Connect with us

NGO WORK

World Bank is backing dozens of new coal projects, despite climate pledges

Published

on

New research shows that the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group, is providing back-door support to at least 39 new coal projects, constituting over 68 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity throughout China, Indonesia and Cambodia.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private lending arm of the World Bank Group, is indirectly backing dozens of new coal projects throughout Asia, according to a new report, Blowing Smoke: How Coal Finance is Flowing through the IFC’s Paris Alignment Loopholes. The report, based on research conducted by Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia, was published today, in advance of the World Bank Annual Meetings taking place in Marrakech next week.

“We found that the IFC is still backing new coal capacity through its investments in banks and other financial institutions despite its commitments to align those investments with the Paris Agreement,” said David Pred, executive director of Inclusive Development International. “This is the opposite of the sustainable development that IFC purports to promote, and it is having a devastating impact on coal-affected communities throughout Asia and the entire planet in this time of climate peril.”

A planned 700-megawatt coal-fired power plant called Jambi 2, to be located in Indonesia’s Jambi province, is among the new coal projects the IFC is indirectly supporting. The new report focuses on Jambi 2 as a case study for how the IFC’s lending ends up supporting new coal development and the impact that has on local communities. According to local advocates and community members interviewed by Inclusive Development International, Jambi 2 is a project the province doesn’t want and doesn’t need—one that will exacerbate the already devastating impacts of coal development in the area, including air and water pollution and related health issues. Yet Postal Savings Bank of China—an IFC intermediary and a major coal financier in the region—has provided a credit line to Jambi 2’s developer, China Huadian.

“Ongoing coal development in Indonesia, including the Jambi 2 plant, will accelerate climate change and its catastrophic consequences,” said Novita Indri, energy campaigner at Trend Asia. “It’s a slap in the face to Indonesia, an island nation that is uniquely vulnerable to rising sea levels and already suffering from extreme weather events.”

Postal Savings Bank of China is by far the largest financier of coal developers in the IFC’s portfolio. According to data compiled by Inclusive Development International and published alongside the new report, the IFC purchased a $300 million equity stake in Postal Savings Bank in 2015 and the bank has gone on to provide 418 billion RMB ($57.3 billion) in no-strings-attached credit lines and project loans to companies developing dozens of coal-fired power plants in the region. The bank has provided these loans at a time when much of the financial industry is shifting away from coal, implicating the IFC and the World Bank Group in the last vestiges of coal finance and the devastating impacts it has for coal-affected communities and the climate. The authors of the report are calling on the IFC to leverage its influence as a major shareholder to stop Postal Savings Bank from continuing to finance coal development.

“It’s hypocritical for the IFC to allow its banking clients to finance projects like Jambi 2 and other coal development in Asia while at the same time promising to align its lending with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change,” said Kate Geary, co-director of Recourse. “While committing to move away from coal on paper, the World Bank Group is failing to ensure that its investments aren’t  supporting coal power projects that are significant contributors to climate change and that wreak devastation on affected communities.”

These latest revelations come on the heels of reports last month that communities in Indonesia’s Banten province have lodged a formal complaint against the IFC for backing two new massive units in the Suralaya mega-coal complex. Similar complaints have been lodged against the IFC in the past, including regarding its support for coal expansion in the Philippines.

“The IFC has contributed to serious harms related to coal expansion in many countries,” added Pred. “Now it has a responsibility to repair the damage it has done and prevent future harm by requiring that all of its financial intermediary clients, including Postal Savings Bank of China, stop financing coal development immediately.”

Notes for editors:

Regarding IFC’s financial intermediary lending and “no coal” commitments

Inclusive Development International previously followed the money in the IFC’s financial-sector portfolio and published our findings in our Outsourcing Development investigative series, which exposed (among other things) the coal plants and mines the IFC was indirectly backing.

Since then, the World Bank Group has made a series of commitments designed to reform its approach to investing in financial institutions, reduce its exposure to coal and align itself with the Paris Agreement. Most prominently, in 2019 the IFC launched its Green Equity Approach, which requires financial institutions in which it holds shares to halve their coal exposure by 2025 and eliminate it from their portfolios by the end of the decade. In 2023, the IFC closed a major loophole that Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia pointed out in the approach by updating the rules to restrict equity clients from financing any new coal projects.

