SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
banks
TICAD in Yokohama: Reflecting on the Real Meaning of Development in Africa
The record in Mozambique shows that projects backed by public finance can harm communities and the environment unless local voices guide the process.
Aug 21, 2025
The ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development, or TICAD, opened August 20 in Yokohama, organized by the Japanese government with the United Nations, UN Development Program, World Bank, and African Union Commission. Japan, as host, aims to promote “high quality” development in Africa by applying lessons from Asia. Three decades since TICAD’s launch in 1993, interest in Africa remains strong—and so does the need to reflect on what “development” truly means.
Japan’s record in Mozambique offers sobering lessons.
Before we can discuss “development” we must recognize that many of Africa’s deep crises today are rooted in the continued exploitation of its people and resources, shaped by inherited colonial structures. Public funding and transnational corporations play a large role in perpetuating these patterns.
The Mozambique liquefied natural gas (LNG) project illustrates the problem. Led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, it is one of Africa’s largest gas extraction projects, with Japan as its top financier. The publicly funded Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has committed up to $3.5 billion in loans, while Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) has agreed to provide $2 billion in insurance.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves.
JBIC justifies this support by citing growing global LNG demand, particularly in developing countries, rising environmental awareness, and Japan’s energy security. Yet revenue flows to a United Arab Emirates-based special purpose entity—enabling gas and mining companies to avoid paying an estimated $717 million to $1.48 billion in taxes to Mozambique. The country is further disadvantaged by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which prioritizes loss compensation for investors.
On the ground, grievances remain unresolved. More than eight communities have been affected, and many families still await promised compensation. Others have lost farmland or access to the sea, undermining agriculture and fisheries livelihoods. Local residents report that consultation meetings often involve military presence, stifling open discussion.
Since 2017, the region has suffered violent insurgency, which halted the project in 2021 and brought heavy militarization focused on protecting gas infrastructure. Insurgent activity has surged again in recent weeks, amid signs of project restart. In March 2025, analysts warned that the sense of disenfranchisement created by the project could fuel insurgent recruitment.
Environmental and climate risks are also high. Independent reviews find that the project’s environmental impact assessment understates potential harm, including lacking a rigorous biodiversity baseline study for the deep-sea environment.
This pattern—external actors driving their own agendas rather than responding to locally defined and articulated priorities—is not unique.
A decade earlier, Japan’s own ProSAVANA project in northern Mozambique followed a similar path. Launched in the early 2010s by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with Mozambican and Brazilian partners, it aimed to convert land to agricultural use, particularly soybean cultivation for export to Japan. Modeled on Brazil’s Cerrado “green revolution” of the 1970s, it was promoted as a way to promote agricultural and economic development in Mozambique.
In reality, the project facilitated land grabs covering 14 million hectares in the Nacala Corridor, displacing small farmers. Civil society groups denounced the opaque consultation process and backed local farmers’ resistance. After years of protest, the Japanese government ended its involvement in July 2020, belatedly acknowledging these concerns.
Both Mozambique LNG and ProSAVANA demonstrate how “development” promoted from the Global North can harm communities and the environment. When public finance is involved, the risks—and the responsibility—are even greater.
Better outcomes require meaningful, transparent consultation with affected communities, robust due diligence, and genuine accountability. Without these, development risks becoming extraction by another name.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves, and to avoid—or even redress—the mistakes of the past.
The question remains as urgent as ever: Who is this development really for?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Alarming': Trump CFPB Drops Cases Against Companies Accused of Cheating Consumers
"This sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked," said one critic.
Feb 27, 2025
Consumer advocates on Thursday slammed the Trump administration for dropping various enforcement actions against companies accused of activities that include ripping off savings account holders, illegally collecting on student loans, and engaging in an unlawful mortgage broker kickback scheme.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's notices of voluntary dismissal came as the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing for Jonathan McKernan, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the CFPB—which Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk has called "a gift to big banks and special interests."
"We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
While the former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board member awaits confirmation from the GOP-controlled Senate, Trump and Russell Vought, the CFPB's temporary leader, have wasted no time trying to gut the agency and undo the work of its former director, Rohit Chopra, who oversaw cases against the following companies:
- Capital One, accused of cheating millions of banking customers out of more than $2 billion in interest;
- Heights Finance, accused of loan-churning practices that harvested hundreds of millions of dollars in costs and fees;
- Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), accused of collecting on student loans discharged in bankruptcy and sending false information to credit reporting companies;
- Rocket Homes, accused of providing incentives to real estate agents and brokers who steered homebuyers toward its loans; and
- Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, accused of trapping people in risky loans for manufactured homes.
Court paperwork "in the Rocket Homes case notes that the 'Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses this action, with prejudice, against all defendants,'" according to The Associated Press. "Dismissing a case without prejudice means that it cannot be refiled. Similar wording was used in the dismissals of the CFPB's Capital One and Vanderbilt Mortgage suits."
Those decisions came after the CFPB last week
dropped a case against SoLo Funds, which the agency accused of misleading borrowers about loan costs. Vought had then teased further action, saying on social media Sunday that "shockingly, the CFPB tried to destroy this company, SoLo, which incurred millions in legal fees and had to lay off 30% of its workforce. It was wrong and we dismissed the case. More to come but the weaponization of 'consumer protection' must end."
Meanwhile, critics like Christine Chen Zinner, consumer policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, are framing the CFPB's dismissals as a betrayal of the agency's mission.
"The old CFPB stood ready to protect consumers and wrestle back the ill-gotten gains of big banks like Capital One," Chen Zinner said Thursday. "With this decision, the Trump-appointed leadership is letting Capital One steal $2 billion from its depositors, another example of this administration standing up for Wall Street at the expense of everyday people who deserve the CFPB's protection."
Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, also released a statement focused on the bank case.
"The CFPB was created to be a watchdog for big banks, not a lapdog, and dismissing this case is a gift to Capital One," said Witte. "$2 billion is a drop in the bucket for Capital One–less than half a percent of its total assets—but returning this money would make a huge difference to the hardworking Americans who trusted Capital One to safeguard their savings and were kept in the dark about how to earn more."
Witte also described the full list of dismissals as "unprecedented," and told Reuters, "We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
Accountable.US highlighted that "the news stands in stark and alarming contrast to McKernan's remarks... to senators, promising to review all existing CFPB lawsuits before making any decisions around dropping litigation."
Student Borrower Protection Center executive director Mike Pierce said in a statement about the PHEAA case that "Russ Vought and Donald Trump sided with a lawless and corrupt student loan company at the expense of borrowers across the country—another sign that powerful financial interests are driving the capture and demolition of the federal consumer watchdog."
"This is a slap in the face to students, student loan borrowers, and working people everywhere," Pierce continued. "PHEAA lied to some of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, then illegally hounded them for debt that they did not owe, all to make a buck. And today, cowardly political sycophants backed down on the federal government’s only effort to hold PHEAA accountable."
"Of course, like all fascist toadies, Russ Vought will rightly be forgotten by history and sink into well-deserved irrelevance. But until then, law enforcement at every level of government must rush in to fill the void left by a federal consumer protection agency that now stands only to serve billionaires and big corporations," he added. "Remember: these people prey on those in need because they are motivated only by the desire to exercise power, and they are motivated to do so because they are cowards. It is everyone's job to remind Vought and his cronies of their powers' limits, and to remind the world of their cowardice."
Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, also directed some blame at billionaire Elon Musk, the head of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the administration's efforts to slash the federal workforce and spending.
"The Trump administration and Elon Musk are showing us exactly what it means not to have ordinary people protected by a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—they are dismissing enforcement cases that sought to return billions to working families harmed by corporations accused of egregious conduct that violated the law," said Saunders. "On top of the stop-work order and firing of CFPB workers doing their jobs, this sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked. We must preserve a strong, independent, and functional CFPB to stand up to corporate bullies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a former bankruptcy professor, is the mastermind behind the CFPB. She is also the ranking member of the panel which McKernan appeared before on Thursday. The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen reported that the senator informed the nominee about the dismissals during the hearing.
"Literally while you've been sitting here and you've been talking about the importance of following the law, we get the news that the CFPB is dropping lawsuits against companies that are cheating American families, or alleged to be cheating American families," Warren said. "It seems to me the timing of that announcement is designed to embarrass you and to show exactly who is in charge of this agency right now: Elon Musk and his little band of hackers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular