There is a 4.4 billion euro fund that the Italian Parliament had designed to combat the climate crisis in developing countries. It is called the Italian Climate Fund, is managed by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, and has been operational since 2023. Today, by the explicit choice of the Meloni government, 70 percent of those resources (about three billion euros) have been tied to the Mattei Plan for Africa. And on the legitimacy of this operation the Court of Auditors has opened an investigation.
Raising the issue publicly is Sergio Costa, vice-president of the Chamber of Deputies: “The Court of Auditors has opened an inquiry into the Italian Climate Fund to verify whether the government’s decision to shift 70 percent of it to the Mattei Plan is compatible with the climate purpose for which those resources were allocated. It is a question from which Palazzo Chigi cannot escape.”
The decree of October 30, 2024
The origin of the affair goes back to the Prime Minister’s Decree of October 30, 2024, by which the government redefined the strategic orientation of the Fund and stipulated that 70 percent of its resources be allocated to the Mattei Plan. An act that, according to the reconstruction of IrpiMedia (which conducted an investigation into the affair) would also have changed the eligibility criteria for projects, broadening the range of interventions eligible for funding to those with a climate impact that was no longer principal but only “significant.”
Costa doesn’t mince words: “With the decree of October 30, 2024, the project eligibility criteria were expanded without due transparency, reducing the share allocated to interventions with a main climate objective in favor of those with only significant impact. This is not a technical detail: it is the way a climate justice tool is transformed into an industrial policy lever.”
The Court of Auditors actually opened two separate proceedings on the Fund. The first, concluded with a report approved by Resolution No. 45/2026/G and made public in May, concerns the overall effectiveness of the facility. The judgments of the accounting magistrates are articulate: they recognize the Fund’s ability to support relevant projects and its contribution to strengthening international climate finance, but they point out the risk that projects with more immediate financial returns are favored, to the detriment of more climate-needy projects that generate little or no financial returns. The second procedure, which is still open, concerns the legal propriety of the transfer of three billion to the Mattei Plan. The court has requested documents from the government, but some have not yet been delivered.
The issue of transparency
On the issue of transparency, Costa announces a direct parliamentary initiative: “I will submit a question to ask the government what criteria guided the allocation of those funds and why some acts remain removed from public scrutiny. The Court is still waiting for documents that the government has not delivered.”
Among the projects already approved after the change in criteria is Eni‘s project in Kenya: €75 million for a biofuel production chain from agri-feedstock. Eni confirmed that it has received the Fund resources, with credit to an account at Banque Eni S.A. in August 2025.
However, more than one question weighs on the Kenyan project. A field visit conducted by IrpiMedia in March 2025 found that the local supply chain is struggling to get off the ground. A Politico Europe investigation in March 2026 went on to highlight how the project remains largely dependent on imported raw materials from abroad-oilseeds from South Africa- calling into question whether a sustainable local supply chain is really being created. “Resources earmarked for climate justice must retain their original purpose and not become cover for private interests,” Costa concludes.
