waste-to-energy incineration

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 2 Abril, 2025

Santiago, Chile– Más de cien miembros de la sociedad civil de GAIA (la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración) de los cinco continentes firmaron una carta dirigida a Anacláudia Rossbach, directora ejecutiva de ONU-Hábitat, en la que piden a la organización que deje de promover la incineración de residuos para la producción de energía (WTE), un enfoque de gestión de residuos perjudicial y ampliamente desacreditado, y que en su lugar promueva soluciones justas y equitativas basura  cero.

La carta llama específicamente la atención sobre la publicación de ONU-Hábitat elogiando la incineración de residuos en su página de LinkedIn el 6 de marzo, así como su inclusión en su página web de mejores prácticas basura cero.

Además de su postura pública, ONU-Hábitat está influyendo en las decisiones de los municipios a favor de la incineración de residuos, contradiciendo la misión de la organización de difundir estrategias probadas para promover el desarrollo urbano.

Por ejemplo, en São Paulo, Brasil, ONU-Hábitat ha financiado a varios consultores proincineración que han promovido la propuesta de construir tres incineradoras WTE en la ciudad, en oposición directa a las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro locales, los recolectores de residuos y otros grupos comunitarios que piden a la ciudad que invierta en iniciativas basura cero.

La carta describe los impactos en el clima y la salud, los exorbitantes costos y las amenazas a los medios de vida de los recolectores de residuos que genera la WTE.

Wahyu Eka Styawan, miembro de GAIA de WALHI/FoE Indonesia de la región de Java Oriental, afirma: «En Surabaya, Indonesia, la incineración de residuos no ha reducido la cantidad de residuos, sino que ha generado contaminación, con una calidad del aire que a menudo alcanza niveles insalubres. En lugar de un sistema que simplemente quema residuos y crea nuevos problemas, necesitamos un enfoque de basura cero que aborde los residuos a través de la producción y el consumo sostenibles»

«La incineración no resuelve los problemas de los residuos, sino que crea una serie de riesgos para la salud y el medio ambiente, y compromete el desarrollo de políticas para una mayor reutilización, reciclaje y compostaje», afirma Danita Zarichinova, miembro de la junta o coordinadora de ZW en ZaZemiata en Bulgaria y miembro de Zero Waste Europe. «Las plantas de conversión de residuos en energía en Europa emiten dioxinas y gases de efecto invernadero, lo que demuestra que esta supuesta «solución» es, de hecho, costosa tanto para la salud de las personas como para sus bolsillos».

Los miembros de GAIA en todo el Sur global están rechazando la incineración de residuos para generar energía. «Ahora existen métodos alternativos más sostenibles y sin residuos que evitarían los principales peligros para la salud de la incineración, producirían más energía y serían mucho más baratos en términos reales, si se tuvieran en cuenta los costes sanitarios. La incineración de residuos para generar energía es, sin duda, una opción que no se puede plantear en África», afirma el Dr. Leslie Adogame, director ejecutivo de SRADeV Nigeria.

Más de 500 ciudades de todo el mundo están haciendo la transición hacia basura cero a través de políticas o prácticas, como la recogida selectiva, el compostaje y leyes que reducen los envases de un solo uso.

Cecilia Torres, de la organización Mingas por el Mar, describe: «En Ecuador, donde la gestión de residuos sólidos es inadecuada, hemos implementado modelos basura cero en restaurantes costeros de playa, logrando una reducción inmediata de la contaminación plástica en áreas naturales. Además, esto ha fomentado un proceso de aprendizaje positivo, en el que tanto el sector turístico como los visitantes comprenden la importancia de minimizar los residuos, asociándolo con una experiencia de mayor calidad y un importante ahorro de costes».

“ONU-Hábitat no debería promover esta tecnología obsoleta y contaminante cuando afecta a tantas vidas, especialmente en comunidades que ya enfrentan graves injusticias ambientales. Debemos volver a basura cero invirtiendo en sistemas que reduzcan los residuos desde su origen y fomenten la reutilización y el reciclaje de materiales reciclables, en lugar de quemar desechos y generar más contaminación tóxica”, afirmó Nazir Khan, Director Ejecutivo de Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.

Según la experiencia de Fundación El Árbol, Chile, Paulina Romero comenta: «El compostaje comunitario ha surgido como una gran oportunidad para avanzar hacia ciudades basura cero. En 2023, lanzamos el programa “Compostaje comunitario: soluciones colectivas al problema de la basura”. Gracias a esta iniciativa, se ha logrado reducir la cantidad de residuos orgánicos enviados a rellenos sanitarios y, con ello, disminuir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.»

Press contacts:

Camila Aguilera, Comunicaciones, GAIA América Latina y el Caribe  

camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 619

###

GAIA es una alianza mundial de más de 1.000 grupos de base, organizaciones no gubernamentales y particulares de más de 90 países. Con nuestro trabajo pretendemos catalizar un cambio global hacia la justicia medioambiental fortaleciendo los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones a los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo, sin residuos, basado 

en el respeto de los límites ecológicos y los derechos comunitarios, en el que las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de forma sostenible, no se quemen ni se viertan.

Environmental organizations Zero Waste BC, Zero Waste Canada, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment BC, Doctors for Planetary Health – West Coast, GAIA, and For Our Kids, Burnaby urge Metro Vancouver to phase out its waste incinerator citing economic, environmental, health, and climate impacts 

Vancouver, B.C. (February 26, 2025) — While Metro Vancouver looks to decrease costs, a 2023 study by Zero Waste BC confirms that incineration is the most expensive waste management approach. The Burnaby incinerator is set for costly repairs and maintenance and if the facility is to meet provincial air quality standards, it would require an additional $100 million—above and beyond what is already scheduled. If the facility were to pay its fair share of carbon tax for burning fossil fuel-based plastics, it would face another $10 million in annual costs. 

