New Platform Will Promote Integrated Water Management in Ethiopia's Amhara Region ciara.regan@wri.org Fri, 04/26/2024 - 10:31

Ethiopia’s Amhara region lies partially within the Abbay (Blue Nile) River Basin, which is one of the country’s twelve major river basins. It is also home to Ethiopia’s largest freshwater lake — Lake Tana — from which the Blue Nile River originates. Within the broader river basin, the Tana Subbasin is an area identified as a growth corridor for Ethiopia due to its vast productive potential. However, the subbasin faces challenges with water access and availability due to growing water withdrawals, agro-industrial pollution, changing climatic patterns, and environmental damage like deforestation and soil erosion. This puts economic activities and the livelihoods of the region’s predominantly rural communities at risk, making it a vital issue to address.

Amhara IWRM-WASH Platform launching event in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Photo by Cherinet Tsegaw/ ABAO Photographer

For this reason, many government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and development partners are working on projects to improve water resources governance and access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in Amhara. However, many of these interventions lack coordination or complementarity. This siloed approach leads to duplication of efforts, redundancy in activities, minimal accountability, resource loss and reduced capacity to collectively scale. In addition, the intersection of the Amhara administrative region with catchment boundaries adds further complexity. Water is primarily governed from an administrative perspective without considering natural hydrological flows and settings important to its continuity. Managing water without considering hydrological boundaries or broader catchment conditions could severely hinder sustainable water resources management (WRM) in both the region and the larger basin.

The Abbay Basin Administration Office (ABAO), an agency of the Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE), is mandated to advance sustainable water resources management at the basin level. On the other hand, the Amhara Regional State Bureau for Water and Energy (BoWE) is MoWE’s operating branch at the regional scale, responsible to endorse and implement water policies and regulations, improve utilization and management of water resources, and expand safe drinking water supply to both urban and rural areas. The mandates of these two government agencies align in many ways, but complementarity and cooperation are generally inadequate, sometimes even leading to overlap. And until recently, there was no system or platform in the region for increasing collaboration and integration in planning, implementation, monitoring and policy.

The Amhara Regional IWRM-WASH Platform was launched in December 2023 with the main purpose of uniting actors working in both the WRM and WASH spheres and tackling institutional, governance and integration challenges. The platform was driven by the need to improve integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the region, an approach which seeks to promote the sustainable use of water resources for socio-economic development while protecting the environment. The Amhara Regional IWRM-WASH Platform was initiated by ABAO and BoWE, with the support of World Resources Institute (WRI), IRC WASH, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Millennium Water Alliance (MWA), Plan International Ethiopia and WaterAid Ethiopia. Although it was established as a platform at the regional level, due to institutional decisions on water in Ethiopia being made at the administrative scale, the platform aims to better connect different water-using sectors and actors while enhancing the region-basin linkage.

Objectives of the IWRM-WASH Platform

The overall objective of the IWRM-WASH Platform is to promote, support, and better coordinate regional and basin efforts to enhance sustainable WRM and WASH services, improve livelihoods, and protect the health of the environment and freshwater ecosystems.

Specific objectives include:

• Enhance cross-sectoral coordination and planning and build collaboration for better collective impact in the WRM and WASH sectors.
• Avoid silos in WRM and WASH as well as among basin and sub-basin authorities, regional bureaus, and other sub-national offices in the development and management of water and other natural resources.
• Share data and information and engage in regular learning and promotion of best practices.
• Enhance coordination among relevant programs and/or projects undertaken by government agencies, development partners, NGOs/CSOs, universities/research institutes, etc.
• Facilitate forums and discussions and engage in joint advocacy on WRM-WASH linkage.
• Monitor progress in the WRM and WASH agendas and identify challenges and recommendations for improvement in policy, strategy and implementation.
• Help set a shared agenda for IWRM-WASH implementation in the Amhara region.

The platform launch event saw broad participation from high level officials and experts from different governmental and non-governmental organizations. During the launch ceremony, Yewendwesen Mengistu, Head of ABAO, said that one of the main responsibilities of ABAO is to prepare a strategic plan for the Abbay Basin with the full participation of stakeholders in the water sector. Once prepared, the basin plan must be executed by different actors and multiple sector offices in each region overlapping the Abbay Basin. He said the existence of this platform will allow better integration and cooperation during the implementation of the plan.

Dr. Mamaru Moges, Head of BoWE, also acknowledged the importance of the platform to address the intersectionality of WASH and WRM issues. He said the platform will improve the much-needed coordination and integration of government agencies, nongovernment organizations and all stakeholders working towards water security. He pledged BoWE’s full support for the participation and sustainability of the platform. 

According to Haymanot Belete, a federal representative of MoWE, a similar platform was recently launched at the national level. However, regional IWRM-WASH platforms are still missing and are critical to ensure that the national platform translates into action on the ground. He said regional platforms are critical for sharing expertise, securing financing and implementing more sustainable interventions. MoWE is happy to provide support from the federal level for this first regional platform that links basin and region and actors working across the water sector, he added.

The platform was established primarily as a collaborative effort by ABAO and BoWE with initial technical and financial support provided by WRI, IRC WASH, UNICEF and Plan International, representing a good example of cross-agency cooperation. Following the platform launch, ABAO and BoWE organized the first IWRM-WASH stakeholder and member meeting in February 2024 to share updates on progress, including finalizing the terms of reference for the platform and establishing working groups. This first event included sessions by BoWE and NGOs active locally on continued challenges in water access in addition to good regional experiences in WRM and WASH implementation.

The first stakeholder platform meeting in February 2024. Photo by Cherinet Tsegaw/ ABAO Photographer

During this first meeting, ABAO was also elected to chair the platform, with BoWE as co-chair. In addition, the Amhara Plan and Development Commission was nominated as secretary while the Amhara Environment & Forest Protection Authority and Health bureaus were designated to lead the IWRM and WASH thematic subgroups respectively. WRI, UNICEF and IRC WASH will take on advisory roles.

Since the launch of the platform, 32 agencies and organizations submitted applications for official membership.

IWRM is a long and participatory process. Gaining political support at various levels is important, and the establishment of multi-stakeholder platforms for consultation, experience sharing and coordination can be vital. A key discussion point going forward will be exploring solutions to ensure platform sustainability.

WRI’s support to the IWRM-WASH platform falls within an ongoing program of technical assistance to the ABAO. WRI long acknowledged the need for the establishment of such a platform to foster better alignment and collaboration to collectively improve water management and governance in the Amhara region, to both spur the protection of water supplies and freshwater ecosystems and to improve water access. WRI has provided technical and financial support to establish this platform, mainly through a project funded by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, titled “Promoting IWRM and environmental sustainability to enhance water availability and livelihoods in Ethiopia’s Tana Subbasin."

tewodros-getnet.jpg Freshwater Madagascar Water Security Freshwater water risk nature-based solutions Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Water for Sustainable Development in Ethiopia

Authors Muluneh Bimrew Francesca Battistelli Zablon Adane

Zero-emission Zones Are Helping Some Cities Fight Pollution alicia.cypress… Thu, 04/25/2024 - 09:15

With growing urban populations and increases in cars, trucks and buses, cities are poised to experience more harmful pollution threatening people’s health and livelihoods.

But some cities around the world are turning to an emerging solution called zero-emission zones (ZEZs).

These are designated small areas of about 1.5 square miles to 11 square miles inside large cities in Europe, Asia and North America where only zero-emission vehicles (such as electric cars and trucks), pedestrians and bikes are granted unrestricted access, with gas and diesel vehicles either prohibited or forced to pay an access fee.

What Are the Pros and Cons of Zero-emission Zones?

The policy, which requires limited public funds, considerably reduces emissions and can bring additional environmental and economic benefits. For example, research shows that ZEZs can reduce most tailpipe nitrogen dioxide emissions from trucks — a major source of air pollution. Further, carefully-conceived ZEZs are expected to reduce the number of cars on the road making cities less congested and helping spur the market for more zero-emission vehicles.  

A sign warns drivers of a zero-emissions zone in Oxford, England. Oxford is among a dozen cities across the world that have implemented or announced formal plans for a zero-emissions zone. Photo by Martin Anderson / Alamy Stock Photo.

              

Although city leaders often like the idea of ZEZs, they are also daunted by the possible negative socioeconomic impacts of the policy. For example, the high costs of new zero-emission vehicles or access to transportation may impact low-income residents and vulnerable groups living in the zones, who need to get to work or school. Or small freight carriers may not be able to reach their customers, disrupting the supply of food and other goods.

Overcoming Barriers: Lessons from Zero-emission Zones Leaders

Still, even though ZEZs are still a nascent approach with some knots to untangle, several cities are beginning to implement them. A WRI report, “Feasibility of Zero-Emission Freight Zones: Scenario Analysis and Risk Assessment,” shows only about a dozen cities around the world have officially implemented or announced formal proposals to pilot ZEZs. Currently, these cities include Rotterdam and Amsterdam in the Netherlands, London and Oxford in England, Brussels in Belgium, Santa Monica and Los Angeles in the United States, Oslo in Norway and the cities of Shenzhen, Foshan, Dongguan and Hangzhou in China.

 These early adopters have already found effective ways to implement ZEZs, offering lessons for other cities:

1) Start By Targeting Trucks

When first implementing a program, it’s more common to prioritize trucks over private cars for a couple of reasons. First, in recent years, banning gas-powered private cars from entering ZEZs (often in city centers) could have profound accessibility impacts for local residents and stimulate widespread public objection. Further, compared with the soaring market shares of electric passenger cars (22% in the EU, 35% in China and 9% in the U.S. by 2023), the adoption of zero-emission trucks has been much slower. Implementing more policy instruments like ZEZs can help stimulate the growth of zero-emission trucks.

To reduce air pollution and to bring the transport emissions close to zero by 2030, Amsterdam initially proposed to introduce a ZEZ for all vehicles — including private cars — within the city’s built-up area (which is almost the entire city) in 2030. However, due to concerns about public acceptance, the city postponed private car restrictions to after 2030, to provide ample time to foster public support. Instead, the city plans to pursue a ZEZ for trucks inside of the A10, a ring road circling Amsterdam, beginning in 2025.

Within the truck segment, light-duty trucks and vans will be targeted first in Amsterdam, because heavy-duty trucks — particularly long-haul trucks — have limited zero-emission models and are too expensive to purchase.

A PostNL truck parked along the side of a road in Amsterdam. The Netherlands mail service uses electric trucks to make its deliveries in city centers. Photo by Bjoern Wylezich.

Amsterdam is not an isolated case. All the global cities WRI studied restricted or plan to restrict gas- or diesel-powered trucks in the initial phase of implementing a ZEZ policy. Only London and Oxford have also banned private cars, which will be planned pilots on a few streets that are less than 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) long.

Oslo plans to target both gas or diesel-powered light-duty trucks and heavy-duty trucks in the first phase of its ZEZ implementation. Chinese cities, such as Dongguan and Hangzhou, are also banning diesel heavy-duty trucks from entering the ZEZs, aiming to eliminate heavy-duty trucks in the city center. Arguably, this measure could lead to increased freight movements and worsen traffic congestion since heavy-duty vehicles could be replaced by many smaller vehicles.

2) Small Zones Avoid Bigger Challenges

Cities need to make sure the design of ZEZs doesn’t disrupt the supply of goods and interfere with a city’s economic and social activities. Opting for small zones, like Shenzhen did, is one strategy to avoid these challenges.

As part of the 2018 “Shenzhen Blue” Sustainable Initiative, the city government created to quickly curb air pollution, 10 ZEZs were established. But to manage potential public objection, the city started by designating small zones in high visibility areas of the city.

Under the rationale, the 10 zones totaling 22 square kilometers (8.5 square miles), or 1.1% of Shenzhen, were established in the center of each urban district where there were high levels of air pollution, traffic congestion and parking shortages. The individual zones span from 0.37 to 5.4 square kilometers (0.14 to 2.1 square miles).

Some ZEZs are also located around city government offices or public schools to take advantage of public procurement of zero-emission trucks and avoid impacting local residents.

In 2023, Shenzhen introduced six additional ZEZs near universities and public parks to further accelerate the adoption of zero-emission trucks, increasing the total ZEZ area to 26 square kilometers (10 square miles).  

Similar to Shenzhen, most of the global cities WRI analyzed have all started or planned to implement ZEZs in small areas that measure 4 to 31 square kilometers (1.5 to 12 square miles). Some cities are also exploring other small locations outside of city centers. For example, the Chinese central government is considering establishing ZEZs (or ultra-low emission zones) at industrial parks, seaports, railway yards and airports.

More From WRI on Zero-emission Zones

Report: Feasibility of Zero-Emission Freight Zones: Scenario Analysis and Risk Assessment

Insights: Zero-emission Delivery Zones: A New Way to Cut Traffic, Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases

Project: Advancing Equity-centered Zero-emission Delivery Zones

3) Create Support Measures for Small Businesses

Small trucking companies serving areas and neighborhoods within ZEZs are particularly vulnerable to the economic impact from new ZEZ policies. Therefore, supportive measures should be designed to protect this segment of traffic that would need to reach residents and businesses located in these zones.

Staff from a zero-emissions delivery program use an electric cargo trike for distribution. Zero-emissions delivery will be a critical practice as ZEZs continue to grow. Photo by Simon Turner/Alamy Stock Photo 

In Rotterdam, during the transition to electric vehicles, small trucking companies, which transport goods in and out of the city, warned that the high transitional costs from purchasing new vehicles would diminish their profits. But supportive government measures were created to help. The city of Rotterdam expanded subsidies created by the Netherlands that encouraged small carriers to purchase electric trucks. The city is also providing advice on costs, information on relevant subsidies and tax exemptions, advice on charging solutions and making free trials of zero-emission vehicles available.

Further, to ensure small companies are prepared for the new policy, Rotterdam is also providing a long phase-in period. The ZEZ policy, which covers 13 square kilometers (5 square miles) and restricts various sizes of trucks from all-day access, was communicated to the public in 2020, about four years before its implementation is set to begin in 2025. In addition, Rotterdam included a 3 to 5 year phase-out period for existing gas- or diesel-powered trucks (Euro V and VI). These trucks won’t be banned completely until 2030 so that small companies don’t have to retire newly-purchased gas- or diesel-powered trucks and can buy zero-emission vehicles at cheaper prices.

Last but not the least, Rotterdam is expanding the battery-charging network at public parking lots and major destinations (such as distribution centers, offices and depots). It is also addressing issues such as the interoperability of chargers and the charging impact on the grid systems. 

4) Combine Zero-emission Zones with Additional Benefits

ZEZs do not necessarily generate additional benefits such as congestion relief or delivery efficiency. For example, zero-emission trucks may not be able to travel as far as gas- or diesel-powered trucks before needing to recharge and the heavy weight of the batteries may mean these zero-emission trucks can carry less goods. This leads to operational inefficiencies and increased traffic congestion. Therefore, cities need to go beyond the single goal of emission reduction when designing ZEZs.

When the city of Rotterdam created its policies, it wanted the ZEZs to have multiple goals: achieve zero emissions, efficient operation and zero congestion through the implementation of the ZEZs. To tackle operational inefficiency and create additional benefits, Rotterdam adopted a series of efficiency improvement measures, including establishing urban consolidation centers outside the ZEZ so that goods from various origins are bundled into fewer vehicles and distributed to ZEZs and adopting efficient delivery practices (such as data-driven route planning) to reduce empty runs.

Successfully Achieving More Zero-emission Zones

Accelerating the transition to more zero-emission vehicles is vital to improving air quality, reducing human health risks and lowering emissions that harm the climate and environment. While the introduction of ZEZs may be daunting, cities like Amsterdam, Shenzhen and Rotterdam show that creating ZEZs is possible. However, it’s important that the policies should also avoid negative impacts that could impact small trucking companies and residents, as well as create co-benefits for operational efficiency and congestion alleviation.

zero-emisssion-oxford-neighborhodhood.jpg Cities electric mobility net-zero emissions Air Quality transportation Urban Mobility Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Lulu Xue Ke Chen

Next-generation Climate Targets: A 5-Point Plan for NDCs shannon.paton@… Thu, 04/25/2024 - 08:29

By early 2025, countries are due to unveil new national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). These commitments form the foundation of international climate action, establishing emissions-reduction targets and other measures that countries promise to implement. The Paris Agreement requires nations to put forward new NDCs every five years, with each round stronger than the last. In short, NDCs are important because they are the main vehicle for countries to collectively confront the global climate crisis.

Yet NDCs to date fall well short of what’s needed to avert increasingly dangerous climate impacts and hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). A recent UN report found current commitments put the world on track for a catastrophic 2.5-2.9 degrees C (4.5 - 5.2 degrees F) of warming by 2100.

Key developments since the last round of NDCs in 2020 can help spur countries to step things up considerably this time around. The question is: Will they rise to the occasion?

The Seeds for Stronger Climate Action Are Taking Root

Indeed, the impetus for ambitious national climate action has never been stronger. For instance, most countries now have targets to achieve net-zero emissions by or around 2050. This round of NDCs will extend to 2035 – the midpoint between 2020 (when many countries began implementing their NDCs) and 2050 – making them an important milestone for aligning near- and mid-term action with long-term aspirations. The new NDCs must also be informed by last year’s Global Stocktake, a UN assessment that reveals the shortcomings in current national climate policies and clearly calls for countries to move away from fossil fuels, as well as transform transportation, food and agriculture, and more.

Countries are also increasingly joining global cooperative initiatives on issues ranging from food and forests to renewable energy and methane; translating those commitments into NDCs could unlock stronger ambition. Finally, new scientific evidence like last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report reveals that the impacts of climate change are leading to more devastating consequences sooner than anticipated, reinforcing the urgent need to curb emissions, drive adaptation and significantly increase financing for both.

In the past, too many NDCs fell short of their potential to set out the ambition and actions needed for truly transformative climate action. This time around, NDCs must evolve to set the sights of government on the pace and scale of change needed and advance implementation to deliver it.

Here, we propose a five-point plan for the next generation of NDCs:

1) Set 2035 and strengthen 2030 emissions-reduction targets aligned with 1.5-degrees C and net-zero emissions goals.

Research shows that preventing increasingly dangerous impacts of climate change requires limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. That means cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035, relative to 2019.

This is a collective goal supported by 194 vastly different countries, so it’s hard to prescribe a single, objective 2030 and 2035 emissions target at the national level (though various tools can help do so). Two things, however, are clear: First, countries, especially major emitters, must go much further in their emissions cuts than their current NDCs. And second, developed countries — historically the world’s largest emitters — have a responsibility to make the deepest reductions while providing substantially more finance to help developing countries accelerate climate action.

Less ambiguous than the collective 1.5- degrees C goal are the net-zero emissions targets that most countries have now adopted. Those countries should ensure that their 2030 and 2035 targets put them on a realistic path to phasing out emissions entirely by their net-zero target date. The window to align near- and mid-term climate action with long-term goals is finite. Infrastructure, for example, can take decades to turn over. If NDCs continue to lag so far behind, long-term goals will not be met without costly interventions later. The UN invited countries to submit their long-term climate strategies by November 2024, which can help inform countries’ near-term actions in their 2025 NDCs.

Finally, all countries should set targets that include non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane. Reining in these potent climate pollutants is among the fastest ways to reduce near-term warming, yet some countries still do not address them in their NDCs. Last year, China made a significant commitment to include non-CO2 emissions for the first time in its new NDC. This is especially important, as China’s non-CO2 emissions alone would rank among the world’s top 10 national emitters of total GHGs.

2) Accelerate systemwide transformations by establishing ambitious, timebound sectoral targets.

Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C will require immediate action to transform nearly every sector. To spur such far-reaching changes, countries should set sector-specific targets that underpin their topline emissions-reduction goals, as well as jumpstart a process with ministries to integrate these targets into their strategic planning. Doing so can help guide domestic policymaking across the whole of government, signal the direction of travel to public and private sector investors and enable more effective implementation.

While most NDCs currently commit to reducing economy-wide GHG emissions, fewer feature sector-specific goals. But establishing ambitious, timebound targets for the energy system (which includes energy supply and end use sectors like transport), as well as for food, agriculture and land, will be particularly important, as these sectors collectively emit about 90% of GHGs globally.

A just transition to zero-carbon energy

NDCs should commit to phasing down fossil fuels rapidly this decade, while also scaling up zero-carbon power; electrifying buildings, industry and transport; shifting to low- and zero-carbon fuels in harder-to-abate industries like steel and cement; and improving energy efficiency.

Fortunately, countries aren’t starting from scratch. The Global Stocktake, as well as multilateral commitments like the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge, provide building blocks for national target-setting. At COP28, for example, countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and advance efforts to achieve net-zero energy systems by mid-century. These political commitments represent significant progress. NDCs should reaffirm them.

But to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, countries will also need to go further. One study, for example, finds that zero-carbon power sources like wind and solar must account for at least 88% of electricity generation by 2030, while coal and unabated fossil gas should decline to no more than 4% and 7% of power generation by the end of this decade, respectively. Similarly, decarbonizing transport will require bringing jobs, services and goods closer to where people live to avoid motorized travel; doubling public transit infrastructure across urban areas; and increasing the share of electric vehicles in the passenger car fleet to at least 20% this decade.

Countries do not need to progress at the same pace or reach the same target to achieve these global benchmarks. While developed countries have a responsibility to go furthest, fastest, other major emitters also need to decarbonize rapidly to keep the 1.5-degree C limit within reach, though some may require finance and other support to do so. Still, these benchmarks provide a rough approximation of where nations need to be in the near term.

Finally, NDCs should lay the groundwork for a just and equitable energy transition by committing to extend affordable, reliable electricity access to those currently living without it, provide safe and accessible mobility for all, and support those negatively impacted by the shift to zero-carbon energy, such as fossil fuel workers.

A shift to resilient food systems that feed a growing population, help halt deforestation and reduce emissions

Today’s farmers face an enormously difficult task of boosting agricultural productivity to improve food security in the face of intensifying climate change impacts, while also shifting to practices that enhance soil health, safeguard water and mitigate climate change. Agriculture, forestry and other land uses, for example, account for nearly one-fifth of annual GHG emissions globally; when combined with emissions across food supply chains, this share jumps to roughly a third.

Recent years have seen this sector rise up the political agenda, with an increasing number of countries referencing it in their current NDCs, the inclusion of ecosystem conservation within the Global Stocktake and the Global Goal on Adaptation’s target to attain climate-resilient food systems. Complementary commitments like the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use and the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action have also received widespread support from countries.

Though these developments are welcome news, NDCs must go further to deliver the Paris Agreement’s goals, including to protect vulnerable farmers, particularly smallholders, from intensifying impacts and to lower food systems’ emissions.

On the demand-side, all countries should set targets to halve food loss and waste by 2030, while those in high-consuming regions (the Americas, Europe and Oceania) should aim to lower per capita consumption of emissions-intensive beef, lamb and goat to two servings per week or less by the end of this decade. Supply-side, 1.5-degree C benchmarks call for reducing global GHG emissions from agricultural production by 22% this decade, while also sustainably boosting crop yields by 18% and building resilience. Pairing these food and agriculture goals with those focused on halting and reversing ecosystem loss, particularly for forests, peatlands, mangroves and grasslands, is also urgently needed to help conserve the world’s carbon sinks and stores.

Critically, efforts to achieve these targets must be pursued in tandem. Failure to do so risks unintended consequences, such as farms expanding into forests and accelerating biodiversity losses, tree-planting across productive croplands that harms farmers’ livelihoods and threatens food security, or adoption of agricultural practices that increase yields but heighten vulnerability to climate change by degrading soil or overdrawing groundwater.

Bike lane in Sao Paulo, Brazil. In their next round of climate plans, countries should shift toward zero-carbon energy, including moving away from motorized travel. Photo by Pulsar Imagens/Alamy 3) Build resilience to increasingly dangerous and irreversible impacts.

With escalating climate impacts like heatwaves, severe storms and wildfires, as well as longer-term, slow onset effects like sea level rise and desertification, it's increasingly crucial for countries to step up their efforts to adapt and build resilience. Despite their focus on mitigation, NDCs — along with other tools like national adaptation plans (NAPs) — play a vital role in elevating the political profile of adaptation and facilitating much-needed shifts in policies and finance.

This next generation of NDCs follows adoption of the first Global Goal on Adaptation, which outlines sectoral adaptation targets. Countries can refer to these global priorities when identifying national and local priorities, such as attaining climate-resilient food and agricultural production and distribution; building resilience to climate change-related health impacts; and reducing climate impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity, among others. This requires conducting periodic vulnerability assessments, undertaking cost-benefit analyses (using the “triple dividend” approach), and consulting mayors and local communities to prioritize opportunities for enhancing adaptation and strengthening actions to keep pace with intensifying climate impacts. Once implementation begins, progress should be tracked through the development of monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems.

The NDC process also offers countries the opportunity to engage the most vulnerable communities and Indigenous Peoples in developing national adaptation measures. Inclusive stakeholder participation helps ensure that investments in adaptation and climate-resilient development meet local needs. The principles for locally led adaptation can help guide implementation.

Finally, NDCs offer countries a chance to prioritize loss and damage, and thereby raise awareness of areas in which the limits to adaptation are likely to be exceeded. This can include providing specific information on financial costs and technical and capacity needs to respond to the most severe impacts of climate change, as well as national efforts related to disaster-risk reduction, humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation, migration and slow-onset events, such as loss of biodiversity and erosion of cultural heritage.

4) Spur investment and strengthen governance to turn targets into practice.

It is critical that NDCs not only make commitments, but also lay the groundwork for implementing them. This includes a vision for how government ministries, subnational governments, the private sector and civil society, as well as others, will work together to turn ambition into reality, including through policies, institutions and finance.

To start with, implementing NDCs will require a whole-of-government effort. The profile, legitimacy and associated international scrutiny of the NDC process can shift the political calculus, creating opportunities to strengthen climate governance accordingly. For example, as they develop their NDCs, countries can pass laws or foster coordination across the entire government — from the head of state and all-important economic ministries to line ministries and regulatory bodies. The process can also help facilitate consensus-building and integrate climate issues into mainstream planning, policy, finance and legislative decisions. The NDC document itself can describe allocation of responsibility for implementation to certain ministries, and note whether the country is establishing or strengthening national climate bodies that can drive forward integration and accountability. Leveraging these opportunities may prove critical to establishing the legal and institutional infrastructure necessary to implement ambitious goals. 

The NDC process is also an opportunity to engage subnational actorssuch as cities, states, regions and local communities. This can achieve several goals: ensuring alignment between local and national climate goals; strengthening subnational implementation via policies and budgets; and increasing countries’ overall ambition.

Implementation of NDCs will also depend on investment and finance. Ambitious targets and policy objectives in a country's NDC can send strong signals to investors and finance providers that the government is committed to the climate agenda. This signal is even stronger if NDC targets, policies and institutional measures are integrated into core national and sectoral plans. This can help to mobilize the finance and investment to carry out national commitments.

But the NDCs’ targets and measures, even if strengthened through integration into core national and sectoral planning, cannot stand alone if they are to succeed. They’ll need to be buttressed by credible strategies to mobilize investment and financing. Such strategies would build on but go beyond the estimates some developing countries made in previous NDCs of the cost of their proposed actions. They can also delineate the actions countries could finance domestically and those which would be conditional on international finance.

Strategies can also identify a pipeline of bankable projects. Clear finance strategies will not only strengthen the viability and credibility of countries’ NDC targets, but also help turn commitments into action.

NDC investment strategies can also provide a rallying point that enables developing country governments to bring together public financing partners (e.g. Multilateral Development Banks, Development Finance Institutions, Climate Funds, donors, philanthropists) and the private sector to coordinate how they will support countries’ targets. Such coordination processes — which should be driven by a country's own objectives and internal alignment could enable the co-creation of project pipelines, structure investment programs, and help identify policies that encourage greater investment.

5) Put people at the center, ensuring climate action creates jobs, improves health and more.

Given the widespread ramifications of climate change and the many potential benefits of tackling it, NDCs will need to draw clear linkages to a wide range of issues that are critical for peoples’ lives – from employment to health to local economies and beyond. Doing so is essential to maximize the economic, development and social opportunities from well-planned climate policies, as well as for managing challenges like loss of livelihoods for workers in the fossil fuel industry or certain types of land use. Taking these issues into account is also critical for building public and political support for greater climate action.

Some NDCs have already highlighted connections between the actions they lay out and the Sustainable Development Goals, while others refer to “just transitions,” decent work and gender rights. Yet most current NDCs only skim the surface on these issues.

While NDCs cannot provide fully granular policies across all issues, what they can do is outline clear plans for a just transition, including working directly with communities, workers and other affected groups to develop strategies for an inclusive zero-carbon and resilient transition.

NDCs can also outline ways in which countries will support communities that might be negatively affected by zero-carbon, resilient development. These approaches could include employment creation and worker retraining, support for community development and economic diversification, social safety nets and more.  NDCs can also provide quantitative goals on objectives such as access to high-quality green jobs, health improvements through pollutant reduction, and equitable access to renewable energy and sustainable transport.

What’s Next?

By 2035, the world needs to be on a radically different pathway if we have any hope of overcoming the climate crisis. The NDCs that countries submit by next year will show in black and white which countries are committed to slash emissions and accelerate adaptation quickly enough to get there.

Our five-point plan offers a blueprint for success: setting ambitious emissions-reduction targets aligned with the 1.5 degrees C limit, accelerating sectoral transformations, building resilience across all systems, catalyzing multi-stakeholder action and investment, and putting people at the center of climate action. By embracing these principles as they craft next-generation NDCs, countries can not only help avoid the devastating impacts of climate change, but also unlock opportunities for sustainable development, job creation and better public health.

washing-solar-panel.jpeg Climate NDC net-zero emissions GHG emissions climatewatch-pinned Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• National Climate Action

Authors Jamal Srouji Taryn Fransen Sophie Boehm David Waskow Rebecca Carter Gaia Larsen

STATEMENT: U.S. EPA Issues Strong Pollution Standards for New and Existing Power Plants alison.cinnamo… Thu, 04/25/2024 - 08:03

WASHINGTON DC (April 25, 2024) — Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized strong new pollution standards for the electric power sector, which will result in unprecedented reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Biden administration’s whole-of-government approach to tackling the climate crisis.

The new rule requires existing coal-fired units to begin capturing nearly all carbon dioxide emissions by 2032 or cease operations by 2039, compared to 2030 and 2040 in the draft rule. New natural gas plants that operate more than 40% of the time would need to capture nearly all of their carbon by 2032, several years earlier than in the draft rule. The final rule removes the dual performance standard involving use of hydrogen and only includes a standard based on carbon capture and storage for new baseload natural gas plants. It sets emissions standards based on available control technologies and what is feasible on a plant-by-plant basis.  

The power sector currently accounts for a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and emits other forms of air pollution which disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. These new regulations will drive 1.4 billion tons of carbon emissions reductions by 2047 to help achieve U.S. climate goals.

EPA indicates it will issue additional regulations to cover existing gas plants soon to more robustly address the multiple forms of pollution resulting from those power sources.  

Following is a statement from Lori Bird, Director, US Energy Program, World Resources Institute:

“The days of unlimited carbon pollution are over. This rule is a massive step forward in the Biden Administration’s efforts to fight the climate crisis. It provides the certainty needed for the power industry and regulators to evaluate new generation sources, plan for changes to the grid and electricity mix, and maintain reliability in coming years.  

“The power sector is the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Requiring power plants to slash carbon pollution by more than 80% below 2005 levels by 2040 represents a massive step toward a more prosperous, clean and equitable future for everyone. With electricity demand growing, it’s more important than ever that the U.S. cuts its power sector emissions.  

“The Inflation Reduction Act's generous tax incentives provide multiple pathways for electricity producers to keep consumer costs low even as they cut emissions from America’s dirtiest power plants. This smart approach is a win-win for electricity consumers, local communities and power companies.

“With the power plant rule and recently unveiled vehicle standards, the Biden administration has delivered a powerful one-two punch in the fight against climate change. Now the administration should finalize additional rules that cover multiple air pollutant emissions from existing gas plants. These existing plants represent the majority of power generation emissions and will be critical to comprehensively addressing emissions from the power sector.”  

U.S. Climate United States power plants U.S. Climate Policy-Clean Power Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

STATEMENT: EPA Makes Nearly $1 Billion in Funding Available for Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Including Electric School Buses and Trucks nate.shelter@wri.org Wed, 04/24/2024 - 10:02

WASHINGTON (April 24, 2024) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched its new 2024 Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program, designed to help transition heavy-duty vehicles – including school buses and trucks – to zero-emission models. EPA released program guidance and officially opened the funding program’s application portal on the agency’s website.

The program, created by the Inflation Reduction Act, makes nearly $1 billion in funding available to help municipalities, states, territories, Tribes, school districts and nonprofit school transportation associations replace existing heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emission vehicles, deploy zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and train and develop workers. With $400 million allocated for projects in communities that suffer from poor air quality as defined by EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards, this effort supports the aims of the Justice40 Initiative by emphasizing environmental justice efforts in communities disproportionately affected by pollution. There are over three million Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles currently in use in the U.S., spanning a wide variety of vehicle types and vocations, including school buses as well as refuse haulers and utility and delivery trucks.

EPA expects approximately 70% of the total funding will support school bus-related projects, with approximately 30% of funding for vocational vehicles. Grant applications will be due July 25, 2024, and awards are expected to be announced by the end of the year.

Following is a statement from Sue Gander, Director of WRI’s Electric School Bus Initiative:

“This program is a game-changer for communities across the country that want to transition to clean buses and trucks – and breathe cleaner air – but don’t have the means to do so. As we commemorate Earth Day this week, this is good news for neighborhoods everywhere.

“Heavy-duty vehicles emit huge amounts of air pollution that harm the health and wellbeing of our children and communities. Historically underserved communities living near depots, ports and highways are often more exposed to pollution from these vehicles, underscoring the equity benefits of this program. We are pleased to see the program cover vehicle costs as well as the purchase and installation of infrastructure, plus training for drivers and mechanics, all of which are essential for this transition.

“This program marks a critical milestone in the transition of the country’s nearly half a million school buses from diesel and other fossil fuels to the cleaner, quieter rides that our kids deserve. As demand for electric school buses grows, this grant program will bring health benefits to kids, drivers, and communities and support jobs in the clean economy. We encourage all eligible entities to apply and to start talking to their utilities now about planning for the necessary infrastructure.”

###

Additional details:

Applications will be open from April 24 to July 25, 2024, and EPA expects to announce grant awards by the end of the year. The 2024 Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program is comprised of two distinct sub-programs, the School Bus Sub-Program and the Vocational Vehicles Sub-Program. The School Bus Sub-Program is specifically for applicants replacing school buses, while the Vocational Vehicles Sub-Program provides funding for the replacement of non-school bus Class 6 and 7 vehicles, such as dump trucks, utility trucks, refuse haulers and street sweepers. EPA expects to award between 40 to 160 grants, split among the EPA regions. EPA also anticipates awarding at least 15 grant awards to eligible applicants from Tribes and territories. To apply, visit the EPA website.

Funding from this program can be used to cover the cost difference between replacing an existing heavy-duty vehicle with a zero-emission model and replacing it with a diesel-burning one. Funds can also be used to cover charging infrastructure, workforce development, and training and other administrative costs.

With a variety of zero-emission Class 6 and 7 vehicles available today, cities, states, territories, Tribes, school districts and other eligible entities can save thousands of dollars in operating costs. Additionally, the program will help reduce toxic emissions from diesel-burning school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles that are dangerous for children, drivers, and others and increase the risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
 

U.S. Climate United States U.S. Climate Policy-Electric School Buses U.S. Climate Policy-Electric Vehicles Electric Mobility Air Quality Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Industry Must Decarbonize: Cross-Sector Initiative Shows the Way in New Blueprint shannon.paton@… Wed, 04/24/2024 - 09:39

Industry is the backbone of modern daily life and the country’s economy, from manufacturing clothes, cars, phones and toothbrushes to the materials that make American buildings, roads and bridges — such as chemicals, steel, cement, paper and other essential goods that people and businesses use. The industrial sector is also a critical source of jobs in many small and medium-sized communities.

The International Energy Agency has stated that to give the world a chance to be on track for meeting our global climate goals, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must reach net zero by 2050. However, as global emissions continue to rise, industry — along with other sectors of the U.S. economy— face a critical, challenging task: decarbonization. In the U.S., industry accounts for 30% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including emissions from purchasing electricity. All in all, industry is the U.S.’s third highest-emitting sector.

Industrial Decarbonization Can Benefit Everyone

Decarbonization of the industrial sector can positively impact individuals, households, communities and the economy, in addition to the planet. Policy and regulatory steps that promote decarbonization will help ensure that American industry can continue to compete internationally. For example, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is scheduled to take effect in 2026, creating additional incentives for American industry to reduce the intensity of its products’ emissions.

Industrial decarbonization can improve Americans’ health. Curtailing greenhouse gas emissions can reduce other types of industrial pollution, especially particulate matter, providing health benefits to communities. Particulate matter, also called particulate pollution or soot, is associated with increased mortality from all causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer, and is linked with asthma, COPD, heart attacks, strokes and neurological effects and more.

Retooling industrial facilities to curb emissions can also create new jobs. Supportive policies have the potential to develop durable markets in new, green technologies that can stimulate the American economy, resulting in substantial job growth. Supporting domestic industries also protects existing high-wage jobs.

Rising to the Challenge

At the same time, there are several reasons why decarbonizing industry is a daunting task. First, the industrial sector consists of a wide range of subsectors with their own unique challenges that can make decarbonization difficult. For example, in cement production, some CO2 emissions are a byproduct of chemical reactions required to create the final product. These are known as process emissions and cannot be avoided with renewables or other low-carbon energy. Another challenge is in the chemical sector, which produces thousands of different products through diverse supply chains, each requiring unique decarbonization approaches.

Second, many facilities run 24 hours a day, every day of the year, without interruption. This can create obstacles when drawing from intermittent energy sources such as solar or wind.

Additionally, many new low-carbon products are more costly than conventional versions and emerging decarbonization technologies (like carbon capture, utilization and sequestration) are expensive, making it challenging for lower-carbon products and industrial facilities to be cost-competitive on the market.

Also, there is a lack of common standards for emissions reporting and benchmarking across industrial subsectors and products. This makes it difficult to compare metrics like carbon intensity of products manufactured at different facilities, and introduce policies that would decrease emissions.

Lastly, certain industrial sectors are also trade exposed. This means that they face high competition combined with low profit margins on an international scale. If these industries face sudden changes in regulation or costs, they may move their operations to countries with lower operating costs and fewer emission regulations. This leads to emissions leakage, where emissions move from one country to the next but do not decrease globally.

These are only some of the barriers to curbing industrial emissions.

Taking Action

Despite these challenges, the U.S. has already taken steps to clean up the industrial sector. More than 70% of American steel is manufactured using electric arc furnaces, which have significantly lower emissions than traditional manufacturing methods. Additionally, 2021 and 2022 saw unprecedented investments and federal policy support to address emissions from this sector through the passage of the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The implementation of these policies is still in its earliest stages and will help support the build-out of the necessary markets and infrastructure to realize their full potential.

What We’re Doing About It

Setting U.S. industry on a path to net zero by 2050 while protecting and creating high-wage jobs, maintaining competitiveness and advancing technology leadership requires collaboration. That’s why the Industrial Innovation Initiative (I3) released its 2024 Federal Policy Blueprint — jointly developed by a coalition of NGOs, industry and labor groups — to recommend a suite of policies to Congress, the administration and the broader policymaking landscape to help achieve these goals. The Blueprint builds upon the momentum from the passage of BIL and IRA by the federal government and identifies additional policies that will make the most of the investments made in these landmark pieces of legislation.

• Supportive infrastructure, including transportation and storage of CO2 and hydrogen, is needed for industry to transition to a low-carbon future. The Blueprint includes recommendations that aim to improve the design and siting of this critical infrastructure on a national scale. This includes prioritizing the safety of communities and ensuring the availability of a trained workforce, which will build trust and operational expertise for new and existing infrastructure.
• Decarbonizing industrial energy demand will be critical for reducing emissions. For low- and medium-temperature heat applications, electrification is a core strategy. To address process heat, innovative technologies will need to be deployed widely. The Blueprint makes several recommendations intended to ensure reliable, affordable and clean electricity and heat supply.
• The Blueprint also provides recommendations to improve standards and data for low-carbon products. Standardizing methods and carbon labeling programs for low-carbon products will allow manufacturers to report their emissions consistently and will give governments, corporations and other large purchasers confidence that their purchases are helping reduce industrial emissions.
• Finally, the Blueprint recognizes the need for market innovation. It recommends several strategies for nurturing transformational technologies required to slash industrial emissions. Technological innovation will be essential to ensuring that the industrial sector can maintain its competitiveness as it pursues midcentury climate goals.

Achieving net-zero industrial emissions by midcentury is an ambitious but achievable goal. The last few years have seen a ramp-up in momentum toward industrial decarbonization in the U.S. The passage of the BIL, IRA and other policies has created a strong foundation for greater future action toward decarbonizing our industries. Nonetheless, accelerating industrial decarbonization requires continued work. The 2024 Federal Policy Blueprint from I3 highlights many key next steps needed to make the vision of a more efficient and cleaner industrial sector a reality.

Key Takeaways:

• Industry plays a significant role in creating materials used in daily life. However, it is the third-highest greenhouse gas emitting sector in the U.S.
• Decarbonizing this critical sector can provide climate benefits, support American jobs and economic competitiveness, and reduce air pollution.
• Industry has been daunting to decarbonize, given the variety of sectors, types of emissions and the trade-exposed nature of specific sectors.
• There have been substantial changes to the federal policy landscape supporting industrial decarbonization in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
• The new Federal Policy Blueprint from the Industrial Innovation Initiative lays a path for how to best capitalize on recent investments and deploy the technology and policies needed to decarbonize industry. It focuses on supportive infrastructure for carbon management and hydrogen, industrial energy demand, data and standards for low-carbon products and market innovation.

Get Involved with Industrial Decarbonization

The Industrial Innovation Initiative (I3) is co-convened by the Great Plains Institute and World Resources Institute. To learn more about industrial decarbonization and I3’s policy advocacy work, visit the initiative’s website at industrialinnovation.org.

Find out more information about the recommendations listed above in the 2024 Federal Policy Blueprint and the summary fact sheet on the Blueprint.

chris-linnett.jpg Climate United States industry U.S. Climate GHG emissions Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Industrial Innovation & Decarbonization
• U.S. Climate

Authors Diana Leane Kate Sullivan Ankita Gangotra Carrie Dellesky

In a Clean Energy Future, What Happens to California’s Thousands of Oil Refinery Workers? shannon.paton@… Tue, 04/23/2024 - 13:50

California is often considered the United States’ greenest state — a first-mover on climate policy, renewable energy, electric vehicles and more. But at the same time, the state is still a fossil-fuel production powerhouse.

This is especially true for its petroleum refineries, which turn crude oil into transportation fuels (like gasoline) and feedstocks for making chemicals. Despite declining oil production in the state, California still has the third-largest crude oil refining capacity in the country, just after Texas and Louisiana. About 83% of its refined petroleum is used for transportation, a sector that produces half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. California is also the country’s largest consumer of jet fuel and second-largest user of motor gasoline, fuels that are processed and refined at petroleum refineries.  

At the same time, California has a legal requirement to cut 85% of its emissions by 2045. Phasing down petroleum refineries, along with petroleum-based transportation fuels, are crucial steps in meeting that goal. Which begs the question: What happens to the thousands of workers, families and communities who rely on the state’s oil refineries for jobs and tax revenues?

While California is developing a detailed roadmap on how it will reduce its emissions, it doesn’t yet include a plan for addressing the impact of refinery closures — specifically, loss of jobs, incomes and the critical tax revenues that support communities’ schools, healthcare systems and more. California therefore has an opportunity to not only lead on phasing down America’s refineries, but to also make the transition a just one.

An oil refinery in Wilmington, CA. California has the third-largest crude oil refining capacity in the United States. Photo by Emmett Institute/Flickr The Current State of California’s Oil Refineries

While around 50 oil refineries were in operation across California a few decades ago, 11 refineries operate in California today, concentrated in three areas: Los Angeles County, Contra Costa County and Kern County in the San Joaquin Valley.

In-state consumption of gasoline has been declining since 2017, a trend projected to continue. While Californians consumed around 13.8 billion gallons of gasoline in 2021, this is expected to drop to 8 billion by 2030 and to less than 2 billion gallons by the 2040s.

Already, California has been importing and processing heavy crude oil against a backdrop of a steady decline in its crude oil production. In 2022, about 25.8% of oil used at California’s refineries was extracted within the state, while the rest was imported (59% from outside of the U.S. and 15.2% from Alaska).

California also supplies other states’ fuel demands. About 12% of the state’s total refined products are exported to Nevada and Arizona, as well as abroad.

It’s unclear whether and to what extent California will ramp up its fuel exports in the future in the face of decreasing petroleum demand within the state. However, recent policies will likely further squeeze out the state’s oil refinery industry and contribute to the phasedown and potential closures of more refineries.

The state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires petroleum refiners and other fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California. The policy has helped reduce emissions from the transportation sector while driving the production of lower carbon fuels. Some of California’s recently closed petroleum refineries, including Marathon Martinez and Phillips 66 Rodeo, have already retrofitted their operations to process animal fats, soybean and used cooking oils into renewable diesel, the production of which has already grown from 325 to 531 million gallons between 2011 and 2023. However, a growing demand for renewable fuels would unlikely be met by used cooking oils alone, and shifting toward producing more crop-based biofuels would not be a wise move from a climate, health or economic perspective.

The recent Advanced Clean Cars II regulation is also expected to reduce passenger vehicle emissions by 50% in 2040 through increased zero-emission vehicle sales, which will further reduce demand for gasoline in the state.

And California’s own Scoping Plan on how it will reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 assumes a phasedown of fossil-based refined products in line with policy-driven demand reductions. The plan expects some fuel demand will persist through 2045 for interstate locomotives, marine and aviation transportation, as well as some remaining demand for combustion fuels for road transport due to the long fleet turnover time. 

Who Will Be Impacted by California’s Oil Refinery Transition?

Although the refinery phasedown in California has already begun to some extent, many questions about the fate of the facilities, their workers, and the communities that live around them are yet to be addressed.

More than 100,000 workers are directly employed in California’s oil and gas industry, out of which petroleum refineries directly employ close to 8,700 workers. More than half of the direct jobs are in Los Angeles County, and a third in Contra Costa County. Since the workforce is so geographically concentrated, abrupt changes can create an outsized impact on specific communities.

While the 8,700 workers may seem like a tiny fraction — about 0.06% of the state’s private sector workforce in 2022 — the picture changes when considering the 126,000 indirect and induced jobs supported by the refinery industry, which make up 0.9% of the state’s private sector workforce. Petroleum refineries have one of the largest employment multipliers among all industries due to the large amount of investment in equipment and maintenance, materials and other inputs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates this number to be 14.5, meaning the addition of one direct job in oil refineries creates at least 14.5 jobs in the rest of the economy.

Most refinery jobs are high quality, union jobs — with good wages and benefits that have been negotiated over many decades as a result of the industry’s long history of striking for better working conditions. Oil refinery workers, including management positions, make over $190,000 per year on average, compared to $84,500 for all private sector jobs in California. The state’s petroleum pump system operators, refinery operators and gaugers, one of the key occupations in the industry, earn $97,030 per year on average.

Workers have been advocating to improve job quality within the new clean energy economy, as labor unions are concerned that the clean energy transition will erode job quality, wages and benefits. Making sure that labor is well represented in planning discussions will therefore be critical for ensuring the state has a “just transition.”

And the potential impacts of a refinery phasedown extend far beyond refinery workers and their families. Refineries provide tax revenues that support funding for adjacent communities’ public schools, healthcare, and infrastructure like roads and parks. Lack of quality data on refinery tax revenue hinders our understanding of their contribution to the local economy, but available evidence suggests it is significant. According to one analysis, the closure of seven refineries across the U.S. between 2019 and 2022 cost the communities hosting them a collective $21 million in local property tax revenue annually. Similarly, St. James Parish in Louisiana estimated it would lose $24 million annually in property, inventory and sales tax when Shell decided to close its refinery in 2020.

There’s also an environmental justice component to refinery phasedowns. Black Americans are 75% more likely than other Americans to live in neighborhoods adjacent to refineries. More than 50% of residents in Los Angeles County, where many of California’s refineries are located, live in disadvantaged communities that suffer from a combination of economic, health and environmental burdens. While the closure of refineries could bring a much-needed reduction in air pollution in these communities, left-behind compounds like lead and benzene can continue to pollute soil and water long into the future, raising questions about environmental remediation and who pays for it. For instance, Marathon’s Gallup refinery in New Mexico “idled indefinitely” instead of officially closing, avoiding the expensive task of cleaning up the polluted site.

What's Needed to Ensure California’s Oil Refinery Phasedown Doesn’t Come at the Expense of Workers and Communities?

California needs to develop a transition roadmap that holistically considers refinery workers’ and communities’ needs.

Los Angeles  County is leading the way through its Just Transition Strategy, meant to support workers and communities impacted by the phase-out of oil drilling and extraction (though it omits refineries). At the state level, however, there is no simultaneous effort to develop a just transition roadmap for the entire oil industry, including its refineries. California is currently producing a fossil fuel phasedown plan, devised by a multi-agency task force and incorporating the results of a transportation fuels assessment. It’s essential that this plan look beyond just how to reduce emissions and include how to protect the workers and communities reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

We’ve already seen what an unplanned transition looks like in other states, with severe labor market shocks and community-level impacts. Take coal mining in Appalachia: 87% of U.S. coal-related job loss has occurred in Appalachia due to declining coal production and closure of coal-fired plants.

California therefore needs a state-level plan for a well-managed and just transition. A few considerations will be essential as policymakers create a roadmap:

1) A better understanding of workers’ needs

Any policies to support refinery workers in the low-carbon transition need to be informed by workers themselves.

A recent UC Berkeley Labor Center study is one of few that places refinery workers’ experiences and recommendations at the forefront. It focuses on workers that were laid off during California’s Marathon Martinez refinery closure in 2020, specifically their recommendations on job search assistance, job training programs, financial planning and retirement preparation assistance. More recently, the Steelworkers Charitable and Educational Organization (SCEO), a non-profit connected to the United Steelworkers union, was one of several groups to win a grant from the Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund to craft training programs and job placement services to help prepare displaced workers. These insights can inform policymakers and help place workers’ needs at the forefront of future policies.

A better understanding of refinery workers’ current occupations, educational backgrounds and skills is also crucial. Refineries include a variety of roles, requiring all levels of education and training. Some skills are industry-specific, and some are readily transferrable to other industries. While some jobs usually require a high school diploma and a few months of training, others require a four-year bachelor’s degree. A UK oil and gas workforce analysis found that over 90% of its workers have medium to high skills transferability, putting them in a strong position to work within other clean energy-related sectors, though such jobs might not always be located in the same region where refinery workers are being displaced.

2) Data to help proactive planning

Decreases in demand will likely lead to the closure of many of today’s 11 petroleum refineries in California. Obtaining refinery-specific data will be crucial to prepare and understand how different refineries would be impacted by the phasedown of refined petroleum products — including which will close quickly, and which are more likely to remain around longer and/or be converted to alternate uses, such as renewable fuel production. But it’s currently difficult to access this data. Much of it is proprietary or doesn’t exist in the form of accessible datasets. 

California’s Marathon refinery was closed in August of 2020, shortly after being idled due to decreasing demand linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. The abrupt closure left its workers feeling blindsided and unprepared for the mass layoff. The PES refinery in Philadelphia also closed within the same timeframe, after it declared bankruptcy following a significant explosion. These examples underscore the importance of tracking the economic and operational health of refineries to allow for better planning around their closures. This is crucial to ensure that workers and communities receive the necessary transition support, and that taxpayers don’t end up paying for a bankrupted facility’s clean-up and remediation. 

Publicly accessible data on the local government revenue generated by refineries is also needed, as it supports cities’ general budgets and funds education, health and public services. Some studies explore how the overall oil and gas transition would impact local governments’ finances, yet more revenue data is needed at the local level to fully understand future impacts and what’s needed to replace refinery revenue.

3) Comprehensive modelling to understand likely impacts

California has already funded two modelling studies on enhancing equity and reducing emissions of its transportation fuels. They examine different pathways for reducing California’s transportation fuel demand and supply to achieve carbon-neutral transportation by 2045, while also considering labor and health impacts. The state’s latest Scoping Plan points to these studies, and their results will also likely be considered within the fossil-fuel phasedown plan being developed by the state’s multi-agency task force.

While the studies provide foundational modelling, the state needs to consider a wider range of future scenarios for petroleum demand, which will impact its refinery phasedown planning. For example, scenarios should account for the demand of renewable fuels and consider the potential use of clean hydrogen and/or point-source carbon capture and sequestration.

The state should also better map out the impact of different export scenarios that consider California’s competitiveness in other domestic and international markets. The demand for oil in other states and countries (which are also electrifying, although at different rates) will have impacts on California’s refineries. While not enough is known about whether California refineries are positioned to increase exports, some environmental groups have raised concerns about the state increasing its fuel exports, prolonging the life of its petroleum refineries.

More comprehensive modelling must also consider air pollution, health, jobs and tax revenue impacts on surrounding communities from either refinery closures or conversions to other uses. The workforce and long-term tax implications of switching to produce renewable fuels, in particular, need to be better studied. In 2020, the Cheyenne refinery in Wyoming announced it would lay off the majority of its workers as it transitioned into a renewable diesel plant. Any state-level plan needs to carefully consider biofuel-related economic impacts when moving toward the ultimate goal of electrification.

4) Inclusive planning

There are lots of stakeholders with varying perspectives on just transition policies, from environmental NGOs and environmental justice groups to labor unions and industry representatives. It will be crucial for the state to engage with each of them.

Environmental justice and conservation groups have long advocated for more stringent safety regulations and the decommissioning of refineries. They’re now raising concerns over the state’s interest and policies around the use of biofuels, hydrogen, and carbon capture and sequestration as part of the low-carbon transition. One group recently sued the City of Paramount over the approval of a biofuel refinery expansion without adequate environmental review, citing health and safety concerns.

Oil industry trade groups like Western States Petroleum Association, on the other hand, have a strong influence on California policymaking and have regularly opposed policy proposals focused on phasing out oil production and other transition-focused bills. While some labor unions have at times shared the association’s resistance due to concerns about losing well-paying union jobs, other labor groups are more welcoming of the low-carbon transition.

The United Steelworkers Local 675 launched a coalition of labor unions in 2023 to advocate for a worker-led just transition, one of several labor groups that endorsed a 2021 report outlining a roadmap towards a clean and equitable energy transition in California. Labor unions have also been central to the design and implementation of two initiatives focused on worker transitions: the state’s Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund, set up to provide help to displaced oil and gas sector workers to transition into sectors that match their skills and offer comparable wages, and the Oil Well Capping Pilot Program to train displaced oil workers to participate in capping abandoned oil wells. Closely engaging with labor groups will be crucial for the transition to be successful both for people and the climate.  

Multi-stakeholder coalitions can play an important role in bringing these different perspectives to the same negotiating table. This is already happening in the context of Northern California refineries, where the Contra Costa Refinery Transition Partnership, a labor environmental justice partnership led by the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation, is developing strategies to prepare for the refinery transition. This partnership brings together oil refinery workers, community organizations, industry representatives and other key stakeholders.

California Can Create a Model for a National Just Transition

There are already numerous examples within the energy industry that illustrate the harm of an unplanned low-carbon transition. As policymakers in California consider their plan to phase down refined petroleum products, it’s essential they also develop a transition roadmap that holistically considers workers’ and communities’ needs.

California’s ambitious policies signal that the state’s refineries could be the first in the country to undergo a significant transition and shift away from fossil fuels. The state therefore faces an unprecedented opportunity: demonstrating what a just and clean refinery transition can look like — not only in California, but for other states also grappling with the unintended consequences of a clean energy future.

Rajat Shrestha also contributed data analysis to this article. 

los-angeles-oil-refinery.jpg Climate United States fossil fuels GHG emissions U.S. Climate U.S. Climate Policy-Equity environmental justice Clean Energy Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• U.S. Climate
• U.S. Climate Policy Resource Center
• Just Transition and Equitable Climate Action Resource Center

Authors Danielle Riedl Devashree Saha

RELEASE: World Resources Institute to Host New Secretariat for Our Ocean Conference casey.skeens@wri.org Wed, 04/17/2024 - 16:27

ATHENS (April 17, 2024) — The United States Department of State and the Advisory Committee of the annual Our Ocean Conference announced the formation of a new permanent Secretariat for the Conference, which will be hosted by World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Ocean Program. The Secretariat will be funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Bloomberg Ocean Initiative and Oceans5.

Launched in 2014 by the U.S. Department of State and former Secretary of State, John Kerry, the Our Ocean Conference is an annual event where governments, private sector representatives, NGOs and the academic community collaborate to protect the ocean. The Conference is a crucial moment for the ocean community year-after-year, championing diverse voices and generating commitments towards protecting and improving the ocean. In the past decade the conference has seen over 2,100 announcements worth nearly $128 billion.

WRI has extensive experience in acting as Secretariat or Co-Secretariat for major international groups, including the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel), NDC Partnership, Champions 12.3 (food loss and waste reduction), High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People (30x30 conservation), Global Commission on Adaptation and more. WRI’s Ocean Program is uniquely suitable as the Our Ocean Conference Secretariat given its role supporting the Ocean Panel, with significant experience developing and hosting international events, running global communications and tracking and analyzing commitments. 
    
“The Our Ocean Conferences provide a world stage for ocean leadership and impact,” said Dr. Tom Pickerell, Global Director, WRI Ocean Program. “Ten years of conferences so far has built up a strong legacy for the event, which has given rise to thousands of commitments toward sustainable and equitable management of the ocean. As the new Secretariat, we look forward to working with successive hosts, and supporting governments and partners to take ambitious action for the ocean and the people that rely on it.”

“We welcome the establishment of the Our Ocean Conference Secretariat,” said Jennifer R. Littlejohn, Acting Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. State Department. “We look forward to working with the Secretariat to ensure that OOC continues to mobilize concrete, ambitious, and meaningful action to protect and preserve our ocean."

The Our Ocean Conference is held in a different country each year with the hosts setting forth priority action areas. As the Conference prepares for its next iteration in 2025 in Busan, South Korea, the Secretariat will support capacity building and knowledge sharing through technical assistance and tracking to improve upon ‘institutional memory’ of the event from year to year.

Bloomberg Philanthropies’ funding for the Secretariat builds on its longtime partnership with the Our Ocean Conference. The Bloomberg Ocean Initiative has provided support to host governments since 2019 to ensure successful conferences while championing initiatives and outcomes to restore and protect critical ocean ecosystems in support of the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030. 

"Ensuring the success of the Our Ocean Conference is no small feat. It demands the collaboration of governments, businesses, and civil society to drive tangible action for ocean conservation,” said Melissa Wright, who leads the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative at Bloomberg Philanthropies. "That's why Bloomberg Philanthropies is pleased to support the World Resources Institute in hosting the Secretariat for the Our Ocean Conference. This provides a crucial platform for host countries to continue building on the incredible work underway, and with our support, they can achieve even greater strides in ocean protection."

The ocean acts as humanity’s life support — responsible for around 50% of the oxygen produced on earth and protects us by absorbing more than 90% of global excess heat caused by human activity and around 25% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It is a source of protein for 3 billion people and provides millions of jobs worldwide. The ocean is also a critical solution to fighting climate change, with the potential to deliver up to 35% of the annual greenhouse gas emission cuts needed in 2050 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

However, today the ocean’s health is off track. It’s under intense pressure from pollution, harmful fishing practices, habitat loss and climate change. 2023 saw the hottest temperatures ever recorded in the ocean, its oxygen levels are decreasing and it is now at its most acidic in at least 26,000 years as it absorbs and reacts with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

About World Resources Institute

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

Ocean Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

ADVISORY: Embargoed WRI Press Call on Cities Climate Hazards Analysis casey.skeens@wri.org Wed, 04/17/2024 - 15:23

Registration is for members of the media only.

Register here.

WASHINGTON (April 17, 2024) – Join the World Resources Institute (WRI) team on April 23, 2024 at 8:30 AM EDT / 14:30  CEST, for a preview of new analysis highlighting climate hazards under different warming scenarios – including heatwaves, cooling demand, and disease – for the world’s cities.  

The speakers will present findings on potential climate hazards for nearly 1,000 cities across the world – currently home to 2.1 billion people representing 26 percent of the global population. The data analysis and projections show the shifts, patterns and links between climate hazards, underscoring the need for city and national governments to inform their investments and policies with city-level data. This work was supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

The 2024 Cities Climate Hazards data set and analysis is strictly embargoed until April 30 at 5:01 AM EDT / 11:01 AM CEST. By registering for this press call, you agree to respect the embargo date and time.

To receive a Dropbox folder of embargoed data and graphics, email Hannah Lassiter or Alison Cinnamond.  

WHAT 
Embargoed Press Call to preview 2024 Cities Climate Hazards Analysis 

WHEN 
Tuesday, April 23 at 8:30AM EDT / 14:30 CEST  

WHO 
Speakers:

•    Rogier van den Berg, Global Director, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
•    Anjali Mahendra, Director of Global Research, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
•    Eric Mackres, Senior Manager, Data and Tools, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
•    Jaya Dhindaw, Executive Program Director, Sustainable Cities and Director, WRI India Ross Center
•    Aklilu Fikresilassie, Director, Thriving Resilient Cities, WRI Africa
•    Luis Antonio Lindau, Director, Brazil, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities  
•    Antha Williams, Global Head, Environment Program, Bloomberg Philanthropies

Moderator: Alison Cinnamond, Global Director, Strategic Communications, WRI

WHERE 
To RSVP, please register here.   

For any questions or to request embargoed content, please reach out to Hannah Lassiter or Alison Cinnamond.  

Cities Type Advisory Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Development Banks Are Starting to Spark Climate Action. Will They Complete the Task? shannon.paton@… Wed, 04/17/2024 - 09:14

The World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) are on the cusp of evolution. Their transformation is fundamental to the world’s ability to simultaneously tackle the climate crisis and poverty.

Ten years ago, having had no substantial policies for climate change, development banks began to gather climate data and increase attention to the impacts of climate change. This process gradually led to where we are today, with the MDBs recently releasing principles on how to align all their investments with the international Paris Agreement on climate change. The World Bank also committed to combat climate change as part of its mission, with other MDBs likely to follow suit.

These advancements are important, but there is much more to do.

As climate-related impacts, whether slow-moving or sudden, become increasingly obvious, they exacerbate vulnerability and pre-existing fragilities. Developing countries, the MDBs’ main clients, face the complex task of achieving sustainable economic development in the face of growing droughts, floods, extreme storms and other threats. They want to grow their economies, but they also must follow a different pathway than countries that developed by producing high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

The World Bank and its peers are uniquely placed to partner with countries as they take on these challenges. They have the capacity to provide finance, mobilize it from other sources, and match various types of technical and financial support to different countries’ needs. They are already a major conduit through which wealthy countries direct climate finance to their low-income counterparts — $66 billion in 2022.

But to be effective over the next 10 years, MDBs will need to become something else: an enabling force for economic development that’s good for people, nature and the climate.

The Past: A Gradual Acknowledgement of the Climate Challenge  

MDBs have come a long way on climate over the last decade, with notable developments including:

• Initial introduction of climate metrics: Around 10 years ago, the MDBs began to require the collection of climate-related data. In 2012, the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance standards introduced GHG accounting for certain investments, and others soon followed suit. In 2016, the World Bank ’s Environmental and Social Framework similarly required GHG accounting for potentially high-emitting investment projects, along with assessments of physical climate risks like drought, wildfires and sea-level rise. Regular collection of GHG emissions data and similar information was an important step for MDBs to track the relationship between their investments the climate, but the exercises remained largely educational, without a significant impact on project design and investment decisions.
• Setting climate finance targets. In late 2015, the World Bank committed to doubling its climate finance contributions to around $20 billion per year by 2020, its first official climate finance target. Other MDBs made similar commitments. In 2018, this was increased to 30% (35% for IFC) and, in 2021 to 35% by 2025.These World Bank targets added some teeth to the Bank’s efforts to integrate climate change into its operations. As a result, annual climate finance reporting became an important element of benchmarking progress on climate action, for both the World Bank and other MDBs.
• Enter the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement came into being at the end of 2015, with a goal to “make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” In 2017, the World Bank and other MDBs agreed to become “Paris-aligned” by July 1, 2023 (2025 for IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), which are part of the World Bank Group). This stated commitment opened the door to a potentially significant shift in how the World Bank and other MDBs embraced climate action. As a result of capital increase negotiations in 2018, the World Bank committed to screen all projects for climate risks and incorporate a shadow price for carbon into economic analysis of projects in emissions-producing sectors.
• Moving beyond a project focus. Finance tracking, while important, tells you little about its impact on outcomes, and it risks excluding from the picture finance not labeled as climate that might lock in reliance on fossil fuels — such as investments in coal plants or factories. Without a strategic overview of countries’ priorities, taking account of both climate and development needs, there is a risk of incoherence and skewed incentives. In 2021, the World Bank introduced a new approach to conducting country diagnoses, the Climate Change and Development Reports (CCDRs). These seek to combine analysis of climate and development under one umbrella. Ultimately, these diagnostic tools are used to gain a holistic view and to shape and prioritize investment and technical assistance to countries.

It took nearly six years from the announcement of a commitment to Paris alignment for MDBs to reach agreement on a set of joint principles on how to define such alignment. Now the task of robust implementation is here.

The Present: A Potentially Pivotal Moment

Today, there is growing pressure on MDBs to act on climate change in the context of other layered crises and support countries to develop in a climate-resilient, low-emission, nature-positive and inclusive way. The context isn’t easy: debt, capacity limitations, and conflicts burden countries and constrain their ability to pay for climate action. Meanwhile global poverty rates rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, making some developing countries anxious that increasing spending on climate action could be in competition, rather than complementary to, increasing funds to tackle poverty. Wider geopolitical tensions, including around trade and supply chains, add another challenge.

Facing this complex landscape, the World Bank Group released an Evolution Roadmap in October 2023. Other MDBs are working on similar plans: the Inter-American Development Bank announced its changes in March 2024. The Roadmap, among other things, underscores the importance of climate change in the World Bank’s mission statement and increases its climate finance target to 45% of total finance by 2025 (up from 35%). It also introduced Climate-Resilient Debt Clauses for lending, a step forward that could inspire others in tackling both development and climate challenges together.

The MDBs now have several tools in place, from Paris alignment methodologies to new macro-level assessment methodologies. Going forward, full implementation of these tools will be vital. But it will still not be enough. MDBs need to take bolder steps to successfully change the way they operate and implement their expanded mission to help address the multiple, overlapping challenges and opportunities of our time.

The Future: Take Bold Action to Revolutionize Development Finance

Going forward there is much opportunity to take ambitious action on climate and much risk in not doing so. In the next decade, every country in the world will have to transition from their current development pathway to one that is climate-resilient, low-emission, nature-positive and inclusive. Climate and development action need to go hand in hand: advancing development objectives like increased access to healthcare or effective transportation also requires ensuring that, for example, healthcare services are resilient to extreme weather and that transport options are low-emission and can withstand shocks like floods or blistering heatwaves.

The World Bank Group and fellow MDBs can embrace five steps to support both sustainability and prosperity, becoming radically different organizations in 10 years’ time to the ones they are today:

1) Integrate climate and development finance, in support of country plans.

The world needs to radically grow the amount of funds flowing toward climate action, from domestic, international, public and private sources. The World Bank and fellow MDBs have a central role to play.

Holistic country planning

First, as called for by the G20 Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, MDBs can help countries set clear, integrated goals and long-term strategies for achieving their climate, nature and development ambitions, bringing together what are too often disparate and disjointed planning tools. In the context of these integrated strategies, MDBs can support developing nations in identifying priority areas for investment, shifting domestic policy and finance to support them, tackling distributional impacts, and establishing the institutional capability to develop a pipeline of investible projects. They can enable countries to implement country and sector platforms that bring together donors, international finance institutions, the private sector, and philanthropic organizations in support of country-led just transitions and investment strategies.

This builds on, but goes beyond, implementing tools like the new Paris alignment methodologies, the new country diagnostic approach, and other information-gathering and risk-management activities. It will take a cohesive and collaborative approach, signaling a virtuous cycle in which climate and development outcomes are mutually supportive, as well as building genuine partnerships to ensure adequate resourcing and support new capacity.

Concessionality

A refreshed approach to concessionality — or the degree to which financing is provided at below market rates — will also help ensure the most effective allocation of available funds to achieve both development and climate goals.

Currently, countries can access concessional financing primarily based on their poverty level, institutional framework, creditworthiness and performance implementing investments. Going forward, a country’s level of climate vulnerability could be added to the assessment of poverty, since climate change has been shown to affect the poorest most and is intrinsically linked to a country’s ability to achieve development and climate goals. Whilst this would allow the most concessional resources to be concentrated on countries that are both poor and vulnerable, it would also allow the vulnerability of nations like small island states — who are classified as middle income, but face potentially catastrophic climate impacts — to be taken into account.

To allow public finance to be used most efficiently, the banks will need to use appropriate degrees of concessionality and instruments based not only on a country’s poverty (and vulnerability), but also on the investment in question, including potential revenue streams. For example, investments that are likely to attract private capital more easily (such as a solar farm in an emerging economy) will need less use of concessional instruments than those that are unlikely to receive private funding (such as an early warning system in a least developed country). This will allow highly concessional finance to remain available for where it is needed most and has a proportionally larger effect.

2) Access and mobilize additional funds for climate action.

Beyond shifting currently available funds, the World Bank and other MDBs need to make maximum use of their ability to help grow the pie of available resources. This needs to be done both by making better use of the resources available to the banks themselves and encouraging a shift of funds held by others, including the private sector.

Capital Adequacy Framework

The G20 recommended changes to the MDBs’ capital adequacy frameworks. These will expand the resources available for climate and development and should be implemented swiftly. These frameworks outline how much money development banks must hold in reserve, versus how much they can lend out. While MDBs’ historically conservative stance has ensured financial soundness and creditworthiness, advocates have increasingly argued that the banks can lend more of their capital without endangering the institutions.

In particular, proposals call for banks to reduce the minimum equity-to-loan ratio, implement a portfolio guarantee mechanism and enhance recognition of the value of callable capital. Several MDBs have started to implement elements of these recommendations. These changes are allowing institutions like the Asian Development Bank to extend their lending capabilities and take on additional climate-related operations.

Private Finance Mobilization

MDBs can also improve how they mobilize private finance toward climate action, including by developing tools and instruments that crowd in more private finance. A positive example is the World Bank’s recent announcement of major changes to its provision of guarantees, which will take effect in July 2024. Guarantees protect investors from a borrowers’ failure to repay, and thereby improve a project’s risk-reward profile and the likelihood that a private institution will invest. MDBs should continue to expand other forms of risk mitigation, including co-financing and insurance, as well as create a securitized asset class into which institutional investors and financial institutions can invest.

3) Increase funds available for MDBs.

The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance has suggested that MDB and development finance institutions’ investments in climate need to triple overall between now and 2030.  Whilst many of the measures above will be important drivers, MDBs will also need more resources from their shareholders between now and 2030.

If MDBs can show they are committed to stretching their own balance sheets, mobilizing more private finance and aligning their business models behind sustainable development, shareholder countries should provide them with substantial capital increases. Given their importance for increasing precious concessional finance, shareholders should also generously replenish concessional windows like IDA, the World Bank’s arm focused on low-income countries. This would supercharge the next decade of investments by the MDB community.  

4) Invest in adaptation and resilience.

Most MDB client countries are not high emitters, but are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. While investments in mitigation can be helpful to support energy access and industrial growth, investments in adaptation and resilience are fundamental to safeguarding past and future development gains and protecting vulnerable communities. Food systems, water, industry, housing, and existing transportation and energy infrastructure all stand to be impacted. Yet adaptation finance made up only 43% of the World Bank’s $13.6 billion in climate funding in 2022, and around 37% of total MDB climate funds. 

Investing in adaptation can be challenging. It is often less a question of making a standalone investment and more about making virtually all investments more climate resilient. All sectoral planning and infrastructure investments need to be done with future climate risks in mind. Also, many adaptation investments go beyond reducing the risk of climate-related damages — they are highly interconnected with development and nature investments, bringing significant benefits in terms of biodiversity, health and livelihoods.

The MDBs have begun to support developing country governments’ ability to assess climate-related risks facing their economies – including through analytical tools like the CCDRs. But they have a potentially much stronger role to play in better quantifying and showcasing the long-term benefits of investing in climate-resilient development. This would include estimating the total resilience, economic, and non-market social and environmental benefits (often called the “triple dividends”) of adaptation investments, and where the highest returns can be achieved. The MDBs can also help estimate the cost of inaction.

Given the current pace of climate damages, countries’ needs are growing far faster than the supply of finance. MDB efforts to increase the scale and, as required, concessionality of funding available for adaptation is critical. Such support should be integrated with the holistic country plans and financing platforms outlined above. 

5) Advance transparency, accountability and innovation. 

Transparency and accountability are necessary for helping to ensure that funding is implemented with equity and justice in mind. The MDBs can continue to champion transparency around financial flows, to help clarify where funds are flowing and to whom, for example. WRI is currently partnering with the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Social Accountability to provide small grants so local organizations can track and monitor climate finance. Similar innovations to support community involvement in the use and monitoring of climate finance will help ensure that funds are flowing to those who need them most. This must be done in a way that balances accountability for where and how climate funds are delivered.

Transparency can also help attract investments — especially investments in climate solutions, which by their nature are often novel and therefore lack the data or track record investors need. MDBs can help provide clear and transparent market signals for competitive climate projects. For example, providing more granular access to the Global Emerging Markets (GEMS) risk database (under specific conditions that also respect confidentiality) would provide valuable information on investment risks to potential investors who are currently hesitant to finance projects in emerging markets and developing economies.

A New Mode of Operation for the MDBs

Over the past 10 years, the World Bank and its fellow MDBs have gone from scant integration of climate into investment decisions, to a more whole-hearted recognition of the threats and opportunities climate change poses to people’s lives and livelihoods. 

Over the next 10 years, the World Bank and other MDBs can play a vital role in the low-carbon, resilient and inclusive transition. While the MDBs are only one part of a much broader landscape of finance that must shift toward sustainability, they are essential, given their ability to leverage funds, match instruments to needs, deliver technical assistance and analysis, and support country-driven just transitions. They can also play a role in supporting a paradigm shift in how climate is integrated into international development objectives. For this to happen, they must maximize their efforts to work openly, collaboratively and creatively to embrace a new mode of operation.  

solar-powered-water-pump-ethiopia.jpeg Finance Climate Finance adaptation finance development low carbon development multilateral development banks Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Gaia Larsen Valerie Laxton

Fossil Fuels Are in Everything from Plastics to Makeup, but Cleaner Alternatives Are Emerging margaret.overh… Wed, 04/17/2024 - 09:00

Fossil fuels aren’t just used to power cars, heat buildings and keep the lights on. They are, quite literally, woven into almost every facet of our lives.

From crayons, cosmetics and carpeting to fabrics, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals, around 70,000 everyday products are made with “petrochemicals” produced from fossil fuels. These products are so ubiquitous that many oil and gas companies are betting on chemical production to stay in business even as fossil fuel use in energy, heating and transport declines.

This comes with serious consequences for people and the planet. In the United States alone, chemical production directly emits 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year — equivalent to the annual emissions from nearly 49 million gas-powered vehicles. The U.S. chemical sector also released 176,000 tonnes of toxic pollutants in 2021, exposing communities to water and air pollution as well as health risks like acute respiratory symptoms, skin and eye irritation and cancer.

One of the most important steps the industry can take to reduce these impacts is to replace fossil fuels used as ingredients in chemical products with non-fossil alternatives. This is known as “defossilization.”

While promising, defossilization technologies are rarely used at scale and face complicated hurdles. Some alternative materials are currently only available in small quantities. Others can risk increasing emissions if not used carefully. New analysis from WRI explores how and where U.S. chemical companies can use both existing and on-the-horizon technologies to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, lower emissions and improve lives in nearby communities.

How Are Fossil Fuels Used in Everyday Products?

“Petrochemicals” — chemicals derived from fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas and coal — are present in just about every material that is not 100% organic, mineral or metallic. This includes plastics, electronics, textiles, cleaning products, rubber, paints and thousands of other synthetic products that most people use every day.

The process to make these products starts with processing fossil fuels into chemical “feedstocks” (or raw materials). Chemical feedstocks are turned into primary chemicals before being converted into intermediary chemicals and polymers. These are then manufactured into materials such as plastics and fibers and finally put to use in end products.

One of the most common chemical processing chains in the U.S. distills ethane from natural gas (a chemical feedstock), which is then “cracked” into ethylene (a primary chemical) and eventually turned into plastics and other materials.

Production of primary chemicals — including ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, xylene, ammonia and methanol — emits the most greenhouse gases along the chemical supply chain. These “process emissions” come from burning additional fossil fuels to generate the high temperatures (up to 1,000 degrees C) needed to turn fossil fuels into primary chemicals.

Ammonia, for example, is one of the most common chemicals globally due to its use in synthetic fertilizer. Producing it requires hydrogen, which is typically made by reforming natural gas into a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The resulting CO2 is usually emitted into the atmosphere. Extracting and transporting natural gas to an ammonia plant also emits greenhouse gases and risks methane leakages. (Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the warming power of CO2 over a 20-year period.)

Because this small handful of chemicals are the precursors to thousands of end products and drive most emissions in the product lifecycle, they offer a strategic emission reduction opportunity.

How Could Fossil Fuels Be Replaced in Chemical Production?

The modern chemical industry is built on fossil fuels because they are dense in energy as well as carbon and hydrogen (the two key molecules in most chemical products). This makes them an economical feedstock option. But, technically, anything containing many carbon and hydrogen atoms can be used to replace fossil fuels in chemical production.

WRI’s analysis considered the following alternative feedstocks that are either abundant today or are projected to be in the coming years:

• Electrolytic hydrogen: Pure hydrogen can be obtained by using electricity to split water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen through a process called electrolysis. This should be done using clean power to avoid adding greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled electricity.
• Captured CO2: Carbon that is captured from industrial sources (such as cement manufacturers), or from the atmosphere (via direct air capture and other methods) could be used in chemical production.
• Waste biomass: This includes unused plant parts and other organic material collected in agriculture, forestry and municipal waste. Waste biomass can be a substitute for fossil fuels because, technically, fossil fuels are just biomass and animal matter subjected to heat and pressure underground for millions of years; both contain the same carbon and hydrogen molecules. It is important that biomass truly comes from waste and is not purpose-grown for the chemical industry, as converting carbon-rich natural ecosystems to cropland can drive enormous land-use-change emissions.
• Ethanol: Ethanol, which is currently widely produced in the U.S. by fermenting corn, can be used in place of fossil fuels to produce the chemical ethylene. While there is an opportunity cost of using prime farmland for corn ethanol, using ethanol as a chemical feedstock is more productive than blending it with gasoline as a “renewable” fuel. Capturing the CO2 emitted during ethanol production would reduce emissions from existing facilities.

Consider ammonia once more. Rather than deriving hydrogen from natural gas, an ammonia plant can defossilize by using electrolysis to split water into its component hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Electrolysis does not emit greenhouse gases if the electricity comes from zero-carbon sources like wind or solar and does not displace clean energy used elsewhere on the electricity grid. Because most of the emissions caused by ammonia production derive from reforming natural gas, replacing it with clean hydrogen makes the process nearly zero-carbon.

Opportunities to Defossilize Chemical Production in the U.S.

New WRI analysis looks at defossilization opportunities in the U.S. for four primary chemicals: ethylene, propylene, ammonia and methanol. It assesses total demand for each, identifies today’s most promising defossilization technologies and estimates the volume of these feedstocks needed to meet demand. It also maps out where alternative feedstocks are or could be located effectively in relation to existing chemical plants and infrastructure.

We found that, nationally, the estimated demand for alternative feedstocks is currently greater than available feedstock supplies. In some cases, the difference is relatively small: The U.S. currently produces around 315 million tonnes of waste biomass per year, and the estimated demand for chemical production is around 375 million tonnes. In other cases, demand massively outstrips supply. For example, as much as 29-41 million tonnes of electrolytic (clean) hydrogen would be needed as a chemical feedstock. The U.S. currently produces almost none, although this is expected to change thanks to recent production incentives. While the U.S. produces 10-11 million tonnes of conventional (dirty) hydrogen, this would not be a low-carbon feedstock.

The outlook is different from a regional perspective, however. In certain areas with a small amount of chemical production, demand could be easily met by a large supply of potential resources.

Using renewable energy to make ammonia in the Midwest

The Midwest is home to 127 million acres of farmland, much of which produces corn used for ethanol and for feeding livestock (45% and 40% of corn crop, respectively) as well as soybeans and other food crops. This immense agricultural output relies on millions of tons of ammonia-based fertilizer made with natural gas feedstock. To meet this demand, most U.S. ammonia plants are sprinkled throughout the region, with additional demand met by shipments produced in the Gulf Coast.

Reducing Chemical Sector Emissions is Complicated

No single solution will eliminate emissions from the chemical sector on its own. Defossilization is one piece of a bigger puzzle. It can work in concert with strategies like reducing demand, electrifying chemical plants with clean electricity, making them more energy efficient and capturing process CO2 emissions (either for use as a feedstock or to be sequestered permanently). Learn about more approaches that can contribute to a net-zero chemical sector in WRI’s new working paper.

We estimate that the Midcontinent, Great Lakes and Upper Midwest regions combined — which make up most of the country’s “corn belt” — produce about half the country’s ammonia (6.9 million tons annually). Replacing natural gas feedstocks in this process with clean, electrolytic hydrogen would require about 1.2 million tons of hydrogen per year. Fortunately, the Midwest also has some of the United States’ best wind energy potential and respectable solar potential. Depending on the electrolyzers’ efficiency, creating 1.2 million tons of electrolytic hydrogen would require 42-62 thousand gigawatt hours (GWh) of clean electricity. This is about 7%-11% of the total renewable energy the Midwest could generate in 2050 with a 95% decarbonized energy grid.

Defossilizing ammonia in the Midwest may need both demand and supply side solutions. To avoid using up to 11% of the region’s renewable energy, one option would be to transition just half of the Midwest’s ammonia production to hydrogen made with renewable electricity. This would reduce around 7.5 MT of CO2 emissions annually, equal to taking about 1.5 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year. It is also possible that this ammonia demand could fall if corn crops grown for ethanol fuel production decrease as ground transportation electrifies, lowering the size of the challenge.

Defossilizing chemical production in the Gulf Coast

The largest regional hurdle is defossilizing the Gulf Coast, which produces over half of the United States’ primary chemicals. Still, it has significant feedstock resource potential, with the highest CO2 process emissions, second highest projected renewable generation in 2050, and fifth highest volume of waste biomass of any region in the U.S. There are also existing ethanol transport networks linking the Midwest to the Gulf Coast. In other words, companies would have some flexibility in selecting which pathways they would use to defossilize their production rather than all competing for one feedstock.

What Will It Take to Defossilize U.S. Chemical Production?

Defossilizing all U.S. chemical production will be a multi-decade undertaking. It will require massive effort and investment from both the government and private sector as well as measures to uplift communities impacted by chemical plants.

Overcoming technology hurdles

While some defossilization methods are already commercially viable, sustainable supplies of feedstocks like waste biomass and clean hydrogen are limited. Carbon capture technology needs more private investment and deployment. Renewable energy generation, required for clean hydrogen, is already pacing behind what’s needed in a net-zero economy. And competition for resources like clean electricity would put the chemical sector at odds with other sectors seeking to reduce emissions.

Other technologies, like direct air capture, have not yet been demonstrated at a sufficient scale but are poised to be within the decade.

Retrofitting existing chemical plants and building new plants and infrastructure would also require extraordinary effort. Financing new technologies, re-engineering existing facilities to accommodate new equipment, and permitting and building clean energy and energy infrastructure — such as transmission lines, CO2 and hydrogen pipelines — would likely be the largest obstacles.

However, existing policy opportunities can help clear these hurdles. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) made billions of dollars of government funding available for industrial decarbonization. Several of the programs these laws established could be used to defossilize chemicals, including tax credits for clean hydrogen, carbon utilization and energy storage; grants for first-of-a-kind low-emission commercial and demonstration facilities; and research and development funding.

Making sure benefits flow to affected communities

Defossilization can also provide some social and health benefits by reducing local pollution. Communities located near chemical production facilities have long been affected by air and water pollution, leading to above average rates of cancer, respiratory illness, infertility and natal issues, among other health problems. “Sacrifice zones” with persistent structural inequality due to environmental damage and poor economic investments, like Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” also see pervasive poverty.

A petrochemical plant on the banks of the Mississippi River in Hahnville, Louisiana. Industrial plants like this one have contributed to harmful water and air pollution in a stretch of Louisiana known as "Cancer Alley." Photo by 

For some in those communities, shutting down chemical facilities might be the only acceptable solution. But others might view plants as a source of jobs that would not exist if facilities shut down. Defossilization could provide a middle ground here. For example, electrifying some chemical processes with renewable energy could keep facilities operating and local people employed while eliminating processes that burn fossil fuels and cause local air pollution.

Recent equity-focused policies in the U.S. — such as the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative — can help ensure that benefits like new jobs reach community members. In many cases, projects funded by the IRA or BIL must submit community benefit plans outlining how the investments will benefit nearby communities from an economic, health and/or environmental standpoint. While initiatives like this are a step in the right direction, they should be only the foundation for further action.

Strengthening policy support at the federal and local levels

Strong federal and state policy can help defossilize chemical production. Policymakers will need to maintain or expand existing incentives like tax credits, loans and grants for decarbonization that can help finance fuel switching and new technologies. Other policies can help stimulate demand for clean chemicals, including procurement programs and contracts for differences. Emissions caps and carbon taxes are ways to compel companies to change and would provide greater certainty for the environment and the market. Paired with carbon trading markets, these policies can also provide financing for the transition.

Finally, policy shifts such as clean energy permitting reform and increased support for research and development are critical to maximize the potential of decarbonization incentives. While some of these policies are more politically challenging to pass than others, a combination of them will be needed to get defossilization off the ground.

It’s Time to Stop Ignoring the Chemical Industry

The chemical sector has received relatively little attention in climate discussions to date. Yet, its large emission impacts and ubiquitous presence mean the sector urgently needs to change. Chemical producers have many available and near-term tools to reduce emissions and clean up their manufacturing processes, and defossilization will be key among them.

Removing fossil fuels from chemical production to the greatest extent possible, just as in other sectors, will be pivotal to both meeting U.S. climate goals and advancing the health and well-being of communities.

cosmetics-aisle-shopper.jpg Climate United States U.S. Climate industry fossil fuels pollution Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Industrial Innovation & Decarbonization
• U.S. Climate

Authors Zach Byrum

RELEASE: World Resources Institute Welcomes Saurabh Gupta as General Counsel casey.skeens@wri.org Wed, 04/17/2024 - 08:00

WASHINGTON (April 17, 2024) — World Resources Institute (WRI) is pleased to announce that Saurabh Gupta has joined as WRI’s new General Counsel. In this role, Gupta will lead the organization’s legal function, manage institutional risks, and provide legal expertise and guidance to support WRI's country offices and programs.  

Gupta will work closely with the Board of Directors, serving as Secretary to the Board, in addition to the Chief Financial Officer and the Audit and Risk Management Committee. As a member of WRI’s Global Executive Team, he will also provide legal counsel to the organization’s senior leaders.  

“Saurabh’s decades of legal experience will add enormous value to WRI’s global operations, while advancing WRI’s ambitious strategy,” said Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO. “He has an impressive track record working with large international nonprofits and I look forward to working alongside him for a better future for people, nature and climate.”  

Gupta has nearly 20 years of experience as a distinguished legal professional and most recently served as the Chief Legal Counsel and Compliance Officer at Arabella Advisors, a consultancy that supports nonprofit organizations and clients across the philanthropic sector. He is a passionate problem-solver and has a broad depth of expertise, including on corporate governance, risk assessment, compliance and regulations.

“WRI is addressing some of the world’s biggest challenges, fighting climate change and protecting nature in a way that benefits people,” said Saurabh Gupta. “I want to ensure my children and grandchildren can enjoy clean air and appreciate the world’s forests as much as I do. I look forward to working with WRI’s global teams to advance pragmatic solutions that meet both legal requirements and organizational needs.”

Prior to his time at Arabella Advisors, Gupta worked in the public education sector for Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Maryland State Education Association and for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) — as well as public-sector labor organizations. Gupta graduated from Thomas Jefferson School of Law and holds a Bachelor of Arts from Ohio Wesleyan University.

“Saurabh’s depth of legal expertise will be crucial to strengthening WRI’s global network,” said Adriana Lobo, Managing Director, Global Presence and National Action. “It is vital that our teams around the world are well equipped to operate within their local contexts as effectively as possible to deliver maximum impact. With a trusted legal advisor like Saurabh on our team, WRI’s global operations will be more cohesive and responsive to the world’s most pressing challenges.”  

About World Resources Institute

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

Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

RELEASE: Sourcing “Better” Meat Entails Significant Tradeoffs, WRI Analysis Finds casey.skeens@wri.org Tue, 04/16/2024 - 14:30

New report outlines a six-step approach that food providers can use to design sourcing strategies that achieve climate, social, ethical,and economic goals

WASHINGTON – World Resources Institute (WRI) today released a report finding important trade-offs when shifting from conventional animal agriculture systems to alternative systems such as organic and grass-fed. While these systems can be better for goals like improving animal welfare or reducing antibiotic usage, the report finds alternative systems led to greater climate, land, and/or water impacts in 75% of the examined cases.

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. For food companies based in Europe or North America, emissions from meat and dairy production can easily account for the majority of their food-related “scope 3” GHG emissions.

While much focus has been on ways to reduce the climate effects of beef and dairy, animal agriculture also impacts water use and pollution, health, animal welfare and more. This has policymakers and businesses asking how different protein options stack up against these factors.While the authors stress that the best strategy for overcoming competing tradeoffs is by shifting to more plant-based foods, the report also provides a six-step approach that food providers can use to design meat sourcing strategies to achieve climate, social, ethical, and economic goals. 

“Shifting to diets that are higher in plants, while reducing the amount of meat and dairy we eat, is a triple-win for climate, nature, and animal welfare in high-income countries,” said Richard Waite, Acting Director of Agriculture Initiatives at WRI. “That said, because meat and dairy are a part of many people’s diets, an important question is, what ways of producing meat have the lowest impact? This research shows that there is no single best meat production system or product label–there are often trade-offs. Food companies need to understand these dynamics to successfully work with their meat suppliers to achieve their climate and other commitments,” said Waite. 

Using nearly 300 data points from life cycle assessments from production systems in Europe and North America conducted from 2000 to 2022, the authors aimed to understand what counts as “better meat”— an often-nebulous term used for meat with better performance against different environmental, social, ethical, or economic attributes or that’s produced using alternative agricultural production systems such as organic, grass-fed,or free-range.

“I often hear people talk about a sustainable menu as being either entirely plant-based or including meat that’s produced with alternative methods many assume to be environmentally friendly,” said Clara Cho, Data Analyst at WRI and one of the report’s authors. “Unfortunately, sourcing meat that is better for the environment and delivers a range of other co-benefits is not that straightforward.”

“Companies that shift to sourcing ‘better meat’ from systems with higher environmental impacts will need to shift from sourcing ‘less meat’ to sourcing ‘even less meat’ if they want to also meet their sustainability goals,” said Cho. 

Alternative production systems typically require more land to produce the same amount of protein as conventional methods do. Land use per gram of protein was higher in alternative systems in more than 90% of cases assessed. Higher land use ultimately means more emissions released into the atmosphere as agriculture globally continues to expand into forested areas and other natural ecosystems that store carbon. 

The report shows that a number of strategies do exist to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from meat within any type of production system. For example, companies can work with their meat suppliers to promote improvements in feeds, animal breeds, veterinary care, manure management, and other aspects of animal agriculture that contribute to emissions. 

“There are many ways for meat producers to cut emissions. Food companies should encourage those and work with their suppliers to track improvements over time,”said Waite. “Also, while alternative production systems can lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions,these systems can offer other benefits that make them worth pursuing.”

The report comes as farmers across Europe push back against climate and trade policies they say hurt their livelihoods and are overbearing. Two recent EU directives–the proposed European Commission target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, and the EU Nature Restoration Law, aiming to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea by 2030 — have led to intense political debates about how to broadly address the agriculture sector’s emissions and environmental footprint.

“What we choose to eat and how we produce that food has very real climate and environmental consequences,”said Stientje van Veldhoven, WRI’s Vice-President and Regional Director for Europe. “We need to look at all the evidence to find a win-win solution for Europe. That must include reducing our emissions from meat and dairy consumption, notably beef, while listening to farmers’ legitimate concerns regarding fair prices, income and red tape.”

In the United States, the new report contributes to the ever-growing discussion around sustainable farming practices,as the U.S. Department of Agriculture decides how to allocate $19.5billionin Inflation Reduction Act funds for climate-smart agriculture. 

Further detail on the report and its recommended6-part sourcing strategy can be found at: https://www.wri.org/research/better-meat-sourcing-climate-sustainability-goals.
 

Food Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

A New Program Will Bring Clean Energy to Disadvantaged Neighborhoods in the US shannon.paton@… Tue, 04/16/2024 - 13:11

The U.S. just made one of its biggest investments in bringing clean energy to the communities that need it most.

In April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released $20 billion through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), one of the most significant clean energy funding programs created through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The funding essentially creates a national green bank network, distributing funds to an initial eight non-profits to finance clean energy projects that would otherwise lack access to capital. The GGRF is made up of three sub-programs:

1. The National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), which delivers $14 billion to national-scale entities with proven clean energy project lending experience;
2. The Solar for All program, which will provide $7 billion to awarded organizations (still to be announced) to support rooftop solar in low-income communities across the country; and
3. The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA), delivering $6 billion to local lending institutions to support communities who historically have been unable to access clean energy funding.

Much has been said about the GGRF broadly and why it could be a game-changer, but the individual sub-programs are less widely understood. Here we break down the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator and how it can bring clean energy to underserved and low-income communities.

What Is the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator and Why Is It Significant?

U.S. clean energy development to date has typically favored large entities — like corporations or utilities — or wealthy neighborhoods that have the money to finance the oftentimes high upfront costs of low-carbon technologies. Small businesses, local non-profits, tribal nations, and city and county governments — especially low-income ones — have been left out of the market historically. Some Inflation Reduction Act programs like tax credits have helped one part of the problem — entities that are priced out of clean energy purchasing due to tax burden — but that’s not the whole picture.

The CCIA aims to change that by distributing clean energy funds and technical assistance to underserved and disadvantaged neighborhoods across the nation. Projects receiving financing could include energy-efficient buildings, rooftop solar on hospitals and schools, electric buses for public school students and much more. In that sense, the CCIA represents a historic opportunity to bring clean energy to those previously boxed out of the market. 

How Will the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Work?

Money will flow through five “hub” nonprofits that direct funding (along with technical assistance and other project support) to community lenders in underserved areas. The five nonprofits are:

1. Opportunity Finance Network, receiving $2.29 billion;
2. Inclusiv, receiving $1.87 billion;
3. Justice Climate Fund, receiving $940 million;
4. Appalachian Community Capital, receiving $500 million; and
5. Native CDFI Network, receiving $400 million.

These five groups will direct CCIA grant money to their respective networks of “community lenders” collectively spanning all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. A community lender can be a local bank, a credit union, a local non-profit that provides financing, a community development financial institution (CDFI) and more. Those lenders then give money in the form of subsidies, grants or loans to specific clean energy projects managed by local governments, nonprofits, businesses or even individual households. These funds can help communities with the direct upfront costs of clean energy projects as well as serve as “bridge loans” to help them unlock other financial support such as Inflation Reduction Act tax credits.

The CCIA enables existing community lenders to essentially function like local green banks, directly benefiting people who need finance most to start participating in the clean energy economy. The program will effectively lower the cost of clean energy projects while improving quality of life in specific communities. Community lenders will direct investments toward communities where the energy burden remains disproportionately high, and where clean energy deployment can play a key role in improving economic opportunities and generating community wealth. 

What Types of Projects Can Be Covered by by the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator?

The main project types that can be covered by CCIA funding are:

• Distributed energy generation and storage, which includes things like rooftop solar installations, community wind and solar, battery storage, fuel cells and more. These types of projects are well known for their ability to deliver big benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities for a relatively low level of financial investment.
• Net-zero emissions building projects, which includes retrofitting existing buildings to reduce their emissions, as well as constructing new net-zero emissions buildings in disadvantaged communities. This can span from decarbonizing an apartment complex through energy & water efficiency, to adding geothermal heating and cooling to an office building, to retrofitting a rural elementary school’s water and space heating mechanisms.
• Zero-emissions transportation projects, especially in communities that are overburdened by poor air quality. This can include deployment of EV chargers near multifamily housing, zero-emissions school bus purchases and other public transport investments, improving infrastructure to be more walkable/bikeable, and programs making it easier for individuals and families in low-income areas to buy electric vehicles.

What Are Some of the Barriers to Success, and How Can They Be Overcome?

While the CCIA is a huge step forward, it will take additional legwork to ensure the program fulfills its ambitions. Many community lenders receiving and distributing funds from the program do not have previous experience financing clean energy projects, so they’ll need technical assistance to design appropriate financial products. And many of the funding recipients — such as local governments, schools, low-income households and non-profits — may lack know-how in implementing clean energy projects, and/or face staffing, budget and other constraints. Many of the groups eligible to receive funds may not even know the CCIA exists!

New partnership and peer learning networks could raise awareness, benefit CCIA recipients and accelerate project development. For example, a lender community of practice or GGRF accelerator program could help CCIA lenders and recipients share best practices and learn from each other on what works — and what doesn’t. CDFIs could also form formal partnerships with members of the communities they serve — such as local government agencies — to raise awareness about the CCIA program and ensure its funds are distributed effectively.

What’s Next for the CCIA and GGRF?

Now that the five nonprofit hubs have received CCIA funding, expect to see announcements of new clean energy projects and partnerships. For community members, this will eventually translate to projects like rooftop solar installations that reduce emissions and save money; EV charging stations near places that need them, like apartment complexes; buildout of new electric school bus fleets; public transportation and bike paths resulting in better air quality; and more.

Importantly, CCIA funding presents an opportunity for communities to strengthen their ability to stand up clean energy projects on their own and could have a snowball effect, producing more and more projects down the road. This will happen in lockstep with other announcements related to NCIF recipients and projects, which will be further along and more complex than the brand-new projects kickstarted by CCIA funding.

As lending institutions and cities work to implement this historic funding opportunity, they should be on the lookout for opportunities to make existing processes more efficient and create entirely new ways of working that will help accelerate the pace at which projects are approved, financed and implemented. Building out these new approaches will require investment from all involved parties. The maximum benefits of this new clean energy funding will be brought home through partnerships, not in siloes.  

rooftop-solar-brooklyn.jpg Energy United States Energy Clean Energy renewable energy Energy Access Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Clean Energy
• Clean Energy Investment Accelerator

Authors Alexander Dane Mansie Hough

Enabling the Shift to Electric Auto-Rickshaws: A Guidebook for Electrification of Auto-rickshaw Fleets in Indian Cities shannon.paton@… Tue, 04/16/2024 - 10:58

This project update highlights the release of a comprehensive guidebook aimed at facilitating the transition to electric auto-rickshaws (e-autos) in Indian cities. The transition to e-autos is critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, combating urban air pollution and promoting sustainable urban mobility in India. With auto-rickshaws serving as a vital mode of shared mobility, their electrification presents an opportunity to enhance environmental sustainability while improving the livelihoods of drivers and promoting social inclusion.

About the Guidebook

The guidebook offers a roadmap for governing authorities and policymakers, emphasizing the need for an enabling policy and regulatory framework to accelerate the transition to e-autos. It underscores the environmental and socioeconomic benefits of e-autos, including reduced carbon emissions, improved air quality and lower operating costs for drivers. It also provides essential insights and strategies to overcome barriers and accelerate the adoption of e-autos, benefiting both cities and their residents.

The guidebook offers a comprehensive overview of policies, incentives and regulations necessary for promoting e-auto adoption. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration between subnational and local authorities, private sector stakeholders and financing institutions to create an integrated approach to auto-rickshaw electrification. Key considerations include the availability of quality e-auto models, development of charging infrastructure and access to affordable financing options for drivers. The guidebook also addresses challenges related to range anxiety, charging infrastructure planning and inclusive participation, particularly for women and marginalized groups. Three case studies from Amritsar, Kochi and Delhi are presented to illustrate challenges and policy measures for an equitable transition.

Stakeholders, including local and state government agencies, policymakers, auto-rickshaw manufacturers, financing institutions and charging service providers, are encouraged to utilize the guidebook's insights and recommendations in their efforts to promote e-auto adoption. The guidebook serves as a valuable resource for developing policies, regulations and implementation strategies to accelerate the transition to electric auto-rickshaws. Readers can access the guidebook to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with auto-rickshaw electrification and contribute to the development of sustainable urban mobility solutions in India.

Next Steps

Stay updated on further developments in the auto-rickshaw electrification sector and explore opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders. For more information and to access the guidebook, visit Enabling the Shift to Electric Auto-rickshaws: A Guidebook for Electrification of Auto-rickshaw Fleets in Indian Cities | WRI India Ross Center for Sustainable Cities | Helping cities make big ideas happen (wricitiesindia.org) or contact Kanika Gounder (kanika.gounder@wri.org).

electric-auto-rickshaw.jpeg Cities India Cities electric mobility transportation Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Electric Mobility
• Integrated Transport

Authors Kanika Gounder Chaitanya Kanuri

Is There Such a Thing as “Better” Meat? It’s Complicated margaret.overh… Tue, 04/16/2024 - 00:00

Meat and dairy are major contributors to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for more than three-quarters of agricultural land use, 11%-20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and more than 30% of global methane emissions. Meat production is also a leading driver of recent tropical deforestation.

The good news is that companies and consumers are increasingly looking for more sustainable animal products. But reducing emissions is just one piece of the puzzle. So are addressing water use, water pollution and biodiversity loss driven by animal agriculture; improving animal welfare; supporting local farmers and more.

The problem is that there’s no single solution to tackle all these priorities at once.

Indeed, new analysis from WRI finds that options such as organic and grass-fed meat — which can improve animals’ lives and reduce antibiotic usage, among other benefits — often come with higher GHG emissions and environmental impacts than conventional production. And while there are proven methods to reduce these impacts on the planet, it can be challenging to encourage farmers and ranchers to implement them. Tracking progress across complex supply chains is also difficult.

Reducing overall meat and dairy consumption is an essential step toward slashing food-related emissions and achieving global climate goals. But the fact remains that many people eat meat. As companies and individuals wrestle with how to reduce the impacts of the animal products they will continue to source, clearly defining what “better” meat means to them and understanding the benefits and trade-offs of different production methods is a critical first step.

What Is “Better” Meat?

“Better” meat can mean different things to different people. For some, it means better performance against environmental, social, ethical or economic attributes. This could include lowering methane emissions, avoiding sourcing from deforestation hotspots, increasing farmers’ incomes or improving animals’ lives. It could mean sourcing meat that consumers think tastes better. It could also mean improving soil health, on-farm biodiversity or productivity.

Others associate “better” meat with alternative agricultural production systems such as organic, grass-fed or free-range, or with meat and dairy products that are locally produced or raised without antibiotics or growth hormones.

However, these attributes don't always align, which can result in trade-offs between different priorities.

For instance, beef is among the most greenhouse gas-intensive animal protein options. It requires 7 times more land and generates 7 times more GHG emissions than chicken per gram of protein. To companies with emissions-reduction goals, it may be tempting to simply shift what they source and sell from beef toward chicken. However, this shift has a clear negative animal welfare impact: It results in many more animals being slaughtered for the same amount of protein served to customers.

What’s Better for Animals Isn’t Always Better for the Planet

When it comes to alternative production systems such as organic, grass-fed and free-range, the trade-offs are more nuanced. These systems come with important benefits; for example, they can improve animal welfare by providing more space for cows to graze on pastures or for chickens to roam more freely. Alternative systems also tend to use antibiotics more responsibly. This can help slow the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance that makes infections in both humans and animals harder to treat.

But, perhaps counterintuitively, these systems often come with higher environmental impacts per gram of protein compared to conventional production methods.

WRI analyzed research comparing the environmental performance of conventional and alternative animal production systems, using nearly 300 environmental data points from 45 studies conducted in North America and Europe between 2000 and 2022. We found that alternative systems led to increased environmental impacts in 75% of the data points. This is largely due to the way the animals are raised. For example, in grass-finished (grass-fed) beef systems, cattle grow at a slower pace and emit more methane during their lives than in conventional grain-fed systems, where they are fattened in the final months of their lives in feedlots. This leads to higher agricultural GHG emissions per gram of protein produced, relative to conventional systems.

A farmer in Morrinsville, New Zealand brings his cattle in from pasture. Alternative production systems like grass-fed and free-range are often better for the animals, but they tend to use more land and emit more greenhouse gases than conventional systems. Photo by JESP62/iStock

Alternative systems also tend to require more land per gram of protein, whether for pasture, for increased space in confined systems or for feed production. This can lead to trade-offs between environmental impacts. Organic feed crop production, for example, may have lower on-farm GHG emissions than conventional production due to the lack of chemical fertilizer use. But it often has lower crop yields per hectare, too, requiring more land for the same amount of feed. This has important climate implications: Ongoing agricultural land expansion conflicts with urgent goals to end deforestation and restore ecosystems, which will be necessary to reach global climate goals and hold the world to 1.5 or 2 degrees C of warming.

To account for the climate impacts of these land use trade-offs, we estimated the “carbon opportunity costs” of land use under the different meat and dairy production methods. Carbon opportunity costs are the carbon losses from plants and soils that occur when natural ecosystems like forests are converted to agriculture. In other words, carbon opportunity costs translate agricultural land-use requirements into carbon dioxide equivalents.

When looking at “total carbon costs,” which include on-farm emissions as well as carbon opportunity costs, alternative meat and dairy production systems like grass-fed, organic and free-range had higher overall climate impacts per gram of protein than conventional systems in more than 90% of cases. This is because the climate impacts of the higher land use requirements ultimately outweighed these systems’ lower on-farm emissions.

Weighing Climate Trade-offs and Reducing Environmental Impacts

It is important to note that in 25% of the data points we reviewed, alternative production systems did have lower environmental impacts. Water use (freshwater withdrawal) impacts were most variable and were lower in alternative systems in nearly half of cases. Notably, several of the grass-finished beef production systems assessed relied on primarily rain-fed pasture for the entirety of the animals' lives. These required less water withdrawals than conventional systems that used irrigated crops as feed during the animals’ final months.

Furthermore, the studies we reviewed did not quantify on-farm biodiversity or soil health, which are important environmental sustainability metrics that can improve under alternative production systems.

But these potential improvements must also be weighed against land-use trade-offs. If alternative production systems yield less food per hectare, then more land will need to be cleared to meet growing global food demand, at a cost to biodiversity and soil health elsewhere. As noted above, agricultural land expansion has important climate implications.

Finally, there are many promising ways to reduce climate and environmental impacts within existing production systems, whether conventional or alternative. For beef, GHG emissions reduction strategies include improving efficiency and productivity (which is already relatively high in high-income countries), reducing enteric methane emissions (“cow burps”) through feeds and feed additives, improving manure management, and stabilizing and sequestering carbon in plants and soils. Many of these climate strategies can be pursued in ways that do not compromise animal welfare.

Sourcing Even Less Meat Can Help Balance These Trade-offs

There is no single way to produce meat and dairy that’s “better” for all environmental, social, ethical and economic considerations. Trade-offs abound. But there are ways to minimize these trade-offs.

One powerful step for any food provider wishing to serve “better” meat is to go beyond just sourcing less meat to sourcing even less meat. By further reducing the overall purchasing of animal-based foods — especially beef and lamb — organizations can create the climate “space” to source animal proteins that are “better” in specific areas.

In the scenario below, for example, reduced beef purchasing easily creates space for companies to source higher-welfare chicken and eggs. Even though the higher-welfare systems slightly increase the total climate impact of the chicken and egg production, the company can still hit an ambitious climate target.

What Else Can Companies, Governments and Individuals Do?

Less meat still means sourcing some meat. But with careful planning, it’s possible to design an improved sourcing strategy that incorporates animal products — including those sourced with “better” attributes — while also meeting a company’s social, ethical and environmental goals. We recommend that food companies take the following six steps:

1. Calculate the “scope 3” GHG emissions baseline of all food purchases, including animal-based foods, to understand how much of an impact meat and dairy has on their food-related carbon footprint.
2. Shift from high-emissions foods toward lower-emissions foods in customer-friendly ways, including by improving the quality and quantity of plant-rich options. WRI’s Coolfood initiative can help companies set clear and measurable targets for GHG reductions.
3. Define priorities around improved meat sourcing by product type, such as focusing on lower-emissions beef and dairy and higher-welfare chicken and eggs.
4. Assess the potential impacts of planned sourcing changes on climate and other “better” meat priority goals. What are the potential co-benefits and trade-offs?
5. If a “better” meat sourcing strategy increases environmental impacts, less meat needs to become even less meat to enable companies to still achieve their sustainability goals, as in the example above.
6. Engage with suppliers to improve production practices and collect data. This can include data on changes to GHG emissions and other environmental, ethical, social and/or economic sustainability indicators of interest.

Individual people can adopt these principles in their own grocery shopping, too. For example: To lower your personal carbon footprint while still adhering to ethical concerns around animal welfare, you might choose to eat fewer burgers in a month. This could more than offset any increased emissions from purchasing organic, pasture-raised eggs.

Policymakers should also take note. Policies that seek to reduce domestic livestock emissions by shifting toward production systems that lower on-farm emissions may also increase overall agricultural land use. This can lead to “offshoring” the land use and climate impacts of meat and dairy production to other countries, unless domestic meat and dairy consumption also falls accordingly. Similarly, policies that seek to cut domestic emissions by simply reducing the overall amount of animals farmed (and meat and dairy produced) in a country also risk sending impacts overseas, given that global meat and dairy demand continue to grow.

There’s a better approach from a climate perspective. Governments and companies should encourage healthier and more sustainable consumption patterns, take steps to boost agricultural productivity and invest heavily in measures to cut agricultural production emissions. And they should carefully minimize trade-offs between “better” meat attributes.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

If “better” meat looks different to everyone, so will the right approach to sourcing it. As companies, governments and consumers think through the links between meat, dairy, society and the environment, it’s critical that they do so with a clear view of the benefits and trade-offs. To learn more, read WRI’s full report here.

farmer-feeding-chickens.jpg Food Food agriculture GHG emissions Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Coolfood

Authors Clara Cho Richard Waite Raychel Santo

Countries’ Methane Action Plans Need to Do More to Account for a Just Transition shannon.paton@… Mon, 04/15/2024 - 13:33 .just-transition-gray { background-color: #9B9B9B !important; } .just-transition-green { background-color: #32864B !important; } .just-transition-yellow { background-color: #F0AB00 !important; } .just-transition-table tr td { border: 1px solid #000; }

Recent data shows that for the world to stay on track with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), fossil fuel operations must reduce their methane emissions by 75% by 2030. These findings were released just days before industry leaders and government representatives convened for the annual Global Methane Forum — a platform to share methane reduction techniques, policies, financing options and regulations and help ramp up methane mitigation efforts.

According to the Global Methane Assessment, human induced methane emissions can be decreased by up to 45% in this decade through cost-effective measures. Reductions of this kind would prevent almost 0.3 degrees C of warming by 2045 and would be in line with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree-C goal. However, efforts targeting methane-emitting industries are not without some social risk.

To avoid causing an undue burden on impacted workers or communities — and to ensure equitable access to the benefits and opportunities of this transition — national governments need to incorporate just transition elements into all methane mitigation planning. This will ensure that workers, communities and other stakeholders affected by the transition are protected and supported during planning efforts and implementation.  

Climate and Social Impacts of Reducing Methane Emissions

Mitigating methane emissions can significantly reduce near-term warming. Yet, methane has historically received less attention in climate policy than carbon dioxide. Recent developments signal that this is shifting. For example, the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) aims to reduce human-caused methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The pledge has garnered significant support, with 156 countries committing to voluntary actions across key methane-emitting sectors such as agriculture, energy and waste (which are responsible for 40%, 35% and 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions, respectively). 

Efforts to decrease methane emissions will likely come with economic benefits, such as reducing the financial burden of treating ozone-related diseases. However, there will also be some disadvantages, such as the short-term cost associated with purchasing methane mitigation technologies. To ensure that the benefits, challenges and opportunities of methane mitigation are equally distributed across households, communities and industries, governments must incorporate just transition components into methane mitigation planning.

As described by the International Labour Organization (ILO), a just transition “needs to be well managed and contribute to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and the eradication of poverty.” The ILO's Guidelines for a Just Transition outline how to pursue a transition across a variety of contexts while promoting the rights of workers, ensuring social protection mechanisms, and moving toward a more inclusive and sustainable economy. By reflecting these just transition principles in methane mitigation planning, governments can help ensure that methane mitigation efforts address social, economic and environmental sustainability simultaneously.

Incorporating Just Transition Elements into Methane Mitigation Planning

Mitigating methane emissions will require a variety of actions across different sectors. Each of these actions must incorporate just transition considerations.

Agricultural sector

In agriculture, mitigating methane emissions requires a multifaceted approach involving changes in livestock and manure management as well as rice cultivation practices. These measures can offer important co-benefits, such as improved water management and soil fertility. However, equitable implementation is crucial. Countries with large populations of smallholder farmers and gender disparities in land ownership must implement inclusive policies and targeted support to ensure equitable access to mitigation technologies and practices.

One technique that has been widely encouraged, especially on farms that produce large quantities of methane, is the use of “biogas digesters.” These capture and utilize methane emissions from animal waste to generate energy. By capturing biogas from manure, farmers (for example, those in Asia) can generate energy for household use. However, biogas digesters can be costly to purchase, and their use requires farmer training and sensitization. For biogas digesters to become ubiquitous in manure management, governments must engage with relevant stakeholders to determine the context-specific barriers to implementation. This will help ensure that farmers are not burdened by adoption of this technology and that social, economic and environmental benefits can be achieved.

Oil and gas sector

Many opportunities to reduce methane emissions within the oil and gas sector could be implemented at a low cost or even save money. These measures include upstream and downstream leak detection and repair; recovery and utilization of vented gas; improved control of fugitive emissions from production; regular inspections of sites to detect leaks; capping unused wells; and pre-mining degasification, recovery and oxidation of ventilated methane from coal mines.

In the United States, the EPA has issued a Proposed Performance Standard for Methane Emissions that is projected to create over 10,000 direct and indirect jobs annually. However, job quality and worker safety must be prioritized to ensure that employment opportunities in methane mitigation contribute to sustainable livelihoods and social development.

In Texas, for example — which produces more oil and gas than any other U.S. state — the sector employs a large share of construction workers in jobs that are manually intensive and potentially dangerous. Yet, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that doesn’t require workers’ compensation insurance coverage. In a survey conducted by the Workers’ Defense Project, only 40% of surveyed construction workers in Texas reported having any workers’ compensation coverage, while 78% said they lacked health insurance. For methane mitigation jobs to contribute to better livelihoods and economic and social development, industries must collaborate with workers to ensure that these jobs are safe, provide the necessary training, and offer fair, livable wages.   

Waste sector

In the waste sector, strategies like waste separation, composting and landfill gas capture can reduce methane emissions while fostering circular economies and creating jobs. However, inclusive policies are imperative to address the needs of informal waste pickers and vulnerable communities that can be affected by waste management reforms. An estimated 20 million people around the world currently work as informal waste pickers, and changes to waste management by governments can risk leaving them behind as more waste collection becomes privatized.

For waste management solutions to address both climate and development opportunities, they must be based on stakeholder dialogue, with careful consideration of how to include and benefit vulnerable groups. Given the inherently risky nature of waste collection and management, workplace protections must also be put in place so that workers can earn a decent living without concern for their safety.  

Existing Methane Action Plans Do Not Meaningfully Reflect Just Transition Elements

Many countries are already working on plans to address methane emissions. To assist countries in developing these plans, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) created the National Methane Roadmap Template; this allows governments to communicate their commitments on methane mitigation and explain how such commitments will be achieved through a Methane Action Plan (MAP) or an Implementation Roadmap. To date, over 75 governments have actively engaged in methane roadmap development and 57 are nearing completion. As of March 2024, 12 countries and the European Union had published MAPs outlining national policies and actions that are currently underway or in the works.

However, these plans fall short when it comes to incorporating just transition components.

A new criterion, based on the ILO’s Guidelines for a Just Transition, was created to determine the extent to which just transition elements appear in existing Methane Action Plans. These elements include stakeholder dialogue, social protections, support for workers and distributional impact. An analysis of existing MAPs using these criteria revealed that while six out of 12 mention how stakeholder inputs contributed to the plan, only two describe in detail how the plans were built on stakeholder dialogues. Just four out of the 12 plans consider impact on vulnerable groups; another four consider distributional impacts; and five mention support for the training, reskilling of workers or compensation for job loss.

Below is a summary of existing Methane Action Plans.

• Brazil’s Methane Action Plan primarily targets methane emissions from urban and agricultural organic waste. The Zero Methane National Program aims to convert landfills into energy sources and create green jobs. However, there is currently a lack of clarity regarding stakeholder engagement and consideration of vulnerable groups.
• Canada’s Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions from various sectors with a focus on oil and gas, agriculture and waste. While stakeholder engagement is highlighted, there is limited information on support for workers and distributional impacts.
• China’s Methane Action Plan prioritizes methane monitoring and emission control across its energy, agriculture and waste sectors. Details on stakeholder engagement and social protections are lacking.
• The European Union’s Methane Action Plan integrates methane reduction into existing climate policies with a focus on the agriculture, waste and energy sectors. Despite its level of detail on policies for addressing methane emissions, there needs to be clearer consideration of vulnerable groups and workers.
• Finland’s Methane Action Plan integrates methane reduction into sectoral strategies with a focus on collaboration with stakeholders. Limited information is provided on support for workers and distributional impacts.
• Iceland’s Methane Action Plan incorporates methane reduction into existing climate policies, paying specific attention to agriculture. Details on stakeholder engagement and distributional impacts are lacking.
• The Netherlands has included methane mitigation opportunities as part of its Draft Climate Change Policy and Dutch Climate Policy across all three methane emitting sectors. However, there is only mention of subsidies schemes to help farmer workers transition to circular agriculture.
• Norway’s Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions from the energy, waste and agriculture sectors with a focus on policy integration. While stakeholder engagement is mentioned, details on support for workers and vulnerable groups are scarce.
• The Republic of Korea’s Methane Action Plan aims to reduce methane emissions through mitigation technologies and policy enactment, but its plan is short on details regarding stakeholder engagement and social protections.
• Sweden integrates methane reduction into its climate policies, with a focus on stakeholder engagement and support for farmers. There's a need, however, for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups.
• The United Kingdom’s Methane Memorandum: The U.K.'s plan targets overall GHG reduction, with the most significant achievements in methane reduction from the waste and energy sectors already achieved between 1990-2020. The U.K. continues to explore and implement additional measures to secure future progress in methane. Limited information is provided on stakeholder engagement and support for workers.
• The United States’ Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions across various sectors with a focus on stakeholder engagement and support for workers. Clear consideration of vulnerable groups and distributional impacts is evident.
• Vietnam’s Methane Action Plan outlines clear methane reduction targets and actions with some emphasis on stakeholder engagement and support for workers. However, there's a need for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups.

Table: Core Just Transition Elements Mentioned in Methane Action PlansCountryStakeholder DialogueSocial ProtectionsSupport for WorkersDistributional ImpactBrazil    China    Canada    European Union    Finland    Iceland    Netherlands    Norway    Republic of Korea    Sweden    United Kingdom    United States    Vietnam    

 

Key for Table

Without Mention Briefly Mentioned Discussed in Detail 

 

Of all the countries examined, only three specify economy-wide methane reduction targets in their MAPs. Six countries consider their respective methane reduction targets to be covered under broader GHG reduction strategies. Three contain no mention of an economy-wide methane target at all.

With the exception of the United States’ MAP, most plans only briefly touch on the four just transition elements analyzed or do not mention them at all. While the U.S. plan covers all elements thoroughly, it notably does not communicate a specific methane reduction target.

Collaboration Is Key to Progress

Incorporating just transition components into methane mitigation planning can help ensure that benefits and opportunities are shared by all, and that challenges or burdens are minimized and managed. This will require close collaboration across stakeholders throughout multi-country geographic regions and respective government ministries, including:

Fostering multi-stakeholder participation and dialogue

• Governments, industries, labor unions, environmental organizations and community groups should collaborate to develop methane mitigation plans. Plans should reflect diverse perspectives and interests to address the concerns and needs of all parties.

Facilitating regional collaboration

• Sharing national-level experiences and information on just transition approaches across regions can promote knowledge sharing, capacity building and mutual support.
• Regional networks and partnerships provide opportunities for collaboration on methane action planning and implementation.
• Collaboration can mobilize resources and promote solidarity in addressing common concerns.

Promoting knowledge and capacity building

• Sharing expertise, resources and best practices across ministries enhances development of comprehensive methane action plans.
• Inter-ministerial working groups enable dialogue, coordination, and joint decision-making for integrating social and economic considerations into methane mitigation strategies.
• Capacity building empowers government officials to effectively implement just transition policies and initiatives.

Key Takeaways

Successful methane mitigation planning requires the integration of just transition components to protect and support workers, communities and other stakeholders affected by the transition. Efforts to reduce methane emissions across sectors such as agriculture, energy and waste offer economic advantages and challenges, necessitating inclusive policies and stakeholder engagement.

Existing Methane Action Plans are a step in the right direction. But they fall short of meaningfully reflecting just transition elements. This highlights the need for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups, social protections and support for workers in future planning and implementation efforts. By incorporating these elements, governments can ensure that methane mitigation efforts contribute to social, economic and environmental sustainability simultaneously. 

just-transitions-methane.jpg Climate Climate GHG emissions National Climate Action greenhouse gases Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• National Climate Action

Authors Mario Julien Díaz Chelsea Gómez

4 Ways Ocean Health is Critical to Human Health Everywhere margaret.overh… Thu, 04/11/2024 - 05:00

The ocean has long sustained coastal communities that rely on it for their food, livelihoods and wellbeing. But these benefits don’t stop at the shoreline. New research commissioned by the Ocean Panel shows that the health of the ocean is directly linked to the health of humans everywhere.

The extent to which ocean health impacts human health is relatively unexplored in science and academia to date. This new research illustrates that a healthy ocean and its biodiversity can offer critical benefits to all people — such as new medicines and technologies, nutritious and sustainable diets and opportunities to bolster physical and mental wellbeing.

But these benefits aren’t a given. Policymakers must act swiftly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, overfishing and other practices that are degrading the health of the ocean. Otherwise, many of the ocean’s benefits to human health could be lost even as we are just beginning to realize their full potential.

1) A Healthy Ocean Enhances Physical and Mental Health and Societal Wellbeing.

Mounting research shows that access to the ocean can directly benefit human health — specifically in communities that have socioeconomic disadvantages and typically less access to nature.

Research finds coastal residents are more likely than inland dwellers to meet recommended levels of physical activity. This reduces the risk of many non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The ocean also has positive impacts on mental health. For example, in Indonesia during the Covid-19 pandemic, exposure to and interaction with the ocean served as a ‘buffer’ against negatives outcomes like depression and anxiety.

These effects are so strong that some medical practitioners are starting to administer so-called “blue prescriptions,” which call for time spent in natural ocean and coastal spaces to promote health instead of relying on pharmaceuticals.

The ocean’s benefits aren’t reserved for coastal dwellers, either. Globally, $5 trillion is spent each year on coastal and marine tourism. This represents approximately half of all tourism, reflecting the value that visitors place on time spent near the ocean.

These human health benefits are strongest when the ocean itself is healthy. Research suggests that countries with more protected ocean areas have lower mortality rates. Conversely, increased ocean pollution has proven negative health effects. For example, a significant amount of toxic microplastic has been found in seafood. Individuals with identifiable microplastic in their arteries are at a 2.1 times higher risk of a heart attack, nonfatal stroke or death from any cause than individuals without such identifiable microplastics.

Volunteers clean up trash at La Guaira beach in Venezuela. Access to the ocean is proven to support physical and mental health, but these benefits hinge on the ocean itself being healthy. Photo by Edgloris Marys/Alamy Stock Photo 2) Ocean Biodiversity Can Inspire New Medicines and Biotechnology.

Marine species have evolved in competition with each other over millions of years to survive in diverse and sometimes extreme ocean environments. During this time, they’ve developed a wide array of adaptations that can help create new medicines and health-related biotechnologies. For example, some bryozoans (sedentary, filter-feeding aquatic invertebrates) create chemical compounds called “bryostatins” when their cells change food into energy. Certain bryostatins are currently being tested as anti-cancer drugs.

Marine-derived medicine is not a new concept. The earliest example dates back some 5,000 years, to China in 2953 BCE. The first marine-based drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Cytarabine, was developed in the late 1960s. To date, twenty-three marine-derived pharmaceuticals have been approved and an additional 33 are in clinical trials and development. These drugs are already used to treat inflammation, immune system disorders, skin pathologies, infectious diseases and cancers.

Prototype of an inhaler made from seaweed-based bioplastic. Marine-based materials can offer healthier alternatives to conventional, fossil fuel-derived plastics. Photo courtesy of SymbioTex

Advances in marine ‘green chemistry’ are also providing solutions to health issues stemming from fossil fuel-based products. For example, “bioplastics” made from seaweed are currently being produced an alternative to fossil fuel-based plastics. Unlike petroleum-based plastics, these are biodegradable. And they typically contain much lower concentrations of associated harmful chemicals that can, for example, increase the risk of certain cancers. Bioplastics from seaweed can also be molded into health devices such as inhalers or packaging for medicine or food.

These innovations are likely just the tip of the iceberg. The market for marine-derived pharmaceuticals alone is currently valued at $4.1 billion and anticipated to reach $9.1 billion by 2033. Potential new applications in both biomedicine and biotechnology are being discovered with increasing frequency as more companies invest in this area.

3) A Healthy Ocean Can Support Global Food Security.

Over 3 billion people currently depend on seafood as their main protein source. Sustainably managed, the ocean could produce enough food to nourish many more. This offers a critical pathway toward improving food security in a world where around 828 million people still suffer from hunger and more than 3.1 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet.

But ocean-based food sources are threatened on multiple fronts.

Climate change is warming the ocean, increasing its acidity and decreasing its oxygen content. This is disrupting marine food chains and shrinking certain fish populations — including some of the more nutritious and commercially important seafood species. Even if global warming is limited to below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), the availability of key nutrients such as iron, calcium and omega-3 from catches is expected to fall by 10% due to species decline. Under a “business as usual” scenario, where global warming may reach 4-5 degrees C (7.2-9 degrees F) by 2100, nutrients from fisheries could decrease by 30%.

Marine pollutants, overfishing, illegal fishing and globalization also strain fishery stocks and put fishers’ livelihoods at risk. Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is estimated to cost low- and middle-income nations between $2 billion and $15 billion annually.

Solutions to these threats are typically most successful when they involve those most impacted: the local communities that rely on fisheries for their food and livelihoods.

In Timor-Leste, for example — a country where acute food insecurity and chronic malnutrition are widespread — the research organization WorldFish has been working with local fishers and government to improve fishery policy and management systems. This includes taking steps to maximize nutrient yields, such as by targeting more nutritious species and overcoming barriers to increased fish consumption. They’ve developed new products that extend shelf life, extended supply chains inland to reach more people and shared tips on preparing fish for children. The approach appears to be leading to increased fish consumption for malnourished groups such as children.

Shoppers peruse a fish market in Tokyo. The global seafood industry feeds more than 3 billion people and employs around 500 million. But fish populations are declining due to human-driven pollution and warming oceans. Photo by aluxum/iStock 4) A Sustainable Ocean-based Economy Provides Opportunities to Improve Health and Address Inequity.

The ocean isn’t just a source of medicine, food and recreation. It’s a major economic driver, with ocean-based industries and activities contributing approximately $2.5 trillion to the global economy each year. Fisheries, aquaculture operations and the fishery supply chain support the work of more than 500 million people worldwide. Their incomes directly impact theirs and their families’ health through access to food, healthcare and other necessities. Intact coastal ecosystems also serve as a buffer against climate change impacts like storms and floods which can destroy homes, livelihoods and infrastructure.

These benefits are only possible if the ocean’s resources and ecosystems are managed responsibly. Unsustainable practices — such as overfishing and the degradation of coastal ecosystems — both diminish the ocean economy and increase social inequity by threatening the health and livelihoods of those that are most dependent upon it. Climate-induced declines in ocean health could cost the global economy $428 billion per year by 2050 and $1.979 trillion per year by 2100.

In some places, individuals and institutions are collaborating to drive bottom-up behavioral change toward a more equitable ocean economy. In Bangladesh, for instance, communities of fishers have started to form self-developing networks and cooperatives. Members typically contribute to a common fund which provides financial support and fishing equipment to those most in need, such as people requiring medical treatment. Such networks and cooperatives can also enhance fishers’ political strength when negotiating with government agencies and can lead to increased compliance with fishing regulations. For example, Bangladesh’s Hilsa Guard network monitors compliance of their peers with temporal fishing bans.

But top-down change is also critical.  National governments must work toward a more equitable ocean economy, such as by developing and implementing Sustainable Ocean Plans (a national policy tool for holistic ocean management).

How Can Leaders Protect Ocean Health and Human Health Simultaneously?

While a healthy ocean is essential for human health, the reverse is also true: Continuing to degrade the ocean through pollution, human-induced climate change and unsustainable management poses serious threats to physical and mental health as well as food security and the global economy. Governments must act urgently to safeguard the ocean so that it can continue to support human health and wellbeing everywhere. Ocean Panel’s report presents three key actions to promote equity, sustainability, biodiversity and human flourishing:

• Protect, restore and manage marine biodiversity: The huge potential for marine medicines, biotechnology and food depends on effectively protecting and managing marine biodiversity. To achieve this, nations must work in collaboration with local resource users to ratify and implement key frameworks that can help ensure protections. These include the Global Biodiversity Framework, the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement and the recent High Seas Treaty. These global actions will protect and restore the ocean, improve human health and wellbeing and reduce stressors on ocean ecosystems.
• Combat climate change and eliminate pollution: Slowing the effects of climate change and removing ocean pollutants is imperative to protecting marine ecosystems and the services they provide. National commitments to the Paris Agreement, the COP28 outcomes and the UN Global Plastics Treaty (currently in negotiation) must be upheld. To protect human health and wellbeing, the negotiators of the UN Global Plastics Treaty must ensure that it imposes strict safety requirements on the more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals added to plastics, a mandatory cap on global plastic production, and mechanisms to curb the manufacture of single-use plastics.
• Improve ocean and human health measurement to support equity: Evidence and linked indicators of ocean health and human health must be incorporated by governments and the healthcare sector into all policies and decision-making around ocean-human interactions. This data should be shared widely and made available and accessible. Through continued measurement, the effectiveness of health and ocean management policies can be assessed, unintended consequences detected, and improvements and course corrections made.

These actions should not be limited to those working in sustainability or conservation sectors, either. As trusted members of society, health professionals can play a key role in safeguarding both ocean health and human health by advocating for change, advancing equity and promoting sustained global action on responsible ocean management. A more ocean-literate health sector can also reduce the health sector’s carbon footprint and help cut medical waste and pollution.

The National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K., for example, serves a population of 67 million people and imports 80% of its goods via maritime routes, generating harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The NHS aims to tackle this through its target to reach net zero-emissions by 2045. Similarly, some health sector professionals are already working to drive change in this area.

Taken together, these actions can ensure that the ocean is able to thrive and that we can fully harness its benefits to uplift people everywhere.

banda-aceh-fishermen.jpg Ocean Ocean health pollution Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Authors Oliver Ashford Katie Wood

RELEASE: Brazil and Colombia See Dramatic Reductions in Forest Loss, But New Fronts Keep Tropical Rates High hannah.lassite… Thu, 04/04/2024 - 00:01

2023 data shows that political leadership and strong policies work in reducing forest loss, yet the world remains off track to meet 2030 forest goals, according to Global Forest Watch’s annual data analysis 

WASHINGTON (April 4, 2024) — Primary forest loss declined significantly in Brazil and Colombia in 2023, though tropical rates remained stubbornly consistent with recent years, according to new data from the University of Maryland’s GLAD Lab and available on World Resource Institute’s Global Forest Watch platform. Dramatic progress in Brazil and Colombia highlights the strength of political will and policy shifts in protecting forests.  

However, the world remains far off track to reach its 2030 goals – in 2023, the tropics lost 3.7 million hectares of primary forest, an area slightly smaller than Bhutan. This is equivalent to losing 10 football (soccer) fields per minute. Brazil and Colombia’s decreases were counteracted by increases in Bolivia, Laos, Nicaragua, and other countries. Extraordinary increases occurred outside the tropics as well, with Canada experiencing record-breaking fire-related loss. 

“The world took two steps forward, two steps back when it comes to this past year’s forest loss.” said Mikaela Weisse, Global Forest Watch Director, WRI. “Steep declines in the Brazilian Amazon and Colombia show that progress is possible, but increasing forest loss in other areas has largely counteracted that progress. We must learn from the countries that are successfully slowing deforestation.” 

The most significant reductions were in Brazil and Colombia, both of which benefitted from new political leadership placing an emphasis on environmental protections and forest conservation. Brazil saw a 36% reduction in primary forest loss in 2023 under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership, reaching its lowest level since 2015. This resulted in a considerable decrease in Brazil’s overall share of total global primary forest loss – down from 43% in 2022 to 30% in 2023. In Colombia, primary forest loss halved (down 49%) in 2023 compared to 2022 under President Gustavo Petro Urrego’s leadership.   

"We’re incredibly proud to see such stark progress being made across the country, especially in the Brazilian Amazon,” said Mariana Oliveira, Manager, Forests, Land Use and Agriculture Program, WRI Brasil. “However, we still have a very long ways to improve and sustain the efforts, and I hope today’s release energizes the national and subnational governments in Brazil – and governments around the world – to build on this momentum rather than using it as an excuse to slow down.” 

"The story of deforestation in Colombia is complex and deeply intertwined with the country’s politics, which makes 2023’s historic decrease particularly powerful,” said Alejandra Laina, Natural Resources Manager, WRI Colombia. “There is no doubt that recent government action and the commitment of the communities has had a profound impact on Colombia’s forests, and we encourage those involved in current peace talks to use this data as a springboard to accelerate further progress.”  

"Forests are critical ecosystems for fighting climate change, supporting livelihoods, and protecting biodiversity,” said WRI President and CEO Ani Dasgupta. “The world has just six years left to keep its promise to halt deforestation. This year’s forest loss numbers tell an inspiring story of what we can achieve when leaders prioritize action, but the data also highlights many urgent areas of missed opportunity to protect our forests and our future.” 

While the news out of Brazil and Colombia points to a positive trend of political leaders prioritizing nature, the story is not consistent around the world. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bolivia trail behind Brazil as the top contributors to total global forest loss, and – unlike Brazil – both saw increases in 2023. 

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lost over half a million hectares of primary rainforest in 2023, is notable given that the Congo Basin is the last remaining major tropical forest which remains a carbon sink, meaning the forest absorbs more carbon than it emits. While the rate in 2023 increased by only 3%, the continued small increase over many years adds up over time.  

"Forests are the backbone of livelihoods for Indigenous people and local communities across Africa, and this is especially true in the Congo Basin,” said Teodyl Nkuintchua, Congo Basin Strategy and Engagement Lead at WRI. “Dramatic policy action must be taken in the Congo Basin to enact new development pathways that support a transition away from unsustainable food and energy production practices, while improving wellbeing for Indigenous people and local communities as much as revenues for countries.” 

In Bolivia, primary forest loss increased by 27% in 2023, reaching its highest year on record for the third year in a row. Bolivia had the third most primary forest loss of any tropical country, despite having less than half the forest area of either the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Indonesia. Fire-related loss accounted for just over half (51%) of Bolivia’s total loss in 2023 as record hot weather caused human-set fires to spread into forests. Agricultural production – notably soybeans – is also a primary driver of deforestation across the country.  

Indonesia saw a 27% uptick in primary forest loss in 2023, an El Niño year, though the rate remains historically low compared to that of the mid-2010s. The emergence of El Niño conditions led to concerns that Indonesia might experience another fire season like 2015; however, fires in 2023 had a less severe impact than initially predicted. 

Additionally, Laos and Nicaragua have both seen an increase in primary forest loss in recent years, including 2023. The two countries have exceptionally high rates of forest loss relative to their sizes, losing 1.9% and 4.2%, respectively, of their primary forest in 2023. Increases in these countries are largely a result of agricultural expansion. 

“This report appropriately challenges us to balance despair and hope at the same time. The alarmingly high rates of global deforestation remind us how badly off track we are in solving the climate and nature crises,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO of the Bezos Earth Fund. “But countries such as Colombia, Brazil, and Indonesia are demonstrating amazing possibilities when modern data and science combine with smart policy design and inspiring leadership.” 

Fires once again drove forest loss trends outside of the tropics, with 2023’s most concerning fire story taking place in Canada. Like many areas of the world, widespread drought and increased temperatures driven by climate change were widespread across Canada. This led to the worst fire season on record, and a five-fold increase in tree cover loss due to fire between 2022 and 2023. 

"Satellite data helps us monitor the extent of wildfires over the years, including those leading to tree cover loss,” said Alexandra (Sasha) Tyukavina, Associate Research Professor at the Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland. “This is especially important in understanding how extreme fire years — like Canada's 2023 record-breaking wildfire season — impact the world's forests over time." 

World Resource Institute’s Global Forest Watch team provides annual tree cover loss data analysis each year, showing when and where forest loss occurred around the world. The annual tree cover loss data is created and updated by the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) Lab at the University of Maryland. The data captures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30-meter resolution. 

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

About Global Forest Watch 

Global Forest Watch (GFW) is an online platform that provides data and tools for monitoring forests. By harnessing cutting-edge technology, GFW allows anyone to access near real-time information about where and how forests are changing around the world. Since its launch in 2014, over 4 million people have visited Global Forest Watch from every single country in the world. 

About University of Maryland GLAD Lab 

The Global Land Analysis and Discovery (GLAD) laboratory in the Department of Geographical Sciences at the University of Maryland investigates methods, causes and impacts of global land surface change.  Earth observation imagery are the primary data source and land cover extent and change the primary topic of interest.  The lab is led by Drs. Matthew Hansen and Peter Potapov. Their team consists of 17 full-time researchers and 9 doctoral students, and a constantly changing number of international, national and local interns. 

### 

Forests deforestation global forest watch Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

To Make Good on Sustainable Food Commitments, Countries Must Do 4 Things ciara.regan@wri.org Wed, 04/03/2024 - 15:52

Last year’s UN climate summit in Dubai (COP28) was a real landmark moment for sustainable food. Agriculture and food systems took center stage, with 159 world leaders endorsing the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action. For the first time, countries pledged to put agriculture at the heart of national climate and other policies while increasing investment in fair and sustainable food systems, with a commitment to show real progress by COP30 in 2025. 

Their pledges came not a moment too soon. Besides conflict, climate change and nature loss are the key drivers of escalating food security crises. Agriculture and food systems produce a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are the main cause of biodiversity loss and freshwater pollution — which in turn undermine food security and livelihoods, causing humanitarian crises, resource competition, migration and conflict.  

These risks will only intensify as demand for food is set to increase more than 50% by 2050 (nearly 70% for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy), whilst climate impacts lead to crop losses and an increased risk of disasters. Moreover, these impacts are non-linear and unpredictable: For instance, if the world reaches tipping points in the Amazon or Congo Basin, forests could turn to savannah, with untold disruption to the water cycle and food systems across continents.  

But with any major multilateral commitment comes a key question: Will countries actually turn their resolutions into reality?

Industrial-scale agriculture, such as the oil palm plantation shown here, often comes at the expense of primary forests and other ecosystems. Photo by Rich Carey/Shutterstock 4 Ways to Fulfill the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Food and Agriculture

The Emirates Declaration sets a two-year timeframe to demonstrate progress, with countries committing to a ministerial meeting at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and then to a full progress report at COP30 in Belem, Brazil. Since the aspirations of the declaration are both broad and ambitious, there are many ways countries can make headway. But we believe four elements will be central: namely, innovation, investment, changing consumption patterns and policy action.  

Policy action is the most critical — though most challenging — part to deliver.  

1) Innovation

There is clear evidence that new scientific developments and technologies are needed to increase agricultural productivity, enhance resilience and adapt to a changing climate, even as the world reduces its emissions and other environmental harms. However, this is not solely about agri-tech or new seed varieties, important though they are. It is also about innovation in service delivery, in the means of providing support for farmers and other actors in the food system, and in the broader governance of natural resources and distribution of benefits.  

There is also an element of “back to the future” here — for instance, maintaining or increasing agricultural yields while at the same time moving away from chemical-intensive mono-cropping of lower nutrition crops such as maize or cassava, and back towards diversified production of locally adapted, resilient and nutritious foods (such as teff, sorghum, millet, sweet potato and groundnut in several African countries). Greater adoption of more regenerative farming practices (such as reduced tillage, use of cover crops and mixed farming, to mention a few) also has an important role to play, especially to safeguard soil and water. The commitments made by companies at COP28 to shift to and support these practices will be important to uphold.

What Is the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action?

The Emirates Declaration, adopted by 159 national leaders in November 2023, recognizes the interdependence of climate, nature, food and agricultural systems. Signatories commit to solutions that will equitably feed a growing global population while safeguarding nature and curbing climate change. More specifically, countries committed to: 

-Integrate agriculture and food into national climate action and other relevant policies and plans;

-Take policy actions to promote sustainable agriculture; 

-Scale up finance and/or access to finance for sustainable food systems;

-Accelerate science and evidence-based solutions; and 

-Strengthen open, fair and inclusive trade systems.

2) Scaling investment 

Climate and development discussions often focus on finance and the need for more of it. Clearly, this must be part of the picture.  

The costs of a low-carbon transition are enormous when looked at in isolation. The Food and Land Use Coalition’s (FOLU) Growing Better report modeled the cost of shifting to sustainable food systems at around $300-$350 billion a year. This is a huge sum. Nonetheless, it is only a fraction of the hidden negative costs of current food systems (especially costs to health and the environment). The Food Systems Economics Commission Global Policy report released in 2024 estimates these costs at an annual $15 trillion — more than the total economic value created in food systems.  

By contrast, sustainable food systems could deliver potential economic benefits of more than $5 trillion per year, according to the modeling. FOLU’s latest report, Future Fit for Food and Agriculture, shows how investments of $205 billion per year between 2025-2030, or less than 2% of food sector revenues, could mitigate nearly half of global food system emissions and unlock many other benefits. 

Despite the potential benefits of these investments, current allocations of overseas development assistance (ODA) and international climate finance to agriculture and food systems are paltry compared to the scale of the challenge. Only 4.3% of climate finance goes to agriculture and food systems, and only 0.3% to smallholder farmers. Much more finance is needed to enable the adaptation, resilience and mitigation solutions that agriculture and food systems can help provide.  

However, the needed global transition to sustainable food systems cannot — and should not — be financed only by banging on the door of ODA. Even if far more ODA finance were raised to support this ambition, progress will be hard or impossible if the majority of non-ODA finance is going in the wrong direction. On public finance alone, subsidies for fossil fuel, agriculture and fisheries currently exceed $7 trillion per year. They’re often inefficient and set perverse incentives that drive harmful outcomes for climate and nature, undermining long-term health and livelihoods.  

There is an urgent need to redirect mainstream public and private investment in agriculture and food systems towards more sustainable approaches. That is where policy change comes in.  

Cowboys transport cattle in Corumba, Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil. Producing beef uses 20 times as much land and produces 20 times the greenhouse gas emissions as producing a similar amount of plant-based proteins. Photo by reisegraf/iStock 3) Behavior change — including shifting diets and reducing food loss and waste 

It is increasingly clear that food systems cannot be “fixed” by interventions only on the production side. Production choices are often driven by unsustainable consumption patterns.  

For example, growing demand for meat — especially beef in developed and middle-income countries — bears the heaviest environmental toll on land use, including deforestation and other costs. Beef production requires 20 times more land and generates 20 times the amount of emissions per gram of protein compared to most plant-based proteins.  

Meanwhile, cheap pricing of low nutrition, highly processed foods in high-income countries’ supermarkets not only negatively impacts human health, but also distorts value chains to prioritize production of these kinds of foods. This arrangement provides little benefit to producers and no economic incentive to produce foods more sustainably. 

And finally, much of the food we’re currently producing is ultimately lost or wasted. About 24% of the world’s produced food calories go uneaten, causing more than $1 trillion in economic losses annually and producing 8-10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting food loss by half could reduce global food demand by a full 15% while reducing pressures on land.  

Changing consumption patterns is clearly a part of the puzzle, but again this leads back to policy.  

4) Policy action and a systems approach 

Public policies set incentives for producers, traders, investors and other actors in the food system. They affect people’s choices of what, how and where to produce, buy and process food, as well as which foods to eat. The situation varies greatly from country to country, but globally our current policies and incentives pertaining to agriculture, land use and food systems are often (inadvertently) driving climate and environmental harms.  

In agriculture alone, governments spend more than $700 billion annually in public support to their agriculture sectors. Much of this expenditure is inefficient. It sets up perverse incentives that drive harmful practices such as land use conversion, overuse of chemicals and soil degradation whilst failing to reward positive practices like maintaining soil health and water quality — both of which are key to agricultural productivity. According to World Bank/IFPRI research, farmers benefit from an average return of only $0.35 for every $1 spent on public support to agriculture. In addition, policies that encourage use of food crops for biofuels divert valuable cropland away from food production, with negative impacts on food security and the climate. 

Alternatively, emerging science, analysis and experience shows that triple wins and a sustainable development path are possible. Research such as FOLU’s Growing Better report, WRI’s Creating a Sustainable Food Future report and the World Bank’s forthcoming report Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net-Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System all lay out roadmaps for how the world can feed a growing population while safeguarding nature and holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). All note that policy changes to shift both public as well as private investment are essential. 

Despite the scientific evidence, agriculture policy reform is notoriously controversial. The so-called “greenlash” in Europe is only one recent example. Reforms need to be done in true consultation with farming communities and in a just and inclusive way. The sustainable food transition must also be a “just rural transition,” with farmers’ livelihoods, interests and perspectives placed at the heart of it. 

The Emirates Declaration provides a strong rallying cry. It calls for policy action; for integrating agriculture and food systems in climate action plans such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs); and for reorienting other public policies and support toward sustainable agriculture and food systems. This needs to go beyond agricultural policy per se, to food, health, energy, economic and financial policy and planning as well. 

A fishing village in Mui ne Vietnam. Shifting the world’s food systems toward sustainability must be done in a way that supports smallholder farmers and fishers. Photo by Eonaya/iStock The Road Ahead for Sustainable Food Systems 

COP28 and the Emirates Declaration set a political watermark on this crucial agenda. The urgent need now is to maintain and build on this momentum, including at the Spring Meetings of the World Bank and IMF and Brazil’s G20 meeting, which has placed a welcome focus on hunger and poverty. Besides the Emirates Declaration, a range of other actors and initiatives are and need to be part of this effort — such as the COP28 Non State Actors Call to Action, the FAO Roadmap, the Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation initiative, and further public, philanthropic and private sector pledges to innovate and scale science- and evidence-based solutions.  

There are additional risks to be aware of and resolve: the proliferation of competing approaches and initiatives presents a serious threat of overlap and contradiction that could undermine progress. An over-emphasis on technical fixes alone could also fall short of addressing inequalities and the incentives driving practices that harm the climate and nature.  

The most significant shift in finance for sustainable agriculture and food systems must come from the private sector. Much of this will be guided by shifts in policy, regulation and market demand. Transformation will not occur without a shift in market signals and systems. As corporates step up to make greater commitments to food systems transformation, there could be an increased risk of greenwashing, with vested interests seeking to look good while side-stepping the need to rethink the way we value natural ecosystems and manage climate impacts in our economic systems.

Ultimately, each country will need to take the approach most relevant to its own national and regional context. This will differ significantly around the world — for example, from a focus on boosting agricultural efficiency, soil health and water conservation in sub-Saharan Africa, to a concerted effort to reducing agricultural emissions in middle-income countries, to exploring alternative proteins and dietary shifts in high-income countries.

The common thread, however, should be justice.

All countries should seek changes that secure low-emissions, climate-resilient agriculture and food systems that deliver healthy diets, nature protection, and sustainable livelihoods to all. Bold political leadership will be vital, as well as a steady drumbeat of national and global action that really drives progress on the unprecedented commitments made last year.

Dr. Rachel Waterhouse is the Sustainable Water & Food Systems Lead at the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

woman-harvesting.jpg Food Food food security Food Loss and Waste agriculture Climate Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Creating a Sustainable Food Future Projects

• Food and Land Use Coalition
• Coolfood
• Fighting Food Loss and Waste
• Champions 12.3

Authors Rachel Waterhouse Edward Davey