World Bank Criticized for Funding Incineration Projects as Climate Solutions

• The World Bank Group faces criticism for investing US$35.89 billion in 59 projects deemed "false climate solutions" between 2015 and 2026.
• Research by GAIA Asia Pacific indicates that 95% of this funding, totaling US$34.23 billion, was provided through loans that exacerbate national debt.
• Civil society groups advocate for an end to waste incineration financing and a shift toward Zero Waste systems that prioritize prevention, reuse, and community rights.

Project Scope and Risks

• Out of the 59 identified projects, 42 include waste-to-energy incineration components like gasification or pyrolysis, while 10 involve burning refuse-derived fuel.
• 18 projects are classified as high-risk (Category A), posing significant environmental or social threats.
• Only 15 projects include provisions for waste workers, and a mere six feature a formal Resettlement Action Plan.

Impact on Communities

• Activists highlight the Manila-based Smokey Mountain waste-to-energy project as a primary example of harmful development, noting it threatens the livelihoods of 15,000 waste workers and risks displacing 300 families.
• Community members report experiencing harassment and intimidation linked to the advancement of such projects.
• Critics argue that these initiatives divert public funds from essential social services and lock countries into decades of waste burning.

Petrochemical Financing Link

• Data from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reveals that international financial institutions (IFIs) have invested US$10.042 billion in 93 petrochemical projects, with the World Bank accounting for nearly 66% of that funding.
• This creates a circular dependency where IFIs subsidize upstream plastic production while simultaneously funding downstream incineration of plastic waste.

Recommended Actions

• Halt all financing for waste incineration and end related subsidies.
• Implement accountability mechanisms to protect affected communities and ensure their participation in decision-making processes.
• Redirect financial support toward decentralized, people-centered Zero Waste infrastructure, including recycling, composting, and waste prevention initiatives.