A Decade On, the New Development Bank (BRICS Bank) Still Leaves Affected Communities Without Redress
No independent accountability mechanism, a disclosure policy still labeled “interim” after nearly ten years, and case studies from India and other BRICS countries show the cost of those gaps
Press Statement
NEW DELHI, September 10, 2026: A new report released on the eve of the 18thĀ BRICS Summit reveals that while the negative impacts of New Development Bank (NDB – BRICS Bank) investments are increasing, communities impacted by it are left with no avenues for remedy.
The report,Ā Beyond the Promises: A Decade of Environmental and Social Commitments at the New Development BankĀ is authored by Anuradha Munshi, Ivirah Agarwal, Ramananda Wangkheirakpam, and Donald Takkhell.
More than a decade after Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) launched the NDB as an alternative to the Western-dominated Bretton Woods Institutions, a report finds the bank has yet to deliver on one of its founding promises to reshape global finance through aĀ sustainable, equitable, and people-centric approach to development.
The report’s central finding concerns NDB’s Environmental and Social Framework. Rather than applying consistent safeguard standards of its own, as the World Bank does, NDB relies on borrower countries’ own environmental, social, and procurement systems ā without specifying what those systems must meet. That reliance is compounded by non-disclosure agreements with client governments and a disclosure policy that has remained “interim” since 2016.
The 2025 DFI Transparency Index, run by Publish What You Fund, gave NDB just 50% on environmental and social disclosure and zero on every indicator tied to an independent accountability mechanism, because none exists.
Anuradha Munshi, one of the authors of the report said, āThe NDB needs to set a better standard than the institutions it was built to challenge. Currently, it’s falling way short of even matching peer institutions. Finalizing its disclosure policy, setting real limits on country-system reliance, having robust environmental and social framework and creating an independent grievance mechanism aren’t radical asks, they are the basics that need to be met urgently. Ten years and dozens of projects later, ‘we’re still building the Bank’ isn’t an answer anymore. The NDB needs to close that gap now.ā
Two new case studies add further evidence to concerns over New Development Bank (NDB) safeguards. In Manipur, the Lamphelpat Waterbody Rejuvenation Project has reclassified a legally protected wetland as a mere “water body,” bypassing wetland protection laws. Implemented by the Water Resources Department instead of the Manipur State Wetlands Authority, theĀ ā¹665 crore project has dug a 12-foot artificial reservoir, killing endangered Manipuri ponies and triggering water hyacinth blooms. No detailed project documents are publicly available.
In Rajasthan, the $495 million Indira Gandhi Canal rehabilitation, approved in 2017, has struggled to balance repair work with drinking-water and irrigation needs. A planned 2024 shutdown was cancelled over election-season water concerns, delaying rehabilitation, while farmers in Bikaner and Jaisalmer have protested unequal water releases. NDB’s “Category B” risk rating overlooks livelihood disruption from unreliable supply.
Both cases reflect NDB’s broader pattern: reliance on borrower-country systems, weak disclosure, and no independent mechanism for affected communities to seek redress.
āWhen powerful institutions like the New Development Bank enter into agreements with governments and corporations while leaving affected communities with no meaningful avenue for redress, projects like the Lamphelpat Project in Manipur expose the stark gap between rhetoric and reality. Communities are left to bear the social and environmental costs, while the promise of āachieving environmental and social sustainability to improve peopleās livesā rings hollowā one of the authors Ramananda Wangkheirakpam said.
The report calls on NDB to establish an independent accountability mechanism for affected communities; finalize a permanent disclosure policy publishing full project-level documentation; set binding minimum parameters for the country systems it relies on; limit non-disclosure agreements; define “sustainable infrastructure” with enforceable criteria; adopt a firm no-fossil-fuel-finance commitment; and close the fungibility loophole in on-lending through intermediaries.
The NDB was created at the 2014 BRICS Fortaleza summit and became operational in 2015, with its five founders holding equal shareholding and voting power and no veto for any member. By the end of December 2025, it had approved roughly $43 billion across 139 projects. Its focus has shifted since its early years, though: six of its first seven approved projects were renewable energy investments, while transportation now dominates the portfolio ā showing a shift that the bank has drifted from its original green-infrastructure mandate. In India also, transport sector dominates the investment portfolio followed by water and sanitation projects and clean energy and energy efficiency sectors.
Contact:
Joe Athialy ā 98711 53775Ā joe@cenfa.org
Centre for Financial AccountabilityĀ is now on Telegram and WhatsApp. Click here toĀ join our Telegram channelĀ and clickĀ here to join our WhatsApp channeland stay tuned to the latest updates and insights on the economy and finance.
