Despite a strange overall mood hanging over Washington, D.C., these days, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund Spring Meetings felt oddly normal this week.
The meetings were busy, and the talks were largely hopeful; I spent most of my time failing to find a seat in packed rooms and ending up on the floor next to squeaky dress shoes.
Several experts seemed more interested in discussing ideas that predated the Trump administration or didn’t rely on the United States.
“We’re very glad that we've got this good relationship with the Brazilian COP presidency, and they really know what they want,” said Andy Deacon, the co-managing director of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, an alliance of cities and local governments committed to reducing emissions and building climate resilience. “We’re focusing on what you can control. It's kind of OK.”
Another group sang a similar tune. Moritz Kraemer, former global chief ratings officer of S&P Global and now co-chair of the Expert Review on Debt, Nature and Climate, said that he is proposing a mechanism that can “run with the coalition of the willing,” which is a group of 31 countries that exclude the U.S.
Despite the optimistic tone, many experts noted that one the bank’s biggest topics — climate change — was largely absent from the agenda.
Here’s what we heard on climate conversations, and also what we didn’t.
Climate change appeared to take a backseat at the meetings this week, raising questions about the institution’s approach amid pressure from the U.S., its largest shareholder. While the bank publicly maintains its commitment to climate finance, concerns about it were conspicuously light on the schedule, suggesting that the institution might be keeping a low profile on the topic.
The shift follows recent comments from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who acknowledged the bank's “enduring value” but warned against “mission creep” into areas such as climate change. Experts who thought the U.S. might be planning a withdrawal from the bank gave a sigh of relief upon hearing this — but it contrasts with World Bank President Ajay Banga's push to integrate climate action, which aims to put 45% of annual lending toward climate projects and embed sustainability into the bank’s core mission.
During and before the current meetings, Banga has emphasized focusing on the substance of climate-related projects rather than terminology, while also highlighting initiatives around job creation, private sector growth, and energy access, including nuclear power.
Some analysts interpret his muted climate rhetoric as a strategic attempt to appease the U.S., while others call it a smart play to stay active on the bank’s priorities.
“If they push strategies that are for growth and bring in the private sector and clean energy that happen to be climate friendly, then they’re doing their mission and keeping their major shareholder happy,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University.
“But if the bank lets the major shareholder change the operations and focus then it violates the spirit of the institution.”
Read: Climate goals quietly survive at the World Bank despite Trump tensions
ICYMI: US will stay engaged with World Bank, IMF, says US Treasury secretary
Background reading: World Bank’s Ajay Banga defends climate strategy ahead of Spring Meetings
By the time the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, begins in November, Brazil wants to have the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, aka TFFF, operationalized.
That puts Brazil’s diplomats on a deadline, so they were probably frustrated on Wednesday after spending an hour and 15 minutes in a small World Bank conference room being complimented by representatives from Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Azerbaijan — none of whom offered any actual money to support it.
A lot of work remains before the TFFF can go ahead. First, wealthy governments need to provide $25 billion in long-dated concessional loans to the facility, which then leverages that money to borrow another $100 billion from financial markets.
The $125 billion, an amount roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Ecuador, is then invested around the world. The difference between what the fund earns and the returns due to investors would then be used to reward rainforest countries for protecting their forests.
Eligible countries, such as Brazil or the Democratic Republic of Congo, can expect $4 per hectare of intact forest per year, with some deductions to penalize them for the forest that was cut down on their watch.
Despite the lack of financial pledges, Brazil did have a small piece of news: It’s officially asked the World Bank to manage the still mostly theoretical fund.
Background reading: Brazil hammers out details of forest fund ahead of COP30
The World Bank has been talking a lot about Mission 300, an ambitious plan to bring electricity to 300 million people in Africa by 2030. The plan was launched at last year’s Spring Meetings, and it’s gaining momentum — even as questions persist about its strategy, financing, and feasibility, my colleague Ayenat Mersie reports.
The initiative, spearheaded by the World Bank and the African Development Bank, couldn’t come at a more critical time. Many countries on the continent are still reeling from the sudden collapse of Power Africa, a U.S. initiative led by USAID.
However, experts still have major questions about how exactly the plan will work and how effective it will be. They say it lacks a definition of energy access, and there’s ongoing debate over the mix of energy sources to best power the continent. For example, it appears nuclear could now be on the table.
“The thing I worry about with [Mission 300] is that there isn’t a definition of what it means to be connected,” Vijaya Ramachandran, director for energy and development at Breakthrough Institute, told Ayenat. “Does it mean having electricity for a couple hours a day? Does it mean that you have enough power to light one light bulb for six hours a day, or does it actually mean 24/7 electricity?”
Read: One year in, Mission 300 tests what it takes to power Africa
Background reading: Half of Africans don’t have electricity. Can Mission 300 change that? (Pro)
+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today to access all our expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, events, and more. Check out all the exclusive content available to you.
Banga has signaled support for lifting a long-standing ban on nuclear power as part of an “all of the above” energy strategy aimed at tackling the twin challenges of climate goals and energy poverty, my colleague Adva Saldinger reports. But progress has been slow — and politically fraught.
Banga said he was told to return to the board in June with a comprehensive energy policy including gas, nuclear, solar, hydro, and more.
The bank has avoided nuclear investments for decades, citing a lack of internal expertise in safety and nonproliferation, with explicit bans in both its energy policy and the International Finance Corporation’s exclusion list.
Changing course could ripple across development finance institutions globally, many of which follow the IFC’s lead. Supporters argue that nuclear could provide reliable, carbon-free power for countries with growing electricity demand, and offer an alternative to the Russia- and China-backed projects dominating the market.
Critics remain wary of nuclear’s high costs, safety concerns, and long timelines. But proponents hope new small modular reactor technologies and stronger international safeguards could ease those fears. U.S. lawmakers — including Rep. French Hill — have pushed for multilateral banks to drop nuclear restrictions and even proposed a trust fund to support nuclear development. Still, any shift will take time. “The first step is just to learn,” said Todd Moss of the Energy for Growth Hub. “Then advise. Then signal willingness to finance — if and when countries are ready.”
Read: Is this the moment for nuclear energy at the World Bank?
On the outskirts of the bank meetings, the Center for Strategic International Studies hosted a chat on climate. One of the panelists, Mario Loyola, a former Trump staffer and now a researcher at the Heritage Foundation, expressed some skepticism about top-down climate policy solutions and encouraged a focus on localized responses rather than global policy changes.
He said that environmental risk assessments “do not point in the direction of primary policy response of carbon litigation. It points you in the direction of adaptation and resilience.”
“The populations that are at risk are localized,” he added. “We should be agnostic to what’s actually causing [disasters] and getting right on the adaptation.”
Loyola also encouraged the use of coal and natural gas for low-income nations, saying that solar and wind are too complex. “Getting those countries to transition from coal to natural gas is an impossible administration task,” he said. “Expecting them to do this clean energy transition from the beginning, I think, is really fantastical and really risks depriving them of things that those societies need to flourish.”
Also on the edges of the meetings, the Expert Review on Debt, Nature and Climate is pushing to make sovereign debt more sustainable — specifically in low- and middle-income countries, which are increasingly burdened by debt while facing escalating climate and biodiversity crises.
The group, which is a small collaborative initiative by the governments of Colombia, Kenya, France, and Germany, released a report this week providing actionable recommendations — group co-chair Kraemer told Devex that some of those recommendations do not rely on U.S. participation, though there is room for the bank’s primary shareholder to join should the winds change.
For example, the group says existing Debt Sustainability Frameworks used by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank don’t account enough for the economic impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. The new report calls for reforms to these frameworks to better reflect environmental risks and benefits, enabling countries to pursue sustainable development without compromising fiscal stability.
Kraemer’s focus on debt could be a key to bridging a gap between the need for climate action and the priorities of the Trump administration, at least according to Bessent. On Wednesday, Bessent underlined the need to “promote debt sustainability among lower-income countries.”
Though, when it comes to the U.S., the Treasury secretary doesn’t want climate change to be part of the conversation.
“Now I know ‘sustainability’ is a popular term around here. But I’m not talking about climate change or carbon footprints,” he said. “I’m talking about economic and financial sustainability — the kind of sustainability that raises standards of living and keeps markets afloat. International financial institutions must be singularly focused on upholding this kind of sustainability if they are to succeed in their missions.”
+ For more content like this, sign up to Devex Invested, the weekly newsletter on how business, social enterprise, and development finance leaders are tackling global challenges.
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.