Statement to ADB 59th Annual Meeting [Samarkand, Uzbekistan]

At the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, discussions take place amid rising global uncertainty. The ongoing global conflict in the Middle East, which began on February 28, 2026, has disrupted the existing world economic order, sending ripple effects to supply and value chains across the world. Asia and the Pacific have been hit severely and are facing intensified economic pressures, compounded by climate risks. In this context, civil society perspectives from across the region highlight the importance of carefully considering the embedded risks of current policy directions, project operations, and financing approaches. 

This moment is a critical juncture in Asia’s development trajectory. ADB must make prudent and far-sighted strategic decisions with its financing in order not to derail the region from meeting its SDG targets and Paris Alignment goals. This is not the time to embed the region into imported fossil fuel supply chains, and experiment with high-risk energy solutions such as Nuclear and Critical Minerals extractivism, both sectors that severely threaten the ADB's performance-based Safeguards standards. The Bank must prioritise basic development needs: poverty alleviation, public health, human rights, food security, water and sanitation, and climate change over large-scale commercial project interests.

Global Economic and Geopolitical Context

The genocide in Gaza, and the armed conflict-related deaths in Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and others, all illustrate the failure of the international system to protect Human Rights. To this end, ADB, as a multilateral development partner committed to sustainable development in Asia, must hold the line in upholding Human Rights in all of its operations.  Consequently, transport disruptions of energy resources in the global economic system have led the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to issue warnings that emerging markets and developing nations will be hit hardest by rising energy costs and supply chain disruptions. Growth forecasts for developing economies have been revised down, inflation expectations have risen, and vulnerable nations are grappling with tighter budgets, higher debt burdens, and unprecedented food supply concerns.

In this context, even a sustained 10% increase in oil prices could raise global inflation by 0.4 percentage points and reduce global output by 0.1–0.2%, further tightening the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries, according to the International Monetary Fund (2026). Further, ADB’s Asia Outlook projected that if the war persisted through the third quarter of the year, developing countries would experience a 4.7% decline in growth. Simultaneously, the International Energy Agency has reported that this conflict has caused the largest oil supply disruption on record, driving crude prices above $100 per barrel. Additionally, UN Trade and Development statistics show that rising interest payments have reduced government revenue available for other public expenditures in 99 developing countries between 2018 and 2024.

Implications for Developing Member Countries

Farmers across Asia are queuing for hours, carrying their irrigation pumps, in search of a drop of diesel. Their woes are compounded by a sweeping fertiliser shortage, which is likely to prove ominous for the next harvest. All this is driving rising food prices and panic among urban and rural communities. Due to oil supply shortfalls, educational institutions, offices, factories, and markets are all closing down early and reducing working hours to manage energy supply needs, leading to loss of wages and depreciating household incomes. Additionally, the reactive push for further fossil fuel supply procurement is contributing to the climate crisis, as each new fossil fuel project, justified as “energy security”, deepens import dependence, heightens the risk of stranded assets, and pushes countries further from a just transition and their Paris targets. In this ADB AGM, ongoing dialogue with civil society is vital, not optional. Independent civil society voices, such as the Forum and its allies, are mandated to speak truth to power at the ADB. Our goal is to assert to the decision makers of ADB that all bank operations must focus on protecting people’s livelihoods, food security, and access to critical social services such as health and education. Thus, ADB operations must be grounded in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and internationally ratified human rights conventions, including core ILO standards. We are urging the ADB to rethink and curtail its privatisation agenda and prioritize the public interest amid this turbulent time.

The Forum in this AGM calls into question the fundamental objectives of the ADB: Who benefits from ADB's projects and who bears the losses? Who bears the heaviest burden of risk, and who accumulates wealth risk-free? 

In this annual meeting, NGO Forum on ADB network and its allies are raising safeguard red flags on the following projects across the region: Jamshoro Coal Power Plant and Balakot Hydropower Project in Pakistan; Tanahu Hydropower in Nepal; the Imphal Road Project in India; the Dieng 2 Geothermal Project in Indonesia; Climate Smart Mining in Mongolia; the Rupsha 800 MW stranded asset Gas Power Plant in Bangladesh; the GWTE 12 Waste-to-Energy Projects in Thailand; the Kolakata Environmental Improvement Project in India; and the Manar Wind and Upper Elehera Water Management projects in Sri Lanka.

Across these cases, the concerns raised by affected communities are serious and recurring, including unfair land acquisition, involuntary resettlement/forced relocation, environmental and social harm, weak safeguard compliance, and the ongoing struggle to secure timely remedies before losses become irreversible. If the ADB is serious about mitigating harm, these warning signs from the ground need to be addressed early, transparently, and in ways that protect people’s lands, livelihoods, dignity, and rights all throughout the project cycle.

Concerns on Energy Policy Amendments

We are deeply concerned about the process and the amendments to ADB’s Energy Policy approved on 24 November 2025. Last year’s review was a crucial opportunity to close all the loopholes on fossil fuel financing. However, the bank failed to do so by adhering to the status quo, which continues to permit indirect financing of coal, and failed to put a sunset provision for fossil gas. ADB itself says these amendments now allow support for nuclear power development, and the Bank moved immediately afterwards to sign a cooperation agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to support countries exploring nuclear energy options. ADB has also said the updated policy supports reducing methane leakage in existing upstream oil and gas projects. These are not marginal adjustments. They are strategic signals about where the Bank is willing to go.