However, the IFC’s flagship approach aligning its indirect lending operations with the Paris Agreement contains other loopholes and gray areas: it still allows equity clients to underwrite bonds for coal developers, and it allows clients to finance industrial projects that are powered by dedicated coal plants, a concept known as captive coal. And it is unclear how and whether the “no new coal” rule is being applied to existing clients’ corporate financing of coal developers. In fact, as our new research and report show, banks in which the IFC holds equity stakes—including Postal Savings Bank of China—have continued to provide financing to the developers of new coal projects.

Regarding our methodology

For this report, Inclusive Development International traced the International Finance Corporation’s money through financial intermediaries to new coal-fired power capacity in Asia. The full results are here.

We define new coal capacity as projects that have become operational since 2019; projects that are under construction; and projects that have been announced by developers. This data does not include projects that are listed as shelved or canceled, although developers regularly reactivate shelved projects after long periods of inactivity.

For all data on coal plants, including project names, generating capacity, development timelines and project owners, we relied on the Global Energy Monitor, which tracks energy infrastructure around the world. For data on project developers, including their current coal-generating capacities, development plans, and issuances of debt securities, we relied on the Global Coal Exit List, which the IFC also uses  to help its clients identify coal exposures in their portfolios.

All other data comes from research conducted by Inclusive Development International, Recourse and Trend Asia into corporate filings, the International Finance Corporation’s project disclosures, and site visits in Indonesia.

Source: inclusivedevelopment.net

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Failed US-Brokered “Peace” Deal Was Never About Peace in DRC

Published

on

Oakland, CA – Whereas Donald Trump hailed the “peace” agreement between Rwanda and DRC as marking the end of a deadly three-decade war, a new report from the Oakland Institute, Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, exposes it as the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.

“US involvement in Congolese affairs has always been unequivocally tied to the goal of securing access to critical minerals,” said Frédéric Mousseau, report co-author and Policy Director at the Oakland Institute. “The ‘peace’ deal comes after decades of US training, advising and sponsoring foreign armies and rebel movements, and at a time when Rwanda and its proxy M23 have expanded territorial control in eastern DRC. This is a win-lose deal that serves US mining interests and rewards Rwanda for decades of pillaging Congolese resources.”

The report’s analysis of previously overlooked coltan trade data shows that the US has been a central actor in laundering illegally smuggled Congolese minerals. Rwanda’s overall tantalum (metallic ore extracted from coltan) exports to the US increased 15-fold between 2013 and 2018. This was after the first M23 invasion in 2012 and at the time when the US administration waived its sanction mechanism against Rwanda. At its peak, over half of US imports of tantalum originated from Rwanda, despite the country’s limited production. Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC details how the regional economic integration at the center of the “peace” agreement will legalize this laundering.

“With the world’s largest reserves of critical minerals, the Congolese will continue to bear the social and environmental costs of extraction, while Rwanda reaps the benefits from processing and exporting its neighbor’s resources,” said Andy Currier, report co-author and Policy Analyst at the Oakland Institute. “The deception is even more obvious knowing that Rwanda’s Minister of State for Regional Integration is none other than James Kabarebe – sanctioned by the US Treasury in early 2025 for orchestrating Rwanda’s support for the M23, coordinating the export of minerals from the DRC, and managing the revenue generated by this extraction,” Currier continued.

The report shows that the regional integration negotiated by the US is actually about building two separate export routes for Congolese minerals. One that establishes Rwanda as a hub for minerals extracted in the conflict areas of eastern DRC and another that upgrades the Lobito Corridor, a key export route to the Atlantic Ocean for copper and cobalt mined in the south of the country – financed through a US$553 million loan to Angola by the US Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

Several mining deals along these two routes are already being negotiated by a number of US firms – backed by high-profile billionaires like Bill Gates, close Trump associates, and US military and intelligence figures. “True peace and prosperity will only come when the Congolese – not foreign powers – set the terms of the country’s future,” said Maurice Carney, Executive Director of Friends of the Congo. “Under the US-brokered ‘peace,’ the suffering of the Congolese people persists and a new era of exploitation unfolds.”

