Two decades in ADB’s ACEF: a race away from 1.5°c
- NGO Forum on ADB
- Jun 3
- 9 min read
NGO Forum on ADB Statement on the ADB Asia Clean Energy Forum 2025
Recent reports have confirmed a stark and alarming reality: April 2025 marked the 12th consecutive month where global surface air temperatures breached 1.58°C above pre-industrial levels. This unprecedented climate record is not just a data point—it is a blaring alarm for Asia, one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world.
In recent months, the region endured its hottest and driest season on record, with the Climate Shift Index indicating that 10 out of 51 Asian countries suffered from extreme heat directly linked to anthropogenic climate change. Among the most affected were Brunei Darussalam, Maldives, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka—each experiencing over 74 days of dangerously high temperatures. These are not isolated anomalies; they are a clear and intensifying climate emergency. It is a foreshadowing of far worse to come if world leaders and development financial institutions like the Asian Development Bank continue to sideline climate science in favor of business-as-usual development models.
This year marks the 20th iteration of the ADB Asia Clean Energy Forum. Over the last two decades, this platform has significantly influenced the Bank’s energy investment priorities, shaping the regional landscape of so-called ‘clean energy’ financing. Under the banner of innovation and transition, ACEF has steadily carved space for private sector-led energy models and technology-driven approaches.
ADB’s Decades-Long Complicity with Climate Polluters
It is no surprise that ADB continues to derail its commitments to align its investments with the climate targets set by the Paris Agreement. A stark example of this disconnect is the inclusion of major climate polluters in the space, which is supposed to promote ‘clean’ energy. This year’s forum, for instance, is co-hosted by the Korean Energy Agency—an entity ranked among the world’s top 20 climate polluters.
Even more troubling is the involvement of the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) with ACEF, whose track record globally is marred by a shameful legacy of dirty energy investments. In the Philippines, KEPCO operates the Naga coal-fired power plant in Cebu, a facility that has caused environmental and social harm for decades. Despite ADB’s role in financing this plant, the bank has consistently failed to hold the responsible actors accountable or to deliver meaningful remedies to affected communities, even after a favorable Compliance Review Panel decision in 2012.
More recently, KEPCO’s involvement in the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) pilot at Cirebon I in Indonesia raises further concerns. Rather than signaling a genuine shift away from coal, the ETM appears to be channeling public funds to companies with entrenched interests in coal expansion, masquerading these efforts under the banner of a coal exit/retirement policy. All of this underscores a troubling pattern: both ADB and the South Korean government remain complicit in perpetuating fossil fuel dependency, all while claiming to lead the region’s energy transition.
It is equally concerning that companies such as Standard Chartered and OceanaGold continue to be given space to speak in this forum. As the Forum network and allies raised last year, this UK-based Standard Chartered has faced a series of complaints for its failure to conduct adequate due diligence in line with existing regulations before financing four coal-fired power plants in the Philippines. As a result, this has led to forced evictions, loss of livelihoods, health issues from pollution, and instances of intimidation and violence in local communities.
OceanaGold is one of the global extractive companies actively backing open-pit mining, a practice fraught with social and environmental risks. In the Philippines, the company is facing legal action from the Church, local communities, and environmental organizations for allegedly bypassing mandatory consultations with local government units and affected populations, violating key provisions of the Local Government Code and environmental protection laws. Its operations in Nueva Vizcaya have been linked to extensive environmental degradation, the displacement of indigenous peoples, and a pattern of human rights abuses. Against this backdrop, the ADB’s renewed push into extractives through its Critical Minerals for Clean Energy Technologies (CM2CET) raises red flags, signaling an alignment with actors whose practices have historically undermined community rights and ecological integrity.
New Policy, Old Patterns: ADB’s Continued Backing of Dirty Energy and False Solutions
Despite its public declarations of climate leadership, ADB continues to direct substantial public financing toward energy pathways long questioned by frontline communities and climate advocates. Notably, the Bank has poured significant investments into oil and gas infrastructure: USD 667.19 million in Bangladesh, USD 600 million in Pakistan, and USD 181.89 million in Thailand—supporting fossil gas distribution under the guise of energy access and reliability.
On top of this is the double-whammy of carbon lock-in and stranded assets brought about by ADB’s financing of fossil fuel infrastructure. In Bangladesh, ADB proceeded to fund a 165-km gas pipeline and two gas-based power plants in Khulna (225 MW and 800 MW) despite the lack of a viable gas supply. These projects were rendered inoperative for years due to shortages, ultimately becoming a long-term fiscal burden for the public.
In Indonesia, ADB has heavily funded large geothermal projects amounting to USD 1.555 billion despite strong opposition from Indigenous Peoples and impacted residents. Waste-to-energy (WtE) projects also continue to receive support, framed within the Bank’s Circular Economy agenda. One notable case is the Greater Malé Waste-to-Energy Project in the Maldives, which received significant ADB financing, largely through loans, placing additional debt burdens on a climate-vulnerable island state. These projects carry significant social and environmental risks and undermine the urgent need for a real shift toward people-centered, renewable systems.
This year’s ACEF will mark the first formal consultation with civil society and NGOs for the Energy Policy Review. The 2021 Energy Policy mandates a review within five years, led by the Energy Sector Office with guidance from the Office of General Counsel and the Policy Strategy Department. This review comes at a crucial moment as the new ADB President takes office and shareholder countries show differing positions on energy.
However, the review is unfolding amidst significant geopolitical and institutional shifts that complicate the path forward. The recent change in ADB’s leadership, with a new President assuming office, coincides with varying positions among shareholder countries on climate change and energy transition priorities. For instance, the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the Trump Administration means weakening the unified front on urgent climate action and walking away from accountability as a historic emitter. Meanwhile, major shareholders such as Japan and South Korea continue to fund fossil fuel infrastructure and promote unproven technologies like carbon capture and storage, which undermine the transition to clean energy. At the same time, leadership changes in other key constituencies, including Germany, introduce further uncertainty regarding the collective stance on energy finance.
Given this context, the upcoming Energy Policy Review presents a critical test of ADB’s commitment to climate leadership. We strongly urge the Bank and its management to uphold the integrity of the 2021 Energy Policy by resisting pressures that could lead to backsliding. This means firmly rejecting expanded fossil fuel financing and techno-fix approaches that compromise climate goals. Instead, the review should reinforce ambitious commitments aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target, strengthen accountability measures, and center just transition principles that safeguard communities and ecosystems.
From this, the NGO Forum on ADB members and allies reiterates its core demands for the ACEF and the Energy Policy Review 2025. The ADB must take a more decisive and inclusive approach by revisiting civil society recommendations and strengthening its commitment to climate justice, human rights, and environmental integrity throughout the region.
Transparent Review Process. The ADB should provide clear timelines, open access to policy drafts, and meaningful opportunities for civil society and affected communities to participate fully in consultations.
Uphold Climate Imperatives. The Bank must fully uphold the 1.5°C objective of the Paris Agreement and abandon the flawed ‘Paris Alignment’ framework. We urge ADB to develop or adopt a decisive approach that aligns all portfolios, not only energy, with the 1.5°C pathway. This must include clear, science-based criteria and measurable benchmarks embedded in sectoral policies (such as the Energy Policy) and operations to ensure that the Bank can be held accountable for delivering on its climate commitments.
Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM). ADB should prioritize decommissioning coal power plants rather than repurposing them, exclude coal expansionists from ETM financing, require reparations and just transition plans for affected communities, and reconsider any move to expand the ETM scope to oil and gas before resolving existing flaws.
Strategic and Timebound Phase-out of Fossil Gas. ADB must implement a strategic, time-bound phase-out of all support for midstream and downstream fossil gas projects across all financing modalities. Gas projects should be excluded from all categories of ‘low carbon’ investments, including loans and technical assistance.
No More False Solutions. The Bank must stop supporting false solutions by classifying large geothermal projects as high-risk and removing them from the renewable energy category. It should cease financing or refinancing large-scale hydropower projects, recognizing their serious social, environmental, and economic harms. Support for waste-to-energy incinerators must be withdrawn, and these projects should be excluded from the Circular Economy framework in line with internationally binding environmental and health agreements. The ADB must also reject ammonia and hydrogen co-firing, carbon capture and storage (CCUS), and offset schemes that distract from genuine renewable energy financing.
Critical Minerals Agenda. The Bank must reject the reinvention of a troubled legacy in the extractive sector by ending the use of climate finance for climate-smart mining and the CM2CET framework, which risk repeating past environmental and social harms under the guise of climate action.
Nuclear Energy. Despite the Bank’s commitment not to support new nuclear energy projects, it continues to leave the door open by acknowledging nuclear power as a potential source of ‘low-carbon’ baseload electricity. This is a dangerous and misleading provision that must be removed. Framing nuclear energy as such disregards its well-documented environmental, social, and economic risks: from radioactive waste, and exorbitant costs, and safety concerns exacerbated by natural disasters and geopolitical instability. Nuclear energy has no place in a just energy transition and should be excluded from ADB’s energy policy.
Real Solutions towards Just Energy Transition. Public finance should instead support decentralized and community-owned renewable energy systems that prioritize equity, local rights, and environmental sustainability. This approach must empower affected communities with meaningful participation and fair access to clean energy benefits. Banks must also rethink their Just Transition frameworks by adopting a holistic approach aligned with international standards and principles. Civil society has consistently called for embedding the ‘Polluters Pay’ principle in these frameworks to ensure greater accountability and justice for the costs of the climate crisis. A truly just transition requires not only supporting workers, communities, Indigenous Peoples, women and LGBTQIA+, and vulnerable groups affected by fossil fuel phase-out but also holding polluters responsible for the damage they cause.
Moving Ahead
After two decades, ADB’s ACEF remains emblematic of the contradictions at the heart of climate finance. At a time when climate science demands urgency and justice, the Bank cannot afford to backtrack or sidestep accountability. The Energy Policy Review is not just a procedural checkpoint—it is a litmus test of ADB’s political will to move away from fossil fuel dependence, techno-fixes, and private-sector-led development models that have repeatedly failed its developing member countries. Civil society has long called for decisively ending carbon-intensive and extractivist development and a pivot toward democratic, decentralized, and renewable energy systems. This moment demands that the ADB confront and end its legacy of environmental and social harm. Anything less is complicity in deepening the crisis it claims to solve.
NGO Forum on ADB Network
ENDORSED BY THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
350 Pilipinas, Philippines
350.org Asia, Asia
Adarsha Samajik Progoti Sangstha, Bangladesh
Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice, Indonesia
Alternative Law Collective (ALC), Pakistan
Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Philippines
Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Bangladesh
Bank Climate Advocates, United States
Centre for community mobilization and support, Armenia
Centre for Environment and Participatory Research CEPR, Bangladesh
Centre for Environmental justice, Sri Lanka
Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur, Manipur, India
CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network), Bangladesh
Community Resource Centre, Thailand
Environmental Public Society, Armenia
Forum on Ecology and Development (FED), Bangladesh
Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan
Green Advocates International, Liberia
Growthwatch, India
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India
Indus Consortium, Pakistan
Inisiasi Masyarakat Adat (IMA), Indonesia
Initiative for Right View, Bangladesh
International Rivers, International
Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan
Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia
Kazakhstan International Bureau of human rights, Kazakhstan
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Philippines
Mekong Watch, Japan
Nashvek, Kyrgystan
Oil Workers' Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan,
Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia
PA "Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan", Kyrgyz Republic/Central Asia
Pakaid, Pakistan
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan
Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF, Nigeria
People of Asia for Climate Solutions, the Philippines
Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Philippines
Program on Alternative Development, University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UPCIDS AltDev), Philippines
Recourse, The Netherlands
River Without Boundaries, Mongolia
SANLAKAS, Philippines
Society for Peace and Sustainable Development, Pakistan
Society of Development and Education For Small Households-SoDESH, Bangladesh
SONGSHOPTAQUE, BANGLADESH
Terranusa Indonesia, Indonesia
Trend Asia, Indonesia
Urgewald, Germany
Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, Germany/Uzbekistan
Comments