STATEMENT: UK Should Deliver on International Climate Finance Promises alison.cinnamo… Thu, 02/29/2024 - 14:00

LONDON (February 29, 2024) - The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has published a new assessment of the UK government’s progress towards meeting its signature commitment to spend £11.6 billion GBP on international climate finance by the end of 2026.  

Following is a statement from Edward Davey, Head of World Resources Institute Europe’s UK Office:

"The ICAI report on the UK’s international climate finance is vital reading. It recognizes important and valuable progress being made in a number of areas, against a challenging backdrop. But it also demonstrates that there is now a mountain to climb if the UK is to meet its £11.6 billion international climate finance target in full – with 55% of the commitment still to be spent in the last two years of the pledge.

"For reasons of equity and justice, and in order for the UK to play its full part in supporting nations in their hour of need to withstand and address the climate crisis, the UK can and must uphold its finance commitment in full – and with integrity in what counts. The UK’s track record and expertise in the disbursement of effective international climate finance is significant: it has to deliver.

"The report’s priority recommendation that the UK government should soon set out a clear action plan for the timely delivery of the remaining funds is timely and well-judged. Given the upcoming election, this plan should also enjoy cross-party consensus."

United Kingdom climate finance Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Complex Supply Chains Are Still a Major Barrier to Ending Deforestation shannon.paton@… Thu, 02/29/2024 - 11:35

Almost 90% of the world’s forest loss is driven by the expansion of agriculture, thanks to growing consumer demand for commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil and timber. Because of this, governments, businesses and NGOs are increasingly targeting action to reduce deforestation in this sector. Several markets are developing policies that prohibit the sale or importation of products grown on deforested land, while hundreds of consumer goods companies have made zero-deforestation pledges.

Some of these regulations are still in the early stages of development or implementation so their potential positive impact remains to be seen, but existing measures have so far failed to stem the tide of deforestation. One of the major reasons is the persistent lack of traceability and transparency in supply chains.

Why Are Traceability and Transparency in Supply Chains So Challenging? 

For companies to know whether they are contributing to deforestation, they need to be able to link a commodity or product with information about its origins. But this is no easy feat.

Take the example of a simple chocolate bar: Its key ingredient is cocoa, a raw commodity that can change hands and borders multiple times before it finally reaches a consumer. While most of the world’s cocoa is produced by smallholder farmers in West Africa, it is primarily exported to Europe where it is processed and transformed into chocolate products that then get distributed to retailers all over the world. Connecting the dots between hundreds or even thousands of points along a complex global supply chain is a big task. For instance, a multinational consumer goods company like Unilever sources raw materials from up to 52,000 suppliers.

Even when this information exists, it may not be available to everyone who has a responsibility to root out deforestation. Downstream companies and investors need access to information to make informed decisions about who they buy from or invest in. Governments and civil society need transparent supply chains to track companies’ compliance with policies and pledges.

Tools Are Emerging to Help Companies Trace Their Supply Chains, but They’re Not Enough

Technology is beginning to illuminate opaque supply chains and change the way companies monitor and manage them. For example, data platforms like Global Forest Watch (GFW) and GFW Pro enable organizations to monitor supplier locations and track nearby deforestation.

Another example is the Trase tool, co-developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and Global Canopy, that maps the international trade and financing of key commodities associated with tropical deforestation, allowing companies to identify sustainability risks in their supply chains.

Individual companies and governments are also making progress. For example, Nestlé notes that its partnership with satellite-based monitoring tool Starling enabled it to map 97% of its palm oil supply to the mill level. In another example, the government of Ghana is developing a cocoa tracking system that will be able to trace cocoa pods back to the farms they came from.

These are just a few of the many examples covered in WRI’s recent report that show traceability and transparency are achievable despite complex challenges. In many cases, changing voluntary and regulatory requirements have encouraged innovation and solutions.

A smallholder farmer arranges cocoa beans to dry. Most of the world's cacao comes from Africa, where it crosses borders and changes hands several times before ultimately becoming chocolate. Photo by Media Lens King/iStock What’s Needed to Make Supply Chains More Transparent?

The report highlights what we can learn from these successful projects to scale up existing efforts, and accelerate both the pace and scope of action. For companies and others to effectively trace deforestation in supply chains market wide, transparency tools and initiatives must meet four key conditions:

1) Alignment across stakeholders

If individual projects are set up with different objectives and data sets are created with different definitions and metrics, efforts to build collaborative systems or use existing data for different purposes become cumbersome or even infeasible. Therefore, there needs to be alignment among supply chain stakeholders — including governments in commodity-producing and exporting countries, private sector companies and civil society organizations — and collaboration to ensure that data can be shared and used across different traceability systems. This includes the development of consistent, harmonized definitions, standardized data reporting requirements and formats, and data-sharing strategies with ethical, legal, commercial and technical considerations.  In addition, a clear framework of rules is required for the collection and reporting of transparent data.

The U.S. government-funded Forest Data Partnership, a consortium led by WRI, aims to address this challenge by harmonizing data from different sources using machine learning to provide supply chain actors with high-quality, validated benchmark land use data. Similarly, the Digital Integration of Agricultural Supply Chains Alliance (DIASCA) is working towards interoperability of traceability systems in global agricultural supply chains by establishing common best practices for overcoming the current challenges of data exchange.  

2) A supportive regulatory environment

A supportive regulatory environment is critical for ensuring that data is available and shared among different stakeholders. For example, due diligence requirements and mandatory reporting standards set out by government agencies for companies and financial institutions are powerful tools to increase levels of disclosure, creating broader demand for traceability and transparency, especially where reporting currently remains voluntary. They also help to create a level playing field for companies already disclosing data that may open themselves up to more public scrutiny than those who do not report their progress.

For example, the UK was one of the major economies to make climate disclosures mandatory for publicly listed companies, using standards from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). While TCFD began as a voluntary set of recommendations for companies to report on climate-related risks, it has since become part of the regulatory framework for mandatory disclosure in some countries. Its guidance for agriculture, food and forest products companies is to provide key metrics related to the implications of land use change and associated greenhouse gas emissions, which helps companies and the banks that fund them prioritize these chronic risks.

3) Broad-based collaboration

As traceability and transparency tools and initiatives proliferate, the risk of duplication increases. For example, several companies could be mapping the same farms. Collaboration is vital to avoid wasting time and investment, especially when different companies often share the same supply base.

It can be challenging for companies to figure out how to collaborate with their competitors. Data confidentiality and commercial sensitivities often hinder data sharing. But it’s essential that companies come together with others in the industry to tackle a shared challenge and coordinate traceability efforts.

For example, private sector actors teamed up with civil society partners to create the Universal Mill List, which mapped close to 2,000 mills across 26 countries, using standardized identifiers to prevent duplication, representing a leap forward in transparency in the palm oil industry.

4) Inclusion of small farmers

Collective action is also central to increasing support for vulnerable actors, such as smallholder farmers, and advancing their inclusion in supply chains so they are not left behind in the transition to sustainable commodity production. For example, if companies choose to only source from larger producers capable of meeting stringent traceability requirements to avoid costs, this overlooks a significant opportunity to support smallholders, who produce one-third of the world’s food.

A specific example of how collective action can support smallholders is the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI), where the governments of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire and major cocoa and chocolate companies joined forces to end deforestation and restore forests in these countries. Together, these companies have been working to map smallholder farms, which produce most of the cacao grown in West Africa, to better understand where their cocoa comes from and identify areas at risk of deforestation. The initiative also supports farmers in growing more cocoa on less land — such as by creating agroforestry cocoa plots and distributing cocoa seedlings to farmers. These practices help farmers produce higher yields and increase their incomes by growing other types of crops like wood, fruits and nuts.

Success Requires All Hands on Deck

Realizing sustainable, deforestation-free supply chains will require unprecedented collaboration among stakeholders. Each sector has a role to play in advancing traceability and transparency.

• Governments can create a supportive policy environment that encourages companies and smallholders to gather and share information. In commodity-producing countries, governments can create legal requirements for national standards and assurance systems. In Malaysia, for example, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil standard makes it mandatory for producers to be registered, to follow legal requirements for production, to provide traceability information to buyers and meet minimum environmental standards.
  
  It is also important for governments to provide official public sector data sets on land use, land use change, rural property registration, land titling and trade. Such data is essential for companies to verify if the supply chain actors they source from have clear tenure, but also for government agencies to avoid issuing overlapping land allocations, like concessions in protected areas.
   
• Civil society can support consistent objectives of traceability and transparency systems in policy responses — by, for example, defining what constitutes credible evidence in reporting. They can provide technical expertise and ensure that suitable safeguards are in place to manage data privacy issues in a way that encourages data sharing. In addition, they can help convene stakeholders to encourage greater alignment.
  
  The Accountability Framework initiative (AFi) is a collaboration between dozens of NGOs to support companies on their supply chain commitments in agriculture and forestry by establishing good practices and common definitions, like what “deforestation-free” means in practice. It provides an international reference that all companies can use, regardless of geography or commodity.
   
• The private sector can make sure that costs incurred by traceability and transparency are equitably shared, taking measures to address specific challenges facing smallholder farmers. Doing so is important because many smallholders lack access to technology, along with the technical or financial capacity needed to meet monitoring and reporting requirements. Companies could, for example, develop data collection systems that take smallholder interests into account, empowering them with easy access to their own data like production and yield and sale prices.
  
  Engaging in pre-competitive collaboration is also important, especially when different companies are sourcing commodities from the same landscapes. For example, to help end cocoa-driven deforestation in West Africa, WRI joined forces with the World Cocoa Foundation and 19 major cocoa and chocolate companies to create two new data resources. Cocoa sector stakeholders can use the tools to identify high-priority areas in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire and coordinate action to prevent deforestation before it happens. This was an unprecedented collaboration in the industry, where companies agreed to share highly sensitive cocoa plot data in a way that respected companies’ proprietary data and protected farmers’ privacy.
   

Ultimately, eliminating deforestation in commodity supply chains is a complex issue that requires multi-faceted approaches involving many different supply chain actors. Traceability and transparency are not silver-bullet solutions. But with the right conditions in place and an all-hands-on-deck approach, they can be key to removing barriers to ending deforestation.

supply-deforestation-palm-oil.jpeg Forests Forests deforestation data agriculture forest products corporate sustainability commodities Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Traceability and Transparency in Supply Chains for Agricultural and Forest Commodities A New Tool Can Help Root Out Deforestation from Complex Supply Chains Ending Tropical Deforestation: The Elusive Impact of the Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Movement Companies Can Now Spot Deforestation in their Palm Oil Supply Chains Before it Happens Projects

• Forest Data Partnership
• Global Forest Watch
• Global Forest Watch Pro
• Forest Governance and Policy (FGP)

Authors Tina Schneider Laura Vary Stephanie Tan

A New Global Green Accountability Platform Will Enhance Civil Society Involvement in Climate Finance and Action ciara.regan@wri.org Wed, 02/28/2024 - 16:06

With funding from the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA), WRI will lead a consortium that includes Huairou Commission and SouthSouthNorth (SSN) to implement the $4.5 million Green Accountability Platform to provide finance, technical assistance and strategic support to civil society organizations in Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Mexico and Senegal to strengthen civil engagement for effective climate action. These organizations will be selected by the consortium through an open, competitive call for grants that is expected to launch by the second half of April 2024. 

Green accountability means that governments have put in place systems and processes that ensure civil society can participate in decisions that shape how climate finance is spent, managed and monitored in their country. It reflects the importance of a rights-based approach to climate action, as well as the instrumental importance of civil society and community voices in ensuring that resulting policies are locally led and respond to local needs and priorities. The five selected countries have all opted into the GPSA and reflect a diversity of geographies, climate finance governance contexts, and civil society coalitions and capacities. 

Calls for more transparent and accountable decision making on climate action are not new. While advocates and government champions have made clear progress on several fronts  — more proactively open climate data, climate assemblies that better represent the public in decision-making — these types of innovations need to be scaled up through broader political commitment. For instance, WRI found that fewer than 20 countries have established climate budget tagging systems and, in many countries, even a clear definition of climate finance is lacking. Shrinking civic space in several parts of the world means that activists, Indigenous leaders and others face harassment, threats and violence when they speak out against activities that threaten their environment and climate. Weak government transparency and accountability erodes trust in public institutions and limits public participation in decision-making processes.

Without effective mechanisms for transparency and accountability, there is also a heightened risk of corruption and mismanagement of resources earmarked for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. Thus, fostering transparency and accountability not only strengthens civic engagement but also bolsters the effectiveness of climate finance and legitimacy of climate action. The Green Accountability Platform will help by providing grants, tools, and shared learning and support coalition building for civil society organizations working at the grassroots and national levels. It will also connect with national and global networks working to strengthen climate governance and support green accountability. 

Chittagong-Bangladesh.jpg Equity & Governance Climate Equity Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Jesse Worker Rocío Campos

Increased Biofuel Production in the US Midwest May Harm Farmers and the Climate alicia.cypress… Tue, 02/27/2024 - 13:25

U.S. production of biofuels has increased fivefold in the past two decades, and nowhere has felt the impact more than the Midwest. While the expansion of biofuels in the region has brought economic benefits to some farmers, it also raises questions about the ultimate sustainability and equity of biofuels as an alternative fuel source in the U.S.

The U.S. currently uses approximately 180 million acres of prime farmland, mostly in Midwest states — including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin — to produce corn and soy, much of which are used for biofuels. Since 2007, these crops have expanded by close to 7 million acres, most likely due to the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which sets targets for biofuel production.

