Connect with us

NGO WORK

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

Published

2 years ago

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

Related posts:

World Bank branch indirectly backs coal megaproject despite green pledge African Development Bank decides not to fund Kenya coal project 30 civil society organizations have written to the World Bank Group demanding to publicly disclose the Africa Energy Approach paper. #StopEACOP campaign calls on Standard Bank to come clean about its funding of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline World Bank Halts New Lending to Uganda Over Anti-LGBTQ Law

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement Faces Constitutional Challenge in Court

Published

13 hours ago

on

February 6, 2026

By

Top photo: President Donald Trump participates in a trilateral signing ceremony of a peace and economic agreement with President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Thursday, December 4, 2025, at the United States Peace Institute in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

  • In a landmark legal action, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders have filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.
  • A recent report from the Oakland Institute exposed how the US-brokered “peace” deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.
  • While US mining firms secure privileged access to vast reserves of copper, cobalt, lithium, and tantalum, promises of peace and security remain hollow as Rwanda and its proxy M23 armed group continue to occupy large swaths of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC.

Oakland, CA – In a landmark legal action in January 2026, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Signed alongside the US-brokered “peace deal” between Rwanda and the DRC – known as the Washington Accord – the agreement grants the United States preferential access to Congolese mineral reserves and requires the DRC to amend its national laws and potentially its Constitution. The agreement further establishes a joint governance mechanism that gives Washington a direct role in overseeing the management of Congo’s mining sector.

The lawyers argue that the agreement violates the Congolese Constitution, which requires that any amendment to national laws and/or the Constitution be subject to democratic review and approval by Parliament or by popular referendum.  In particular, the agreement contravenes Article 214 of the DRC’s Constitution, which governs the ratification of international agreements that alter domestic law. The petition also contends that the agreement violates Articles 9 and 217, which enshrine national sovereignty over natural resources, as well as Article 12, which guarantees equality before the law.

“By filing this case with the Constitutional Court, we are assuming our responsibility as Congolese citizens to protect the sovereignty of our country and safeguard our patrimony for future generations,” said Attorney Jean-Marie Kalonji, one of the plaintiffs.

In October 2025, the Oakland Institute released Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, warning that US diplomatic initiatives, including the Rwanda-DRC peace deal — were being used to advance mineral extraction interests under the guise of bringing peace to the region.

“The Partnership Agreement makes it clear that these concerns were legitimate. The Congolese people have been sidelined, with an agreement focused on extraction and exploitation and a peace deal that shockingly overlooks the need for justice and for holding perpetrators accountable,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “While the US mining firms secure privileged access to Congo’s vast reserves of critical minerals, promises of peace and security remain hollow with Rwanda and M23 still occupying large swaths of land in mineral-rich eastern DRC,” Mittal continued.

In mid-January 2026, the DRC government took a major step towards implementing the agreement by providing Washington with a shortlist of state-owned assets — including manganese, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium projects – marked for potential US investment.

The lawyers and human rights defenders behind this case are calling for a nationwide mobilization to defend Congolese sovereignty and are urging the international community to support their legal action and uphold international law at a time when it faces an unprecedented threat.

“The Oakland Institute will continue to stand by its partners to support this mobilization and promote a Congolese-led path for peace, justice, and prosperity for the DRC instead of Trump’s hyperbole of peace and security accomplished through its mineral deal,” concluded Mittal.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

Internally displaced people at Rusayo 2 Camp, November 2024. FAO/Alessandra Benedetti.
Discover How Foreign Interests and Resource Extraction Continue to Drive Congo’s Crisis Failed US-Brokered “Peace” Deal Was Never About Peace in DRC Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal Grain trader Cargill faces legal challenge in US over Brazilian soya supply chain Mps Are Likely To Defy Electorates On Age-Limit Constitutional Amendment – Survey
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Violations against Kenya’s indigenous Ogiek condemned yet again by African Court

Published

3 weeks ago

on

January 13, 2026

By

Minority Rights Group welcomes today’s decision by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the case of Ogiek people v. Government of Kenya. The decision reiterates previous findings of more than a decade of unremedied violations against the indigenous Ogiek people, centred on forced evictions from their ancestral lands in the Mau forest.

The Court showed clear impatience concerning Kenya’s failure to implement two landmark rulings in favour of the indigenous Ogiek people: in a 2017 judgment, that their human rights had been violated by Kenya’s denial of access to their land, and in a 2022 judgment, which ordered Kenya to pay nearly 160 million Kenyan shillings (about 1.3 million USD) in compensation and to restitute their ancestral lands, enabling them to enjoy the human rights that have been denied them.

Despite tireless activism from the community and the historic nature of both judgments, Kenya has not implemented any part of either decision. The community remains socioeconomically marginalized as a result of their eviction and dispossession. Evictions have continued, notably in 2023 with 700 community members made homeless and their property destroyed, and in 2020 evicting about 600, destroying their homes in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program stated, ‘We have been at the African Court six times to fight for our rights to live on our lands as an indigenous people – rights which our government has denied us and continues to violate, compounding our plights and marginalization, despite clear orders from the African Court for our government to remedy the violations. This is the seventh time, and we were hopeful that the Court would be more strict to the government of Kenya in ensuring that a workable roadmap be followed in implementation of the two judgments.’

Image: The Ogiek delegation outside the African Court after the delivery of the decision. 4 December 2025.

Kenya has repeatedly justified the eviction of Ogiek as necessary for conservation, although the forest has seen significant harm since evictions began. Many in the community see a connection between their eviction and Kenya’s participation in lucrative carbon credit schemes.

‘The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely and full implementation of measures imposed on a state which has been found to be in breach of their internationally agreed obligations. Kenya must now repay its debt to the indigenous Ogiek by restituting their land and making reparations, among other remedies ordered by the Court’, said Samuel Ade Ndasi, African Union Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Minority Rights Group.

The decision states, ‘the court orders the respondent state to immediately take all necessary steps, be they legislative or administrative or otherwise, to remedy all the violations established in the judgment on merits.’ The court also reaffirmed that no state can invoke domestic laws to justifiy a breach of international obligations.

Both of the original judgments were historic precedents, breaking new ground on the issue of restitution and compensation for collective violations experienced by indigenous peoples and confirming the vital role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding ecosystems, that states must respect and protect their land rights, that lands appropriated from them in the name of conservation without free, prior and informed consent must be returned, and their right to be the ultimate decision makers about what happens on their lands. Today’s decision adds to this tally of precedents as it is the first decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights concerning the record of a state in implementing a binding decision.

The case

In October 2009, the Kenyan government, through the Kenya Forestry Service, issued a 30-day eviction notice to the Ogiek and other settlers of the Mau Forest, demanding that they leave the forest. Concerned that this was a perpetuation of the historical land injustices already suffered, and having failed to resolve these injustices through repeated national litigation and advocacy efforts, the Ogiek decided to lodge a case against their government before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights with the assistance of Minority Rights Group, the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program and the Centre for Minority Rights Development. The African Commission issued interim measures, which were flouted by the Government of Kenya and thereafter referred the case to the African Court based on the complementarity relationship between the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and on the grounds that there was evidence of serious or massive human rights violations.

On 26 May 2017, after years of litigation, a failed attempt at amicable settlement and an oral hearing on the merits, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights rendered a merits judgment in favour of the Ogiek people. It held that the government had violated the Ogiek’s rights to communal ownership of their ancestral lands, to culture, development and use of natural resources, as well as to be free from discrimination and practise their religion or belief. On 23 June 2022, the Court rejected Kenya’s objections and set out the reparations owed for the violations established in the 2017 judgment.

Source: minorityrights.org

Related posts:

Kenya: Court halts flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix and British Airways over unlawfully acquiring community land without consent Trauma and Land Loss: New Study Focuses on Mental Health of Evicted Indigenous People Justice Denied: East African Court of Justice Grants Tanzanian Government Impunity to Trample Human Rights of the Maasai EACOP: East African Court of Justice will hear arguments on court’s jurisdiction Tanzanian High Court Tramples Rights of Indigenous Maasai Pastoralists to Boost Tourism Revenues
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Published

3 months ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights reveals how the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to “formalize” land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” Climatewash uncovers that its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction. Alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, Climatewash documents how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality. The report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agroecology as crucial climate solutions.

Read full report: Climatewash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Source: The Oakland Institute

Related posts:

Under Guise of Climate Action, the World Bank Launches Fresh Offensive on Land Rights 30 civil society organizations have written to the World Bank Group demanding to publicly disclose the Africa Energy Approach paper. World Bank’s new scheme to privatize land in the developing world exposed World Bank is backing dozens of new coal projects, despite climate pledges Communities Under Siege: New Report Reveals World Bank Failures in Safeguard Compliance and Human Rights Oversight in Tanzania
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter