Fast-Tracked ADB Energy Policy Review Threatens Climate Goals and Human Rights

Manila, Philippines — Civil society groups across Asia and the Pacific have condemned the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) 2025 Energy Policy Review as a rushed, opaque, and dangerous process that could lock the region into decades of fossil fuel dependence and destructive false solutions.Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), Freedom from Debt Coalition, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), Nuclear/Coal-Free Bataan Movement, 350 Pilipinas, Asian Peoples\’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CHRD), Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) – Asia Pacific, NGO Forum on ADB, and Recourse — warns that the review’s fast-tracked schedule undermines meaningful consultation with affected communities and violates ADB’s own transparency standards.

Originally slated for completion in early 2026, the review is now set to conclude by September 2025. Key documents were only released on July 30 — halfway through the process — giving stakeholders scant time to review and respond.“ADB is treading on a slippery slope as it intends to finance more extractivism at the expense of biodiversity, water resources, and land rights,” said Jaybee Garganera of ATM. “Mining of nickel and copper will create ‘sacrifice zones’ in fragile island ecosystems and Indigenous territories — greenwashed under the guise of climate action.”

Nuclear Risks and Debt BurdensOne of the most alarming proposed changes is the lifting of ADB’s ban on nuclear financing — a move that civil society says ignores decades of unresolved safety, waste management, and cost issues.

“We strongly oppose ADB’s attempt to normalize nuclear energy as a viable solution,” said the Nuclear/Coal-Free Bataan Movement. “The BNPP is a monument to failed energy policy and corporate recklessness. Reviving nuclear financing will only deepen debt, displace communities, and expose generations to irreversible harm.”Lidy Nacpil of APMDD added, “Nuclear energy and retrofitting existing fossil fuel plants are dangerous distractions and totally unacceptable — especially at a time when renewables have become affordable, increasingly scalable and widely adopted. ADB is steering the region deeper into the climate crisis. Communities across Asia need a fast, fair, funded, and feminist just transition — not an energy policy that props up the very systems driving the climate crisis and locks us into decades more emissions, debt, and harm.”

Critical Minerals and ‘Green Extractivism’

The review also promotes large-scale extraction of so-called “critical minerals” such as nickel and copper, essential for certain clean energy technologies, but often sourced through environmentally destructive and rights-violating mining projects.

“With critical minerals, the ADB has found a cover for embracing mining again,” said Maya Quirino of LRC. “A wholesale promotion of transition mining without a deeper look at how poor communities will be affected is just green extractivism. The world’s need for energy must be recalibrated before opening up ecosystems for minerals.”

Fossil Fuel Loopholes and Bailouts

Another deeply problematic shift is the proposal to expand the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) to cover oil and gas, which campaigners warn could become a fossil fuel bailout scheme that rewards polluters while saddling the public with debt.

“If there is one thing the ADB is good at, it is downplaying critical bank policies that come with a high cost both to countries and their people,” said Elle Bartolome of PMCJ. “This process is being railroaded to protect the Bank’s fossil fuel investments and distract from its support for planet-killing energy sources. Communities around coal plants in Zambales and Cebu already know the human cost of ADB’s choices.”

The policy also continues to frame fossil gas as a “transition fuel,” despite climate science warning that new gas infrastructure is incompatible with 1.5°C pathways.

False Solutions, Waste-to-Energy, and Delayed Action
The draft amendments promote other so-called solutions — including co-firing fossil plants with ammonia or hydrogen, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), and waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration — that campaigners say prolong fossil infrastructure, divert resources, and harm communities.

Mayang Azurin of GAIA Asia Pacific warned, “It’s heinous for ADB to continue investing in waste-to-energy incineration. It is a climate-intensive, polluting, and costly technology. Instead of burning resources that could be conserved, reused, or safely recycled, the Bank is locking communities into toxic, expensive systems. Our recent air quality monitoring around waste burning facilities in Surabaya and Dumaguete revealed particulate matter emissions exceeding international thresholds by 100%, leading to the closure of a plant in Dumaguete. ADB must declare an immediate phase-out from WtE.”

“Energy Policy Review for this year, rushed by the ADB, only shows how corporate interests are being put on the pedestal over people and the planet,” said Nazareth Del Pilar of NGO Forum on ADB. “Instead of closing gaps in its policy, the Bank is slipping in dangerous provisions that deepen debt, sideline human rights, and abandon justice-centered solutions.”

Demands to the ADB

CSOs are calling on the ADB to –

• Extend the review timeline to 2026 to allow genuine consultations.

• Abandon false solutions such as nuclear power, CCUS, co-firing, expanded mineral extraction, and WtE incineration.

• Commit to a time-bound phaseout of fossil fuels, including fossil gas, across all financing modalities.

• Embed strong human rights safeguards — including Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and robust accountability — in all energy financing.

• Ensure full transparency in all financial intermediary lending and close backdoor support for fossil fuels.

“Fast-tracking weak policies wastes the precious time we have left to reverse the climate crisis,” said Chuck Baclagon, from 350 Pilipinas. “Without genuine consultation with communities whose lives and livelihoods are at stake, there can be no real climate justice.”