“By supporting the local economy and circulating materials within the community instead of utilizing tax dollars to burn our resources and harm individuals, we can prioritize human and environmental health in a cost-effective manner and move towards zero waste,” said Sue Maxwell, chair of Zero Waste BC. “Our recent Case Study on Metro Vancouver demonstrated that actions to prevent or divert waste are highly effective, less polluting, and less costly compared to burning waste, which is the worst option.” 

Metro Vancouver’s costs do not encompass the full extent of environmental and health impacts. Incinerators release dioxins, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other pollutants that exacerbate lung diseases such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants are toxic to young children, impair reproduction, and are associated with heart, lung, and brain diseases. 


Dr. Tim Takaro of CAPE-BC emphasizes, “Dioxins are harmful to developing humans and other animals. Many are carcinogenic. Dioxins accumulate in the environment and our bodies, and there are no safe levels. The Burnaby incinerator adds these toxins to our environment and we need to shut it down.” 

 
Dr. Doug Courtemanche of Doctors for Planetary Health – West Coast reinforced the urgency: “Who would want to leave toxins for their children? No one who wants to be a good ancestor would do that. Unfortunately, it is far too easy to get a permit to harm the future.”

 
Over 7,600 people live within 2 km of the incinerator and that does not include the numerous workers that are exposed when they commute to the area each day. Air pollution from the facility not only affects local residents and employees but also extends to downwind communities in the Fraser Valley. Metro Vancouver’s aging incinerator fails to adhere to best practices in minimizing pollution and does not conduct adequate testing for it. 

 
The Burnaby incinerator is the 16th largest emitting facility of fossil-based carbon dioxide in the province, releasing 124,541 tonnes of fossil-based CO2e emissions in 2023 — equivalent to emissions from over 22,000 cars. With biogenic emissions included, its total carbon footprint reached 277,877 tCO2e.

 
Metro Vancouver’s 2022 waste composition study found that 80% of the region’s garbage consists of compostable organics, recyclables, and construction and demolition debris—all materials with existing alternatives available. Numerous actions can be taken by Metro Vancouver, its member municipalities, businesses, and society to reduce waste, rendering the incinerator unnecessary. 


The regional district is currently in the midst of planning its next Solid Waste Management Plan and the recent Ideas Generation phase of the planning process has underscored the diverse range of strategies to reduce waste. “Metro Vancouver has a critical opportunity to phase out the Burnaby incinerator and develop real zero waste solutions,” said Denaya Shorter, Senior Director of the US & Canada Region at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). “Investing in these proven solutions, rather than locking into costly and polluting greenwashed technologies like incineration, is essential for a just and sustainable future.”


Jamie Kaminski of Zero Waste Canada emphasized the benefits of pursuing zero waste systems with a focus on enhancing prevention, reuse, and diversion infrastructure already in place. “This approach can create local jobs and support local businesses while simultaneously reducing waste”. 

With Metro Vancouver developing a new solid waste plan, and not locked into burning waste for its district heating plan nor the contract to operate the incinerator, now is the time to phase out incineration and move towards its financial, climate, air quality, environment, and zero waste goals.

____________________________________________________________________________

Zero Waste BC – Sue Maxwell

Zero Waste Canada – Jamie Kaminski

CAPE-BC – Dr. Tim Takaro

Doctors for Planetary Health – West Coast, Dr. Douglas Courtemanche

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) – Denaya Shorter

For Our Kids, Burnaby – Kate McMahon

La Red de Acción por los Derechos Ambientales, RADA, presentó el 13 de febrero ante la Comisión de Medio Ambiente del Concejo Municipal de Lautaro, y por la tarde ante el pleno del concejo.


La presentación de la mañana, trató sobre la nueva etapa de lucha contra el proyecto WTE Araucanía, empresa que pretende instalar un incinerador de basura en la entrada norte de Lautaro, con capacidad para quemar la basura de toda la región y más. El proyecto ya fue rechazado en la Comisión Evaluadora Ambiental a nivel regional el 2022, y en el Comité de Ministros el 2023. Hoy la empresa reclama en el Tribunal Ambiental de Valdivia, pidiendo que el tribunal anule la resolución del Comité de ministros. La reclamación se verá en una única audiencia el 13 de marzo de 2025 en la ciudad de Valdivia.


En la ocasión Alejandra Parra, master en planificación y bióloga en gestión de recursos naturales, expuso sobre los riesgos de la incineración de basura, las emisiones tóxicas y cancerígenas que inevitablemente generan, y cómo esos contaminantes se bioacumulan en el cuerpo de los seres vivos, y se biomagnifican, pasando de los vegetales a los herbívoros. Las concentraciones más altas finalmente pasan a las personas y los más afectados son los lactantes a través de la leche materna.


En la instancia se desarrolló además un diálogo sobre cómo avanzar en la implementación de la estrategia Basura Cero, para resolver con soluciones de fondo el problema de la basura, invirtiendo en la prevención, educación y sensibilización, y la separación en origen de los residuos compostables y reciclables. Estas dos fracciones forman el 80% de lo que hoy se lleva a disposición final en la región del Bio Bío, con un elevado gasto municipal que podría destinarse a la estrategia basura cero transformándose en un gasto eficiente y eficaz.


Para ello, la RADA hizo entrega de la Hoja de Ruta Hacia Basura Cero, instrumento desarrollado por la Alianza Basura Cero Chile, donde se detallan las etapas para la implementación de esta estrategia, así como las posibilidades de financiamiento fuera de la Municipalidad.


La Comisión de Medio Ambiente presidida por la concejala Carmen Phillips (independiente apoyada por la UDI), reafirmó su rechazo al proyecto y se comprometió a disponer recursos y movilizarse tanto para que el Tribunal Ambiental de Valdivia confirme la resolución de rechazo del proyecto, como para avanzar en la implementación de la estrategia basura cero en la comuna. En la comisión también expresaron firmemente su rechazo los concejales Elías Pantoja (RN), Ricardo Ojeda (RN), Michel Hauri (independiente Amarillos) y Piero Jara (Independiente PPD).


Por la tarde la organización conversó con el pleno del Concejo, donde tanto el alcalde Ricardo Jaramillo como todos los concejales reiteraron el rechazo transversal al incinerador de basura promovido por la empresa WTE Araucanía, confirmando los acuerdos y compromisos asumidos en la mañana por la comisión. En palabras del alcalde: “(Rechazar este proyecto)… me ha jugado en contra, pero cualquier tipo de amistad o cercanía queda a un lado y lo que prevalece es mi investidura como alcalde”.

Más aquí:

Coalition urges shift from, toxic incineration to true sustainable, zero waste management solutions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 16, 2024

Miami, FL — The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and environmental justice groups from Florida’s anti-incineration coalition strongly oppose Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava’s recent memo recommending the Opa-Locka Airport West location as the site for a new “waste-to-energy” (WTE) facility—a misleading, greenwashed term for an incinerator. GAIA and the coalition warn that this decision places already overburdened vulnerable communities at heightened risk of toxic pollution, perpetuates environmental racism, and locks in costly, harmful practices, for decades to come. 

“Incineration and other thermal technologies will pose significant environmental and health hazards to West Broward’s Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and Latinx communities and the environmentally sensitive wetland ecosystems of the Florida Everglades. The livelihoods and lives of the Miccosukee Tribe who live, work, and farm in Water Conservation Area 3A of the Everglades, are particularly at risk due to the proximity of Mayor Daniella Levine Cava’s recommendation,” said coalition member Richard Ramcharitar, Founder & Director of Broward Clean Air. “Our government should not approve and fund billions of taxpayer dollars to build and operate trash-burning incinerators anywhere in Florida.”

In Florida, nine out of ten incinerators are located within three miles of Black, Brown, and low-income communities, which are already disproportionately exposed to toxic infrastructure and their resultant health impacts. Incinerators emit dangerous pollutants and particulate matter such as dioxins, PFAS, and heavy metals that poison local communities and ecosystems. Exposure to these contaminants can be lethal, causing cancer, heart attacks, asthma, and other serious health conditions. The toxic ash produced further harms nearby communities, exacerbating environmental injustices. 

The environmental harm caused by incinerators is well-documented in Miami-Dade County’s own history. The infamous “Old Smokey” incinerator, which shut down in 1970, continues to impact Coconut Grove residents, who initiated a class action lawsuit for medical monitoring due to decades of exposure. The predominantly Latine community in Doral has spent years complaining about the Reworld (formerly Covanta) incinerator. In 2023, a massive fire at the incinerator burned for nearly three weeks, exposing them to toxic fumes and sparking further concerns about environmental justice issues and human rights violations. 

“Just because the Mayor, or anyone else, calls an incinerator waste-to-energy, does not make it so. Burning trash is not a solution to the waste problem—it’s ongoing environmental racism that harms our communities, environment, and planet. These facilities produce negligible amounts of energy for maximum amounts of harm, plus they are exorbitantly expensive to build and operate,” said Jessica Roff, US/Canada Plastics & Petrochemicals Program Manager at GAIA. “Since the last incinerator burned down, Miami-Dade has the opportunity to begin again with new, safe, local, and sustainable waste management. They should be investing in zero waste systems with non-toxic reuse and refill at the core, not another dirty incinerator.”

Mayor Levine Cava’s memo claims the Opa-Locka Airport West site was selected to “provide the best possible balance between multiple factors including cost, project timelines, and impact to residents and natural resources.” However, GAIA and the coalition emphasize that incineration is the most expensive way to handle waste. The $1.6 billion facility—misleadingly branded as a “Sustainable Solid Waste Campus,”—would lock Miami-Dade into decades of pollution and financial waste.

“Incineration creates a financial incentive to produce more waste by treating it as a resource to be burned rather than reduced or reused,” said MacKenzie Marcelin, Climate Justice Director of Florida Rising. “The put-or-pay contract would require the county to deliver a set amount of waste to the incinerator, which contradicts the zero waste principle of minimizing waste. This system locks us into a cycle of continuously generating waste to justify the incinerator’s existence, much like a stadium that needs to be filled to justify its construction costs. Building an incinerator would bind us to decades of waste and harm to public health while we have effective zero waste solutions ready for implementation.” 

“While we can all agree that something needs to be done to address our waste issue, incineration is not the answer,” said coalition member Mary Gutierrez, Earth and Atmospheric Scientist with Earth Ethics. “There are too many adverse variables associated with incineration, namely potential air and water quality impacts to natural resources and neighboring communities. Our best bet is to address our waste problems with a reduction of overall waste through existing proven methodologies that cause the least harm, if at all, to the environment and community.”

The proposed site at the former Opa-Locka Airport West location borders the Broward County line and the City of Miramar subdivision of Sunset Lakes.

“Choosing to recommend Airport West for this incinerator shows a reckless disregard for the well-being of our communities by Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine-Cava,” stated City of Miramar Mayor Wayne Messam. “We are vehemently opposing the project and defending the right to clean air, safe neighborhoods, and a healthy environment. Miramar stands shoulder to shoulder with GAIA and Florida’s environmental champions, and we will not stop until we protect what is rightfully ours—the safety and future of our residents. We urge the MDC Commission to reject this misguided recommendation.”

GAIA and the coalition urge Miami-Dade’s Board of County Commissioners to reject this incinerator proposal and invest in real sustainable waste management solutions instead. Cities worldwide have proven that zero waste systems reduce environmental harm, save millions, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. Miami-Dade has a unique opportunity to lead in adopting zero waste solutions that prioritize health, equity, and sustainability over outdated, harmful waste management practices.

Press contacts:

María Guillén, Communications Coordinator, US/Canada, GAIA

mariaguillen@no-burn.org

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

August 23, 2024 – A collective letter written by the Centre for Financial Accountability,  International Accountability Project, National Hawkers Federation, GAIA-Asia Pacific, and Break Free From Plastics and endorsed by 174 civil society organizations, regional and global networks and activists, is calling upon the World Bank board of directors to reject the financing of the 4 Waste-to-Energy (WTE) incineration projects proposed to be built in in Gujarat, India by Abellon Clean Energy Limited (ACEL).

Abellon Clean Energy Limited (ACEL) is a Waste to Energy (WTE) incineration developer based out of Gujarat, India, which is developing 4 WTE incineration plants in Rajkot, Vadodara, Ahmedabad, and Jamnagar with a cumulative capacity of 52.20 MW. The letter highlights the projects’ negative impacts on communities, including air and water pollution, health issues, climate impacts, and undermining sustainable waste management practices. 

ACEL’s operational WTE incineration plant in Jamnagar has already demonstrated significant negative impacts on the 25,000 people living in its vicinity and suffering from air pollution, noise pollution, and health problems such as skin ailments, asthma, eye irritation etc. The local communities are thus concerned about the expansion of the incinerator plant through this project. “Initially we were told that all the waste would be converted into electricity but after the operations started there was a lot of pollution and bad odor from the plant. We have complained to the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, the Municipal Commissioner, and the District Collector but still, the communities continue to suffer. A further expansion of the plant will only increase the pollution and is unacceptable to us,” shared Ker Jayendrasinh, who has been supporting the local communities in Jamnagar.

Seeing the harmful effects of the WTE incinerator plants in Jamnagar and the lack of proper consultations held by IFC and ACEL with affected communities in the other project areas, local Civil Society Organisations and activists are concerned about the construction of the proposed WTE incinerators in the other locations. “There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the technology, impacts, displacement, and compensation of the project by Abellon and repeated queries regarding the same have not been answered by the company,” said Advocate Shailendrasinh R Jadeja, Rajkot.

Additionally, there are major flaws in the project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, in violation of both IFC Performance Standards and Indian environmental laws. To circumvent the Government of India’s (GOI’s) environmental norms, the WTE incineration project size was deliberately kept at 14.9 MW instead of 15 MW, to escape the Environmental Clearance (EC) mandated by the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) rules 2006. Despite being considered a “red category” project in India for its massive environmental and social risks, this project has been given a lower risk rating of “Category B” by the IFC. Vaishnavi Varadarajan, International Accountability Project articulates the lack of proper due diligence for this project. “The diluted and flawed environment and social impact assessment by IFC for these toxic WTE incinerators that contribute to excessive pollution and are linked to fossil fuels indicates that IFC has not been compliant to its safeguards and also to the Paris Agreement,” she says.

These WTE incinerator plants also threaten the livelihood of waste workers as large quantities of waste in the project sites will get directed to the incinerators, thus affecting the informal economy of waste picking and recycling. Jay Vyas, National Hawkers Federation shared, “the situation in Jamnagar where there are no waste workers at the dump sites confirms that waste workers who belong to vulnerable indigenous and dalit communities will lose their livelihood because of these incinerators. Also, waste worker unions in Gujarat confirmed to us that waste workers were not consulted at the project sites by the company.” 

Besides the community impacts and environmental and social concerns, the poor financial performance of WTE incineration plants in India also casts a shadow over the viability of ACEL’s projects and their potential economic burden on local governments. A report by the Centre for Financial Accountability revealed how despite strong policy and financial support, WTE incinerators in India have failed. Chythenyen D Kulasekaran, Centre for Financial Accountability says, “WTEs make profits on the shoulder of the public funds in the form of subsidies and grants they receive. Yet, WTEs produce the costliest form of electricity at about 7 rupees per unit, which the government pays. There is a double burden on the state exchequer.”

WTE incinerators are a “false solution”, contributing to pollution that exacerbates the climate crisis. The proposed WTE incineration plants will cumulatively burn about 3,750 tons of garbage every day and generate CO2 equivalent to the emissions from about 18,75,000 cars.  “WTE incinerators are poised to become the most carbon-intensive power source once coal is phased out. Burning a tonne of plastic waste alone results in the release of around 1.43 tonnes of CO2. It destroys recycling, reuse, and refill options and disincentives reduction of producing new materials so less will have to be managed as wastes,”  says Miriam Mayang Azurin, GAIA.

In light of these findings, we urge the World Bank to not only reject this project but to cease all funding for waste-to-energy initiatives, prioritizing environmental protection and community well-being over unsustainable energy solutions.

Press Contact: 

Vaishnavi Varadarajan, +91 96867 69504, vaishnavi@accountabilityproject.org

Chythenyen DK, +91 9600329935, chythenyen@cenfa.org

In a significant triumph for the residents of Baguio and its neighboring town of Sablan, Mayor Benjamin Magalong announced his decision on July 31 to abandon the planned Waste-to-Energy (WTE).  incineration project. This decision followed a crucial forum organized by Zero Waste Baguio, EcoWaste Coalition, and GAIA Asia Pacific, where Dr. Jorge Emmanuel highlighted the adverse environmental and health impacts of the WTE plant.

“Incineration, including all thermal Waste-to-Energy technologies, emits many toxic fumes, including some of the most poisonous substances known as dioxins. If you live near an incinerator plant, you will get dioxins in the food you eat—eggs, meat, and fish (soil and water get contaminated). This will impact your health and can cause cancer, affect reproductive organs of both males and females, cause birth defects and miscarriages, delayed motor skills, and asthma.”, Dr Emmanuel added. 

Based on Dr Emmanuel’s data, Mayor Magalong formally stated, “After careful consideration and listening to the concerns raised during the forum, I would like to officially declare that Baguio City will be abandoning its Waste-to-Energy project.”