Large farm machines are used to harvest corn in the Midwest. The expansion of corn crops in this region to be used for biofuel production increases agricultural emissions and displaces land that could be used for other purposes. Photo by JamesBrey/iStock. 

Because of the emissions produced by land use change and the process of growing crops and refining biofuels, crop-based biofuels are not an effective tool to curb climate change. Growing corn and soy crops for biofuels displaces land that could be more effectively used to fight climate change or provide community benefits. For example, land devoted to biofuels could instead produce food, host low-carbon energy sources like solar and wind, or be used for restoration of forests or grasslands.

Beyond the climate impact, biofuel expansion also significantly impacts public health through air and water pollution. Plus, the economic benefits of the biofuels industry have been unequally distributed to larger farms, which may exacerbate long-standing inequities among Midwestern farmers.

As Midwestern policymakers and the public assess the future of biofuels in their region, there are four key factors to pay attention to:

1) Biofuels Crops Contribute Disproportionately to Midwestern Agricultural Emissions

The Midwest is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, but as a result, it has an outsized greenhouse gas footprint. According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the agriculture sector in the Midwest emitted 315 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2020 and agricultural lands sequestered approximately 38 MtCO2e, leading to net emissions of 278 MtCO2e. This makes up roughly 20% of total regional emissions, while nationally, agriculture is responsible for approximately 10% of all emissions. These emissions come from many sources including fertilizer production and use, animal manure management, on-farm energy use and emissions from land use change.

Corn and soybeans dominate the Midwest’s agricultural landscape. These crops are grown on 75% of the region’s arable land; between one-third and three-quarters of these crops are likely used to make biofuels, depending on the state. Because the Midwest produces so much corn and soy for ethanol and biodiesel, the biofuels industry contributes significantly to the region’s agricultural emissions.

Fertilizer production and use is by far the highest contributor to agricultural emissions based on EPA data, emitting roughly 180 MtCO2e in 2020, mostly in the form of nitrous oxide, or about 60% of total Midwestern agricultural emissions. In addition to being a major emissions source, fertilizer use also leads to drinking water contamination, soil degradation and algal blooms in bodies of water like the Gulf of Mexico.

Because corn is a nitrogen-intensive crop, it requires heavy fertilizer application. Fertilizer use increases as corn for ethanol replaces other, less nitrogen-intensive crops. While there are opportunities for farmers to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by adopting practices like targeted fertilizer application, these interventions cannot eliminate emissions. Midwestern legislators hoping to tackle climate change in their state need to consider both current emissions from biofuel production and the likelihood of increased agricultural emissions if biofuels production expands.

2) Biofuel Crops Displace Natural Lands

Another major source of emissions and environmental degradation from biofuels is the conversion of natural lands, like forests and grasslands, to farms for crops such as corn and soy. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that acres devoted to corn and soy cultivation increased by 17% in the Midwest from 2008-2022, displacing other crops and natural lands. Further, one model estimates that the Renewable Fuel Standard caused 26% more conversion of natural land to cropland nationally than would have occurred without the policy.

A separate study found that 4.2 million acres of land were converted to cropland within 100 miles of biorefineries between 2008 and 2012, which suggests that this cropland expansion was likely caused by biofuel demand. Conversion of land to cropland not only spikes emissions, but also diminishes vital forests and grasslands, encroaches on already dwindling healthy ecosystems and leads to higher levels of water pollution.

3) Biofuels Contribute to Economic Inequities

Increased biofuels production may also leave small-scale farmers behind as larger, more consolidated farms are used to grow soy and corn. That impact could be felt the most amongst farmers of color.

A young farmer checks on soybean crops. Young farmers have had trouble accessing full benefits from the new Renewable Fuel Standard, despite their role in feeding communities. Photo by DS70/iStock.

While the Renewable Fuel Standard contributed an estimated $14.1 billion in profits to the agricultural sector from 2005 to 2015, not all farmers have been able to equally access the profits from U.S. biofuels subsidies. 

While Midwestern farmers tend to be white (98%), male (67%) and above 55 years old (61%), this wasn’t always the case. Many Indigenous farmers and non-white farmers who historically occupied land in the Midwest have been pushed out of the agricultural sector due to systemic barriers, violence and discriminatory policies that made it difficult, if not impossible, to access finance and farm assistance.

Of the more than 12,000 farms operated by non-white farmers today, most are primarily small farms. Since corn and soy crops tend to be grown on larger farms, farmers of color with smaller operations may not receive economic benefits that biofuels bring to the Midwest.

Further expansion of biofuels also risks exacerbating the trend of farmland consolidation that is squeezing small, farms out of the market, since corn and soy are typically grown on large monocropping operations. Although biofuels policy does not single-handedly cause cropland consolidation in the Midwest, consolidated farmland growing monocultures tends to replace smaller farms with diversified crops. Midsize farms have historically been the economic backbone of many local communities, and their loss has accelerated economic and social challenges in the rural Midwest.

In an analysis of data from 1978 to 2017, the Union of Concerned Scientists found “large crop farms are getting larger, small crop farms are getting smaller, and midsize crop farms are disappearing.” Over the almost four decades of the study, the total number of farms has decreased as farm size tripled. While cropland consolidation has decreased the number of farmers in all racial groups, the trend has been 2.5 times more severe for Black farmers.

Farmland consolidation also stresses agricultural communities by increasing farmland real estate prices and preventing small-scale farmers from purchasing or renting land. Because farmland continues to increase in value, corporations and wealthy individuals have invested in large swaths of farmland, which they rent to farmers at increasing prices.   

Future agricultural policy in the Midwest needs to support all farmers and environmentally-friendly farming systems, including small and medium-sized farms growing diversified crops. Future expansion of corn and soy cultivation could continue to exacerbate land loss for non-white farmers, as well as the loss of diversified farming systems. Policymakers need to assess whether additional support for biofuels may exacerbate, rather than improve challenges facing their constituents.

Racial and Gender Dynamics of U.S. Farmers

While analyzing trends in data is critical to understanding racial dynamics in farming, federal agricultural data is imperfect and may not always reflect the full story. Many farmers lack documented legal ownership of their land because of laws governing how land is passed down through generations, particularly Black and Native American farmers. One study found that Black farmers lost $326 billion worth of land in the 20th century due to discriminatory lending practices and legal difficulties that come with inheriting land that does not have a formal title, also known as heir’s property.

In addition, the majority of people working on U.S. farms are immigrants, with almost half being undocumented. Corn and soy production is highly mechanized, so it’s unlikely that undocumented workers make up a considerable portion of biofuels workers. However, this constitutes a major data gap.

Women are another major group that may not be accurately accounted for. Married white women farmers are more likely to have their husband designated as the primary producer or business owner and therefore may not be represented adequately in federal data.

Farming practices also vary by different groups. Women constitute roughly one-third of farmers, with white women occupying 95% of this share. Women famers grow a variety of crops, but there are racial trends in this subset; for example, compared to white women, women farmers of color tend to grow more vegetables. Black and Asian American and Pacific Island women also are more likely to operate smaller farms and are more likely to grow organic crops, but they are much less likely to be certified organic.

4) Biofuels Contribute to Community Health Risks

The lifecycle of biofuels, from crop production to refining, negatively affects water and air quality for Midwestern communities. For example, increased fertilizer use from expansion of corn and soy cultivation can lead to high concentrations of nitrates in the tap water of heavy agriculture areas. While these communities can see spikes in nitrate levels past the EPA limit of 10 parts per million (ppm), many average around 5 ppm, which still carries long-term health risks like cancer and birth defects. A report from the Environmental Working Group found Midwestern states have a high overlap between poor water quality and agricultural areas. A study in southeast Minnesota correlated agricultural expansion with well contamination, estimating that the conversion of grassland to agriculture from 2007 to 2012 increased the number of wells exceeding 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen by 45%.

The process of refining biofuels also carries harmful impacts on resources and human health. Midwestern ethanol refineries are major greenhouse gas emitters, collectively releasing 17.4 MTCO2e in 2021. They also contribute air-polluting volatile organic compounds and ground-level ozone, which can cause respiratory issues. Refining ethanol also requires high volumes of water, which is currently drawn from underground aquifers. There is a danger that production of biofuels will lead to a depletion of these aquifers and decreased drought resilience for communities. These concerns show that policymakers should adequately weigh public health dangers related to the entire lifecycle of biofuel cultivation, refining and use.

The Future of Biofuels in the U.S.

Biofuels have already had a significant impact on Midwestern environments and communities, yet political support for biofuels remains strong. Policymakers can, however, take steps to reduce the future environmental footprint and human impact of the industry. Trends in emissions, land use change, economic inequities and community health risks are all key dynamics that are often overlooked in biofuels policymaking.

To avoid these negative impacts, it will be necessary to place conservative limits on purpose-grown crops for biofuels. This is true both for biofuels used to power cars and for the expanding sustainable aviation fuel industry, which could drive vast expansion of land devoted to biofuels crops.

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, the Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

 

corn-soy-biofuel-midwest-farmers.jpg U.S. Climate United States biofuels agriculture U.S. Climate Policy-Lands land use U.S. Climate Policy-Equity Climate Equity environmental justice Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• U.S. Climate Policy Resource Center

Authors Angela Scafidi Haley Leslie-Bole

What Is "Loss and Damage" from Climate Change? 8 Key Questions, Answered helen.morgan@wri.org Mon, 02/26/2024 - 11:00

The planet has already warmed by approximately 1.1 degrees C (2 degrees F) due to human-induced climate change. Millions of people today are facing the real-life consequences of higher temperatures, rising seas, fiercer storms and unpredictable rainfall.

Rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to limit temperature rise and secure a safer future for us all. So is making major investments to protect communities from severe impacts that will continue to worsen.

Yet, collective efforts to curb emissions and adapt are currently not enough to tackle the speed and scale of climate impacts — meaning that some losses and damages from climate change are inevitable. How countries handle these losses and damages has been a key issue at UN climate negotiations and beyond.

Here, we provide an explainer on the concept of “loss and damage” and what’s needed to address it.

1) What Is Loss and Damage?

“Loss and damage” is a general term used in UN climate negotiations to refer to the consequences of climate change that go beyond what people can adapt to; for example, the loss of coastal heritage sites due to rising sea levels or the loss of homes and lives during extreme floods. This also includes situations where adaptation options exist, but a community doesn’t have the resources to access or utilize them.

To date, there is no official definition of loss and damage under the UN.

Loss and damage is harming and will continue to harm vulnerable communities the most, meaning that addressing the issue is an urgent matter of climate justice. But the subject has historically been fraught with contention both inside and outside of UN climate negotiations. In particular, countries have struggled to reach agreement on how much money developed countries should supply to address loss and damage in developing nations, which have contributed the least to the climate crisis but are often hit hardest by its impacts.

2) What Counts as Loss and Damage?

Loss and damage can result from extreme weather events like cyclones, droughts and heatwaves, as well as from slow-onset changes such as sea level rise, desertification, glacial retreat, land degradation, ocean acidification and salinization. In some cases, damages may permanently alter places; for example, rising seas encroaching on low-lying islands, or drought shrinking water supplies and turning once-productive farmland into barren land.

Harko, 12 years old, walks across the land with her younger brother in search of water during a drought in Ethiopia. Photo by UNICEF Ethiopia/2016/Ayene

Damages from the effects of climate change can be further divided into two categories — economic losses and non-economic losses — though there is overlap between the two.

Economic losses and damages are those affecting resources, goods and services that are commonly traded in markets, such as damage to critical infrastructure and property or supply chain disruptions. This can play out at an international or national scale as well as locally, such as impacts on individual farmers or communities.

In coastal Bangladesh, for example, salt farming is a major source of employment. Yet in recent years, frequent cyclones, tidal surges and heavy rainfall have hampered salt production, eroding the country’s self-sufficiency and forcing it to import salt to manage the market shortfall.

Non-economic losses and damages can be some of the most devastating — such as the incalculable toll of losing family members, the disappearance of cultures and ways of living, or the trauma of being forced to migrate from ancestral homes.

Take the communities in Kosrae, Micronesia, who have lost burial grounds due to coastal erosion caused by sea level rise. Likewise, the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has affected the cultural identity and hunting practices among Inuit communities. While harder to quantify and monetize, non-economic losses have severe and detrimental effects on communities’ well-being.

3) What Is the Difference Between Mitigation, Adaptation and Addressing Loss and Damage?

Under the Paris Agreement on climate change, countries recognized the importance of “averting, minimizing and addressing” loss and damage. Loss and damage can be “averted” and “minimized” by curbing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and by taking preemptive action to protect communities from the consequences of climate change (adaptation). Climate adaptation measures include protecting communities from sea level rise by helping them move to higher ground, preparing for extreme weather disasters by investing in early warning systems, protecting food supplies, switching to drought-resistant crops and much more.

Addressing loss and damage is the crucial third pillar of climate action: providing support to people and communities after they have experienced climate-related impacts.

Loss and damage is linked to adaptation and mitigation because it happens when efforts to reduce emissions are not ambitious enough and when adaptation efforts are unsuccessful or impossible to implement. The second installment of the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report, published in February 2022, acknowledges that as the magnitude of climate change increases, so does the likelihood of exceeding adaptation limits. It differentiates between “soft” limits — when adaptation options exist but communities don’t have the financial resources needed to pursue them — and “hard” limits, where “there are no reasonable prospects for avoiding intolerable risks.” These limits are particularly acute in vulnerable communities that lack the resources needed to implement effective adaptation options.

