(le français suit)

This is according to a new paper, published today in Nature. During the study, conducted over 15 years, scientists intentionally added a traceable form of mercury to a lake and its watershed.  They discovered that the new mercury they added quickly built up in fish populations, and then declined almost as quickly once they stopped additions. 

Notably, the fish populations were able to recover from mercury much quicker than previously understood, which suggests that curbing mercury pollution through policy initiatives now will have a rapid and tangible benefit regarding the quality of fish we consume. 

The findings provide indisputable, science-based support for necessary regulations on mercury emissions that have been undermined in recent years, especially in the USA. They also support the efficacy of existing and new policies around that globe that seek to curb how much mercury ends up in our environment. 

“Showing that reducing mercury inputs to a lake will lower mercury concentrations in fish sounds simple,” said Dr. Paul Blanchfield of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Queens University and a lead investigator of the Mercury Experiment to Assess Atmospheric Loading in Canada and the United States (METAALICUS).  

“But it required a dedicated team effort, including academic, government and NGO researchers from across North America, during the 15-year whole-ecosystem study to arrive at this conclusion.” 

The team applied about one teaspoon of a special form of mercury to a lake and its watershed, at a cost of over one million CAD. They were able to measure this mercury as methylmercury in the ecosystem and to track its rapid decline in fish once they stopped adding it to the environment. Methylmercury is a much more toxic form of mercury that accumulates to high concentrations in many freshwater fishes leading to many adverse, and even life-threatening, symptoms in humans. 

The study was carried out at IISD Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA) in Ontario, Canada, which is one of the only facilities in the world where lakes and their watersheds can be experimentally manipulated to determine the many ways in which humans are impacting lakes.  

“Whole-ecosystem experiments are incredibly powerful because they examine the effects of a single factor at a time and provide solutions to globally-important issues in a real-world setting,” said Dr. Carol Kelly, who has spent decades conducting research on the experimental lakes.   

Part of that real-world setting was working with natural fish populations.  

“Studying fish only in laboratories was not revealing the full story,” said Lee Hrenchuk, a Biologist with IISD-ELA. “Individual fish retain mercury they have previously accumulated for a long time, and so it could be assumed that decreasing mercury input to a lake might not be very beneficial. However, we discovered that the hatching of new fish into a lower mercury environment was sufficient to lower the mercury level of the population as a whole in a short period of time”. 

 “The near-term value of reducing mercury inputs to freshwater lakes was not a sure thing, because large masses of old mercury always exist in lakes from decades past,” said Mr. Reed Harris, of Reed Harris Environmental, one of the founders of the study.  

“So, it was critical for the experiment that isotopic form of mercury we added could be distinguished from older mercury in the ecosystem.” As new mercury inputs to the experimental lake were increased and then decreased in a controlled manner, the methylmercury in the lake water, surface sediments, invertebrates and fish both increased and decreased quickly. This was true whether the mercury ‘rained’ directly onto the lake surface or entered the lake from the surrounding watershed in streams.  

 “While mercury exported to lakes from their watersheds may not decline exactly in step with lowering atmospheric deposition rates, this experiment clearly demonstrates that any reduction in the amount of mercury entering lakes will have immediate benefits to fish consumers,” said Dr. John Rudd, former Chief Scientist at the Experimental Lakes Area and a principal investigator on the study.  

“Fish is a high-quality protein that is beneficial to many people, providing that it is low in methylmercury.” 

-30- 

For more information, or to conduct an interview with one of the researchers, please contact: 

Sumeep Bath, Editorial and Communications Manager, IISD Experimental Lakes Area 

[email protected] 

La réduction des apports de mercure dans les lacs réduit rapidement la concentration de mercure dans le poisson que nous mangeons, selon des scientifiques

La réduction de la pollution par le mercure qui pénètre dans les lacs réduit la concentration de mercure nocif qui se trouve dans les poissons d’eau douce destinés aux assiettes des consommateurs.

C’est ce qu’indique un nouvel article publié aujourd’hui dans la revue Nature. Au cours de l’étude, menée sur 15 ans, des scientifiques ont intentionnellement ajouté une forme traçable de mercure à un lac et à son bassin versant. Ils ont découvert que le nouveau mercure qu’ils ajoutaient s’accumulait rapidement dans les populations de poissons, puis diminuait presque aussi rapidement après l’arrêt des ajouts.

Notamment, les populations de poissons ont pu se rétablir de la présence de mercure beaucoup plus rapidement qu’on ne le pensait auparavant, ce qui donne à penser que la réduction de la pollution par le mercure grâce à des initiatives stratégiques aura un avantage rapide et concret sur la qualité du poisson que nous consommons.

Ces résultats fournissent un appui scientifique incontestable à la réglementation nécessaire sur les émissions de mercure qui a été minée au cours des dernières années, particulièrement aux États-Unis. Ils appuient également l’efficacité des politiques existantes et nouvelles qui visent à réduire la quantité de mercure qui se retrouve dans notre environnement.

« Montrer que la réduction des apports de mercure dans un lac réduira les concentrations de mercure dans les poissons semble simple », déclare M. Paul Blanchfield, de Pêches et Océans Canada et de l’Université Queens, et chercheur principal de la Mercury Experiment to Assess Atmospheric Loading in Canada and the United States (METAALICUS).

« Mais il a fallu un travail d’équipe dévoué, y compris des chercheurs universitaires, gouvernementaux et d’ONG de partout en Amérique du Nord, au cours de cette étude de 15 ans menée sur l’ensemble de l’écosystème pour en arriver à cette conclusion. »

L’équipe a appliqué environ une cuillerée à thé d’une forme spéciale de mercure à un lac et son bassin versant, au coût de plus d’un million de dollars canadiens. Les membres de l’équipe ont pu mesurer ce mercure sous forme de méthylmercure dans l’écosystème et suivre son déclin rapide chez les poissons une fois qu’ils ont cessé de l’ajouter dans l’environnement. Le méthylmercure est une forme beaucoup plus toxique de mercure qui s’accumule à des concentrations élevées chez de nombreux poissons d’eau douce, ce qui entraîne de nombreux symptômes nocifs, voire mortels, chez les humains.

L’étude a été menée dans la région des lacs expérimentaux de l’IISD (RLE‑IISD) en Ontario, au Canada, qui est l’une des seules installations au monde où les lacs et leurs bassins versants peuvent être manipulés de façon expérimentale pour déterminer les nombreuses façons dont les humains ont des répercussions sur les lacs.

« Les expériences portant sur l’ensemble de l’écosystème sont incroyablement puissantes parce qu’elles examinent les effets d’un seul facteur à la fois et apportent des solutions à des problèmes d’importance mondiale dans un contexte réel », explique Mme Carol Kelly, qui a passé des décennies à mener des recherches sur les lacs expérimentaux.

Une partie de ce contexte réel consistait à travailler avec les populations de poissons naturelles.

« L’étude des poissons seulement en laboratoire ne révélait pas toute l’histoire, affirme Lee Hrenchuk, biologiste de la RLE‑IISD. Chaque poisson retient le mercure qu’il a accumulé pendant longtemps, et on peut donc supposer que la diminution de l’apport de mercure dans un lac pourrait ne pas être très bénéfique. Cependant, nous avons découvert que l’éclosion de nouveaux poissons dans un environnement contenant moins de mercure était suffisante pour abaisser le niveau de mercure de l’ensemble de la population en peu de temps. »

« La valeur à court terme de la réduction des apports de mercure dans les lacs d’eau douce n’était pas certaine, car de grandes masses d’ancien mercure existent toujours dans les lacs depuis des décennies », explique M. Reed Harris, de Reed Harris Environmental, l’un des fondateurs de l’étude.

« Il était donc essentiel pour l’expérience que la forme isotopique du mercure que nous avons ajoutée puisse être distinguée du mercure plus ancien dans l’écosystème. » À mesure que les apports de nouveau mercure dans le lac expérimental augmentaient, puis diminuaient de façon contrôlée, le méthylmercure dans l’eau du lac, les sédiments de surface, les invertébrés et les poissons augmentaient et diminuaient rapidement. Cela était vrai, peu importe que le mercure soit arrivé directement à la surface du lac ou qu’il ait pénétré dans le lac à partir du bassin versant environnant dans les cours d’eau.

« Même si le mercure transporté dans les lacs à partir de leurs bassins versants ne diminue peut-être pas exactement au même rythme que la baisse des taux de dépôt atmosphérique, cette expérience démontre clairement que toute réduction de la quantité de mercure qui pénètre dans les lacs aura des avantages immédiats pour les consommateurs de poissons », affirme M. John Rudd, ancien scientifique en chef de la région des lacs expérimentaux et chercheur principal de l’étude.

« Le poisson est une protéine de grande qualité qui est bénéfique pour de nombreuses personnes, à condition qu’il soit faible en méthylmercure. »

-30-

Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements ou pour mener une entrevue avec un des chercheurs, veuillez communiquer avec :

Sumeep Bath, gestionnaire de la rédaction et des communications, région des lacs expérimentaux de l’IISD

[email protected]

To reach net-zero by 2050, we need to move immediately to electrify large portions of Canada’s transportation, buildings, and industry while ensuring the power sector can support this transition. This new private sector-led initiative will call for and inform an actionable and comprehensive framework backed by evidence-based solutions.

To start, its members have commissioned new research from Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, to be published in Spring 2022, which will explore the opportunities and challenges in electrifying various industries and sectors. This research will inform subsequent efforts to develop a framework for accelerated electrification and to identify priority actions.

Electrifying Canada is co-chaired by Susan McGeachie (BMO) and Richard Florizone (IISD), and its members include Teck Resources, OPG, Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, Innergex Renewable Energy, First Nations Major Project Coalition, Cameco, and the Ivey Foundation.

The task force is an affiliate of the Energy Transitions Commission, a global coalition of leaders from across the energy landscape committed to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.

"Engineers and entrepreneurs are exploring myriad technologies and pathways to accelerate the transition to clean energy," says Richard Florizone, co-chair of Electrifying Canada and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "While there is no silver bullet, it's evident that clean electrification—substituting fossil fuels with clean, zero-carbon electricity—is key."

"Net-zero is no longer niche, it's the new normal," adds Susan McGeachie, co-chair of Electrifying Canada and Head of the BMO Climate Institute. "Important progress is being made in Canada to transition to clean energy and cut carbon pollution, but these efforts need to both increase and accelerate. To put Canada's economy on a path to net-zero by 2050, we will need to electrify large shares of the economy—and we need a plan for how to do it."

Media contact:

Vanessa Farquharson
Director of Communications
International Institute for Sustainable Development

(613) 238-2296 ext. 114
[email protected]

Ottawa (November 17, 2021) – As Canada's Parliament prepares to reconvene next week, the Green Budget Coalition today issued a comprehensive set of recommendations on how the next federal budget can meet the challenge of fighting the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

“Canadians want ambitious action on environmental priorities” said David Browne, Green Budget Coalition Co-Chair and Director of Conservation for Canadian Wildlife Federation, during the release of the Green Budget Coalition’s Recommendations for Budget 2022.

“The government has promised to act on many of our specific recommendations, most recently in its election platform and at COP 26 in Glasgow. These commitments need to be implemented with funding in Budget 2022.”

The Green Budget Coalition’s five feature recommendations address three critical environmental objectives:

Net-Zero Emissions by 2050

1. Canada's Renovation Wave: A Plan for Jobs and Climate: CAD 10 billion–15 billion per year for 10 years to enable the renovation wave, including deep retrofits for residential and commercial buildings, Indigenous communities, and skills and market development.

2. Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Re-Orienting Public Finance: Recommendations to not introduce new fossil fuel subsidies, to phase out existing subsidies on an ambitious timeline, and to align all public finance with Canada's climate commitments.

Full Nature Recovery by 2050

3. Freshwater Management for the 21st Century: CAD 1.256 billion over 5 years to protect, manage, and restore Canada’s freshwater resources.

4. Permanent Funding for Protected Areas: CAD 1.4 billion per year in permanent funding, increasing to CAD 2.8 billion per year by 2030–31 for managing terrestrial and marine protected areas.

Environmental Justice

5. Office of Environmental Justice and Equity: CAD 25 million over 2 years, then CAD 15 million per year ongoing to create a new Office of Environmental Justice and Equity.

The Green Budget Coalition also recommends investments in transportation, renewable energy, nature restoration, fisheries management, action on toxics, sustainable agriculture, and other environmental issues.

“Our recommendations detail the investments needed to address the critical environmental challenges that Canada and the world face,” said Doug Chiasson, Green Budget Coalition Co-Chair and Senior Specialist, Marine Ecosystems and Government Engagement, WWF-Canada. “We will be looking for them in the Speech from the Throne and are ready to work with all parties to ensure these investments conserve biodiversity, fight climate change, and create jobs for Canadians.”

Twenty-three of Canada’s largest environmental and conservation organizations form the Green Budget Coalition. Together, these groups have more than a million members and supporters, and decades of experience solving Canada’s biggest environmental challenges.

###

About the Green Budget Coalition:

The Green Budget Coalition, founded in 1999, brings together 23 leading Canadian environmental and conservation organizations to present an analysis of the most pressing issues regarding environmental sustainability in Canada and to make recommendations to the federal government regarding strategic fiscal and budgetary opportunities.

