With the review set to conclude in October, civil society groups say time is running out for ADB to course-correct. 

ALBAY – More than a month into its fast-tracked energy policy review, civil society organizations (CSOs) across Asia said that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has yet to respond to criticisms over lack of transparency and meaningful consultation. 

The three-month process from July to October 2025 is called “dangerously brief” and exclusionary. ADB previously updated its 2009 Energy Policy after a 12-year gap, culminating in the release of its 2021 version. Just four years later, ADB is revisiting the policy under an unusually compressed timeline, departing from the typical year-long process of stakeholder engagement, drafting, and board approval.

This policy will shape the future of ADB’s energy investments for the next decade.

Compressed timeline, no public response

The NGO Forum on ADB, representing over 250 grassroots organizations, urged the ADB to freeze the timeline and initiate inclusive consultations. “Instead of responding with climate justice and urgency, ADB is rushing through a policy review that risks locking Asia into the very systems driving these disasters.”

“A credible energy policy demands full transparency, democratic participation, and a clear break from fossil fuels and destructive infrastructure. Anything less is a betrayal of the region’s right to a just, equitable, and climate-resilient future,” Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, said.

Climate disasters underscore urgency

The NGO Forum on ADB cited a series of deadly weather events in stressing the escalating climate crisis across Asia. 

Tropical Storm Wipha (Crising) displaced over 90,000 people and affected 800,000 in the Philippines, submerging parts of Metro Manila. In Vietnam, the same storm led to a record deployment of 350,000 troops ahead of heavy rains. 

Across South Asia, extreme weather intensified like the glacial melt and monsoons that killed over 240 in Pakistan, heatwaves that pushed India and Pakistan to 48°C, flash floods that struck Nepal, and erratic monsoons that displaced communities across Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and India.

CSOs said that that ADB’s energy investments must reflect the scale and urgency of these crises, not reinforce the extractive systems that fuel them.

Fossil dependence and false solutions

Critics said that ADB’s continued support for fossil fuel, mega-dams, and incinerators (often labeled as “just transition” projects) worsens environmental harm and social inequality. CEED’s 2024 Fossil Fuel Divestment Scorecard revealed that while domestic banks paused new fossil fuel financing, ADB continued backing gas projects through technical assistance and policy support. This includes energy master planning, feasibility studies, and capacity building that frame fossil gas as “low-carbon” or “transition infrastructure.” These are terms that critics found to be overly flexible and vague, allowing fossil fuel investments to persist under the guise of climate action. 

ADB’s Clean Energy Forum also spotlighted carbon capture and hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, which are technologies CEED warns are corporate-led distractions from real climate action. ADB’s low score from CEED’s 2025 Southeast Asia Fossil Fuel Divestment Scorecard reflects poor alignment with climate goals.

Legal pressure mounts

A recent advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) added legal weight to civil society demands. The ICJ affirmed that institutional climate inaction may breach international law, stressing that emissions are “unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.”

“Lifting bans on nuclear investments and endorsing coal co-firing technologies undermines ADB’s climate claims,” said Nazareth Del Pilar, Just Transitions advocacy officer. “The Bank must support community-driven renewables, not profit-driven false solutions.”

What comes next?

With the review set to conclude in October, civil society groups said that time is running out for ADB to course-correct. Without a pause and recalibration, they said, the ADB risks entrenching the very forces contributing to Asia’s climate vulnerability.

The ADB has not issued a public response to these concerns. (DAA)