By the Witness Radio Team
Communities and organizations defending their land, livelihoods, and environment demand that global investors and development finance institutions take responsibility for projects they believe harm people and the planet.
Environmental and human rights defenders from Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India gathered at the World Bank Group Annual Meetings to share stories of communities fighting to be heard and seeking justice for harm caused by development projects.
Ms. Ueangfa Chamket, representing Chachoengsao Re: Power in Thailand, described her community’s long battle to defend the land that sustains their way of life. For over twenty years, residents have stood firm against the Burapa power plant, first proposed as a coal-fired facility and later changed to a gas-fired plant.
She explained that this region is a lifeline for farming communities, whose fields not only ensure local food security but also supply Bangkok markets with fresh produce.
“Our communities are agricultural communities which practice organic farming and later sell some of our produce in Bangkok,” she said.
Chamket voiced concerns about the power plant’s environmental impact and its effects on local livelihoods, citing air pollution, dust, and strain on water resources. She warned these threats endanger both people’s health and the biodiversity that sustains the community.
The Burapa Power Plant Project is a proposed 540 MW fossil gas-fired combined cycle power plant under construction in Khao Hin Son, Phanom Sarakham, Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. The project began in 2007 as a 600 MW coal-fired power plant awarded to Advance Agro (now Double A Power/National Power Supply, NPS), according to research from Bank Track, an international organization that tracks private-sector commercial banks and their financed activities.
Despite strong opposition from local communities and four rejections of its Environmental and Health Impact Assessments, most recently in 2016, the project remains in Thailand’s National Power Development Plans.al-fired proposal was replaced by plans for the 540-megawatt Burapa natural gas-fired power plant at the same location. The developers subsequently signed a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), alongside a long-term gas supply agreement with PTT PCL.
Chamket says residents refuse more industrial development unless their concerns are addressed, stressing their determination to resist the power plant and what they see as the taking of their local resources.
Beyond environmental worries, Chamket said the community felt shut out of key decisions, from consultations to public hearings. She questioned why residents’ voices mattered less than those of powerful financiers.
“They do not hear our comments and only listen to the funders and financiers of the project. We want to share in public hearing forums, but they block us by saying there is limited time, creating a situation where we cannot report the actual situation in the area,” she said.
Similar worries have surfaced in Prachinburi province, where communities are pushing back against industrial waste incineration projects promoted under the banner of a circular economy.
The Gulf Waste-to-Energy (GWTE) Circular Economy Project aims to build and operate 12 waste-to-energy power plants across five Thai provinces: Saraburi, Ayutthaya, Prachinburi, Rayong, and Chonburi.
Mr. Ridtidat Boonyaburanakit, of the Strong Prachinburi Community Network, described how the project area supports rice, cassava, maize, and poultry farming. He said residents struggle to be heard at public hearings.
“We do not have the opportunities for public hearings,” he said.
“We do not have opportunities for public hearings,” he said. AIIB, along with other lenders, backs the project. In February 2026, the ADB announced loan agreements totaling 16.6 billion Thai baht (approximately US$511.9 million) with 12 companies indirectly owned by Gulf Waste to Energy Holdings Company Limited, a subsidiary of Gulf Development Public Company Limited (GULF), with the intention of supporting energy generation from nonhazardous industrial waste, promoting diversion from landfills, and reducing illegal waste disposal activities in Thailand.
On the ground, community leaders say the project has failed to meet its promises. Boonyaburanakit also reported security personnel intimidated residents who tried to join project discussions. Counsel Aaron Pedrosa, of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, highlighted the uphill battle communities face in holding investors accountable for environmental and social harm.
The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice is a coalition of more than 150 grassroots, sectoral, and other organizations working nationwide to advance climate justice.
Pedrosa said the coalition filed a case in 2017 against the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, over financing linked to 19 coal power projects in the Philippines through a financial intermediary, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.
He explained this financing fueled the spread of coal power in the country, with 16 of 19 proposed projects ultimately built.
“This is happening in a country where for 13 years now, according to the recent Global Witness Report, we remain the deadliest place for land and defenders,” Pedrosa said, highlighting the dangers people face when defending their land and environment.
Despite the challenge of confronting powerful financial institutions, Pedrosa emphasized the need to keep fighting for accountability, vowing to persist even when justice seems out of reach in Bangkok also sparked debate over who ultimately shoulders the burden of environmental damage and climate disasters.
Sutharee WannasiSutharee Wannasiri, a senior community associate with Accountability Counsel and one of the event’s moderators, referred to recent flooding in Thailand and questioned who pays the price of such farmers cries, vendors, and families seeking shelter as those most vulnerable to the fallout, even as powerful institutions make decisions that shape their futures.
Her remarks linked communities’ opposition to individual projects to a broader concern, suggesting people facing environmental risks may have little influence over investment decisions that affect them.
Advocates demanded stronger accountability for harmful projects, insisting that affected communities must be heard and that investors and operators take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.
Margaux Day, the policy director at Accountability Counsel, said investors could make better decisions by listening to communities with direct knowledge of their environments and livelihoods.
“Local communities are the experts in their own lives and environments, and if investors were to listen to them, then those projects would be more sustainable and successful because they would be more informed by the actual experts,” Day said.
Yet advocates argue that complaint mechanisms alone are not enough. Communities need a real voice before projects are approved, protection from intimidation when they speak up, and access to remedies when their rights and livelihoods are threatened.
“The polluter and the financier should fix it and pay for it and stop silencing the people for speaking the truth,” said Margaux Day, policy director at Accountability Counsel.
