On the edge of the world's largest mangrove forest, three residents of the Sundarbans have brought a formal complaint against Barclays Bank, asking a question that echoes far beyond the Pasur River: when a financial institution underwrites a project that documented science and international bodies have flagged as dangerous, does it bear responsibility for what follows? The complaint, filed with the UK's Office for Responsible Business Conduct, places Barclays at the center of a widening reckoning over whether global banks can remain indifferent to the human and ecological consequences of their
Barclays faces complaint over coal plant financing near world's largest mangrove forest
Millions of people living in the Sundarbans depend on the river and forests for food and resources; heavy-metal pollution and climate impacts from the power plant threaten their livelihoods and health.
The health of the forest is in trouble.
Mark
Why does it matter that Barclays specifically underwrote debt for NTPC and the Export-Import Bank of India rather than directly financing the plant itself?
Mimi
Because it shows how global finance works in layers. Barclays didn't build the power station, but by underwriting bonds and debt for these institutions, the bank made the project financially viable. Without that backing, the money wouldn't have flowed to construction.
Luke
Right, but we should be precise about what we know. The complaint alleges Barclays breached guidelines—that's the complainants' legal argument. We don't have Barclays' response yet, and the Office for Responsible Business Conduct hasn't assessed whether the complaint has merit.
Mark
The complaint mentions that other banks refused to finance this project. Does that strengthen the case?
Mimi
It does in a reputational sense. If French banks and others looked at the same project and said no because of environmental risks, then Barclays' decision to proceed becomes harder to defend. It suggests the risks were knowable and known.
Luke
True, but we should note that we don't have statements from those other banks explaining their reasoning. We're inferring their logic from the complaint. The complaint says they refused; it doesn't quote them.
Mark
What's the actual environmental damage we can point to right now?
Mimi
The mercury and arsenic study from last November is concrete. Elevated levels in the Pasur River, with researchers identifying the power plant as a significant threat. That's not speculation—that's measured contamination.
Luke
Correct, though the study identifies multiple sources: industrial discharge, port activities, and the power plant. We can't isolate exactly how much contamination comes from Rampal versus other industrial activity in the region. The plant is identified as a threat, but the precise attribution is harder to quantify.
Mark
How many people are actually at risk here?
Mimi
Millions live in or depend on the Sundarbans. The forest is their food source, their water source, their livelihood. If the forest degrades, so does their survival.
Luke
The source says millions depend on the forest, which is accurate. But we don't have a specific number of people directly affected by the power plant's pollution, or projections of how many would be displaced or harmed if the forest continues to degrade. That's a gap worth naming.
Le Pouls
- Mercury and arsenic levels in the Pasur River — the Sundarbans' central artery — are rising, and researchers have pointed directly at the Rampal coal plant as a significant source of threat.
- Three complainants, including a farmer, a fishworkers' union, and an environmental campaigner, argue that Barclays underwrote the project's backers despite clear warnings from UNESCO and the withdrawal of other major lenders on environmental grounds.
- The complaint contends that Barclays' financing decisions violated international business conduct standards and that the plant's emissions will compound sea-level rise and extreme weather in one of the world's most climate-exposed regions.
- Legal advocates at King's College London are pressing the case as a test of whether financial institutions can be held accountable for their role in accelerating the climate and nature crisis.
- The UK's Office for Responsible Business Conduct must now decide whether to formally assess the complaint, a ruling that could reshape how British banks evaluate fossil fuel financing in vulnerable regions.
- Barclays and the plant's holding company have declined to comment, leaving the burden of response to the regulatory process now set in motion.
On the edge of the world's largest mangrove forest, three residents of the Sundarbans have brought a formal complaint against Barclays Bank, asking a question that echoes far beyond the Pasur River: when a financial institution underwrites a project that documented science and international bodies have flagged as dangerous, does it bear responsibility for what follows? The complaint, filed with the UK's Office for Responsible Business Conduct, places Barclays at the center of a widening reckoning over whether global banks can remain indifferent to the human and ecological consequences of their capital. For the millions who draw their food, water, and identity from the Sundarbans, the answer is not abstract.
Three residents of the Sundarbans — an environmental campaigner, a farmer and politician, and a fishworkers' trade union — have filed a formal complaint against Barclays Bank with the UK government's Office for Responsible Business Conduct. Their allegation is pointed: Barclays underwrote financial instruments for companies directly tied to the Rampal coal power station, a plant built on the bank of the Pasur River at the edge of the world's largest mangrove forest, despite documented evidence of the risks it poses to a UNESCO world heritage site and the communities that depend on it.
The Sundarbans stretches across more than a hundred islands shared by Bangladesh and India, sustaining Bengal tigers, hundreds of species, and millions of people who rely on its rivers and forests for food and survival. The Pasur River runs through its heart. Researchers studying the waterway last November found elevated mercury and arsenic concentrations — highest in the Pasur itself — and identified the Rampal plant as a significant environmental threat through its combustion emissions and the shipping traffic it generates.
