Search Results

Discover the “Seven Cardinal Sins” of ADB through field publications and civil society voices, revealing gaps in safeguards, energy policy, and accountability. ADB Annual Meeting 2026 NGO Forum on ADB is participating in the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, to push for stronger accountability and people-centered development. Forum network will surface real experiences from communities to expose gaps in safeguards implementation and accountability systems, while calling for concrete reforms that ensure projects do not harm people or the environment. It will also challenge ADB’s current energy direction by advocating for a truly just transition aligned with climate goals—one that moves away from harmful investments and puts communities first. Through these discussions, Forum aims to amplify civil society voices and push ADB to deliver development that is fair, inclusive, and accountable to the people it is meant to serve. Seven Reflections – A Curated Digital Series Seven recurring failures, unfolding across safeguards and energy policies, quietly challenge the Asian Development Bank’s promise to “Do No Harm.” From what remains unseen to who remains unheard, these “Seven Cardinal Sins” reveal patterns that shape how development is experienced on the ground. Step into these stories and read the short reflections of members and allies of NGO Forum on ADB—voices that bring clarity, urgency, and a human face to what is too often left unspoken. Read the Reflections Advancing ADB’s Safeguards and Accountability This session will explore key gaps in safeguard implementation, assess how the ESF and Accountability Mechanism respond, and examine governance reforms needed to strengthen accountability. - May 3 (Sunday) | 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM (UZT) - ADB’s Commitment to a Just Transition and Paris Alignment This session will examine ADB’s energy reforms and climate finance trends, including the role of governance in shaping climate strategies and key gaps in advancing a just transition. - May 3 (Sunday) | 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM (UZT) - Fridays from the Field In the lead-up to ADB's 2026 Annual Meeting in Samarkand, Fridays from the Field set out to bring something often missing from official narratives into clear view: the lived realities of communities affected by ADB-funded projects. Now captured in a series of publications, these stories speak of delayed disclosures, rushed consultations, fear in raising concerns, and grievance systems that fall short when they are needed most. More than documentation, these pieces trace the deeper patterns behind these experiences—revealing how gaps in safeguards, accountability, and oversight continue to shape outcomes on the ground. Together, the publications stand as both record and reminder: that development is not measured by commitments alone, but by the lives it touches and the harms it must prevent. Download Watch the Sessions Forum Led Sessions Publications Debt, Delays, Dependencies: Why Public Banks Should Not Support Nuclear Power Urgewald & Ecodefense The world does not need new nuclear power. Yet institutions like the World Bank, the ADB, and other development banks are stubbornly marching towards an economic disaster that creates toxic waste and exacerbates the climate crisis by redirecting scarce resources away from technologies that have long proven themselves cheaper, faster, cleaner, and more effective. Download Partners in gas: How the ADB’s investment in Clifford Capital continues to support fossil gas in Asia Recourse, Trend Asia, NGO Forum on ADB, and CLEAN - Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network This publication, “Partners in Gas: How ADB’s Investments in Clifford Capital Continue to Support Fossil Gas in Asia,” examines how the ADB financial intermediary lending can indirectly support fossil fuel expansion. Using the case of Clifford Capital, it highlights how opaque subproject disclosure, securitisation structures, and indirect financing pathways may allow continued investment in fossil gas projects despite ADB’s climate commitments. Download Who Pays for Energy Transition? The briefing argues that the “clean energy” transition still harms communities because it depends on critical minerals mining, which often causes displacement, pollution, and rights violations in the Global South. Framed as ADB’s “Seven Cardinal Sins,” these issues show systemic problems. The paper calls for a just, transparent, and community-led energy transition. Download Read the Forum Statement to ADB At the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, discussions take place amid rising global uncertainty. The ongoing global conflict in the Middle East, which began on February 28, 2026, has disrupted the existing world economic order, sending ripple effects to supply and value chains across the world. Asia and the Pacific have been hit severely and are facing intensified economic pressures, compounded by climate risks. In this context, civil society perspectives from across the region highlight the importance of carefully considering the embedded risks of current policy directions, project operations, and financing approaches. This moment is a critical juncture in Asia’s development trajectory. ADB must make prudent and far-sighted strategic decisions with its financing in order not to derail the region from meeting its SDG targets and Paris Alignment goals. This is not the time to embed the region into imported fossil fuel supply chains, and experiment with high-risk energy solutions such as Nuclear and Critical Minerals extractivism, both sectors that severely threaten the ADB's performance-based Safeguards standards. The Bank must prioritise basic development needs: poverty alleviation, public health, human rights, food security, water and sanitation, and climate change over large-scale commercial project interests. Global Economic and Geopolitical Context The genocide in Gaza, and the armed conflict-related deaths in Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and others, all illustrate the failure of the international system to protect Human Rights. To this end, ADB, as a multilateral development partner committed to sustainable development in Asia, must hold the line in upholding Human Rights in all of its operations. Consequently, transport disruptions of energy resources in the global economic system have led the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to issue warnings that emerging markets and developing nations will be hit hardest by rising energy costs and supply chain disruptions. Growth forecasts for developing economies have been revised down, inflation expectations have risen, and vulnerable nations are grappling with tighter budgets, higher debt burdens, and unprecedented food supply concerns. In this context, even a sustained 10% increase in oil prices could