The Green Budget Coalition’s members are:

ALUS Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canadian Wildlife Federation, David Suzuki Foundation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Ecojustice Canada, Ecology Action Centre, Équiterre, Friends of the Earth Canada, Greenpeace Canada, International Conservation Fund of Canada, International Institute for Sustainable Development, MiningWatch Canada, Nature Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Nature United, Pembina Institute, Seed Change Canada, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, West Coast Environmental Law Association, Wildlife Habitat Canada, and WWF-Canada.

For more information, please see the detailed Recommendations for Budget 2022 at https://greenbudget.ca/recommendations2022 or contact:

• David Browne, Co-Chair, Green Budget Coalition; and Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation, 613-222-6162, [email protected]
• Doug Chiasson, Co-Chair, Green Budget Coalition; and Senior Specialist, Marine Ecosystems and Government Engagement, WWF-Canada, 613-232-2559, [email protected]
• Andrew Van Iterson, Manager, Green Budget Coalition; 613-296-3263, [email protected]

November 8, 2021, Libreville - The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) are launching a capacity-building program on responsible investment in agriculture and food systems for members of the Parliament of the Gabonese Republic. This initiative, conducted by the Gabonese Parliamentary Alliance for Food and Nutritional Security (APGSAN), aims to support members improve public policies that tackle hunger and malnutrition in the country. It is part of a series of trainings organized by the FAO for Gabonese parliamentarians.

Parliamentarians play an important role in guiding public investments, particularly in the agricultural sector, as they are responsible for passing laws, approving government budgets, and overseeing government action. Investing in agriculture is one of the most effective strategies for ending poverty and hunger. However, experience shows that not all investments are equally beneficial, and some carry risks for people and the environment.

The Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (CFS-RAI Principles) is the world's leading policy instrument for defining how to achieve investments that generate long-term sustainable benefits. The instrument also outlines how agricultural investments should respond to development challenges such as food insecurity, climate change, and gender inequality.

The training program will provide Gabonese parliamentarians with the knowledge they need to optimize potential investments in the agricultural sector. Promoting transformative change at the national level to ensure responsible investment requires the right legal, institutional, and policy frameworks, which parliamentarians can help facilitate. The training is based on the handbook "Responsible Investments in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Practical Handbook for Parliamentarians and Parliamentary Advisors,, which was developed by FAO and IISD with inputs from parliamentarians and parliamentary advisors from different countries. The guide, which is also available in an interactive format, gives practical tools and concrete examples for parliamentarians to improve the legal and policy environment promoting responsible investment in agriculture. 

Following the launch of the handbook in Africa in December 2020, parliamentarians from different countries requested technical support to become more familiar with the tool and begin using it to improve and strengthen national legal and policy frameworks. Gabon has been chosen, along with the Republic of Congo, to benefit from such trainings, considering the priorities identified by the two national parliamentary alliances for food and nutrition security.  The Gabonese Parliamentary Alliance for Food and Nutritional Security (APGSAN) was created in October 2019 with the support of the FAO sub-regional office for Central Africa, and its office was opened on October 25.

For the French version of this press release, visit the FAO website. (Pour la version française de ce communiqué de presse, visitez le site de la FAO.)

 
Contact:

Patrice Etong-Oveng
Communications Consultant
Tel : +241 07331741
Email: [email protected]

Glasgow — Today at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26), more than 20 countries and institutions—including Canada, the United States, Mali, and Costa Rica—launched a joint statement committing to end direct international public finance for unabated coal, oil, and gas by the end of 2022 and prioritize clean energy finance. After a wave of commitments to end international coal finance this year, this is the first international political commitment that also addresses public finance for oil and gas. If implemented effectively, this initiative could directly shift more than USD 18 billion a year of preferential, government-backed support out of fossil fuels and into clean energy—and much more if initial signatories are successful in convincing their peers to join. 

Shifting public finance for energy out of all fossil fuels and into clean energy is an urgent task. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, 2021 needs to mark the end of new investments in not just coal, but also new oil and gas supply. 

Yet, new research by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US shows that between 2018 and 2020, G20 countries’ international public finance institutions and multilateral development banks (MDBs) still backed at least USD 188 billion in fossil fuels abroad. This was 2.5 times more than G20 and MDB support for renewable energy, which averaged USD 26 billion per year. Public finance for clean energy has stagnated since 2014, despite the need for it to grow exponentially to ensure universal access to clean energy and to stay below the 1.5°C limit. The IEA finds that annual public and private investments into clean energy should reach nearly USD 4 trillion by 2030. 

The joint statement unites some of the largest historic providers of public finance for fossil fuels—Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Investment Bank (EIB). If honoured, this commitment will likely unseat Canada as the worst-ranking in the G20 for international public financing to the fossil fuel sector. However, other large financiers have yet to join them. 

Laggards include Japan (USD 10.9 billion/year), Korea (USD 10.6 billion/year), and China (USD 7.6 billion/year), which are the largest providers of international public fossil fuel finance in the G20 and together account for 46% of G20 and MDB finance for fossil fuels. Germany (USD 2.8 billion/year) and Spain (USD 1.9 billion/year), some of the biggest European Union fossil fuel financiers, are also missing.

But civil society organizations hope that the joint statement can help raise pressure on these countries that are lagging behind, similar to the momentum in place for ending coal finance. On the same morning of the statement launch, activists took to the streets of Glasgow in inflatable Pikachus to urge Japan to stop funding fossil fuels.

The EIB has signed the statement and civil society coalition Big Shift Global is urging the other MDBs to also get on board, including the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Collectively, the MDBs still provided at least USD 6.3 billion each year to fossil fuel projects between 2018 and 2020. Earlier this week, the MDBs provided an update on their joint Paris alignment efforts in which they confirmed their framework will have no exclusions for oil and gas projects. 

The combination of big polluters and low-income countries signing the statement is positive and challenges the assumption that developing country signatories want or need investments in fossil fuels to achieve their development objectives. Alongside fulfilling their stated goal of “prioriti[zing] support fully towards the clean energy transition,” civil society organizations remind signatories that the ability of this initiative to support a just and 1.5°C-aligned global energy transition will also hinge on avoiding loopholes allowing for a dash for gas, acting on debt relief, increasing grant-based climate finance, and securing a growing number of signatories to the statement.  

Quotes:

Richard Florizone, President and CEO, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:
“Today, Canada has taken a critical and historic step in joining other countries who are serious about shifting public finance away from fossil fuels. Canada has the opportunity to show leadership by rapidly scaling up public and private investment in the clean energy transition so that workers and communities here and around the globe can thrive in a low-carbon future. We applaud today’s commitment by the federal government and encourage them to focus on both robust implementation and increased ambition.”

Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said:
“Shutting fossil fuels down is critical for tackling the climate crisis. This announcement is a step in the right direction but must be scaled up with more governments and public finance institutions, including the multilateral development banks, committing to end finance for fossil fuels. This public money needs to be urgently redirected into a just energy transition that ensures clean universal energy access for communities in the global South and support for communities and coal, oil and gas workers without saddling countries with any further debt.”

Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaigns Co-Manager, Oil Change International, said:
“The signatories of today’s statement are doing what’s most logical in a climate emergency: stop adding fuel to the fire and shift dirty finance to climate action. Only this way can we avoid the worst climate crisis scenarios. We need to see much more of this to help deliver and exceed climate finance promises and support real solutions that meet community needs—particularly in the Global South. Other countries and institutions must follow suit.”   

Kate DeAngelis, International Finance Program Manager, Friends of the Earth US, said:
“Last year at this time I would not have thought we would see countries commit to ending billions of dollars in support for international fossil fuel projects. While this is welcome progress, countries, especially the US, must hold firm to these commitments, shutting off the spigot to fossil fuel companies like Pemex and Exxon. Laggards like Japan and Korea must also step up and join this commitment to enhance its efficacy.” 

Lidy Nacpil, Asian’s Peoples Movement for Debt and Development, said:
“We have been calling for an end to public financing of fossil fuels for so long, governments should have responded earlier. The world has no more space or time left to accommodate the expansion of fossil fuel energy. Instead governments must act immediately and decisively for a swift and just transition to 100% renewable and democratic energy systems. There should be no exceptions, no reliance on unproven and unreliable carbon capture and storage technologies that hide the lack of ambition and justify some level of continued GHG emissions. Governments must also compel the private sector to stop funding new fossil fuel projects. We call on all countries, public financial institutions, and private financiers to commit to and disclose concrete plans to end all support and financing, direct and indirect, for all fossil fuels—coal, gas and oil. Anything less will not be enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.”

Ayumi Fukakusa, Friends of the Earth Japan, said:
“While world leaders commit to phasing out fossil fuel financing, Japan is the second-largest public financier for fossil fuel and even still supports new coal projects both domestically and internationally. Japan again failed to show its leadership for climate action. In addition to that, right before COP 26 started, a Japanese public financier decided to finance the LNG Canada project. The associate Coastal GasLink Pipeline is quite controversial. Next to being completely incompatible with climate goals, a UN Committee called out the lack of “Free Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)” for the project. This is unacceptable.”

Joojin Kim, Solutions for Our Climate, said:
“While the commitment represents a step forward in the global response to climate change, it is disappointing to find that major fossil fuel financing countries like South Korea have not joined the announcement. When it comes to public financing of fossil fuels, Asian economies like South Korea and Japan are among the largest contributors in the world. The world must know that the amount of fossil fuel public financing provided by these countries is several times (in the case of South Korea, 13 times) higher than the amount they have provided for coal power project financing. These nations should immediately end public fossil fuel financing, instead of contributing to the build-up of stranded assets around the world.”

Daniel Willis, climate campaigner, Global Justice Now, said:
“This joint statement is welcome and necessary progress in the struggle to shift public finances away from fossil fuels, but that should not distract us from the challenges ahead. Just last week, MPs in the UK condemned the British development bank CDC Group’s failure to stop funding gas infrastructure. When it comes to the climate crisis, every investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is like pouring petrol on a house fire. Hopefully we will now see the UK government get its own house in order by ending trade and development finance for gas power and rescinding licences for North Sea oil exploration.” 

Paul Cook, Head of Advocacy, Tearfund, said:
“There is no room for new fossil fuels if we are to deliver climate justice for millions of the most vulnerable people around the world. This announcement is another nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel era as we seek to build a cleaner, safer and fairer world. We now urgently need others to join this commitment and go further by phasing out fossil fuels at home and abroad.” 

Dean Bhebhe, African Climate Reality Project, said:
“The African Development Bank and other development financial institutions need to prioritize the development and implementation of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy that will not fund, provide financial services or capacity support to any coal, gas, or oil project or related infrastructure project that is carbon intensive on the African continent by 2022. At the least, establish an immediate ban on any new fossil fuel projects and publish a roadmap for phasing out all fossil fuel development financing to advance the just transition in line with the Paris Agreement. The policy should guide a managed and equitable phase-out, taking into account principles of equity and justice for those most affected. We need real climate action now.”

Bronwen Tucker, Canada Lead at Oil Change International, said:
“This is one of the only climate commitments from Trudeau that has concretely addressed the oil and gas sector, and hopefully the beginning of many more. It means Canada will face lower risk of economic shocks from our overexposure to this sunsetting industry and that this influential financial support can be redirected to just transition and renewable energy globally instead. Today’s announcement is a credit to the climate movement and Indigenous land defenders that have been pushing Trudeau to take real climate action since the day he took office. But the federal government should also hear loud and clear that they must keep their election promise and extend this commitment to cover Export Development Canada’s closely related domestic finance for oil and gas as well.” 

Nick Bryer, European Campaigns Director, 350.org, said:
“Every cent that goes into fossil fuels is taking us further in the wrong direction. It’s shocking that public money is still going into coal, oil and gas when we so desperately need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and invest in real solutions instead. It’s hypocritical for any country to call themselves a climate champion if they’re still helping to bankroll the fossil fuel industry.”

Jon Sward, Environment Project Manager, Bretton Woods Project, said:
“The statement is an important first step in building international consensus that ending finance for fossil fuels and increasing support for a just energy transition in low- and middle-income countries are key aspects of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. It is disappointing that the World Bank—and many of its MDB counterparts—has chosen not to sign on to the statement. The UK, US, and other government signatories to the statement must continue to push for the World Bank and other international financial institutions to end support for fossil fuels while scaling up their support for clean energy systems that ensure a just transition for workers and communities.”

Robin Mace-Snaith, Policy Lead – Climate and Energy, CAFOD, said:
“This statement is a start, but we urgently need more countries on board. Public finance shouldn’t be anywhere near fossil fuels if we want any chance of keeping within 1.5°C. We challenge all signatories to ensure that the limited and clearly defined circumstances they reference are not just loopholes to continue supporting the fossil fuel sector. What’s needed is a just energy transition, bringing electricity to the over 750 million people without and ensuring no community is left behind as a result. For many communities on the frontline of climate change, time has already run out. We must consign all fossil fuels to history now.”

Lisa Fischer, Programme Leader Climate Neutral Energy Systems, E3G, said:
“This statement is a powerful signal to policy-makers and investors alike that high climate and investment risks are an inherent part of oil and gas finance, and that no investment in new oil and gas supply is needed. It shows growing confidence that employment and revenue opportunities are strongest in the clean energy sector. Every cent of public finance should be used to open these opportunities for nations across the globe.”

María Marta Di Paola, Research Area Director, Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), said:
“While Global North countries and institutions are signing pledges on climate finance, they are still investing millions in extractive projects in Global South countries. For example, between 2016 and 2020, 88% of the World Bank Group investments in the energy sector in Argentina went to fossil fuels and the rest to renewables.

Global North countries should play a lead role in the transition to zero-carbon economies, coping with the singularities and needs of the Global South. This statement could be a clear sign of the risk associated with relying on fossil fuels to develop in the Global South.”

Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:
“Shortly after the world’s largest economies have ruled out overseas finance for coal, this statement shows that a much bigger shift is underway: one that could soon mark the end of not just coal, but also oil and gas finance. The science is clear that public support must be directed toward clean energy to avoid locking countries into high-carbon pathways, imperilling economies, and the global climate. Signatories should deliver boldly on their commitment and continue building momentum after COP 26, to ensure other governments and institutions follow suit.”

Katharina Rall, Senior Environment Researcher, Human Rights Watch said:
“This commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by 2022, if followed by effective implementation, will be an important step toward governments meeting their human rights obligations to address the climate crisis. All governments need to urgently end all support for fossil fuels and ensure a just transition to affordable clean energy to help prevent catastrophic climate impacts on human rights. Countries that choose not to sign on—including Japan and South Korea—are signalling a lack of regard for their human rights obligations and for the rights of communities around the world already facing a mounting toll from climate impacts.”

###

Notes:

• The joint statement was launched at the UK pavilion at 10:30 GMT, November 4, 2021. The launch event can be followed here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpq-q7dcyzAc8Mi99UXegwg.
• The countries and institutions that have signed the joint statement include Agence Française de Développement (AFD), Albania, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais (BDMG), the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, the East African Development Bank (EADB), Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. (FMO), Italy, Mali, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Moldova, Portugal, Slovenia, South Sudan, Switzerland, The Gambia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Zambia.
• The estimate of a direct USD 18 billion shift is based on annual average international public finance for fossil fuels from the participating countries and institutions from 2016–2020. Data for AFD, Canada, EIB, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States are from Oil Change International’s Shift the Subsidies Database. Data for Denmark, Finland, and Sweden is taken directly from government reporting. No data was available for other donor signatories. 
• Past Last Call is Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US’s latest briefing analyzing G20 public finance figures and trends. It shows that between 2018 and 2020, G20 governments and public finance institutions provided at least USD 188 billion in public finance for fossil fuels.
• In September 2021, 200+ civil society organizations launched a statement calling on world leaders to end public finance for fossil fuels in 2021 and launch a joint commitment to do so at COP 26.
• In June 2021, 100+ economists called on the G7 to put an end to not only coal finance but also oil and gas finance in 2021.
• A legal opinion by Professor Jorge E. Viñuales from the University of Cambridge and Barrister Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers argues that governments and public finance institutions that continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure are potentially at risk of climate litigation.
• A comment piece by Harro van Asselt, professor at University of Eastern-Finland Law School and affiliated researcher at Stockholm Environment Institute, and Gita Parihar, an environmental advocate and in-house consultant for environmental non-governmental organizations and the United Nations, and a board member of the Climate Justice Fund, suggests that the ruling in the Shell court case should be a wake-up call for governments to end fossil fuel support.
• In October, in the lead up to COP 26, a global group of civil society representatives organized Climate Debt Justice Days of Action, calling on governments and lenders to take decisive action to address the debt problem in the Global South and to provide grants—not loans—in order to free up resources to enable countries to respond to the climate crisis. 

Contacts:

• Laurie van der Burg, [email protected]
• Bronwen Tucker, [email protected]
• Lucile Dufour, [email protected]
• Robin Mace-Snaith, [email protected] (Media Officer – Frankie Leach, [email protected])
• Tearfund Media Officer – Sam Perriman, [email protected]. Policy info – Sue Willsher, [email protected]. 

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, announced the funding today at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26) during the COP26 Africa Adaptation Acceleration Summit.  

“It is about climate change as people experience it on their doorsteps … it’s about how human beings can achieve a decent quality of life in the face of unprecedented climatic upheaval. We’re here at COP to ensure that adaptation reaches the people who need it the most, where they need it the most,” said Hon. Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada during remarks at the COP26 Africa Adaptation Acceleration Summit.

This funding responds to calls from developing countries, including Small Island Developing States and least-developed countries, for increased financial support in climate adaptation to prepare for and reduce their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

The NAP Global Network was established in 2014 to support developing countries in advancing their national adaptation planning and implementation, in turn progressing climate change adaptation efforts around the world.

"We are thrilled to welcome the Government of Canada's renewed support for the National Adaptation Plan Global Network to help developing countries prepare for climate impacts and achieve a sustainable future," says Anne Hammill, senior director of the Resilience Program at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which hosts the NAP Global Network Secretariat. "Through NAP processes, countries are accelerating efforts to put adaptation at the heart of decision making and secure a prosperous future in a changing climate."

This funding builds on a previous CAD 4 million commitment by the Canadian government to the NAP Global Network to provide support to Small Island Developing States and sub-Saharan African countries with a focus on using adaptation to promote gender equality.

The new funding will, among other types of support:

• Provide technical support to countries in putting adaptation at the heart of decision making, prioritizing the most vulnerable
• Engage civil society more directly in adaptation planning and action, working with women’s movements, Indigenous communities, and others
• Build communities of peer support, including to enhance women’s leadership.

The NAP Global Network is a multi-funder initiative, and Canada’s investment builds on more than CAD 12 million in financing from Austria, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to scale up support for NAP processes as a critical tool in the efforts to build resilience to climate change.

There has been significant progress this year in developing countries' NAP processes. The UN reported last week that 129 of the 154 developing countries have NAP processes underway, and 30 developing countries have submitted NAPs to the UNFCCC.

"The Canadian government's generous financial support will allow the NAP Global Network to increase its support to countries that need it most," says Hammill.

This announcement demonstrates a critical commitment to strengthening adaptation governance in the Global South, enabling countries to translate their ambitions into action.

October 29, 2021—One day before G20 leaders come together in Rome and just before COP 26, research organizations heading four recovery trackers have issued a joint statement urging further greening of COVID-19 response.

The statement builds on data collected by the Energy Policy Tracker, the Global Recovery Observatory, the Greenness of Stimulus Index, and the Green Recovery Tracker covering thousands of policies adopted worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic. The signatories agree that, despite recent efforts from governments, the share of green recovery spending—representing 10 to 20% of recovery spending globally—is still insufficient to drive the urgent shift needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

The research organizations call on world leaders to use the upcoming international meetings to set clear spending targets to green their stimulus spending. Highlighting that fossil fuel-intensive activities still represent around 40% of public spending in the energy sector, they argue that governments should commit to a fossil-free recovery, where public finance no longer supports fossil fuel production and respects a “do no harm” principle. The signatories also point to a range of tools and policies that can accelerate a green recovery while creating decent jobs and driving innovations, such as skill retraining measures, research and development, and a better integration of nature and biodiversity in recovery plans.

The statement comes at a critical point in time, when enhanced action is imperative to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. As governments continue working to ‘build back better’ from the pandemic, the signatories say this means redirecting all future public recovery spending toward a resilient, nature-positive, and climate-safe economy. Strengthened international cooperation and support are also essential to enable an equitable and just green recovery worldwide, they note.

The signatories warn that maintaining the status quo could lock the world into a dangerous high-carbon pathway for decades.  
 

Quotes 

Jeffrey Beyer, Greenness of Stimulus Index Lead, Finance for Biodiversity, said: 

“Public money must be spent for public good, but the GSI and other trackers all show that COVID-19 stimulus has done more harm than good for nature and the climate. Governments must systematically change how budgets are assessed and spent to ensure that all future public spending enhances nature and protects the climate.”  

Helena Mölter, Research Associate, Wuppertal Institute, said: 

“Though the 37% target set by the European Commission clearly pushed EU member states to green their recovery plans, they are still not aligned with the bloc’s new 2030 climate target and not used to accelerate the climate transition in line with the new target. Hence, it is crucial to link investments with reforms and national energy and climate policy.” 

Satoshi Kojima, Director of Kansai Research Centre and Principal Researcher, Climate and Energy Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, said:  

“The trackers show us where we are and what we must urgently do. We hope that the insights they provide will help policymakers take evidence-based measures to move toward resilient and decarbonised economies.”  

Angela Picciarello, Senior Research Officer, ODI, said: 

“What the various data on global recovery spending shows is that governments need to direct their public spending away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy in more systematic ways. Tools such as green taxonomies and budgeting approaches can help achieve this.”  

Joachim Roth, Policy Analyst, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:  

“Governments have made some progress since last year in increasing their share of clean energy commitments but this is still insufficient to drive the much-needed and urgent shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. To truly align with a 1.5°C scenario, public finance can no longer support fossil fuel production.”  

Izael Da Silva, Professor, Strathmore University, said:  

“As nations devise a variety of post-COVID economic stimulus packages and recovery plans, two guiding principles must be taken into consideration: the first one is to encourage investments and incentives in green technology to curb carbon emissions and the second is to put people at the center of the initiatives geared towards sustainable development for the whole planet.”  

For more information, please contact: 

Lucile Dufour, +33 677 274 003, [email protected] 

Anna Riesenweber, +49 202 2492-106, [email protected]

Governments and investors could save USD 248 billion a year, protect the environment, and benefit local communities by replacing or complementing newly built infrastructure with plants, trees, and other natural alternatives, according to a first-of-its-kind study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Richard Florizone, President and CEO of IISD, said, “Sometimes the best solutions are hidden in plain sight. Built infrastructure is responsible for over 60% of global emissions and is driving species and habitat loss. And it’s not always the best tool for the job. Actions like using reefs or mangroves instead of concrete sea wall defences, or complementing waste treatment plants with reeds or wetlands can be more effective—for both the environment and the economy. Natural infrastructure is a clear win–win for investors and governments looking for solutions as they prepare for the COP 26 climate summit.”

IISD’s research found:

• Nature-based infrastructure (NBI) costs around 50% less than equivalent built infrastructure while delivering the same—or better—outcomes. As well as the lower initial costs, NBI tends to be cheaper to maintain and more resilient to climate change.
• A total of USD 4.290 trillion worth of infrastructure is needed worldwide each year, and 11% of this could be met with NBI. This results in potential savings of USD 248 billion a year, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Portugal or New Zealand. By contrast, ending global hunger is estimated to cost an additional USD 33 billion a year between now and 2030.
• In addition to the cost savings, NBI also generates on average 28% more added value than built infrastructure. This is because it can bring environmental benefits like reducing air pollution or capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; social benefits like providing pleasant spaces to relax; or economic benefits like boosting tourism.
• NBI can bring savings and benefits across all infrastructure sectors, including:

1. Around 50% of climate-resilience infrastructure needs can be met with NBI such as plants and mangroves, which can help tackle erosion and flood risks. 
2. Around 10% of transport infrastructure needs can be met with NBI like swales and wetlands, which retain and slow down water, thus reducing flood damage to roads and railways.

The research marks the launch of the new Nature-Based Infrastructure Global Resource Centre, an innovative collaboration between IISD, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the MAVA Foundation, and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), which is managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The Centre will carry out free cost–benefit analyses of natural and built infrastructure projects on behalf of governments and infrastructure developers, and bring together data, case studies, and innovative modelling from projects around the world in a new online hub.

“Nature-based infrastructure makes eminent sense as an investment choice and long-term planning strategy as cities and countries look to build back better from the pandemic,” said Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, CEO and Chairperson of the GEF. “Coming from Costa Rica, a country that invested in nature-based solutions, I see great promise in nature-based solutions that can address climate change while also generating ecosystem benefits and supporting livelihoods. This is why we are happy to support this new Global Resource Centre with resources from the Special Climate Change Fund, which funds innovative climate adaptation actions. Our hope is that this pioneering initiative will help unlock investments for nature-based infrastructure at the scale that we all need, which can help fill the existing finance gap in climate adaptation.”

Li Yong, Director General of UNIDO, said, “The establishment of the Nature-Based Infrastructure Global Resource Centre as a one-stop-shop will be very timely, since it compares financial and economic benefits of nature-based infrastructure with conventional grey infrastructure.”

André Hoffmann, President of the MAVA Foundation, said, “Nature is a generous yet complex system that yields key benefits for society and the economy. Provisions by nature are not only more sustainable but often also cheaper and more stable in the long term than those coming from human-engineered solutions. We must learn to work more and better with nature, and for that we need solid evidence. This is why we are proud to support the NBI Centre so we can make sure that decision-makers have the best knowledge to fully value nature’s contribution.”

[ENDS]

Notes to editors

About the Nature-Based Infrastructure Global Resource Centre: The Centre aims to bring together key partners to establish a business case for nature-based infrastructure. The Centre provides data, training, and sector-specific valuations based on the latest innovations in systems thinking and financial modelling.  For more information visit

About the Special Climate Change Fund: One of the world’s first climate adaptation finance vehicles, the GEF-managed SCCF has two decades of experience working to bolster developing countries’ defences against a changing climate, with a focus on innovative solutions that can be scaled for broad impact. SCCF-supported projects have reduced the vulnerability of 7 million people and helped bring nearly 4 million hectares of land under more sustainable management to date. As it marks its 20th year, the SCCF is stepping up its focus on attracting private sector engagement in climate adaptation and providing flexible, tailored support for innovations that can help developing countries address their climate risks. 
 

The 2021 Production Gap Report, by leading research institutes and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), finds that despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. 

The report, first launched in 2019, measures the gap between governments’ planned production of coal, oil, and gas and the global production levels consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement temperature limits. Two years later, the 2021 report finds the production gap largely unchanged. 
 
Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap. 
 
“The devastating impacts of climate change are here for all to see. There is still time to limit long-term warming to 1.5°C, but this window of opportunity is rapidly closing,” says Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. “At COP26 and beyond, the world’s governments must step up, taking rapid and immediate steps to close the fossil fuel production gap and ensure a just and equitable transition. This is what climate ambition looks like.”
 
The 2021 Production Gap Report provides country profiles for 15 major producer countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The country profiles show that most of these governments continue to provide significant policy support for fossil fuel production.  

“The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5°C,” says Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report and SEI scientist. “However, governments continue to plan for and support levels of fossil fuel production that are vastly in excess of what we can safely burn.”
 
The report’s main findings include: 

• The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. The size of the production gap has remained largely unchanged compared to our prior assessments. 
• Governments’ production plans and projections would lead to about 240% more coal, 57% more oil, and 71% more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. 
• Global gas production is projected to increase the most between 2020 and 2040 based on governments’ plans. This continued, long-term global expansion in gas production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature limits.  
• Countries have directed over USD 300 billion in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — more than they have towards clean energy. 
• In contrast, international public finance for production of fossil fuels from G20 countries and major multilateral development banks (MDBs) has significantly decreased in recent years; one-third of MDBs and G20 development finance institutions (DFIs) by asset size have adopted policies that exclude fossil fuel production activities from future finance. 
• Verifiable and comparable information on fossil fuel production and support — from both governments and companies — is essential to addressing the production gap. 

“Early efforts from development finance institutions to cut international support for fossil fuel production are encouraging, but these changes need to be followed by concrete and ambitious fossil fuel exclusion policies to limit global warming to 1.5°C”, says Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 
 
“Fossil-fuel-producing nations must recognize their role and responsibility in closing the production gap and steering us towards a safe climate future,” says Måns Nilsson, executive director at SEI. ”As countries increasingly commit to net-zero emissions by mid-century, they also need to recognize the rapid reduction in fossil fuel production that their climate targets will require.” 
 
The report is produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), ODI, E3G, and UNEP. More than 80 researchers contributed to the analysis and review, spanning numerous universities, think tanks and other research organizations. 

Reactions to the 2020 Production Gap Report

“Recent announcements by the world’s largest economies to end international financing of coal are a much-needed step in phasing out fossil fuels.  But, as this report starkly shows, there is still a long way to go to a clean energy future.  It is urgent that all remaining public financiers as well as private finance, including commercial banks and asset managers, switch their funding from coal to renewables to promote full decarbonization of the power sector and access to renewable energy for all.”
- António Guterres, UN Secretary General 

“This report shows, once again, a simple but powerful truth: we need to stop pumping oil and gas from the ground if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. We must cut with both hands of the scissors, addressing demand and supply of fossil fuels simultaneously. That is why, together with Denmark, we are leading the creation of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance to put an end to the expansion of fossil fuel extraction, plan a just transition for workers and start winding down existing production in a managed way.”
- Andrea Meza, Minister for Environment and Energy of Costa Rica

“The 2021 Production Gap Report once again demonstrates in no uncertain terms that we need significant reductions in the production of fossil fuels if we are to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. In response, Denmark has taken the decision to cancel all future licensing rounds for oil and gas, and completely phase out our production by 2050. With Costa Rica we encourage all governments to undertake similar measures and join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance to promote a managed and just phase out of fossil fuel production.”
- Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities, Denmark

Notes to Editors

About the Production Gap Report
Modelled after the UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report series — and conceived as a complementary analysis — this report conveys the large discrepancy between countries' planned fossil fuel production and the global production levels necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C and 2°C. 

About the Stockholm Environment Institute 
Stockholm Environment Institute is an independent, international research institute that has been engaged in environment and development issues at local, national, regional and global policy levels for more than a quarter of a century. SEI supports decision making for sustainable development by bridging science and policy. 

About the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 
UNEP is the leading global voice on the environment. It provides leadership and encourages partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. 
 
About the International Institute for Sustainable Development  
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an award-winning, independent think tank championing research-driven solutions to the world's greatest environmental challenges. Our vision is a balanced world where people and the planet thrive; our mission is to accelerate the global transition to clean water, fair economies and a stable climate. With offices in Winnipeg, Geneva, Ottawa and Toronto, our work impacts lives in nearly 100 countries.  

ODI
ODI is an independent, global think tank, working to inspire people to act on injustice and inequality. Through research, convening and influencing, ODI generates ideas that matter for people and planet.  

About E3G 
E3G is an independent European climate change think tank accelerating the transition to a climate safe world. E3G is made up of world leading strategists on the political economy of climate change, dedicated to achieving a safe climate for all. E3G builds cross-sectoral coalitions to achieve carefully defined outcomes, chosen for their capacity to leverage change. E3G works closely with like-minded partners in government, politics, business, civil society, science, the media, public interest foundations and elsewhere. E3G is making the necessary possible.  

For more information please contact: 

Annika Flensburg, Lead Press Officer, Stockholm Environment Institute. 
Keisha Rukikaire, Head of News and Media, United Nations Environment Programme. 
Angela Picciariello,  Senior Research Officer, ODI.
Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Press contact for E3G. 

October 11, 2021—A new brief by the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (IISD-GSI) emphasizes the need for a fossil-free recovery in Indonesia and warns that the 2020 recovery package is not in line with climate targets.

Of Indonesia’s IDR 108.5 trillion in support for energy in 2020, IDR 95.3 trillion was given to fossil fuel-intensive state-owned enterprises. Experts warn that already-high fossil fuel subsidies have also more than doubled when adding the COVID-19 recovery budget. Current energy subsidies, IISD experts state, not only encourage wasteful consumption but also primarily benefit the rich and have negative social, economic, environmental, and health effects.

“Indonesia’s recovery is not green enough,” says Theresia Betty Sumarno, lead author of the brief. “A continued focus on fossil fuels in Indonesia overlooks the unprecedented opportunity to align economic recovery with climate targets. By embracing and incentivizing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels as part of the COVID-19 recovery plan, Indonesia could transform their energy sector, fuel their economy, and address climate change. It is not too late to achieve ambitious emissions targets.”

The brief highlights Indonesia’s renewable energy potential, with IISD experts noting that in 2019 alone, the renewable energy sector was responsible for creating 500,000 jobs in the country (IRENA, 2020). Experts emphasize that by reforming fossil fuel subsidies and reallocating funds to renewable energy, Indonesia could generate revenue for its COVID-19 recovery and provide direct support to the most vulnerable.

“Dedicating COVID-19 recovery money to promote the renewable energy sector is a double win for Indonesia,” says co-author Lourdes Sanchez of IISD. “Not only could it create jobs and help economic recovery, but it would support climate and renewable energy ambitions which are critical for future prosperity.”

While many countries have embraced renewable energy as part of their recovery efforts, this brief identifies that Indonesia’s support for fossil fuels in its COVID-19 recovery package far exceeds support for renewables. IISD experts highlight that while Indonesia is below its clean energy targets, by committing recovery funds to renewable energy the country could fuel positive impacts for both their economy and the planet.

Fossil fuels are a main driver of climate change, with subsidies directly incentivizing their production and use. With the incoming G20 presidency, Indonesia holds an important position in the global effort to both combat climate change and recover from COVID-19. This brief supports the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and a transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy as part of the COVID-19 recovery in Indonesia. In their brief, IISD experts provide recommendations for a green recovery that aligns the economy with climate action. 

“If we don’t act quickly, the effects of climate change will be catastrophic. It is essential that COVID-19 recovery packages drive ambitious climate targets,” says Sumarno. “Right now, Indonesia has an opportunity to end fossil fuel subsidies, embrace renewable energy, and create a stronger economy for the future.”

Stimulus Covid-19 Lipat Gandakan Subsidi Bahan Bakar Fosil, Tak Sejalan dengan Pembangunan Hijau

Menurut para ahli IISD, subsidi energi fosil saat ini tidak hanya mendorong konsumsi yang boros, tetapi terutama menguntungkan orang kaya dan berdampak negatif secara sosial, ekonomi, lingkungan, dan kesehatan.

Oktober 2021 – Laporan baru dari International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) (Inisiatif Subsidi Global dari Institusi Internasional bagi Pembangunan Berkelanjutan) menekankan perlunya pemulihan ekonomi bebas fosil di Indonesia dan mengungkapkan bahwa paket pemulihan ekonomi 2020 belum sejalan dengan target perubahan iklim. 

Dari Rp 108,5 triliun stimulus fiskal yang diberikan untuk sektor energi Indonesia dalam program Pemulihan Ekonomi Nasional (PEN), Rp 95,3 triliun diberikan kepada Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) yang menggunakan bahan bakar fosil secara intensif. Para ahli memperingatkan bahwa subsidi bahan bakar fosil yang sudah tinggi juga meningkat lebih dari dua kali lipat ketika dengan pemberian subsidi lewat progam PEN. Subsidi energi saat ini, menurut para ahli IISD, tidak hanya mendorong konsumsi yang boros tetapi juga terutama menguntungkan orang kaya dan memiliki dampak negatif secara sosial, ekonomi, lingkungan, dan kesehatan. Stimulus ini lebih banyak menguntungkan industri fosil daripada industri energi bersih, mengingat bahan bakar fosil ini masih memegang peranan penting dalam perekonomian Indonesia.  Namun demikian, kebanyakan subsidi fosil dinikmati oleh rumah tangga mampu dan kaya dibandingkan rumah tangga miskin sehingga mendorong konsumsi bahan bakar fosil yang berlebihan (Beaton et al., 2017).

“Pemulihan ekonomi di Indonesia masih kurang hijau,” kata Theresia Betty Sumarno, penulis utama laporan tersebut. “Indonesia belum memanfaatkan peluang yang ada untuk menyelaraskan pemulihan ekonomi dengan target iklim karena masih fokus mendukung bahan bakar fosil di Indonesia. Dengan merangkul dan memberi insentif pada energi terbarukan sebagai bagian dari rencana pemulihan ekonomi nasional, Indonesia dapat membawa perubahan di sektor energi, mendorong perekonomian, dan mengatasi perubahan iklim. Tidak ada kata terlambat untuk mencapai target emisi yang ambisius.”

Laporan tersebut menyoroti potensi energi terbarukan Indonesia. Ahli dari IISD mencatat bahwa pada 2019 saja, sektor energi terbarukan telah menciptakan 0,5 juta lapangan kerja di Indonesia (IRENA, 2020). Mereka menekankan bahwa dengan mereformasi subsidi bahan bakar fosil dan merealokasikan dana ke energi terbarukan, Indonesia dapat menghasilkan pendapatan untuk pemulihan ekonomi dan memberikan dukungan langsung kepada mereka yang paling terdampak.

“Mendedikasikan uang pemulihan ekonomi nasional untuk mempromosikan sektor energi terbarukan adalah sebuah kemenangan ganda bagi Indonesia,” kata rekan penulis Lourdes Sanchez dari IISD. “Tidak hanya dapat menciptakan lapangan kerja dan membantu pemulihan ekonomi, tetapi juga akan mendukung target ambisi perubahan iklim dan energi terbarukan yang sangat penting bagi kemakmuran masa depan.”

Sementara banyak negara telah menggunakan energi terbarukan sebagai bagian dari upaya pemulihan ekonomi mereka, laporan singkat ini mengidentifikasi bahwa dukungan Indonesia untuk bahan bakar fosil dalam anggaran Pemulihan Ekonomi Nasional jauh melebihi dukungan untuk energi terbarukan. Pakar IISD menyoroti bahwa meskipun Indonesia berada di bawah target energi bersih mereka, dengan memberikan dana pemulihan untuk energi terbarukan, negara ini dapat memicu dampak positif baik bagi perekonomian mereka dan planet ini.

Subsidi bahan bakar fosil telah mendorong secara langsung produksi dan konsumsinya, yang lantas menjadi kontributor utama perubahan iklim. Dengan kepresidenan G20 yang akan datang, Indonesia memegang posisi penting dalam upaya global untuk memerangi perubahan iklim dan pemulihan dari pandemi Covid-19. Laporan singkat ini mendukung penghapusan subsidi bahan bakar fosil dan transisi dari bahan bakar fosil ke energi terbarukan sebagai bagian dari pemulihan Covid-19 di Indonesia. Secara singkat, para ahli IISD memberikan rekomendasi untuk pemulihan hijau yang menyelaraskan ekonomi dengan aksi iklim.

“Jika kita tidak bertindak cepat, dampak perubahan iklim akan menjadi bencana besar. Sangat penting bahwa paket pemulihan Covid-19 mendorong target iklim yang ambisius, ”kata Theresia. “Saat ini, Indonesia memiliki peluang untuk mengakhiri subsidi bahan bakar fosil, mendukung energi terbarukan, dan menciptakan ekonomi yang lebih kuat untuk masa depan.”