Coral reefs offer a good example of where adaptation is likely to reach its limits. The IPCC found that 70%-90% of tropical coral reefs will die by mid-century even if temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), with nearly total loss under 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) of warming. This will lead to irreversible losses of biodiversity and have a major impact on coastal communities that eat and sell fish that live along reefs.

While further research is needed to fully understand the limits of climate adaptation, it’s clear that losses and damage are already happening, and many communities lack the resources to deal with them. Climate plans and policies should account for loss and damage alongside mitigation and adaptation.

Damage to buildings caused by Hurricane Irma in Nanny Cay on the British Virgin Island of Tortola. The Caribbean island suffered widespread damage and destruction when Hurricane Irma passed over in 2017. Photo by Russell Watkins/DFID 4) What’s the History of Loss and Damage in UN Climate Negotiations?

The issue of loss and damage has been a live — and contentious — one in UN climate negotiations for over three decades.

When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was first being drafted in 1991, the island nation of Vanuatu (on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States) proposed creating an insurance scheme to provide financial resources to countries impacted by sea level rise. Under its proposal, each country would contribute funds based on their relative contribution to global emissions and their share of the global gross national product. However, the proposal was rejected, and the issue of loss and damage was not mentioned when the text of the Framework Convention was adopted in 1992.

Driving Action on Loss and Damage

ACT2025, a consortium of climate-vulnerable countries, is working to drive greater international climate ambition that meets the needs of developing countries, including on loss and damage. Learn more about ACT2025 and its work here.

Loss and damage first appeared in a negotiated outcome of the UN climate talks in 2007 as part of the Bali Action Plan. Yet it wasn’t until 2013 that the issue gained real traction in these negotiations, when parties formed the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage to avert, minimize and address loss and damage. The Warsaw Mechanism was mandated to share knowledge, strengthen dialogues among stakeholders, and mobilize expertise to enhance action and support for loss and damage. But neither the Warsaw Mechanism nor any other established mechanism delivered funding to help countries manage loss and damage.

In 2015, developing nations successfully pressed to include an article on loss and damage (Article 8) in the Paris Agreement. However, finance related to loss and damage was ignored. In fact, developed countries secured language in the accompanying COP decision explicitly stating that loss and damage “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.”

A large coalition of climate-vulnerable countries advocated at COP26 in 2021 for creating a new finance facility or fund dedicated to loss and damage. But developed nations again rejected their proposal. Instead, countries established a two-year Glasgow Dialogue to discuss possible arrangements for loss and damage funding. They also agreed to fund the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD), which aims to provide developing countries with technical assistance to address loss and damage. Some EU member states pledging more than €30 million ($32 million) towards the network.

At COP27, countries agreed for the first time to put loss and damage funding arrangements on the formal agenda. This culminated in a historic decision to establish a “loss and damage fund,” which governments aimed to operationalize the following year. Countries also resolved key questions around the SNLD’s governance structures, paving the way for its full operationalization in 2023.

On day one of COP28, after months of intense and contentious negotiations, countries set the loss and damage fund in motion and agreed on critical details, like selecting the World Bank as its host. Over the following two weeks, countries pledged almost $700 million to start filling the fund. The Santiago Network on Loss and Damage was also operationalized, with the UN Office of Disaster Risk Reduction and UN Office for Project Services as its hosts and the U.S. pledging an additional $2.5 million.

This was a landmark moment for loss and damage negotiations — but the work is far from done.

In the lead-up to COP29 in 2024, countries will be looking for confirmation that the World Bank can meet the conditions required to host the loss and damage fund. Some of these conditions include the ability to institute firewalls to ensure the independence and integrity of the fund’s board and secretariat; allowing countries direct access to resources from the fund; and ensuring universal access to all parties of the Paris Agreement, even if they are not members of the World Bank. Countries will also be watching the Board of the Fund for institutional arrangements that ensure the fund can deliver resources at the speed and scale necessary.

Finally, developed nations must put forth much more finance to fill the loss and damage fund. While the $700 million pledged at COP28 is a start, vulnerable countries may face as much as $580 billion in climate-related damages by 2030.

5) Is Loss and Damage an Issue of Liability and Compensation?

One reason loss and damage has been so contentious historically is due to developed countries’ concerns that compensating for losses and damages caused by adverse climate impacts may be construed as an admission of legal liability, triggering litigation and compensation claims on a major scale. As such, developed countries fought to include language in the Paris Agreement to prevent them from being legally on the hook to provide compensation.

This concern was addressed in loss and damage funding discussions at COP27 and in the final decision at COP28, which states that “funding arrangements, including a fund, for responding to loss and damage are based on cooperation and facilitation and do not involve liability or compensation.” This provided the assurance that developed countries were looking for to continue negotiations and set the loss and damage fund in motion.

6) What Are Some Possible Sources of Funding for Addressing Loss and Damage?

Some developed countries point to humanitarian aid, disaster-risk management and insurance as sources of finance for loss and damage. Other, more innovative sources have also been proposed, such as levies on air travel and shipping, financial transactions taxes, taxes on windfall profits of fossil fuel companies, and other non-public sources. But these can’t function separately. To address the scale and scope of the problem, they all need to be part of the “mosaic of solutions.”

For example, in the wake of devastating floods in 2022, Pakistan needed short-term humanitarian assistance as well as long-term support for rebuilding. Meanwhile, Palau is concerned that tuna are migrating out of its fishing areas as the ocean warms. Without the ability to fish for tuna, some Pacific Island nations could lose income averaging 37% of government revenue. While humanitarian aid would not be poised nor mandated to address this problem, other forms of finance could.

Thai and migrant workers from Laos and Myanmar line up to collect donations after floods, 2011. Photo by ILO/Sai Min Zaw

This underscores the need for broader funding arrangements, including the dedicated loss and damage fund, which can coordinate and align various types of funding from both within and outside of the UNFCCC to adequately address loss and damage. The new fund will facilitate coordination with a wide variety of funding arrangements through multilateral development banks, relevant UN agencies, multilateral climate funds, the International Office of Migration, the Santiago Network and others.

Outside of the UNFCCC, there have been additional important developments for financing loss and damage. These include the Climate Vulnerable Forum and Vulnerable Twenty (V20) Group’s crowd-sourced loss and damage fund and the G7 and V20’s Global Shield Against Climate Risks initiative, which aims to enhance existing financial structures on climate risk and loss and damage finance.

7) What Activities Could Finance for Loss and Damage Support?

Action to address loss and damage could span a range of activities and should be shaped by the communities experiencing climate change impacts. Examples include weather-indexed crop insurance for farmers or proactively setting aside funds to rebuild critical infrastructure when disaster strikes.

It could also entail providing immediate humanitarian assistance after an extreme weather event; offering relief and rehabilitation to victims through provision of basic amenities; enabling social protection systems to provide emergency cash transfers to the poor; and enhancing microcredit institutions to provide financing for livelihood restoration.

Loss and damage funding could also help people rebuild when their homes are destroyed. For example, while early warning systems in Bangladesh have helped radically reduce fatalities from extreme weather events, people leave the storm shelters to find their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and have thus unquestionably experienced loss and damage.

Finally, when necessary, funding for loss and damage can assist with migration and relocation of people who are permanently displaced, and/or help diversify skills if their original livelihoods are no longer available.

8) What Needs to Happen Next to Address Loss and Damage?

Climate impacts are already causing widespread disruptions and are only poised to worsen, even with ambitious action on emissions reductions and adaptation. The need for loss and damage solutions — most notably, finance to enable them — is more urgent than ever before.

With the loss and damage fund now in motion, the international community will have to work diligently to finalize the details of new funding arrangements and to mobilize finance at scale. Developing countries and communities on the front lines of climate impacts are counting on them.

 

This article was originally published in April 2022. It was last updated in February 2024 to reflect the latest state of play for loss and damage in UN climate negotiations.

loss-and-damage-questions-explainer.jpg Climate climate impacts climate policy Climate Resilience climatewatch-pinned COP28 Featured Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Climate Watch
• Allied for Climate Transformation By 2025 (ACT2025)

Authors Preety Bhandari Nate Warszawski Deirdre Cogan Rhys Gerholdt

What We Know About Deep-sea Mining — And What We Don’t margaret.overh… Fri, 02/23/2024 - 07:00

In the race to cut greenhouse gas emissions and rein in climate change, demand for critical minerals is surging. Materials such as lithium, cobalt and graphite are essential components of EV batteries, wind turbines, solar panels and other low-carbon technologies increasingly powering the world’s energy systems. Mining for these materials on land is already underway, but with demand surging, some are now looking to tap the seafloor for its millions of square kilometers of metal ores.

Indeed, some nations are already applying to the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) for permits to explore deep-sea mining in international waters, where the bulk of the ocean’s critical minerals are found. But despite years of research, little is still known about the deep ocean. Many fear that extracting minerals from it could pose grave consequences for both marine life and planetary health.

After failing to reach an agreement in July 2023, the ISA now has until 2025 to finalize regulations that will dictate whether and how countries could pursue deep-sea mining in international waters. Formal discussions about its potential environmental impacts will kick off in 2024 and could help inform ISA’s decision. What will happen in the meantime remains unclear.

With the future of deep-sea mining still under debate, here’s what we know so far about the proposed practice and its impacts — and what we don’t:

1) What Is Deep-sea Mining and How Would It Be Done?

Deep-sea mining aims to retrieve valuable mineral deposits found on the ocean’s floor, hundreds or even thousands of meters below its surface. Alongside a diverse array of marine life at these depths are significant reserves of copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold and rare earth elements — materials that are essential to building zero-carbon energy components and other technologies but can be difficult to source.

In the deep sea, these minerals are contained within slow-forming, potato-sized polymetallic nodules, as well as in polymetallic sulphides (large deposits made up of sulphur compounds and other metals that form around hydrothermal vents) and metal-rich crusts on underwater mountains (seamounts). While there has been commercial interest in these minerals for decades, recent advancements in technology have made it possible to mine these areas by sending vehicles down to harvest mineral deposits from the seafloor.

Mineral nodules on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a key area of interest for deep-sea mining. Photo by ROV KIEL 6000/GEOMAR

In the case of polymetallic nodules — which are currently the primary focus for deep-sea mining — mining vehicles would collect mineral deposits from the surface of the seabed, not unlike a tractor plowing a field, along with the top layers of sediment. The materials collected would then be piped up to a surface vessel for processing, and any waste, such as sediments and other organic materials, would be pumped back into the water column.

2) What’s the Current Status of Deep-sea Mining?

While exploratory mining to test equipment has occurred at a small scale, deep-sea mining has not yet been undertaken commercially. But some national governments and mining companies plan to begin as soon as possible, which could be within the next few years. What happens next will largely hinge on the ISA and how it decides to regulate deep-sea mining.

In 2021, the Pacific Island nation of Nauru notified the ISA of its plans to begin mining in international waters, triggering a contentious provision in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) known as the “two-year rule.” The rule requires that, starting two years after the date of this notification, the ISA must "consider" and "provisionally approve" applications to mine — regardless of whether a final set of regulations has been agreed on. The two-year period elapsed in July 2023 and ISA’s ensuing meeting ended with no final rule in place. Now, its Council is working with a view to adopt regulations by 2025.

The ISA Assembly (comprised of all 168 members) will meet in 2024 and will likely discuss the potential impacts of seabed mining on the marine environment for the first time. Some hope these discussions will lead to a “precautionary pause” on mining activities while further research is conducted, although whether this will occur — and what could happen in the meantime — remains unclear.

While the ISA has two more years to establish a code for international waters, countries could still go ahead with deep-sea mining projects in their own domestically controlled waters, known as “exclusive economic zones” (EEZs).

In January 2024, Norway initiated a process to open its own waters for exploration of deep-sea mineral resources, likely starting in the early 2030s. Other countries may follow suit, though in practice, many will be constrained by a lack of available funding and technical ability. There is also a great diversity of opinion on seabed mining among nation states. Some, such as Norway and Nauru, are leading the charge for exploration and extraction; others, such as Germany and Canada, as well as the European Parliament, have called for national and regional moratoria.

In addition, the bulk of the most attractive mineral deposits are found not in countries' EEZs but on vast seafloor abyssal plains in international waters. One area of particular interest is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean. This mineral-rich region already hosts exploration contracts for 17 deep-sea mining contractors, with their combined exploration areas covering approximately 1 million square kilometers (about the same area as Ethiopia).

3) What Are the Potential Benefits of Deep-sea Mining?

Proponents of deep-sea mining argue that it can help meet the world’s pressing need for critical minerals, which will likely only continue to grow as countries scale their decarbonization efforts. Estimates suggest that global demand for some such minerals could rise by as much as 400%-600% in the coming decades as the world increases its reliance on wind and solar power, electric vehicles, batteries and other zero-carbon technologies. Several studies have concluded that there is no shortage of mineral resources on land, but the world still faces significant hurdles in locating viable reserves and quickly scaling up mining and processing operations.

Some also view deep-sea mining as an alternative pathway that can circumvent certain risks associated with mining activities on land. Since extraction activities would occur exclusively at sea, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be associated with environmental hazards such as deforestation and freshwater pollution that can impact communities neighboring mines on land.