raise global inflation by 0.4 percentage points and reduce global output by 0.1–0.2%, further tightening the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries, according to the International Monetary Fund (2026). Further, ADB’s Asia Outlook projected that if the war persisted through the third quarter of the year, developing countries would experience a 4.7% decline in growth. Simultaneously, the International Energy Agency has reported that this conflict has caused the largest oil supply disruption on record, driving crude prices above $100 per barrel. Additionally, UN Trade and Development statistics show that rising interest payments have reduced government revenue available for other public expenditures in 99 developing countries between 2018 and 2024. Implications for Developing Member Countries Farmers across Asia are queuing for hours, carrying their irrigation pumps, in search of a drop of diesel. Their woes are compounded by a sweeping fertiliser shortage, which is likely to prove ominous for the next harvest. All this is driving rising food prices and panic among urban and rural communities. Due to oil supply shortfalls, educational institutions, offices, factories, and markets are all closing down early and reducing working hours to manage energy supply needs, leading to loss of wages and depreciating household incomes. Additionally, the reactive push for further fossil fuel supply procurement is contributing to the climate crisis, as each new fossil fuel project, justified as “energy security”, deepens import dependence, heightens the risk of stranded assets, and pushes countries further from a just transition and their Paris targets. In this ADB AGM, ongoing dialogue with civil society is vital, not optional. Independent civil society voices, such as the Forum and its allies, are mandated to speak truth to power at the ADB. Our goal is to assert to the decision makers of ADB that all bank operations must focus on protecting people’s livelihoods, food security, and access to critical social services such as health and education. Thus, ADB operations must be grounded in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and internationally ratified human rights conventions, including core ILO standards. We are urging the ADB to rethink and curtail its privatisation agenda and prioritize the public interest amid this turbulent time. The Forum in this AGM calls into question the fundamental objectives of the ADB: Who benefits from ADB's projects and who bears the losses? Who bears the heaviest burden of risk, and who accumulates wealth risk-free? Read the Statement ADB's Seven Cardinal Sins Development, at its best, promises progress without harm—a careful balance between growth and responsibility. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has long embraced this vision, grounding its work in safeguards meant to protect people, communities, and the environment. Yet across projects and policies, a different story often emerges—one shaped by silences, gaps, and missed accountabilities. This page traces two parallel narratives through what we call the “Seven Cardinal Sins.” One set reflects the fractures within ADB’s safeguards and accountability systems—where transparency falters, consultations exclude, and remedies remain out of reach. The other turns to ADB’s energy and climate agenda, where commitments to a just and sustainable transition are tested by practices that risk leaving communities behind. Together, these “sins” are not merely a list of failures, but a pattern—one that reveals how structural weaknesses in governance and oversight can erode even the strongest principles, including the promise to “Do No Harm.” They invite us to look closer, to question deeper, and to imagine what accountability could truly mean. As you explore this page, we invite you to read the short reflections of members and allies of the NGO Forum on ADB—voices grounded in lived experience, bearing witness to the impacts of development, and calling for change that is not only promised, but realized. Because when accountability fails, it is not policies that bear the cost—but people, communities, and futures that cannot be undone. 1 Reflections Betrayal Nazareth Del Pilar | NGO Forum on ADB I believe that the cardinal sins of the ADB are persistent and have been sharpened by the current war in West Asia and broader tensions involving the West. In times of crisis, neoliberal institutions fall back on protecting markets and profits over people, with a clear form of betrayal where climate commitments and the “Do No Harm” principle are sidelined. The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up fuel prices and exposed Asia’s dependence on fossil fuels, yet instead of using this as a turning point for renewables, the ADB frames it as an “energy security” issue to justify continued support for fossil fuels and costly technologies. This approach is even reinforced in policy. The 2025 Energy Policy Review failed to close loopholes and instead expanded support for nuclear energy and critical minerals mining, with no real commitment to move away from fossil fuels. This reflects both betrayal and oversight failure, as weak accountability sustains these contradictions, while the ADB’s technology-agnostic stance allows it to appear ‘Paris-aligned’ even as it deepens reliance on extractive and carbon-heavy systems. 2 Accountability Gap Marjorie Pamintuan | Recourse The ADB insisted that fossil gas is a transition fuel during the mid-term review of its Energy Policy. Despite evidence saying otherwise, the bank still kept its doors open to fossil gas through direct investments and opaque financial intermediary projects. This Annual Meeting happens in the midst of the ongoing wars in the Middle East which again presents massive evidence that fossil gas is expensive, unreliable and impedes the just transition to renewable energy. Ordinary people suffer and literally pay the price of the resulting economic shocks. It is time that the ADB reflect. Do better by shutting direct and indirect financial flows to fossil gas, and double down on its support for just renewable energy transition in developing countries to avoid future fossil fuel crises. 3 Impunity / Lack of Remedy Yuki Tanabe | Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) Fifteen years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, its impacts are far from over. Around 300 square kilometers remain under evacuation, and more than 20,000 people are still unable to return to their homes. What was once a place of everyday life has become a long-term exclusion zone. Unlike typical nuclear plants that are decommissioned decades after shutdown, Fukushima presents a far more complex reality. With melted nuclear fuel still inside the reactors, the decommissioning process is expected to take centuries—stretching the consequences of a single disaster across generations. This raises difficult but necessary questions for the region. Can countries in Asia truly prepare for emergencies of this scale? And is it possible to ensure meaningful consultation and protection for the vast number of people who would be affected? Daniel Willis | Recourse At the Annual Meeting, as in years gone by, affected communities and CSOs will bring many examples of how ADB-financed projects have caused devastating social and environmental harms. Many communities have brought official complaints to the ADB's Accountability Mechanism to seek justice. However, research by Accountability Counsel shows that remedial action has been taken in only 3% of closed cases. One problem is that many complaints are deemed ineligible due to the onerous requirements of the Mechanism's policy. There is an opportunity to change this, though, with the ongoing review of that policy, which is sure to be a key topic of debate in Samarkand. ADB should listen to the testimonies of harm from affected communities, and to their demands for a more accessible Accountability Mechanism that investigates complaints and delivers on remedy. 4 Gender inequality / exclusion of women and vulnerable groups Titi Soentoro | Aksi! for Gender, Social, and Ecological Justice ADB speaks of building a “prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable” Asia-Pacific, yet the reality on the ground often reflects a gap between commitment and practice. Development approaches frequently remain top-down, prioritizing corporate interests while communities bear environmental and social costs, with women and vulnerable groups disproportionately affected and often excluded from meaningful consultation. These challenges underscore the need for stronger accountability—ensuring genuine participation, especially of women, and establishing grievance mechanisms that effectively address gender-related impacts. Ultimately, a truly just and inclusive approach requires the ADB to move beyond policy commitments and take responsibility for the indirect, long-term, and cumulative harm linked to its projects. 5 Lack of meaningful participation Chinara Aitbaeva | Nash Vek Public Foundation ADB CAREC Program aims to improve connectivity and boost economic growth across Central Asia, but it also raises important questions about who truly benefits. While large projects in infrastructure, energy, and trade are meant to support development, they often follow a top-down approach that may overlook the needs of local communities. Concerns remain about transparency, meaningful participation, and whether people affected by these projects are truly heard. As CAREC moves forward, it is important to ensure that development is not only about building roads and markets, but also about protecting communities, promoting fairness, and making sure that no one is left behind. 6 Delayed justice Indira Shreesh | Indigenous Women's Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG) The experience of the Tanahu Hydropower Project reflects what can be described as the seven cardinal sins of the ADB: first, the persistent gap between policy and practice, where strong safeguards, particularly Principle 8 and Principle 9 on Indigenous Peoples and customary land rights, remains largely unimplemented; second, the failure to recognize customary and Indigenous land rights, especially for non-titled lands; third, the weak and procedural approach to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), reducing it to consultation rather than genuine consent; fourth, inadequate and unjust compensation systems that fail to restore livelihoods; fifth, the lack of transparency and accountability in land acquisition and project implementation; sixth, delayed grievance redress and weak enforcement of accountability mechanisms, where justice is delayed and the ignoring of justice must be treated as punishable failures, and must also ensure fair and adequate compensation to affected communities; and seventh, a broader pattern of development prioritization over human rights, where infrastructure goals overshadow the dignity, identity, and rights of Indigenous Peoples. Together, these systemic failures risk turning safeguard policies into symbolic commitments rather than instruments of justice. 7 Procedural (not meaningful) consultation Hussain Jarwar | Indus Consortium Despite having clear safeguard standards, the experience on the ground often tells a different story. Consultations carried out by the Asian Development Bank have frequently remained procedural, falling short of the meaningful engagement that communities expect and deserve. Many affected groups continue to report exclusion from genuine dialogue, often justified by security or administrative constraints. This raises deeper concerns about how policies are translated into practice, as direct and transparent engagement with impacted populations remains limited. Over time, this gap not only restricts communities from fully voicing their concerns but also contributes to growing mistrust toward development institutions, highlighting the need for more inclusive and accountable approaches.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media NGO Forum on ADB questions ADB’s intent to shift towards using country safeguards systems without any ‘assessment’ and ‘equivalency’ with its own safeguards systems as presented by the Strategy and Policy Department of the ADB. This alarming move towards using country systems prematurely will have disastrous impacts on local communities and the environment especially in autocratic regimes where civil society voice is suppressed and persecuted, and national instruments are riddled with corruption and weak implementation. ADB in doing so will also be in violation of its own ADB Safeguards Policy Strategy SPS 2010, where it clearly indicates ‘equivalency’ and ‘assessment’ to be conducted for Country Systems with ADB standards before they are considered for use in any ADB project. In ADB’s own study on Country Systems in 2015, it indicates that in six upper-middle-income countries UMICs, the use of country systems are not feasible as they are far from ADB SPS 2010 standards. The ADB is faced to provide competitive lending rates with the rise of new banks and abruptly moving towards using Country Systems is a way by which the Bank is trying to reduce loan approval times and “costs” by compromising due diligence requirements which put human rights, public safety, environmental sustainability and national economies at risk. Read the Strategy 2030 related documents below : 21 Aug 2018 | Pillars for the Future of Development Finance in Asia 08 May 2018 | Joint Submission of Comments on ADB’s Draft Strategy 2030 02 Feb 2017 | ADB Strat 2030 Letter 29 Mar 2017 | ADB response to letter regarding ADB's new corporate strategy 30 Jun 2016 | ADB criticized for holding questionable consultations on its new corporate strategy БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030

