Presented by Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
The Asian Development Bank made changes to its energy policy last week meant to “strengthen the bank’s commitment to increasing energy access and improving energy security.” Chief among them is the removal of a ban on investing in nuclear energy, a move the World Bank made earlier this year.
“These changes further enhance ADB’s ability to support countries in Asia and the Pacific as they work to meet their rapidly growing energy needs,” ADB President Masato Kanda said in a statement. “Nuclear power, for example, is an important technology option for countries looking for reliable alternatives to baseload electricity.”
The new changes will allow ADB to support nuclear power, including making investments for the first time. The bank will work closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency on best practices and standards for nuclear power.
It also made some additional policy shifts including allowing the bank to finance projects that manage methane, extending ADB support for carbon capture and storage, and recognizing ADB’s potential role helping develop diversified and responsible “critical minerals-to-manufacturing value chains.”
The supporters: While it's clear that the U.S. wanted the changes to allow investments in nuclear energy, ADB borrower countries were also demanding it, Todd Moss, the executive director of the Energy for Growth Hub — a U.S.-based energy think tank — tells Devex. He points to Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines as countries that are particularly interested in nuclear energy.
“ADB is trying to adjust to the new global environment and the changes in energy technology. Overall it is trying to be more responsive to the energy needs of its borrowing members,” says Moss, who has pushed MDBs to change their nuclear policies for years.
Moss says the change in nuclear policy is a natural evolution in response to a changing world. He says that environmental organizations concerned about emissions from coal plants in Asia “should absolutely be in favor of nuclear” because it is a better alternative to coal than natural gas.
Detractors: The NGO Forum on ADB — a network of civil society organizations that scrutinizes the work of ADB and other multilateral development banks working in Asia — says that it is alarmed by the changes, which it sees as a regression of ADB’s climate commitments.
“The ADB’s so-called ‘Energy Policy amendments’ are a reckless betrayal of climate justice and community rights,” said Rayyan Hassan, the executive director of the forum, in a statement. “Pretending to be ‘technology neutral,’ the Bank greenlights risky fossil fuels, nuclear projects, and critical mineral extraction — while silencing civil society and ignoring the communities who will pay the price. The core aim of this policy is clear: create new markets for foreign tech companies, make massive, budget-risky investments in the name of climate solutions, and shift all financial and environmental risk onto borrowing countries. We will hold ADB accountable for this climate and social failure.”
What’s next? The two big questions now are whether other MDBs will follow suit and make changes to their nuclear energy policy, and how ADB and the World Bank will implement these policies.
ICYMI: World Bank backs nuclear revival, while gas stays a political fault line
Background reading: Is this the moment for nuclear energy at the World Bank?
Further reading: Is ADB still Asia and the Pacific’s ‘climate bank’?
The United States assumed the presidency of the Group of 20 largest economies yesterday. In a statement from the State Department, the Trump administration laid out its plans for the year ahead, which it says will include some “much-needed reforms.”
The U.S. will “return the G20 to focusing on its core mission of driving economic growth and prosperity to produce results,” the State Department says. It also outlines three priorities: limiting regulatory burdens to unleash economic prosperity, unlocking affordable and secure energy supply chains, and pioneering new technologies and innovations.
This marks an abrupt change of direction from the focal areas of the G20 under previous presidencies — most recently India, Brazil, and South Africa — which have focused on issues such as inequality, debt reduction, and fair taxation.
For more on this subject, check out this Devex opinion piece by Richard Calland, a South African lawyer and the director of the African arm of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. He looks at South Africa’s success in reaching a declaration despite a U.S. boycott of the meetings last month. He also raises interesting points about the path forward after Africa forcefully put itself on the agenda (the G20 declaration mentioned Africa more than 80 times).
“The consensus and progress that has been achieved this year face a clear and present danger: how to maintain the momentum created under South Africa in 2025, given that the 2026 U.S. presidency under the Trump administration is likely to be skeptical, even obstructive, toward multilateral processes, climate diplomacy, and development finance commitments,” Calland writes.
While there are plenty of questions on progress in some areas, he points to the B20, the business segment of the G20, as a growing force, especially because the Trump administration is unlikely to target it. The B20’s eight task forces have produced concrete recommendations that could help accelerate investment and partnership, he writes, adding that he “encountered positive indications” from members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which will be the B20 secretariat this coming year.
Opinion: South Africa pulled off a G20 diplomatic feat. Will it serve development?
See also: What does the United States’ G20 presidency mean for the world?
Your next job?
Head of Project Economics
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
Beijing, China
The International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank, is coming under pressure to release a report into its handling of sexual abuse allegations, Sophie Edwards writes for Devex.
Back in 2024, World Bank President Ajay Banga commissioned an independent investigation conducted by international law firm Freshfields to look at whether IFC interfered with an investigation its watchdog organization was carrying out into the abuse allegations at a for-profit school chain, Bridge International Academies, which the IFC funded between 2013 and 2016.
While a brief summary of the findings, published in March, concluded that there was no evidence IFC intentionally obstructed the investigation, the full report has not been released. But the advocacy NGO Accountability Counsel argues the disclosure is important to rebuild public trust and is continuing to push and request the release of the report, including seeking a review by an independent appeals panel.
Read: Pressure mounts on IFC to release report on Bridge sexual abuse case (Pro)
Background: World Bank’s Banga apologizes to kids sexually abused at Bridge schools
+ A Devex Pro membership gives you unlimited access to all our exclusive content, insider briefings, and industry intelligence on funding opportunities. And from now until Dec. 3, you can get 50% off an annual membership! Save $200 now.
The U.S. State Department grants $150 million to Zipline to triple African drone operations. [Devex]
U.K. watchdog seeks to “clean up” conflicts of interest in ESG ratings. [Financial Times]
Japan’s development agency steps up for Africa’s (larger) private capital providers. [ImpactAlpha]