Ms. Annika Seiler, Principal Energy Specialist, Sectors Group, ADB
Mr. Priyantha Wijayatunga, Senior Director, Energy Sector Office, ADB
Mr. Pradeep Tharakan, Director, Energy Transition, Sectors Group
Cc:
Mr. David Morgado, Senior Specialist, Energy Sector Office, ADB
Mr. Bruce Dunn, Director, Office of Safeguards, ADB
Mr. Muhammad Ehsan Khan, Regional Director, East Asia Dept., ADB
Mr. Winfried Wicklein, Regional Director, South East Asia Dept., ADB
Ms. Haidy Ear Dupuy, Unit Head, NGO and Civil Society Center, ADB
Mr. Bernard Woods, Principal Director, Department of Communications and Knowledge Management (DOCK), ADB
Dear Ms. Seiler, Mr. Wijayatunga, Mr. Tharakan, and the CM2CET team,
We are collectively writing to underscore clarifications and critical concerns about the Approach Paper on Sustainable Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing (CM2CET) Value Chains drafted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). This letter resounds with the questions raised from the information session in December 2024 and February 2025, in which Forum members and allies in the Asia region participated.
From its previous engagements, the Forum members and allies already raised strong opposition about situating Mongolia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kazakhstan as key mineral extraction hubs for the clean energy transition. We fear that the extensive promotion of “critical mining”, cloaked in the guise of ‘energy transition’, will lead to a lack of attention to the human rights approach in the entire lifecycle of “clean energy” solutions and the failure to address its long-term environmental, social, and cultural consequences. Detailed comments and explanations of the points are the following:
I. On meaningful timing, mode of disclosure, and in-country consultations for comprehensive inputs from Civil Society Groups
We appreciate the allotment of consecutive discussions with the CSOs regarding the proposed Approach Paper. Looking at the timeframe, it was not specified how many days will the commenting period once the draft is released. A lesson learned from the case of Mongolia TA-10237 MON: Climate-Smart Mining for a New Climate Economy - 1 CS1 (57273-001), wherein the project carried out consultation by invitation with the draft ESG assessment disclosed 3 working days before consultation in English language only. Viewing this, we strongly recommend that the ADB should at least hold a minimum of 90 days or longer for oral and written inputs. At least 2 weeks of notice should also be given to CSOs and community representatives before the consultations. This process will enable corresponding ADB officials to have ample time for stakeholders’ feedback and inputs of the potentially affected communities to be meaningfully integrated into the Approach Paper. Critical concerns on CM2CET are far and wide-reaching, hence it is only logical to set this timeframe.
Moreover, key stakeholders must be engaged at the country level to toggle sector and country-specific concerns on critical and rare-earth extraction. Accordingly, representatives from communities per country must be informed on how their inputs will be incorporated into the publication and implementation of this strategy. We also observed that little to no representatives from formal and informal workers from the extraction, manufacturing, remanufacturing, and waste sectors, women, and mining-affected communities attended the consecutive discussions. It appears that there is a lack of outreach from the Bank to include these key stakeholders whose living conditions and livelihoods are deeply affected and will potentially be impacted by these initiatives. Further, we highly suggest that the Approach Paper be written in several languages, particularly in Mongolian, Bahasa, Filipino, Russian, Hindi, Bangla, and others to avoid having another layer of challenge in accessing information to broader constituencies.
II. Clarification on the broader application of Environmental and Social (E&S) Standards in the Approach Paper
In passing, Forum members and allies have witnessed the profound and often irreversible social, economic, cultural, and ecological impacts caused by the mining industry across the region, including a) forced displacement of communities; b) loss of livelihoods; c) violence and intimidation targeting local residents and environmental human rights defenders; d) pollution of land and waterways, particularly from mining waste; e) exploitation and fatalities among workers in hazardous conditions; f) intensively polluting, resource-draining extraction and production processes, and, more recently; d) risks to coastal communities and marine ecosystems posed by proposed deep-sea mining activities. Unfortunately, the presentation regarding the Approach Paper failed to discuss stringent provisions on due diligence and human rights approach and meaningfully accounting for these externalized risks. It has also focused on voluntary and fragmented privately-led ESG standards and unclear power of the exclusion list defined in the ADB Guidance on Exclusions vis-a-vis the exclusions in the safeguards policy in avoiding, mitigating, and holding the Bank and borrowers accountable.
Drawing from the experience of Marcopper Mining in Marinduque, Philippines, mining of CM often entails the disastrous consequence of unearthing hazardous elements, which can pose significant risks to both human health and ecosystems. Cumulative tonnes of mine tailings were dumped into Calancan Bay from 1975 to 1991. In 1993, the Mogpog River sustained heavy metal pollution from legacy mining operations. Elevated concentrations of copper, arsenic, and chromium were found in the river’s water, sediments, and surrounding vegetation, highlighting the persistent ecological and health risks for communities dependent on this vital resource. Meanwhile, the Boac River in 1996 was rendered dead in an instant after the dam busted and filled it with toxic wastes. Local communities faced serious health challenges linked to prolonged exposure to toxic substances.
Similarly, the Khanlzan Burgedtein Uul (Bald Eagle Mountain) rare-earth deposit in Mongolia exemplifies how mining projects continue to move forward despite well-documented ESG failures. Originally deemed unsafe for extraction due to dangerously high uranium radiation levels, the project has persisted through illegal licensing and political maneuvering. Since exploration began, Myangad ethnic herders have reported worsening environmental degradation, including the loss of pastures, contamination of water sources, and severe health impacts on both humans and livestock. Despite persistent protests against its inclusion in Mongolia’s Vision 2050 program, the project remains a looming threat—particularly given its proximity to the Khovd River, a critical water source for the Ramsar-listed Khar Us Lake, and endangered species such as the snow leopard.
We, therefore, call out the Bank to conduct comprehensive toxic waste assessments throughout the mining project cycles it supports and finances to identify and mitigate potential environmental and health hazards. The Bank must move beyond fragmented ESG frameworks and weak exclusion policies and instead adopt a strong, rights-based, and precautionary approach that prioritizes communities, ecosystems, and long-term sustainability over extractive industry interests.
It was also highlighted that many of the resource-rich areas for 'transition' minerals are located on Indigenous Peoples' lands, raising critical impediments to achieving land rights and environmental justice. We welcome the development in the Approach paper, stating “no mining projects that cannot demonstrate that they have obtained the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of potentially affected Indigenous Peoples, where relevant”. On the other hand, the Bank must exercise caution, as not all Asian jurisdictions formally recognize Indigenous identity or environmental rights, including the nomadic herders in Mongolia. In many cases, Indigenous communities may lack legal protections such as FPIC, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. This reality necessitates a proactive approach to uphold their rights and ensure their voices are meaningfully included in decision-making. Hence, this provision requires the utmost respect for communities' inherent right to withhold consent and reject mining activities, in full adherence to the principles outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and relevant international human and labor rights frameworks.
ADB must also respect no-go zones, even in regions already affected by conflict and oppression. Transition mining policies must establish clear no-go zones—areas of critical environmental, social, and cultural significance, as well as essential ecosystem services. These areas must not be further exploited, ensuring that mining activities do not exacerbate existing injustices or undermine the rights and well-being of affected communities. This includes declaring local conservation areas and/or indigenous and community conservation areas as mandated by the Convention on Biodiversity.
Furthermore, ADB repeatedly emphasized that the document is intended solely as a guiding framework for managing the supply chain of transition minerals. However, ambiguities remain regarding how the strategy aligns with its Safeguards Policy. For instance, while an exclusion list for CM2CET has been provided, there was no clear response on whether violations of this list would trigger the Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) or the new Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). Intuitively, if the ADB intends to do a downstream engagement, there is a question as to whether it is allowable under the exclusion list of its SPS 2009 (i.e., all mining, mineral processing, and extraction activities), and later on the ESF.
III. On issues concerning transparency and governance accountability
In cases of projects supported by the Bank in terms of CM2CET, we seek clarification on the minimum standard of transparency, especially on the information disclosure of companies and concessions involved. Noting that the policy landscape on mining varies in each country and region, domestic laws and regulations draw significant issues on public disclosure obscured by appalling confidentiality clauses.
For instance, the Philippines’ Mining Act currently adheres to the Financial Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA), which grants 100% foreign ownership of large-scale mining in the country. Stipulated under the sections of the agreement, information deemed confidential or limited to public access are: 1) sales contracts to local/foreign buyers; 2) any technical records of mining companies, and; 3) any information provided by the company to the Government, except the following as prescribed by Section 229 of the Revised IRR of the 1995 Mining Act.
This policy context highlights a critical concern on how stakeholders can trace the source of CM throughout the process of manufacturing CETs. The lack of transparency, often sheltered by non-disclosure agreements, renders mining companies' operational parameters opaque, hampering public scrutiny of financial flows. Moreover, this raises a pressing governance issue—whether the ADB accountability mechanisms and safeguard policies are in place to hold the involved private companies accountable in cases of E&S standards violation vis-a-vis the value chain projects financed by the Bank. We were deeply concerned by the ADB's vague response regarding whether the value chain approach could effectively trace whether extracted minerals are directly utilized for the energy transition. For instance, Indonesian CSOs underscored the ongoing over-extraction of nickel within its borders, much of which is not being used for renewable energy assets. In response, the ADB acknowledged that it is still in the early stages of exploring cross-border traceability mechanisms for supply chains. Moreover, it remains unclear whether these critical issues will be adequately addressed in the proposed Approach Paper, leaving significant gaps in accountability and oversight.
