One day before world leaders meet to discuss the energy transition at the United Nations High Level Dialogue on Energy, more than 200 civil society organizations (CSOs) from over 40 countries have released a statement calling on world leaders to end international public finance for coal, oil and gas. 
 
The statement points to International Energy Agency modelling that shows limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires ending all investments in new oil and gas fields and coal mines in 2021 and rapidly winding down existing fossil fuel production and use. Yet, G20 members still provide at least three times as much public finance for fossil fuels (USD 77 billion) as for clean energy (USD 28 billion) every year. New data published alongside the CSO statement show that the amount of fossil fuel finance provided by the richest countries is also still higher than their estimated level of climate finance. 
 
The CSOs point out that clean alternatives such as wind and solar are already cost-competitive and respond effectively to clean cooking and electricity needs in the Global South. At the same time, they highlight, any new public financial support to oil and gas risks locking-in outdated energy infrastructure in the places that most critically need public investments in clean energy. 
 
The statement comes as momentum builds on shifting public finance out of fossil fuels, with the United Kingdom (UK) adopting a new policy in March this year that put an end to new international public finance for coal, oil and gas. The European Investment Bank, the Dutch development bank FMO and the French Development Agency have also adopted restrictions to their oil and gas financing. But the CSOs say these efforts need to accelerate in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
 
The signatories call on progressive governments and public finance institutions to launch a joint commitment on ending public finance for fossil fuels at COP26. They look to the UK to deliver on this agenda as part of its promise to lead efforts to collectively shift overseas finance from fossil fuels to clean energy. 

Quotes

Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said: 
"We can’t afford any more fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency has already stated that any new fossil fuel development is incompatible with the Paris agreement’s goals and 1.5 degrees celsius. Governments and public finance institutions have a responsibility to invest in a just energy transition shifting public finance out of coal, oil and gas and into renewable energy and supporting coal, oil and gas workers and communities. Pumping more public money into oil and gas projects in countries that are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis will risk locking in stranded assets, burdening global South countries with further fiscal debt and will increase the threat of runaway climate change. We call on governments and public finance institutions to demonstrate increased political leadership on energy finance to ensure a sustainable, equitable and safe future for all."

Kate Deangelis, International Finance Program Manager, Friends of the Earth US, said:
“President Biden must heed the call from CSOs from around the world for countries, especially the U.S. as the largest historical emitter, to end international public support for fossil fuels. While the Biden Administration has taken some positive first steps, the climate needs much bolder action. The world is looking to the U.S. to use the COP26 moment to end the billions in international fossil fuel support that the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and other U.S. agencies provide annually.”

Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), said: 
“The recently released report of the IPCC says that the world has reached an average of 1.09 degrees warming. And the rate of warming is increasing. There is no more time and no excuse to delay the phase-out of coal, gas, and oil. Governments and public financial institutions should end all forms of support for fossil fuel industries and instead scale up public financing for a just transition to 100% renewable energy systems. Governments of rich countries should deliver on their climate finance obligations, which have been a pittance compared to their subsidies for fossil fuels.”

Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Co-Manager, Oil Change International, said:
"It's an utter disgrace that rich countries are still spending more public money on fossil fuels than on climate finance. The science tells us that we need to end new public finance for coal, oil and gas now in order to stay below 1.5C. This is a matter of life and death, particularly for those living in the Global South and already vulnerable communities. In March, the UK promised to lead efforts to collectively shift public finance out of fossil fuels and to clean energy. We are looking at Alok Sharma to deliver on this promise by COP26."

Katherine Kramer, Climate Policy Lead, Christian Aid, said:
“It is great to see that some countries have realized that there is no climate-safe future with oil and gas as part of the mix: this needs to catalyze a global recognition that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground: oil and gas are not needed for development, and are not cannot safely serve as bridging fuels. Governments acting to end public financial support for fossil fuels sends strong signals to investors that fossil fuels have no future. Governments of richer nations also need to actively support countries in the Global South to leapfrog dirty energy and develop sustainably.”

“The UK government cannot be credible when it has to be taken to court to try and block the Cumbria coal mine plans, and is contemplating a large new oil and gas field, the Cambo Field, in the North Sea. The UK must demonstrate climate leadership, rather than being in the thrall to vested fossil interests.”

Shereen Talaat, Co-Director, Arab Watch Coalition, said: 
“Shifting international public finance out of fossil fuels and into clean energy is a must. Directing a growing amount of public funds towards renewable energies can support a clean energy transition, based on just and sustainable systems. Governments and public finance institutions must ensure that this shift is in everyone's best interest, without controversial implications on local communities and their resources.”

Tessa Khan, Founder and Director, Uplift UK, said:
“The UK government is rightly lauded for stopping the flow of public money into oil and gas projects overseas, but it's seemingly content to continue subsidising the same industry, pumping out the same pollution, off the Scottish coast in the North Sea. If the UK wants to spearhead efforts to end fossil fuel finance internationally, it will also need to take action at home. We need to ditch funding fossil fuels and plough all that public money into clean energy.”

Adrián Martínez Blanco, Director, Asociación La Ruta del Clima, said:
“Ending international public finance for fossil fuels should be a no brainer ahead of COP26.  As the latest news from the IPCC shows, this is 'code red for humanity.' By continuing to fund oil, gas and coal projects, we are showing that we are not committed to a 1.5 degree world.”

Dean Bhekumuzi Bhebhe, Campaigns Coordinator, African Climate Reality Project, said: 
“Global economies need to urgently shift away from their dependence on fossil fuel-based energy generation and leapfrog to renewable energy. The just transition to renewable energy has never been more crucial, as the climate crisis and its impacts threaten the livelihoods and future of humanity. The African Climate Reality Project is calling on all Development Financial Institutions to implement a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy and fund the future we want—one that is equitable and sustainable.”

Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said: 
"While a growing number of governments are turning away from coal and oil, international financial institutions are still providing four times as much funding for gas projects as for wind or solar. But gas is not needed: clean energy alternatives are already cheaper than gas for most energy uses in the Global South, and are effective solutions to meet energy access and development needs. International public finance must be redirected without delay towards supporting a clean energy and resilient future in the Global South, one that doesn't lock economies into high-carbon energies or risk stranded assets.”

For more information, please contact:

Laurie van der Burg, [email protected], +31639020914

Lucile Dufour, [email protected], +33677274003

Today, 42 companies have pledged a promising USD 345 million to contribute to ending global hunger as part of a new initiative led by key international organizations.[1] The Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge is a game-changing solution emerging from the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) Action Tracks. It recognizes that governments cannot eradicate hunger alone and need more private sector involvement, with investments aligned with the highest-impact areas. To date, pledges have been made in 34 priority countries.

Global hunger is rising unabated, with up to 811 million[2] hungry people in the world in 2020—that’s 1 in 10 people suffering because they did not have access to the most basic need and fundamental right[3] of food. COVID-19 measures have made the issue even worse. 

But there is a roadmap to end world hunger. Additional investment in 10 high-impact areas can put hunger in the history books. 

“Today, one in ten people go to bed hungry and millions are right on the brink of starvation. This is happening in a world that has enough food to feed everyone, everywhere. It’s time to end this suffering. But to succeed, WFP and the entire community need the creative drive, energy, and commitment of the private sector. Through the Zero Hunger Pledge initiative, businesses around the world can join us and truly make a difference—giving food, hope, and a better future to those who need them most.”

- David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP)

Although this financial investment must mostly come from governments, public spending will not be sufficient. That is why the UNFSS came up with a game-changing solution to mobilize more private sector investment as a catalytic contributor to achieving zero hunger.

The Pledge is launched today in advance of the UN Food Systems Summit.

"Increasing private sector investment towards small food producers in geographies with high burdens of hunger is essential to changing the lives of millions of people and making nations food secure. The Pledge enables food companies to provide a strong, united front with governments to make hunger a thing of the past by 2030."

- Peter Bakker, President and CEO, WBCSD

The Pledge requires companies to make a financial commitment in at least one of the 10 high-impact intervention areas [4] identified in the Ceres2030 findings and in at least one of the priority countries or regions. 

Pledgers include a range of companies, from large corporations to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), each having committed to upholding internationally accepted principles including, but not limited to: the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS-RAI), the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, the Principles of the UN Global Compact, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.

"The private sector in Africa is absolutely key to Africa’s agricultural development agenda. We are committed to mobilising businesses—big and small—deliver concrete outcomes on the ground."

- Ibrahim Gourouza, Chief Operations Officer, Grow Africa

Pledging companies will then coordinate with implementing organizations or partners. They agree to being assessed by the WBA and to the assessment being published publicly.

Commitments can come in the form of core business investments, subsidized contributions, cash contributions, and in-kind contributions. They focus on three key areas:

I. Empowering the excluded—giving marginalized populations and small producers the resources to learn and benefit from successful agricultural interventions.

II. Investing in food producers—encouraging more sustainable on-farm practices and interventions to improve environmental conditions.

III. Reducing losses and supporting SMEs—assisting small-scale producers and SMEs to increase their productivity and income.

"What we are seeing with the Pledge is the private sector stepping up to be a bigger part of the solution. This is a game-changing approach to solving one of the most pressing yet oldest challenges humanity faces."