Baguio City is grappling with a severe waste management crisis. Each day, the city generates approximately 400 tons of waste, which includes both residential and commercial trash. With a population of 366,358 and an influx of up to 500,000 visitors during peak seasons, the volume of waste consistently spikes. The city spends around PHP 200 million annually to transport this waste to landfills outside its borders. In December 2023 alone, the waste generated by visitors added approximately 140 tons to the city’s daily waste output.

Moving forward, Mayor Magalong said, “Our focus will now shift to sustainable waste management solutions that are more aligned with our environmental goals. Priorities will include composting with black soldier flies and implementing a new garbage collection system. These measures are designed to reduce waste and minimize environmental impact.”

The decision was also celebrated by green groups from across the world. “This decision represents a landmark achievement for Baguio city residents demonstrating the power and impact of grassroots advocacy in influencing waste management practices. By rejecting the project and embracing more sustainable alternatives, Baguio City sets a precedent for effective environmental stewardship and local climate action”, Christie Keith, International Coordinator of GAIA, said. 

GAIA is a network of grassroots groups, as well as national and regional alliances, representing more than 1,000 organizations from 92 countries committed to fighting incineration and building regenerative solutions in cities through local campaigns, shifts in policy and finance, research, and communication initiatives.

“We applaud Baguio City for its commitment to making #PlasticFreePilipinas a reality! We hope more LGUs will follow this example and support their communities in transitioning to more environmentally sustainable alternatives,” shared by Ecowaste Coalition in a post.

As of 2022, according to GAIA Asia Pacific’s monitoring of WTE plants, around 13 WTE plants have been registered with the Department of Energy, six of which are already operating with a combined installed capacity of 9.69 megawatts. Another three have become operational since then, bringing the total number of known WTE plants to 12. At least another 29 have been proposed or are under construction in different cities and municipalities in Cebu, Pangasinan, Laguna, Pampanga, Batangas, and other areas. At the national level, a proposed WTE bill is being criticized by green groups as a measure violating standing bans on incinerators and policy trends across the world shifting away from incineration.

GAIA Asia Pacific Regional Coordinator Froilan Grate urged leaders to protect the national safeguard from incineration as stated in the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and the Clean Air Act. 

“The Mayor’s decision upholds that safeguard for both public health and the environment. We urge other city leaders and Congress to heed science, evidence and voices of their constituents on the harms of WTE incineration”. He added that the Mayor has set a powerful example for other cities to consider and adopt Zero Waste solutions. 

“The collective effort of cities and champions give us hope. Embracing Zero Waste principles contributes to global sustainability goals, paving the way for resilient and thriving communities nationwide. We would like to invite the Mayor, his councilors, waste managers and barangay captains to see examples of Zero Waste efforts in the country including Malabon City and San Fernando City in Pampanga,” Sonia Mendoza Chair, Mother Earth Foundation (MEF)  also shared.

MEF has been leading the establishment of Zero Waste systems in various cities in the country.  

Dr Emmanuel elaborated that “We do have an alternative path.  Either we conserve earth’s precious resources for the future generation. We work towards zero waste towards a climate neutral economy, and a safe, sustainable circular economy. We also need to work for a just transition so that the waste workers will benefit from it instead of suffering from the shift.  We need to look at the impact to make sure indigenous people also benefit, growing companies, but let everybody benefit from a zero waste system. It needs to start with each of us. We need to walk the talk.” 

Zero Waste Baguio, Inc also shared “We are proud that Baguio City and our community are leading by example, rejecting incinerators and choosing sustainable solutions that safeguard our environment and enhance everyone’s health. Our commitment inspires other communities to join us in making a positive impact on our planet and well-being.” 

MANILA, June 6, 2024 — A hundred activists gathered in front of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) headquarters here urging the bank to “flip the switch to renewables”, towards a fast and equitable clean energy transition that prioritizes people and the environment. 

The creative action was staged by civil society groups and affected communities to challenge the ADB to not only fast-track the shift to renewable energy but also ensure transparent and equitable investments, prioritize community consultation, provide grants over loans in financing energy transition projects, and reject harmful energy solutions as the bank is holding its annual Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) this week.

Activists from 350 Pilipinas, NGO Forum on ADB,  GAIA Asia Pacific, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, and Freedom from Debt Coalition carried a globe effigy that showed dirty energy projects and climate impacts on one side and renewable energy and its benefits on the other. A switch in the middle made the globe spin, highlighting the role of ADB in the global switch to renewable energy.

The ACEF plays a crucial role towards transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables in the Asia-Pacific to combat climate change and ensure energy security. It convenes policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society to devise sustainable energy strategies and advocate for the shift to renewables.

However, affected communities and civil society groups have stressed that prioritizing corporate interests and technological fixes exacerbates environmental and social crises. Meanwhile, existing mechanisms promoted by the ADB at ACEF often fail to provide real energy solutions, including what many experts consider false solutions, such as carbon capture and storage, waste-to-energy, hydropower, and fossil fuel mixes. 

“Real energy solutions must prioritize community needs, uphold environmental and human rights, and ensure a just transition from fossil fuels. The Asian Development Bank must uphold not only the Paris climate agreement but also the long-term development plans of ADB member countries.

Yet the current agenda of its Asia Clean Energy Forum falls short, which is why we call on the bank to reevaluate its strategies and commit to sustainable energy practices,” said the activists.

###

“As climate change impacts intensify, ADB and other global financial institutions must be held accountable for past and ongoing environmental and social harms. Forum networks and allies demand a complete overhaul of key policy initiatives at ACEF 2024. With the upcoming ADB Mid Term Energy Policy Review, the NGO Forum on ADB and its allies call for an end to ADB’s false solutions for a Just Transition and demand a full phase-out of fossil fuels, especially gas, and all forms of coal financing.”- Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB

“As 2030 approaches, balancing equity, urgency, and ambition in energy transformation is crucial. We must exclude harmful energy solutions, prioritize equitable renewable energy investment, and ensure transparency, accountability, and community consultation. Climate action isn’t just about hitting Paris Agreement targets—it’s about transforming our development pathway to thrive amid climate change. This journey demands that climate and development progress be mutually reinforcing, with robust community ownership at its core.” – Chuck Baclagon, Finance Campaigner, 350.org Asia

“Addressing the climate crisis requires reimagining energy production and distribution to prioritize people and the environment. We need a rapid and fair shift to a clean energy economy that empowers communities and curbs profit-driven decisions that harm the planet. The Asian Development Bank’s commitment to sustainable development and renewable energy is crucial for reshaping Asia and the Pacific’s energy landscape and driving us towards a fossil-free future.” – Fread De Mesa, Coordinator, 350 Pilipinas

“We are urging ADB to stop supporting the institutionalization in regional and national climate policies and financing of the same dirty industries including waste-to-energy incineration which communities around the world have averted from entering and operating because of their environmental and social consequences. At the same light, we reject the use of new technologies such as carbon capture utilization storage and failed mechanisms such as carbon credits which merely delay and derail real climate action..We urge ADB to funnel much needed resources to proven and empowering community solutions to ensure that scarce resources work for people and the environment and not climate perpetrators” – Mayang Azurin, Deputy Director for Campaigns, GAIA Asia Pacific

“ADB must urgently strengthen its community consultation and consent mechanisms in regulating its growing clean energy transition portfolio. With an anticipated 500% increase in global renewable energy and energy transition mineral production by 2050, communities facing these projects bear immense risks of resource grabbing, displacement, and violence if no sufficient guardrails are implemented. 

The right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples must especially be guaranteed, as an estimated 42% of global spatial conflicts with Indigenous territories involve renewable energy, and 60%of global mineral deposits are situated within Indigenous territories.”- Leon Dulce, Campaigns Support and Linkages Coordinator, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)

“We from the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) believe that it is completely unacceptable that the organizers of the ACEF 2024 led by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) continue to promote financing mechanisms that not only distract us from our goal of transitioning to fully renewable energy but also add to the country’s already mounting debt burden. Schemes like the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) can leverage blended finance, including public funds, to allow coal investments to “re-purpose” operations, shifting from one fossil fuel to another. This will, in effect, delay, rather than accelerate the shift to RE systems and lead us away from the pathway to keeping global temperature changes within the goal of 1.5 C.” – Rovik Obanil, Secretary General, Freedom From Debt Coalition

Manila, 3 June 2024  – The Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2024 hosted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is underway amid escalating climate challenges and economic pressures across low- and middle-income countries in the region. This year’s forum, however, is drawing significant criticism from NGO Forum on ADB, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CHRD), EcoWaste Coalition, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC-KSK), Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), Recourse, 350.org, and together with other organizations of the Philippine Working Group, argue that the event is more focused on advancing corporate interests than addressing the urgent need for equitable and sustainable climate solutions.

The Asia Pacific region has faced unprecedented heat waves and severe economic strain in 2024, exacerbated by the lingering effects of the pandemic and ongoing geopolitical conflicts. Communities, respected leaders, and advocates from various sectors have been steadfastly opposing the expansion of fossil gas infrastructure, the damming of rivers, destructive geothermal drilling, and waste incineration. They emphasize the intergenerational harms and losses these projects entail.

Despite the critical need for climate responsibility and affordable renewable energy access, the ACEF 2024 program appears to prioritize the interests of private companies historically responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage. Notably, the forum’s opening plenary will feature senior management from Japan’s Marubeni and representatives from Keppel, both known for their support of fossil fuel projects.

ADB’s call for “quick win” solutions seems designed to benefit corporations rather than addressing the realities of planetary boundaries and the needs of marginalized communities. The absence of discussions on environmental and social governance further highlights the neglect of human and environmental rights in ADB’s energy investments, particularly in authoritarian and restrictive regimes.

ACEF 2024’s promotion of carbon removal technologies such as Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) and emerging fuel mixes like green hydrogen has raised alarms. These technologies, often touted as solutions, have failed to deliver substantial reductions in carbon emissions and pose significant risks to local communities and ecosystems.

The forum also spotlights large hydropower projects and waste-to-energy incineration, both of which have been criticized for their environmental impact and unsustainable nature. Civil society groups argue that these approaches divert attention from genuinely sustainable solutions like decentralized, non-fossil fuel energy.

Concerns extend to ADB’s policy-based loans and sessions promoting reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG), ammonia, hydrogen, and CCUS. These sessions, in partnership with Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Korea Energy Agency, are seen as further entrenching dirty energy futures in Asia.

For the first time, ACEF 2024 will spotlight the critical minerals sector. Rather than addressing the human and environmental rights violations associated with mining, the forum paints an overly positive picture of countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan as key players in global value chains. Civil society groups warn against expanding mining operations that threaten local communities’ survival.

For nearly two decades, ACEF has facilitated a contentious consensus-building among private sector entities in the regional energy landscape. The promises of clean and affordable energy often mask the challenges of achieving a robust, just, equitable, and rights-based energy transition. Civil society groups urge ADB and other financial institutions to shift focus towards genuinely sustainable renewable energy solutions, rather than profit-driven technofixes.

As the impacts of climate change intensify, it is imperative that ADB and other global financial institutions are held accountable for historical and ongoing environmental and social harms. Forum network and allies call for an overhaul of the key policy initiatives discussed at ACEF 2024. With the upcoming Mid Term Energy Policy Review of the ADB, the CSOs call for an end to ADBs false solutions towards Just Transition and demand a full phase out from fossil fuels especially gas, and all forms of financing for coal. 

###

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)

  1. We maintain that the ADB’s “climate-smart mining” ignores the negative impacts in mining-affected communities and that supply chains are not properly assessed. For instance, while the Green Climate Fund is investing heavily in e-mobility, sources of EV batteries are causing widespread destruction. On a more practical level, there is an urgent need to develop and implement a robust and expanded cost-benefit analysis (CBA)  of mining projects. These should incorporate the social and environmental costs as well as the impact to health and human rights brought about by the extractives industry. Unless these are determined and the impacts to the communities are considered more than the interests of profiteering corporations, there will only be more false solutions to the climate crisis.  We ask the public to join us in rejecting ADB’s techno fixes and their attempts to greenwash destructive mining operations. – Jaybee Garganera, National Coordinator, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)
  1. We call on ACEF delegates to push for the implementation of policies for rapid, equitable, and just transition to 100% renewable sources of power by 2050 and do away with false solutions and technologies. Fossil fuel corporations and other ACEF participants are still putting false solutions on the table, such as hydrogen, carbon capture utilization and storage, ammonia, and promoting gas as a transition fuel. These are dirty sources of energy that only serve to entrench fossil fuels and continue to profit from them, ultimately delaying the clean energy transition.  – Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD)
  1.  It is deeply disturbing that the organizers of the ACEF 2024 led by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) continue to promote energy sector investments that will not only delay our transition to renewable energy systems, but also mire our countries even deeper into debt. At this point, the idea of leveraging public funds to support continued investment in projects that only sidetrack us from our goal of a full transition away from fossil fuels is completely unacceptable.  In a country such as the Philippines, which is at the frontlines of climate change impacts, while also suffering from record levels of debt, to have these concerns completely ignored by a gathering that is held here every year, is nothing less than a slap in the face. – Rovik Obanil, Secretary General, Freedom from Debt Coalition
  1. The clean energy transition must not be justice-blind to the impacts of dirty technologies to people and the environment. We call on the ADB, international financial institutions, government agencies, and all energy investors to stop funding waste-to-energy incineration, refuse-derived fuel, carbon capture utilization and storage, coal co-firing, and other false solutions to waste and climate change. The fact that affected communities, informal sector workers, public transport workers, and civil society organizations are not identified as target participants in the ACEF is very telling of where investment priorities lie. A true clean and just energy transition must be inclusive, and recognize the solutions led by people and communities that are already producing positive impacts. – Miriam Azurin, Asia Pacific Deputy Director, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific
  1. The current corporate-led approach to clean energy may exacerbate inequalities, as Indigenous communities often suffer the most from environmental damage, such as the exploitation of ancestral land, natural resources and water and lack of access to clean energy solutions.It is crucial to ensure fair access to clean energy for a smooth transition.  Decision- making process should involve Indigenous peoples’ more. Empowering IPs can result in more inclusive and sustainable energy solutions. A comprehensive approach that combines technology, social and policy measures is crucial. There is a need for a comprehensive strategy that tackles the root causes of climate change and promotes sustainable development. – Indira Shreesh, Founding member and Chairperson,  Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group (INWOLAG)
  1. Clean energy could very well leave a huge negative environmental and social footprint. Renewable energy projects must always have a sustainability dimension, so as to avoid further harms to the environment and communities. Crucially, where these projects can be found in ancestral lands, the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples must be upheld and not be sacrificed to the transition. We are sounding off the exponential demand for energy transition minerals, half of which reserves are projected to be mined in ancestral lands. It will be the supreme irony that the energy transition shall also result in unabated mining, which often has irreversible deleterious effects on people and nature. –Maya Quirino, Advocacy Coordinator, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC-KSK)
  1. As the impacts of climate change intensify, it is imperative that ADB and other global financial institutions are held accountable for historical and ongoing environmental and social harms. Forum network and allies call for an overhaul of the key policy initiatives discussed at ACEF 2024. With the upcoming Mid Term Energy Policy Review of the ADB, the NGO Forum on ADB and its allies call for an end to ADBs false solutions towards Just Transition and demand a full phase out from fossil fuels especially gas and all forms of financing for coal. – Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB
  1. We don’t have any more time for false solutions that tie us to fossil fuels. We call on the ADB to withdraw financing of all fossil fuel projects, and instead invest in a just–not only clean–transition to renewable energy. We need enough resources to ensure that people and the environment can recover, and will be put front and center as we shift to renewables. This means that polluter countries also need to pay climate reparations to countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis, like us. ADB is accountable for this, too, for funding coal projects in the Philippines. We need concrete solutions now, starting with the payment of this huge historical debt. – Erwin Puhawan, Luzon Coordinator, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ)
  1. There is no room for false solutions such as carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) and co-firing of power stations which further extends the use of fossil fuels if we are to keep global temperature rise within the 1.5C trajectory.  Extreme caution must be exercised by MDBs in supporting green hydrogen as its production can lead to displacement of communities from their lands and livelihoods, and can compete with freshwater needs.The energy transition should be designed with and aim to benefit the communities who had done least to cause climate change, including women and indigenous peoples. – Alison Doig, Senior Advisor, Recourse
  1. Heading into 2030, balancing equity, urgency, and ambition in our energy transformation is essential. It’s time to ditch harmful energy, invest in renewables, and ensure transparency and community involvement. This isn’t just about hitting Paris Agreement targets—it’s about redefining our development pathway for a thriving future. The climate movement must lead the charge, using bold actions to expose the myth that fossil fuels are necessary for progress. Decarbonization is not only possible; it’s the key to justice and sustainability. Let’s redirect resources towards a clean energy economy that empowers communities and prioritizes the planet over profits. The Asian Development Bank’s commitment to renewables is crucial for reshaping Asia’s energy landscape and driving us towards a fossil-free future. – Chuck Baclagon, Finance Campaigner 350.org Asia

Ahead of the ADB’s Annual Meeting next month, civil society groups are firmly calling on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to go back to the drawing board and overhaul the draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) as written in its current form. To demonstrate their grave concerns that the policy provisions will undermine project-affected people and their allies abilities to hold ADB to account when social and environmental harms and damages occur, they intend to deliver a statement to the ADB Headquarters in Manila this morning.