Most importantly, the Bank must carefully uphold local government autonomy in transition mining decisions. For instance, in the Philippines, while the national government holds authority over mining projects, the environmental and social impacts are deeply felt at the local level. In Mongolia, local governments can shape the central government’s decisions by meaningfully submitting their opinions concerning their constituencies. To ensure sustainable and just outcomes, local governments and communities must have robust decision-making power over mining activities that directly affect their ecosystems and livelihoods.
IV. Profit-driven Agenda over Responsible Mining Framework
At the core of the Approach Paper lies the ambition to maximize the benefits derived from the extraction and production of Clean Energy Technologies (CET). Among the central pillars of the CM2CET strategy is the enhancement of exports and the strengthening of regional and global economic linkages. However, CSOs and responsible mining advocates in the region expressed their opposition to the standing climate-smart framework peddled by the ADB and other IFIs. While these institutions frame the exploitation of critical minerals (CM) in developing countries as a pathway to "economic benefits," such rhetoric often reinforces exploitative practices accompanied by violence and militarization, deepening inequalities and conflict in resource-rich developing nations.
By prioritizing economic growth as the primary measure of development, this framework risks exacerbating social and environmental disparities, perpetuating wealth and resource inequalities that disproportionately burden the already marginalized mineral hubs in the region. Consequently, this dangerously signals green to make these countries sacrifice zones at the expense of environmental devastation and human rights at the domestic level. Therefore, ADB's framework for transition minerals must be firmly embedded within a country's broader development strategy. This strategy should position mining as a strategic sector where transition minerals drive the economy while ensuring environmental and social imperatives are not compromised.
V. Just Energy Transition in Question: Stop supporting False Solutions, clearly articulate “No Support for War” within its core framework
There are also questions raised on situating ‘just’ energy transition in the approach paper for several reasons. For one, it was indicated in the paper that it will support false energy solutions including hydrogen technologies, Battery Energy Systems Storage (BESS), and in recycling of Electric Vehicles to promote ‘circularity’. We find it problematic that ADB remains steadfast in peddling fossil fuel-dependent technologies distracting it from full swing clean energy transition. Fuel mixes such as hydrogen are being framed as lucrative marketing and business opportunities, encouraging companies to capitalize on the development of new electrolyzer technologies. On the other hand, while Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) offer significant potential for grid stability, their production demands vast quantities of lithium, cobalt, and nickel—materials often sourced under environmentally and socially damaging conditions. Moreover, their manufacturing processes frequently rely on fossil fuel-based energy, undermining their designation as a CET, calling into question their overall sustainability and risks carbon lock-in.
We also challenge the notion of circularity of Waste-to-Energy (WTE) technologies, especially if materials are incinerated. As an alternative, we push for reducing extraction and redesigning EV batteries to extend their lifespan and make them less reliant on rare minerals. Current recycling methods, such as pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy, are proven hazardous. Accordingly, we emphasize safe and inclusive recycling while rejecting WTE and landfills as sustainable options. Moreover, circular economy through battery recycling while important in reducing further harm especially because recycling has lower GHG emissions, land use, and environmental impacts than primary mineral extraction and refining, ADB should not ignore the need to reduce the mineral intensity of the transition. Even if recycling rates for minerals like copper and aluminum are scaled up by 100%, recycling and reuse would still not be enough to meet the demand for renewable energy technologies and energy storage. Recycling is only one step in a broader zero-waste solutions framework: the first step is to rethink and redesign the systems and explore less-mineral reliant alternatives, reducing battery overproduction, and their material footprint, and extending the batteries’ life through repair and repurposing, before being safely recycled and feedstock recovered. It is also concerning how the Approach Paper lacked recognition of international frameworks on hazardous waste including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the e-waste Amendments of the Basel Convention, Rotterdam and Minamatta Conventions to minimize the generation of e-waste, strictly control transboundary movement of hazardous waste, and ensure its environmentally sound management as part of a safe and just circular economy.
We firmly support the international initiative to prevent resources, raw materials, and trade routes from contributing in any way to the war in Palestine. Furthermore, we strongly stand for the Approach Paper to explicitly integrate a principled "no support for war" stance within its core framework, rather than relegating it to a mere exclusion list.
Many affected communities and environmental rights defender groups believe that any claim towards a “just energy” transition requires the updating of mining laws of many states. This is largely due to the fact that current mining laws fail to recognize and account for climate change impacts, disaster resiliency, or the most recent best practices on transparency and accountability. Any effort of the bank to support any project around energy transition minerals should include an assessment of existing national laws and regulatory policies on mining and determine its responsiveness to current challenges on climate, disasters, and accountability mechanisms.