- Lawrence Haddad, Executive Director, GAIN

With a level of commitment so far amounting to USD 345 million, the implementing organizations are confident more companies will join in the fight against zero hunger. The Pledge is officially being launched on Tuesday, September 21, 10 am EDT/4 pm CEST.

###

Notes for Editors

About the Pledge

The Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge is a multistakeholder platform of cooperation and action with a single objective of ending hunger for good. It involves businesses supported by civil society, member state governments, and international organizations. Each of the actors provides a commitment within the remit of its organization. The flexible and voluntary character of the Pledge is its strength as it creates a platform for cooperation for actors who wouldn’t have necessarily worked together in the past.

More information about the Pledge can be found in the Q&A document, attached herewith.

Disclaimer

The signing of this pledge does not constitute an endorsement, preference, or approval by the implementing organization selected by the company or its activities, services, or products. 

About the implementing organizations 

• FAO
• WFP
• GAIN 
• NEPAD | Grow Africa 
• Grow Asia
• WBA
• WBCSD 
• IISD

Enquiries/Contacts

About the Pledge:

• Carin Smaller, Director – Agriculture, Trade & Investment, IISD

Tel: +41 (0)78 911 0896 (Switzerland), email: [email protected]

To request an interview:

• Edwin Shankar, Leidar communications consultancy

Tel: +47 (0)415 23 012 (Norway), email: [email protected]
 

[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), WFP, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), Grow Africa, Grow Asia, World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

[2] State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI 2021) report.

[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: right for adequate food and to be free from hunger.

[4] Enabling participation in farmers' organizations (I); creating vocational programs for rural youth (II); scaling up social protection programs (III); investing in extension services in R&D programs (IV); intervening to support sustainable practices (V); supporting the adoption of climate-resilient crops (VI); increasing research on water-scarce regions (VII); improving the quantity and quality of livestock feed (VIII); reducing post-harvest losses by combining interventions (IX); investing in the assistance needed to support SMEs (X).

July 27, 2021, Jakarta—Government support for Indonesia’s marine fishing sector is significant, varying between USD 140 million and USD 210 million a year from the central government alone, but it is unclear whether this support achieves its desired socio-economic impacts without undermining the environmental viability of the sector. A new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), WWF Indonesia, and Marine Change suggests that certain forms of support may incentivize overfishing and could be ineffective in supporting fishing communities in the long term, making them a priority for evaluation. The report provides—for the first time—an open-access database of support for marine fisheries made by the central government and three provincial governments (Aceh, Maluku, North Sulawesi) by consolidating information from several government sources.

“While government assistance can play a critical role in achieving key public policy objectives, such as poverty eradication, not all this support is in line with long-term sustainability objectives. Some support measures may be putting the sustainability of fisheries at risk, along with the socio-economic well-being of the communities who depend on them. The effectiveness of such measures must be evaluated,” said Anissa Suharsono, an associate of IISD’s Energy Program and the report’s lead author.

At the central level, fuel subsidies and support for construction development, maintenance, and access to fishing infrastructure together accounted for roughly 90% of all government support between 2017 and 2020. However, the current system of distribution of fuel support—which represented on average 50% of annual central-level support to the sector between 2017 and 2020—may encourage excessive levels of fishing of stocks that are already fished beyond sustainable levels or are close to that point. Preliminary evidence also suggests that fuel support provides greater benefits to boat owners than to fishers, the intended beneficiaries of the program, and may fail to reach the most remote fishing communities. Smaller amounts are also dedicated to vessel construction, income support, marketing and promotion, support to fishing communities, or fisheries management.

At the provincial level, support focuses on the acquisition and modernization of fishing vessels, as well as related machinery and equipment—which accounted for 60% to 80% of total spending in Maluku and North Sulawesi. While there is uncertainty about their equity and effectiveness in assisting the most vulnerable fishers, these support measures are mostly targeted at pelagic fisheries, some of which are already fished at unsustainable levels. Some of this support also risks increasing fishing capacity in other fisheries where stocks are overfished.

“The fishing sector is key for sustainable development in Indonesia, as it is an important source of food, employment, and income. Ensuring that government assistance supports fisheries’ ability to provide food security and livelihoods to local populations in a sustainable way is critical,” added Cut Desyana, Fisheries and Aquaculture Manager at WWF Indonesia.

The report points out that increased transparency is needed with regard to fisheries support measures at the central and provincial levels. While some information regarding budget allocation and realization is available through government publications or dedicated websites in certain provinces, most public data is either incomplete or is highly aggregated, researchers say.

“Governments should conduct an in-depth assessment of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of fuel subsidies at the central level, and of fixed costs support at the provincial level, and reform these policies if necessary,” said Sari Tolvanen at Marine Change.  “The effectiveness of Indonesia’s fisheries support should be monitored using indicators of success that go beyond the current focus on increased production, instead considering the status of the stocks as well as the degree to which support reaches the most vulnerable target groups,” added Tolvanen. 

Rilis untuk Segera Dipublikasikan

Bantuan Pemerintah bagi Perikanan Tangkap Laut di Indonesia Sebaiknya Diarahkan untuk Meminimalisir Penangkapan Berlebih (overfishing)

Ringkasan: Bantuan pemerintah pusat ke sektor perikanan tangkap laut mencapai 210 juta dolar per tahun. Namun tidak semua bentuk bantuan tersebut sejalan dengan tujuan berkelanjutan dalam jangka panjang

Jakarta—Bantuan terhadap sektor perikanan tangkap laut cukup signifikan, sekitar 140-210 juta dollar AS per tahun. Jumlah tersebut hanya yang berasal dari pemerintah pusat saja. Akan tetapi, belum jelas apakah bentuk bantuan pemerintah tersebut memberi dampak sosial ekonomi yang diharapkan, tanpa menyebabkan beban kerusakan lingkungan untuk sektor tersebut.

Sebuah laporan terbaru dari International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), WWF Indonesia dan Marine Change menyebutkan beberapa bentuk bantuan pemerintah dapat mengakibatkan upaya penangkapan ikan yang berlebihan (overfishing) dan tidak efektif dalam mendukung komunitas perikanan dalam jangka panjang, khususnya untuk para nelayan. Oleh karena itu, sudah selayaknya dilakukan evaluasi untuk beberapa bentuk bantuan tersebut.

Untuk pertama kalinya, dengan mengkonsolidasikan informasi baik dari database publik dan pertemuan formal dengan beberapa lembaga termasuk dengan Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan serta Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan provinsi terkait, ketiga lembaga tersebut berupaya melakukan analisis terhadap berbagai bentuk bantuan pemerintah pusat dan tiga pemerintah daerah (Aceh, Maluku dan Sulawesi Utara) terhadap sektor perikanan tangkap laut.

Menurut Anissa Suharsono, penulis utama laporan tersebut, yang juga peneliti kebijakan untuk program energi IISD, walaupun berbagai bantuan pemerintah memiliki peran penting dalam mencapai tujuan kebijakan publik, seperti pengentasan kemiskinan, tapi tidak semua bentuk bantuan tersebut sejalan dengan tujuan pembangunan berkelanjutan dalam jangka panjang. Seiring dengan kondisi sosial ekonomi komunitas nelayan yang bergantung pada sektor perikanan, beberapa bentuk bantuan pemerintah berpotensi membahayakan keberlanjutan sektor tersebut. “(Karena itu) Efektivitas dari berbagai kebijakan tersebut harus segera dievaluasi,” ujarnya.

Di level pusat, kebijakan bantuan bahan bakar, berbagai program pengembangan pembangunan, pemeliharaan dan akses terhadap infrastruktur perikanan secara bersama-sama menyumbang sekitar 90 persen terhadap seluruh bantuan yang diberikan pemerintah sepanjang 2017 hingga 2020. Akan tetapi, sistem distribusi bahan bakar saat ini—mewakili sekitar 50 persen dari bentuk bantuan tahunan pemerintah pusat terhadap sektor perikanan pada 2017 hingga 2020--dapat memicu penangkapan ikan secara berlebihan.

Penelitian awal juga menunjukkan bahwa bantuan bahan bakar lebih menguntungkan pemilik kapal ketimbang para nelayan yang seharusnya adalah sasaran utama dari program ini, dan juga sulit diakses oleh komunitas perikanan di daerah-daerah terpencil. Selain itu, industri pembuatan kapal dan upaya peningkatan pendapatan, pemasaran, dan promosi dari masyarakat perikanan atau manajemen perikanan hanya memperoleh nilai bantuan yang cukup kecil.

Di level provinsi, bentuk bantuan difokuskan pada pemberian dan modernisasi kapal penangkap ikan, termasuk mesin-mesin dan peralatan penangkap ikan—yang besarnya 60-80 persen dari total pengeluaran para nelayan di Maluku dan Sulawesi Utara. Meskipun ada ketidakpastian mengenai kesetaraan dan keefektifan dalam membantu kelompok nelayan yang paling rentan, bentuk-bentuk

bantuan ini sebagian besar ditargetkan untuk penangkapan ikan pelagis, yang status stok untuk sebagian di antaranya sudah berada di level fully-exploited bahkan over-exploited. Berbagai bentuk dukungan di tingkat provinsi tersebut berisiko meningkatkan kapasitas penangkapan berlebihan di WPP lainnya.