With over 1,000 civilians killed in the months since the “peace” deal was signed, Shafted proves that Congolese civil society’s concerns are well founded. American involvement has little to do with ending violence, and everything to do with unlocking strategic mining access for corporate interests. The agreement effectively rewards aggression while sidelining essential conditions for durable peace: Accountability of the perpetrators and their enablers, justice for the victims, and sovereignty of the Congolese people.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Documenting killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders

Published

on

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Giles Clarke / Global Witness

Every year, Global Witness works with partners to gather evidence, verify and document every time a land and environmental defender is killed or disappeared. Our methodology follows robust criteria, yet undocumented cases pose challenges when it comes to analysing data

Global Witness documents killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally. In partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, we produce an annual report containing these figures, and we have done so since 2012.

Our methodology involves a year-long process of cross-referencing data from different sources to ensure its credibility. Over 2,200 killings or long-term disappearances of defenders appear in our database since 2012 – with 146 cases documented in 2024.

Every year, we maintain a database to keep a record of these crimes and create a comprehensive global picture of the systematic violence defenders face.

The data provides a snapshot of the underlying drivers behind reprisals and indicates how some defenders and their communities face increased risks. Exposing these trends is the first of many steps to ensure that defenders and their communities are protected and can exercise their rights without fearing for their lives.

Killings and disappearances documented between 2012 and 2024

  • 2,253

    defenders have been killed or disappeared since 2012

    Global Witness

  • 146

    of these attacks occurred in 2024

    Global Witness

Classifying defenders’ cases

Most of the cases recorded in our database are killings – including assassinations by illicit actors, state murder and death in detention.

Our database also includes disappearances of defenders, where the individual has been missing for six months or more.

All reports prior to 2025 have combined killings and long-term disappearances into one single headline figure. For greater clarity, our latest report indicates a distinction between these two types of attack, and our reports will continue to make this distinction in future.

Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024

Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024. Tamara Merino / Global Witness

Cases from prior years or those already included in our database are not continuously monitored. Where we receive updated information on an attack, we may retrospectively include or remove cases.

We document the killing or disappearance of a defender when there is a reasonable and suspected link to an individual’s activism or where the individual played a role in defence of the land or the environment.

As well as individuals directly involved in activism, we also document tangential violence against families, community members or others caught up in attacks.

Our definition covers a broad range of people and encompasses different types of land and environmental leadership. Crucially, this involves people who work in any capacity to protect rights linked to the exploitation of land or the environment.

How we define land and environmental defenders

Land and environmental defenders are a specific type of human rights defender – individuals or groups of people who act to promote, protect or strive for the realisation of human rights through peaceful action.

Their role as human rights protectors is recognised by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, principles also enshrined in other legally binding international instruments. This includes those working to protect human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.

We define defenders as people who take peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment.

Land and environmental struggles take different forms and are shaped by local contexts. For example, in every region of the world, communities strive against systematic land dispossession and environmental destruction from extractive industries.

For some the threat to territories is intimately connected to the degeneration of their sovereignty, culture, livelihoods and homes. Others are caught in wider conflicts which exacerbate land, environmental and climate injustices.

Defenders often live in communities whose land, health and livelihoods are threatened by the operations of mining, logging, agribusiness or other industries.

Some defend our biodiverse environment, while others support such efforts through their roles as lawyers, politicians, park rangers, journalists, or members of campaigns or civil society organisations.

Others are holders of traditional or Indigenous knowledge, working as Indigenous guards or community knowledge keepers.

Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer

Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer who disappeared with Indigenous leader Antonio Díaz Valencia after attending a community meeting in San Miguel de Aquila, Mexico. Luis Rojas / Global Witness

Identifying and documenting cases

We learn of killings and disappearances through reliable sources of online reporting, tip-offs and wider documentation efforts from civil society organisations.

We set up search engine alerts using keywords and conduct other searches online to identify relevant cases. We also share information with international and national organisations who report on attacks against human rights defenders.

We then research each case to assess whether the person killed or disappeared was a land and environmental defender, according to our definition.

Desk-based research has its limitations. Many attacks on land and environmental defenders receive little or no media attention, due to the remote location of attacks, stigmatisation by investigating authorities, or widespread government repression of the media.

In most instances, we supplement identified cases with additional research. This includes working closely to share information with trusted civil society organisations and communities who have gathered evidence through their own investigations.

Jealousy Mugisha, a 50-year-old father of seven, refused to leave his home without adequate compensation. He was taken to court and forced to accept compensation that he feels was too low. He has faced reprisals for speaking out against the project.

Communities affected by the East African Oil Pipeline report receiving threats after refusing to leave their homes without adequate compensation. Jjumba Martin / Global Witness

Verifying information

We work closely with in-country partners to verify whether there is a reasonable and suspected link between the killing or disappearance and the person’s activism.

Testimony from families, communities and organisations working with targeted defenders often provides key information. Sometimes we review official documentation, including police reports or legal documents. This information is documented by Global Witness and not made public.

Navigating toxic narratives

Year after year, we are confronted with cases where the very nature of what it means to be a land and environmental defender is questioned.

Often governments, corporations and media outlets propagate a narrow view of land and environmental activism, excluding individuals and communities whose role defending land or environmental rights is less recognisable.

Across the world, defenders and their communities are often labelled as “criminals”, “agitators” or “communists”. These toxic terms are sometimes employed by the institutions and authorities that claim to uphold people’s rights.

Media can often repeat damaging narratives or even simply ignore reporting on these cases, making it difficult to verify whether an attack could be linked to a persons’ activism.

In these situations, we work closely with local organisations to clarify the contexts in which defenders work, and the patterns of stigmatisation they face, and gather more evidence of the role they played in environmental and land rights protection.

An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project

An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project. James Rodriguez / Global Witness

We also work alongside other organisations gathering national, regional and international reprisal-related data. This includes official UN sources of data collection as well as civil society initiatives.

Every data collection project has its own definitions and methodologies, which create challenges in collating this data into a global dataset on attacks against defenders. Some existing datasets overlap with ours, but often do not fully coincide.

For every case documented, we research and evaluate whether it fits our definition of a land and environmental defender.

Often, public reporting on attacks is circumstantial or lacks information. In some cases, attacks go unreported, particularly in rural areas and in certain countries.

In these cases, countries with restricted civic space – where civil society organisations, NGOs and other groups that monitor the work of defenders are less present, for example – are not able to fill the reporting gap.

This is further exacerbated by repression of the media, authoritarian governments and active political conflicts. Documenting massacres or reprisals in active conflict zones, areas under occupation or where organised crime groups have social or territorial control is also challenging.

These contextual challenges mean that our data is likely to underreport killings and disappearances in certain countries and regions of the world – particularly in areas of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Spotlighting our criteria

To meet our criteria, a case must be supported by the following available information:

  • Credible sources of information. This can include online publications, official documentation on a case or collating information from families, colleagues and civil society organisations linked to a case.
  • Details about the type of act and method of violence, including the date and location.
  • Name and biographical information about the victim.
  • Clear, proximate and documented connections to the protection and defence of environmental and land rights. This includes evaluating the various roles of defenders play and the wider contexts and underlying conflicts that affect them.
indigenous people gather together and raise fist to sky

Many of the defenders working to protect land and environment also speak out against the harmful impacts of the climate crisis either because of the direct impact on their livelihoods and communities or in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. Matheus Alves / Sumauma / Global Witness

Analysing the data

We seek to understand the most dangerous repercussions defenders face in the context of the territorial and environmental disputes taking place in their countries.

We also look to understand the characteristics of defenders and their communities – who they are as people and whether some face greater, more targeted risks.

Focusing on the most serious harms (killings and disappearances) enables us to confidently verify the threats defenders face and allows us to analyse geographical trends at regional, country and local level – though with recognised limitations.

We record whether a defender belongs to a marginalised group – Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants or rural communities – or if they act as a defender in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. This enables us to understand more about the characteristics of defenders working to protect land and the environment.

We try to gather information on the rights defenders are striving to protect, such as whether they are engaged in a territorial dispute or preventing environmental damage.

Noch Min, 40, and her husband Et Tam, 39, farm their 1.5 hectares of land given to them as compensation by the Thai based sugar company KSL

Violence is often connected to wider territorial disputes linked to the expansion of extractive projects, devastating the homes and livelihoods of families and communities. Andrew Ball / Panos / Global Witness

We also aim to identify the underlying driver of the harms that led to their acts of protest – for instance, land disputes or industries linked to destructive practices or rights infringements.