From the Forum’s perspective, the move towards nuclear energy is an unacceptable red line. We reject the notion that the Bank can finance nuclear projects while relying on safeguard systems already strained in many sectors and countries. Nuclear energy is not merely another technology choice; it involves significant long-term risks, including safety issues, radioactive waste, water consumption, land acquisition, emergency plans, exclusion zones, intergenerational liabilities, capital intensity, long construction periods, and governance challenges. Track records consistently show these risks are borne most heavily by workers, local communities, Indigenous Peoples, and public institutions in borrowing countries. Our concern extends beyond nuclear financing itself to whether ADB’s environmental and social standards, implementation practices, and accountability measures are adequate to prevent intergenerational, transboundary, and immediate harm and ensure remedial action plans that can meaningfully address these very high-risk complex problems.

A different set of severe risks to the environment and people, with new complex problems, is also associated with the critical minerals mining agenda. While ADB increasingly views these minerals as essential for the clean energy shift, local communities see no such thing as a fair transition if it involves sacrificing territories, relaxing oversight, or making exceptions in the name of urgency. If ADB extends its involvement in this area, robust, binding safeguard due diligence must be mandatory, enforceable without exceptions across all operations (sovereign, non-sovereign, or financial intermediaries) and areas (upstream, midstream, and downstream). The region is already familiar with mining disasters. In Marinduque, the Marcopper disaster remains a stark reminder of what happens when oversight fails, and accountability is weak: Oxfam reported that in 1996, a drainage tunnel collapse filled the Boac River with four million tonnes of mine tailings, and a U.S. Geological Survey later highlighted the serious environmental and health impacts of that spill. Marinduque’s story is not just history; it is a warning to all institutions claiming development but underestimating the risks of extraction.

Review of the Accountability Mechanism Policy

This leads us to the review of the Accountability Mechanism Policy. According to ADB’s review documents, this process is currently before the Board, and stakeholder consultations, including those with project-affected communities, have been conducted. This review represents a critical opportunity; it must not become merely a procedural formality as communities still encounter barriers to justice. This concern is not abstract; in 2024 alone, ADB’s Accountability Mechanism received 72 complaints, yet 24 did not meet the minimum requirements for further action, as reported in the Asian Development Bank’s 2024 Annual Report (p. 55). Instead, it should be a turning point for ADB to enhance its capacity to hold borrowers and clients accountable, prevent harm proactively, and ensure timely, credible, and accessible redress when issues arise.

For the Forum network and allies, the test is clear. Accountability Mechanism must be accessible to affected people without procedural traps. It must work effectively for sovereign and non-sovereign projects, as well as for financial intermediary chains. It must ensure meaningful disclosure, protection from retaliation, and stronger compliance oversight. Above all, it must help shift the Bank’s culture from managing grievances as reputational risk to treating remedy as a development obligation.

If ADB aims to lead in a time of cascading crises, it must go beyond expanding financing options and reframing risk as transition. It must demonstrate that development does not come at the cost of rising debt, continued fossil fuel dependence, nuclear risks, extractive harm, or weakened accountability. Those most impacted by ADB-supported projects must not be treated as peripheral, but recognised as central to ADB's development agenda.

The path ahead from this AGM requires ADB to have a clear goal aiming at Sustainable Development and Climate responsibility. This means ensuring that ADB selects to finance projects aimed at the public benefit and need. To this end, all projects must uphold the strongest Safeguards, an effective Accountability Mechanism, and Disclosure policies that meet the highest standards and are implemented diligently at the project level, with binding commitments for all borrowers.

Respectfully submitted,

NGO Forum on ADB

Endorsed by -

350 Pilipinas, Philippines

AbibiNsroma Foundation, Ghana

Accountability Counsel, International

Adarsha Samajik Progoti Sangstha, Bangladesh

Aksi! for Gender, Social, and Ecological Justice, Indonesia

Alternative Law Collective, Pakistan

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippines

APCOM Foundation, Thailand

Bandhan, Bangladesh

Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh

Bank Climate Advocates, United States

Centre for Community Mobilization and Support NGO, Armenia

Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), Sri Lanka

CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh

Eco-Coalition Armenia, Armenia

Equitable Cambodia, Cambodia

Fair Finance Asia, Regional

Forum on Ecology and Development (FED), Bangladesh

Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan

Friends of the Earth US, US

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Asia-Pacific

Growthwatch, India

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India

Indus Consortium, Pakistan

Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya

Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Kazakhstan

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils.), Philippines

Mekong Watch, Japan

Nash Vek PF, Kyrgyzstan

Onnochitra Foundation, Bangladesh

Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia

Pakaid, Pakistan

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan

Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF, Nigeria

Quest For Growth and Development Foundation, Nigeria

Rivers & Rights, Southeast Asia

Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, Mongolia

Society for Women Rights and Development (SWoRD), Pakistan

Songshoptaque, Bangladesh

South Asia Just Transition Alliance (SAJTA), Regional

Southern Initiatives, Myanmar

Urgewald, Germany

Urgewald, Germany

Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, Germany

Young Power in Social Action (YPSA), Bangladesh