Mask Off – Recapping the 2025 World Bank Land Conference

By Andy Currier
OAKLAND, California, USA, May 15 2025 – Last week, at its annual Land Conference in Washington D.C., (May 5-8), the World Bank showed allegiance to the new US administration by dropping the pretense of promoting land reform for climate action and confirming that its land agenda is about boosting corporate profits.

Climate Focus Abandoned to Appease Trump

While it had previously announced that the 2025 conference would focus on the “foundational role of securing land tenure and access for climate action,” the Bank scrambled in response to the seismic political shift brought on by the second Trump presidency.

The administration’s “America First” agenda has slashed global development aid, including 85 percent of USAID programs that were unceremoniously and abruptly ended. After exiting the Paris Agreement on climate, Trump also proposed a budget that would further reduce federal climate change programs.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently reassured the Bretton Woods Institutions that their largest shareholder would not be pulling out at their Spring Meetings in April 2025. He did, however, specify that the Bank and IMF “must step back from their sprawling and unfocused agendas,” condemning their work on climate, gender, and other social issues.

In response, Bank staff were allegedly instructed not to mention climate or gender at the Spring Meetings, as the institutions cower under US pressure.

Just weeks before the Land Conference started, its website was altered to remove the headline banner on “Securing Land Tenure and Access for Climate Action.” The last-minute shift in messaging – just a year after launching a multi-billion-dollar land initiative – confirms the findings of a recent exposé by the Oakland Institute:

The Bank’s land push was never actually about climate action. Released the week before the conference, the Climatewash report revealed how the Bank intends to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction.

Land Conference homepage in February 2025 (left) and then in May 2025 (right), after focus on climate was scrubbed. Source: The World Bank

At last year’s Land Conference – focused on “Securing Land Tenure and Access for Climate Action” – the Bank unveiled plans to massively expand its influence on land policy around the world through the Global Program on Land Tenure Security and Land Access for Climate Goals.

It announced plans to “ensure 100 million people see greater tenure security… and improve land administration and land access for climate action in 20 countries” over the next five years. Towards these goals, the Bank said it will double its investment in the land sector – from US$5 billion to US$10 billion – and double the number of countries where it will intervene with land projects.

Land Reform to Serve Corporate Interests

Despite the dramatic branding shift, the agenda at last week’s conference did not change and several positive sessions focused on climate action and Indigenous rights were held, including a welcome discussion on the importance of “securing collective lands.” The focus on changing land tenure for “economic growth” and “unlocking private capital,” however, took center stage.

At the opening plenary, Rohitesh Dhawan, President and CEO of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) – the principal trade association of the mining industry – delivered the keynote.

Given the egregious human rights and environmental record of the mining industry, the ICMM’s prominent platform was both startling and revealing, laying bare the true interests the conference would serve. Dhawan began by explaining why he was “more hopeful than ever” about the bright future so-called “sustainable” mining could provide:

“We can literally move mountains and shift the course of ancient rivers, But should we? In many cases, the answer will be yes, because all things considered, as a society, we may reach consensus that the need for commodities and the opportunity for host countries to prosper, grow, and develop means that mining should go ahead with the least possible disruption to land, impacted people, and nature.”

While Dhawan went on to say that Free, Prior, and Informed, Consent was “front and center in their approach,” and areas like World Heritage Sites were off limits, he assumes communities will eventually come to accept mining on their lands despite the grave social, environmental, and economic toll it has historically inflicted upon them.

In a telling moment, when the opening panel was asked to give an example of a successful co-ownership model between firms and locals, no examples from Africa or Latin America came to mind. These communities continue to push for genuine authority over their lands, but have seen little progress despite these conference hall platitudes and promises.

Later in the week, several sessions focused on securing land for carbon markets, unsurprising given the lead role the Bank plays in promoting this dangerous false climate solution that has failed to reduce emissions. While it has been extensively documented how carbon offsetting primarily benefits predatory actors at the expense of local communities, the Bank continues to champion these schemes.

Other sessions discussed the role land policies can play in “developing” agriculture, another expected focus in light of the Bank’s new plan to double its agri-finance and agribusiness commitments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

In one event, Malawi was hailed as a land reform success story, despite the role of the Bank in blocking recent efforts to address historical inequities in land ownership, as detailed in the Climatewash report. Instead, the Bank has coerced Malawi to implement policies favorable to agribusiness.

These conferences are largely symbolic and even if the focus was on climate action, the true impact of the Bank’s efforts remains the same. In practice, the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions 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.

At this critical juncture to address the climate crisis, this impact directly opposes the IPCC’s recommendations around stopping land conversion.

The Bank is now scrambling to appease Trump, who is content to watch the world burn as long as he and his wealthy oligarchs continue to profit. Through its global land reform agenda, the Bank facilitates the dispossession of local communities across the Global South under its past northstar of economic growth.

The mask is now off – and any illusions that these efforts will help secure rights or address the climate crisis have been shattered.

Andy Currier is Policy Analyst at the Oakland Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);