The draft ESF, aimed at updating ADB’s safeguards policies, is being met with opposition from civil society groups due to a wide range of critical shortcomings, including:

  • Lack of Clear Lines of Accountability 
  • Lack of Clarity Related to the Stakeholder Engagement 
  • Lack of Human Rights Approach 
  • Weakened Environmental and Social Protections 
  • Gender Consideration Dilution 
  • Climate Change standards that fail to stand up to climate science 
  • Opaque Financial Intermediary Lending 

In light of these grave concerns, the NGO Forum on ADB and the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) together with the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), 350.org, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Freedom from Debt Coalition, Sanlakas, Oriang, K4K-QC, Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO), Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC-KSK), EcoWaste Coalition, Coalition for Human Rights in Development (CHRD), Recourse and International Accountability Project (IAP)  urge the ADB to overhaul the draft ESF, revising the language to instead reflect a set of forward-looking safeguards applicable to its entire portfolio, grounded in international human rights and environmental standards.

Quotes from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

  1. ⁠”The ADB’s safeguards should be the backbone of the bank’s commitment to people and the ecosystem’s well-being. Prioritizing community consultation and consent in all energy projects is paramount, ensuring that local communities are empowered in decision-making, safeguarding their rights and livelihoods. For us, the well-being of people and planet are non-negotiable.” 

– Chuck Baclagon, Finance Campaigner 350.org Asia

  1. The ADB continues to subject people and planet to further harm. The latest draft of ADB’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) further dilutes already weak safeguards provisions for affected communities. Even worse, the Bank continues to  ignore opposition by communities and persists in pushing climate-exacerbating  programs and policies and debt-creating finance in many Asian countries.

The ADB should walk the talk of eradicating poverty. Heed peoples’ demand for debt cancellation, reparations for past and continuing harms, an end to financing of planet-warming fossil fuels, and a  rapid, equitable, and just energy transition.

  • Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) 
  1. As a bank with a legacy of dirty energy and harm, the least that ADB could do in the face of worsening climate crisis and environmental degradation is to produce and implement a most stringent ESF. Instead, the draft allows financing of projects whose risks are not yet fully assessed, problematically allows offsets, and neglects the need to fully stop new financing for coal or gas with no exceptions. Glaring loopholes essentially render the ESF useless in truly responding to climate and environmental imperatives. We are one in calling on ADB to thoroughly improve the ESF draft, and ensure that finance is instead channeled to genuine solutions such as distributed renewables.
  • Avril De Torres, Deputy Executive Director, Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED)
  1. “The EcoWaste Coalition is troubled by the provision of the ESF that allows borrowers or clients to propose less stringent measures. This opens a door to potential abuses, where economic or political pressures could dilute the rigor of environmental and social protections.

If ADB is genuine in their stance to promote sustainable and responsible development, they should put stronger oversight, clearer criteria for exceptions, and more robust accountability in the ESF to uphold rigorous environmental and social standards.”

-Glory Rose Manatad, Legal and Policy Officer

Ecowaste Coalition

  1. ⁠“The failure of the ADB to accept any semblance of accountability for its past role in pushing policies that dismantled mechanisms and structures that protected people from corporate abuse or anti-people projects has again reared its ugly head. 

The weakening and dilution of existing safeguards is proof that ADB has not learned any lesson and remains more concerned with ensuring the profitability of the private sector rather than protecting the welfare of people or the future of the planet.”

-Rovik Obanil, Secretary General, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC)

  1. ADB has to recognize that we are already feeling the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It has to stop giving corporations continued license to pollute and to burn our planet through hideous carbon and pollution offsets. The false solutions they promote trapping us into dirty debts and are severely impacting the environment and communities – most especially the poor and marginalized. It’s time for the Bank to wake up to the facts and finally align with international socio-environmental and human rights instruments!

-Brex Arevalo, GAIA AP Climate and Anti-Incineration Campaigner 

  1. “The ADB has an opportunity to ensure that governments uphold the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. It should mandate the securing of the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples within their ancestral domains. More importantly, the ADB must begin to subscribe to the framework of the “Right to Say No” of indigenous peoples and move beyond “meaningful consultation,” which the FPIC process has sadly become. The reverse of the Right to Say No is the community’s Right to Say Yes to their own model of development.” 

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

  1. The ESF W Paper, after two years of consultations, regrettably fails to integrate any of the comments provided by civil society, which have consistently demanded stringent requirements for ADB borrowers to adhere to environmental and social compliance principles, committed to “Do No Harm.” The mitigating hierarchy approach promoted by the ADB in this draft ESF poses a direct threat to communities and the environment globally. It undermines all prerequisites for environmental and social risk assessment and compliance prior to loan approval, granting borrowers absolute freedom to disregard environmental and social risks. This constitutes a dismantling of the fundamental notion of safeguards.

We strongly condemn the ADB’s current ESF draft at its 57th annual meeting and demand a complete overhaul to ensure mandatory risk assessment requirements before loan approval, with language compliant with independent investigations for all ADB borrowers. Anything less than this poses a direct threat to communities and the environment.

-Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB

  1. “As it stands, the ESF allows for the continuation of projects that worsen climate change. Fossil fuel use should have stopped by 2025. This should be reflected by the ESF, with stringent policies barring the financing of any more fossil fuel projects. If not, it fails to safeguard the environment or any community.”

-Ian Rivera, National Coordinator of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice

  1. “This draft safeguards policy does little to rectify the black hole that is ADB’s financial intermediary lending. Communities harmed by ADB investments have a right to seek remedy, but there can be no accountability if we can’t see where the money is really coming from. The Bank’s safeguards for intermediary lending need drastic improvement, to ensure full transparency about its involvement in all projects it funds – including clear disclosure of ADB financing at project sites and in community consultations.”

-Kate Geary, Co-Director, Recourse

Our Work
Global Community
Donate