Sustainable Cities Challenge: Semi-Finalists to Reimagine Crowd Management in Varanasi's Old City Announced shannon.paton@… Thu, 03/06/2025 - 16:44

The Toyota Mobility Foundation announced the 10 semi-finalists for its Sustainable Cities Challenge in Varanasi’s old city. Developed in partnership with the Municipal Corporation of Varanasi, Challenge Works and World Resources Institute, the Challenge sought global innovators to create scalable, data-driven solutions to reimagine crowd management in the city.   

Located in northern India along the Ganges River, Varanasi, originally known as Kashi, is thought to be one of the oldest cities in the world and is an incredibly important religious and cultural site. Large volumes of people visit Varanasi’s historical section (commonly referred to as Varanasi’s old city or Kashi) every year: In 2022, the annual floating population (which includes people who move between places such as tourists, migrant workers and students) was estimated to be 35 times larger than the local population. Comprised of narrow, winding lanes, it is difficult to build infrastructure able to accommodate the influx of people in Kashi.

As part of the two-stage, three-year $9 million global Challenge, Sustainable Cities Varanasi launched in June 2024 and attracted more than 80 innovator entries from around the world.

The semi-finalists are:

• CITYDATA, Inc.: CITYDATA.ai is a Silicon Valley-based big data and artificial intelligence (AI) company that creates a data platform called CITYFLOW, which predicts and mitigates overcrowding scenarios for cities and districts worldwide.
• Fractal Analytics Ltd.: Fractal is a global provider of AI and advanced analytics solutions to Fortune 500 companies. The team's solution integrates behavioral science, data-science and human-centered design to tackle overcrowding in Varanasi.
• Graymatics Inc.: Graymatics is an emerging global leader in vision AI and video analytics. Its solution involves using a multimedia processing platform, which leverages deep AI, to pioneer real-time crowd and safety insights to democratize public infrastructure, mobility and connectivity for residents and tourists.
• Arcadis: Arcadis is the world’s leading company delivering intelligence-driven sustainable design, engineering and consultancy solutions for natural and built assets. The team will use SANKALP, an integrated solution for crowd management, combining spatial analytics, real time monitoring and actionable intelligence.
• Intpixel Labs Pvt. Ltd. (VOGIC AI): VOGIC AI is dedicated to transforming physical spaces into safer, smarter and more efficient environments by harnessing the power of visual data. The team's solution will use video analytics, vision language, generative AI models, dynamic signage, public announcements and multilingual WhatsApp communication to better manage crowds in Kashi.
• Prameya Consulting Pvt. Ltd.: Prameya Consulting is an urban planning and strategy firm that drives urban transformation through collaborative problem-solving and strategic planning. The team will use NayiChaal, a data-driven ecosystem, to facilitate information exchange between various stakeholders in Varanasi and empower them to make informed decisions by having access to real-time, actionable data.
• SmartViz Ltd.: SmartViz is a pioneering technology firm reshaping the landscape of data-driven and human-centric environments in buildings and cities. The team's solution leverages three-dimensional light detection, ranging sensors and machine learning for real-time pedestrian monitoring which informs predictive modelling and scenario planning to help city authorities make proactive decisions around effective crowd management.
• Steer Davies & Gleave Ltd.: Steer is an employee-owned consultancy, working worldwide in planning and design for transportation and movement. The team's solution includes developing a crowd dynamics model for Varanasi for better insights into crowd movements, helping city officials and partner agencies plan for upcoming events.
• The Urbanizer: The Urbanizer is a pioneering urban design, landscape design and architecture firm based in India. The team's solution uses JanJaatra, a color-coding system paired with real-time digital navigation, to revolutionize crowd management in Varanasi.
• Tiami Networks Inc.: Tiami Networks is a business-to-business and business-to-government deep-tech startup that addresses complex challenges in dynamic environments. The team's solution uses PolyEdge, which leverages signals of opportunity, such as 5G and Wi-Fi, to provide real-time detection, tracking and analytics to monitor and manage large-scale pedestrian and vehicular movements in real time.

The Challenge evaluated entries based on their scalability and ability to better manage overcrowding, enhance residents’ decision-making and provide vital services for vulnerable groups in Varanasi.

“We’re thrilled to welcome the 10 semi-finalists to reimagine crowd management for Toyota Mobility Foundation’s Sustainable Cities Challenge in Varanasi,” said Akshat Verma, Indian Administrative Service (IAS) municipal commissioner and Varanasi Municipal Corporation CEO. “Being the spiritual heart of India, Varanasi draws countless visitors each year to experience its rich traditions, sacred rituals and vibrant culture. We understand that this Challenge offers us an opportunity to manage the crowds in ways that preserve the city’s unique spirit for generations to come while strengthening the city’s tapestry of faith and culture.”

Each semi-finalist will receive a $50,000 implementation grant to help the teams refine and localize their solutions to reimagine a safer and more accessible Varanasi. They will also participate in the Challenge’s Innovator Academy, providing them with resources and guidance for their solutions. In July, up to five finalists will be selected for a $130,000 implementation grant in the finalist stage. Then, in early 2026, up to three winners will equally share $1.5 million in implementation funds.

“At Toyota Mobility Foundation, we look forward to collaborating with the semi-finalists to explore innovative data driven solutions that leverage technology and human-centric design to enhance safety and accessibility in the historic city of Kashi. The hope for this Challenge is to develop scalable solutions that can serve as a blueprint for other global cities to reimagine their crowd flow and management,” said Pras Ganesh, executive program director of Toyota Mobility Foundation Asia.

Kathy Nothstine, director of cities and societies at Challenge Works, added, “The 10 semi-finalists for the Varanasi Challenge offer a significant step forward. As cities become more interconnected and welcoming to global visitors, it’s our responsibility to protect the well-being of local communities and residents. Striking the right balance between safety and accessibility is key. This global Challenge invites innovators to test their ideas in real-world contexts, seeking effective solutions for better crowd management, reducing congestion and improving the experience for both residents and visitors.”

“The innovations developed through this challenge will have a direct impact on the people of Varanasi,” said Ben Welle, Director of Integrated Transport and Innovation at WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. “We hope these solutions can be adapted to other cities around the globe, enhancing urban mobility on a global scale.”

For more, visit SustainableCitiesChallenge.org

india-sustainable-cities-challenge.jpg Cities Urban Mobility Cities Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Sustainable Cities Challenge

From Better Breeding to Cow-Burp Vaccines, Emerging Solutions Could Curb Agricultural Emissions shannon.paton@… Thu, 03/06/2025 - 14:47

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas — 84 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Because it traps heat more intensely in the short-term than other GHGs, cutting methane emissions now can have a fast and significant impact on slowing climate change.

A good place to start is farms. Nearly half of global methane emissions come from agricultural activities such as livestock production, rice cultivation and burning crop waste. And with global food demand rising, these emissions are projected to grow.

The good news is that promising approaches are emerging to rein in agriculture’s climate impact. A new WRI report provides the latest scientific updates, as well as economic considerations for over 25 methane mitigation solutions.

But First, Where Do Agricultural Methane Emissions Come From?

Livestock are far and away the biggest source of agricultural methane, producing about two-thirds of the total. Most of it comes from “ruminant” animals’ digestion and manure.

Ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats naturally produce methane as a byproduct of digestion, known as “enteric fermentation.” Microorganisms in their stomachs break down food, generating methane that is mainly released through burping. Ruminant livestock account for over 55-60% of agriculture's methane emissions — non-ruminants like pigs and horses contribute far less.

Manure produces 6-8% of agricultural methane emissions (though some research suggests these emissions could be significantly higher). In large dairy and pork production facilities, or “factory farms,” manure is often flushed outside using a water jet and put into tanks or lagoons, where it is stored as liquid or slurry. These wet systems create ideal conditions for methane-producing microorganisms. In contrast, small- to medium-sized farms — where manure is typically stored in its solid form or dried in the sun — emit less methane.

Rice farming is another major methane source, producing 18-20% of agricultural methane emissions. Flooded rice fields deplete oxygen and fuel methane production. The gas then escapes mainly through rice plants or as bubbles that rise from the soil — though emissions vary depending on irrigation methods, soil types and fertilizer use.

Burning crop “residues”— waste leftover once crops are harvested, such as rice and wheat stalks and other biomass — is a common practice in some countries, contributing 3-4% of agricultural methane emissions while also spewing air pollution and endangering human health.

Dozens of strategies have emerged in recent years to reduce these emissions, ranging from low-tech to high-tech. But costs, feasibility and stage of development vary considerably. Here are a handful of solutions that, with refinement and supportive R&D, could be promising:

Photo by Evgen Slavin 1) Making Livestock More Efficient

In many developing countries, livestock produce far less milk and meat per animal than farms in places like the U.S. There’s a big opportunity to make animal production more efficient by improving the quality of animal diets, breeding higher-quality livestock, and ensuring better animal health. These improvements can help farmers increase productivity without increasing total methane emissions — as long as the methane produced per unit of milk or meat decreases enough to offset the increase in production.

One proven way to do this is by feeding animals more digestible feed, which helps them both burp less and absorb more nutrients for growth and milk production. In the U.S., for example, milk production grew by 53% between 1990 and 2021, while enteric methane emissions per unit of milk decreased by about 25% (though there were also significant increases in manure management emissions during this period). While many farms in developed countries already use highly digestible feeds, farmers in Africa and South Asia often feed their animals low-quality crop residues such as rice straw and wheat straw, which can make up to 70% of a cow's diet. While feeding animals crop residues prevents emissions that would otherwise result from burning them, farmers could also enrich crop residues with nutrients and biochemical methods to boost animal productivity. These benefits are especially significant for low-producing cows, helping them grow bigger and produce more milk while reducing methane emissions.

In an upcoming project, WRI will work with the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Ethiopia and Nepal to develop sustainable ways of turning crop residues into high-quality animal feed, which can in turn reduce methane emissions, boost production and create local jobs.

2) Stopping Methane Before it Escapes: Methane Inhibitors

One way farms can further cut emissions is by using methane-inhibiting feed additives, which can help reduce the amount of methane cows produce during digestion. These inhibitors are particularly suitable for commercial and large-scale farms, as cost can be a barrier for small-scale farms and methane inhibitors do not always result in productivity gains.

For example, a synthetic molecule called 3-nitroxypropanol (3-NOP) has gathered interest in the last few years, undergoing extensive R&D trials and securing regulatory approval for use in beef or dairy cows in over 60 countries. Given in small doses through cow feed, it can reduce methane production by around 30%. Currently it is applicable for cows in feedlots, and systems that can deliver 3-NOP to grazing cows are under development. However, it doesn't boost productivity, so acceptance will depend on costs.  Some food and supply chain companies, like Arla Foods UK, are trialing the commercially approved 3-NOP (Bovaer™) on dairy farms with major retailers. Despite extensive safety studies, consumer misinformation has caused some backlash. Further, one recent long-term study indicated that the effects of 3-NOP could largely depend on diet type and may decrease as the cow progresses in her lactation cycle. This suggests that having a second, complementary inhibitor that can be alternated with 3-NOP would be very valuable.

Another methane-inhibiting feed additive that has secured considerable market interest in recent years is red seaweed, or Asparagopsis. Red seaweed is native to Australia and approved for use in beef feedlots in the country. While research shows that its methane mitigation potential can reach up to 90%, long-term trials have shown about 30% effectiveness in reducing methane.

One option that could reduce costs is to use only its active ingredient, bromoform, in some form. A challenge is that bromoform has been identified as a “probable human carcinogen” although there is a good chance that when small quantities are added to feed, they are broken down in the cow’s digestive system. While some large-scale production has begun, more R&D is needed to address the potentially high production costs and human health impacts.

3) Breeding Low-Methane Cows

Methane production from cows is linked to their genetics, with some cows inherently producing more methane than others. Selecting superior-quality breeds that are healthier and feed-efficient is a long-standing farm practice. Similarly, breeding and selecting low-methane cows that naturally emit less methane is possible. On average, low-methane cows can produce 22% less methane emissions than high-emitting ones. As opposed to methane inhibitors, methane mitigation lasts the entire lifespan of a cow and may even be passed down to offspring.

While there have been some pilots around the world, such as in Canada and New Zealand, this approach still needs significant R&D and farmer education for widescale impact. However, if adopted widely, the benefits of methane reduction could be profound, as this solution can be applied across all production systems and geographies.

4) Anti-Methane Vaccines

Another emerging solution in its early research phase focuses on vaccines that prevent methane formation in cows’ stomachs. These methane vaccines can be administered just like any other vaccine to calves, and the effect lasts through a cow’s life. Some promising R&D efforts on vaccines are currently targeting a 30% methane reduction. If successful, methane vaccines hold great potential for broader adoption, as vaccination infrastructure is well-developed in most parts of the world. 

5) Alternatives to Manure Digesters

When it comes to reducing methane from manure management, digesters receive the most attention.

 Biogas digesters use manure to produce biogas, which is a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Digester projects capture this methane to produce electricity or compress it to make “renewable natural gas.” While digesters are capable of reducing methane emissions, our report notes that reductions have often been overestimated by failure to account for methane leaks from the digester and emissions from the “digestate,” the wet material that emerges from the digester at the end and produces methane.  

One big problem with digesters is their cost. In the U.S., a farm usually needs at least 500 cows for a digester to make financial sense. That leaves small- and medium-sized farms out of the picture. At the same time, digesters get heavy subsidies and policy support as renewable energy solutions. They also produce wastewater that emits more ammonia than raw manure and negatively affects water quality.  Another potential problem is that in many countries, crops are added to digesters. The land use requirements and associated emissions from growing crops, along with methane leaks, tend to undermine any methane-reduction benefits from the digester.

Meanwhile, in countries like India and China, millions of small-scale, household-level digesters have been in use for decades. While they provide cooking fuel and enhance energy security, poor monitoring and methane leakage may have led to higher overall emissions.

For these reasons, alternatives to digesters are needed. One promising alternative involves various forms of solid-liquid separation. In this approach, farmers use mechanical equipment to separate the solid part of manure from the liquid. The solid part is then typically composted, dried or used as bedding for cows, and the liquid portion is stored in tanks or lagoons. This method can reduce methane by up to 60%, depending on the type of technology used, and we estimate the costs to be much less than digesters. California's Alternative Manure Management Program has supported installing several solid separators in the state, but their global adoption overall is still limited mostly due to a lack of grants, subsidies or other financial instruments for farmers.

Another promising technology is acidification, or mixing manure with acid. Acidic manure creates unfavorable conditions for methane-forming microorganisms and hence reduces methane emissions. This approach is most commonly used in Denmark as part of the country’s ammonia control regulation. Literature highly supports acidification to achieve reductions in methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions, though the extent of these benefits depend on the frequency, type and dosage of acid used. Researchers report up to a 89% reduction in methane using higher acid doses and a 46% reduction with lower doses.

These alternative technologies are in their early stages of adoption and deserve more on-farm trials to test their efficacy, trade-offs and potential co-benefits.

6) Curbing Methane from Rice

Many approaches can help reduce methane emissions from rice farming, beginning with adopting high-yielding rice varieties that can significantly lower methane emissions per kilogram of rice produced. Also, among thousands of rice breeds worldwide, some naturally emit less methane than others. Identifying and cultivating these low-methane varieties could reduce emissions by 22-51%.

One such promising variety is SUSIBA 2, which has been adopted in some parts of the world. A 2025 study appears to have uncovered the biochemical mechanisms behind SUSIBA 2’s ability to release less methane: methane-suppressing chemicals in their root systems. Such innovation could pave the way for breeding superior rice varieties that emit up to 70% less methane.

A simple and inexpensive way to reduce methane from rice production is Alternative Wetting and Drying (AWD). Rice grows in “flooded” fields; AWD involves letting the water completely dry before flooding again. Several variations of this practice exist and can reduce methane emissions by 40-45%. This approach also saves water, benefitting water-scarce regions. However, the ability to use AWD depends on the reliability of drainage and water supplies. Since most rice farmers have small plots of land, adopting AWD works best when multiple farms coordinate their water management. This requires community-level projects to manage water levels effectively and provide farmers with the right support and incentives.

Photo by Alejandro Rugama Moving from Research to Action

In reality, governments have devoted extremely limited resources toward addressing methane mitigation on farms, but the exciting news is the emergence of promising solutions even with limited funds. Even modest increases in finance would likely fuel greater progress. Governments need to approach these solutions the way they have approached solutions in the energy sector, with support and investment directed at innovation. While some strategies seem ready to expand rapidly, others require reasonable funding for R&D and support for large-scale pilot projects.  

Governments could accelerate the adoption of methane mitigation technologies by providing targeted subsidies for farmers and integrating methane reduction into broader agricultural policies. To reduce emissions from livestock and rice production, countries should lay out strategies that capture their unique production systems and focus on capacity-building to adopt long-term sustainable solutions that could also improve food security.

Meanwhile, the private sector must invest in trials and R&D to continuously improve emerging mitigation technologies and make their learnings available to the public. More pilot projects can help secure consumer acceptance before large-scale trials are rolled out. Multi-million dollar R&D initiatives can have a profound impact on advancing science and making research accessible to everyone. One example is the Enteric Fermentation R&D Accelerator, which funds breakthrough research in technologies that reduce livestock methane emissions, making them attractive for farmers and adaptable to diverse production systems globally. More open data-sharing can also accelerate field trials.

Ultimately, governments and the private sector must work together to support livestock and rice farmers. With the right practices and technologies, farms around the world can both enhance food security while slowing climate change.

cow_farm.jpg Food GHG emissions agriculture Climate Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Swati Hegde

Community Benefits Snapshot: North Plains Connector Transmission Line Community Engagement and Benefits shannon.paton@… Wed, 03/05/2025 - 12:21 .bullets ul li { font-size: 1.1em !important; }

 

Highlights

North Plains Connector is an approximately 420-mile interregional electricity transmission line that will be built from eastern Montana to central North Dakota. The line will connect the western and eastern electric grids and three transmission planning regions, making it one of the most impactful lines in development today. The project has been praised by both renewable energy advocates and local stakeholders for its landowner-first approach to stakeholder engagement, community-led granting structures, use of federal grants to bolster communities and local employment initiatives.

Context

• Project title: North Plains Connector
• Location: Montana and North Dakota
• Sector: Transmission
• Developer: North Plains Connector, LLC
• Type of project agreement: None

About the Project and Involved Stakeholders

The North Plains Connector (NPC) is a 420-mile, 525 kilovolt high-voltage direct current transmission line running from Colstrip, Montana, to St. Anthony and Center, North Dakota. North Plains Connector LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Grid United, is the developer of NPC. Grid United is an independent traƒnsmission company, an entity that designs, constructs, and partially or fully owns the transmission facilities. NPC LLC includes Grid United and its various partners, most notably ALLETE, Inc.

At an approximately $3.2 billion investment, NPC is a key transmission line for the region and the country at large. It will connect the western and eastern electricity grids, adding 3,000 megawatts of bi-directional transfer capacity — more than double the current value — between the two systems. More transfer capacity between the eastern and western grids, which have been developed separately and run at different frequencies, will result in reliability and economic benefits for customers across the country. An analysis of the line’s reliability benefits done by Astrapé Consulting revealed that the line will add more than 3,000 megawatts of Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC), — a key measure of a resource’s ability to prevent electricity shortages — to Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) collectively. The line will also facilitate additional trading between MISO, SPP and western markets.

North Plains Connector Transmission Line

Source: North Plains Connector Website

The project has involved hundreds of stakeholders across Montana and North Dakota. Stakeholders include not only directly affected landowners, but also over 23 Tribal Nations who have had a cultural presence along the line’s route. Other stakeholders with economic interests in the line include county governments and utilities. As of January 2025, 75% of the NPC’s capacity has been obligated to utilities, such as Allete, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Portland General Electric, through memoranda of understanding. Finally, nearly $800 million has been granted to the state of Montana and municipalities in North Dakota to support NPC through the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) Program and Transmission Siting and Economic Development (TSED) funds, making federal and state governments significant stakeholders in NPC as well.  

The NPC transmission project was announced in 2022 and is currently in the planning and development phase. NPC LLC began permitting applications and regulatory filings in 2024, with approvals expected in 2026. Construction is slated to commence in 2028, and the line should be operational by 2032. 

Engagement

Though NPC LLC has engaged various state and federal stakeholders to develop the project, this snapshot primarily focuses on its engagement with the local community. The authors conducted 18 interviews across Montana and North Dakota with landowners, county commissioners, leaders of Tribal Nations, state regulators and legislators, and community development non-profit employees to assess the local engagement efforts and benefits of NPC.

Landowner engagement for NPC began in 2022 after conducting initial constraint analyses (engineering, biological, existing rights-of-way, archeological/cultural sites) and receiving feedback from federal and state agencies. With a 370-mile preliminary route in hand, NPC LLC’s development team began holding public meetings and negotiating with landowners along the proposed route. This route, however, was never expected to match the final position of the line. NPC LLC refers to its stakeholder engagement process as a “landowner-first approach” because of the time and flexibility given to each landowner impacted by the line. Each landowner met directly with members of the NPC LLC team to find the least impactful area for transmission development. The result of this is, as one local advocate put it, a “zigzagging” line that is less efficient, but socially optimal. Today, the project has added 50 miles to its proposed route, in large part due to these consent-based siting negotiations with landowners.

