landslide formed a wall of mud and rock that blocked the Kali Gandaki River. There was pandemonium as people panicked fearing for their lives. Local police made announcements on loudspeakers asking people in Mustang, Myagdi, Baglung, Parbat, Gulmi, Syangja, Tanahun, and Nawalparasi districts downstream to remain on high alert. The landslide dammed the river and blocked almost the entire flow, which resulted in a 2-km long artificial backwater lake. The landslide occurred as a nearby ridge had developed cracks after the earthquake. NEPAL Tanahu Hydropower Project Indigenous communities affected by the Tanahu Hydropower Project in Nepal have filed complaints with independent watchdogs of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) -- two co-financiers of the project -- requesting an independent mediation process. The communities have alleged failure to uphold free, prior, and informed consent and inadequate compensation for loss of lands and livelihoods. At least 32 affected families or landowners organized under the Directly Inundation Affected Peoples Collective Rights Protection Committee have called for ‘land for land’ and ‘house for house’ compensation, re-survey of land left out during the Detailed Measurement Survey of the project, and free, prior and informed consent in the project process, among their ten demands, they have submitted to the ADB and the EIB. Read More PAKISTAN Chashma Right Bank Irrigation The Chasma Right Bank Irrigation Project (CBRIP) was approved by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in December 1991. It involves the construction of a 274-kilometer canal along the Indus River that will run through two districts in Punjab and Northwest Frontier provinces. According to the Bank, it will irrigate 606,000 acres of land in D.I. Khan and D.G. Khan Districts in central Pakistan. The project primarily aims to provide a dependable perennial irrigation supply, ensure efficient distribution of water and provide necessary drainage and flood relief. Aside from the main canal, 72 distribution canals, 68 cross-drainage structures, and 91 bridges will be constructed. PAKISTAN M4 Gojra– Shorkot– Khanewal Project The entire M4 highway is a 240 km road which will construct: 15 interchanges 23 flyovers/underpasses 11 bridges 19 underpasses 191 pipe culverts 55 WCC boxes and gas culverts There will be two bridges that will be constructed across 2 main surfaces of water bodies that irrigate agri-lands: River Ravi and Sadhnai Canal. There will be a displacement of 3,429 households from the use of 1,616.7 acres of land of which 86 % is privately-owned agricultural land and will require the cutting of 91,661 trees. Photo © tribune.com.pk

Special Publications Mga Espesyal na Lathalain RESOURCES Bankwatch | Taunang Ulat | Maikling Proyekto | Mga Gabay na Aklat Mga Mapanganib na Pagkagambala Huwag Saktan Sa dilim Regional Overview of Country Safeguard Systems to Mitigate Trans boundary Infrastructure Mega Project Impacts : Mongolia Regional Overview of Country Safeguard Systems to Mitigate Trans boundary Infrastructure Mega Project Impacts : Indonesia Regional Overview of Country Safeguard Systems to Mitigate Trans boundary Infrastructure Mega Project Impacts : Myanmar Regional Overview of Country Safeguard Systems to Mitigate Trans boundary Infrastructure Mega Project Impacts : South Asia and Sri Lanka Assessment of the ADB’s Energy Policy: Undermining International Climate Commitments ◄ 1 / 1 ► Please reload 2nd AIIB ESS Critique AIIB Energy Strategy Critique RISK AND RESILIENCE: Mainstreaming Climate Change Into the Environmental Impact Assessment Process The ADB in Burma: Behind the Scenes Roads to Destruction ADB’s Contradictory Roads, Biodiversity and Plantations Activities in Lao PDR or How Did You Know We Wanted Ecocide? ◄ 1 / 1 ► Please reload

Dive into AIIB-funded infrastructure projects across Southeast Asia with analysis from NGO Forum on ADB, focusing on project monitoring, community rights, environmental impacts, and civil society efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and just development. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting PROYEKTO MONITORING North Dhaka Waste to Energy Project COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD100 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The North Dhaka Waste-to-Energy Project is a 42.5 MW incineration facility situated near the Amin Bazar landfill, co-financed by the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a $100 million non-sovereign loan, and the New Development Bank (NDB), aiming to process municipal solid waste into energy through four 750-ton/day incineration lines and twin 35 MW turbo-generators connected to Savar’s grid. It is Bangladesh’s first large-scale waste-to-energy venture, categorized as AIIB Environmental & Social Category A, necessitating an ESIA, ESMP, and corrective action plan to address legacy land-acquisition issues and ongoing environmental risks. However, civil society watchdogs like CLEAN and urgewald have raised alarm over potentially higher greenhouse gas emissions (estimated at 8.3 million tons CO₂ equivalent over 25 years), toxic air pollutants (dioxins, heavy metals), and poor waste-quality control, which may undermine Bangladesh’s climate commitments. Critics also point out that weak waste collection systems could threaten plant operations, while energy tariffs set at over twice the current cost may burden taxpayers. Local environmental groups have emphasized deficiencies in public consultation, community grievance mechanisms, and transparency—citing AIIB’s historical track record of excluding affected communities during project approvals. As Bangladesh seeks sustainable waste solutions, the North Dhaka WtE project's technical ambitions must be balanced with stronger social and environmental accountability to ensure it genuinely serves both urban sanitation and climate-resilient development. Read the AIIB Observer Volume 3 Balakot Hydropower Development Project COUNTRY: Pakistan APPROVED FUNDING: USD250 million FINANCING TYPE: Sovereign The Balakot Hydropower Project in Pakistan is a 300 MW run-of-river initiative on the Kunhar River, financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a $250 million sovereign loan alongside a $300 million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), intended to boost renewable energy generation (1143 GWh annually) and local employment. Despite its clean energy aims, the project has drawn widespread local backlash: residents and local councils are protesting ongoing land acquisition practices, demanding that affected families receive fair compensation, employment opportunities, and respect for ancestral sites—threatening to block major roads in response. Authorities have reportedly demolished structures and deployed police to protect Chinese engineers and workers amid community tensions. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government has also issued delay notices to contractors due to slow progress. Critics contend that although AIIB and ADB classify the project as environmentally sound under their frameworks, on-ground realities suggest weak community engagement, inadequate grievance redressal, and contested livelihood impacts. As such, Balakot offers a cautionary tale: major hydropower projects financed by global banks must pair technical and environmental standards with meaningful local accountability to avoid marginalizing host communities. Read the factsheet . Bangalore Metro Rail Project - Line R6 COUNTRY: India APPROVED FUNDING: USD335 million FINANCING TYPE: Sovereign The Bengaluru Metro’s ORR–Airport Line (Phases 2A and 2B), stretching 58.19 km from Central Silk Board to Kempegowda International Airport via KR Puram, is a transformative infrastructure project aimed at easing urban congestion and improving airport connectivity. Funded by a mix of public and external sources—including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and controversially, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—the project has drawn scrutiny from civil society organizations like Growthwatch, which have raised concerns over AIIB’s opaque financing practices and lack of strong accountability safeguards. While ADB has provided a $500 million loan and a $2 million grant to support inclusive, transit-oriented development, and JICA has offered ₹3,717 crore, AIIB’s growing footprint in Indian infrastructure is criticized for prioritizing geopolitical interests over local participation and environmental transparency. Construction began in 2021, with official targets set for completion by 2026, though delays—especially in Phase 2B—remain a concern. Growthwatch has also flagged issues with land acquisition, labor conditions, and the need for greater community consultation. Despite these challenges, the metro line is expected to benefit over 1.6 million daily commuters and reduce dependence on road transport. However, as Bengaluru’s transport infrastructure grows, the role of financial institutions like AIIB must be critically examined to ensure democratic oversight, equity, and long-term sustainability in urban development. Read - Growthwatch Letter to AIIB Derailed by the Accountability Ciap The Students of the Technical Training Centre for the Deaf (TTCD) in Bangalore, India Impact assessment of Bangalore Metro Rail Project (Reach 6) on vulnerable communities at the Cantonment Metro station BMRP & TTCD Narrative Bangladesh Bhola IPP COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD60 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The Bhola Independent Power Producer (IPP) project in Bangladesh is a 220 MW combined-cycle gas-fired power plant developed on Bhola Island by Nutan Bidyut (a subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji) under a Build-Own-Operate (BOO) model to address the country’s chronic power shortages. Co-financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)—which approved a $60 million non-sovereign loan in 2018—alongside the Islamic Development Bank and local financiers, the project was expected to generate over 1.3 TWh of electricity annually and began commercial operations in late 2019. While AIIB classified the project as Category B, implying limited environmental and social risks, and adopted frameworks for resettlement and stakeholder consultation, civil society organizations have strongly contested this assessment. In particular, CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), working with BWGED and NGO Forum on ADB, has played a central role in documenting serious harms caused by the project—including coerced land acquisition, destruction of farmland, waterlogging, river siltation, loss of grazing lands, and the absence of meaningful consultation or grievance redress mechanisms. In 2022, CLEAN co-filed the first formal complaint to AIIB’s Project-Affected People’s Mechanism, directly challenging the bank’s risk classification and safeguard enforcement. These findings have been echoed by international media, including Climate Home News, which criticized AIIB’s continued investment in fossil gas projects like Bhola IPP while sidelining renewable alternatives. Beyond research, CLEAN has also mobilized civil society campaigns and public actions urging AIIB to stop fossil fuel financing and adopt community-driven, sustainable energy models. Critics argue that the Bhola IPP reflects deeper structural issues in AIIB’s development approach—namely, opaque financing, weak local accountability, and inadequate environmental and social protections—particularly in contexts where civic space is limited. As such, the Bhola case serves as a warning of how large-scale, fossil-intensive energy infrastructure can disproportionately burden marginalized communities, underscoring the urgent need for transparent, inclusive, and rights-based alternatives in global energy investment. Read: Lessons learned: Filing Bhola IPP complaint in AIIB’s project affected people’s mechanism Unique Meghnaghat IPP COUNTRY: Bangladesh APPROVED FUNDING: USD110 million FINANCING TYPE: Nonsovereign The Unique Meghnaghat Power Plant in Bangladesh is a 584 MW combined-cycle gas-fired facility located along the Meghna River near Narayanganj, developed to strengthen the country’s electricity supply. While framed as a modern and “transition-ready” energy project—with features like hydrogen capability—it has faced criticism from civil society groups due to its environmental and social impacts. The project involved the acquisition of more land than officially reported, including agricultural fields and riverside areas crucial to local fishing communities. Many affected families reportedly received compensation far below market value, and the construction has led to issues like sand deposition on farmland, blocked grazing routes, and restricted river access. Although supported by international lenders under the banner of clean and reliable energy, the project has raised serious concerns about long-term fossil fuel dependency and the marginalization of local voices. Critics argue that the plant represents a continuation of top-down energy planning that prioritizes investment returns over community well-being and ecological sustainability. Read: The Meghnaghat Power Plant: A Looming Burden on Bangladesh

Explore key terms used in the Forum Network infographics on ADB energy projects. This glossary explains financing modalities, grants, loans, equity investments, and technical assistance in simple terms. Glossary of Terms in the Forum Network Infographics on ADB Energy Projects This glossary provides key terms used in the Forum Network infographics on ADB energy projects. These terms describe various financial instruments and approaches used by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its operations. E (Equity Investment) | Direct investment in a company or project, making ADB a shareholder to support development goals. Financing Modality | The specific method or instrument used to fund development projects and programs. Grant | Financial aid that does not need to be repaid, typically used for projects that support low-income countries, environmental sustainability, or social development. Loan | Borrowed funding that must be repaid, used to finance development projects in ADB member countries. Modality | ADB's financing or operational approach for projects, programs, or technical assistance, tailored to the needs of member countries. TA (Technical Assistance) | Support for capacity building, policy advice, and project preparation in member countries, often provided through grants or expert guidance.

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

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

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. 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