Double Standards? Why Africa’s Gas Phase-Out Is Under Fire

How do you phase out gas in Africa when a mother in rural Nigeria still boils drinking water over a kerosene flame, or a health centre in Senegal powers its only incubator with a diesel generator? These are not abstract questions. They are the daily choices that shape life, dignity and survival for millions.

In a striking policy shift, the World Bank announced in June 2024 that it would again finance upstream gas projects in select developing countries. Two years earlier, the Bank had joined a coalition of multilateral and bilateral donors pledging to end fossil fuel financing. This about-turn, branded as a pragmatic response to energy poverty, has reignited a debate that cuts to the heart of Africa’s development dilemma.

For civil society organisations across the continent, the gas debate is not just about pipelines or power plants. It’s about sovereignty, justice, and whether Africa gets to define its own path to a cleaner future.

Between Climate Goals and Cooking Fires

The numbers are staggering: over 600 million Africans lack access to electricity, and 900 million still cook with firewood, charcoal, or dung. For these communities, gas is not a luxury. It is a lifeline.

In Nigeria, gas fuels everything from household cooking to industrial boilers. In Mozambique and Senegal, new offshore gas projects have been framed as national game-changers. Presidents and ministers describe gas as the bridge to industrialisation.

Yet in boardrooms far from the Niger Delta or the Cabo Delgado coast, donor governments and environmental groups have drawn a line. Gas, they argue, is a fossil fuel like any other, and must be phased out.

The Glasgow Statement of 2021, which included the UK, US, and several EU nations, pledged to end public finance for fossil fuel projects. At the time, African governments were largely not consulted. Civil society watched as donor nations continued to build new gas infrastructure at home while pressuring African countries to abandon theirs.

"Africa contributes less than 4% of global emissions, yet faces the harshest demands to decarbonise," says Thuli Makama, Africa Director at Oil Change International. "This is not transition. It’s double standards."

Civil Society: Walking the Tightrope

The African civil society position is nuanced. Yes, fossil fuel dependence has wrought environmental damage, conflict, and elite capture. But abrupt gas bans, without clean alternatives or financial support, threaten to deepen poverty and derail national plans.

"I don’t support unchecked gas expansion," says Vincent Egoro, Head of Africa Region at Publish What You Pay. "But development pathways should not be dictated by countries which burned coal for centuries."

CSOs are calling for an African-defined just transition. That means phasing down—not out—gas in strategic sectors, reinvesting revenues into renewable infrastructure, and centring communities in all decision-making.

Human Realities Behind the Headlines

In Uganda’s Albertine region, villagers displaced by oil developments face a new worry: loss of access to clean water and cooking fuel. The promised compensation rarely covers the cost of switching to LPG or electricity.

In Ghana’s coastal fishing communities, women like Auntie Ama sell smoked fish over open flames. Their only alternatives, charcoal or imported gas, are either too expensive or unreliable. For her, climate diplomacy feels distant and disjointed.

"They talk of climate justice in big hotels," she says. "But who talks to us? Who builds us clean kitchens?"

These human stories are absent from many global climate finance tables, where Africa is often treated as a monolith.

A Bank on the Fence

The World Bank’s updated energy directive attempts to walk this tightrope. It allows upstream gas financing in "exceptional circumstances" to boost energy access or economic resilience. But critics say the vagueness opens the door for abuse.

"Who defines what is exceptional?" asks Njoki Njehu of the Fight Inequality Alliance. "Communities must have a voice in deciding what their future looks like."

Historically, fossil projects funded by international lenders have displaced communities, weakened local ecosystems, and generated wealth for a few. Without new transparency safeguards and consent mechanisms, the risk of repeating these injustices remains high.

Internal Contradictions

Even within African governments, there is no unified stance. In Mozambique, some civil society groups cautiously welcome gas for national revenue, while others decry the militarisation of project zones. In Senegal, offshore gas development has been hailed as a national breakthrough, yet local fishers have seen declining catches and encroachment on livelihoods.

These tensions mirror those explored in “Oil Is Still Paying the Bills”, where fiscal dependence on fossil revenues collides with clean energy aspirations.

Beyond the Binary: Gas or No Gas?

Framing the issue as gas versus renewables is misleading. Africa’s energy reality is not binary. A just energy transition must be sequenced, equitable, and grounded in economic and cultural contexts.

In Kenya and Ethiopia, governments have prioritised geothermal, hydro and wind. In Nigeria, new decentralised solar hubs are lighting up off-grid communities. These efforts must be scaled—not side-lined by knee-jerk gas financing.

This reflects the broader dilemma of climate finance in Africa, from debt-for-climate swaps to gas funding debates, where trade-offs and external control are common themes.

As explored in "Who’s Funding Africa’s Transition", the politics of who controls green finance continues to shape Africa's energy path, including gas and renewables.

At the same time, civil society must demand transparency in all energy investments, including gas. Communities must have a say. Projects must meet local needs. Revenues must be channelled into resilience, not offshore accounts.

What Comes Next

The gas phase-out debate is not over. With COP30 around the corner, the tensions between global ambition and local realities will only sharpen. The challenge is not merely technical. It is political, ethical, and historical.

Africa needs energy, but it also needs dignity. That means rejecting both fossil fundamentalism and fossil finance hypocrisy. It means building an energy future where equity matters as much as emissions.