Who Benefits from De-Risking? Inside Uganda’s European-Led Renewable Energy Push

The report argues that the GET FiT Uganda renewable energy programme, promoted by institutions like the World Bank, UNDP, and European development banks, uses “de-risking” to attract foreign investment by reshaping Uganda’s energy sector around investor needs. Rather than being neutral, this approach reproduces colonial-style power imbalances by shifting public risk onto Uganda while profits flow mainly to European financiers.

The report examines how “de-risking” has become one of the most influential ideas in global climate and development finance. Promoted by institutions such as the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, IRENA, Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, and Germany’s development bank KfW, de-risking is presented as a way to attract private investment into renewable energy by reducing political and financial risks. Using the GET FiT Uganda programme as a case study, the author argues that de-risking is not a neutral technical solution. Instead, it is a powerful way of governing energy markets that reshapes African economies to meet the expectations of foreign investors, particularly from Europe.

Uganda’s Energy Sector and a Long History of Foreign Control

Uganda’s electricity sector did not become “risky” by accident. The article shows that it has been shaped by foreign intervention since colonial times, when hydropower projects were built to serve industrial exports rather than local households. After independence, institutions like the World Bank pushed Uganda to liberalize and privatize its energy sector. The national electricity utility was unbundled, private power producers were encouraged, and foreign investors were offered guarantees and tax incentives. These reforms were meant to make the sector attractive to international capital, but they also led to high electricity prices and limited local ownership. GET FiT Uganda builds on this legacy rather than breaking from it.

What GET FiT Uganda Promised and What It Delivered

Launched in 2013, GET FiT Uganda was designed to increase renewable energy generation by reducing risks for investors. The programme offers premium payments on feed-in tariffs, technical assistance, and access to the World Bank’s Partial Risk Guarantee, which protects investors against political and payment risks. By 2021, GET FiT had supported 17 renewable energy projects, increasing Uganda’s installed electricity capacity by about 20 percent. On paper, this looks like a success. However, most of the financing came from public institutions in Europe, while Ugandan banks and companies played only a minor role. Profits from the projects largely flow back to foreign investors rather than being reinvested locally.

How Rules, Rankings, and Risk Shape Power

The article explains that GET FiT governs Uganda’s energy sector through three main forms of power. First, legal power reshapes national rules to meet investor standards, with key contracts rewritten using foreign legal expertise. Second, discipline works through rankings and expectations: international investment rankings push Uganda to keep its policies “investor-friendly,” while donor pressure discourages reforms that might reduce profits. Third, security-based power manages uncertainty by turning risk into something that can be calculated and insured. Uganda is repeatedly described as politically unstable or institutionally weak, often using language that reflects negative stereotypes about African countries. These risk narratives justify foreign intervention and tighter control over how the energy sector is run.

Why De-Risking Reinforces Global Inequality

The report concludes that de-risking does more than mobilize finance; it reinforces global inequalities. Public money from development banks absorbs the risks, while private investors enjoy stable returns. European investment funds dominate the GET FiT portfolio, supported by EU institutions and national development agencies, creating a circular flow of capital that benefits the Global North. Local businesses and communities gain little influence over energy decisions. By framing energy transition mainly as a financial problem, de-risking shifts attention away from social needs, national priorities, and democratic debate. In this way, GET FiT Uganda shows how climate finance can reproduce old power hierarchies under the banner of green development.