Open Letter: CSO's Deep Concerns Over Lifting ADB's Nuclear Energy Financing Ban

Asian Development Bank

Attn: ADB Board of Directors

Attn: Mr. Masato Kanda, President

Attn: Mr. Priyantha Wijayatunga, Senior Director, Energy Sector Office

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550,

Metro Manila, Philippines

September 4, 2025

Dear Mr. President Kanda, Mr. Wijayatunga, ADB Member State Shareholders,

We as civil society are deeply concerned by the ADB’s proposal to lift the ban on financing nuclear energy as part of its current Energy Policy mid-term review. This would undermine the urgent transition to renewables and energy efficiency as countries have agreed in the climate COP in Dubai 2023, to globally triple renewable electricity capacity and double energy efficiency across the economy by 2030. As a recent UN Report emphasized, we are at a decisive moment for accelerating renewable energy.^[1] Solar and wind power have entered a virtuous cycle, now almost always the cheapest, fastest, and most scalable options for new electricity generation and energy access. The ADB's consideration of supporting nuclear energy is undermining this trend. Every dollar allocated to nuclear is a dollar not invested in renewable energy, where the same funds could deliver five to seven times more capacity in a fraction of the time.^[2]

Financing nuclear energy will delay the shift to renewable solutions. On average, nuclear power plants take 10-15 years to build, while project time for PV and onshore wind averages one to three years. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not faster. All four SMRs currently operating or under construction have taken 12-13 years to build—much longer than the promised three to four years.^[3] Nor are they cheaper, with costs overrunning by a factor of three to seven, making them more expensive per unit of installed capacity.^[4]

Additionally, nuclear energy carries severe and unresolved risks to people and nature. No mistakes are allowed in the operation of nuclear power plants. While the Bank has emphasized its intention to collaborate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to uphold safety, regulatory standards, and non-proliferation safeguards, serious concerns persist among experts and civil society advocates regarding implementing these in developing countries.^[5] In many developing countries, the institutional capacity to manage nuclear energy safely is limited, regulatory frameworks are often weak, technical expertise is insufficient, and emergency preparedness remains inadequate. These systemic gaps heighten the risk of accidents, which, though rare, can result in devastating and irreversible harm to both people and the environment as the 2011 Fukushima disaster tragically demonstrated.^[6] As recently assessed, the overall costs of the Fukushima accident have quadrupled since 2013 and are now estimated to be close to USD 190 billion.

Moreover, the safe disposal of nuclear waste remains an unsolved problem worldwide. Radioactive materials such as plutonium and various other radionuclides remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. Current storage methods for nuclear waste are only temporary and inadequate, and in over 75 years of “peaceful” nuclear energy use worldwide, no government has successfully implemented a reliable, highly secure, and independently verified waste repository. Additionally, nuclear power plants present a proliferation risk, as they can serve as a source of materials for nuclear weapons, potentially exacerbating existing geopolitical conflicts.

While the financial benefits are gained largely by private developers of nuclear facilities, the public sector carries much of the cost associated with health and environmental impacts, disaster response and long-term waste management. The country examples in the appendix of this letter illustrate the negative environmental and human impacts of financing nuclear energy, both now and in the future. 

In a meeting with CSO representatives, we were told that the mid-term review of the Energy Policy would bring only minor changes. However, lifting the ban on nuclear energy is far from minor. It is a fundamental policy shift with potentially disastrous consequences for decades to come. Furthermore, the timeline for consultations with CSOs was abruptly and significantly shortened, leaving CSOs and other stakeholders with very limited time to engage meaningfully and prepare their inputs.

If the ADB follows the World Bank in lifting its nuclear ban, it is clear that it is moving away from its commitment to provide clean and affordable energy to communities in Asia. Developing countries deserve energy solutions that prioritise safety, transparency, and long-term sustainability, not outdated high-risk technologies promoted under the guise of “clean energy” and development. We urge the ADB to maintain the ban on nuclear energy, upholding its responsibility to protect people, ecosystems, and future generations from nuclear risks while accelerating the transition to renewables.

Sincerely, 

AbibiNsroma Foundation, Ghana 

Centre for Community Mobilization and Support, Armenia

Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Bangladesh

Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines

Friends of the Earth Japan, Japan

Gender Action, USA

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Asia Pacific

Growthwatch, India

Indian Social Action Forum, India

Initiative for Right View (IRV), Bangladesh

Inisiasi Masyarakat Adat (IMA), Indonesia

International Accountability Project, Global

International Rivers, Global

Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), Japan

Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Australia

KRuHA, Indonesia

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Philippines

NGO Forum on ADB

Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia

Quest For Growth and Development Foundation, Nigeria 

Rivers without Boundaries Coalition Mongolia 

Trend Asia, Indonesia

Urgewald, Germany
 

APPENDIX: Country Examples

India: 

India’s experience with nuclear energy offers a cautionary tale. Exposure to radiation from nuclear plants and uranium mining sites has led to significant public health crises. In places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, local indigenous communities staying close to the uranium mines reported increased instances of cancer, miscarriages, congenital disabilities, and long-term health effects directly linked to radiation exposure.^[7] These communities often lack adequate safety protections, medical monitoring, or legal recourse. In addition to public health, uranium mining has degraded the environment, contaminated water sources, and displaced vulnerable communities. India also faces major challenges in nuclear waste management and lacks a secure, permanent disposal solution. Expanding nuclear energy in such contexts not only endangers human lives but also violates the principles of environmental justice and equity. 

India has also witnessed sustained and widespread resistance against nuclear energy projects, driven by concerns over environmental safety, displacement, lack of transparency, and democratic accountability.^[8] These movements reflect wide public discontent with India’s top-down nuclear policy and a strong demand for safer, decentralized, and democratic energy alternatives. Yet the current policy changes globally, with the World Bank’s removal of the nuclear ban, are also leading to policy changes on nuclear energy in India, causing new threats. The Government of India recently proposed amendments in its Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 201,0, to allow entry for private players and ease requirements to allow foreign players to have a minority stake in the power plants.^[9] They have also proposed the construction of ten new nuclear reactors, most of which will be built on lands of vulnerable, indigenous communities.^[10]

Philippines:

In the Philippine context, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) left a bad legacy of fiscal and social and environmental fiasco.^[11] This mothballed plant created decades of illegitimate debt, social and environmental injustices, and has put the communities in constant turbulence since time immemorial. Sitting in a disaster-prone region, BNPP has been confronted with local resistance since it was built.

At the same time, the country is now in its final stride toward passing the legal framework for nuclear use, just as the ADB, headquartered in Manila, is preparing to lift its long-standing nuclear ban. As one of the Philippines’ core ODA partners, this development opens significant possibilities for the country to pursue financing options that would incorporate nuclear power into its energy mix. While current support may appear to be framed around technical assistance and capacity building for DMCs, it is in fact a clear signal of ADB’s intent to pave the way for nuclear energy in the near future.

Malaysia: 

Malaysia’s recent nuclear developments underscore both institutional caution and strong public opposition. In August 2025, the Ministry of Energy Transition and Water Transformation (PETRA) announced a feasibility study on nuclear power, coordinated by MyPOWER Corporation, but emphasized that no decision has yet been made on reactor type or deployment. Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof further clarified that any decision would come only after 2030, contingent on regulatory readiness, safety assurances, and, most critically, public acceptance^[12].

Civil society organizations, however, remain firmly opposed. Greenpeace Malaysia has condemned nuclear power as too costly and risky, urging the government to uphold the 2018 moratorium and focus on renewable energy alternatives^[13]. The Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (MyCAN) has highlighted survey findings that nearly two-thirds of Malaysians are concerned about nuclear safety and demand a transparent, democratic process that prioritizes solar, wind, and energy efficiency^[14].

Malaysia’s struggles with the Lynas rare earth processing plant in Pahang^[15] further illustrate the risks of radioactive material management. Community opposition began as early as 2008, years before the plant entered production in 2013, and has continued through successive governments, legal battles and licensing reviews. Despite conditions requiring Lynas to move its cracking and leaching facilities abroad and develop a permanent disposal plan, radioactive waste remains unresolved and a source of public protest. This case shows that even after more than a decade of operations, Malaysia has struggled to manage radioactive waste safely, underscoring how the introduction of nuclear power would only intensify governance and waste management gaps, exposing communities to serious health, environmental and social risks. 

Indonesia:

In Indonesia, there is deep concern that the planned development of nuclear power plants will exacerbate land grabbing, particularly in West Kalimantan, in addition to raising serious environmental issues such as waste management and safety.^[16]Kalimantan is home to rich biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples’ territories, making it especially vulnerable to the impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects. The government is planning to build a 500 MW plant in both Kalimantan and Sumatra, as outlined in the 2025–2034 National Electricity Supply Business Plan, where nuclear power is designated a national strategic project. Such classification often involves heightened security measures, which risk increasing violence and human rights violations against local communities.