Landowner negotiations also took place through collective bargaining. A group of landowners representing 40-50% of the proposed right-of-way, “The Pro North Plains Connector Landowner Group," formed to negotiate as a group for better easement leases and specific landowner demands. What could have led to costly conflict instead benefited both the landowners and NPC LLC. The landowners were able to secure expert representation from a Wyoming lawyer who specializes in transmission easements because they pooled their resources, while the developer saved time and transaction costs by only having to negotiate with one counterparty.

NPC LLC has also held recurring public meetings for members of the community to learn more about the project and ask questions. These ongoing meetings go beyond Montana and North Dakota’s legal requirements for public engagement and occur quarterly, according to county commissioners in the region. One landowner commented that sometimes NPC LLC hosts meetings simply because they haven’t had one in a while. These meetings helped build trust and understanding within the host communities, according to county commissioners, landowners and developers interviewed. 

Finally, NPC LLC did extensive voluntary tribal engagement with over 23 Tribal Nations across Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. While the line does not directly pass through tribal lands, it will have significant implications for energy development on nearby tribal lands (see “generation opportunities” section below). Additionally, the developers hired tribal cultural specialists during survey work along the line route to identify and document places of cultural importance.

Benefits 

Key benefits of the NPC transmission line include:

Legal and Expected Benefits:

• Taxes: Taxes can be the most valuable and longest lasting benefit a merchant transmission project provides to local communities. The centrally assessed nature of transmission taxation, however, makes it difficult to ascertain expected local revenues during and after construction. Aside from one county commissioner who was familiar with the Montana tax code, all other local stakeholders interviewed in this study did not know how to estimate expected revenues from the NPC line, nor were they comfortable providing a ballpark figure.
• Foregoing eminent domain: NPC LLC made the decision to not use eminent domain along the route and instead chose to acquire necessary land from property owners through negotiations and voluntary agreements. NPC LLC made this decision even though it would be easier to invoke eminent domain on NPC than in many other situations because developers do not need Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity approval to use eminent domain in North Dakota. The company’s decision to avoid using eminent domain, at least until the point of this writing, has been praised by local stakeholders across the route. Three county commissioners interviewed about the line specifically indicated that the use of eminent domain would likely have shifted their support for the project to opposition.
• Job creation and training: NPC LLC projects that it will employ 800 workers during NPC’s construction. Additionally, the company has proposed supporting commercial drivers license (CDL) and line worker training programs at Highlands College in Butte, Montana and Bismarck State College in North Dakota. The company is also working with United Tribes Technical College, a university serving Native American youth in Bismarck, to develop certificate programs in environmental inspection, tribal survey and monitoring, and CDLs. These kinds of jobs will be necessary for the line’s construction and maintenance, providing short-term and long-term employment opportunities for local and Native stakeholders impacted by the line.

Procedural Benefits:

• Honoring siting requests: Stakeholders most appreciated NPC LLC’s willingness to be flexible on the route. As noted in the engagement section, the route has added 50 miles to its original length to date, a roughly 14% increase. Nearly all alterations came at the request of individual landowners who wanted the line moved to less impactful areas on their land. According to nearly every stakeholder interviewed, NPC LLC’s willingness to not only listen and engage early, but follow through on local priorities has paid dividends in reducing opposition to the project. 

Community Grants:

• Community foundation grants: NPC LLC has distributed $2.1 million in North Dakota and $1.8 million in Montana in community grants over the past three years. In both cases, NPC LLC elected to let community foundations distribute the donations rather than the company do it itself. The North Dakota Community Foundation, a non-profit with longstanding ties to western North Dakota, oversaw the distribution of funds. The organization helped communities along the line form committees to choose grantee organizations and provide them with technical assistance. The committees themselves ultimately choose the beneficiaries with no input from NPC LLC nor Grid United. The grantmaking process works similarly in Montana.
• Small grants: NPC LLC, like many projects, has offered small donations at local events in an effort to show support for the community. For example, NPC LLC bought the prize bull at a local county fair in North Dakota at a price one community member estimated at, “three times its market value,” then donated the meat back to the county’s local food pantry.

Transmission Siting and Economic Development (TSED) Funds:

• TSED is a $760 million program funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), designed to facilitate the siting and permitting of critical transmission. With the grant-writing support of NPC LLC, communities in both Montana and North Dakota have received over $62 million in grants from this program. The Montana Department of Commerce won a $47.5 million grant from the DOE that will be distributed to the rural counties of Rosebud, Custer, and Fallon and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for a host of community improvement projects, such as roads, sewers, emergency services, and projects related to workforce and infrastructure development. In North Dakota, the towns of Mott and Amidon received $15 million in TSED funds for a community center and fire station, respectively. These funds would not have been available to these communities were they not co-located with NPC.

Locally Owned Generation Opportunities:

• New markets for locally owned generation: A positive consequence of NPC is that it will enable locally owned generation to connect to new markets. NPC will help the Standing Rock Sioux build and export wind energy on their tribal lands, which will be the single-largest revenue source for the tribe. SAGE Development Authority is a power authority owned by the Standing Rock Sioux that is developing wind energy on their reservation. It is currently able to export 235 MW of wind energy; with development of the NPC, it will be able to develop and export an additional 165 MW of wind.

Strengths: 

NPC is a nationally important transmission project that has the potential to bring significant economic and reliability benefits to consumers across the West and Great Plains while accelerating the interconnection of renewables to the grid. The purpose of this snapshot, however, is to highlight the project’s strengths as they relate to engaging with and providing tangible benefits to communities. An overarching strength of this project has been the developer’s effort to secure wide stakeholder buy-in prior to seeking regulatory approval. Facets of this effort are described below: 

1) Intensive and intentional landowner engagement:  NPC LLC went above and beyond the legal requirements for community engagement. Their early, and equally  important, continued engagement with local community stakeholders helped reduce uncertainty, promote trust and mitigate opposition. Even more, the willingness of the developer to modify the route to accommodate landowner preferences resulted in a socially optimal route tailored to the communities’ needs. Though it produced a route that is not as economically efficient, NPC LLC did far more to honor the siting requests of landowners than industry standards dictate.

2) Developing local credibility through trusted philanthropy: NPC LLC worked with established philanthropic non-profits in both Montana and North Dakota to help distribute local investments. As a result, the company benefited from additional credibility, effective distribution of millions of dollars across a few communities, and continual positive press from local news outlets. While it is impossible to know if NPC LLC’s philanthropy would have been as well received had the company granted funds directly, several stakeholders interviewed emphasized that the local philanthropic partners improved community perception of the grants. Regardless, it is notable that NPC LLC made the effort to give communities a high level of autonomy to decide how grants were distributed.

3) Leveraging federal funds for local impact: To augment its private funding, NPC LLC leveraged its own technical expertise in federal grant writing to help state and local governments apply for federal grants. As of the writing of this snapshot, all federal disbursements of the Inflation Reduction Act grants have been paused. If the funding is ultimately distributed by the federal government, it will sustain continued local investment over the next several years, which is directly attributable to the project’s developers.

4) Tribal engagement for greater equity and economic opportunities: NPC LLC voluntarily engaged with more than 20 Tribal partners during its development, securing significant benefits for the Northern Cheyenne and Standing Rock Sioux tribes and making efforts to avoid damaging the cultural sites of many others. The construction of NPC will not only allow more Native-owned renewables to interconnect, it may also spur widespread transmission development across Great Plains Indian country. A National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) that touches the NPC’s route before running south through Standing Rock Sioux lands to South Dakota and Nebraska was just advanced to the final round. If approved, it will ease permitting burdens and provide funding for transmission development within the corridor. The existence of NPC, which has a large capacity and connects several markets, will only make these potential lines more economically viable and may have been a consideration in advancing this NIETC to the final round.

Challenges and Gaps

High upfront investments into socially optimal routes and community engagement is unproven and requires patient capital: NPC LLC made a strategic choice to invest more capital and time into the early development of its project than is typical with the hope that these early investments - designed to improve community relations and ease regulatory approvals - will ultimately save the project money in avoided litigation and regulatory delays. NPC LLC has added 50 miles to the line’s route to accommodate landowners, potentially increasing line costs by $35-$50 million in the process. The company also made over $5 million in donation commitments to local communities at the outset of the project and has delayed applying for state regulatory approval and environmental permits until nearly all the required easements have been signed. This approach differs from many developers, who opt to pursue site control and regulatory approval simultaneously.

While advocates of this approach argue that high upfront investment will reduce time and legal expenses, this has yet to be proven. In fact, the high upfront costs of frequent community engagement and route alterations may increase the overall cost of the project in the end. Furthermore, this approach requires, as one developer put it, “patient capital.” For developers who rely on ratepayers to fund line development, high upfront costs may be considered too risky or undesirable by those who will inevitably bear the cost of the line. Though it is yet to be seen whether this financial plan will pay out in the end, what is clear is that NPC LLC and Grid United’s approach has significantly reduced the amount of opposition projects in Montana and North Dakota have historically had to battle.

Further Resources

• North Plains Connector Website
• Transmission Siting and Economic Development Grant Announcement

north-plains-connector-beach.jpg Climate United States U.S. Community Benefits Snapshots U.S. Climate Energy Type Snapshot Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• U.S. People-Centered Transitions

Authors Joe Hack Josh Rogers

We're Not Adapting to Climate Change Fast Enough. Behavioral Science Could Help. margaret.overh… Wed, 03/05/2025 - 09:00

Farmers are on the frontlines of the climate crisis, with changing rainfall and increasingly extreme weather making their livelihoods less predictable. Shifting to more sustainable farming practices can help buffer against these impacts ― yet in the face of uncertainty, many farmers prefer to stick to the methods they know.

Farmers in Colombia's Norte de Santander region were no exception, at first. But recently change has taken root. The Lands for Life program, led by the non-profit Rare, worked closely with local farmers and found that they were more likely to adopt new practices if they saw others successfully doing so ("social proof") or if they believed it was expected ("social pressure"). A few farmers involved with the program began exploring techniques like composting and organic farming. As their production rose and their land improved, others followed suit. Today sustainable farming is becoming a norm in the community, and the program has expanded to new areas.

There's a lesson here, and not just for farmers. Every part of society will need to adapt to climate change in different ways ― from city dwellers dealing with extreme heat, to coastal communities experiencing sea-level rise, to businesses managing supply chain risks. Yet adaptation measures are often viewed as too expensive, too complex or too far in the future; something that can be put off for now.

But what if, like in Norte de Santander, new behaviors that boost resilience to climate change become the norm?

As the need for climate adaptation grows, behavioral science could be one of the keys to unlocking action on a much broader scale than we've seen to date. It can help uncover what's blocking us from adapting to climate change and provide insights on how to design solutions so that people feel more compelled ― and empowered ― to act.

Why Shifting Behaviors Is Critical to Building Climate Resilience

Despite global commitments to bolster climate resilience, adaptation efforts continue to be too small, slow and scattered to address the enormity of the climate crisis. These efforts are also vastly underfunded: In 2024, the global adaptation finance gap was estimated at $187-$359 billion per year.

Many of the barriers to closing this gap are external and structural in nature. Large-scale adaptation won't happen until governments and other stakeholders set clear action plans, build up their technical capacities, and scale up finance and implementation.

However, some of the barriers are perceived: People don't favor taking action when it's not clear when or how climate hazards will play out. The benefits of adaptation often seem years away, and short-term priorities tend to take up most of our available attention and resources.

Villagers planting mangroves in Yunxiao County, China. Adaptation solutions like mangrove planting can build resilience to climate change while bringing other environmental and social benefits, but these efforts are piecemeal and chronically underfunded. Photo by Xinhua/Alamy Stock Photo

Climate uncertainty doesn't mean we can't take action now to prepare for the future. In fact, data shows that investing in adaptation not only saves lives, protects economies and reduces damages, but also results in economic, social and environmental benefits, even when anticipated disasters don't occur. Yet these benefits aren't always clear or easy to calculate, while the upfront cost of action is real and immediate.

Behavioral science can help overcome some of these barriers. A better understanding of what drives people to act (or not act), and accounting for this in the design and roll-out of plans, could break through some of the challenges adaptation is currently facing. This could help move from planning to implementation, attract much-needed funding, and develop more effective and sustained solutions at the community level. 

We explored three ways to unlock this potential:

1) Designing Projects and Programs to Empower Communities

Studies have shown that adaptation initiatives can be more effective when local communities are meaningfully involved in planning and implementation. But building local momentum (and sustaining it over the long term) can be challenging. Decision-makers often assume that providing people with more information leads to changes in behavior; however, a growing body of research shows that information alone is not enough to drive lasting change. Other variables, which vary by group and situation, often play more decisive roles.

In Fiji, for example, increased flooding and poor land management are eroding riverbanks that provide a vital source of food, water and income for many communities. Between 2018 and 2020 the Fijian government piloted a project to address this threat. It provided select communities with free vetiver seedlings, a deep-rooted grass that can help stabilize riverbank soils. It also offered a collective payment to each village and held a training session on vetiver planting, targeted at men and youth.

With roots that often reach 3 meters underground, vetiver grass is a natural solution that can help stabilize riverbanks and reduce erosion. Photo by jianghaistudio/iStock

But in 2023, when project observers returned, they found little to no vetiver growing on the riverbanks of the three villages surveyed. Community members confirmed that most of the plants had been left unattended and washed away.

This "intention-action gap" is common in many projects ― where despite having the best intentions and access to resources, behaviors don't change. The question is, why?

Interviews with villagers revealed that even though Fiji's government provided free seedlings, the one-time vetiver training session wasn't enough to build up the skills and confidence needed for planting (a behavioral driver called "self-efficacy"). In addition, women, who are important custodians the region's riverbanks, were left out. Discussions revealed that the project could have been improved by offering more ― and more inclusive ― trainings; emphasizing a collective sense of responsibility with regular support from the local government; and tapping into community members' strong concerns about flooding and erosion ("salience of loss"), as well as their cultural attachment to their land.

Identifying behavior drivers like this at the beginning of a project, and tweaking the approach over time based on how people respond and what works best, can lead to more effective interventions and maintain momentum long-term.

2) Changing the Way Climate Risks Are Communicated to Spur Action

Climate risks might seem far off in the future, and it's natural to focus on the current moment (what's known as "present bias") and problems that are prominent now ("salience effect"). But emerging climate communications strategies, tied to behavior change insights, can help people better understand the pressing risks that climate change poses ― and what to do about them. These include crafting powerful messages by:

• leveraging trusted messengers;
• aligning communications with audiences' values;
• building trust between policymakers and the public;
• highlighting solutions;
• storytelling;
• and bringing the future into the present.

In Malabon City ― a cyclone- and flood-prone area of Manila, Philippines ― locals rely on the national government's weather agency for climate risk information. Partners for Resilience (a network of civil society organizations and nonprofits focused on reducing disaster risk) leveraged this trusted relationship by printing out the government's flood risk maps on large tarps and visibly posting them in different neighborhoods. 

A signpost in Manila, Philippines signals evacuation routes in case of a disaster. Photo by Neil Bussey/iStock

The signs served as a daily reminder for households and community members to know their evacuation zones. They also promoted strategies like mangrove restoration that can help reduce flood risk. In addition, the city trained local officials in community-based disaster risk management, enabling them to work directly with residents on understanding local threats and developing response plans.

Storytelling ― whether through writing, film, TV or otherwise ― is another powerful strategy that's often been overlooked by climate communicators. But climate stories are starting to emerge more frequently, such as the documentary Years of Living Dangerously, the UN-MIET Africa radio program and novels like The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson. Research shows that by creating relatable characters and visualizing progress, along with knowing what motivates the audience, stories like these can shift how people think about and respond to climate risks.

Climate impacts and adaptation benefits can also be brought into the present through novel communication methods. Virtual Planet Technologies has used virtual reality (VR) headsets to show individuals and policymakers, in 360 degrees, how coastal erosion, worsening storms, sea-level rise and extreme heat could affect their communities in the future. After watching waters rise to overtake beaches and parks, users can explore how solutions, such as restoring mangroves or building a sea wall, may reduce climate risks.

Residents of climate-vulnerable communities who experienced this VR stated that it increased their awareness of the risks and the steps they can take to build resilience. Importantly, the focus on solutions helps people stay engaged and motivated, rather than feeling hopeless

3) Using Policy to Remove Behavior Change Barriers

At the upstream level are national and local governments, which play crucial roles in shaping people's decision-making contexts. They can use behavioral insights to design better programs and policies that help people plan for and respond to climate risks.

A key piece of the puzzle is overcoming barriers like cost and convenience that might prevent people ― especially vulnerable groups ― from changing the way they do things.

Following the record-breaking heat wave of 2003, which claimed over 70,000 lives, European policymakers realized that heat warning systems alone are not enough to drive people to take heat safety measures. This prompted France, Germany, Belgium and many other countries to begin integrating behavior change into their heat response plans.

These countries started tailoring messaging to at-risk groups like the elderly, children and those with chronic health conditions. They provided incentives such as cooling equipment discounts, and leveraged social media campaigns to amplify heat warnings and heat safety behaviors. Some cities, such as Paris and Brussels, made it easier for people to stay safe during extreme heat days by creating more green urban spaces and providing extended access to air-conditioned cooling centers, fountains and swimming pools.

Indeed, there are many ways countries can leverage policy to shift people toward pro-climate behaviors. But these are largely underutilized. Our review of 20 countries' national climate commitments showed that most are not leveraging behavior tools as much as they should to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ― and that when they do, they're using only a limited set of the tools available. Climate adaptation is even further behind.

Source: The Living Lab, WRI, adapted from the IPCC's 2022 Working Group III Report We Can and Should Start Using These Tools Today

Understanding what drives different behaviors is essential for governments and other decision-makers to enable and incentivize climate adaptation on a larger scale. Research shows that leveraging behavioral science for adaptation is less costly and resource-intensive, and can be more effective, than interventions that don't intentionally incorporate behavior change. 

Knowledge of how behavior change can support environmental and climate goals is expanding. Until now, behavior change research on environmental issues has centered on short-term decisions and actions, not on the medium- and longer-term timeframes that are so critical to climate adaptation. More studies are needed on which factors drive and deter adaptation behaviors, how these vary by context, and how to evaluate and capture all the co-benefits of adaptation action. Lessons from other disciplines where behavior science is more advanced, such as health care, business and education, can help inform this research. Funding case studies and trials to learn what works ― and what doesn't ― is crucial.

While knowledge gaps remain, our understanding of what drives human behavior has progressed enough to start informing adaptation policy, program design and the broader climate-decision-making environment. A suite of resources is already publicly available to learn from and build on. Behavior change alone will not solve climate adaptation, but it should be a critical part of the toolbox that does.

Related resources

• Rare's Center for Behavior & the Environment designed a behavior change framework that unpacks six science-based levers for shifting behaviors.
• The COM-B model is a behavior change framework that can help users understand why specific behaviors occur and craft effective interventions.
• The Science of Changing Behavior for Environmental Outcomes: A Literature Review analyzes how behavioral science and social science can be leveraged to help address biodiversity conservation, climate mitigation, water management and conservation, waste management and land management.
• The paper Act to Adapt: Behavioral Design for Climate Adaptation by Ideas42 lays out common behavioral barriers to adaptation and possible design tools to address them, paired with theoretical case studies.

fiji-flooded-village.jpg Climate adaptation Climate Resilience Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Climate Adaptation and Resilience
• Locally Led Adaptation
• Adaptation Finance and Investment

Authors Stefanie Tye

Solar Power Doubled Mango Production — and Farmers’ Incomes — in Chamwino, Tanzania margaret.overh… Tue, 03/04/2025 - 07:00

To farmers in the dry, windswept Chamwino district in central Tanzania, mangoes looked like a golden opportunity.

With the country's mango industry expanding, 200 smallholder farmers in Chamwino launched a new farming cooperative, AMCOS, in 2013 to establish a foothold. The farmers contributed TZS 30,000 (US$10) each and in return were allotted plots of land, seedlings, trucks and other resources, largely provided with support from the local government.

The AMCOS farmers also received water pumps and a diesel generator to operate them. This was essential, as Chamwino's water supplies had diminished over the years due to overuse, poor management and more frequent droughts. The pumps offered a steady water source.

Cattle trough built by AMCOS. Photo by Birouke Teferra/WRI

In 2015, AMCOS built a cattle trough and began charging livestock owners for water, bringing in a new revenue stream for the farmers.

But challenges arose. Between rising diesel prices, frequent pump maintenance and occasional breakdowns, the cost of the diesel pump soared, and it was eventually abandoned. The water supply once again became unreliable, and mango seedlings withered. Across the district, only 5%-40% of the seedlings survived.

With hope dwindling, some farmers gave up mango farming altogether. But that was before the solar pumps arrived.

How Solar Power Revived Chamwino's Mango Farms

In 2019, World Resources Institute partnered with Tanzania's Traditional Energy Development Organization (Ta-TEDO) to identify areas where decentralized renewable energy could help support agriculture. Through this initiative, AMCOS received funding and assistance to install new solar-powered water pumps with the capacity to irrigate 80 hectares (200 acres) and a drip irrigation system capable of covering 10 hectares (25 acres).

The results were transformative.

With a reliable, sustainable and affordable water supply, mango yields skyrocketed. Between 2021 and 2022, production more than doubled from an average of 40 fruits per tree to 97. Farmers who adopted drip irrigation counted over 120 mangoes per tree the same year. And average incomes from mango sales nearly doubled, increasing from around TZS 150,00 (US$56) to TZS 297,000 (US$112) per month.

Women members of AMCOS standing next to a mango tree. Photo by Ta-TEDO

"This solar project has truly transformed our lives," said Suzana Machela, a farmer and AMCOS member. "Our mango production has soared, and we now have ample water for our animals and household. I harvested over two sacks of mangoes, and there's more than enough water to meet our needs."

Along with these earnings came savings. With the diesel generator out of service, watering the mango trees meant hauling buckets of water from distant wells; a grueling task. Farmers and families who did this work themselves saved time and effort thanks to the solar pumps. Those who previously hired help for watering, but adopted the new drip irrigation, saw their labor costs drop to near zero.

In addition, compared to running the diesel pump, the solar pumps saved the cooperative over TZS 2.3 million (US$900) per year on fuel and maintenance.

Farmers were also trained by TaTEDO experts in agricultural best practices such as intercropping (growing two or more crops in the same area at the same time), which can increase crop yields, use water more efficiently, and reduce the need for harmful chemicals and fertilizers.

"Before this, the cost of irrigation and operations was high, and farmers were unaware of the value of intercropping," says Jensen Shuma from TaTEDO. "Since its implementation, operational costs have decreased, productivity has increased, and farmers have benefited from intercropping, hence additional incomes."

AMCOS Is a Model for Progress — but Bigger Challenges Remain

Chamwino's water shortages are not unique. Growing populations, competing demands and poor water management have strained Tanzania's water supplies, pushing it past the "water stressed" threshold. Across Africa, around 1 in 3 people face water scarcity. And shifting weather patterns due to climate change only exacerbate the problem. In the past 15 years, Tanzania has seen seven significant droughts.

Solar water pumps not only support irrigation, but can also help improve local water access. In Chamwino, AMCOS can now sell water from the solar pump to community members during the dry season, reducing the distance they must travel in search of water for domestic use and livestock. However, solar pumps won't resolve broader water shortages. To ensure long-term water security, they must be paired with sustainable management, conservation, efficient irrigation and better governance.

Solar power system installed in Chamwino to power water pumping, irrigation and water systems. Photo by Ta-TEDO

The project also faces challenges that have hampered its potential — challenges that similar initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa may grapple with as well.

While farmers now have better access to water, the solar irrigation system has its limitations. Issues like clogged pipes and insufficient storage capacity mean the system hasn't been able to cover the full 200 acres expected, leaving many farmers feeling excluded. Some left mango farming altogether.

In addition, support resources are still scarce. To expand the cooperative's initial success, farmers need more training on agricultural best practices, such as irrigation and intercropping, as well as how to use modern farming technologies beyond the solar pumps, like pest management systems or specialized pruning tools. But plans to develop a capacity-building network between farmers and supportive stakeholders (via a special purpose vehicle) were delayed.

And there are structural challenges. Most farmers, lacking processing facilities and access to better markets, still depend largely on local buyers, limiting their financial growth.

Related

• A New Solution to Power Africa: Productive Use of Renewable Energy
• How Local Banks Can Unlock Africa's Clean Energy Future

How to Scale Up Local Success

Local renewable energy offers substantial economic opportunities throughout sub-Saharan Africa. But to scale up initiatives like Chamwino's, partnerships with government, NGOs and private sector players are essential. These collaborations can provide the necessary funding and technical support to ensure successful implementation and long-term sustainability.

Specifically, these projects need:

• Policies to address structural challenges for farmers: Governments can support farmers by addressing both sustainability challenges and economic barriers. Policies should focus on mapping water resources, improving management and strengthening governance to ensure long-term water access. Infrastructure investments, such as better roads, can enhance market access, while measures to combat threats like theft and fires can protect livelihoods. Combining these efforts ensures both sustainable resource use and improved economic opportunities for farmers.
• Training for local farmers and clean energy technicians: Agricultural extension programs can help ensure farmers are equipped with modern agricultural techniques to optimize productivity and efficiently manage resources. Strengthening the agricultural extension system with data-driven insights will help tailor training, inputs and technical support to meet farmers' specific needs. In addition, local technicians need training to maintain and operate renewable energy systems over the long term.
• Careful monitoring and continuous improvement: Ongoing monitoring helps evaluate performance in real-time and identify areas where system upgrades, such as durable metal pipes and additional water tanks, are most needed to ensure reliable water access and optimize drip irrigation.
• Better data collection: Baseline information on farmer profiles, production levels and incomes provides a clear reference point to assess progress over time. Data also plays a crucial role in evaluating a project's impact on productivity and community well-being, helping guide future initiatives. Embedding agricultural and related data into regular government surveys and reports can help fill current data gaps.
• Establishing a special purpose vehicle to channel support: Stakeholders should accelerate the establishment of a special purpose vehicle in Chamwino to help channel finance and support AMCOS farmers with capacity building, market linkages, data management, operational management and more. By fostering partnerships with financiers, NGOs and other stakeholders, the special purpose vehicle can leverage data, mobilize resources and help scale impact, ensuring that farmers' livelihoods are improved and that a project's full potential is realized.

Putting Renewable Energy at the Heart of Rural Development

As we look to the future, Chamwino provides a hopeful vision for how renewable energy can transform lives and communities in Tanzania, Africa and beyond. Scaling this success nationally — and internationally — will require all hands on deck: communities, policymakers, NGOs, development organizations and more.

Together, it is possible to empower communities, drive economic growth, and pave the way for a future where renewable energy is at the heart of rural transformation. With the proper support and resources, clean energy will continue to change lives for the better.

mangoes-tanzania-market.jpg Energy Tanzania Energy Access agriculture renewable energy low carbon development Type Vignette Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Energy Access Explorer
• African Energy Dialogues: Energising the Future Together
• Energy Access and Equitable Development

Authors David Njugi Benson Ireri Birouke Teferra

US Takes Important Step Toward Tackling Its Massive Abandoned Mine Problem margaret.overh… Mon, 03/03/2025 - 08:00

Estimates say there are as many as half a million abandoned mines across the United States. Tens of thousands of these are considered environmentally hazardous, exposing communities to chronic health issues, polluted waterways, species die-off and more — effects some Americans have grappled with across generations.

However, while the problem is plain to see, it's not easy to address. Often, the entities or individuals responsible for these mines no longer exist, cannot be found or are not financially viable, meaning no one can be forced to clean up the site. And government clean-up programs tend to be limited in scope and funding. As a result, many mine sites have been left to continue polluting, unchecked, for decades.

This is where "Good Samaritans" come into the picture. In some places, Good Samaritan groups — such as nonprofits or community organizations — have volunteered or would volunteer to clean up mine sites. They offer much-needed capacity to start addressing the problem on a larger scale than has been possible to date. However, their efforts are often hampered by laws which, while intended to protect the environment, could make anyone who attempts to clean up a site liable for its pollution.

That's now on the cusp of changing. At the end of 2024, after decades of concerted effort by conservation groups, the mining industry, and bipartisan members of Congress, former President Joe Biden signed into law the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024. This marks a significant first step toward making it easier for Good Samaritans to do their work. It could also open up alternative pathways for dealing with abandoned mines, such as allowing companies to reclaim valuable minerals — a move that could help meet the country's booming critical mineral demand.

The act was passed on a bipartisan basis and supports the Trump administration's emphasis on domestic resource extraction. However, it also relies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to process and allocate permits. Success will depend on continued support, capacity and funding for the agency.

The Abandoned Mine Problem

The United States' abandoned mine problem is vast. The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and EPA have identified 140,000 abandoned hardrock mines across the country. ("Hardrock mining" refers to extracting non-fuel metal and mineral deposits such as copper, iron ore, potash and zinc.) The agencies estimate that there could be more than 390,000 others not yet in their databases. Of the 140,000 identified abandoned mines, about 22,500 are thought to be environmentally hazardous.

The new law defines "abandoned mines" as those that were abandoned before December 11, 1980. Under current laws, mine operators must reclaim a mine after it's decommissioned. This means they must return the site to a state where it can be used for some other purpose, such as a wildlife habitat or industrial development. Prior to these laws, however, many mines were not properly cleaned up or reclaimed. Where no responsible entity can be found and forced to clean up the sites, they've continued to pose safety and environmental hazards long after they're closed.

The biggest risk with these sites is water pollution. Abandoned mines are often associated with acid mine drainage, which occurs when rocks containing metal sulfides are exposed to water and oxygen, forming sulfuric acid that escapes into the environment. This acid can leach toxic heavy metals from rocks into waterways, posing human health risks that range from an increased risk of cancer to gastrointestinal issues and nerve damage. In Oklahoma's Tar Creek mining district, which has old lead and zinc mines, children have elevated lead levels in their blood — a known cause of brain and nerve damage.

Mine contamination also has a negative impact on the environment, with studies showing that acid mine drainage causes decreases in biodiversity. Runoff from California's Iron Mountain Mine flowing into a Sacramento River tributary caused massive fish kills before EPA started work to clean up the pollution in the 1980s.

These effects aren't limited to a few sites. Across the country, EPA estimates that abandoned hardrock mines have contaminated 40% of U.S. rivers and 50% of lakes.

Why Is Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines So Difficult?

Some federal programs to clean up abandoned mines do exist. If a site is having a significant impact on the surrounding environment, it may be eligible for cleanup under the largest federal program, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. CERCLA's primary aim is to clean up polluted sites, and the act gives EPA a range of tools to achieve that goal. However, due to capacity and financial constraints, Superfund cleanups are only triggered to address the highest priority cases. An estimated 98% of the abandoned mines do not qualify.

Sites that are not a high enough priority to be addressed as a Superfund cleanup must rely on Good Samaritans or cleanups funded through state and local governments. However, existing laws limit the extent to which Good Samaritan and government groups can help. CERCLA, for example, may impose liability on those responsible for or working on sites that pollute or could potentially pollute the environment. Even groups not involved with the original mine could be held liable if they take action on the site — including trying to help with cleanup.

A river in Amador County, Calif., U.S. polluted by runoff from an abandoned copper mine. EPA estimates that abandoned hardrock mines have contaminated nearly half of U.S. rivers. Photo by inga spence/Alamy Stock Photo

It is also possible that anyone cleaning up an abandoned mine could be held liable for discharges of pollutants under the Clean Water Act. The law requires a permit to work on closing off a source of water pollution, such as an abandoned mine. The permit holder then becomes liable for this pollution and would have to bring the water quality fully in line with Clean Water Act standards. This discourages any actions that may improve, but not fully fix, water quality. In addition, cleanup efforts can sometimes accidentally result in discharges of pollution into waterways, triggering additional liability under the Clean Water Act.

The nonprofit Trout Unlimited ran up against these challenges in 2024 when it sought to clean up the Orphan Boy Gold Mine in Colorado, which was polluting local waterways and damaging wetlands and trout habitat. The group was able to do non-point source remediation, including regrading waste rock piles, installing erosion controls, and redirecting releases from a drainage passage connected to the abandoned underground mine workings. While these actions helped, Trout Unlimited was ultimately unable to address the source of pollution draining from the underground mine itself because of liability concerns under the Clean Water Act.

How the New Good Samaritan Law Changes Things

Efforts to pass legislation limiting liability for Good Samaritans have been in the works since 1999. Advocates recognize the critical role these groups can play and have sought to make it easier for them to contribute. Opponents worry that such legislation could relax environmental protections too much — and that if an attempted cleanup makes the situation worse, there will be no recourse to fix it. The challenge was to reduce liability for well-meaning actors while maintaining protections for the environment.

The new law — the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act — seeks to find this balance. Signed into law in December 2024, the legislation establishes a seven-year pilot program administered by EPA, which will permit up to 15 Good Samaritan abandoned hardrock mine cleanups. Any entity that did not have a role in creating the mine and wants to carry out a low-risk remediation project can apply for a permit, which will enable them to clean up abandoned mine sites without being subject to liability for its pollution. In addition, they will not have to apply for any other permits under CERCLA or the Clean Water Act, simplifying the process. However, if a group violates a permit issued under the Good Samaritan legislation, they could still end up liable for pollution from the site.

While limited in scope and temporary in nature, this law is a positive step towards enabling Good Samaritans to clean up the thousands of toxic, hazardous mine sites across the country. If the 15 projects are successful, they will prove the concept is sound and provide data on how to best create a large-scale, permanent program.

Beyond Cleanup, the Act Could Boost the US Mineral Industry

Streamlining cleanup efforts isn't all the Good Samaritan Law did. It also opened up the possibility of reclaiming valuable minerals from abandoned mine sites on federal land, with approval.

Many operators of now-abandoned mines were focused on materials such as iron or gold. They would not have recovered minerals such as lithium, rare earths or vanadium that are now considered critical for renewable energy, electricity transmission, aerospace and defense. In addition, extraction methods used at old, abandoned mines were often less efficient than current practices; they may have left behind concentrations of minerals that could be extracted with modern technology. Or the price of minerals may have meant that significant amounts of the target mineral weren't collected.

A worker at an electric vehicle plant in Detroit, Mich. prepares a lithium-ion battery for installation. The U.S. is working to build up a domestic supply of critical minerals such as lithium, which are essential for clean energy, aerospace, defense and other technologies. Photo by Jim West/Alamy Stock Photo

Under the new law, any proceeds from this reprocessing will be redirected into cleanup efforts. However, in the future, there could be an opportunity for a law to allow the reprocessing and sale of minerals from abandoned mines for profit.

Allowing for-profit reprocessing could help incentivize cleanup. And it could open up a new stream of domestic minerals that are in demand now, helping to minimize U.S. reliance on foreign sources. It could also help isolate heavy metals from the environment, preventing future contamination of water bodies on which people and wildlife depend, while avoiding the many issues associated with opening new mines. Reprocessing tends to be more cost effective than opening a new mine, too.

At the same time, there are concerns that reprocessing activities could increase pollution levels while in operation. This underscores the need for strong standards and the development of best practices.

Success Hinges on Continued EPA Support

The Good Samaritan Law marks a positive first step toward addressing abandoned mines across the U.S. The 15 pilot projects will be proof of concept and help guide best practices for future Good Samaritan cleanups. And reprocessing holds strong potential for supporting the country's domestic mineral industry.

However, success hinges on EPA having the support and funding necessary to administer the program, and on Good Samaritans having access to funding to carry out cleanups. Recent reports of plans to dramatically shrink EPA's budget indicate that the new law will face difficulties.

This law shows that EPA administers programs that align with the current Administration's strong desire to see the U.S. secure its minerals pipeline, and that EPA's work is important across a range of policy priorities. Ensuring that EPA can carry out the Good Samaritan and other programs can help move the U.S. toward a cleaner, safer future.

epa-mine-pollution-treatment.jpg Freshwater United States water pollution environmental justice Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Energy Minerals and Circularity
• U.S. Energy
• Environmental Rights

Authors W. Briana Fowler-Puja Melissa Barbanell

STATEMENT: Resumed COP16 Talks Conclude with a Strategy to Boost Biodiversity Finance nate.shelter@wri.org Fri, 02/28/2025 - 14:09

ROME (February 28, 2025) — The COP16 biodiversity negotiations officially concluded, with countries agreeing on a strategy to increase finance for biodiversity to $200 billion annually by 2030. Countries also adopted a monitoring framework to track countries’ progress toward the Global Biodiversity Framework targets, including the goals to protect 30% of the world’s land and water and restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.

These outcomes build on the prior outcomes from the COP16 negotiations in Cali, Colombia, which included a voluntary fund for companies to contribute to based on the genetic data from biodiversity they use, and a new permanent body to bring Indigenous Peoples and local communities into the negotiations.

Following is a statement by Crystal Davis, Global Director of Food, Land & Water Program, World Resources Institute:

“Amidst deeply fractured geopolitics, countries proved that they can still work together to preserve the biodiversity that all of humanity depends on. Agreeing on the first global roadmap to finance the world’s biodiversity protection is an important step forward, but it is still only a plan without the necessary dollars on the table.

“Now countries need to urgently get money to the nations and communities who need it to protect their biodiversity-rich ecosystems. Many of these ecosystems are imperative for people’s food and water, global climate stability, and countries’ economies and local communities’ livelihoods.

“Wealthy countries need to meet their commitment to provide $20 billion to developing countries this year. All countries should start reforming their nature-harming subsidies. Governments must provide the guidance and incentives to mobilize more private sector investment. And companies that use genetic data from biodiversity should contribute to the newly launched Cali Fund.

“More broadly, we must connect this outcome to larger finance efforts, including the COP30 roadmap for the $1.3 trillion annual goal for climate and nature. Amidst highly constrained budgets, it’s vital countries connect the many sources of finance for climate and nature and make them work together as a system.

“Operationalizing the monitoring framework is a bright spot. While not perfect, we are now better positioned to hold countries accountable for making progress toward the world’s goals to protect and restore the world’s forests, land and water. And it can help both governments and civil society learn and adapt by showing which actions work best to protect nature.

“It is groundbreaking that governments, for the first time, must now report on the extent to which they are protecting Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights and including them in conservation planning. Going forward, it’s critical that governments’ monitoring is transparent, cost-effective at scale, flexible and open source — and that independent monitoring accompanies official government systems.”

Forests Forest and Landscape Restoration nature-based solutions Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities Freshwater Finance Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

2025 Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship Now Open for Submissions shannon.paton@… Wed, 02/26/2025 - 12:01

Looking for an opportunity to catalyze sustainable, people-centered urban mobility? The Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship wants to help you transform ideas into reality.

The Schipper family, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, and Volvo Research and Education Foundations (VREF) are pleased to announce that applications are now open for the 2025 Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy Efficiency. Jointly provided by VREF, WRI and the Schipper Family, the scholarship will award three extraordinary candidates up to US$10,000 each to advance transformative research in efficient and sustainable transport, including at least one a young researcher from Africa.

Applications are due by April 15, 2025.

Dr. Leon J. Schipper (“Lee”), 1947-2011, was a co-founder of EMBARQ (now WRI’s Urban Mobility program) and dedicated his professional life to the efficient use of energy in mobility. An international physicist, researcher and musician, Schipper inspired and shaped the thinking of a generation of students and professionals. Widely recognized for enriching policy dialogue with his passion for data and challenging conventional wisdom, this scholarship celebrates his vision.

2024 winners Olanike Babalola, Tom Courtright and Nicholas Goedeking will present their research at the Transforming Transportation 2025 conference in March 2025.

APPLY NOW READ GUIDELINES

About the Scholarship

The Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship aims to expand contributions to sustainable transport and energy efficiency research and policy dialogue. It prioritizes “iconoclastic” contributions that have clear, transformative outputs and contribute to measurable changes. Proposals relating to different aspects of policy dialogue are welcome, including data collection and data quality, diagnosis through data analysis (qualitative and quantitative), policy analysis and evaluation, and interdisciplinary and international comparative analysis.

Who’s Eligible?

The scholarship is open to young researchers, defined as someone with five or fewer years of experience since their last academic degree (master’s or Ph.D.) and who has not yet turned 36 years by the expression of interest submission deadline (born after April 15, 1989). There are no geographic restrictions on scholarship applicants, so young researchers and students of all national origins and fields are eligible to apply. While applications should be submitted in English, research may be completed in other languages to enhance its impact. 

Applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Consistency with Lee Schipper’s contributions
• Alignment with the idea of sustainable transport and energy efficiency
• Creation of innovative, transformational outcomes (“real impact”)
• Feasibility (timely, realistic)
• Applicant (affiliation, background, previous contributions, references)

Additional African Scholar Eligibility Requirements:

The African Scholarship supports a young researcher from the African continent who is currently living and working in Africa. In addition to the global selection criteria above, applicants to the African Scholarship should also:

• Hold citizenship in an African country
• Currently live and work in Africa
• Be associated with an African based institution (or an African branch of an international institution)

How to Apply

The first selection phase requires an expression of interest to be completed by April 15, 2025. Interested applicants can learn more about this process in the scholarship guidelines. From this first phase, up to seven candidates for each of the Global and African Scholarships will advance to the next selection round and will be notified in May 2025 when a more detailed research proposal will be required. Final awardees will be notified in August 2025.

APPLY NOW READ GUIDELINES

Schipper-Bus-EMBARQ-1140x518_0.jpg Cities Urban Mobility energy efficiency transportation Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Urban Mobility
• Transforming Transportation

STATEMENT: EU Clean Industrial Deal Sets Right Direction, Yet Pending Details Will be Critical nate.shelter@wri.org Wed, 02/26/2025 - 10:31

Brussels (February 26, 2025) — Today the European Commission unveiled a flagship policy package, the Clean Industrial Deal. The policy package sets out a plan to decarbonize and revitalize the EU’s traditional energy-intensive industries, while boosting the emerging clean-tech sector, to enable the EU’s industrial transition.

The package supports the EU’s proposed net 90% GHG emissions reduction by 2040, accelerates renewable energy deployment, targets new financing to scale clean technology, aims to create markets for clean products and strengthen emissions reporting, makes energy more affordable, prioritizes circularity and fosters international partnerships.

Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice-President and Regional Director for Europe of World Resources Institute:

“While some backtrack on climate, the EU has sent a clear message that its economic competitiveness hinges on ensuring that its businesses are equipped to make the inevitable clean energy transition. This policy package largely sets the right priorities, yet it is also lacking in important aspects.

“The plan’s language on simplifying and possibly delaying the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is concerning, as it opens the door to revisions and more uncertainty for companies. The EU should be a leader in creating a market for low-carbon and cleaner products, much like the EU Deforestation Regulation does for deforestation-free commodities.

“While the proposal rightly calls for rapid industry electrification, it falls short in addressing energy savings and resource efficiency as key measures. The EU should now provide more clarity on how it will reduce consumption of materials and energy to keep the industrial expansion within planetary boundaries. The same clarity is needed for how it will cut household energy bills by two-thirds by 2035 to address voters' concerns.

