NGOs Criticize ADB Energy Policy Shift in Asia

Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — Non-governmental organizations have sharply criticized the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) new energy policy, warning that it could increase debt burdens, deepen dependence on fossil fuels, and heighten economic risks for developing countries in Asia.

The statements were made in Samarkand during the 59th Annual Meeting of the ADB, where the NGO Forum on ADB and its partners called on the bank to stop financing activities they say could worsen social, environmental, and financial crises in the region.

Civil society representatives said trust in the ADB will depend on its ability to respond to growing global challenges without shifting additional costs onto vulnerable communities. They argued that the bank’s decisions should reduce inequality, protect populations, and strengthen accountability mechanisms, rather than increase debt pressure and reliance on risky technologies.

The criticism came amid deteriorating economic conditions in several developing countries. The NGO Forum on ADB noted that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, rising energy prices, inflation, and shrinking fiscal space are increasing financial pressure on states in the region. According to the International Monetary Fund, a 10% rise in oil prices can increase global inflation by 0.4 percentage points and reduce output by 0.1–0.2%.

The ADB, in turn, has warned that prolonged geopolitical instability could slow growth in developing economies to 4.7%. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, rising interest payments constrained fiscal capacity in 99 developing countries between 2018 and 2024.

NGO Forum on ADB Executive Director Rayan Hassan said the bank cannot present itself as a regional partner in sustainability while supporting projects that intensify energy and climate crises. He said that under debt pressure and instability, every dollar of financing should reduce dependency and protect people, rather than reinforce development models based on fossil fuels and resource extraction.

Particular concern was raised over amendments to the ADB’s energy policy approved in November 2025. Activists said the changes still allow indirect financing of the coal sector, do not set clear timelines for phasing out fossil gas — described as a “transition fuel” — and expand support for methane reduction projects in the oil and gas sector without stronger independent monitoring or disclosure requirements.

NGO Forum on ADB expert on just transition, Nazareth del Pilar, said the bank has not met its own climate commitments and continues to prioritize the interests of major shareholders over population needs and environmental sustainability. She said local communities continue to bear the main burden of environmental crises and the impacts of excessive resource extraction.

Another point of criticism concerned potential expansion of financing for nuclear energy. Civil society representatives warned that in countries with uneven oversight mechanisms and weak public accountability systems, nuclear projects carry long-term risks, including radioactive waste management, safety threats, high water and resource consumption, and rising public debt.

Yuki Tanabe, program director at the Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society, noted that 15 years after the Fukushima nuclear accident, around 300 square kilometers remain an evacuation zone and more than 20,000 people have not returned home. He said decommissioning the plant will take several centuries due to melted nuclear fuel, questioning the feasibility of accident-response plans in many Asian countries.

The forum also criticized the ADB’s growing interest in financing critical minerals extraction. NGOs said such projects cannot be considered part of a “just transition” if they involve weakened environmental oversight, violations of local community rights, and lack effective accountability mechanisms. They cited the Marcopper environmental disaster on the Philippine island of Marinduque as an example of the consequences of weak oversight.

Alyansa Tigil Mina representative Jaybee Garganera said the bank must ensure there are no new “sacrifice zones” for resource extraction tied to the energy transition. He said the shift to new energy systems must include mandatory public consent procedures, stronger ESG safeguards, and full participation of affected communities.

The NGOs also highlighted the ongoing review of the ADB Accountability Mechanism Policy, the first such review in 12 years. They said the process will be a key test for the bank and should result in a truly independent and accessible complaints mechanism.

Accountability Counsel staff member Radhika Goyal said that without an effective accountability system, it is impossible to properly assess how environmental and social commitments are implemented in practice. She said the new mechanism must be independent from bank management, accessible to local communities, and ensure meaningful remedies for harm.

Civil society groups emphasized that the impacts of current ADB policies are already being felt across the region. They said bank-financed projects have been linked to population displacement, land loss, environmental damage, and declining living conditions, while safeguards enforcement remains uneven.

Titi Soentoro of Aksi! for Gender, Social, and Ecological Justice said that despite the ADB’s stated commitment to inclusive and sustainable development, the bank often prioritizes corporate interests and promotes development models that deepen inequality. She called for stronger protection of women and vulnerable groups, greater participation in consultations, and more effective grievance and compensation mechanisms.

The NGO Forum on ADB and its allies stressed that the bank’s performance should be measured not by the volume of investments, but by how effectively it protects people’s rights, prevents harm, and ensures justice for affected communities.

They concluded that regional development should not come at the cost of ecosystem destruction, population displacement, or violations of local communities’ rights.