Tracking the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to expose harmful projects and policies, and advocate for transparency, justice, and sustainable development in Asia-Pacific. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА SOUTH ASIA Read More SOUTHEAST ASIA Read More

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Latest News Sign the 1M Petition ADB Project Tracker Media 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 БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) 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. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА The AIIB Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM) was established as the bank’s accountability framework to address complaints from communities harmed by AIIB-financed projects, aiming to provide redress and uphold the bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) commitments. However, civil society organizations have raised serious concerns about its accessibility, independence, and effectiveness. Since its inception in 2019, only a handful of cases have been formally registered—most notably, the 2022 complaint filed by CLEAN and the NGO Forum on ADB regarding the Bhola IPP project in Bangladesh, which alleged coerced land acquisition, environmental damage, and lack of consultation (CLEAN & Forum on ADB, 2022). Critics argue that procedural barriers—such as the requirement to exhaust project-level grievance mechanisms first—and vague timelines for response undermine the PPM’s credibility (Urgewald, 2023). Furthermore, the PPM is structurally embedded within AIIB’s management, raising doubts about its independence compared to more autonomous accountability mechanisms at institutions like the ADB or World Bank (Recourse, 2022). As AIIB expands its project portfolio, particularly in sectors like fossil gas, large hydro, and waste-to-energy, civil society advocates urge the bank to reform the PPM to ensure it can meaningfully serve communities affected by harmful infrastructure and to strengthen enforcement of safeguard violations, not merely mediate them. References: CLEAN & Forum on ADB. (2022). Formal complaint to AIIB on Bhola IPP project. https://www.forum-adb.org Recourse. (2022). Accountability in Multilateral Development Banks: Comparative Analysis. https://www.re-course.org Urgewald. (2023). AIIB Watch: North Dhaka Waste-to-Energy. https://www.urgewald.org FAQs on AIIB's PPM What is the PPM? The PPM is the AIIB’s accountability mechanism, created to address complaints from individuals or communities who believe they have been adversely affected by an AIIB-financed project. It is designed to uphold the bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). Who can file a complaint? Any two or more affected individuals (or their representative) who believe that an AIIB project has caused them harm related to environmental or social issues may submit a complaint to the PPM. What issues can the PPM investigate? The PPM can examine whether AIIB has failed to follow its own Environmental and Social Policy, leading to harm. It does not address corruption, procurement disputes, or policy disagreements. Is it independent of AIIB management? This is a point of contention. While the PPM is technically separate from project operations, it is structurally housed within AIIB’s management, unlike more independent mechanisms at other multilateral banks (Recourse, 2022). What’s the process for submitting a complaint? Complainants must first attempt to resolve issues through the Project-level Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). If unresolved, they can then file a request for compliance review or problem-solving with the PPM. Are there any real examples of PPM complaints? Yes. In 2022, civil society groups CLEAN and Forum on ADB filed the first known complaint against the Bhola IPP gas plant in Bangladesh, citing coerced land acquisition, waterlogging, and a lack of meaningful consultation (CLEAN & Forum on ADB, 2022). What are the limitations of the PPM? Civil society organizations have raised several concerns: Difficult access and awareness for affected communities Delays and vague response timelines Requirement to first exhaust local remedies Lack of structural independence from AIIB Outcomes that may lack enforcement power What reforms are being demanded? Forumnetwork call for the PPM to be: More independent from AIIB management Easier to access for marginalized communities More transparent, with timely responses Able to enforce remedies and monitor compliance Read - NGO Forum on ADB’s Comments on the AIIB Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) Civil Society Open Letter to IAMNet - A Call to Defend the Independence of IAMs NGO Forum on ADB Joint Submission, AIIB ESF Review Phase 2 NGO Forum on ADB, AIIB ESF Review Phase 1 Input Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) Paper on the Accountability Framework

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

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.

PAKISTAN BANGLADESH INDIA INDONESIA PHILIPPINES БАНГЛАДЕШ БАНГЛАДЕШ Манбаъ: Бангладеш: Барномаи вокуниши фаъоли COVID-19 ва дастгирии хароҷот LATEST NEWS Read the latest COVID-19 Research produced by Freedom from Debt Coalition from the Philippines and NGO Forum on ADB. Download Download UPDATES 15 January 2022 PH foreign borrowings, grants vs COVID-19 hit P1.3T 22 December 2021 Philippines borrows at least P32.6 billion for COVID-19 booster, kids’ shots 19 November 2021 ADB approves $600-million loan for Philippines’ universal health care 29 April 2021 Govt to get $3.9-B loans from Asian Development Bank 23 March 2021 What you need to know about Duterte’s COVID-19 loans WEBINAR SERIES: PHILIPPINES Dr. Rene Ofreneo from Freedom from Debt Coalition discussed the government’s response to the Covid pandemic – a long-running quarantine program and a “four-pillar socio-economic strategy”. He later zeroed in on what is happening in the health and economic sectors and the situation of the citizenry, with a special focus on the situation of the Filipino working population and the country’s progress in containing the virus spread and in promoting resilient economic recovery.

The NGO Forum on ADB is an Asian-led network of civil society organizations (CSOs), based in Asia and the Pacific region. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Safeguards Public Information Policy Accountability Mechanism Strategy 2030 МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА Latest News ADB Project Tracker Media Sign the 1M Petition 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.

Meet the team of NGO Forum on ADB, including its Executive Director and staff working on environmental justice, energy transition, communications, and development advocacy. INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT History Network Structure International Committee International Secretariat FAQ ҶЕН ДЕРИЛЛО Ҳамоҳангсози барнома оид ба алоқа Ҷен зиёда аз 15 сол ҳамчун профессори донишгоҳ кор кардааст. Донишгоҳи Политехникии Филиппин, Коллеҷи Сан Себастиан-Реколетос, Коллеҷи ҳикмати илоҳӣ, Донишгоҳи Адамсон, Коллеҷи Ангеликум ва Коллеҷи Рӯҳулқудс аз ҷумлаи муассисаҳои таълимӣ мебошанд, ки ӯ имкон дошт бо онҳо ҳамроҳ шавад. Аввалин дучори кори рушд бо ӯ буд Филиппин Misereor Partnership Inc. воқеъ дар Манила, Филиппин. Вай дараҷаи иртиботи пахши Донишгоҳи Политехникии Филиппин дорад ва дараҷаи магистр дар соҳаи коммуникатсия ва инчунин фарҳанги ВАО аз Донишгоҳи Маастрихт , Нидерландия. Ҳоло ӯ дараҷаи магистрии худро дар соҳаи антропологияи фарҳангӣ ва таҳқиқоти рушд аз он ба итмом мерасонад KU Leuven, Белгия . Барои дидани портфели ӯ лутфан клик кунед Ин ҷо. Шумо метавонед ба ӯ дар тамос шавед ҷен [дар] forum-adb.org.

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. БОНКИ ОСИЁИ РУШДИ (БОР) Project Monitoring Energy Campaign Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM) AIIB Annual Meeting МОНИТОРИНГИ ЛОИҲА 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