“The Commission’s proposal includes support for “social leasing” of clean and renewable energy products. However, if national fossil fuel subsidies persist, adoption may not follow. And the plan’s focus on circular economy leadership by 2030 is commendable, with steps toward coordinated raw materials purchasing and increased recycling and reusing, though it lacks concrete targets for resource use.

“The Commission’s announcement of mobilizing 100 billion Euros for clean manufacturing is a good step forward but its effectiveness will depend on the speed of such financial instruments and the ability to crowd in more funding. To overcome market barriers, the Commission rightly emphasizes how public and private procurement can drive a low-carbon industry by including strong sustainability criteria in EU contracts.

“The EU’s next step must be to release an ambitious new EU Climate Plan – or NDC – before the summer, setting an emissions reduction target of 70-75% for 2035, charting a path toward climate neutrality by 2050, and solidifying the EU’s global climate leadership.”

National Climate Action Europe industry Clean Energy circular economy Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

How to Monitor, Report on and Verify a Land Restoration Project shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/25/2025 - 12:36

Measuring the impact of restoration projects can be overwhelming. For the world’s restoration champions — locally led organizations that restore degraded land through growing trees — the challenge starts with choosing the right indicators, data sources, apps and platforms to use. It only grows more complex when collecting, analyzing and sharing data.

Then come the trade-offs. Different stakeholders, like funders and government agencies, want different information. Donors and private investors are clamoring for more transparency and want better, verified data to elevate the most successful projects, but budgets for monitoring and evaluation are tight. Slight discrepancies in the definitions of common terms like “hectare restored” or “tree” can radically change the data and methods used to measure progress. Collecting accurate location data that covers every planted tree can be costly and burdensome. And time is limited. 

Ultimately, these challenges make it hard to understand why certain projects succeed while others struggle.  

A Single Recipe for Monitoring Restoration Progress

In Africa, where the need for finance is greatest, Restore Local is tackling this problem head-on. Since 2022, its TerraFund partnership has channeled $32 million to nearly 200 restoration champions. By funding projects that meet the needs of local communities and embrace dozens of proven restoration techniques — such as growing millions of trees on farms in agroforestry systems or planting native species within degraded community forests — it is building a solution from the ground up.

Since the first projects received funding in 2022, our team has been developing a robust and comprehensive monitoring, reporting and verification system to measure their impact. Our guide, How We Monitor, Report and Verify (MRV), summarizes this practical, cost-effective approach. It is a living document, shaped by technical experts and on-the-ground practitioners, that we improve as we develop new techniques and bring in new partners.

This guide comes to life through TerraMatch, an end-to-end platform that matches restoration champions with funding and then helps them submit high-quality data to track progress for six years. That data is then analyzed and published to bring new transparency to the restoration sector.

After testing on more than 240 projects and consulting with leading financial partners and dozens of technical experts, we found that this approach is shifting the sector’s mindset toward a focus on scalability and consistency.

The Ingredients for Restoration Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

Developing a new MRV process is like creating a new dish, drawing from classic recipes but adding a fresh twist. It’s a blend of creativity, scientific know-how and real-world experience.

Like any new dish, you need to impress your critics and be prepared for feedback. Our MRV process is that recipe. We define what our indicators mean and why they matter, and how to collect and measure the data. We also outline how often to assess, manage and verify the information, and how to share the results with restoration champions and funders. Documenting the process helps TerraFund see the big picture and how all the pieces fit together. Mapping the workflow shows where restoration champions or analysts can save time without sacrificing quality.

Let’s walk through an example of how each ingredient is combined on an actual land-restoration site in Rwanda, managed by one of our restoration champions, Nature Rwanda, and its implementing partner, BirdLife International.

Ingredient #1: Geospatial Polygons

We can’t monitor progress if we don’t know where restoration is happening. Enter polygons: location data showing the boundaries of a project. Creating accurate polygons is no easy feat. Restoring land is complex, time-sensitive, and dependent on shifting weather patterns and community needs. Polygons are best collected after planting is complete and directly from the field, an especially challenging task when project sites are remote or spread across the plots of hundreds of individual landholders.

Nature Rwanda collected polygons in the field that show the exact locations of their restoration areas, where they work with hundreds of smallholder farmers to build agroforestry systems. Project polygons in purple shown over Maxar imagery. Satellite image ©2024 Maxar Technologies.

To make this task easier, we have partnered with Wells for Zoë, a champion from TerraFund’s first cohort of investments and a partner of Mastercard’s Priceless Planet Coalition, to develop a field data collection app. Flority enables champions to easily create polygons in the field, even in areas without reliable internet connection.

TerraFund’s data quality analysts train champions on how to collect the data, correct errors and add contextual information to each polygon file, including the target land use of the area they are restoring, their restoration strategies and the number of trees they have planted in each area.

This information provides a broad understanding of how champions are restoring each landscape — and which restoration strategies are most successful in certain areas. By summing up the total area of all polygons collected from a champion, we can determine the total hectares under restoration and compare that against the project’s goals.

Ingredient #2: Progress Reports from the Field

Location is an important data source and the staple ingredient of independent verification. But it can’t tell us everything. To get the fullest flavor of our projects, we need to add progress reports from the field into the mix.

Champions report every six months through the TerraMatch platform, submitting information about key indicators that satellites can’t capture, but which create a powerful picture of restoration’s impact on a community. These reports include quantitative data on the number of jobs created and species of trees planted, as well as narrative information that illuminates each project’s challenges and successes.

For example, BirdLife International and Nature Rwanda reported in 2024 that they have planted over 300,000 trees across 500 hectares in Rwanda's Rusizi District. They have also trained more than 3,400 households with skills in climate resilience and sustainable land management.

Restoration Champions tend to seedlings in a nursey on a Nature Rwanda project site. Photo by Nature Rwanda

Beyond restoration, these organizations are also empowering local communities. Nature Rwanda supported the formation of two community groups, Rasano and Nyamihanda,  each starting with 30 members. The former pooled their savings to launch a small pig farm, while the latter is starting a poultry project. To ensure long-term success, Nature Rwanda recruited 25 “community tree stewards” who volunteer weekly to monitor tree health. This has led to an 85% tree survival rate.

We tell the stories of these champions to highlight how robust data can enhance the investment case for restoration –– and catalyze additional financing.

Ingredient #3: Satellite and Field Data for Verification

It’s important for us to verify key indicators, such as the number of trees planted, jobs created and trees restored, at the end of the project. We do this by cross-referencing reported information with independent sources like remote sensing data or employment records.  

If the numbers differ significantly, we follow up with project leads to understand the reason for the discrepancy and correct the figures or create an updated work plan. Champions that continue to show discrepancies undergo additional verification through site visits to strengthen record-keeping and reporting. Identifying these challenges as early as possible in a project’s lifetime helps us offer support when projects need it and keep the work on track.

We also use remote sensing data from Land & Carbon Lab, Michigan State University (MSU) and Maxar to analyze additional biophysical indicators and assess restoration progress over the life of the project.

Let’s start by looking at how we verify tree count and jobs created. Then, we’ll follow with a look at other biophysical progress indicators.

Tree count

To verify the number of trees planted and restored at the end of a project, our team counts trees within each polygon using an AI object-detection model that analyzes high-resolution satellite images. The model is trained to spot and count trees by identifying tree crowns, and early results show that the AI count closely matches data collected from the field. With this approach, we count trees at baseline (before the project starts), partway through the project to verify that planting happened, and again at the end of five years to assess the survival rate.

For projects where satellite imagery is not available or baseline conditions make this remote-sensing approach inaccurate, we send staff to count the number of trees in a sample plot and extrapolate the total from there.

Tree count by polygon on Nature Rwanda project sites. Brighter yellow polygons have more trees. The red inset is the extent of the second map, which shows individual tree locations at baseline within and around Nature Rwanda’s project areas. Brighter yellow dots indicate larger trees, and darker dots indicate smaller trees. Tree cover

Using WRI’s Tropical Tree Cover dataset, our team calculates the tree cover percentage across each project site throughout its lifecycle. Comparing the tree cover at the start of the project to the total five years later, we can confirm that planted trees are growing and assess how they are changing overall tree cover within and around the site.

Baseline tree cover for Nature Rwanda’s project in 2020, measured using the Tropical Tree Cover dataset and Sentinel-2 imagery at 10-meter resolution. Carbon stocks

All trees store planet-warming carbon; we want to know how much. In partnership with researchers at MSU’s Global Observatory for Ecosystem Services, we measured trees on pilot TerraFund projects at baseline to quantify existing carbon stocks. Then we combined those measurements with high-resolution satellite imagery to map the amount of carbon each tree sequesters across the wider landscape. We will collect data again after five years to assess how much carbon the newly grown trees have sequestered.

WRI and MSU are also using baseline carbon stocks and standard growth metrics to predict estimated carbon stocks 30 years into the future. These results can help identify which restoration techniques sequester the most carbon — and could strategically pursue carbon credits to finance their work.

Baseline carbon stocks aggregated to one-hectare pixels on Nature Rwanda project sites (purple) and the surrounding landscape. Darker blue indicates high carbon stocks. Jobs created

Restoration projects are just as important for people as they are for nature and the climate. We verify the number of people each project employs by comparing reported job numbers with submitted employment records. And we keep an eye out for red flags, such as sudden increases in the number of employees outside the planting season or repeated figures in reports.

We cross-check the gender and age of employees, too, to gauge whether projects are achieving their social equity goals. And we look at the number of part-time and full-time workers to understand which project designs lead to more permanent economic opportunities for local communities.

Serving Up the Meal: Displaying Progress Through TerraMatch’s Data Dashboard

The comprehensive process gives us vital insights, but the results aren’t worth much if they aren’t communicated. Just like serving a meal, presenting restoration data must cater to unique tastes. Different audiences want to know different details about the projects and their progress.

• Restoration champions can use data and remote sensing results to showcase their progress and impact.
• Donors and investors can see the impact of their investments across projects.
• Government partners can gain insights to shape policies supporting restoration.
• WRI teams and partners, like Realize Impact and Barka Fund, can use the data to manage risks and strengthen the capacity of restoration champions.

We have spent the past three years building the TerraMatch system to systematically collect and quality assure data. Over 240 nonprofit organizations and enterprises are already tracking their impacts there.

The TerraMatch dashboard displays this wealth of progress data for each project, across entire countries, and within investment portfolios. By clearly packaging the data collected through the MRV framework, we can now tell a more complete story of restoration progress.

And there is progress. TerraFund has made significant strides since its beginning in 2022.

TerraFund progress as of December 31, 2024. Improving the Recipe for Restoration Monitoring

Our team is working to combine field-collected data with AI-backed satellite data insights to help TerraFund champions tell their full stories of impact. As we concentrate our work on priority landscapes, we are exploring low-cost techniques to measure even more complicated ecosystem services, such as water quality and biodiversity.

Together with the world’s restoration champions and technical experts, we will demonstrate how robust and digestible progress data can unlock further investment to transform the planet’s vital landscapes, tree by tree.

Hundreds of organizations are embracing this vision of a practical, cost-effective and scalable recipe for monitoring, reporting on and verifying the impact of restoration projects. Will you join us?

Learn more about TerraFund.

nature-rwanda-restoration.jpg Forest and Landscape Restoration Africa Forest and Landscape Restoration restoration Forests Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• TerraMatch
• African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100)
• Restore Local

Authors Justine Spore Darby Levin John Brandt Joan Kimaiyo Will Anderson Noah Maghsadi Jubril Juma Dow Martin

RELEASE: WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities Calls for Submissions to Catalyze Healthy Cities alison.cinnamo… Tue, 02/25/2025 - 12:01

Fifth cycle of premier urban prize recognizes transformative projects that strengthen livability and nature in urban places.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 25, 2025) —WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities is calling on urban innovators worldwide to apply for the fifth cycle of its prestigious WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities, a global $250,000-competition celebrating and spotlighting trailblazing projects and initiatives for their contribution to inclusive and sustainable urban transformation.  

As urbanization rapidly expands, cities face increasing pressure on infrastructure, food and basic services. To create thriving communities, innovative solutions are crucial. Under the 2025-2026 theme, “Catalyzing Healthy Cities,” WRI seeks pioneering projects that demonstrate how cities can improve livability, nature and sustainability, turning them into more resilient, inclusive, low-carbon places for people and the planet.  

An independent jury of leading urban thinkers will select one grand prize winner in early 2026 from five finalists based on their impact on communities and institutions, as well as the innovation and scalability of their ideas. The grand prize winner will receive $250,000, with finalists receiving $25,000 each. Submissions will close May 28, 2025, at midnight EST.

“As home to more than half the world’s population, cities have an outsized role in securing a healthy future for billions of people,” said Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO of WRI. “Escalating climate impacts and increasing inequality are straining economic development and diminishing quality of life worldwide. By showcasing the urban innovators who are successfully tackling these intersecting challenges, the Prize serves as a powerful driving force for knowledge-sharing and learning, accelerating positive change for people, nature and climate.”    

WRI welcomes project submissions from organizations that have demonstrated a tangible impact in creating vibrant, healthy communities and enhancing urban livability. Eligible initiatives range from cycling and electric mobility to zero-carbon buildings, urban natural areas restoration, and beyond. Businesses, NGOs, community groups, local governments, individuals and collaborations of all types may apply.  

“There are many pathways to healthy cities,” said Rogier van den Berg, Global Director for WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. “We are looking for thoughtful, human-scale solutions — projects designed around people's daily experiences and well-being — that show how nature and cities can thrive together. As cities worldwide are rising to meet challenges, they can influence change far beyond their own streets.”  

Past grand prize winners of the WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities have shown how cities can transform for the better. Re-Ciclo (2023-2024) tackled challenges in solid waste management in Fortaleza, Brasil, by integrating electric mobility and improving conditions for informal workers. Todos Al Parque (2021-2022), expanded from an inclusive green space project in Barranquilla, Colombia, into a city-wide effort revitalizing public health and the local economy. Sustainable Food Production for a Resilient Rosario (2020-2021) improved food security in Argentina by repurposing public and private peri-urban land for urban agriculture. The inaugural winner, School Area Road Safety and Improvements (SARSAI) (2019), created a highly impactful and replicable approach to creating safer journeys to school for children in Dar es Salaam and other African cities.  

“Cities are engines for innovation and are crucial to improving the quality of life and health of billions of people around the world,” said Jen Shin, Global Lead for the WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities. “When challenges arise, so do the smartest ideas. The Prize is a benchmark for hope in what is possible in the urban arena, awarding bold thinkers and transformative change-makers.”

To learn more about the WRI Ross Prize for Cities, submit your project and explore previous winners, visit prizeforcities.org.  

About World Resources Institute  

WRI works to improve people’s lives, protect and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and with partners in over 50 nations.

About WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities  

WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities is World Resources Institute’s program dedicated to shaping a future where cities work better for everyone. Together with partners around the world, we help create resilient, inclusive, low-carbon places that are better for people and the planet. Our network of more than 500 experts working from Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Netherlands, Mexico, Turkey and the United States combine research excellence with on-the-ground impact to make cities around the world better places to live. More information at wri.org/cities or on X @WRIRossCities.

 

iStock-1218722247-1280.jpg Cities WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities Cities Featured Popular Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities

Sharing Electricity Across Borders Could Bolster Energy Security margaret.overh… Tue, 02/25/2025 - 12:00

Energy security is a growing concern as more frequent heat waves and winter storms, ballooning populations, electrification, new data centers and manufacturing put additional demand on power systems.

While some countries are emphasizing 'energy independence' as a solution — often with a focus on fossil fuels — others are addressing energy security concerns more affordably and sustainably: by sharing electricity with their neighbors.

Sharing electricity through regional grids can help cost-effectively manage rising demand and improve energy security. Larger interconnected grids also add variety to the electricity resources available to grid operators. A geographically diverse suite of resources can help balance electricity supply and demand across different temperature ranges, weather patterns and time zones. In addition, adding fuel-free power and accessing electricity from a variety of sources can protect against fossil fuel market fluctuations and help hedge against fuel delivery failures.

But building interconnected grids across borders will require more political, financial and technical support.

Shared Grids in the EU and US Have Shown Resilience to Conflict and Storms

Europe's interlinked power system, which is managed through centralized institutions, has enabled countries to cooperate in overcoming energy challenges. For example, France was a top electricity exporter for over 40 years. But when many of its nuclear power facilities (which provide roughly 64% of the nation's electricity) needed repairs and maintenance in 2022, it was able to import power from Spain and the U.K.

The EU's shared grid has helped manage energy needs in times of conflict, too. In 2022, Ukraine disconnected from the Russian power grid for what was meant to be a 72-hour test of its own energy self-sufficiency — a precondition to join the European grid. Hours later, Russia invaded, and Ukraine was able to expedite its connection to the EU. This has helped mitigate the extent of power outages during the war. Several other Baltic states have recently followed suit and joined the EU network for greater security.

Electricians reconnect power lines after a Russian drone strike in Ukraine's Odesa region. Following Russia's invasion, Ukraine connected to Europe's regional energy grid, allowing it to import electricity during the war. Photo by Ukrinform/Alamy Stock Photo

In North America, several regional grids operated by centralized authorities span multiple states or provinces. These interconnected systems have proven more resilient than those relying on individual utilities with less robust sharing arrangements. During Winter Storms Uri and Elliot, for example, power was lost or took longer to restore where utilities had weaker connections or were less coordinated with the broader grid. The consequences of these power cuts can be grave, with loss of life and billions of dollars in economic damages.

Recognition for the Role of Regional Grids Is Building

Countries, states and provinces are increasingly looking to their neighbors as partners in power supply. There are a number of promising examples:

• China has been working towards a national unified electricity market system for more efficient and coordinated operation within both its provincial and interprovincial markets. Currently, different exchange centers trade power over provincial and interprovincial systems, such as State Grid and China Southern Power Grid. Over 60% of China's electricity is traded through these markets, and interprovincial trading accounted for about 20% of total power trading in 2023. Under its current 5-Year Energy Plan, the central government is promoting interprovincial transmission for large-scale renewable energy and requiring that at least 50% of new line capacity be allocated to renewable energy.
• In Southeast Asia — a major manufacturing hub with growing power demand — grid interconnectivity is regularly emphasized as a key enabler of clean, affordable and reliable electricity. ASEAN members states are currently working to renew a framework agreement and implementing protocols that would strengthen the ASEAN regional power grid. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and two regions of China are also striving to set up regional power trade as part of the Greater Mekong Subregion.
• The African Union (AU) launched the Africa Single Electricity Market to integrate Africa's five regional power pools into a unified electricity market. This initiative aims to boost energy security, optimize resource utilization, reduce energy costs and improve access to electricity to all 55 AU Member States, serving over 1.3 billion people.
• Even in regions where conflicts between countries have closed physical borders, electricity continues to flow, and projects are jointly planned. For instance, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have been operating a joint hydropower plant on the Ruzizi River since 1989 and have signed an agreement to add another.
• Mexico's national power system is part of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council that spans parts of the U.S. and Canada. Mexico is also connected to Guatemala, which participates in Central America's electricity markets (SIEPAC). However, unlike transmission lines between the U.S. and Canada, most cross-border connections between Mexico and its neighbors serve emergencies only. Mexico's current national energy plan would boost generation and grid investments by $23.4 billion. Building a stronger foundation for its power system could help enable stronger regional grid integration in the future.

How to Unlock the Benefits of Interconnection

Despite trends moving in a positive direction, regional electricity sharing remains limited: In 2018, just 728 terawatt hours of energy was traded across borders, accounting for about 2.8% of total electricity supplied. Many regions continue to depend on imported fossil fuels while renewable production is curtailed.

Setting up cross-border electricity sharing and grid infrastructure is challenging, and solutions vary by region. But tools and technical assistance are available. Roadmaps and principles to enable regional trade generally include setting targets, strengthening institutions, and harmonizing regulatory and technical requirements across borders. Next steps for regions seeking to improve and further expand regional trade include planning electricity infrastructure to anticipate the needs of future supply and demand and establishing cross-border renewable electricity tracking frameworks.

Ultra-high-voltage transmission carries power from the Baihetan hydropower station in Southwest China to more energy-hungry regions in the east. China is investing heavily in inter-provincial grid infrastructure that can help meet rising electricity demand with renewable resources. Photo by Xinhua/Alamy Stock Photo 1) Effective planning and benefits sharing

Transmission planning processes need to recognize the value of projects spanning multiple utility footprints. And they need to anticipate future needs. A recent federal rule in the U.S., for example, requires that regional transmission planning include scenarios 20 years into the future, quantify a set of economic benefits from grid infrastructure, and account for the transmission needs of state public policies.

It's also important to recognize that while trading electricity and building infrastructure can create overall net benefits, there may also be undesirable impacts for some. For example, power producers in regions with lower prices can benefit from connections to higher-price regions, and electricity consumers in these higher-price regions benefit from an influx of lower-cost electricity. But the convergence of the electricity prices in both regions, even if lower overall, means that consumers in lower-priced regions will see costs rise. Meanwhile, landowners may be asked or required to site infrastructure on their property for compensation, while the broader public can benefit from lower emissions.

Analyzing these impacts — some of which aren't readily monetizable — can be complex and have important equity considerations. Fairly allocating the costs for transmission investments based on their benefits to different stakeholders, and providing communities with benefits or joint ownership in infrastructure sited on their property, can help. To aid this effort, governments and developers can support local education, businesses and other development projects in communities affected by transmission projects.

