Speaking at COP29 in Azerbaijan about the impact of climate change on Africa, the executives of Afreximbank promised to double-down on their commitment to a just energy transition on the continent. But, four months later, the multilateral lender has confirmed its support for a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast for export overseas.
It was announced this week that the African Export-Import Bank – whose main shareholders are African governments – would be part of a syndicate of financial institutions committing a first tranche of external financing to the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project, which is majority-controlled by French energy giant TotalEnergies.
Other lenders include South Africa’s Standard Bank, Uganda’s Stanbic Bank and KBC Bank, and Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, according to a statement published by EACOP’s developer, which called the financing deal “a significant milestone”.
The loan is in the range of $1 billion, with two further tranches expected, according to the government-owned Ugandan newspaper New Vision. Afreximbank earlier indicated it would provide $200 million to the project.
Samuel Okulony, CEO of the Environment Governance Institute, a Ugandan NGO, told Climate Home that Afreximbank’s actions are in direct contradiction of their “empty words” on climate change.
“Afreximbank is funding the destruction of our own people, while at the same time speaking about energy transition and a commitment to a cleaner future. It is a big disappointment,” he said.
Afreximbank did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment.
Oil pipeline faces strong opposition
The 1,443-km pipeline would carry crude oil extracted from oilfields under development near Lake Albert in Uganda to Tanga port in Tanzania for onward export to international markets. The long-delayed project has been the target of protests and lawsuits from campaigners that accuse the project developers of displacing communities, damaging the environment and fuelling the climate crisis.
A coalition of regional civil society groups said on Thursday it is a “shame” that the EACOP developer would announce financing for the project on a day many Ugandans had come face-to-face with the dire impacts of global warming. This stark reality was evident on the front page of the state-owned New Vision newspaper, which published the EACOP announcement just above a picture of the deadly floods that hit the capital Kampala this week.
The coalition said it is considering “legal and other actions” against financial institutions that “continue to prioritise profits over the lives and wellbeing of East Africans. Campaigners said the project has already displaced thousands of people and stands to harm plants and animals, while also threatening livelihoods in the farming and tourism sectors.
‘Desperate’ search for funders
The construction of the pipeline is a key element in Uganda’s push to become an oil producer, which the government says would propel the country’s economic growth.
The East African nation has been looking to exploit its natural resources for nearly two decades since oil reserves were discovered in the Albertine Rift Basin near the Democratic Republic of Congo. But development stalled as the plans faced local opposition and the project struggled to attract external financing.
Several Western banks, including BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Barclays and Standard Chartered, have publicly stated their intention not to pour money into the project.
Ugandan energy minister Ruth Nankabirwa, who has blamed activists for the project’s setbacks, said last September that at least seven European banks had committed, in private, to finance the project, the Financial Times reported – but no official announcement has materialised since then.
Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation
Afreximbank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank and Islamic Development Bank had all indicated their willingness to fund the pipeline construction in the past, while KCB Bank of Uganda is only being linked with the project now.
Okulony said Wednesday’s announcement amounted to a “desperate move” from the EACOP developer to demonstrate progress and drum up additional interest from investors in the project.
He added that regional African banks are becoming lenders of last resort for the oil industry in the continent, “covering up a gap” left by the accelerating withdrawal of Western lenders.
Oil investments clash with climate pledge
Afrieximbank – whose main shareholders are the Egyptian and Nigerian governments – is a major backer of fossil fuel developments in Africa.
The lender’s exposure to the oil and gas sector increased in 2024, making up over a fifth of its total loans. It has bankrolled the expansion of oil production in Nigeria and the Republic of Congo, and last month it announced the intention to set up a $1-billion financing facility for the fast-growing oil industry in Guyana.
The investments contrast with Afrieximbank’s public attempts to bolster its climate credentials.
At the COP29 climate summit, the lender said it would advocate for policies and investments that accelerate Africa’s energy transition and called for a scale-up in climate finance. Its president, Nigerian economist Benedict Oramah, stressed that the devastating impacts of climate change on the continent would probably intensify in the next decade.
“We are at the point where taking action does not only suggest good environmental stewardship,” he said, “but must also be seen as a sound economic policy, considering that the cost of immediate and decisive action is far less than the cost of inaction and delayed efforts.”
Similarly, another backer of the Ugandan project, Standard Bank, wrote in its climate policy that it supports the Paris Agreement in transitioning Africa to a lower-carbon economy and aims for net zero emissions from its portfolio by 2050.
‘Assault’ on the planet
The STOPEacop coalition said the decision to fund a fossil fuel infrastructure project “is not just “irresponsible” but also an “active assault” on the planet and people. The banks supporting the project have marked themselves as “enemies of the people” which enable “climate chaos, environmental destruction” and support international profiteers at the expense of local communities, its statement added.
The project developer still needs to raise the majority of the funding for the pipeline construction, which has an expected price tag of $5 billion.
Okulony said EACOP is trying to attract interest from Islamic financial institutions, especially in Oman.
Ryan Brightwell, deputy director at campaigning group BankTrack, told Climate Home that EACOP has tried since 2018 to secure financing for the project, and the fact that it has now only finalised one tranche “only goes to show the extent of their troubles”.
The post African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments appeared first on Climate Home News.
African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap” while pouring billions into ecological destructi