Version imprimableSeptember 10, 2025
National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements (NAAM)
42/27 Esankai Mani Veethy
Nagercoil 629 002
Tamil Nadu
India
Email: koodankulam[at}yahoo.com
Mobile: +91-98656 83735
Mr Masato Kanda, President of the ADB
Mr Priyantha Wijayatunga, Senior Director, Energy Sector Office
ADB Board of Directors
Asian Development Bank
6 ADB Avenue
Mandaluyong
Metro Manila
Philippines
Re: Concerns and Demands of Indian CSOs and Activists Challenging ADB’s Proposed Support for Nuclear Energy in the 2025 Energy Policy Review.
Dear Mr. President Kanda, Mr. Wijayatunga, and ADB Member State Shareholders:
We are a pan-Indian movement collective known as the ‘National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements’ (NAAM), which is working with both nuclear materials mining and nuclear power plant-affected communities across India. Over the past 15 years of deep engagement with the issue of nuclear energy and its complete fuel chain, we have irrevocably shown and documented the massive adverse impacts of the entire nuclear fuel cycle in India. We are writing to express our deep concern and strong opposition to the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) consideration of support for nuclear energy in its latest energy policy review.
India is ADB’s largest borrower, and the decisions that ADB takes through its policy reviews and technical assistance shape national energy pathways. The inclusion of nuclear power in ADB’s policy framework will have far-reaching consequences, not only for India but for the wider region.
It is deeply alarming that in doing so, ADB appears to be reversing course on its own 2021 Energy Policy, which clearly stated: “ADB will not finance investments in nuclear power given the many barriers to its deployment, including risks related to nuclear proliferation, waste management and safety issues, and very high investment costs relative to ADB’s resources.” Since then, no technological breakthrough has addressed these unresolved challenges. This abrupt reversal raises troubling questions about external pressures and corporate lobbying shaping ADB’s energy policy.
In the recent energy policy review, ADB proposes technical support for “capacity development” if Developing Member Countries (DMCs) opt for nuclear power. ADB’s framing assumes “capacity development’ is a neutral service to DMCs. It ignores that India’s nuclear sector has systemic safety and governance failures flagged for decades, making ‘capacity development’ in this context deeply problematic. In practice, however, technical assistance and policy support by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) such as ADB and the World Bank, have historically had a disproportionate influence on shaping the priorities of national energy policies. Extending this influence to nuclear will thus push India further along a nuclear expansion pathway, despite long-standing controversies and risks.
ADB argues that nuclear power is a viable replacement for fossil baseload. This framing is outdated and misleading, and ignores that nuclear is a failure in every front: it is prohibitively expensive, takes decades to deliver, and is operationally inflexible in meeting variable demand. By contrast, solar and wind with storage are faster, cheaper, more adaptable, and already more reliable solutions for decarbonising power systems.
Nuclear power is far from the “clean” or “safe” option that the ADB seeks to portray. Life-cycle assessments demonstrate that generating just one kWh of nuclear electricity results in significant negative impacts: between 5.42 and 122 g CO2 equivalent emissions, 10.8–950 Bq 235U equivalent harmful ionizing radiation, 22.4–222 millipoints of scarce land use, and 282–1700 CTUh in human toxicity (both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic). These impacts are not abstract; they translate into heightened risks to human health, loss of productivity, and environmental degradation.
Further, nuclear accidents remain an ever-present risk. Research by the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany found that catastrophic reactor accidents like Fukushima or Chernobyl are 200 times more likely than previously estimated. Based on current reactor numbers, such accidents could occur once every 10–20 years. In such an event, half of the released radioactive cesium-137 could spread across areas more than 1,000 km away from the reactor site, devastating communities and ecosystems far beyond borders.
Promoting Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as a safe and scalable solution is problematic, as experts have suggested that these technologies remain “too expensive, too slow to build and too risky” to support a meaningful fossil fuel phase-out in the near term. These untested technologies also multiply safety, waste, and proliferation risks by dispersing multiple small units across different sites. In India, where regulatory oversight and enforcement capacity are weak and communities near nuclear and mining sites already face long-standing health and safety concerns, the risks are magnified. In the name of addressing energy needs, these SMRs would end up exposing millions of people to long-term radiation and safety risks while locking the country into this costly and dangerous technology. Moreover, ADB needs to consider that in highly and densely populated countries like India, there is hardly any nuclear site at a “safe distance” from human habitations.
While ADB claims to be a “climate bank” in the Asia-Pacific, it must not ignore the climate risks of nuclear energy, especially at a time when climate disasters and extreme weather events have become frequent in the region. Communities in India have already been suffering from multiple climate disasters, including heat waves, floods, cyclones, and tsunamis. Such extreme weather and rising temperatures can impair the safety and efficiency of nuclear plants, potentially causing accidents that would release radioactive materials into the environment and escalate the consequences of climate disasters.
Nuclear power plants also rely on large volumes of water for cooling their reactors. These would risk putting pressure on already depleted water resources, which are depleted due to the climate crisis and over-exploitation. When setting up such plants inland, this would deprive people of their access to water.
In short, nuclear energy not only imposes long-term waste and proliferation risks but also creates ongoing, tangible threats of catastrophic accidents and chronic health harms, and has immense environmental and climate risks, making it an irresponsible option for ADB to endorse.
Any consideration of nuclear energy in ADB’s policy review must draw lessons from India, where decades of community resistance and legal struggles reveal the sector’s deep financial, governance, and safety failures.
Recent policy changes in India underscore the dangers of lifting safeguards on nuclear at the multilateral level. The Indian Government has recently proposed amendments to India’s Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, to open the nuclear sector to private and foreign investors. These amendments would allow private companies to operate plants while further diluting corporate accountability by reducing liability provisions for suppliers. This shift comes at a time when the World Bank has removed its ban on nuclear energy, signaling growing pressure on governments to accommodate corporate and geopolitical interests. If ADB now follows suit, it will add legitimacy to India’s risky deregulatory push and exacerbate the erosion of public safety and accountability.
We, the National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM), have strongly opposed these amendments, warning that they weaken public safety, reduce accountability, and prioritize corporate profit over people’s rights.
The proposed amendments would allow private companies not only to supply equipment but also to operate nuclear power plants, dismantling long-standing public control over a sector with immense safety risks. Nuclear energy carries hazards such as radioactive waste, fissile material exposure, and catastrophic accident potential that require robust oversight. Experts, including NAAM, warn that India’s weaker regulatory and emergency preparedness systems could further erode safety standards, exposing communities to irreversible health and environmental damage.
Furthermore, corporate accountability under current laws is grossly inadequate and is poised to worsen with these amendments. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act currently places the entire burden of compensation on the plant operators—today, a public utility funded by taxpayers—while allowing equipment suppliers near immunity except under highly restrictive conditions. The existing cap on liabilities, approximately US$460 million, is alarmingly low, especially when compared to past industrial disasters like the Bhopal Gas disaster. Proposed relaxations could lower this cap further, shifting potentially enormous financial risks from corporations to the public.
These developments are extremely concerning in India, as the areas with nuclear energy projects are largely populated in areas of indigenous peoples. There are already innumerable cases of high radiation exposure leading to hundreds of deformed children being born, thousands of cancer cases and huge impacts on communities, workers and animals living in these areas. Despite these ongoing grave risks from existing plants that are yet to be unaddressed, the Government of India has also proposed 10 new nuclear reactors, many of which are also located on indigenous lands.
From an investment perspective, this legal environment creates serious financial and ethical risks. Nuclear projects demand massive upfront capital, face long construction delays, and carry high disaster liabilities that liability caps cannot realistically cover. These conditions incentivize cost-cutting and undermine both safety and financial prudence, exposing investors to reputational harm and local communities to grave risks.
Equally critical to understand are the lessons from grassroots struggles, which illustrate the human cost of nuclear projects in India.
? In Jaduguda, Jharkhand, indigenous communities have endured displacement, environmental contamination, and radiation-linked health problems, with children suffering congenital deformities and chronic illnesses due to the impacts of the uranium mine and tailings pond operated by the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL). The uranium extracted from Jaduguda and other similar mining sites forms the foundation of India’s nuclear program, illustrating that nuclear power cannot be separated from a deeply exploitative extractive chain. Protests against UCIL’s anti-people policies date back to 1979, supported by labor unions and local student groups. Organizations such as the Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR) and the Jharkhand Organisation for Struggling Humans (JOSH) actively resist mining expansions, advocate for the return of unused lands, and raise awareness about radiation dangers. The decades-long health crises and environmental devastation in Jaduguda stand as a stark warning that nuclear energy begins with sacrifice zones, where communities pay the price long before any energy is generated. Despite repeated mobilizations and legal interventions, these communities continue to suffer from ongoing neglect, land alienation, and environmental degradation caused by Uranium mining.
? Similar grassroots opposition to nuclear power plants has also emerged nationwide. In Tamil Nadu’s Koodankulam, fisherfolk and farmers have protested since the 1990s, mobilizing through groups like the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) to demand abrogation of nuclear power, safety, and transparency, especially after renewed global concerns post-Fukushima. In Maharashtra’s Jaitapur region, farmers and fisher communities resist the proposed large-scale French-backed nuclear complex, citing ecological sensitivity and threats to livelihoods. Indigenous communities in Madhya Pradesh’s Chutka area voice fears of displacement, radioactive exposure, and violation of their rights, echoing distrust from previous failed development projects in the region. Collectively, these movements emphasize human rights, environmental protection, and call for a shift to more sustainable, decentralized, and democratically governed energy alternatives.
India’s experience with nuclear underscores why Multilateral Development Banks like ADB must not encourage nuclear energy. If ADB endorses nuclear in its energy policy review, it would not only strengthen the ongoing dangerous policy shifts but also risk locking the country into unsafe, unjust, and unsustainable energy pathways.
In light of the concerns outlined above, we, the undersigned organizations and activists from India, call on the Asian Development Bank to uphold its 2021 Energy Policy commitment by refraining from financing or promoting nuclear power through any technical assistance, policy support, or indirect mechanisms.
We urge the Bank to prioritize decentralized renewable energy solutions that are more adaptable to India’s energy needs, ensuring that the energy transition benefits communities, the environment, and the public, rather than exposing them to undue risk.
Sincerely,
National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements (NAAM)
