The board of the loss and damage fund is set to pick its host nation in July as it speeds up the process to ensure hard-hit countries can directly access money to help them recover from the unavoidable effects of climate change.
As the 26-member board held its first three-day meeting in Abu Dhabi this week, discussions centered on the administrative steps needed to get the fund up and running, and giving out money as soon as possible.
Selecting the host country for the board is a priority because only then will it be able to take up legal responsibility and enter into formal arrangements with the World Bank, which governments have asked to host the loss and damage fund “on an interim basis” despite the initial reluctance of developing countries.
The World Bank has until mid-June to confirm it is willing and able to take on this role. The decision rests largely on the bank’s ability to meet 11 conditions, including allowing developing-country governments and organisations working with vulnerable communities to receive money directly without going through intermediaries like multilateral development banks or UN agencies.
“Too many cooks”
Daniel Lund, a loss and damage board member from Fiji, said that overhead costs and management fees from multiple layers of middlemen swallow up a high proportion of development funding in general.
“For small island developing states, it is always too many cooks and not enough ingredients,” he told Climate Home. “A lack of direct access is a particularly unacceptable scenario when it comes to finance for addressing loss and damage because much of what we need to do is direct support [to] the individuals and communities that bear the burden [of climate change]”.
Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund
Concerns have been fuelled by the World Bank’s lack of experience in working with direct access to communities in its other operations, climate finance experts said. But during the meeting in Abu Dhabi, the bank sought to provide reassurances, indicating its willingness to be flexible on this matter and find a solution.
Renaud Seligmann, the World Bank representative at the meeting, told board members the bank is looking into a model that would “break new ground” and that it is “prepared to innovate and design with you to make it work”.
Host selection fast-tracked
For the World Bank, a primary concern lies with the risks attached to giving money to hundreds of small entities that may have less strict compliance processes. For that reason, it wants the board of the loss and damage fund to take on legal responsibility in case funds are misused. And as that legal personality can only be obtained from the host country, the selection process is being fast-tracked.
Interested countries have until early June to submit their candidacy – Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas and the Philippines have already thrown their hats in the ring. The board is expected to make a final decision at the next board meeting scheduled for July 9-12.
The board is picking up the pace of its work after its first meeting was delayed by three months as a result of developed countries’ failure to appoint their members on time.
A person moves their belongings at a flooded residential complex following heavy rainfall, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, April 18, 2024. REUTERS/Amr Alfiky
The board was forced to tackle logistical challenges on the final day when stormy weather in Abu Dhabi moved the deliberations online. Scientists have warned that the Arabian peninsula will suffer more heavy rain at 1.5C of global warming than it did in pre-industrial times, and recent floods in the neighbouring city of Dubai shut down the airport and caused major economic damage.
Lund said the progress made at the first meeting “in some respects was surprising”, but there is still a long way to go before money reaches climate-vulnerable communities. “We have clear instructions, but translating that blueprint into contracts, roles, policies, locations, jobs and structures is going to be a shared headache for all board members over the course of this year and beyond,” he added.
Civil society at the table
Civil society representatives argued there is a need to broaden the direct participation of frontline communities struggling with climate impacts in the fund’s operations. The first board meeting limited participation to two people per UN stakeholder group – some of which represent millions, even billions, of people – such as Indigenous Peoples, youth, and women and girls.
“This fund must be different to fulfill the expectation – people-centered, human rights-based, gender-responsive – from the start, with meaningful participation and engagement throughout,” said Liane Schalatek, associate director of the Heinrich in Washington who attended the board meeting.
G7 offers tepid response to appeal for “bolder” climate action
“Board members all stressed the importance of civil society observer and communities engagement and welcomed it,” she added. “Now that verbal support needs to be operationalised, including through dedicated financial support.”
After sorting through all of its procedural matters, the board will start addressing thornier issues such as how to disburse money and how to fill its coffers with more cash. So far, it has garnered about $660 million in pledges.
While board members hope to have the fund’s structure in place by COP29 this November, it is not expected to start handing out money until 2025.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)
The post Loss and damage board speeds up work to allow countries direct access to funds appeared first on Climate Home News.
Loss and damage board speeds up work to allow countries direct access to funds
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
related
Analysis: EVs are now nine times cheaper than petrol or diesel to drive in the UK
CCC: Heathrow expansion could push flights to ‘80% of UK emissions by 2050’
Revealed: England’s June 2026 heatwave sparked record demand for ambulances
Factcheck: Reform UK’s 45 false or misleading claims about climate and energy
The post Factcheck: UK Conservatives double the ‘cost of net-zero’ after spreadsheet blunder appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-uk-conservatives-double-the-cost-of-net-zero-after-spreadsheet-blunder
SYDNEY, Friday 9 October 2026 — In response to the Environment Protection Order issued by the National EPA to stop deforestation at a cattle station in North Queensland, the following comments can be attributed to Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“Greenpeace welcomes the Environment Protection Order to stop deforestation operations at Wombinoo Station in North Queensland. This order is good news for koalas, wildlife and the Great Barrier Reef. Without intervention, this bulldozing operation could have led to more than 1,000 tonnes of toxic sediment runoff flowing into the Great Barrier Reef every year. This is the first such order under the reformed national nature laws, and shows the potential for genuine environment protection provided strong action continues.
“But this is just one station in one state, and now we need rapid action. Rampant deforestation in Australia continues to destroy precious forests, pushing threatened animals like the koala to the brink of extinction, and poisoning the Great Barrier Reef with muddy runoff. Every minute, the equivalent of a dump truck of sediment enters the Reef, smothering coral and threatening our global icon.
“This first stop order is a great start, but the Albanese government must stop widespread deforestation threatening the Great Barrier Reef and endangered wildlife using the new nature laws. We need a no-go zone plan for the Great Barrier Reef to reign in the bulldozing of forests in the catchment