Similarly, the difficulty in accessing deep-sea mineral deposits for exploitation means that artisanal (small-scale) mining operations would be impossible and strong regulation of labor conditions may be feasible. This could potentially avoid the human rights abuses associated with some terrestrial mining operations. However, experiences of labor abuse in distant-water fishing operations show this outcome is not guaranteed.

4) What Are the Risks of Deep-sea Mining?

While the deep sea was once thought to be devoid of life — too dark, cold and starved of food for anything to survive — we now know that it is the largest habitable space on the planet and home to a dazzling array of life. To date, tens of thousands of species have been found in the deep ocean, with estimates that there could be millions more. In the Clarion-Clipperton Zone alone, a key area of interest for deep-sea mining, researchers have recently discovered over 5,000 species that were entirely new to science.

A starfish in a field of manganese nodules on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Thousands of previously unknown deep-sea species have already been discovered in this area, which some seek to mine for its mineral resources. Photo by ROV-Team/GEOMAR

With exploration and testing still in the early stages, further research is required to determine the possible ecological impacts of deep-sea mining. But the science to date paints a concerning picture.

• Direct harm to marine life: There is a high likelihood that less mobile deep-sea organisms would be killed through direct contact with heavy mining equipment deployed on the seabed, and that organisms would be smothered and suffocated by the sediment plumes these machines are likely to create. Warm mining wastewater could also kill marine life through overheating and poisoning.
• Long-term species and ecosystem disruption: Mining activities could impair the feeding and reproduction of deep-sea species through the creation of intense noise and light pollution in a naturally dark and silent environment. For example, the sound pollution from these activities could negatively impact large mega-fauna like whales, posing further risk to populations already strained by climate change and other human activities. Because many deep-sea species are rare, long-lived and slow to reproduce, and because polymetallic nodules (which may take millions of years to develop to a harvestable size) are an important habitat for deep-sea species, scientists are fairly certain that some species would face extinction from habitat removal due to mining, and that these ecosystems would require extremely long time periods to recover, if ever.
• Possible impacts on fishing and food security: It’s not just the seafloor that’s at risk. Under current designs, waste discharge from mining vessels could spread over large distances, potentially kilometers away from the areas being mined. This may pose a threat to open ocean fish and invertebrates which are crucial to international fisheries — such as tuna stocks that help drive the economies of many small island developing states in the Pacific, including Kiribati, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands. Effects of this mining waste could include suffocation, damaged respiratory and feeding structures, and disrupted visual communication within and amongst species, alongside changes in the oxygen content, pH, temperature and toxicity of seawater. However, more research is needed on the characteristics of the discharge plumes themselves and the tolerance of ocean species to fully understand these impacts.
• Economic and social risks: While extraction would occur offshore, the deep-sea mining industry would still need shoreline facilities, whether for processing or transshipment of material. This would require land acquisition and development, which has historically driven habitat loss affecting coastal communities dependent on marine resources the most. And, though the UN has designated high-seas minerals “the common heritage of [hu]mankind” and declared that any mineral extraction should benefit all nations, the current regulatory regime of the ISA appears to promote the flow of mining profits to developed states, or to shareholders of mining companies, rather than being inclusive of developing nations.
• Potential climate impacts: The ocean is the world’s largest carbon sink, absorbing around 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Microscopic organisms play a critical role in this climate-regulating system, helping to sequester carbon in the deep sea and reduce emissions of other planet-warming gases, such as methane, from seabed sediments. The loss of deep-sea biodiversity following mining activity may impact the ocean’s carbon cycle and reduce its ability to help mitigate global temperature rise.

5) Is Deep-sea Mining Necessary?

The global supply of critical minerals and rare earth elements must grow in the coming years, and quickly. But there is no easy answer to meeting this need, given the immature state and potential dangers of deep-sea mining and the well-understood harms associated with terrestrial mining. While mineral reserves on land appear sufficient to meet global needs, the world must address how to responsibly scale up mining and processing operations in a way that minimizes environmental and social risks.

Within the next 15-20 years, mineral recycling could become a viable alternative to mining for a large portion of material requirements. The World Bank estimates that if recycling rates for end-of-life batteries increase significantly by 2050, it could decrease the need for newly mined minerals by around one-quarter for copper, nickel and lithium and by about 15% for cobalt. However, in the short term (by 2030), there will not be enough of these minerals in circulation to make recycling a feasible approach.

Better recycling practices in established waste streams, such as from electronics and electrical equipment, can help alleviate some short-term supply pressure while preparing the secondary supply chain to handle a large volume of end-of-life zero-carbon energy products in the future. There is also a range of research efforts underway to obtain the necessary minerals without mining virgin land, including recovery from coal waste or hard rock mine tailings.

Finally, as battery technologies continue to evolve, it is possible that deep-sea mineral deposits will lose their attraction as alternative technologies not reliant on such minerals become more common. For instance, there is a growing shift away from nickel manganese cobalt oxides (NMC) batteries towards lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, with LFP batteries gaining significant market share from 2015 to 2022; their key materials, lithium and iron, are not targets of deep-sea mining. Emerging technologies such as sodium-ion batteries also have the potential to alter the EV battery market by replacing lithium and cobalt with cheaper and more abundant options.

With Serious Questions Still Unanswered, What Comes Next?

In developing regulations for deep-sea mining, the ISA and other stakeholders have a rare opportunity to take a breath before taking the plunge. Rather than extracting resources first and addressing the consequences later, this is a chance to step back and consider the environmental and social implications of deep-sea mining before any activity gets underway. Any decision made should be rooted in evidence robust enough to ensure that no serious harm is done to people, nature or the climate.

In order to continue with the possibility of deep-sea mining, key questions and knowledge gaps should be addressed by the ISA, the mining industry, scientists and national governments:

• What is the potential magnitude and extent (both in space and time) of deep-sea mining impacts on marine species and environments, and what are the likely ecological consequences?
• What are the potential social and economic impacts of deep-sea mining? Is it possible for the industry to be advanced in a way that meets the UNCLOS goal of fostering sustainable economic development, international cooperation and equitable trade growth for all countries?
• How can a circular mineral economy be further developed to lessen the need for environmentally intrusive practices? More research must be conducted into land-based and urban mining practices to improve their efficiency, as well as into improving product design to reduce demand for and increase recycling of critical minerals.
• What are the possible positive and negative implications of deep-sea mining in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as well as for furthering research into deep-sea environments?
• What regulations could be developed to ensure that the financial benefits from deep-sea mining operations, should they occur, are equitably distributed among nations?

Finally, for the exploration of deep-sea mineral resources to continue, regulations should be drafted in full and in transparent collaboration with interested parties and key stakeholders, including ISA members, mining corporations and scientists. These regulations should be backed by science and other forms of knowledge, be enforceable, and offer effective protection for delicate marine environments from the impacts of mining.

 

This article was originally published in July 2023. It was last updated in February 2024 to reflect developments in national deep-sea mining policy.

deep-sea-mining-vessel Ocean Ocean climate change Clean Energy Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Authors Oliver Ashford Jonathan Baines Melissa Barbanell Ke Wang

African Energy Dialogues Brings Together Voices on Africa's Energy Transitions shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/20/2024 - 13:20

In Sub-Saharan Africa, 567 million people lack access to electricity — that makes up 80% of the global population facing this issue. On top of these struggles, Africa is also experiencing some of the worst impacts of climate change, with rising temperatures and extreme weather threatening human health, food and water security.

At the same time, Africa has an abundance of resources, and with the right policies, financing and planning, it has the potential to provide clean energy and economic development. But very few African countries currently have plans in place to use these resources to transition to a reliable, clean energy system. And in many cases, there is little country-specific research to inform development.

New research from WRI established that gaps in research and in coordination are stifling energy transitions in African countries, sparking WRI’s partnership with other major institutions — the African Energy Commission (AFREC), the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and Sustainable Energy for All (SEforAll) — to create a platform for developing, sharing and implementing country-level energy transition plans in Africa. Launched at the 2023 UN climate summit (COP28) in Dubai, African Energy Dialogues (AED) is raising the visibility and increasing the influence of African perspectives in the global discourse about African energy transitions. Its purpose is to create actionable recommendations on broadening clean energy use across the continent.

The launch event opened with a keynote address from respected author and economist Dr. Carlos Lopes, who shared his views on the important role AED can play. According to Dr. Lopes, the AED has a unique opportunity to address the diverse challenges of African energy transitions: Tackling energy access as a priority, the role of renewable and non-renewable energy, the role of Africa in the new global economy, and strategies to ensure a just transition.

Lopes said, “The most important message is to be clear that we can no longer discuss development without climate, and we can no longer discuss climate without development. We have to stop seeing these competing with one another."

Dr. Lopes noted that Africa’s economies have developed largely based on Official Development Assistance (ODA) — but that ODA funding has been reducing with time. There is a need to reduce reliance on ODA and retain economic benefit of domestic investments within African countries. Through its Investment and Finance Working Group, AED will develop and share a roadmap of how African countries can move beyond ODA and increase domestic investments in the energy sector, based on real return on investment and a strong economic case.

The African Energy Commission (AFREC)’s Head of Policy and Strategy, Yagouba Traore, called on AED to provide a space for African countries to share information and experience, as well as a platform to amplify African narratives, positions and agendas on the energy transition and importantly, energy access.

Traore said, “We need to work together to mobilize the necessary resources to develop the energy sector. We believe a platform like this can really provide a way to fast track all the elements.” He added, “We support it and invite all stakeholders to join us so we can provide energy and clean cooking fuels and technology to those who don't have them.”

Linus Mofor, Senior Environmental Affairs Officer at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), also urged those involved in Africa’s energy transition to be part of the AED. He emphasized the importance of platforms like AED to take ownership of Africa’s transition.

“There has always been a very patronizing approach to Africa. When it comes to the energy transition, Africa will decide, it will do it in its own way and consider all options,” Mofor said.

Mofor also noted that the work of AED can provide evidence to support African countries in charting a path that draws on the African Common Position on Energy Access and Transition and also takes into account African countries’ individual circumstances.

Lanre Shasore, Senior Adviser, Energy Transition Planning, Africa at SEforAll echoed the call for African voices to lead the discussion about their own energy transitions. She described Africa’s journey not as a transition story, but as a growth story and raised a key question for AED: What does a net zero world mean for economies like those in Africa? Shasore also urged AED to provide a platform for nuanced conversation on energy transitions, led by African voices.

Rebekah Shirley, WRI Africa’s Deputy Director agreed that through initiatives like AED, “We’re not only singing from the same hymn book, we’re writing our own hymn.”

Looking ahead, AED will form working groups and task forces on energy transition topics (including investment and finance, enabling policies and regulation, and technologies and infrastructure), support individual countries to develop energy transition pathways, share knowledge and best practice to improve understanding of African countries’ energy systems, and elevate African perspectives in the global debates on energy transitions. AED is actively seeking participation from individuals and organizations based in all African countries and all areas of expertise, including research, policy energy planning, infrastructure, finance and investment.

To find out how to get involved, visit www.africanenergydialogues.org or contact the team.

african-energy-dialogues-town.jpeg Energy Africa Energy Clean Energy renewable energy Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data A Path Across the Rift: Informing African Energy Transitions by Unearthing Critical Questions and Data Needs Projects

• African Energy Dialogues: Energising the Future Together

Authors Mary W. Githinji Sarah George

What Is the Paris Agreement’s Article 2.1(c) on Climate Finance, and Why Does it Matter? Key Questions, Answered christian.made… Thu, 02/15/2024 - 15:38

Recent studies indicate that the world will need $10 trillion annually between 2030 and 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. That’s a lot — but the world has the money.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explains, ”there is sufficient global capital to close the global investment gaps … but there are barriers to redirecting capital to climate action.” The challenge, then, is not necessarily raising additional finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation, but how to align all the world’s capital towards climate action.

Article 2.1(c) of the international Paris Agreement on climate change aims to do just that by “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-resilient development.” However, the language of Article 2.1(c) is vague on what exactly it entails. Eight years after virtually all countries signed the Paris Agreement, they’re still at odds over the scope of Article 2.1(c) and how it should be implemented.

Here, we explain what Article 2.1(c) is, how it interacts with other finance mandates, and what’s needed to put it into action.

What Does Article 2.1(c) Do? 

The heart of the Paris Agreement on climate change is Article 2, which sets the objectives of the agreement. Article 2.1(a) urges a global response to hold the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Article 2.1(b) outlines the need to adapt to adverse impacts of climate change, build resilience and pursue low-greenhouse gas development. Article 2.1(c) points out that we need to make finance flows consistent with these objectives if we’re ever going to attain them. Finally, Article 2.2 outlines the context these articles should be pursued under, including the principles of equity, common-but-differentiated responsibility, and respective capabilities and national circumstances.

2.1(c) is a holistic goal. That means it covers both mitigation and adaptation, potentially encompassing domestic and international finance flows. It requires not just scaling up the good finance — for example, climate resilience bonds and financing for new renewable energy projects — but also scaling down funding to carbon-intensive activities, like new coal plants or diesel truck fleets. And it doesn’t stop with government spending. Depending on how it’s interpreted, it could also encompass the private sector, including financial institutions, businesses, corporations and investors.

In short, financial systems broadly must align with the pursuit of sustainable development and international climate goals. This means that all types of investments and financing activities — all investors and actors in the real economy, stock as well as flows — should be “consistent” with achieving the world’s climate goals.

2.1(c) will require economic and financial reform. The tools (e.g., policies and economic and financial instruments) for getting there will be many and varied. Innovative policies and financial instruments will surely play a role, such as green procurement (where companies and governments would be required to decarbonize supply chains) and climate-related bonds to integrate climate priorities into economic development plans.

And in order to ensure equity, alignment of financial flows will have to be customized to each country’s economic, financial and social contexts. This especially includes developing countries’ pursuit of sustainable development, poverty eradication and a just transition.

What Progress Has Been Made Toward Achieving Article 2.1(c)? 

Though a common understanding of 2.1(c) has yet to be agreed upon by Paris Agreement signatories, efforts inside and outside the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are providing glimpses of what alignment could look like.

Efforts Within UNFCCC

The UN’s Global Stocktake, which concluded at the recent UN Climate summit (COP28), assessed progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement for the first time, including Article 2.1(c). In its key findings released in a Synthesis Report in September 2023, it recognized that financial flows include “international and domestic, public and private.”

Negotiators established the Sharm el-Sheikh dialogue on Article 2.1(c) at COP27 in 2022, where countries, organizations and other stakeholders can exchange views and enhance understanding of the scope of 2.1(c) and its complementarity with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on developed countries’ financial responsibilities). As a result of the dialogue, the secretariat prepared a report about their deliberations. At COP28, negotiators decided to extend the dialogue with at least two sessions, one in 2024 and one in 2025, followed by a report by the co-chairs about the deliberations.

The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), established during COP16, has two tasks related to Article 2.1(c): mapping information that contributes to the implementation of Article 2.1(c) and preparing a synthesis report (published in November 2023) analyzing how to operationalize it. The SCF provided a first report at COP27 and an updated report at COP28 for countries’ consideration.

Efforts Outside UNFCCC

Stakeholders like investors and corporations have developed frameworks to identify progress in aligning financing per Article 2.1(c). For example, WRI developed a framework and identified tools governments already have at their disposal to shift and mobilize finance. Tools are available in four categories: financial policies and regulations, fiscal policy levers, public finance and information instruments.

Investors, corporations and financial institutions have also shown some progress on Article 2.1(c) alignment.

Paying for the Paris Agreement Resource Hub

WRI recently launched a resource hub highlighting different tools to make progress towards 2.1(c). This platform includes multimedia modules on 16 tools for aligning and increasing public and private finance for climate goals, including public-private partnerships, green procurement standards, mandatory climate risk disclosure and more.

Some are mainstreaming climate risk in their operations by applying risk management approaches, including disclosure frameworks to assess physical (e.g., fires and floods) and transitional (e.g., regulatory and technologies) risks. The theory of change is that disclosing information on climate-related risks may lead to investors deciding to shift their investments, contributing to alignment. To this end, corporations are applying the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) frameworks to their own risk disclosures. Some central banks have incorporated climate-related risks into their operations.

Additionally, investors with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) have developed guidelines for financial institutions to align their business and operations with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions. Financial institutions including asset owners and managers, commercial banks and insurers have made commitments to back sustainable finance and phase out coal. Multilateral development banks have rolled out principles and a joint methodology to align their operations — including both direct investment and policy-based lending — to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What Challenges Remain to Operationalize Article 2.1(c)?

Despite incremental progress, understanding the place of 2.1(c) in the overall climate negotiations, defining key terms like “financial flows” and “consistent,” and addressing concerns about countries’ sovereignty all pose challenges for the international finance community to move forward.

Defining ‘Consistency of Financial Flows’

One of the key challenges to operationalizing Article 2.1(c) is that countries are using different terms and concepts to interpret the word “consistency.” These include directing, orienting, aligning, shifting, steering, scaling up, scaling down and more. Some countries argue that “consistency of financial flows” is about directing finance to green, sustainable and/or climate-related activities, regardless of the financial instruments through which such flows are channeled. The IPCC has defined it more broadly as looking at all investments, whether or not they contribute to climate objectives, including those investments that play a transition role.

However, “consistency” will require some conversation about what not to do, as well. At the very least, countries need to come to a common understanding on how to scale down misaligned investments (like financing fossil fuels) and the impact this may have on countries’ domestic policies and national development.

Concerns About Unintended Consequences

Countries have different development pathways, needs and priorities. Policies and instruments to align their financial flows will need to account for this diversity. However, because 2.1(c) is a global effort, questions will arise about standards for action and whether similar policies and regulations need to be applied in all countries. For example, if one developing country does not reform a specific set of policies, will it no longer be eligible to access climate finance? Will there be trade restrictions imposed on specific products?

The Relationship of Article 2.1(c) to Other Global Finance Goals

Article 2.1(c) is just one goal within the Paris Agreement for addressing climate change. To effectively operationalize it, it must be considered within the context of the whole agreement — especially its other finance goals.

For example, negotiators and other stakeholders like research organizations and academia are examining the complementarity of Article 2.1(c) and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) that must be established by COP29 in 2024. NCQG will set a new finance objective that goes beyond developed nations’ current goal of providing a collective $100 billion in climate finance annually. However, while Article 2.1(c) refers to allfinancial flows for countries that signed the Paris Agreement, the NCQG is specific to finance support to developing countries

Importantly, the mandate to adopt NCQG states that the new goal must take into account developing countries’ needs and priorities. Developing countries have reiterated their concern that Article 2.1(c) discussions could draw the NCQG conversations away from this focus and instead towards domestic policy and finance flow shifts, or include conditionalities or barriers to access financial support.

It's important that negotiators take these concerns seriously as they consider how to move forward, particularly in the context of who contributes to the NCQG and efforts to maintain access to climate finance.

What to Watch at Future COPs

Article 2.1(c) was addressed on several fronts at COP28 in Dubai, including as part of the Global Stocktake, in reports prepared by the SCF, and in outcomes of the Sharm el-Sheikh dialogue.

Driving Action on Finance

ACT2025, a consortium formed to ensure that voices from climate-vulnerable countries are heard and mobilized in climate negotiations, is working to drive greater climate ambition that meet the needs of developing countries, including on climate finance.

Learn more about ACT2025 here.

In addition, developed countries have suggested an agenda item focused on Article 2.1 (c), as well as a dedicated work program within the UNFCCC. Developing countries, however, expressed skepticism about this approach, on the basis that a focus on 2.1(c) could “lead to developed countries shying away from their commitments and obligations” to provide financial support to vulnerable nations. This concern was also expressed at COP27.

There will be no way to meet global climate goals if countries can’t agree on how to steer finance toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient world. Investment is both the fuel and the steering wheel for arriving where we need to go. Article 2.1(c) will be complicated to operationalize, but in its very ambition, it provides a vision for the road forward. By COP30 in 2025, it will be crucial to have both a framework and a roadmap for operationalization.

This article was originally published on Nov. 22, 2023. It was updated on Feb. 15, 2024 to reflect the progress made at COP28.

restoring_mangroves_east_africa (1).jpg Finance climate finance Paris Agreement Paying for Paris COP28 Climate International Climate Action Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• COP28 Resource Hub

Authors Natalia Alayza

How Cacao Can Do So Much More Than Make Chocolate ciara.regan@wri.org Tue, 02/13/2024 - 13:57

Creating chocolate has the potential to do so much more than be a Valentine’s treat or an end-of-meal indulgence.

Approximately 75% of the cacao pod is discarded during the cultivation, harvesting and consumption of cocoa beans. However, if parts like the husk, pulp and bean shell were collected and managed properly, these byproducts could help raise farmers’ incomes, revitalize degraded landscapes, provide food and even produce clean energy.

What’s the difference between cocoa and cacao?

The two terms can often be confused, but there's a distinction:

Cocoa refers to the value chain, farmers and beans.

Cacao refers to the fruit (pod), trees and byproducts.

Rethinking the Cocoa Process

Cocoa production is big business for many: In 2021, its global trade value was $9.59 billion. It’s a high-value cash crop and an important export throughout the “Cacao Belt” (tropical production regions near the equator, such as countries Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Ecuador.)  

Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana in West Africa are the world’s largest cocoa producers, together contributing over 60% of global cocoa production volume. Cocoa farming employs nearly 600,000 farmers in Côte d'Ivoire, ultimately supporting nearly a quarter of the country’s population, or 6 million people. In Ghana it employs more than 10% of the total population, or 3.2 million farmers and workers.

Yet smallholder farmers who make up most cacao producers live on an estimated $2 a day. Moreover, the cocoa industry produces approximately 700,000 tons of waste annually and is a highly inefficient burden on land in its current state. Only the beans are harvested to produce cocoa mass, butter, powder and chocolate. Most of the cacao pod is not utilized and is left to decay on the ground, which damages fertile soil as it degrades. This material, if properly salvaged, can be harnessed for productive purposes.

The cocoa value chain has driven deforestation in nearly every country where cacao is produced, as rainforests are cut down to make way for monoculture plantations. In Côte d'Ivoire, it is estimated that 40% of cacao comes from protected areas. Increasing global demand for chocolate, coupled with decreasing cocoa prices, has put pressure on farmers to continue to clear land to plant cocoa — as opposed to using agroforestry systems, in which cacao is planted under shade trees, increasing carbon capture and biodiversity conservation. Environmental campaigners say that if deforestation continues unhindered, Côte d'Ivoire risks losing all its forest cover by 2034.

In Cauca, Colombia, a 98-year-old farmer separates the inner cacao pods from the bean shells. Harvesting cocoa can produce quite a bit of waste which are almost always discarded at the source. Photo by Jan Sochor/Alamy Stock Photo

Introducing the practices of a circular economy for cocoa – in which all the organic material currently lost or wasted throughout the production chain is utilized – will not only provide environmental benefits but its byproducts can bring more revenue to the farmers.

Getting the Most Out of Cocoa

The discarded organic material from cocoa production holds significant potential to be transformed into various products with valuable economic and environmental benefits.

Cacao pod husks, for example, can be repurposed as an alternative animal feed source (once processed to remove a harmful toxin), providing a sustainable and nutritious option for livestock. Additionally, it can be converted to biochar, which then forms a potent compost. Compost made from cacao pod husks can help improve soil quality by adding organic matter and enhancing soil structure, promoting healthier crop growth.

White sticky pulp surrounds the beans inside of a large cacao pod. Much of this material that is used for waste can instead be used to create byproducts or be used to benefit the environment. ampueroleonardo/iStock

Pod husks can also be used as biomass for electricity production, offering a renewable energy source and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Research has been conducted on using cacao pod husks to generate electrical energy in Uganda, which faces electric power supply obstacles, predominately in rural areas. The research concluded that using agricultural waste for energy generation is typically most suitable in rural farming areas, where pollution-free raw materials are readily available in large quantities. The potential to scale this innovation is significant within cocoa-producing countries and could help improve access to electricity.

As cocoa farmers know well, cacao pulp extracted from cacao pods during fermentation makes for a delicious, sweet drink. Rich in nutrients, cacao pulp can be used in beverage and food production. The pulp has been commercialized with various companies specializing in cacao pulp drinks.

Cacao bean shells, another byproduct of cocoa processing, also have potential productive uses. These shells can be ground into cocoa flour for use in cooking and baking. Cocoa flour is rich in theobromine, dietary fiber, minerals, vitamins and antioxidants, which make it a healthy, gluten-free option to traditional flour.

Bean shells can also be used as mulch in gardening and landscaping, helping to suppress weeds and retain soil moisture. Moreover, bean shell biochar can be used as a natural fertilizer, improving soil health and promoting sustainable farming practices.

The Benefits

If made economically viable, repurposing cocoa byproducts can bring clear benefits to smallholder farmers, nature and the climate.

By finding profitable uses for byproducts such as husks, pulp, and shells, farmers can generate additional income streams, thereby improving their livelihoods and financial stability. This economic empowerment can lead to increased resilience and autonomy within cocoa-producing communities, reducing reliance on volatile commodity markets.

Discarded cacao pods on the forest floor. Leaving the pods behind after harvesting the beans can deplete nutrients from the soil. Kakou Ralph Arthur Ruben/iStock

Nature will also benefit. Removing discarded pods from the ground, preserves ground soil fertility and allows farmers to help minimize soil acidification and nutrient depletion, promoting healthier soil ecosystems. This, in turn, promotes higher yields on the cocoa plants, so farmers don’t need to clear additional land or forests to plant more crops. This leads to increased biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.

Additionally, by using byproducts as alternatives to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, farmers can reduce their environmental footprint and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Repurposing cocoa byproducts can also contribute to climate change mitigation efforts. By reducing emissions associated with waste decomposition and deforestation, circular practices can help mitigate the impacts of climate change on cocoa-producing regions.

The Barriers

Despite the many benefits of reusing cocoa byproducts, there are significant barriers to its widespread adoption and scalability within the cocoa industry.

One major challenge is the lack of infrastructure and access to technology for collecting and processing cocoa waste. Many cocoa-producing regions lack the necessary facilities and equipment for efficiently collecting, storing, and processing waste products such as the pod husks, pulp, and shells. Poor infrastructure and high costs mean farmers may struggle to extract value from waste materials and incorporate them into their production systems.

Financial barriers also hinder the scaling up of circular initiatives. Smallholder farmers often lack the resources needed to invest in the necessary equipment, such as to produce biochar. Additionally, the uncertain viability of circular projects deters investors from providing the necessary funding and support.

Another challenge lies in integrating circular practices into existing cocoa supply chains. The cocoa industry is characterized by long and fragmented value chains, with multiple stakeholders involved in production, processing and distribution. Coordinating efforts to productively reuse cocoa byproducts and incorporate them into existing supply chains requires collaboration and cooperation that may be difficult to achieve.

Promising Initiatives

Despite these barriers, several inspiring projects and initiatives are underway to build a circular ecosystem for cocoa and promote sustainable practices within the industry.

One notable initiative is the Circular Economy Cocoa: From Bean to Bar project, led by organizations such as Helvetas Vietnam and funded by the European Union. This project aims to transition Vietnam’s cocoa and chocolate subsector by introducing regenerative and circular economy practices such as resource efficiency. By establishing circular economy business models for companies early in the product life cycle, the project seeks to create an ecosystem that supports closed-loop and circular production, providing an example for others to follow and informing supportive policies. The project is currently working with 3,500 cocoa farmers and 500 farm employees and other cocoa-related businesses.

Another promising project is the Côte d'Ivoire Biomass Electricity Production, a 73.6MW biomass power plant under development in the ‘Sud-Bandama’ region of Côte d’Ivoire, using cacao pod waste. This region has 1.8 million tons of unused pods. Using 400,000 tons of pods per year, the power plant will provide around 500 GWh of reliable, clean energy to the nearby grid all year.

Companies like KOA meanwhile, are capitalizing on the potential of cacao pulp drinks. Founded in Ghana, the company uses a decentralized collection method to buy cacao pulp from farmers and processes the otherwise discarded pulp into profitable products that feed back to the farmer. KOA offers training to small-scale farmers by equipping them with the knowledge and methods to process previously discarded cacao pulp and has served more than 2,200 Ghanaian farmers.

 

This article is part of WRI's work on minimizing food loss and waste. It was written by authors from the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE) supported by research from Resonance Global. PACE, a WRI initiative, is actively collaborating with stakeholders from various fields, such as policy, investment and innovation, to facilitate the transition towards circular food production within the cocoa industry. By engaging with governments, businesses, research institutions, and civil society organizations, PACE aims to equip stakeholders with existing research on cocoa byproducts and facilitate connections to achieve systems change.

cocoa-bean-harvest-ghana.jpg Food Loss and Waste circular economy Food Business natural resources Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE)
• Food Loss & Waste Protocol

Authors Laura Ombelet Laurie Lewis Kathleen Kelly Anna Gorbushina

Research, Technology and Policy Combine to Protect Madagascar’s Forests shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:52

National park rangers in Madagascar are curbing deforestation by using WRI’s Forest Watcher app. WRI also played a pivotal role in designating the Andrefana Dry Forest as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Challenge

Madagascar’s forests hold some of the world’s most remarkable biodiversity. The island boasts lemurs, chameleons, tortoises and tree species found nowhere else on Earth. Communities rely on the country’s forests for food, medicines and the invaluable services they provide, such as preventing erosion and stopping silt from flowing into downstream rice paddies.

Yet Madagascar’s forests face growing threats from slash-and-burn agriculture, climate change, resource extraction and more. Even the country’s 6.9 million hectares of protected areas are experiencing deforestation.

WRI’s Role

WRI used research, technology and community engagement to reduce deforestation and conserve Madagascar’s forests.

Beginning in 2019, WRI trained park rangers, community members, government agencies, conservation organizations and others in using our Global Forest Watch Forest Watcher app. The technology allows users to receive satellite-based alerts of nearby deforestation and fires, download the points onto a map, and access the data offline to investigate activity in the field. With this near-real time information, park rangers and others can quickly navigate to areas where trees are being burned or cut down and swiftly intervene. The tool made forest patrols more efficient and transparent, with use expanding from three pilot sites to 24 areas managed by Madagascar National Parks.

At the same time, WRI conducted extensive research on the biogeography, importance and vulnerability of the Andrefana Dry Forests, analysis that was central in seeking a World Heritage Site designation for the region. WRI’s role involved compiling and analyzing data; mapping and identifying sites that would benefit from UN protections; writing the dossier for nomination; and collaborating with stakeholders to build support, including with government officials, park managers and local communities.

The Outcome

Use of the Forest Watcher app throughout Madagascar’s National Parks dramatically improved forest monitoring, allowing for swifter responses to deforestation. For example, in the Kirindy Mité National Park, the number of fire points dropped from 33 in 2020 to 3 in 2022 thanks in large part to park rangers’ use of the Forest Watcher app.

WRI’s project also actively engaged women from local communities in patrolling forests, breaking down traditional gender barriers.

And in September 2023, UNESCO officially designated the Andrefana Dry Forests as a legally protected World Heritage Site. The recognition highlights the essential role these dry forests play as guardians of evolution, emphasizing the need for their conservation.

WRI’s activities in Madagascar showcase the power of combining community engagement, technology, research and policy to protect critical forest ecosystems.

madagascar-forest-monitoring.jpeg Forests Madagascar Top Outcome: 2023 Forests conservation deforestation Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Global Forest Watch
• Forest Watcher

Indian Cities Pioneer Nature-based Solutions and Inspire National Climate Action shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:51

WRI worked closely with local governments, community organizations and others to develop 30 nature-based projects throughout the Indian cities of Kochi, Mumbai and Jaipur. The projects inspired a national forum dedicated to urban nature-based solutions.

The Challenge

Indian cities and their residents are at the forefront of multiple climate risks. For example, Kochi and Mumbai are simultaneously struggling with urban flooding, extreme heat and water shortages. Low-income neighborhoods bear the brunt of these hazards. Mumbai's Dharavi neighborhood is almost 6 degrees C (10.8 degrees F) hotter than its more affluent neighbors.

Nature-based solutions, like protecting wetlands or adding urban trees and green spaces, can be effective ways of reducing these risks. But cities have been slow to adopt nature-based approaches due to lack of awareness, limited documented evidence of their effectiveness and their long timelines.

WRI’s Role

WRI worked closely with local governments, community organizations and others to apply nature-based solutions that make Indian cities more resilient to climate change.

WRI used spatial assessments to map and identify climate-vulnerable locations with potential for nature-based solutions, selecting Mumbai, Kochi and Jaipur. WRI then worked with local vendors in each city to implement a range of projects — including urban and rooftop farming, water-body restoration, tree planting, stream rejuvenation, wastewater treatment and more.

WRI ensured the participation of community organizations and local governments, engaging them in consultation, design and mapping projects. WRI also provided technical expertise to city governments to not just implement nature-based projects, but also ensure their continued maintenance.

The Outcome

Thanks to WRI’s analysis, engagement and technical expertise, Mumbai, Jaipur and Kochi have implemented more than 30 nature-based projects over the past three years.

For example, at Jaipur Central Jail, WRI and local partners trained inmates in creating an urban farm on prison grounds. The fresh, organic produce is served to over 1,000 inmates and prison officials, while the farm itself helps cool the property. In Mumbai, a school-based urban gardening project offers students hands-on curriculum on plant care and the importance of local green spaces. The project is now being scaled across 250 public schools around the city, and will ultimately improve food security for an estimated 72,000 students.

Outcomes seen in these cities then led to India’s first national-level forum on urban nature-based solutions. Entrepreneurs, private investors, research organizations, civil society, academia, technical experts, government agencies and policy makers regularly convene to share best practices and experiences implementing nature-based solutions in their cities. WRI India is documenting success stories to raise awareness and provide a roadmap for others. The aim is to help scale nature-based solutions throughout Indian cities and around the world.

nature-based-solutions-india.jpeg Climate India Top Outcome: 2023 Climate nature-based solutions National Climate Action floods climate change Freshwater Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• National Climate Action
• Nature-based Solutions for Adaptation

Indonesia’s Indigenous and Community Groups Secure Legal Rights to Forests shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:50

WRI Indonesia helped secure “mukim customary forest” designations for more than 22,000 hectares of land, establishing legal land rights for more than 50,000 people from Indigenous and local communities.

The Challenge

Many of Indonesia’s Indigenous peoples and local communities are dependent on forests for their livelihoods, resources and cultural traditions. It’s the reason they’re such good environmental stewards, sustainably managing their landscapes for generations. Yet they often lack ownership or even legal rights to use the forests they inhabit. This leaves forests vulnerable to exploitation from miners, logging companies and other outside interests.

For six years, local governments and organizations representing Indigenous people and communities in Aceh Province, Indonesia have submitted forest recognition proposals to Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Yet they’ve been largely rejected due to unclear policies between Aceh’s different jurisdictions.

WRI’s Role

Through research, funding and communication, WRI Indonesia helped secure communities’ land rights in eight mukims, or specific areas managed by traditional communities, in Aceh Province.

WRI fostered a collaborative process among provincial and regency governments, journalists, academics (including the Research Center for Law, Islam and Customary Study at Syiah Kuala University) and indigenous community networks (including Aceh’s customary community network, Jaringan Komunitas Masyarakat Adat Aceh). Together, these groups identified issues and bottlenecks in Aceh’s social forest recognition program.

WRI also provided financial support for research on a mukim customary forest model and worked with various media channels to publicize the findings. WRI Indonesia supported key stakeholders in Aceh to directly present and discuss the model to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. The multi-party approach, with assurances from WRI that the research and recommendations were neutral and scientifically grounded, were effective at influencing policymakers.

The Outcome

Through what became known as the “Mukim Customary Forest Model,”  eight customary forests were designated in Aceh, Indonesia in 2023, spanning an area of more than 20,000 hectares. This legal designation secures land rights for more than 50,000 people from Indigenous and local communities. These forests, and the model overall, were endorsed by Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry.

Eight additional proposals are undergoing further reviews. If approved, the total customary forest designation will expand to 56,988 hectares.

The “Mukim Customary Forest Model” has great potential to be scaled up to the 784 mukims in Aceh, as well as throughout Indonesia and other forested countries.

indonesia-indigenous-legal-rights-forests.jpeg Equity & Governance Top Outcome: 2023 Equity & Governance Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities Forests conservation Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

India Rolls Out 10,000 Electric Buses in Dozens of Cities shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:49

WRI India supported India’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in developing the PM e-Bus Sewa Scheme, which will bring 10,000 electric buses to underserved cities around the country.

The Challenge

Many Indians lack access to affordable, safe and reliable public transport — a huge barrier to reaching jobs, healthcare, education and other opportunities. Where public buses are available, they’re typically fueled by diesel, which produces noxious chemicals and spurs climate change.

The transport sector is the third-highest CO2-emitting sector in India, with road transport accounting for more than 90% of these emissions. Moving citizens away from car travel while expanding access to low-carbon public transit is essential for meeting the country’s commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2070.

WRI’s Role

Experts from WRI India were embedded within India's Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) for two-and-a-half years. There, they employed research, engagement and technical assistance to help the government develop and implement a national plan for electric buses (e-buses).

WRI experts used research to make the case for clean, electric buses in underserved cities and determined the quantity of buses needed to support deployment in 169 cities. They then provided technical assistance to procure e-buses and locked in financial support for cities to develop or update their infrastructure.

WRI staff also worked with ministry officials to create a National Intelligent Transport Management System (ITMS) Platform. This technology will allow for the uniform management of e-buses across dozens of cities.

The Outcome

In August 2023, India’s national government announced the PM eBus Sewa Scheme, providing $2.4 billion to deploy and operate 10,000 e-buses across up to 169 eligible cities. Buses will begin hitting the roads in 2024, with deployments completed by 2026.

More than 170 million residents are expected to benefit. In addition to reducing emissions and improving air quality, the e-bus initiative will also dramatically expand access to clean, reliable public transport. Of the cities eligible to receive e-buses, half currently lack any organized bus transport. Almost half of projected riders will be women, who historically have struggled to access jobs, education and other opportunities due to limited vehicle ownership. And at least 25% of the e-buses delivered will be accessible to passengers with disabilities.

india-electric-bus.jpeg Cities Top Outcome: 2023 Electric Mobility transportation public transit electric mobility Cities Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Electric Mobility
• Mobility and Accessibility Program

New Nature Crime Alliance Forms to Combat Crimes Against People and Planet shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:48

WRI and partners mobilized a unique coalition of governments and organizations to halt criminal activities responsible for deforestation, wildlife trafficking, illegal logging and more.

The Challenge

Nature crime — illegal forms of logging, mining, land conversion, wildlife trade and fishing — destroys high-value ecosystems and harms the people who most depend on them. It is a critical but underappreciated barrier to effectively address climate change, biodiversity loss and injustice.

Many places central to preserving nature and sustainably feeding the world are rife with corruption and violence against environmental and human rights defenders. Extensive global criminal syndicates linked to financial crimes, fraud, corruption and human rights violations are often responsible for nature crimes.  

While the resources targeted by nature crime lie largely in developing countries, the beneficiaries, including criminal syndicates, rogue corporations, financiers and consumers, are from industrialized economies like China, the European Union and the United States. Solutions must include coordinated, multidisciplinary global action.

WRI’s Role

For three years, WRI led a process to create a broad coalition against nature crime.

We conducted nearly 150 interviews and roundtable discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders, resulting in a paper commissioned by the Climate and Land Use Alliance to educate donors about the challenges of nature crime and potential solutions. WRI established the alliance’s brand and engaged closely with environmental journalism organizations, resulting in extensive media coverage when the Nature Crime Alliance launched in August 2023.

WRI also helped secure membership from governments, civil society, law enforcement agencies, UN agencies and the private financial sector, bringing together the diverse stakeholders needed to effectively curb nature crime.

WRI now serves as host for the alliance secretariat and a technical implementation partner.

The Outcome

The Nature Crime Alliance was formally launched in August 2023. Founding partners included the governments of Gabon, Norway and the United States; the UN Office on Drugs and Crime; INTERPOL; the Global Environment Facility; the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; Indigenous Peoples’ Rights International; and many international and regional NGOs.

Dozens of additional organizations joined shortly after the launch, creating one of the most robust global networks dedicated to fighting crimes against people and the planet. As of late January 2024, six more governments were formalizing their membership.

The Nature Crime Alliance is now moving forward to support a number of activities, including: disrupting the illegal luxury trade in exotic animals; supporting local environmental defenders and journalists helping to expose nature crimes; working with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and major financial institutions and regulators to halt financial crimes linked to nature crime; and engaging global seafood suppliers in strengthening traceability and transparency to suppress fisheries crime and human rights violations.

nature-crime-alliance-top-outcome-rhino.jpeg Forests Top Outcome: 2023 illegal logging deforestation conservation Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

More than 50 Vulnerable Countries Advance Climate Action shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:48

A fund co-managed by WRI mobilized $46.5 million to help resource-strapped countries set and implement ambitious climate action plans.

The Challenge

As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries committed to produce national action plans. These plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing adaptation and resilience, and increasing climate finance.

The scale of technical and financial assistance needed to realize NDCs is massive. International resources are often slow to mobilize in response to countries’ needs. 

WRI’s Role

WRI, along with the UN Office for Project Services, serves as a fund manager for the NDC Partnership Action Fund, created by the NDC Partnership to fast-track the implementation of low-income countries’ NDCs.  

Since its launch in November 2021, the Partnership Action Fund has pooled $46.5 million from nine countries — Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States — to fill critical gaps in support to poorer nations, ensuring no country is left behind in the low-carbon transition.

WRI’s efficient and robust operational and financial processes enabled NDC Partnership’s member institutions to swiftly access grant agreements, supporting countries’ otherwise unfunded climate action. WRI also deployed 21 embedded advisors and in-country facilitators to help governments advance climate policies and integrate NDCs into their national plans and budgets. 

The Outcome

The Partnership Action Fund has helped more than 50 countries begin turning NDC targets into reality.

As of January 2024, the NDC Partnership disbursed $16.4 million to 54 nations — more than half of which are least developed countries or small island developing states — as well as one regional organization. This support is catalytic, helping to complement and unlock the $1.7 billion in support provided to low-income countries directly by NDC Partnership members.

Grants and expertise help countries increase the ambition of their NDCs, accelerate their implementation, mobilize more finance, and mainstream climate action plans and sustainability goals into national planning frameworks and budgets. For example, Antigua and Barbuda, Burkina Faso, Cambodia and Nepal leveraged Partnership Action Fund grants to enhance their monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure climate action is also enhancing gender equality. Other countries like Benin, Burkina Faso, Dominican Republic and Grenada funding for communications strategies and training tools for awareness-raising and knowledge-sharing. 

Laos officials used funds to organize a workshop with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport to better coordinate low-carbon, climate-resilient transportation solutions. And Grenada developed investment plans for its energy, transport, waste and forestry sectors, as well as create a public website about its NDC and climate change.

solar-installation-rural-development-ndcs.jpeg Climate Top Outcome: 2023 Climate International Climate Action Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• International Climate Action
• NDC Partnership

Jakarta Creates 50+ New Parks to Boost Climate Resilience shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:47

WRI Indonesia’s Cities4Forests initiative supported Jakarta in improving equal access to green space and building urban climate resilience by establishing 54 new urban parks.

The Challenge

As Jakarta, Indonesia’s industrial activity and vehicle use have increased, so, too, has its air pollution.  The city also struggles with extreme heat and flooding.

Jakarta’s lack of greenery only intensifies these challenges. Urban trees can help clean air, sequester greenhouse gases and prevent erosion, while green space can absorb rainwater and provide pleasant areas for recreation. Yet until recently, many neighborhoods throughout the city lacked parks and trees.

WRI’s Role

WRI Indonesia collaborated with Jakarta’s government to protect urban trees and create new parks and green spaces.

Through WRI’s Cities4Forests initiative, WRI experts worked closely with government officials to create two new regulations on tree management and park provision and maintenance. Since the regulations were finalized, WRI has provided research, data and technical assistance to aid in their implementation.

For example, WRI analyzed Jakarta’s existing green spaces and identified underserved areas to be prioritized for park development. Experts held trainings with Jakarta’s Park and Urban Trees Agency on how to conduct tree inventories. And WRI staff launched communications campaigns to help Jakarta’s citizens understand the benefits of urban trees and green spaces.

The Outcome

In 2021, the Jakarta government issued regulations on management and protection of trees, as well as the provision and utilization of parks. These regulations are designed to ensure more equal distribution of green spaces and effective tree-planting. Jakarta has subsequently established 54 new parks since 2022 and planted more than 65,000 urban trees.

Many new parks are located in areas previously lacking green space. According to the regulation, the parks should be designed to meet the needs of all kinds of users, including children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities. In addition to providing pleasant spaces to play and relax, the new trees and green spaces can help cool and clean the air, mitigate flooding and curb climate change.

Since then, Indonesia’s South Sulawesi local government has drafted a similar regulation on tree protection and management, showcasing the potential for Jakarta’s approach to be applied in other cities.

jakarta-urban-park.jpeg Forests Indonesia Top Outcome: 2023 Forests Freshwater nature-based solutions Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Cities4Forests

Indonesian Companies Accelerate Industrial Decarbonization shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:46

Leveraging WRI resources and support through the Kadin Net Zero Hub — a joint initiative of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, WRI Indonesia and partners — 80 companies in Indonesia’s industrial sector are working to understand and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The Challenge

Indonesia’s industrial sector is central to the country’s economy, but it is also a major driver of climate change. From heavy industries like steel and cement production to “light” industries like food and textile manufacturing, the sector makes up nearly 75% of the country’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This includes the energy, waste, industrial and land-use emissions stemming from companies and their supply chains.

Indonesia, the world’s ninth-largest GHG emitter, is also extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The country cannot keep communities safe or achieve its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2060 without transforming the industrial sector. However, businesses often lack the technical capacity and resources needed to understand their climate impacts and develop effective emissions-reduction plans.

WRI’s Role

At the Business 20 (B20) summit in Bali in 2022, the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN) launched its Net Zero Hub in partnership with WRI Indonesia, WWF Indonesia, CDP and the Indonesian Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Net Zero Hub offers business leaders the tools and training to calculate their greenhouse gas emissions, set emissions-reduction targets and develop tailored strategies to reach their goals.

Two initiatives co-created by WRI — the GHG Protocol and the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi) — are central to these efforts. Both provide standardized, globally recognized frameworks for greenhouse gas emissions accounting and target-setting. WRI also leads the Corporate Assistance Program (CAP), through which companies receive mentorship and technical assistance in how to decarbonize their operations and value chains.

The Outcome

Since its establishment in November 2022, 80 companies in Indonesia have joined the Net Zero Hub. Forty have completed GHG accounting bootcamps to learn to calculate their emissions, while 30 have worked toward setting net-zero emissions targets with support from the CAP. This resulted in 20 new commitments to the Science-based Targets initiative (SBTi) in one year.

Some companies are already implementing their green transition plans. PT Pan Brothers Tbk., a leading garment manufacturer in Indonesia, installed solar panels at its operational and production facilities. The panels are expected to reduce up to 2.1 million tons of carbon emissions annually — equivalent to taking more than 450,000 petrol-powered cars off the roads each year. Apparel One Indonesia, a supplier for Adidas, Puma and other major clothing brands, is also leaning into solar power and reduced its energy-based carbon emissions by 43% in 2023.

The impacts of the Net Zero Hub extend beyond Indonesia’s borders. The country hosted the ASEAN Summit in 2023, which convened governments from 10 Southeast Asian countries. After the summit, the group established the ASEAN Net Zero Hub to support decarbonization efforts across the region.

indonesian-companies-industrial-decarbonization.jpg Business Indonesia Top Outcome: 2023 Business Climate GHG emissions GHG Protocol Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)
• Greenhouse Gas Protocol

US Hospitals Reduce Emissions Through Plant-based Foods shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:45

With support from WRI’s Coolfood initiative, 23 hospital systems in the United States reduced their per-plate food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 21%.

The Challenge

The food and land use system is responsible for one-third of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fueling climate change. Agriculture is also a major driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Reducing these impacts while increasing production to feed a growing population requires radical shifts in how the world grows, distributes and consumes food. As large-scale food providers and stewards of health and wellness, hospitals are well positioned to help drive this transformation.

WRI’s Role

WRI’s Coolfood initiative supports healthcare providers, cities, companies, restaurants and universities in tracking and reducing the climate impacts of the food they serve. Through the Coolfood Pledge, organizations commit to cut food-related emissions by 25% by 2030 — a level of ambition in line with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) and averting some of the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

WRI helps Coolfood members set actionable, science-based emissions-reduction targets and track progress annually. It also provides members with hands-on training, marketing guidance and research-based approaches to encourage more climate-friendly diets, such as the Playbook for Guiding Diners Toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service.

The Outcome

Research shows that through 2022, U.S. hospital systems committed to the Coolfood Pledge — which serve 31 million meals per year in total — reduced their greenhouse gas emissions per plate of food by 21%. This is faster than the pace needed to achieve their 2030 target.

GHG reductions were largely driven by a shift away from emissions-intensive animal-based foods and toward plant-rich dishes. Across the pledge’s 23 healthcare members in the United States, the share of beef and lamb on plates decreased by 28%, while the share of all animal-based foods fell by 16%. The same period saw a 27% increase in plant-based foods on the average plate.

The benefits extend beyond the climate, too. Plant-based foods require far fewer resources to produce than meat and dairy. Beef production, for example, requires 20 times more land per gram of protein than beans, peas and lentils. Plant-forward diets are also healthier, shown to reduce risks of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and other issues. Healthcare facilities are in a unique position to embrace and promote these benefits throughout their diverse communities.

These hospitals now serve as a model for how the healthcare sector can contribute to an equitable, healthy and sustainable food future for all.

hospital-cafeteria-coolfood-top-outcome.jpg Food United States Top Outcome: 2023 Food health Climate-Friendly Diets agriculture Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Coolfood
• Climate-Friendly Diets

Brazilian Cities Save Lives by Improving Road Safety shannon.paton@… Tue, 02/13/2024 - 12:44

Ten cities in the Brazilian state of São Paulo worked with WRI’s Complete Streets Network to implement road safety measures that reduced traffic fatalities.

The Challenge

Walking and cycling are vastly better for people’s health, the climate and local air quality compared to private vehicles. But cities aren’t often designed with pedestrians, cyclists and even public transit riders in mind. Traffic crashes kill around 1.3 million people every year, most of whom are pedestrians.

Brazil committed to address this issue and cut its traffic deaths in half by 2030. The country is making progress: Road deaths in 2022 were 17% lower than in 2021. But traditional approaches to road safety in Brazil, which tend to focus on changing drivers’ and pedestrians’ behavior rather than improving the streets themselves, are not enough to reach the country’s ambitious goal.

WRI’s Role

WRI, in partnership with the Bloomberg Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS), launched the São Paulo Complete Streets Network to help Brazilian cities create effective road safety solutions and reduce traffic deaths by redesigning roads. Members received resources, mentorship and technical support from WRI and BIGRS experts.

Across 20 cities selected to participate in the network, more than 800 people attended workshops and trainings based on WRI’s road safety research and guidelines. WRI also hosted seminars connecting network cities with one another to share best practices, as well as with state and federal governments and partners to help expand their efforts.

The Outcome

Between 2020 and 2023, 10 cities in São Paulo’s Complete Streets Network — comprising more than 6 million residents — made roads safer for walkers, cyclists and public transport riders. Approaches ranged from building out cycle lanes and making bus stops more accessible, to increasing walk signal times and extending sidewalks to reduce road-crossing distances for pedestrians.

Setting and enforcing speed limits was particularly important, as speed is the main risk factor for traffic deaths. Working with local governments, cities like São José dos Campos, Guarulhos and Jundiaí reduced average car and motorcycle speeds by as much as 10-30 kilometers per hour on tracked streets.

Critically, many solutions focused on improving safety for the most vulnerable street users. The city of Diadema created a program called Rua da Gente (“People’s Street”) focused on low-income neighborhoods. The project added infrastructure such as sidewalks, streetlights and speed bumps as well as attractions like street art and sports equipment to encourage walking and the use of public spaces. Five other cities redesigned streets in front of schools to protect children and their caregivers.

These cities’ actions saved lives. In 2021, cities in the Complete Streets Network had more traffic deaths per 100,000 people than the state of São Paulo did. In 2022, their crash mortality rate fell below the state’s average — signaling an important course correction and paving the way for other Brazilian cities to follow suit.

road-safety-brazil.jpeg Cities Brazil Top Outcome: 2023 Cities Health & Road Safety road safety Type 2023 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Health & Road Safety

State of the US Clean Energy Transition: Recent Progress, and What Comes Next shannon.paton@… Wed, 02/07/2024 - 12:14

The U.S. clean energy sector received massive legislative wins in recent years, particularly with the Inflation Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and CHIPs Act. But are these laws and the investments that come with them resulting in enough carbon-free power?