Barclays' role was not peripheral. The bank underwrote debt for NTPC Ltd, India's state-owned power corporation and a joint-venture partner in the plant, and between 2016 and 2019 underwrote bond issues for the Export-Import Bank of India, which provided a direct loan to the Rampal project. The complainants argue these decisions violated international business conduct standards. They also contend that the plant's emissions will accelerate sea-level rise and intensify cyclones in a region where mangrove forests serve as the primary natural barrier against storm surge.
The Rampal project drew opposition from its earliest stages. UNESCO warned in 2016 that air and water pollution posed a high likelihood of irreversible damage to the heritage site. Several major banks, including French institutions, declined to participate because of environmental and social concerns. Barclays proceeded regardless. Campaigner Sharif Jamil, one of the three complainants, framed the case as a matter of institutional obligation — arguing that a bank of Barclays' standing cannot remain indifferent to the planetary consequences of its financing, particularly when renewable alternatives exist.
Legal support for the complainants is coming from King's College London's Human Rights and Environment Clinic, whose solicitors describe the complaint as an effort to push financial institutions to reckon with their role in the climate and nature crisis. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct will now determine whether to formally assess the case. Both Barclays and the plant's holding company declined to comment.
Three residents of the Sundarbans have filed a formal complaint against Barclays Bank, accusing the British financial institution of breaching international guidelines by underwriting companies tied to the Rampal power plant, a coal-fired facility built on the edge of the world's largest mangrove forest. The complaint, submitted to the UK government's Office for Responsible Business Conduct, centers on a simple but consequential fact: Barclays provided financial backing to a project that poses documented risks to a UNESCO world heritage site and the millions of people whose survival depends on it.
The Sundarbans sprawls across more than 100 islands in a river delta shared by Bangladesh and India, a landscape of interconnected waterways that sustains hundreds of plant and animal species, including Bengal tigers. Millions of people live within or adjacent to the forest, drawing food, water, and livelihoods from its rivers and mangrove stands. The Rampal power station sits directly on the bank of the Pasur River—what Sharif Jamil, an environmental campaigner from Dhaka and one of the three complainants, calls the forest's lifeline. The proximity is not incidental to the complaint; it is the entire problem.
Last November, researchers studying water quality in the Sundarbans found elevated concentrations of mercury and arsenic, with the highest levels recorded in the Pasur River itself. The study identified industrial discharge and port activities as sources of contamination and singled out the Rampal power station as posing a significant environmental threat through coal combustion emissions and increased shipping traffic. The complainants—Jamil, Animesh Mandal (a farmer and politician), and the Dakshinbanga Matsyajibi Forum, a trade union of fish workers in West Bengal—argue that Barclays failed to conduct adequate due diligence on environmental and human rights risks before providing financial services to the project's backers.
Barclays' involvement was specific and substantial. The bank underwrote debt for NTPC Ltd, India's state-owned thermal power corporation and a joint-venture partner in the plant. Between 2016 and 2019, Barclays also underwrote bond issues for the Export-Import Bank of India, which provided a loan directly to the Rampal project. The complainants contend that these financial decisions violated international business conduct standards. They also argue that emissions from the plant will accelerate global heating, raise sea levels, and intensify extreme weather in a region already acutely vulnerable to climate impacts. Mangroves function as natural barriers against cyclones and storm surge—a critical function in a landscape increasingly threatened by both.
The Rampal project faced sustained opposition from the moment it entered planning. UNESCO itself raised concerns in a 2016 report, concluding that air and water pollution posed a high likelihood of irreversibly damaging the world heritage site. Several major financial institutions, including banks in France, declined to finance the project because of its environmental and social consequences. Barclays, by contrast, proceeded. Jamil framed the complaint as a question of institutional responsibility: a bank of Barclays' global standing and reputation carries an obligation to consider the planetary and human consequences of its financing decisions. He also pointed out the alternative—Bangladesh receives sunlight year-round and possesses substantial potential for renewable energy generation, yet the country continues to expand fossil fuel infrastructure, often with foreign financial backing.
Sue Willman, a solicitor at King's Human Rights and Environment Clinic at King's College London, which is assisting the complainants, said the complaint aims to push financial institutions to reconsider their role in funding coal and oil projects that accelerate the climate and nature crisis. The rural communities of the Sundarbans, she noted, stand on the frontline of both crises simultaneously. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct, part of the UK Department for Business and Trade, will now decide whether to formally assess the complaint. Barclays and the Bangladesh India Friendship Power Company Ltd, the holding company for the Rampal project, declined to comment on the allegations.
Citations marquantes
The Rampal power plant is right on the bank of the Pasur River, which is the lifeline of the Sundarbans. The health of the forest is in trouble.— Sharif Jamil, environmental campaigner and complainant
The greater your reputation, the greater your responsibility to behave responsibly towards the planet and its people. Other banks and financial institutions were divesting from, or declining to finance, this project.— Sharif Jamil
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur The Guardian ↗
Politics & Governance