2) Political will and coordination

Even though sharing electricity typically has net benefits, high upfront capital costs and coordination between planners unaccustomed to working together can present barriers. However, public commitments to clean energy procurement, and good interstate working relationships, can create the investment certainty and coordination needed for transmission buildout.

Utility-financed long-distance transmission projects in the U.S. were made possible in part by states' clean energy goals and their willingness to collaborate. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator worked with states and stakeholders to plan 17 regional lines in 2010, recognizing that wind power was growing in the region due to economics and state renewable energy targets.

3) Expanding and enabling efficient electricity markets

Construction of infrastructure alone will not produce efficient cross-border electricity sharing; this infrastructure must be put to good use. India's grid, for example, has few constraints on interstate transmission capacity. Its national government has been developing electricity markets since 2008 and added another market for grid stabilization services in 2023. But Indian states are not yet participating fully: The share of the total electricity traded in these markets averages in the single digits.

Governments and grid regulators can help remove market barriers and optimize across the "seams" between market regions. As of 2022, 25 European countries have participated in the Single Intraday Coupling (SIDC) market, allowing countries as far apart as Portugal and Norway to trade energy in hourly to 15-minute intervals. Central and Western Europe save roughly €116 million (US$122 million) per year from cross-country exchanges. These and other efforts highlighted above to revise market rules and enable robust participation will help make the most of the grid.

Working Together for a Clean, Reliable Energy Future

Regional electricity trade can offer significant benefits. Countries are increasingly looking across borders to build resilience, mitigate fuel delivery risks, reduce price volatility and meet ambitious clean energy targets. While progress in modernizing how we share electricity has been gradual, the world is quickly changing and presenting new risks to energy security. To mitigate these risks timely and affordably, regions can learn from each other to accelerate infrastructure investments and market implementation needed to scale electricity reliably and sustainably.

china-ultra-high-voltage-transmission.jpg Energy Energy electric grid Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Power System Reform
• Clean Energy Supply

Authors Sarah George Min Yuan Fairuz Loutfi Jaime Reyes Meron Tesfamichael Alex Dolan Joe Hack Jennifer Chen

US Clean Power Development Sees Record Progress, As Well As Stronger Headwinds shannon.paton@… Fri, 02/21/2025 - 12:14

After several record-breaking years, the U.S. clean energy sector faces a critical moment.

Solar deployment and electric vehicle (EV) sales broke records in 2023 and 2024. Renewables now dominate new power generation capacity, while new domestic clean energy manufacturing facilities are popping up around the nation.

However, headwinds are also getting stronger. Several challenges persist that are slowing deployment, including lack of sufficient grid capacity and large interconnection queues, permitting and siting challenges, high interest rates, and lingering supply chain issues. These factors have been holding clean power development back at a time when it needs to be surging ahead.

Meanwhile, the need for increased clean energy development has become even more urgent in recent years, as skyrocketing demand from data centers and more is leading to significant electricity load growth in the U.S. for the first time in decades. And with a new federal administration creating roadblocks for leasing and permitting wind energy, freezing funding, and threatening to upend policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it may become even harder to make progress.

Here, we take stock of recent successes and challenges to clean energy development in the U.S., using data through 2024:

Crimson Energy Storage Project in California. Battery storage grew substantially in the United States in 2023, with a projected doubling of capacity by 2024. Photo by U.S. government/Rawpixel Recent Trends in US Clean Power Development

Following the record-breaking outcomes of 2023, 2024 was another impressive year for clean energy deployment in the United States. These upward trends signal that clean electricity sources are an increasingly vital part of the U.S. economy and power system, with renewable sources and battery storage making up the vast majority of new additions to the grid.

Solar and battery storage continue to set installation records, while wind energy has plateaued.

Solar surpassed 2023’s record installations in 2024, adding an estimated 39.6 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, compared to 27.4GW in 2023. Installed solar capacity in the U.S. now totals about 220 GW, enough to provide over 7% of the nation’s electricity. This continues a decade-long trend of rapid growth in solar power.

Battery storage nearly doubled in 2024, with total installed capacity reaching almost 29 GW — and  projected to grow another 47% in 2025. This growth in capacity will help support the grid when variable renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind, are unavailable, making the U.S. power system more stable and secure.

At the same time, onshore wind capacity growth has tapered off, with only 5.3 GW of new generation added in 2024, significantly less than wind installation levels in previous years. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), installed wind capacity totaled 153 GW at the end of 2024. Limited growth of wind power resulted in part from a focus on repowering older facilities as well as continued challenges related to supply chains, financing, interconnection and permitting.  

Geothermal and nuclear see renewed interest

Carbon-free energy sources that can operate around the clock, such as geothermal and nuclear, are quickly gaining attention. Despite generating only 0.4% of the total U.S. utility-scale electricity mix, geothermal technologies are seeing interest from large energy buyers and utilities. For example, Fervo Energy recently announced the execution of two power purchase agreements (PPAs) with Southern California Edison that would add 320 MW of geothermal to the grid. New geothermal technologies can provide 24/7 power, have dropped in cost, and can be sited in a wide range of geographies.  

Over the last decade, nuclear power plants have been decommissioned at a faster rate than they have been built, with nuclear accounting for 18.6% of all U.S. generation through 2023. But it’s now seeing renewed interest from corporate purchasers. For example, in 2024, Microsoft signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with Constellation for nuclear energy from a previously shuttered unit at the Three Mile Island plant; Amazon said it would invest $500 million in small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs); and Google announced plans to purchase power from SMRs owned by Kairos Power.

Adding it up: Is the grid decarbonizing fast enough?

Taken all together, renewables vastly outpaced other generation sources and collectively accounted for around 90% of the United States’ new installed capacity in 2024. With the new projects online, renewables (including wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower) and battery storage now make up 30% of the country’s large-scale power generating capacity.  In 2024, all carbon free electricity sources, including nuclear, supplied nearly 44% of electricity, while renewables, including small-scale solar, supplied nearly 25%.

So where does this put us in terms of achieving a carbon free grid? Studies show that reaching 90% or more carbon-free electricity by 2035 — a key element of achieving a clean energy economy — would require 60-70 GW of new renewables per year over the next decade, as well as other forms of carbon-free power. Last year, the U.S. saw additions of about 45 GW of solar and wind combined. This increase from 2023 shows robust progress, but we still need more growth in carbon free generation to meet grid decarbonization targets.

Although EV sales reached a new record in 2024, growth has slowed.

In addition to the record battery storage installations by utilities in the power sector, battery electric cars continue to gain ground in the U.S.  A record-breaking 1.3 million electric vehicles (EVs) were sold in 2024—accounting for around 8.7% of new cars sold. Similar to 2023, EV sales in Q4 2024 set a new record for volume sold in a single quarter (365,824 vehicles), boosted in part by attractive lease deals and manufacturer discounts. EV volumes were also more evenly distributed across more manufacturers, according to Kelly Blue Book data.

While the total number of EVs sold set a record, the rate of EV sales growth continues to slow compared to previous years. The number of EVs sold in 2024 were up only 7.3% compared to 2023, slower than the 49% increase seen from 2022 to 2023.

The U.S. also continued to make progress in expanding EV charging infrastructure in 2024, adding more than 37,700 charging ports, including 12,500 fast chargers. The country now boasts more than 204,000 publicly available charging ports nationally.

But more chargers are needed to meet growing demand. Public and private investment is continuing, with states awarding $330 million to EV charging developers under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program in 2024. However, there is uncertainty over this program’s future given a recent executive order and actions by the Trump administration to block disbursement of these funds and a program pause by the Federal Highway Administration.

New domestic manufacturing facilities are helping to build a U.S. clean energy supply chain, but faster progress is needed.

While recent clean energy manufacturing has been dominated by places like China and the European Union, the U.S. has been scaling up its domestic supply chain, driven in part by investments from the CHIPs and Science Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act. The country will need to continue this expansion to stay competitive globally.

According to American Clean Power Association, at least 160 clean energy manufacturing facilities or expansions have been announced since August 2022, driven by tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, with 47 announced in 2024 alone. Collectively, these facilities are expected to result in 100,000 new manufacturing jobs and at least $500 billion in investment, $75 billion of which has already been spent. Domestic manufacturing of solar modules in particular grew substantially in 2024 to surpass 50 GW — enough to meet all existing U.S. solar demand — with five new or expanded manufacturing facilities in Alabama, Florida, Ohio and Texas. In addition, manufacturing of silicon cells for solar resumed in the U.S. in 2024 for the first time since 2019.

With this surge in investment, clean energy is a dominant driver of domestic jobs in the energy industry. According to Deloitte, clean energy jobs represented more than half of energy jobs added in 2023, with hiring for renewable energy — particularly solar — at twice the levels of the fossil fuel industry.

States are rolling out new policies and programs to support climate and clean energy action.

2024 saw some very encouraging policy developments at the state level, from 100% clean electricity commitments to enhanced vehicle emissions standards. Vermont updated its renewable portfolio standard to require that utilities achieve 100% clean energy by 2035. Maryland’s governor signed an executive order requiring the state to develop a framework for a 100% clean energy standard by 2035. Massachusetts passed a climate omnibus bill that is, in part, intended to accelerate clean energy deployment through permitting reform.

In addition to these important state policy actions, residents in several states voted to support pro-climate ballot initiatives during the November 2024 election. Washington state voters rejected a proposal to end a cap-and-trade program. Hawaii and California voters supported new funds for climate resilience. Louisiana voters ensured that revenues from state-owned clean energy is transferred into a coastal protection fund.

With so much uncertainty at the federal level going forward, states and cities can play an even more important role in energy policy over the next four years. They are demonstrating that there is support for continued clean energy progress.

Visitors inspect a turbine blade at Wild Horse Wind and Solar Energy Center in Washington state. Wind capacity grew less in 2023 than it did in 2022, but projections call for an uptick in 2024. Photo by Cindy Shebley/iStock Despite Progress, Headwinds to Clean Energy Development Are Growing Stronger

Despite this record-breaking progress and renewables’ growing share within the U.S. power sector, clean energy deployment has been stymied by several barriers. The industry has faced persistent challenges including insufficient transmission access, high interest rates, an uptick in local siting opposition and supply chain issues. These headwinds are becoming even stronger under the Trump administration.

Lack of sufficient transmission and interconnection queues are slowing clean energy deployment.

The U.S. transmission grid is in dire need of expansion, particularly given projections of rapidly rising demand. Studies estimate that transmission infrastructure will need to grow by as much as 57% by 2035 to meet increased electricity demand. Through November 2024, an estimated 275.5 miles of high-voltage (345 kV or greater) transmission lines have been deployed — a considerable increase from 2023’s 59.5 miles of high-voltage lines, but still insufficient given grid needs nationally. FERC estimates that an additional 1,236 miles of lines have a high probability of being completed by the end of April 2027.

Furthermore, interregional transmission is needed for grid reliability and energy security, particularly with electricity demands increasing. According to a recent study by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), at least 35 GW of additional transfer capability will be necessary by 2035 to ensure grid stability.

Lack of sufficient transmission capacity has prevented new clean energy projects from coming online. According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the current active capacity in U.S. interconnection queues is twice that of all existing U.S. power plants, with renewable energy projects representing over 95% of projects in the queue.

FERC Order 2023 addressed interconnection reforms such as updates to the processes transmission providers use to study and connect generation facilities to the power system, but it has yet to significantly address the interconnection queue backlogs. In addition, substantial progress was made in 2024 with the adoption of FERC Order 1920 (later modified as Order 1920a), the landmark transmission planning rule that addresses long-term planning and processes for allocating transmission costs.  Implementation will take time, and details of how regions comply remain to be seen, but the rule should help planners better anticipate future needs.

Local opposition to clean energy project siting is increasing.

Local opposition to clean energy projects continues to be a prominent concern for new development. Survey data from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab suggests that clean energy developers often believe local opposition is among the leading causes of project delays or cancelations. The data also suggests that developers often do not begin community engagement efforts until after a project site is selected, likely skipping over a key step of procedural justice and leading to more opposition and longer development timelines.

There was a sharp uptick in local opposition to clean energy projects and policies in 2024, some of which resulted in severe siting restrictions or outright bans. About 15% of U.S. counties established clean energy bans in 2024 – a more-than 110% increase from the previous year. A study by Columbia Law School identified 395 local restrictions to clean energy siting across 41 states, as well as 19 state-level policies that are sufficiently stringent to prohibit renewable project development.

Some states such as California, New York and Virginia have adopted policies to facilitate faster siting by transferring some responsibilities from the local to the state level, while a policy to do so in Michigan has faced significant opposition. These issues of state and local authority will likely continue to play out as new policies are implemented.

Interest rates remained high in 2024, keeping clean energy costs elevated.

Higher borrowing rates continue to weigh on the clean energy industry, increasing project costs. After rapidly raising interest rates in 2023 to battle inflation, the Federal Reserve announced several rate cuts in late 2024, bringing rates down to between 4.25% and 4.5%.  These rate cuts, however, have since slowed due to lingering concerns over inflation. The higher upfront capital costs of clean energy investments make them particularly sensitive to interest rate levels and borrowing costs relative to other electricity generation sources, which have more of their costs associated with variable fuel prices.

Despite modest interest rate cuts in 2024, the average prices of renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs) grew last year, though not as quickly as in 2023. Solar PPA prices rose 10.4% year-over-year, while wind PPA prices rose 14.1% year-over-year between 2023 and 2024. PPA prices are not expected to plateau until the 2030s.

Despite the higher prices, corporations continued to sign new clean energy deals in the first half of 2024, resulting in 32 corporate customers announcing 6.9 GW of new clean energy deals.

Higher costs for distributed solar have had significant impacts on the residential solar market as well. In California,  higher borrowing costs, as well as changes to the state’s net-metering policy (among other factors) have increased installation costs of solar plus storage systems by 17% for end-users. Following a rush to connect new solar PV systems under the previous net metering rules that offered better incentives, resident requests for solar installation quotes have fallen to about 60% of historical levels. Because of shifts in California and elsewhere, SEIA has projected a 26% national decline in the residential solar sector in 2024 compared to 2023.

Lingering supply chain issues continue to slow clean energy projects, while new trade tariffs will impact costs.

Shortages of transformers — which moderate voltages and are essential for connecting clean energy to the grid — have continued to plague the industry, delaying clean energy projects. According to Wood Mackenzie, the lead time to procure transformers jumped from 50 weeks in 2021 to 120 weeks in 2024. The timeline is even longer for large transformers — up to 210 weeks. At the same time, transformer prices have risen as much as 4-9 times in the last three years.

Tariffs are also increasingly affecting the industry, and proposed tariffs from the Trump administration will likely bring even larger impacts. In 2024, the Biden administration imposed aggressive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, solar cells, and some steel, tungsten and aluminum components in an effort to protect U.S. manufacturers. This included a doubling of the tariffs previously in place (increasing from 25% to 50%) on solar components from China, and a removal of the tariff exemption for solar production from four Southeast Asian countries where Chinese solar manufacturers had shifted production.

Higher production costs from tariffs can encourage domestic manufacturing growth, but have also resulted in higher costs of installations. Previous tariffs on solar PV components have been passed on to the consumer at a rate higher than 100% — a $1 tariff causes the final installation price to be $1.35 higher.  Research has also shown that while domestic manufacturing of some components did expand after previous solar tariffs were implemented, demand for solar installations would have been 17.2% higher in the absence of tariffs.

The Trump administration threatens new roadblocks to clean energy development.

The Trump administration threatens to exacerbate some of the persistent challenges to clean energy while also creating new roadblocks. The administration has already issued a slate of energy-related executive orders to undo activities from the Biden administration, encourage fossil fuel development, enable LNG exports, ease permitting regulations, pause offshore wind leases, slow EV uptake and freeze disbursements of funds. President Trump also declared a national energy emergency to address rising electricity demand and the need for new power generation and grid upgrades. While legal battles have begun, this unprecedented effort to block funding is creating widespread impacts in states and communities across the country, as well as impacting the domestic industry. 

The potential impacts of these and other issues affecting the future of the energy transition will be addressed more deeply in a forthcoming article.

Building a Clean Energy Future in the US

Solving the challenges facing clean energy is taking on new urgency, as the U.S. is seeing increasing electricity demand for the first time in decades. The clean energy industry is well positioned to provide this much-needed power while also creating jobs, boosting energy security and helping to improve the country’s economic competitiveness.  Now is the time to confront the mounting headwinds and invest in building a clean energy future that’s good for people, nature and the climate.

View past editions of this article:

• February 2024 Edition

installing-solar.jpeg Energy United States Energy Clean Energy renewable energy electric grid electric mobility Electric Mobility U.S. Climate Policy-Electric Vehicles U.S. Climate Policy-Clean Power Climate Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Clean Energy Supply
• Electric Vehicles in the U.S.
• Electric Mobility
• Maximizing Local Adoption of Inflation Reduction Act Clean Energy Incentives

Authors Lori Bird Andrew Light Ian Goldsmith

How to Reach $300 Billion — and the Full $1.3 Trillion — Under the New Climate Finance Goal margaret.overh… Thu, 02/20/2025 - 13:31

Nations set a new climate finance goal last year, committing to deliver at least $300 billion annually for developing countries' climate action by 2035. Developed nations agreed to take the lead in meeting this target.

The goal, known as the new collective quantified goal, or NCQG, also includes a much larger target. It calls on all actors to work toward mobilizing $1.3 trillion in international climate finance over the same timeframe; much closer to the amount developing countries truly need.

This finance, alongside their domestic finance, is essential for developing countries to adopt low-carbon technologies, protect themselves from climate threats and unleash green development. But it doesn't benefit only them: Stronger action in the developing world is needed to halt climate change and invest in sustainable growth globally. It's about building a safer and more prosperous future for everyone.

We delved into the new finance goal, including what it will take to reach the $300 billion threshold — and what moving beyond it, toward $1.3 trillion, could look like.

Is the New Climate Finance Goal Enough?

The NCQG's $300 billion target is the largest climate finance commitment countries have ever agreed to and represents an important down payment for climate action. Meeting it will be a critical milestone. But finance cannot stop there.

The High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) estimates developing countries (excluding China) need to spend $2.7 trillion annually by 2030 to meet climate and nature-related goals. $1.4 trillion of this would come from domestic sources and $1.3 trillion from abroad.

$1.3 trillion is therefore a more accurate reflection of developing countries' needs by 2035, and so the more important target. But of course, it is the much larger hill to climb. Important, too, is understanding how and where funds are likely to flow.

Is $300 Billion Achievable?

In short, yes. Though current political headwinds make it more difficult, achieving the goal remains possible.

In 2022, the latest data available, developed countries delivered around $116 billion to developing countries for climate action. This exceeded the previous climate finance goal of $100 billion annually, which the NCQG replaces. We reviewed the sources of this finance, looking at how funding trends are likely to grow over the next decade, and found that $300 billion by 2035 is very much in reach.

How this money is raised, though, could have implications for the type of finance made available and who can access it most easily.

Where Would the Money Come From?

We can generally assume that similar types of finance will be counted toward the $300 billion goal as were counted toward the $100 billion goal. This would include bilateral finance (country to country), multilateral finance (such as from multilateral development banks (MDBs) and multilateral climate funds), and private finance mobilized by public funds. Under the NCQG, there's also a possibility to count "alternative sources" of climate finance, such as international taxes or rechanneled IMF "special drawing rights" (a type of international reserve asset).

Moving beyond $300 billion, toward $1.3 trillion, will require much more private investment in climate action than we've seen to date in addition to increases from the sources above.

Public multilateral finance is the biggest source

Public multilateral finance involves public funds going from one country to another through a multilateral entity, like a development bank. This category represents the highest share of international climate finance so far — $51 billion of the $116 billion delivered in 2022 — and will likely continue to do so.

Multilateral development banks

MDBs like the World Bank provide a significant portion of international climate finance, and there are many ideas on the table for how to further supercharge their efforts.

At COP29, MDBs committed to providing $120 billion in climate finance to low- and middle-income countries by 2030; roughly double what they provided in 2022. Part of this growth is likely intended to come from an increase in the percentage of their funding going to climate action. And part will come from continued growth in total MDB finance, largely as a result of reforms to free up capital.

Additional growth is possible — especially if countries pay in more capital, increasing the base amount against which MDBs can lend. While such increases may be unlikely today with current political dynamics, they could feasibly happen before 2035. The IHLEG estimates that $60 billion in capital increases over a ten-year period could bring MDB climate and nature-related finance up to around $240 billion per year. This figure refers to growth across the entire MDB system, encompassing a range of banks and funds with varied shareholder structures.

Some of the increase in MDB climate finance will also come from a change in the way their contributions are counted. Under the $100 billion goal, only 70% of MDB's total climate finance was included in the tally. This is because not all countries channeling climate finance through MDBs were considered contributors to the goal. But any country can voluntarily contribute to the $300 billion — meaning potentially all climate finance flowing from MDBs to low- and middle-income countries could be counted.

If MDBs meet their 2030 target of $120 billion, this would comprise 40% of the $300 billion goal. This is around the same percentage the MDBs provided toward the $100 billion goal in 2022 (41%). If they could reach $240 billion, per the IHLEG's estimate, this would cover 80%.

People navigate heavily flooded streets in Sylhet, Bangladesh in June 2024. International climate finance helps countries build resilience to and cope with the aftermath of worsening disasters. Photo by H M Shahidul Islam/iStock

Private finance mobilized by MDBs

MDBs also announced that they would leverage $65 billion in private finance for climate action in developing countries by 2030, up from around $15 billion in 2022. There are a variety of ways they can do this, such as offering guarantees or insurance on climate projects to lower risks and attract private investors.

The $65 billion assumes that MDBs can leverage 54 cents in private finance for every $1 they spend (a mobilization ratio of 1:0.54) and meet their $120 billion goal. For comparison, they mobilized 38 cents per dollar spent in 2023 (a 1:0.38 ratio).

If MDBs deliver $240 billion in climate finance by 2030, they could mobilize as much as $91-$130 billion annually in private funds (reflecting a 1:0.38 and 1:0.54 ratio, respectively).

Multilateral climate funds

Multilateral climate funds, such as the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund, are specifically dedicated to providing climate finance in developing nations and are financed primarily through governments pledges. Historically they've made up a very small proportion of international climate finance: just $3.4 billion (3%) in 2022, down from $4.2 billion in 2021.

Despite their modest size, the climate funds are valued by many for allowing direct access to developing country institutions. They also provide a higher rate of grants and highly concessional financing (loans with more favorable terms) than other sources. Between 2016 and 2022, 54% of finance from the climate funds came in the form of grants, compared to 39% of bilateral finance and 9% for the MDBs.

At the 2024 UN climate summit (COP29), countries agreed to at least triple the amount these funds disburse by 2030. This would require wealthy countries to significantly increase their contributions. If tripled, the funds would provide around $10 billion annually by 2030, or less than 4% of the $300 billion, with additional growth possible by 2035.

Public bilateral finance has grown, but faces political headwinds

Bilateral finance involves public funds directed from one country to another. In 2022, bilateral finance accounted for $41 billion (35%) of the $116 billion provided and mobilized.

The amount of bilateral finance needed will hinge on what other sources deliver:

• If MDBs reach their stated target of $120 billion and mobilize $65 billion in private finance, and if the multilateral climate funds cover $10 billion, this leaves a gap of $105 billion for bilateral institutions to fill.
• If MDB finance instead reaches the higher estimate of $240 billion, at current private sector mobilization rates, we could exceed the $300 billion target without any bilateral funds.

Bilateral climate finance doubled between 2013 and 2022, from $22.5 billion to $41 billion. If another doubling occurs by 2035, as called for by the IHLEG, bilateral finance would reach around $80 billion. But there's no guarantee of this: With strong political headwinds against international climate and development finance in many developed nations, significant growth in bilateral finance may be challenging — though the ten-year window leaves room for political cycles to turn.

Economic growth can help increase overseas development assistance to a degree, especially in countries like Denmark, where it is tied to gross national income (GNI). If we assume increases in bilateral finances of just 2% to follow an estimated 2% annual growth in GNI, it will reach a relatively modest $53 billion by 2035. It is also possible that some developing nations will increase and voluntarily report finance as part of the efforts to reach $300 billion.

Private finance mobilized by bilateral public finance

In 2022, developed countries reported that they mobilized $9.2 billion in private finance for climate action in developing countries. With bilateral finance reaching $41 billion that year, this implies a mobilization ratio of 22 cents per dollar spent.

Unlike the MDBs, countries have not stated a new target for mobilized private finance. If we assume bilateral finance reaches $53 billion in 2035 (a 2% annual growth rate), the same rate of mobilization as in 2022 would result in $11.7 billion by 2035. If bilateral finance were to double to $80 billion by 2035, the same mobilization rate could leverage $17.6 billion in private finance.

Solar-powered chargers for electric motorbikes in Kigali, Rwanda. Climate finance supports green projects that can help developing countries improve lives and sustainably grow their economies. Photo by IMF Photo/Kim Haughton/Flickr Alternative sources can now be counted, too

In addition to multilateral and bilateral finance, the NCQG recognizes "alternative sources" — such as international taxes or solidarity levies — as a potential option for raising finance toward the $300 billion goal.

Some experts have suggested a tax on international flights, applied to airlines based on greenhouse gas emissions, or wealth taxes as ways to raise finance for climate action. These measures are attractive in part because they could introduce entirely new funding streams. The IMF estimates that a carbon tax on international transportation emissions could bring in up to $200 billion per year, which could then in theory be disbursed as international climate finance.

Another option is rechanneling the IMF's special drawing rights, which are a type of international reserve. In 2022, nations with larger economies agreed to reallocate special drawing rights to developing countries. So far, this has resulted in around $40 billion in finance being distributed through the Resilience and Sustainability Trust, which mainly helps low-income and vulnerable middle-income countries tackle climate risks. Countries have also agreed to re-channel special drawing rights through MDBs and use them as hybrid capital. Moving forward, countries could agree to reallocate additional special drawing rights and modernize the framework to allow for more regular issuances — though governments currently appear reluctant to take this step.

High integrity, well-managed carbon markets also channel funds for developing nations' climate action, in theory. But the idea of counting these investments toward the NCQG is highly controversial, since any emissions reductions are claimed by the buyer (meaning they don't count toward the developing country's own climate goals). Governments have agreed that the Adaptation Fund (one of the climate funds) will receive a 5% share of proceeds under the Paris Agreement's international carbon crediting mechanism. But it remains to be seen whether this will count toward the $300 billion goal.

How Will Finance Be Delivered?

The NCQG is not just about the amount of finance developing countries receive, but also the type.

How finance is delivered matters immensely. Many of the poorest countries are already struggling with unsustainably high debt levels and cannot afford to take on new, high-interest-rate loans, even for climate projects which can aid their growth and reduce risks. They may require a higher proportion of grants or highly concessional funding — meaning loans with, for example, low interest rates and/or longer repayment periods. (This can be useful in the context of a more systematic approach to debt restructuring and relief.) In other countries, and in sectors where an economic or financial return is expected, loans and private finance can be a more appropriate investment type.

While the NCQG noted that grant-based and highly concessional finance is particularly important "for adaptation and responding to loss and damage in developing countries," it fell short of setting concrete targets for this.

In 2022, around 39% of bilateral and 9% of multilateral climate finance came in the form of grants, which mainly went to low-income countries. Between 2016 and 2022 these countries received 64% of their climate finance in grants, compared to around 12% for middle-income countries.

Going forward, even maintaining the current percentage of climate finance that is provided as grants or highly concessional finance will require concerted effort. Much of the growth in MDB finance, for example, is likely to come from reforms and capital increases that tend to boost lending to middle-income countries, not grants to low-income countries.

Similarly, if a larger portion of the $300 billion comes from mobilized private finance — as predicted by the MDBs — this will tend to flow through private loans or equity investments, not grants or highly concessional finance.

Who Will Receive the Funds?

International climate finance is meant exclusively for developing countries, but this is a broad and diverse group of nations. Who exactly will receive finance, and how much, was not laid out in the NCQG — though the final text did recognize that small island developing states and least developed countries are particularly in need of assistance, especially for adaptation and loss and damage.

In 2022, lower-middle income countries received 46.5% of reported climate finance, upper middle-income countries received 34.5%, and low-income countries received just 11.1%. A small number of high-income countries received 3.4% of the financing, and 20.4% of the funds were not allocated by income group. (Some developing countries classified as high-income may receive investments because they are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as small island states like Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados.)

Although climate finance approximately doubled between 2016 and 2022, its distribution across these income groups has stayed relatively constant. But major shifts in funding sources could potentially upend precedent. For example, if the growth in MDB finance is largely through non-concessional loans, this will tend to favor middle income rather than low-income countries. The same is true of mobilized private finance if it ends up playing a larger role. Only 3% of mobilized private finance counted in 2022 went to low-income countries.

Ultimately, the overall percentage of finance received is less important than how favorable the rates and terms are — or the share of finance on "grant equivalent" terms (meaning the amount that would have been provided if the finance was a grant, before taxes or other charges). Middle income countries will likely continue to receive the most finance overall, given the size and relative strength of their economies and the larger ticket sizes of low carbon investments there. What is important is that the lowest income and most vulnerable countries receive a good share of the grant and highly concessional finance, especially for adaptation and loss and damage.

How Do We Move from $300 Billion to $1.3 Trillion — the Real Target?

While $300 billion should be within reach, the real challenge will be how to scale up finance "from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035" — the truer measure of what developing countries need.

Clearly, meeting the $1.3 trillion target will be a steep climb. Funding will need to come from the same sources listed above, as well as private financial flows not mobilized by public funds. The latest IHLEG report suggests that around half of the $1.3 trillion, or $650 billion, will come from cross-border private finance and the other half from international public funds.

Raising that amount of public funding will require much more ambition from wealthy nations and significant capital increases at the MDBs. In addition, countries will likely need to forge new international actions and agreements to leverage "alternative" sources of finance like international taxes, with a significant proportion of the funds dedicated to climate action in developing nations.

Growing private finance will also be a challenging — but vital — feat. While current data on cross-border climate investment in developing countries is limited, and estimates vary, $650 billion is almost certainly a massive leap from the present. Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) estimates that private climate finance to developing nations (excluding China) reached around $15 billion in 2022. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that foreign private investments just in renewable energy in least-developed countries reached $16 billion that same year.

Workers from a German-Filipino solar energy company install panels at a house in Quezon City, Philippines. International climate finance is an important source of funds for renewable energy and other green projects in low- and middle-income countries. Photo by IMF Photo/Lisa Marie David/Flickr

Substantially increasing private finance for developing nations will require efforts from high-, middle-, and low-income countries alike. Governments wanting to attract private sector investment need to set ambitious targets and transition plans, enhance investment environments, and work together with the private sector to develop investment opportunities and shift risk perceptions. From the financier side, it will be important to drive forward measures such as scaling up and replicating effective risk sharing and credit enhancement mechanisms, tapping into long term institutional investment, and increasing the role of national development banks and local currency.

"Country platforms" which bring public, private, domestic and international finance together behind green transition plans and policies, can play a role in mobilizing private finance and ensuring an efficient capital stack.

How Will Progress Be Measured?

Countries have decided to adopt the enhanced transparency framework under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the transparency system for the new finance goal. Through this system, countries will report on the finance they provide and receive and what it's used for. In addition, the UNFCCC's Standing Committee on Finance will prepare a "collective progress" report biennially to reflect on progress to date, drawing on a variety of sources.

But questions remain; particularly around how the $1.3 trillion target will be monitored, as it covers an array of funding sources that will not be reported through the UNFCCC system. Additional reporting and review of this — particularly in fora such as the G20, where Finance Ministers and Financial Institutions are present — will be important.

Charting a Path Forward

The NCQG represents an important — possibly transformative — step toward a safer and more sustainable future. But this hinges on how it's executed.

$300 billion is within arm's reach, as long as MDBs continue along their reform path and countries maintain contributions. The important remaining questions are how to ensure the right funds are matched to resource needs and that finance reaches those who need it most.

But where countries should truly be setting their sights is the full $1.3 trillion. This should be a guiding star as we head toward 2035, as it's not only the better measure of need, but also the true ambition the climate crisis demands.

While we have until 2035 to reach the finance targets agreed to in Baku, several international summits this year present critical opportunities to build momentum:

• At the Finance in Common Summit in February, public development banks, especially national development banks, can demonstrate how they are working as a system to mobilize more climate finance.
• In June, many leaders from governments, development finance institutions, civil society organizations and elsewhere will gather at the International Conference for Finance for Development, held once a decade. This is a prime opportunity for these players to recommit to bolstering financing for sustainable development, with a more integrated approach to development and climate action.
• At the BRICS summit this July, Brazil, China and India have an opportunity to outline how they will step into a greater leadership role on climate action, including in finance, in the global arena.
• At the 2025 UN climate summit (COP30) in November, Brazil and Azerbaijan (the 2024 and 2025 COP hosts) will present a roadmap for reaching the $1.3 trillion target. Other actors could help build confidence that this roadmap is achievable by announcing new efforts such as country platforms, finance commitments from the private sector and progress toward establishing solidarity levies.
• Leaders at the G20 summit, held immediately after COP30, could use this opportunity to lay out how to overcome economic hurdles faced by developing nations, including unsustainable debt and high costs of capital, that put the brakes on climate investments.

Leaders should seize these opportunities to chart a path forward, overcome headwinds and ultimately deliver the finance the world needs to confront the climate crisis.

solar-farm-valenzuela.jpg Finance Finance climate finance low carbon development multilateral development banks international climate policy Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• International Climate Finance
• Setting a New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance
• Finance for Developing Country Climate Action

Authors Natalia Alayza Gaia Larsen

Are ‘Country Platforms’ the Key to Delivering Green Growth at Scale? wil.thomas@wri.org Wed, 02/19/2025 - 16:23

Download

 

For decades, the world has wrestled with a critical question: How do you finance climate action at scale, while also growing economies and improving people’s lives?

So far, the world has focused on raising the money needed to support developing countries that are the fastest growing and most impacted by climate change. We saw some limited progress on this last year at the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan. Wealthy nations agreed to lead the way in providing $300 billion in climate finance annually by 2035, while all nations committed to work towards mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually from all financing sources. Achieving the higher target will be exceedingly difficult, especially in light of the recent stop to U.S. international funding and weakening European support, but it is necessary and possible.

But in addition to just raising the capital, the world needs to significantly improve the way it delivers finance for green growth. This is fundamental to both making every precious dollar count and ensuring countries have the resources and political space to achieve results people can see and feel.

A tool called “Country Platforms” is emerging as a promising solution — but it will only work if we learn from lessons of the past and invest well in country capacity.

What Are 'Country Platforms' and Why Do We Need Them?

The current international climate finance system is siloed, inefficient and fragmented.

Money comes from many different sources, including governments, multilateral development banks (MDBs) and almost 100 climate funds — all with different, often uncoordinated requirements. Mitigation finance, which needs to be mobilized at scale where emissions reductions are cheapest, remains largely small-scale and piecemeal, attracting insufficient private investment. Countries and communities have to demonstrate that climate resilience measures are separate to development, even when the most cost-effective solutions deliver both.

This has led to growing financing gaps, overstretched public institutions, frustrated populations and ever-more fraying trust. Reform in the way climate finance is delivered is no longer a choice, but a necessity.

While all the pieces of the finance jigsaw — public and private, national and international, development and climate — need to be fitted together and sequenced with policy and institutional reform, no one international organization or group of leaders has oversight over all the parts of the puzzle. The G20 has embarked on important work to reform the multilateral development and climate finance system from the top down, but this is politically challenging and slow.

Enter “Country Climate and Development Platforms.” While there is no one definition, the term typically refers to efforts to bring together myriad sources of finance at the country level to invest in sectoral or economy-wide transformations that achieve both domestic and international goals.

We have seen several examples of “Country Climate and Development Country Platforms” (or “Country Platforms” for short) emerge in recent years. “Just Energy Transition Partnerships” have been pioneered by South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam and Senegal. Multi-sectoral “Country Platforms” have been launched in both vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and Barbados, as well as in larger, wealthier countries like Egypt, Brazil and Colombia. 

The concept behind Country Platforms is not entirely new. In the late 1990s, development assistance was in similar disarray, a debt crisis was mounting and the world lacked a coherent set of goals. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) process, the Millennium Development Goals, the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development, and a series of internationally agreed aid effectiveness principles in the 2000s allowed for a coordinated scale-up of development assistance and debt relief, aligned behind country-led, coherent plans, focused on achieving transformational results.

As presidents of this year’s G20 and UN climate summit (COP30), South Africa and Brazil are championing the idea of Country Platforms, with the hope that perhaps a dozen new ones will be announced this year. Many countries are considering it.  

If designed effectively, these Country Platforms could be transformational, offering the chance to secure the lofty goal of financing green growth. But this will only happen if they both learn from the past and invest in the required capacity for countries to simultaneously achieve climate and development goals.

As governments design and implement these Country Platforms, six principles will be critical:

6 Ways to Make Country Platforms More Effective1) Ensure country leadership.

Much has been made of the importance of platforms being “country-led.” Above all, platforms should be owned and led at the highest political level. Domestic support, transparency and accountability for policy and institutional reforms; appropriateness in scope and nature for the country context; and international finance aligning with domestic priorities also matter.

High level political leadership at the country level proved essential during both earlier “development platforms” and more recent Country Climate and Development Platforms, both for setting a bold vision and building broad support across the government, economy and society. While imbalances of commitment and power led some development platforms to be more of a coordination mechanism for donor priorities, countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda’s strong vision and commitment from the top ensured donor support was fully aligned to long-term national plans, contributing to rapid gains in human development. Kenya showed the importance of domestic support and accountability for policy reforms, even if regional and external pressure helped to reinforce it.

While many Country Climate and Development Platforms have also benefitted from strong country leadership, the JETP model might have needed more adaptation for different country contexts, for instance Indonesia’s comparatively younger coal plants. In South Africa, competing priorities between domestic stakeholders and international donors created uncertainty, with donors often providing whatever finance they had, rather than flexing their instruments to fit the need.  

Future efforts around Country Platforms should lean in to enable the highest level of political leadership, reinforcing domestic support, transparency and accountability. There should be flexibility in their content and form, reflecting country contexts and needs, whilst ensuing finance is well-aligned.

2) Integrate climate with growth and development.

The latest G20 expert group report argued that for climate transitions to succeed, they need to be based on a longer-term vision that reconciles countries’ growth, development, jobs and climate objectives. It calls for a whole-of-economy transformation by putting climate (and nature) at the heart of a country’s medium-term macro-economic and sectoral modelling, planning and financing.

Unless countries make tough choices about the direction of their economy overall, well-meaning efforts to transform, for example, the energy sector, could be undermined by contradictory incentives from the country’s tax, subsidy, trade or industrial policies.

PRSPs sought to mainstream poverty alleviation into broad-based growth, institutionalizing this goal through macro-economic reforms, medium-term budgets and nested sector strategies. Examples from South Africa’s JETP to Egypt’s “Nexus of Water, Food and Energy” show how Country Platforms allow countries to pull climate out of its environment ministry silo and develop sectoral and cross-sectoral transformation plans.

However, many Country Climate and Development Platforms have suffered from the lack of an overall green macro-economic framework — or even a comprehensive sectoral plan. For example, a separate Department Mineral Resources and Energy electricity plan drove inconsistencies in electricity policy and therefore price signals, when compared to South Africa’s JETP,. Indonesia’s JETP left out off-grid industrial power plants. Brazil and Colombia have more comprehensive, integrated approaches to green economic transformation, but their projects listed for international finance on their Country Platform are not included in their countries’ core budgets.

Country Platforms should be clear from the outset whether they aim to support broad or narrow goals. Where they have narrow goals, countries and their international partners should be aware of some of the risks to systematic transformation. It possible, they should seek to build towards a broader shift over time.

3) Put people at the heart of the process.

Successful large-scale economic transformations need to mobilize the capacities of diverse parts of society and put people at the center of processes and outcomes.

Governments can set direction and policy incentives. The private sector provides dynamism and creativity. The academic community provides insights. Civil society can mobilize the grassroots and, along with parliaments, hold governments to account. Decision-making processes ideally need to include all these players, particularly those who stand to lose from a transition, to secure a sustainable political settlement. Meanwhile, those most vulnerable to negative impacts need transition support, such as workforce retraining, social support and economic diversification.

PRSP processes that involved broad-based participation sparked a more open and sustainable policy-making process, especially at the sectoral level. South Africa’s JETP embedded the concept of a “just transition,” consulting across government and with labor unions and civil society.

However, the level of inclusion in PRSP processes tended to reflect how open that government already was to consultation. Efforts at inclusive processes have been mixed in JETPs, with Indonesia yet to institutionalise consultations with fossil fuel workers. Even in South Africa, where the JETP funded measures to mitigate the social impacts on coal-dependent workers and communities, the low level of grants (4%) in the initial finance package and closing of the Komati coal plant before financial assistance was available meant that local communities did not feel the transition was just. They ultimately called for the coal-fired power station re-open.

Countries developing platforms can share insights about how to put the full range of actors at the heart of the transition process. Approaches, limitations and risks will vary, in line with the political economy of each country. Sufficient support should explicitly be provided to allow for timely consultation and transition activities. 

4) Mobilize the right type of finance, at the appropriate scale.

Successful Country Platforms need to allow different types of finance — public, private, domestic and international — to be far more coordinated and coherent. Public finance should be as catalytic as possible.

This increases efficiency, leverage and scale. Aligning diverse financing sources behind investments allows each type of finance to be matched to its use and risk appetite, working efficiently and transparently as part of a well-governed system.

PRSP-era platforms coordinated multi-donor, programmatic finance behind government plans, blending IMF support and MDB loans with bilateral grants and debt relief through “multi-donor groups” and “sector-wide approaches.” JETPs have blended grants, concessional loans, patient capital and de-risking and credit enhancing instruments like guarantees, racking up commitment at scale: $12.9 billion in South Africa, with the intent to leverage $98 billion in total (the bulk of it from the private sector); $20 billion in Indonesia (half of it coming from the private sector); $15 billion in Vietnam; and nearly $3 billion in Senegal.

Source: “Resource Mobilization Plan: Implementing Vietnam’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP)”, December 2023

However, as of early 2025, approved JETP investments stood at only $1.3 billion in South Africa and $1 billion in Indonesia, while in Vietnam and Senegal investments are still under development. More work is needed to unlock private finance at scale. As more Country Platforms are developed in low-income countries and small island states, countries will need to balance private finance with affordable, long-term public finance — including budgetary finance such as the IMF’s Resilience Accessibility Facility — and more systematic approaches to debt sustainability, restructuring and relief.

To make effective use of resources, Country Platforms should be accompanied by a framework that allocates scarce concessional finance in line with both climate and development impacts. Adaptation and development finance should be treated as mutually reinforcing, even indistinguishable. Lowest-cost finance should be focused on the poorest and most vulnerable countries, and least commercial investments. Mitigation finance should be focused on lowest-cost emissions reductions, using the least concessional finance necessary to achieve the investment and outcome required. These investments should be complemented by public funding for technical assistance, transitional subsidies and social protection.

Work on Country Platforms should connect with efforts to increase the mobilization of private finance and develop resource allocation frameworks which focus on results. Support from countries like China and the Gulf should be incorporated.

5) Set strong foundational policies, institutions and pipelines.

To be successful, Country Platforms need enabling policies, institutions and pipelines.

Without these, investment cannot flow at scale. For example, renewable investments need prior reforms to market access and energy subsidy and price regimes, in addition to upgraded grids. Public and private actors need to work together to develop a pipeline of investment projects with sufficient information and financial structuring to allow private investors to assess the projects’ feasibility, risks and potential return.

JETPs have galvanized this effort. Vietnam’s Resource Mobilization Plan and Indonesia’s Comprehensive Investment and Policy Plan spelled out their intended policy actions and investment priorities for achieving net-zero emissions. In Indonesia, the Energy Transition Mechanism has PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (PT SMI)  working with partners to jointly develop blended finance initiatives. Bangladesh’s Climate and Development Platform focuses on supporting the development of project pipelines that can also attract private funds.

However, sequencing and partnership matter. The announcement of Indonesia’s JETP before the necessary enabling policies and pipeline were in place has been seen as one of the main factors delaying finance and reducing trust. Where investors have not been brought into the process early enough, policies and regulation have often proven insufficient and pipelines unbankable.

Countries and their partners should give careful consideration to sequencing and build feedback loops between governments and investors to keep improving these enablers. Specialized public-private project development facilities can play an important role. 

6) Focus on delivery and minimize transaction costs

Country Platforms are meant to simplify things by having a single, coordinated approach to financing. They should allow financiers to come in quickly to support ambitious governments at scale, helping them move through the sometimes challenging waters of early transformation and deliver results for people.

This has proven easier to say than do. PRSP and HIPC processes risked overloading low-capacity governments. It took some years to harmonize and simplify aid processes, and even then, this was not entirely successful.  JETPs have been critiqued for their complexity and lack of alignment among and within donors, recipients, MDBs and private investors. Investor institutions, including MDBs and bilateral institutions, have at times struggled to modify their individual approval and contracting processes to reduce administrative burdens.

Financial institutions and governments should identify ways to reduce duplicative administrative burdens and speed up financial flows. Ideas include using joint project preparation facilities, pooled funding arrangements, and harmonizing or agreeing to use each other’s due diligence, project approval and reporting processes. Partners need to decide when they want to back a government showing serious commitment — and back them rapidly at scale.

A Case for Agreed Principles and a Joined-Up Capacity-Building Offer

Country Platforms have the potential to apply well-established principles from development effectiveness, updated to take account of lessons learned and the added complexity of meeting both climate and development goals. Mutual accountability around such principles — with more predictable roles, responsibilities and sequencing — could help make them a reality. 

However, capacity-building will be key. This is needed to develop the relatively young practice of green growth transitions. And it is essential for resolving the tension between mobilizing finance rapidly while ensuring the building blocks of an enabling vision, policies, institutions, pipeline and political support are in place. The time has come for partners to make a clear offer of long-term technical assistance, capacity-building and peer learning for governments, as well as for the wider ecosystem of think tanks, universities and civil society.

Finally, lessons from the past show that the political economy of Country Platforms matters. Successfully delivering a transformation as significant as shifting onto a green growth pathway takes skill both from the political leaders in the country and those helping power the transformation with investment. Understanding and patiently navigating the political (and geopolitical) dynamics, rather than treating Country Platforms as a technocratic exercise, will be essential to their success.

By establishing clear principles for success — backed by a comprehensive capacity-building offer and a keen awareness of the political economy — Climate and Development Country Platforms could become a key tool for resolving the critical question of how to implement green growth at scale.

Finance Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Melanie Robinson Crispian Olver

In Sub-Saharan Africa, Nature-Based Solutions Take Root margaret.overh… Wed, 02/19/2025 - 06:00

For the 21 million residents of Lagos, Nigeria, climate change is not a distant concept — it is a current reality. Over the past decade, the city has experienced devastating floods, exacerbated by the loss of over half of its wetlands that previously captured and slowed floodwaters. By 2050, the risk of climate-induced flooding could be twice as high as it is today, affecting an estimated 40 million people.

Communities in the Horn of Africa face their own threats — not from flooding but from a lack of water. The region is experiencing its longest drought on record. Millions of people are facing hunger as a result, many of whom are now displaced as climate refugees.

These scenarios are becoming more common across sub-Saharan Africa. The region is disproportionately impacted by climate change, despite contributing the least to global greenhouse gas emissions causing the crisis.

Yet at the same time, communities are increasingly adopting a powerful tool to build resilience to climate threats: nature-based solutions.

Nature-Based Solutions Gain Prominence in Sub-Saharan Africa

According to a new report from WRI and the World Bank, developed in collaboration with the African Development Bank, projects rooted in nature-based solutions are gaining momentum in sub-Saharan Africa. Between 2012 and 2023, the region saw nearly 300 new nature-based resilience projects that collectively secured over $21 billion in funding. And between 2012 and 2021, the number of new projects steadily grew by an average of 15% per year.

While the name may sound technical, nature-based solutions refer to a well-known and intuitive set of approaches that aim to protect, manage and restore natural systems — such as forests or wetlands — to benefit people, nature and the climate simultaneously.

These natural systems can build resilience against hazards like flooding, heat or drought. Critically, they often also produce additional benefits for communities — such as creating jobs, boosting farm yields, increasing incomes, protecting biodiversity and more. For example, planting trees on hillsides can stabilize soils, reduce erosion and enhance water quality for downstream communities by controlling sediment and filtering pollutants, helping to protect crop yields and safeguard rural livelihoods.

Nature-based solutions can also be integrated with traditional built infrastructure, such as roads or dams, to enhance resilience and cost-effectiveness. Using mangroves alongside sea walls to improve coastal protection is one example of this hybrid approach, sometimes referred to as "green-gray infrastructure."

Nature-Based Projects Are Diverse

In Tanzania, the Msimbazi Basin Development Project showcases how impactful large-scale green-gray infrastructure projects can be for local residents.

Dar es Salaam, the largest city in East Africa and home to over 5 million people, faces severe flooding every year, threatening lives and the local economy. In 2024, a two-day flood killed at least 155 people. It destroyed low-lying neighborhoods along the rivers that lead into the Indian Ocean. And it disrupted work, school and other activities for hundreds of thousands across the city.

The $260 million Msimbazi Basin initiative, funded by the World Bank and other multilateral donors, aims to protect Dar es Salaam from such extreme flooding in the future by combining river restoration, wetland rehabilitation and engineered solutions, such as dams. It exemplifies the "green-gray" approach that integrates natural systems — such as wetlands that absorb excess water and improve water quality — with traditional engineered infrastructure — such as terracing and drainage channels — to enhance urban resilience.

Such large-scale projects are emerging across sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 297 projects we analyzed, over 75% were large-scale initiatives that secured between $1 million and $500 million in funding. 

However, nature-based solutions can have a significant impact regardless of project size. Indeed, relatively small-scale, locally led projects that secured between $50,000 and $1 million in funding account for the remaining 25% of projects observed in the report.

Coastal communities in Kwale County, Kenya, for example, are taking a grassroots approach to restoring the area's coastlines and developing sustainable livelihoods through mangrove forest restoration and seaweed farming. In response to worsening climate impacts — including rising sea levels, storm surges and declining fish stocks — four community groups have replanted and managed more than 243,000 mangrove seedlings over 17 hectares of coastal land. This restoration effort aims to enhance biodiversity and protect against coastal erosion. As they have restored the mangroves, the communities have also established 91 seaweed farms to help provide an economic buffer against declining fish stocks and climate-induced shocks.

Community members plant mangroves in Gazi Bay, Kenya, an initiative similar to restoration efforts in greater Kwale County. Mangroves can enhance biodiversity and protect against coastal erosion. Photo by Rob Barnes/GRID-Arendal

This wide range of project sizes and types highlights the fact that there's no single solution to climate resilience: Diverse approaches will be needed to effectively address climate challenges across sub-Saharan Africa. It also shows that a variety of actors, from grassroots leaders to infrastructure developers, can successfully lead nature-based solutions.

Collaboration Is Central to Nature-Based Initiatives

Sudan faces many climate challenges, including desertification, erratic rainfall and land degradation. As a key agricultural producer for Africa and the Middle East, these impacts have been particularly devastating and could have ramifications far beyond its borders.

To address these climate challenges, a collaborative initiative between local communities, government agencies and international donors is working to identify vulnerabilities and develop adaptation strategies tailored to Sudan's White Nile region. These include efforts such as forest and wetland restoration, improved land management and community-led conservation. Sudan's national government serves as the project lead, while the Global Environment Facility provided key funding. Communities helped develop strategies to ensure they were tailored to local needs. National and state officials then helped incorporate these strategies into policies, plans and budgets to ensure broader alignment.

Coordinated efforts like these are key to succesfully designing and implementing nature-based solutions — and ensuring they make a lasting impact.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, national governments play an important role in anchoring collaborations that support nature-based projects, leading 61% of the initiatives identified. They also back nature-based solutions financially: Funding for over 80% of projects came from a combination of national governments, multilateral development banks and multilateral donors or funds.

Before and after photographs along a 3-kilometer (1.8-mile) stretch of road in Makueni Country, Kenya. The Drain to Gain project diverted water from a frequently flooded road to nearby crops, a collaboration between the Makueni County government and social enterprise MetaMeta. Photo by MetaMeta Nature-Based Solutions Do More Than Enhance Climate Resilience

The coastal city of Beira, Mozambique, sits at the mouth of a major river system and is particularly vulnerable to climate-driven flooding. At the same time, its half-million residents struggle with high levels of poverty and unemployment. The Cities and Climate Change Project (3CP), launched in 2012, was designed to address the core challenge of flooding. But it also sought to maximize other benefits, such as improving public health and job creation. This large-scale urban flood resilience initiative integrated wetland restoration with engineered drainage systems along Beira's Chiveve River, enhancing biodiversity, improving erosion control and providing a 17-hectare multi-use urban green park for residents.

Today, the completed project helps protect over 50,000 people from recurrent flooding. At the same time, it has created over 1,200 jobs, increased economic stability for local businesses, and supported community health by making green space more accessible and improving air quality.

Mangroves along the Chiveve River in Beira, Mozambique, play a vital role in providing urban flood protection. Photo by World Bank

These multifaceted benefits show how nature-based solutions can serve as a holistic approach to urban development and climate adaptation. In fact, 83% of nature-based interventions we identified were designed to deliver multiple climate resilience goals, including improved water quality, increased water quantity, flood mitigation, erosion and landslide mitigation, fire risk mitigation and urban heat reduction. But beyond climate resilience, they also aimed to drive economic benefits; more than 50% of projects in the region are expected to create jobs and improve livelihoods through greater economic opportunities. In addition, projects often strove to address biodiversity conservation and improve health and food security.

Nature-Based Projects Can Also Support Equity

Climate challenges do not exist in a vacuum; their impacts are often felt most acutely by those who are vulnerable or marginalized in a society. For example, devastating floods last year in Nairobi, Kenya, affected poor urban communities living in informal settlements the most, amplifying existing inequalities. And droughts often result in disproportionately higher burdens on, and risks to, women who are responsible for securing water and food. In South Africa, government agencies issue permits and licenses to access or use water from certain sources. Women hold only 10.5% of these licenses, resulting in unequal access to water resources based on gender disparities.

The city of Johannesburg is using gender-responsive nature-based solutions to both address the city's water insecurity and to advance equity. One ongoing project, part of the SUNCASA initiative, ensures participation from women and other marginalized groups in project planning, preparation, long-term management and local decision-making. It supports the development of women-led tree nurseries, the saplings from which will help revitalize the upper Jukskei River catchment. In addition to creating new jobs for women and youths, the initiative could benefit over a million people through improved water security, decreased flood risk and better urban heat management.

Johannesburg is not alone in the shift toward equitable nature-based solutions. References to gender equity were frequent among the nearly 300 nature-based projects we evaluated, and they become more common over time: 68% of projects implemented between 2012 and 2021 referenced gender equity in project design documents, while 98% of those implemented between 2022 and 2023 did the same.

This upward trend highlights a growing recognition that inclusivity is critical to climate resilience efforts. However, further research is needed to evaluate how deeply these commitments are embedded in project design, implementation and outcomes, with the goal of ensuring that gender considerations translate into meaningful, on-the-ground impact.

Cities Are an Emerging Priority for Nature-Based Solutions

Like many places across sub-Saharan Africa, the city of Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, faces increasing climate risks like flooding and extreme weather. In response, the city is formally incorporating nature-based solutions into its urban planning and climate resilience strategy. Specifically, Brazzaville is expanding its 2023 Urban Forest Strategy to not only enhance urban greening, but also to deliver targeted interventions like strengthening flood protections in high-risk areas. Its approach prioritizes planning that is community-led and responsive to gender equality and social inclusion; planting guidelines that safeguard ecosystem integrity; and financial commitments that are robust and long-lasting. This comprehensive approach creates a model for other cities looking to integrate nature-based solutions into their climate resilience strategies.

Historically, developers have sited most nature-based solutions projects in rural areas. But urban projects like Brazzaville's have gained traction in recent years. In 2023, they accounted for nearly half of the World Bank and African Development Bank's climate resilience investment projects utilizing nature-based solutions, up from just 16% between 2012 and 2021. This shift is critical as urban areas increasingly face threats such as extreme heat, flooding and green space loss, all of which are exacerbated by rapid, unplanned development.

The Green-Gray Infrastructure (GGI) Accelerator, led by WRI Africa, is building on this momentum by providing technical assistance in areas like policy support, cost-benefit analysis, and improvements to monitoring and evaluation. The GGI Accelerator is working with an initial cohort of 11 cities (including Brazzaville) across seven countries to help increase the use of nature-based solutions and green-gray infrastructure in city plans, budgets and infrastructure projects. Ultimately, this could not only improve cities' climate resilience but also reduce biodiversity loss and generate jobs.

The Work ContinuesGrowing Resilience: Unlocking the Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa

To learn more, see the new report.

Download

As these leaders show, nature-based solutions offer major potential to bring climate resilience and other benefits to sub-Saharan Africa. But scaling them to meet the region's urgent climate adaptation needs remains challenging, particularly in cities. Policies still favor traditional gray infrastructure over nature-based solutions or green-gray approaches. In addition, current approaches that funders and financiers use to evaluate economic benefits often fail to account for the types of benefits nature-based solutions may provide.

To unlock the full potential of nature-based solutions, key stakeholders — including national and local governments, multilateral development banks and local communities — must continue to collaborate to expand diverse funding mechanisms, further integrate gender and social equity considerations, and enhance monitoring and evaluation to assess long-term impact.

With concerted efforts, cities and national governments across Africa can grow nature's power to build a resilient, sustainable future, reducing climate risks while fostering economic growth and social well-being.

JLP_ SUNCASA Previews-01.jpg Forests Africa nature-based solutions Climate Resilience adaptation Cities Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Cities4Forests
• Scaling Urban Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SUNCASA)
• Nature-based Solutions for Adaptation

Authors Lizzie Marsters Natasha Collins Hellen Njoki Wanjohi-Opil James Anderson

RELEASE: WRI and the World Bank Present Landmark Assessment of Nature-Based Solutions in Africa darla.vanhoorn… Wed, 02/19/2025 - 01:40

With contributions from the African Development Bank.

WRI also launches Green-Gray Infrastructure Accelerator, supporting 11 African cities in building climate resilience.

NAIROBI (February 19, 2025) — A new report by World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Bank, with contributions from the African Development Bank (AfDB), provides one of the most comprehensive assessments to date on how Sub-Saharan Africa — one of the world's most climate-vulnerable regions — is turning to nature to combat mounting risks of flooding, drought, and extreme heat. Growing Resilience: Unlocking the Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa analyzes nearly 300 projects over the past decade to identify what works, key barriers, and strategies to scale up nature-based solutions (NBS) to promote green, resilient development.

The report shows a steady increase in the adoption of NBS projects, with the number of new projects initiated growing by an average of 15% annually between 2012 and 2021. These projects — which include protecting and restoring forests, wetlands, floodplains and coral reefs, often in combination with traditional “gray” infrastructure — are strengthening climate resilience while actively delivering co-benefits like job creation, biodiversity enhancement and social equity. 

While interest in NBS is growing, the report finds that more investment is needed. Between 2012 and 2021, funding for NBS projects in Sub-Saharan Africa increased by 23% annually and raised more than $12 billion. While this is a positive step, the figure pales in comparison to Africa’s $100 billion annual infrastructure financing gap. 

“Nature loss and climate risks are inherently linked, especially here in Africa,” says Qimiao Fan, World Bank’s Country Director for Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda. “We need to ensure that projects and policies comprehensively address the challenges and offer inclusive and effective solutions for the most vulnerable groups.”

As climate risks like extreme heat, flooding and water scarcity intensify, Sub-Saharan Africa stands at the frontlines of the global climate crisis, with Kenya's floods and unprecedented heatwaves across the region a stark warning. 

The report highlights several recommendations to increase adoption of NBS in the region. These include integrating nature into policies and plans, building technical capacity to develop project pipelines, and diversifying finance. 

While NBS projects are growing, a critical gap remains: relatively few projects were implemented in cities, despite their potential to address urban challenges (though the World Bank and AfDB have recently been supporting more urban projects). Seventy percent of African cities face severe climate risks — including flooding, extreme heat and mudslides — while many already struggle with inadequate infrastructure. Additional investment in traditional solutions like dams and engineered drainage is needed, but integrating natural infrastructure, such as restoring and protecting forests in watersheds, can bolster resilience and reduce long-term costs.

Recognizing this, and to complement NBS investment preparation efforts of the World Bank and AfDB, WRI is launching the Green-Gray Infrastructure Accelerator, an initiative to support 11 cities across sub-Saharan Africa to integrate NBS with traditional “gray” infrastructure. The initiative will provide technical, policy and finance support, helping them lay the groundwork for their initial cohort of projects, while connecting others to financiers to scale existing efforts.

“We often think of infrastructure in terms of roads, bridges and buildings — just concrete and steel structures,” said Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO, World Resources Institute. “But nature — forests, trees, wetlands, coral reefs — is just as vital. It supplies clean water, protects communities from disasters, and strengthens resilience. Across Africa, cities and communities are proving that green and gray infrastructure can work together to maximize benefits for people, nature and climate — and the world should take note.”

Note: This report was jointly prepared by the Cities4Forests initiative at World Resources Institute and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) at the World Bank, with key contributions from the African Development Bank (AfDB), support from the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership (GGKP), and funding contributions from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the MAVA Foundation,  GFDRR, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).

About World Resources Institute
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build resilient communities. We aim to fundamentally transform the way the world produces and uses food and energy and designs its cities to create a better future for all.  Founded in 1982, WRI has nearly 2,000 staff around the world, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States and regional offices in Africa and Europe.

About World Bank
The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of funding and knowledge for developing countries. Our five institutions share a commitment to reducing poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development.

About the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)
GFDRR is a global partnership that helps low- and lower-middle-income countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. GFDRR provides grant financing, technical assistance, training, and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate risk management in national and regional policies, strategies, and investment plans. The Program Management Unit, located within the World Bank, manages grant resources to carry out GFDRR’s mission.

 

Climate Resilience Africa nature-based solutions Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

5 Things to Know About Atmospheric Methane Removal shannon.paton@… Fri, 02/14/2025 - 09:13

Last year was the hottest on record, and scientists are clear that the world is on track to exceed 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of global warming. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), is a significant and growing part of this problem. It is the second-most impactful GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2) and, even though there is much less methane than CO2 in the atmosphere, it traps heat much more effectively than CO2.

Methane concentration in the atmosphere has accelerated rapidly since the early 1900s, driven both by human-caused methane emissions and increased methane emissions from natural sources due to human-induced climate change. Reducing these emissions is critical, and initiatives like the Global Methane Pledge and new technologies to track methane emissions show a growing commitment to do so. But climate models show it may not be enough to achieve climate goals. That’s why some scientists and researchers are now exploring atmospheric methane removal, which focuses on removing methane already in the atmosphere, as a potential option to further reduce warming. 

Many questions about methane removal science, technology and governance remain. Moreover, there is still a limited body of research available on these topics. But based on available research — including a seminal report from the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released in October 2024 — this article answers five key questions about what we know and what we still need to find out to understand whether atmospheric methane removal can be considered a viable way to help address the climate crisis.

1) Where does methane come from and where does it go?

More than half of global methane emissions come from human-caused, or anthropogenic, sources. Methane emissions primarily come from fossil fuels and the waste and agriculture sectors, including rice paddies and cows’ digestion (i.e., enteric methane), which will be difficult to fully avoid as global demand for food increases.

The remaining methane emissions come from natural sources, like wetlands, freshwater bodies and thawing permafrost. Methane emissions from these sources are increasing due to human-induced climate change. There is evidence that wetlands, particularly tropical wetlands, are contributing to the recent spike in methane concentration via a harmful feedback loop: the more global temperatures rise, the more methane is released.

Methane stays in the atmosphere for around 10 years because there are significant “methane sinks” that help break it down. More than 90% of methane is naturally broken down, or oxidized, into CO2 and water in the atmosphere. Since methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, breaking methane down into CO2 and water reduces its warming potential. This breakdown mainly happens with what is known as a hydroxyl radical – a highly reactive molecule that occurs naturally in the atmosphere and helps break down different types of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

The remaining 10% of atmospheric methane is broken down by other molecules in the atmosphere and by bacteria in soils and plants.

2) Why are methane emissions a problem, and how can we reduce them?

Methane emissions have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere—typically nine to 12 years, compared to hundreds or even thousands of years for CO2. However, methane is a particularly potent GHG, trapping the sun’s heat 84 times more impactfully than CO2 over a 20-year period.

Because of its potency and short lifetime, methane concentration in the atmosphere has an outsized impact on near-term warming, including the level and timing of peak warming. In fact, methane has contributed around 0.5 degrees C of the 1.2 degrees C of global warming since pre-industrial times —  over a third of the warming we’re experiencing today.

Reducing methane and other GHG emissions is the most important step to address climate change and is generally much more cost effective than removing emissions from the atmosphere.

Methane emissions come from scattered and diverse sources which makes mitigation challenging. But advancements like improving leak detection in oil and gas operations, better irrigation practices in rice cultivation, and capturing landfill gas can help address anthropogenic sources. Emissions from natural sources like wetlands are hard to reduce and are increasing due to climate change.  

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the maximum feasible level of methane emissions reduction is 45% by 2050, but 1.5-degrees-C-aligned scenarios require greater reductions. As a result, some scientists are looking into methane removal as a complementary approach to reduce near-term warming and address methane emissions that can’t be fully abated. 

3) What are some potential ways to remove methane from the atmosphere?

Potential approaches to remove atmospheric methane are in very early stages of development. A few scientific papers in recent years have started to explore the topic, but research funding is very limited, with less than $10 million estimated to have been invested to date. 

Broadly, methane removal approaches aim to accelerate naturally occurring processes and fall into one of two categories: open and closed systems. Closed-system approaches treat air within a system that is closed to the wider environment, containing any unintended impacts. Open-system approaches intervene in the environment directly, meaning that any secondary impacts are less contained.

Open-system methane removal can involve changes to atmospheric chemistry that are not well understood and can be non-linear, meaning they can have unintended and exponential impacts on other climate forcers and air quality. These interactions must be better understood to make sure any methane removal activities have a net climate benefit.

Within these two categories there are several ways to remove atmospheric methane, each with different variations:

• Ecosystem Uptake Enhancement: Ecosystem-based approaches leverage natural methane sinks, mainly methane-consuming microorganisms in soils, to oxidize additional methane. For example, use of soil amendments — like compost, crop residue or biochar — and addition of certain minerals could enhance methane uptake in soils. It may also be possible to select or engineer methane-consuming bacteria to take up methane faster. These methods are in very early stages of development and require careful field level assessment of their impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.
• Atmospheric Oxidation Enhancement (AOE): This involves introducing materials into the atmosphere that enhance methane oxidation, such as reactive chlorine or hydroxyl radicals. Similar to solar radiation modification (SRM), these methods could face significant public and regulatory scrutiny due to the uncertainties and potential negative side effects associated with altering atmospheric chemistry. Much more research is needed to understand feasibility and full impact on atmospheric chemistry, as well as robust governance structures, given the potential wide-ranging impacts.
• Methane Reactors: Methane reactors are semi-contained systems designed to expose methane in ambient air to materials that can oxidize or break it down. For example, ultraviolet light can directly oxidize methane and heat can activate a catalyst that oxidizes methane. Methane reactors are commercially available today for use where methane concentration is high, but significant technological advances are needed to make them effective for atmospheric concentration of methane. For example, moving enough air to capture 6 billion tonnes of CO2 through direct air capture (roughly the scale of carbon removal outlined by the IPCC to align with a 1.5-degrees C pathway) would only remove 10 million tonnes of methane (equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of CO2).
• Surface Treatments: Surface treatments include applying methane-oxidizing coatings to large, exposed surfaces, such as buildings or surfaces that contact lots of air, like wind turbine blades. These treatments use materials such as metallic coatings that break down methane when exposed to light. However, they are currently too expensive and require significant advancements in methane removal efficiency and scalability to be practical.
• Methane concentrators: Methane concentrators are materials or devices that could theoretically capture and concentrate methane from the air. However, none have yet been identified or tested, hence these are currently just at the idea stage. If developed, they could concentrate methane in ambient air before it enters a methane reactor to be broken down, but are not a methane-removal technology on their own.

Each of these technologies faces significant challenges. Some approaches are already applicable today for methane concentrations greater than 1,000 ppm, which exist near methane sources like coal mines and dairy farms. However, making them effective at the much lower atmospheric methane concentration of 2 ppm is a key challenge.

The National Academies report concludes that methane reactors, surface treatments and methane concentrators depend on significant technological breakthroughs to feasibly operate at atmospheric methane concentrations of 2 ppm. Atmospheric oxidation enhancement and ecosystem uptake enhancement have possible pathways to feasibility at 2 ppm, but there are significant uncertainties.

4) How does atmospheric methane removal compare to carbon dioxide removal?

There is scientific consensus that, along with deep emissions reductions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is needed to meet global climate goals. While atmospheric methane removal is another type of “removal,” it operates differently from CDR in key ways.

Carbon removal typically involves sequestering CO2 in soils, the ocean or underground. In contrast, methane removal focuses on breaking methane down into less harmful components: CO2 and water. As such, methane removal doesn’t require the transport and sequestration steps associated with carbon removal technologies. This difference makes measurement more challenging, as tracking chemical breakdown in the open atmosphere is inherently more complex than monitoring sequestered CO2.

While carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, methane naturally breaks down within a decade or so. Further, methane spends less time in the atmosphere as its concentration decreases: a lower concentration of methane means more hydroxyl radicals are available, which speeds up the oxidation process — a positive feedback loop. This means that methane removal and reduction not only directly reduce concentration in the atmosphere, but also contribute to this positive feedback.

Unlike CO2, methane interacts with other gases in complex and sometimes unpredictable ways. Efforts to accelerate its breakdown could have unintended effects on air quality and climate systems and must be better understood to ensure a net climate benefit. For example, open system methane removal approaches that involve cycling chlorine to the atmosphere, increasing its capacity to break down methane, could also increase ozone-depleting substances and worsen surface air quality.

5) What existing governance frameworks would apply to methane removal?

Effective regulation of methane removal technologies is essential to address potential environmental impacts, jurisdictional complexities and societal implications. While there are no specific governance frameworks for atmospheric methane removal, some existing legal frameworks would apply to methane removal activities. Regulatory requirements largely depend on the type of approach (open or partially closed system), the location of the activity (over land or the ocean), whether it crosses national borders and the intent (research or commercial deployment).

Impacts of partially closed system technologies, like methane reactors and methane concentrators, would be more contained, so the relevant legal frameworks are more limited, primarily relating to siting processes and local impacts on the environment and people. For open-system technologies that introduce substances directly into the environment, like atmospheric oxidation enhancement, the legal framework is more complex due to potential transboundary impacts and a wider range of potentially affected parties.

Jurisdictional clarity is also crucial. In the United States, federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act govern land-based deployments, along with local zoning laws, land use regulations and tribal consultations. Ocean deployments, by contrast, are primarily regulated under international agreements like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for activities further than 200 nautical miles offshore, and the laws of coastal nations within 200 nautical miles off their shores. However, the overlapping authorities of federal, tribal, state and local jurisdictions underscore the need for streamlined governance frameworks.

Lastly, some legal frameworks differentiate small-scale research activities from commercial deployment. While it can be difficult to draw clear distinction between the two, the Convention on Biological Diversity and London Protocol, for example, have adopted decisions that allow small-scale research for climate geoengineering techniques, but bar large-scale deployment.

Beyond these laws and regulations, comprehensive governance would also require: strong protocols for measurement, reporting and verification; public engagement to understand concerns and inform project permitting; protocols for risk assessments; health and safety standards; and data sharing and transparency mechanisms. 

What’s Next?

There are significant challenges associated with making atmospheric methane removal a viable option to help address near- and long-term climate change. Several proposed approaches rely on major technological breakthroughs, making them both uncertain and potentially cost-intensive.

Given constraints on public funding for climate research and development writ large, and the significant challenges outlined above, it is reasonable to consider whether funding is best used for methane removal research. It is also reasonable to be concerned whether focusing on methane removal may detract from more feasible efforts to reduce methane emissions — the same moral hazard, or mitigation deterrence concern, present with carbon dioxide removal.

However, if methane removal is proven to be net-climate beneficial, cost-effective, safe and scalable, and if appropriate governance frameworks are developed, it could help address growing methane emissions from natural and human sources that can’t be abated. For this inescapable reason, much more research is needed to better understand the feasibility of proposed methane-removal technologies and approaches, as well as cross-cutting areas like methane sources and sinks, governance, regulation and social impacts.

The National Academies recommend a two-phase research approach to assess the feasibility of methane-removal technologies. Phase one, lasting 3-5 years, with $50-80 million in research funding each year, would focus on addressing foundational knowledge gaps and enabling more targeted research. Phase two would evaluate the most promising technologies for climate-scale viability. This would aim to resolve remaining technical, economic and social barriers, determining whether further investment in specific methane-removal technologies is justified before considering potential deployment.

Atmospheric methane removal presents intriguing potential as a tool to address near-term warming and residual methane emissions, but significant uncertainties remain. Building a robust knowledge base will allow informed decisions about the role — if any — that methane removal can play in meeting climate goals, while ensuring prioritization of the most effective and equitable climate solutions.

energy-biomass-cane-waste.jpg Climate GHG emissions agriculture climate change carbon removal waste fossil fuels Climate Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Katie Lebling Hannah Harasaki

Which Milks Are Best for the Planet? shannon.paton@… Thu, 02/13/2025 - 13:36

Walk into any coffee shop and you’ll likely see a long list of available milks — oat, almond, soy, and good old-fashioned dairy, just to name a few.

Taste is obviously a factor that influences many people’s choices. So are costs and dietary restrictions. But another is which milk comes with the lowest environmental impact.

That’s where things can get complicated.

Calculating Foods’ Impact on Nature and Climate

There are multiple ways to calculate a particular food’s impact on the planet. One is its effect on the climate: How many greenhouse gas emissions are associated with its creation — including raising a cow or growing a plant, turning that raw material into a product like milk, then packaging it and shipping it to its point of sale? 

Another is water use. Agriculture is responsible for 70% of freshwater withdrawals — but different crops and animals require varying amounts of water to produce, thus carrying different “water footprints.” 

Other factors — such as where the food is produced; how much land it needs to grow; and how many pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics are used in the process — also affect its impact on people and the planet. But unlike nutritional content or costs, emissions, water use and other environmental data aren’t displayed on food labels, making it tricky for consumers to decide what’s best for them.

Digging into the Data on Plant-based vs. Dairy Milks

So what does this mean for the growing number of milks on the market? Digging into the data sheds some light.

I and other researchers looked at the average greenhouse gas emissions and liters of water needed to produce one cup of cow’s milk, as well as soy, almond, oat, pea and coconut milk. (In this case, we analyzed the refrigerated or boxed variety of coconut milk, which is thinner and lower in fat and calories than the canned variety typically used in cooking.) While on average Americans consume more protein than is needed across all meals, milk is often a key ingredient providing protein for satiating breakfasts. Thus, we also compared milks’ relative protein content.

A few key findings emerged:

• Plant-based milks on average generate roughly one-third or less of the greenhouse gas emissions of cow’s milk, and most use considerably less water. This tracks with the data around plant- vs. animal-based proteins in general. For example, beef production requires 20 times the land and produces 20 times as much greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than common plant proteins like beans.
• Pea protein milk is a very sustainable choice, producing far fewer emissions and requiring a fraction of the total water1 than most other milks assessed, while rivaling the protein content of cow’s milk. Soy milk is a close second, with relatively low environmental impacts and reasonably high protein content compared to cow’s milk.
• Oat and coconut milks also have lower emissions and water use compared to cow’s milk, but are also relatively low in protein.
• Almond milk is good for the climate, but uses about the same amount of water as cow’s milk and contains very little protein. Notably, the amount and impact of water use varies depending on where and how food is grown, and some places are more water scarce than others. Thus, the impact of almond milk’s water footprint may be worse than cow’s milk if comparing almond milk produced in a water-stressed region such as California with cow’s milk produced in less water-stressed regions. That said, California is the top producer of cow’s milk in the United States, so comparing direct water use footprints is still valid in many cases. 

Choosing the Milk that’s Right for You 

Many factors influence individual food choices, including cost, taste, dietary restrictions, geographical access and cultural traditions — and all of them are important. The nutritional content of plant-based milks also vary substantially depending on their extent of fortification and whether they include added sugars — key considerations for individual health.

But when it comes to environmental impact, pea, soy, oat and coconut milk come with a smaller footprint than other milks on the market.  

 

1 While data for pea milk’s blue water footprint isn’t available, its total water footprint is estimated to be 86% lower than that of cow’s milk. The blue water footprint represents surface water withdrawals that are lost to evaporation or incorporated into the product, such as for irrigation; total water footprint includes blue water plus green water (i.e., rainwater) plus grey water (freshwater required to assimilate pollutants, in this case, nitrogen fertilizer runoff, to meet water quality standards).

milk-aisle-grocery-store.jpg Food Climate-Friendly Diets Food agriculture climate change Type Charted Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Climate-Friendly Diets

Authors Raychel Santo

RELEASE: WRI and University of Chicago Announce $100 Million Gift from Michael and Tanya Polsky to Accelerate the Global Energy Transition darla.vanhoorn… Wed, 02/12/2025 - 10:58

Gift establishes the WRI Polsky Center for the Global Energy Transition and the University of Chicago’s Polsky Energy Transition Leadership Academy to address urgent global energy challenges

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 12, 2025) — World Resources Institute (WRI) and the University of Chicago announced today a combined $100 million contribution from Michael and Tanya Polsky through the Polsky Foundation to accelerate pragmatic, scalable solutions for the global energy transition and prepare the next generation of energy innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders.

A $75 million gift to WRI—the largest energy-focused gift in its history—will establish the WRI Polsky Center for the Global Energy Transition (“WRI Polsky Energy Center”), which will harness analytical power, convening ability and global expertise to help orchestrate the transition to a clean, abundant, affordable and reliable energy future. The WRI Polsky Energy Center seeks to overcome critical barriers to modernizing and expanding energy grids, scaling financing and deployment, sourcing critical minerals responsibly and building a skilled, future-ready workforce. 

With nearly 30 years of experience in the energy industry, Michael Polsky is widely recognized as a pioneer and leader in North America’s cogeneration and independent power industry. As a member of WRI's Board of Directors since 2004, he previously endowed WRI’s Polsky Chair for Renewable Energy and has contributed to the funding of projects that increase access to clean, abundant and reliable power.

“I’ve spent my career in the energy sector, building energy companies here in the United States—starting in nuclear, coal, oil and gas power generation and then expanding into renewables,” said Michael Polsky. “My journey mirrors America’s: from reliance on coal, oil and gas, to embracing new energy sources like wind and solar.” 

“This progression isn’t about ideology—it’s driven by technology, economics and opportunity. As an energy entrepreneur who has designed and built power plants and associated electricity infrastructure that power millions of homes and businesses, I’ve seen firsthand the practical challenges that stand in the way of building energy infrastructure and the solutions that can help America reclaim leadership in energy innovation, manufacturing and deployment."

Added Polsky, “The energy transition is inevitable, but it’s not an instantaneous shift—and we must lead it strategically. If we don’t seize this opportunity, others will. In the quest for energy independence, we must build resilient systems that are less vulnerable to volatile markets. We have the opportunity to build efficient, cleaner, low-cost, scalable energy infrastructure while fostering technological leadership. Tanya and I are proud to support WRI’s efforts to shape a future of clean, abundant, affordable and reliable energy for generations, and the University of Chicago in shaping the leaders who will realize this vision.”

Added Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO of WRI: “We are deeply grateful to Michael and Tanya Polsky, visionary philanthropists who are dedicated to transforming the energy sector. Accelerating the global energy transition is one of the most important challenges of our time, and there is no better moment to orchestrate the transition to a new clean energy economy. The WRI Polsky Energy Center will deliver the practical, evidence-based solutions that countries need to move toward a sustainable energy future.”

In addition, a $25 million gift to the University of Chicago will establish the Polsky Energy Transition Leadership Academy (“Polsky Academy”)—a pioneering program housed within the University’s Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth, with the University of Chicago Booth School of Business as a key partner. As a component of the Chicago Curriculum on Climate and Sustainable Growth, a groundbreaking approach to energy and climate education led by the Institute, the Polsky Academy brings a unique focus on experiential learning, immersive field experiences and career mentorship to help students grapple with the dual goals of the need for inexpensive and reliable energy and a manageable climate. 

“The University of Chicago is committed to providing students with a deep education in how to think. This gift by Michael Polsky will enrich the education of so many of our students who are interested in understanding how the world of energy really works," Paul Alivisatos, President of the University of Chicago, said. “With this generous support, we are better equipped to foster the next generation of leaders and innovators who will address the challenges and opportunities of the energy future.”

More About the WRI Polsky Center for the Global Energy Transition

Building on WRI’s global research and convening expertise, the WRI Polsky Energy Center will focus on solutions to six critical challenges that impede progress in delivering clean, abundant and reliable energy systems: 

• Transmission & distribution infrastructure: Expanding and modernizing electric grids.
• Finance: Connecting investors, energy developers, and governments to new financing instruments to drastically increase installations for clean energy.
• Critical minerals: Promoting the responsible sourcing of critical minerals such as copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt required for the energy transition.
• Large buyer demand: Supporting large energy buyers—such as industries, cities, and technology leaders—in choosing sustainable, cost-effective energy sources to meet their growing demand reliably and efficiently.
• Siting: Addressing barriers to siting clean energy projects and advancing equitable solutions. 

• Entrepreneurs and the workforce: Equipping the workforce and entrepreneurs of the future through education and skills development.

While influencing the global energy landscape, the WRI Polsky Energy Center will initially focus on the United States and India—two major economies facing diverse energy challenges.

• In the United States, the WRI Polsky Energy Center will tackle hurdles to the implementation of clean, reliable and affordable energy solutions to meet growing demand.

• In India, the focus will be on improving reliable clean energy supply, reducing emissions and addressing systemic barriers in a fast-growing economy.

Success in these regions will create replicable models and accelerate global progress.

The WRI Polsky Energy Center has an Advisory Group of influential and respected leaders from around the world who will provide strategic advice and serve as ambassadors to help advance the Center's mission. 

Advisory Group members include: 

• Michael Polsky, Founder and CEO, Invenergy (Advisory Group Co-Chair)

• Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency (Advisory Group Co-Chair)

• Sharan Burrow, Former General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation

• Jon Creyts, CEO, Rocky Mountain Institute

• Faustine Delasalle, CEO, Mission Possible Partnership

• Rohitesh Dhawan, President and CEO, International Council on Mining and Metals

• Samir Mayekar, Associate VP & MD, Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

• Elsie Mbugua, Global Chair, BOMA.ngo; Founder & Managing Director, Leadwood Energy

• Tanya Polsky, President, Polsky Foundation

• Vanessa Julia Ramírez, Director, ECANAL SA de CV

• Praveer Sinha, CEO, Tata Power

• Andrew Steer, President and CEO, Bezos Earth Fund

• Cathy Zoi, Former CEO, EVgo

“Developing a more secure, affordable and sustainable energy system is one of the most critical challenges—and opportunities—of our time,” said Dr. Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency and co-chair of the WRI Polsky Energy Center Advisory Group. “The WRI Polsky Energy Center’s focus on removing barriers to energy sector growth, building modern energy infrastructure and empowering a skilled workforce is a vital contribution to this global effort. By combining research-driven solutions with real-world impact, the Center is uniquely positioned to accelerate progress in both advanced and emerging economies. I am honored to co-chair its advisory board and optimistic that its work will help chart a path to a better energy future.”

Media Relations Contacts:

• Polsky Foundation: polsky@brunswickgroup.com  

• WRI: Alison Cinnamond, Global Director of Strategic Communications, alison.cinnamond@wri.org

• University of Chicago: Vicki Ekstrom High, Senior Director of Communications and External Engagement, vekstrom@uchicago.edu
   

About the Polsky Foundation
Founded in 2002, the Polsky Foundation is a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to supporting a wide range of charitable initiatives.

About World Resources Institute  
WRI works to improve people’s lives, protect and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and with partners in over 50 nations. www.wri.org. 

About the University of Chicago Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth 
The Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth leverages the University of Chicago’s unique legacy and resources to balance the risks of a changing climate with the essential need for human progress. It does so by combining frontier research in economics and climate policy, and key energy and climate technologies, with a pioneering approach to education that provides a 360-degree understanding of the climate and growth challenge. The Institute also seeds interdisciplinary research that explores new topics in this ever-evolving field and drives practical, effective solutions in countries central to this challenge. climate.uchicago.edu
 

Energy Clean Energy Energy Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data 6 Opportunities to Accelerate the Global Energy Transition US Clean Power Development Sees Record Progress, As Well As Stronger Headwinds A Spoonful of Solar to Help the Medicine Go Down: Exploring Synergies Between Health Care and Energy RELEASE: Michael Polsky Makes $1 Million Gift to Fund Renewable Energy Work at WRI