While we’ve seen a good deal of momentum over the last year — such as record-breaking EV sales, new energy capacity dominated by renewables, and promising policy movements on key issues such as transmission — significant obstacles remain. Rising interest rates and project costs, permitting and siting challenges, and persistent supply chain issues are holding clean power development back at a time when it needs to be surging ahead.

Here, we take stock of recent clean energy progress and what’s needed to push it forward in the U.S.:  

First, the Good News: Recent Progress on US Clean Energy Development

In many ways, 2023 was a record-breaking year for clean energy deployment in the United States, including the escalating installation rate of solar and energy storage, growing EV sales and the number of planned domestic manufacturing facilities.

Clean energy continues to be the dominant form of new electricity generation in the U.S., with solar reaching record levels in 2023.

A record 31 gigawatts (GW) of solar energy capacity was installed in the U.S. in 2023, a roughly 55% increase from 2022 installations and substantially more than the previous record in 2021. Even with significant project delays due to supply chain issues and other factors, solar was the fastest-growing power source in the U.S, representing half of all new utility-scale generating capacity through Q3 of 2023. Installed solar capacity in the U.S. now totals 161 GW, enough to provide about 5% of the nation’s electricity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Battery storage also grew substantially in 2023, with installations through Q3 exceeding those of all of 2022. Strong growth is expected to continue, with a projected doubling of capacity in 2024.

Wind had more modest growth in 2023 (about 8 GW), lagging behind 2022 installations. Total installed capacity reached 147 GW by Q3 of 2023, representing about 11% of electricity generation. Projections call for an uptick of new wind projects this year, totaling about 17 GW in 2024.

Together, renewables combined with energy storage dominated new utility-scale generation sources, representing more than three-quarters of total new capacity added (see graphic below). Renewables, including large hydropower, represented about 25% of electricity generated in the United States in the first half of 2023.

Yet despite record growth, renewable energy installations need to ramp up even faster. Analyses of achieving 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035, what’s needed to achieve U.S. greenhouse gas reduction targets, indicate that annual installation rates of renewables in coming years need to nearly double the rates seen in 2023.

Electric vehicle (EV) sales set new records in 2023.

Despite news reports highlighting the slowing of EV sales, a record 1.2 million EVs were sold in the U.S. in 2023, representing 7.6% of total vehicle sales, up from 5.9% in 2022. Sales continued to be strong through year end, with the fourth quarter setting records for both the number and share of EVs sold (317,000 EVs and 8.1% of total sales, respectively) – with EV sales up 40% from Q4 of 2022. Reports of the “slowdown” reflect a slowing in the rate of increase; sales remain robust and at record-setting levels.

Progress, albeit slower than hoped, is also being made on EV charging infrastructure, supported by $7.5 billion in funds under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and designed to support new EV charging corridors and fast-charging stations, had its first charging stations installed in Ohio in late 2023, with additional stations set to open in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Maine in the coming months.

Transmission and grid upgrades are progressing, but slowly.  

Additional transmission capacity and grid upgrades are essential to enabling the clean energy transition and ensuring future grid reliability. While not at the scale needed, 2023 saw continued activity on transmission, as Congress actively debated permitting and policy reforms. The Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) also continued action on its proposed rule to reform planning processes and finalized its interconnection rule to speed grid access. The Department of Energy (DOE) took steps to implement provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, designating lines in the national interest that can be expedited by federal action. Federal agencies also launched incentive programs for transmission.

Ten transmission lines, which have been in process for years, have begun construction since 2021. If completed, they are expected to collectively support the addition of 20GW of new power generation to the grid, but they still face hurdles.

Another 26 high-capacity transmission projects are underway across the U.S., although their ability to be completed is uncertain and pending policy reforms.  In late 2023, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the transmission planning organization covering the area from Louisiana to Manitoba, selected the first competitively bid project to move forward as part of an initial $10.3 billion investment approved under MISO’s Long Range Transmission Planning process.

The U.S. is setting records for planned domestic clean energy manufacturing.

The Inflation Reduction Act stimulated an unprecedented slate of planned domestic clean energy manufacturing facilities, reversing the trend of years of declining investments. According to American Clean Power, 113 manufacturing facilities or expansions have been announced since August 2022, totaling $421 billion of investment in domestic, utility-scale clean energy production, as of early 2024.  

States continue to pass ambitious climate and clean energy policies.

Minnesota adopted a 100% clean electricity standard at the beginning of 2023. Michigan followed suit at the end of the year and joined states such as  California and New York in passing ambitious permitting reforms intended to make it easier to build clean energy and transmission. Seven states adopted California’s tailpipe-emissions standards, which require automakers to increase the share of zero-emission vehicles sold over time. New York adopted a ban on fossil fuel use in most new buildings, beginning in 2026, while Washington set limits on gas appliances in new construction.  State actions are critical to ensuring a successful clean energy transition, as federal actions alone are insufficient.

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  Major Obstacles to Clean Energy Development Remain

A number of headwinds also emerged in recent years that have reduced the rate of clean energy deployment, including supply chain issues, interest rate increases and other financial challenges, and slow progress on transmission.  

Supply chain challenges persist in the U.S. and globally, delaying renewables projects and slowing growth rates.

Many projects slated to come online early in 2023 were pushed back in part because of supply chain challenges. Shortages of transformers needed for connecting clean energy to the grid remain a particular obstacle. The delivery time for transformers and other associated equipment has grown from 50 weeks to 150 weeks, as of the end of 2023, according to one developer. Wood Mackenzie estimated that only about 20% of U.S. transformer demand can be met by domestic supply — and that lead times for large transformers, substation power and generator step-up transformers now range from 80 to 210 weeks.

However, solar supply chain challenges eased and global solar module prices fell over the course of 2023, enabling many delayed projects to be completed. But starting in June 2024, President Biden’s two-year pause on solar tariffs will expire; solar modules subject to the duties will become more expensive. Earlier, the Commerce Department determined that solar modules using Chinese-sourced materials imported from four Southeast Asian countries (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia), which have been the source of three-quarters of U.S. module imports, will be subject to trade duties.

Interest rate increases have raised costs, resulting in clean energy contracts being renegotiated, delayed or cancelled.

The rapid rise in interest rates, resulting from actions by the Federal Reserve, substantially increased the cost of capital for all energy projects. Clean energy projects are more sensitive to interest rate increases than some other forms of power generation because they require significant upfront capital. Their economic advantage is in the lack of fuel costs and price consistency over time.

Higher project costs, supply chain challenges and other factors have affected deal flow for renewables and the price of power purchase agreements (PPAs), or long-term contracts between generators and purchasers. Large energy users like Amazon, Meta and Google have been major drivers for renewable projects, but prices and renegotiations are affecting these markets. In the first half of 2023, corporate purchases of clean energy landed at 6GW, compared to nearly 17 GW for all of 2022. As of the third quarter of 2023, solar PPA prices had risen 21% year over year, wind PPA prices were 16% higher, and blended PPA prices rose 18%. There were signs of stabilization in PPA prices in the latter half of 2023, but prices are still substantially higher than they were previously.

Some companies have struggled financially, and clean energy stocks are down.

Offshore wind challenges have been particularly acute. In 2023, companies announced delays and project cancellations for about half of the U.S. offshore wind pipeline, due to rising costs and supply chain challenges. While the New York South Fork project began operating in 2023 and is slated to become the nation’s largest offshore wind project when additional turbines are completed in 2024 (132 MW,  compared to 30MW in Block Island and 12MW near Virginia) developers are cancelling 5.5GW of offshore wind contracts planned for New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts and renegotiating contracts for another 6.5GW of projects. BNEF now estimates about 14.5GW of offshore wind could come online in the U.S. by 2030, compared to the Biden administration’s goal of 30GW.

The buildout of the transmission system is not happening at the pace needed—and interregional transmission is particularly lagging.  

Lack of transmission is a critical limiting factor for the clean energy transition and poses a threat to reliability in some areas, particularly in the face of increasingly common extreme weather events. Interregional transmission lines that cross state borders continue to face hurdles in gaining approvals from multiple states and determining how to allocate costs among beneficiaries. Lack of sufficient planning processes and methods to assess interregional benefits are the main challenges. Together, the 36 major transmission projects that could begin construction in the near-term represent only about 10% of the transmission investment needed in the U.S. And new lines can take 10 years to build, although technologies to increase the capacity of existing lines can be implemented more quickly. Several analyses (see here, here and here) suggest that transmission capacity needs to double or triple to meet grid needs and achieve President Biden’s 2035 clean energy goals, and interregional transfer capacity needs to quadruple.

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  What to Watch in 2024 and Beyond: 5 Questions About the Future of US Clean Energy Development

Perhaps the biggest factor influencing the future of US clean energy development will be results of the 2024 presidential election. But even before voters take to the polls, answers to five questions will help determine the pace of clean energy development moving forward.

1) Is electricity demand outpacing the country’s ability to bring on clean energy generation?

Growth in demand of electricity for data centers, artificial intelligence, crypto mining, manufacturing and EVs is creating serious concerns about generation’s ability to keep up. Recently, grid planners have nearly doubled forecasts of electricity demand growth over the next five years. In a recent study, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation noted that these demand drivers are growing faster than the ability to add transmission and new electricity generation. Managing this growth will be critical for achieving a transition to clean energy; the potential imbalance between supply and demand requires increased attention from regulators, utilities, large energy users and grid operators.

2) Will federal agencies uphold strict standards as they use regulatory power to further reduce emissions?

Federal agencies have been hard at work crafting regulations to fulfill legal requirements and reduce emissions. The EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity faced significant pushback from power suppliers and regional grid operators, who said the proposal could impact reliability and relies on unavailable technology. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department recently proposed guidance on the 45V Hydrogen Production Tax Credit, which sets strict standards for obtaining tax credits for hydrogen production to encourage clean production pathways. The stringency of the final rules for both regulations is critical to putting the power sector on the path to net-zero emissions.

However, the regulatory power of agencies will be weakened if the Supreme Court overturns the Chevron doctrine, which requires judges to defer to federal agencies in the case of ambiguous laws as long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. If this were to happen, agency rulemaking of all types, including power sector rules, would be subject to more judicial scrutiny, and fewer regulations may survive.

3) How quickly will new federal funds, tax credits and the potential fall in interest rates boost new projects?

Much of the funding from the Inflation Reduction Act’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is expected to begin flowing in 2024, mobilizing financing to stimulate new projects. The timing and pace of disbursement, as well as the pace of interest rate cuts expected in 2024, will determine the magnitude of the boost to clean energy.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits are already rolling out and will incentivize new clean energy projects, but developers and other stakeholders are still awaiting final guidance from the administration on how the incentives will work. And new funding and financing mechanisms often have a learning curve. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act’s “direct pay” provision, which allows tax-exempt entities such as state and city governments to claim clean energy tax credits, is a new process for organizations that don’t typically file taxes. Some are already moving forward, such as San Antonio, but others will need to get more comfortable with the process to take full advantage of it. Similarly, implementation of the domestic content tax credit bonus is complex. While the industry awaits final guidance, it is unclear if incentives will be widely utilized.

4) Will progress on transmission reforms be sufficient to enable new lines to advance?

While Congressional action on permitting reform is uncertain, several other actions by FERC and DOE will be critical for advancing regional transmission. FERC has not moved on an important transmission planning rule since releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on the subject in April 2022. But with the Commission’s composition having changed at the beginning of 2024, there is some hope that a rule is forthcoming to streamline and modernize the U.S. transmission planning process. FERC Chairman Phillips has indicated that finalizing the planning rule is a priority. A strong rule would address cost allocation processes, a 20-year planning horizon, and defining a comprehensive set of benefits categories that should be considered when assessing lines and allocating costs.

Furthermore, actions by DOE to implement Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provisions could stimulate transmission investment and upgrades. Under the Transmission Facilitation Program, DOE is authorized to borrow up to $2.5 billion to get the development of new, large-scale, interregional transmission lines across the finish line. After initial selections in October 2023, DOE is on track to finalize capacity contract negotiations with a commitment of up to $1.3 billion for three transmission projects across six states, aimed at adding an additional 3.5GW of grid capacity.

Also, $14 billion in funding is slated to be allocated to states, tribes and utilities for grid-enhancing technologies and other upgrades. DOE has also finalized the designation process for National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs), which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate geographic areas as NIETCs if she finds that new transmission would advance national interests, such as increased reliability and reduced costs. Designation can unlock federal financing for lines and enable FERC to issue permits for siting in some cases.

5) Will interconnection queue reforms address backlogs?

The ability to get projects approved for interconnection to the grid has become a major barrier to growth in clean energy generation. FERC took a major step towards tackling interconnection queues by issuing Order No. 2023, which requires transmission providers to, among other things, transition from a “first-come, first-served" to a “first-ready, first-served" cluster study process. These reforms will improve interconnection wait times, which are primarily impacting renewables, the vast majority of projects stuck in queues. But there is an open question of how much the reforms will improve interconnection wait times and the scope of additional reforms needed.

Speeding Up the US Clean Energy Transition

While the rate of progress overall is currently insufficient, as we look ahead to 2024 and beyond, many strategies and tools are available to achieve higher rates of clean energy deployment. Policymakers, regulators, developers and manufacturers must double down on their efforts to address the key challenges slowing the clean energy transition. The opportunities are here — now it’s time to seize them.

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 Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Clean Energy
• Electric Vehicles in the U.S.
• Electric Mobility

Authors Lori Bird Joseph Womble