During the information session, the ADB zoomed in on the application of the Joint MDB Framework on Paris Alignment in navigating the Approach Paper. This stands in question given the amount of GHG emissions that will be accounted for across all phases of the value chains. We also reiterate our position submitted in COP29 regarding the extremely limited considerations of “Universally Aligned” and “Not Universally Aligned” which gives them more flexibility in maneuvering climate goals. Accordingly, the MDBs concur in applying “Specific Criteria Assessment” to evaluate projects. This approach suggests that if, for instance, drilling, extraction, and processing of CM and rare earth minerals is included in a country’s decarbonization strategy, the MDBs would not automatically classify it as ‘Not Paris-Aligned,’ even if it requires carbon-extensive processing.
We also underscore the importance of the Guiding Principles on Critical Energy Transition Minerals by the UN Secretary-General. These principles establish a robust and ethical foundation for responsible mineral value chains. At their core, they emphasize protecting human rights, ensuring that mining and resource extraction uphold dignity, safety, and social well-being. Equally critical is safeguarding the planet’s integrity by minimizing environmental degradation and preserving biodiversity. Justice and equity are guiding pillars, advocating for fair labor practices, inclusive decision-making, and exploitation prevention. Sustainable development must be prioritized through mechanisms that equitably distribute benefits, enhance local value addition, and promote economic diversification. The ADB's approach to critical minerals mining, on the contrary, falls short of these principles, raising fundamental concerns about the ethical and sustainable trajectory of the energy transition. While the bank frames its support for mineral extraction as a necessary step toward decarbonization, its model fails to ensure that mining activities uphold human rights, environmental integrity, and social equity.
From this purview, the ADB ultimately failed to consider energy justice at the heart of the Approach Paper on CM2CET. The current framework it follows means a pushback for a few developing countries in the Global South with rich mineral resources to suffer multifaceted issues on human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, destruction of ecosystems and communities, inequitable distribution of resources, and energy access. In lieu of advocating for stronger natural resources protection to partner DMCs, the ADB instead used its financial leverage in tacit minerals exploitation in building out fleets of false energy solutions.
VI. Looking Ahead
Lest we forget, the past harms of ADB’s engagement with the extractive sector must be a lesson learned for the bank. Specifically, one of the worst environmental tragedies was brought by the ADB-supported Marcopper Mines in the Philippines which wrought havoc on communities, destroying their lifelines and damaging their health.
The ADB concession in CM value chains, albeit downstream, must thread careful considerations on pressing human and environmental concerns. At the end of the day, the take here is whether the ADB will also wash its hands if all else fails in consummating key CM2CET manufacturing value chain projects in the future.
To close, we look forward to more discussions in the following sessions and to hearing from you with the abovementioned points in writing. Thank you for your time and we await for your response.
Sincerely,
NGO Forum on ADB
Endorsed by the following organizations:
350.org Asia – Regional
350 Pilipinas – Philippines
Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) – Philippines
Asian People's Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) – Regional
Batani Foundation – Russia/USA
Centre for Human Rights and Development – Mongolia
Ecological Waste Coalition Inc. (Ecowaste Coalition) – Philippines
Fundación CAUCE: Cultura Ambiental - Causa Ecologista – Argentina
Gender Action – USA
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives - Asia Pacific (GAIA-AP) – Regional
Global Merdan – Mongolia
Globe International Center – Mongolia
Green Advocates International – Liberia
IAP RAS – Russia
Indus Consortium – Pakistan
Initiative for Right View (IRV) – Bangladesh
International Accountability Project – Global
Khovdiintoli newspaper NGO – Mongolia
KRuHA – Indonesia
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) – Philippines
LGBT Centre – Mongolia
Mongol Federation of Scientific Workers – Mongolia
NGO Forum on ADB – Bangladesh
NGO Forum on ADB – Regional
Oyu Tolgoi Watch (OT Watch) – Mongolia
Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) – Philippines
Project Regeneration – USA
Psychological Responsiveness NGO – Mongolia
Psychological Responsiveness NGO – Mongolia
Recourse – Netherlands
Rivers without Boundaries Coalition – Mongolia
Rural Reconstruction Nepal (RRN) – Nepal
Steps Without Borders NGO – Mongolia
The Club of Rome/Earth4All – Belgium
Trend Asia – Indonesia
Байгаль ортныхоо бүрэн бүтэн байдлыг хадгалах – Mongolia
Глобал мердиан Монголия – Mongolia
Мongolian Environmental Civic Council – Mongolia
Comments