“(Padahal) Sektor perikanan adalah salah satu kunci bagi pengembangan berkelanjutan di Indonesia, karena merupakan sumber penting untuk pangan, penyedia lapangan kerja, dan pendapatan,” kata Cut Desyana, Manajer Perikanan dan Akuakultur di WWF Indonesia seraya menambahkan,” (karena itu) memastikan bantuan pemerintah bisa mendukung kemampuan sektor perikanan untuk menyediakan ketahanan pangan dan mata pencaharian bagi penduduk lokal secara berkelanjutan, menjadi sangat penting.”

Laporan IISD, WWF Indonesia dan Marine Change ini menunjukkan bahwa dibutuhkan peningkatan transparansi sehubungan dengan bantuan pemerintah pusat maupun provinsi terhadap sektor perikanan. Walaupun beberapa informasi mengenai alokasi dan realisasi anggaran tersedia melalui publikasi pemerintah maupun situs resmi di sejumlah provinsi, tapi kebanyakan data tersebut tidak lengkap atau bersifat terlalu generik, ujar sejumlah peneliti lainnya.

Pemerintah sebaiknya melakukan kajian mendalam terhadap dampak sosial ekonomi dan lingkungan dari bantuan bahan bakar di tingkat pusat, dan kategori dukungan biaya tetap di tingkat provinsi, "bahkan jika perlu mereformasi kebijakan ini,” kata Sari Tolvanen dari Marine Change.

Efektivitas dukungan perikanan Indonesia harus dipantau dengan menggunakan indikator keberhasilan yang tidak hanya berfokus pada kenaikan produksi, “melainkan mempertimbangkan status stok serta sejauh mana bantuan menjangkau kelompok sasaran yang paling rentan,” ujar Tolvanen menambahkan.

About Yayasan WWF Indonesia

Yayasan WWF Indonesia is a civil society organization with local legal entities and a global network, supported by more than 100,000 supporters. Our mission is to stop the degradation of the earth's environment and build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that renewable natural resources are used sustainably, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. For the latest news, visit www.wwf.id and follow us on Twitter @WWF_id | Instagram @wwf_id | WWF-Indonesia Facebook | Youtube WWF-Indonesia | Line Friends WWF Indonesia

About Marine Change

Marine Change is a specialist advisory firm founded in 2014. Our vision is to see disciplined, long-term investment in innovative efforts to renew fisheries and marine ecosystems, permitting them to recover from overexploitation, and to support climate adaptation, prosperity, food security, and livelihoods in the Asia Pacific. Our mission is to develop strategies and to mobilize investments that lead to regeneration of ecosystems, supply chain efficiencies, and resilient and financially sustainable communities and businesses. Visit www.marinechange.com / Twitter @sariusly

July 15, 2021, New Delhi—New research suggests that India needs to grow financial support for renewable energy to reach its goals for Aatmanirbhar Bharat and clean energy transition as part of the economic recovery from COVID-19.

A study titled Mapping India’s Energy Subsidies 2021: Time for renewed support to clean energy, released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), finds that subsidies to renewable energy fell by 45% from the fiscal year (FY) 2017 peak of INR 15,470 crore to INR 8,577 crore in FY 2020.

According to IISD and CEEW experts, new funding for clean energy is crucial to progress the transition that is already underway in India. Researchers point to positive trends such as the increasing subsidies for electric vehicles, which jumped 135% from FY 2019, reaching INR 1,141 crore in FY 2020 due to growing public demand for electric mobility. But they also note that the full benefits of electric transport can only be achieved if there is a green electricity mix.

The report explains that renewable energy subsidies are at a standstill due to a combination of factors including grid-scale solar and wind achieving market parity, lower deployment levels, and subsidy schemes nearing the end of their allocation period.

“It is time for a new wave of support measures focused on emerging technologies such as grid integration and storage, decentralized renewable energy, green hydrogen, and offshore wind,” says study co-author Balasubramanian Viswanathan of IISD. “India must deploy historic levels of about 39 GW every year to meet its admirable target of 450 GW of renewables by 2030. It is hard to imagine achieving this goal without the right support policies. And the prize is big: curbing air pollution, addressing the climate crisis, and kick-starting a green economic recovery.”

On the other hand, oil and gas subsidies jumped 16% from FY 2019 to FY 2020, largely due to financial support for household consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Experts note, however, that LPG subsidies were suspended during the FY 2021 oil price crash and have not yet been reintroduced. This may reduce oil and gas subsidies in future years, but has led to new concerns around clean energy access, as no alternative support for clean cooking has been provided. Meanwhile, the researchers commended the government on its commitment to successfully phase out kerosene subsidies by FY 2022, which should also reduce total oil and gas subsidies.

Overall, the study finds that support for fossil fuels has increased as of the latest year of comprehensive data, hitting INR 70,578 crore in FY 2020. This is over seven times the sum of subsidies to clean energy.

Experts highlight that reforming fossil fuel subsidies can generate valuable additional resources for economic recovery from COVID-19 and investments in clean energy.

The report also identifies other government measures that can promote energy transition.

“Redirecting a share of coal tax revenues to clean energy and supporting communities, regions, and livelihoods impacted by the transition will help ensure a just and equitable energy transition,” says co-author Prateek Aggarwal of CEEW. “Further, the government should encourage public sector undertakings, which are currently investing more in fossil fuels, to set ambitious targets for high levels of investment in clean energy and establish national capacity in manufacturing.”

For the government, now is an excellent opportunity to support a green recovery aligned with Aatmanirbhar Bharat by designing a new generation of support measures for clean energy—in a way that ensures no one is left behind.

Toronto/Winnipeg—With the European Commission set to announce a new border carbon adjustment (BCA) regime for the European Union (EU) tomorrow, now is the time for Canada to figure out how to reconcile its climate ambition with the need to protect the competitiveness of domestic industry and prevent carbon leakage.

That’s one of the urgent messages in Enabling Climate Ambition: Border Carbon Adjustment in Canada and Abroad, released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and Clean Prosperity.

The new report is the first to examine in detail the kinds of questions that Canada will have to answer as it designs a BCA regime. In particular, it looks at how Canada might harmonize its border carbon charges with top trading partners that are also ambitious about tackling climate change, such as the United States and the EU.

BCAs are charges applied to the embedded carbon emissions in imported goods, especially imports from countries with less stringent climate policies. 

"Canada will not achieve its climate ambition if our policies just end up shifting emissions from domestic firms to their foreign competitors," says Aaron Cosbey, co-author of the report and Senior Associate with IISD. "There’s no way around it: BCAs are challenging to get right, and they're no silver bullet. But it's hard to see how we can successfully decarbonize without them."

"The problem we need to confront is that not every country is as ambitious as Canada when it comes to climate action," says Clean Prosperity Executive Director and report co-author Michael Bernstein. "BCAs are one solution to that problem. They complement strong Canadian climate policy by keeping industry on a level playing field with foreign competitors while continuing to incentivize decarbonization."

Read the full report to learn more.

For more information: [email protected]

A new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), prepared with support from Infrastructure Canada, makes one thing clear: how we create and maintain our built environment must change.

“These last few weeks have shown us first-hand how climate change can damage the infrastructure in Canada, risking lives and costing billions in repairs,” says Anne Hammill, Senior Director of IISD’s Resilience Program. “We need our municipalities and governments to better incorporate climate change risks into the design, operation, and rehabilitation of our built infrastructure, while also looking more seriously at the benefits of using nature-based solutions.”

Advancing the Climate Resilience of Canadian Infrastructure: A review of literature to inform the way forward profiles the ways in which action is already being taken nationally and internationally through policies, tools, and financing to enable more resilient infrastructure. But greater effort and investments are needed to keep up with the accelerating pace of climate change.

The authors also look at the role of natural infrastructure (a nature-based solution), such as wetlands and living shorelines, in providing a cost-effective way to increase resilience while providing other benefits such as carbon sequestration, species habitat, and recreational spaces.

Among the key messages and areas for action identified:  

• One third of core public infrastructure is in poor condition.
• The estimated infrastructure deficit in Canada is between CAD 150 billion and CAD 1 trillion.
• Greater incentives and professional support are needed to integrate climate change considerations into infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance.
• There must be greater awareness of the economic, social, ecological, and protective benefits of hybrid built and natural infrastructure solutions.

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, says, “As the devastation caused by the wildfire that destroyed the town of Lytton showed, climate change is already impacting communities across Canada. We need to adapt to a changing climate that is resulting in more frequent flooding, forest fires, droughts, erosion, and thawing permafrost in the North. The federal government is working with Canadians to adapt to a changing climate and to build more resilient communities through investments in climate resilient infrastructure and by using the best available data and best practices in infrastructure adaptation, mitigation, and planning.”
 

Media contact:

Catherine Burge
Communications Officer, Resilience
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
[email protected]
 

June 7, 2021—International financial institutions are providing four times as much funding for gas projects in low- and middle-income countries as for wind or solar, according to a new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 

From 2017 to 2019, gas projects in low- and middle-income countries received an average of nearly USD 16 billion per year of international public finance, with 60% of this coming from the World Bank and three governments: Japan, China, and the United States. International financial institutions have continued to prioritize gas during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study finds—more than 75% of development banks’ support for fossil fuels went to gas projects in 2020. 

“International public finance is driving a new dash for gas in the Global South, undermining global climate efforts and imperilling countries’ economies by locking them into high-carbon energies of the past and risking stranded assets,” says Greg Muttitt, lead author of the report.  

The report reveals that gas is not needed to meet countries’ energy needs since renewable alternatives are available, including for power, buildings, and light industry technologies. For most uses, the study shows, renewables are already cheaper than gas or expected to become cheaper by 2030.

To avoid far-reaching climate and economic liabilities, researchers say that countries in the Global South need international public finance to lead the way in supporting clean energy. The report recommends that international finance institutions end all support to gas exploration and production, new gas power plants, and other long-lived gas infrastructure, such as pipelines. 

Instead, the study suggests that these institutions should invest in helping the Global South develop resilient, sustainable economies by integrating renewable energy into power grids, promoting technology sharing, and supporting universal clean energy access. Public finance plays a disproportionate role, setting the trend for wider investments and unlocking private capital.

“We are at a fork in the road,” says Muttitt. “Some international financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank, have decided to exclude new gas and oil funding in line with the Paris Agreement goals. But others continue to back gas. As countries like Australia and the United States massively expand their liquefied natural gas exports, the public money supporting new gas infrastructure looks more geared to serving powerful interests than helping Southern countries meet their needs.”

The report emphasizes that new gas development is not consistent with the Paris Agreement. The just-published Net-Zero by 2050 report from the International Energy Agency notes that there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply. According to 1.5°C scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global gas consumption must decline by 55% between 2020 and 2050 and unabated gas power generation by 87%. While gas advocates claim it can be a “bridge fuel,” IISD experts say that bridge has now collapsed due to the urgency of curbing emissions, the availability of renewables, and the extent of methane leakage from gas infrastructure.

“The United States is currently reviewing whether to end new oil and gas finance, and there is pressure on the World Bank and others,” Muttitt says. “While investments and policies are starting to move away from coal and oil, the key debate now is about the third fossil fuel: gas.”
 

July 6, 2021, Ottawa—Over the past three years, oil and gas pipelines received more than CAD 23 billion in support from Canadian federal and provincial governments, including CAD 10 billion since the COVID-19 pandemic started, reveals a new study released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), titled Pipelines or Progress: Government support for oil and gas pipelines in Canada.

This analysis marks the first time government financial support for Canadian pipelines has been quantified; it’s the highest amount reported to date of government fossil fuel support in Canada. 

Breaking down the CAD 23 billion total, the report finds the federal government provided nearly CAD 16 billion in support for the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Coastal Gaslink projects, while the Government of Alberta committed CAD 7.5 billion to Keystone XL. 

The CAD 23 billion is likely an underestimate. Nearly two years after filing 13 related Access to Information and Privacy requests, thousands of pages of federal government documents related to financial support for the Trans Mountain project were either withheld from researchers or heavily redacted. 

“It is extremely concerning that governments are hiding the full picture of their support from Canadians when taxpayer dollars are on the line,” says Vanessa Corkal, lead author of the report. “Looking at Canada’s climate ambition and the global race to net-zero emissions, we can’t afford to keep expanding fossil fuel supply—and that’s exactly what governments are enabling by financing oil and gas pipelines.” 

Due to low private sector interest, oil and gas companies are increasingly turning to government sources to finance export infrastructure, IISD experts report. This means that government support for pipelines extends and expands fossil fuel production that would be otherwise uneconomic, leading to large increases in emissions that last for decades, the study concludes.

In addition, the report suggests governments’ assumptions that these projects will provide economic benefits to Canadians may be unwarranted. The study notes that the financial future of these pipelines is uncertain as projects may not recoup costs, putting public investments at significant risk—as illustrated by the recent cancellation of Keystone XL. 

“Rather than risking public money on high-carbon pipelines, Canada must focus on diversifying the economy and supporting workers and communities in the low-carbon transition,” says Corkal. “It’s not too late to rethink these projects, particularly Trans Mountain. Governments need to shift funds to growing clean energy industries and work with Canadians to secure strategic economic opportunities. We also need to end public finance for fossil fuels—Export Development Canada extends at least CAD 13 billion to the oil and gas industry every year.”

These issues should be top of mind for Canadian leaders, Corkal suggests, as they convene with the rest of the G20 to address climate change and a resilient COVID-19 recovery, including at this month’s Climate and Energy Ministers meetings.
 

July 5, 2021—Reforming fossil fuel consumption subsidies in 32 countries could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by almost 5.46 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of about 1,000 coal-fired power plants or 3.8 billion cars, according to a new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The report finds that these reforms would also save governments nearly USD 3 trillion cumulatively by 2030.

Across all countries analyzed, including a combination of the world’s largest economies and the biggest subsidizers of fossil fuel consumption, fossil fuel subsidy reform would lead to average annual emission reductions of 6% by 2030. In some countries, such as Venezuela, Iraq, and Algeria, national emissions could be reduced by over 20% by fossil fuel subsidy reform alone.

“As governments urgently look for ways to ramp up ambition on climate action and green recovery, fossil fuel subsidy reform is a powerful tool that can both lower emissions and help finance the energy transition,” says IISD Policy Analyst Jonas Kuehl, lead author of the report. “So is the taxation of fossil energy. Yet only a handful of countries are taking advantage of these options.”

The report also models a scenario in which consumer fossil fuel subsidy reform is paired with introducing a modest fuel tax on fossil energy, assuming parts of both the savings from subsidy reform as well as from the revenue generated by the tax would be allocated to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Taking all of these actions together could lead the same countries to reduce global emissions by 10.42 billion tonnes of CO2 (equivalent to the annual emissions of 2,000 coal-fired power plants or 7.2 billion cars) by 2030 and double their annual national emission reductions to almost 12% on average, the study shows.

“Looking at Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, far more countries have committed to increasing subsidies to renewable energy than reforming subsidies to fossil fuels. But the benefits of renewable energy subsidies can be cancelled out if countries continue to support fossil fuels at the same time,” says IISD Transitions Lead and report co-author Philip Gass.

Fossil fuel subsidies undermine efforts to mitigate climate change by artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels, thereby encouraging the consumption of fossil energy and making fossil fuel investments more competitive compared to investments in low-carbon alternatives, such as renewables or electric vehicles. Reforming these subsidies increases the price of fossil fuels, which results in lower consumption and a switch to then-cheaper alternatives. Although higher prices have overall economic and climate benefits, they also can have negative social impacts, which governments should mitigate through targeted programs to protect the vulnerable.

“Pledges made in current NDCs will lead to at least a 3°C warming by the end of the century,” says Kuehl. “Subsidy reform is one of the many key emission reduction tools available to help us strengthen NDC ambition. In the lead-up to COP 26, governments need to make sure they are using every tool in the toolbox to get ahead in the race to net-zero emissions—and our study shows that fossil fuel subsidy reform can make a real difference.”

A new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), prepared with support from the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), indicates that while Canada has a lot of catching up to do, it won’t be starting from scratch—there's even an opportunity for the nation to be a leader in adaptation.

Launching today at a high-level Public Policy Forum event attended by Canadian government officials, representatives from the private sector, and environmental leaders, Toward a National Adaptation Strategy for Canada: Key Insights From Global Peers provides recommendations for the development of Canada's national adaptation strategy (NAS) based on experiences in other countries, as well as what is currently being accomplished at subnational levels.

It offers 13 recommendations for Canada as it develops its strategy, based on an analysis of a dozen policy instruments from 11 different countries, each of which plays a critical role in creating more resilient economies, ecosystems, and communities. This provides a starting point and clear direction that can help the federal government kick-start its NAS.

Among the key recommendations:

• Develop a unified approach to climate risk assessment at the national level
• Put gender equality and social inclusion at the heart of Canada’s approach to adaptation
• Leverage the NAS process to advance reconciliation with the Indigenous Peoples of Canada
• Specify clear institutional arrangements for the NAS
• Design a clear framework and system for tracking progress in adaptation

"Though Canada has some catching up to do on national adaptation planning," says the report’s lead author, Anne Hammill, "the federal government can draw on what has worked internationally to develop an ambitious and inclusive adaptation strategy. Canada has all the pieces we need to become a global leader on building the climate resilience of our communities and ecosystems."

Says Craig Stewart, Vice-President Federal Affairs, IBC: "Canada currently has a national strategy with ambitious, measurable targets for emissions reduction and biodiversity protection. It's time we had a national strategy and targets for protecting Canadians from floods, fires and storms."

Key facts:

All EU Member States now have a national adaptation strategy or plan; adaptation has been mainstreamed into the EU's policies and long-term budget. Canada is still talking about its strategy.

Severe weather events in 2020—one of the warmest years on record—caused CAD 2.4 billion in insured damage in Canada, the fourth highest annual damage on record (IBC, 2021).

As the second biggest country in the world, with 15 eco-zones and 38 million inhabitants distributed very unevenly in urban and rural settings, climate change impacts Canadians in a wide range of ways.
 

Media contacts:

Vanessa Farquharson
Director, Communications
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
[email protected]

Vanessa Barrasa
Manager Media Relations
Insurance Bureau of Canada
[email protected]