Where possible, we record the alleged perpetrator of the crime – both the direct offender and the suspected intellectual authors.

Our dataset is reviewed and updated annually. Before we publish our data, documented cases from the previous year go through a rigorous fact-checking process to ensure confidence in the veracity of our data.

We do not proactively review historic cases in our database. If there are changes in the status of a case or if more information about an individual defender comes to light, we revise and amend our database accordingly.

In the weeks before the publication of our Annual Defenders Report, we temporarily halt the inclusion of new cases – any new cases or information received are kept on file and later added to the database.

Despite efforts to overcome the data access and verification challenges outlined above, our data is likely incomplete. The figures presented in Global Witness reports are therefore probably an underestimate and should be considered as only a partial picture of the extent of killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders.

Read full article: globalwitness.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area

Published

on

Following the one-year anniversary of the historic protest waged by Maasai communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), the Oakland Institute calls on the Tanzanian government to respect their rights to land and life and end mass eviction plans.

Between August 18-23, 2024, over 40,000 Maasai staged a historic mobilization, blocking the Ngorongoro-Serengeti highway and stranding safari tourist land cruisers – forcing the world’s attention to their demand for justice. The protest challenged the Tanzanian government’s attempt to drive the Maasai from the NCA without their consent by stripping them of their land and voting rights. President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s blind pursuit of tourism dollars has resulted in denial of essential services – including life-saving healthcare and education – to approximately 100,000 Maasai, while their pastoralist livelihoods are strangled.

To appease the international outcry generated by the protests, the Tanzanian government launched the “Presidential Commission on Land in Ngorongoro” and the “Presidential Commission on Relocation from Ngorongoro,” on February 20, 2025.  The commissions were granted a three-month mandate to assess land conflicts and the relocation of residents with the expectation that the findings will be released at regular intervals. More than six months later, not a single report has been published or any information shared.

Image
Maasai holding signs

In April 2025, the Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas Initiative at the University of Arizona’s Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy (IPLP) Program submitted a legal brief to the commissions. Endorsed by the Oakland Institute, Land is Life, and Forest Peoples Programme, the brief called on the Presidential Commissions to uphold the rights of the Maasai to land, culture, self-identification, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) while addressing the devastating impacts that so-called conservation policies have inflicted on these communities. The brief urged the commissions to recognize the Maasai as Indigenous Peoples, guarantee their meaningful participation, and align Tanzania’s laws and policies with its international obligations.

The independence of the commissions remains questionable, with both notably dominated by government personnel and very limited Maasai representation. It is believed that the commissions have already submitted reports, recommending further relocations to the President, who intends to release them after the October general elections.

In a concerning sign, during a July 2025 speech, President Samia Suluhu Hassan condemned the presence of livestock and local communities in the NCA, which she claimed undermines the area’s tourism value. Days after, rangers demolished newly renovated settlements and a church in the Oldupai area, while arresting several Maasai villagers. These actions mark an intensification of efforts to pressure residents into “volunteering” for relocation.

Image
Maasai mobilization

The Oakland Institute has previously shattered state propaganda regarding a better life waiting for those who “volunteer” to resettle in Msomera, documenting how the site – 600 km away – lacks adequate water resources and grazing land while promises of improved social and health services by the government remain unfulfilled.

The NCA was established in 1959 as a multiple land use area that explicitly recognized the Maasai’s settlement rights and authority in governance decisions, while accommodating conservation and tourism. The Maasai were even promised that “should there be any conflict between the interests of the game [animals] and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.” It is time that the Tanzanian government keeps its word.

As the environmental stewards of the area, it is imperative that the land rights of the Maasai are restored in compliance with national and international law. The Oakland Institute reiterates the calls made by international law experts to the Presidential Commissions:

  1. Recognize and protect Maasai land rights, in line with international standards.
  2. Affirm the role of Indigenous knowledge in conservation, with a focus on Indigenous women and girls.
  3. Guarantee Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) before any conservation initiatives are launched.
  4. Support sustainable livelihoods rooted in Maasai knowledge, culture, and environmental stewardship.
  5. Establish ongoing, transparent dialogue between Maasai communities and authorities.
  6. Promote community-led education and knowledge sharing on conservation.
  7. Implement U.N. recommendations on halting forced relocations and upholding human rights.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter