November 24, 2020 – At the 14th meeting of the African Union Ministers of Trade (AMOT) on November 24, 2020, ministers adopted a Declaration on the Risk of Investor–State Dispute Settlement with respect to COVID-19 related measures. This is a landmark move that can help ensure governments have the policy space they need to respond to the pandemic without the risk of costly legal challenges from foreign investors.  

H.E. Albert Muchanga, the Commissioner for Trade and Industry of AU Commission, expressed hope that “the action undertaken by the African Union Ministers of Trade will contribute to sustainable development-oriented international law and policy,” like other innovative and forward-thinking approaches developed by AU member states.  

IISD welcomes and supports this initiative by African Union Member States, which aims to raise awareness of COVID-19-related ISDS risks, provides member states with guidance on possible policy options that can address this risk effectively, and lends moral and political support to member states as they pursue options in line with their national needs.  

“The emergency measures that governments took to respond to the pandemic were vital from a public health perspective, as well as for safeguarding their economies. Ensuring that these measures do not face legal challenges from foreign investors is crucial,” said Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Senior Director, Economic Law and Policy, at IISD. 

“This decision by the Ministers of Trade of African Union Member States gives some valuable guidance and political support for national policy-makers, as they continue their efforts at tackling the pandemic and planning for the COVID-19 recovery,” she said. The policy actions endorsed by the African Union are centred around the principles of cooperation, multilateral action, and the proactive exploration of options for mitigating ISDS risk. This issue has been the subject of extensive IISD research and consultations with governments, academics, and civil society over the past several months.  

IISD has published two commentaries that look at the unique COVID-19-related challenges of investor–state dispute settlement claims arising from investment treaties and national laws. Both look at why ISDS could be a cause for concern and which kinds of treaty and domestic law provisions could lead to ISDS claims. The commentaries also discuss the interaction between such laws and old-generation bilateral investment treaties along with ways to mitigate the risks of investor–state arbitration. 

According to the CEEW–IISD study, 25 out of 31 states and union territories (UTs) have failed to meet the requirements of the Ujjwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana (UDAY) scheme to reduce aggregate technical and commercial losses (AT&C) to 15%. Poor collection is typically the biggest contributor to these losses. The states that have met the UDAY targets on AT&C losses in FY 2019 include Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh. Further, Jammu and Kashmir and Sikkim both stand out for a significant reduction in the power supply cost in FY2019.

Since FY 2016, revenue from sales across all DISCOMs has fallen by 3%, while 24 of the 31 states had a revenue gap in 2019. Of the 26 states and UTs that subsidize electricity, not one managed to bill consumers as per the stipulated tariff limits under the National Tariff Policy 2016. Analysts highlight that this is a vicious cycle: poor financial performance increases reliance on electricity subsidies, and badly designed subsidies contribute to poor DISCOM finances.

“With commercial and industrial consumers shifting to supply options outside of the DISCOMs like open access or even producing their own power, the dependence on subsidy is bound to increase,” says Prateek Aggarwal, Programme Associate at CEEW. “States need to target benefits specifically to low-income consumers and work on improving the general state of unmetered consumption for domestic and agriculture consumers. Further, state governments, DISCOMs, and regulators must work to loop in efficiency in power procurement planning and operations and also ensure adequate investments are made for the long-term improvement of billing and collection systems.”

To better understand these challenges, the researchers investigated electricity subsidy design across India’s states and UTs. Nationally, they found that agricultural consumers were allotted 75% of total government subsidy support for electricity. 

The report identifies design problems with residential consumer subsidies too. Most states, barring Delhi, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, do not clearly specify for how many units the subsidy is on offer and as a result the ultimate beneficiaries cannot be identified. This results in subsidy leakage and is detrimental to targeting efforts, especially with growing consumption.

Much more could be done to improve transparency, the report also finds, noting that only 15 states and UTs with subsidies clearly report subsidy data. “In most cases, it’s impossible to assess the effectiveness of government schemes, as there is no proper reporting on subsidy allocation,” says Anjali Viswamohanan, a consultant at IISD.

Experts point out that this situation can only get worse as DISCOMs deal with added losses due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Both tariff increases and financial bailout options are limited since both consumers and governments are strapped for cash as the country continues to fight COVID-19,” says Viswamohanan.

According to the report, seven states—Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh provide clear category-specific reporting of subsidies. Out of the remaining, 10 states provide subsidies against revenue gaps, 11 others provide no clarity on adjustment, and the remaining eight provide no subsidy support.

The report does identify several good practices that could be adopted across India. According to the study, Punjab displays great transparency in reporting and levies fines for late subsidy payments, while Bihar, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan have reduced their dependence on direct subsidies and have increased revenue from power sales.

Experts have flagged that improved targeting of electricity subsidies must be part of the solution. Better targeting can curtail total expenditure by reducing benefits for higher-income consumers while maintaining or even increasing benefits for lower-income consumers. However, the data suggests that many states are not yet adopting this tool: 12 out of 24 Indian states increased their electricity subsidies last year.

Policy advisors have no doubts: “The first step should be improving transparency and proper reporting,” says Shruti Sharma, energy specialist at IISD. “Clarity on subsidy allocation is crucial to inform effective policy on tariff and subsidy design.”

“Subsidies play an important role in ensuring electricity affordability, but if they are not well targeted, their large cost can undermine the finances of DISCOMs,” says Sharma. “Urgent reforms are needed to improve the financial health of our energy distributors.”

Press contact:

IISD
Anjali Viswamohanan
[email protected]
 

15 December 2020, Accra – A handbook to guide parliamentarians in creating enabling environments for more and better investments in agriculture and food systems was launched today in Africa by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

To end poverty and hunger by 2030, the world needs an additional USD 265 billion in annual investments, both from the public and private sectors. Of this, USD 140 billion must focus on agriculture. Parliamentarians are key to help direct these investments toward increasing sustainable productivity, raising incomes, creating job opportunities and ultimately lifting the rural poor out of poverty and hunger.

"Parliamentarians can promote responsible public investments, and they can also create a conducive environment for responsible private investments, attracting larger scale agribusiness investors while ensuring safeguards are in place to protect human rights and the environment," FAO’s Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Africa Abebe Haile-Gabriel said.

"Building on more than ten years of work with parliamentarians in Africa, this handbook is a critical contribution to advancing more responsible investment in agriculture, as well as showcasing positive changes in laws and policies around the world," Richard Florizone, the President and CEO of IISD said.

Today’s Africa launch event brought together members of the Pan-African Parliament, the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Parliament, as well as parliamentary advisors and other stakeholders.

Watch the full recording of the event

Africa’s parliamentarians key to sustainable food systems transformation

Agricultural investment is 2.5 to three times more effective in increasing the incomes of the poor than investment in other sectors. However, the negative impacts of poorly planned and executed agricultural investments can outweigh the benefits, for example if the investment results in violations of tenure rights, environmental degradation, and harm to local food security.

Responsible investments in agriculture and food systems: a practical handbook for parliamentarians and parliamentary advisors is an invaluable tool for informing and inspiring parliamentarians on how to mainstream responsible agricultural investments into the public agenda, the legislative process, budgets and oversight of policies.

"It gives me great pleasure to recommend this handbook to all actors and stakeholders concerned about food security, increases in the volume and value of intra-regional agricultural investment and trade, and generating opportunities for economic growth across the West African Sub-region," said Sidie Mohamed Tunis, Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament.

"Parliamentarians are key agents of change who can tackle inequality and increase prosperity for all by creating an enabling environment for better responsible investment in agriculture and food systems. At EALA, we remain committed to the pursuit and realization of food and nutrition security," said Ngoga Karoli Martin, Speaker of the EALA. "I recommend this handbook to all those concerned about the yawning social, economic and environmental gaps in agriculture and food systems."

The handbook helps to transpose into national legal frameworks the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems which were adopted by the Committee on World Food Security in 2014.

Download a copy of the handbook

Media contacts

Zoie Jones, FAO Regional Communications Officer  

Kiranne Guddoy, IISD Communications Officer

Join the conversation on Twitter:

Follow @FAOInvest and @IISD_AG
#ParliamentAction2020 #foodsystems and #responsibleinvestment

Countries plan to increase their fossil fuel production over the next decade, even as research shows that the world needs to decrease production by 6% per year to limit global warming to 1.5°C, according to the 2020 Production Gap Report.

The report, first launched in 2019, measures the gap between Paris Agreement goals and countries’ planned production of coal, oil, and gas. It finds that the “production gap” remains large: countries plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with a 1.5°C temperature limit.

This year’s special issue looks at the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic – and governments’ stimulus and recovery measures – on coal, oil, and gas production. It comes at a potential turning point, as the pandemic prompts unprecedented government action – and as major economies, including China, Japan, and South Korea, have pledged to reach net-zero emissions. 

“This year’s devastating forest fires, floods, and droughts and other unfolding extreme weather events serve as powerful reminders for why we must succeed in tackling the climate crisis. As we seek to reboot economies following the COVID-19 pandemic, investing in low-carbon energy and infrastructure will be good for jobs, for economies, for health, and for clean air,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “Governments must seize the opportunity to direct their economies and energy systems away from fossil fuels, and build back better towards a more just, sustainable, and resilient future.”

The report was produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Overseas Development Institute, E3G, and UNEP. Dozens of researchers contributed to the analysis and review, spanning numerous universities and additional research organizations.

“The research is abundantly clear that we face severe climate disruption if countries continue to produce fossil fuels at current levels, let alone at their planned increases,” said Michael Lazarus, a lead author on the report and the director of SEI’s US Center. “The research is similarly clear on the solution: government policies that decrease both the demand and supply for fossil fuels and support communities currently dependent on them. This report offers steps that governments can take today for a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.”

The report’s main findings include:

• To follow a 1.5°C-consistent pathway, the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6% per year between 2020 and 2030. Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2%, which by 2030 would result in more than double the production consistent with the 1.5°C limit.
• Between 2020 and 2030, global coal, oil, and gas production would have to decline annually by 11%, 4%, and 3%, respectively, to be consistent with the 1.5°C pathway.
• The COVID-19 pandemic – and the “lockdown” measures to halt its spread – have led to short-term drops in coal, oil, and gas production in 2020. But pre-COVID plans and post-COVID stimulus measures point to a continuation of the growing global fossil fuel production gap, risking severe climate disruption.
• To date, G20 governments have committed over US$230 billion in COVID-19 measures to sectors responsible for fossil fuel production and consumption, far more than to clean energy (roughly US$150 billion). Policymakers must reverse this trend to meet climate goals.

“The pandemic-driven demand shock and the plunge of oil prices this year has once again demonstrated the vulnerability of many fossil-fuel-dependent regions and communities. The only way out of this trap is diversification of these economies beyond fossil fuels. Alas, in 2020 we saw many governments doubling down on fossil fuels and entrenching these vulnerabilities even more,” said Ivetta Gerasimchuk, a lead author of the report and the lead for sustainable energy supplies at IISD. “Instead, governments should direct recovery funds towards economic diversification and a transition to clean energy that offers better long-term economic and employment potential. This may be one of the most challenging undertakings of the 21st century, but it’s necessary and achievable.”

The report also delves into how the world can equitably transition away from fossil fuels, with the most rapid wind-down needed from countries that have higher financial and institutional capacity and are less dependent on fossil fuel production. Some of the largest fossil fuel producers in this group, including Australia, Canada and the US, are currently among those pursuing major expansions in fossil fuel supply.

Countries highly dependent on fossil fuels and with limited capacity will need international support to transition equitably, and the report explores ways to facilitate that cooperation.

“Winding down fossil fuel production at a rate in line with Paris goals requires both international cooperation and support,” said SEI Research Fellow Cleo Verkuijl, who is a lead author on the report. “As countries communicate more ambitious climate commitments to the UN climate process ahead of the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, they have the opportunity to incorporate targets and measures to decrease fossil fuel production into these plans, or NDCs.”

The report outlines six areas of action, arming policymakers with options to start winding down fossil fuels as they enact COVID-19 recovery plans. Among other things, they can reduce existing government support for fossil fuels, introduce restrictions on production, and ensure stimulus funds go to green investments (while tying any high-carbon support with conditions that promote long-term alignment with climate goals).

“This report shines a light on how government action, in many cases, risks locking us into fossil-fueled pathways. And it lays out the alternative, with solutions and examples for moving beyond coal, oil, and gas production,” said SEI’s Executive Director, Måns Nilsson. “It’s time to imagine, and plan for, a better future.”
 

For interviews, please contact:

Cleo Verkuijl, Research Fellow, SEI’s Oxford Centre (GMT time zone)
[email protected] +44 7708 928479 @cleoverk

Michael Lazarus, Senior Scientist and Center Director, SEI’s U.S. Center (PST time zone)
[email protected] @mlaz_sei

Ivetta Gerasimchuk, Lead for Sustainable Energy Supplies, IISD’s Geneva office
[email protected] +41 78 672 5691 (WhatsApp) @Ivetta_G

Charlotte Howes, Media Officer, ODI
[email protected], +447808 791 265

Leo Roberts, Research Manager, Coal Diplomacy, E3G
[email protected] +447908 664 334

Keishamaza Rukikaire, Head of News & Media, UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
[email protected], +254 722 677747

November 10, 2020—Despite repeated pledges to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, G20 governments’ support to fossil fuels has dropped by only 9% since 2014–2016, hitting USD 584 billion annually over the last three years, according to a report released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), and Oil Change International (OCI). This marginal progress will likely be undone this year by billions of dollars committed to fossil fuels in response to COVID-19, researchers say.

“G20 governments were already not on track to meet their Paris Agreement commitments on ending public support for fossil fuels before COVID-19,” says Anna Geddes of IISD, lead author of the report Doubling Back and Doubling Down: G20 Scorecard on Fossil Fuel Funding. “Now, disappointingly, they are moving in the opposite direction. G20 funds for fossil fuels are likely on course to remain constant or even trend upwards again in 2020 compared to the last few years where we’ve seen a slight drop in support.”

According to the latest data from the Energy Policy Tracker, G20 governments have given at least USD 233 billion in additional support through recovery measures to fossil fuel-intensive sectors since the pandemic began. In Doubling Back and Doubling Down, researchers considered recent COVID-19 recovery commitments as well as pre-pandemic policies to rank G20 countries' progress in phasing out support to fossil fuels.

They looked at seven indicators: transparency, pledges, public money for coal, oil and gas, fossil fuel-based power (both production and consumption), as well as how support has changed over time. In most countries assessed, the progress made during the last three years was described by experts as “poor” or “very poor,” and no country was considered to have made “good progress” in line with reaching Paris Agreement goals. 

Among the G20 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members, Germany performed best overall in terms of phasing out fossil fuel funding, while Mexico, Turkey, and the United Kingdom ranked equally lowest. Out of the non-OECD G20 countries, Brazil scored highest while Saudi Arabia came in last.

Top scorer Germany got points for transparency, strong commitments, and relatively lower support for oil and gas production and fossil fuel use. The country’s overall support to fossil fuels dropped 35% relative to 2014–2016. Brazil’s relatively good performance was tied to low support for coal production, fossil fuel-based power and consumption, and a reduction in state-owned enterprise investment in fossils. However, “new measures under consideration could soon reverse this progress," Geddes says.

On the other end of the spectrum, the United Kingdom and Turkey rank poorly due to a lack of transparency and large subsidies for fossil fuel use, while Mexico was docked for heavy support for oil and gas production and fossil fuel-based power. Saudi Arabia also continues to heavily support oil and gas production and fossil fuel-based power, mostly through large state-owned enterprise expenditures and low consumer energy prices, researchers report.

“No G20 country is performing as it should, but there are some examples that could be followed,” says Angela Picciariello of ODI. “A true leader would mirror Germany’s transparency and strong pledges and go a step further than Italy with a plan to rapidly phase out not only support for coal but also oil and gas. To be in line with 1.5°C and avoid the worst of the climate crisis, G20 governments should rule out any continued fossil fuel support, in recovery spending or otherwise."

Although this report and other recent data on public COVID-19 commitments indicate that the already slow progress on phasing out fossil fuel funding has now been thrown into reverse, researchers say there are upcoming opportunities for governments to turn the tide. 

“Governments are in the midst of rolling out historic levels of public finance in response to the pandemic. Instead of bankrolling another major crisis—climate change—our governments should invest in a resilient future,”  says Bronwen Tucker of OCI. “We are in a critical window for governments to shift the support currently going to fossil fuels towards public health, social supports, and a just transition to renewable energy.”

“China, Japan, and South Korea’s recently announced net-zero emissions plans and the EU's Green Deal initiative indicate that there is momentum to increase ambition and demonstrate a commitment to climate action,” says Geddes. “The current Finance in Common summit, the G20 summit on November 28 and the Paris Agreement’s fifth anniversary in December are chances to build on these. Although the last three years have shown a lack of progress from governments, we can make the next three years a turning point.”

For media inquiries, please reach out to: 

Paulina Resich, IISD, [email protected]
Charlotte Howes, ODI, [email protected]
Bronwen Tucker, OCI, [email protected]

Winnipeg, MB—The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and Aqua Forum held the AquaHacking Lake Winnipeg 2020 Challenge Final today via live stream.

Five teams of post-secondary students and young professionals from across Canada pitched their tech-based solutions to address urgent freshwater issues including microplastics, water and land management in agriculture, drinking water in remote centres, and watershed investment. A panel of five judges with expertise in business, technology, and water science determined the winners.

“I’m speechless. It’s unbelievable what this competition does and I can’t wait to see what happens going forward with all the teams and with our solution,” says Quinn Desrochers, CEO of winning team Particuleye Technologies. “Thanks to all the sponsors and supporters, and the mentors who answered all our questions and helped us out along the way.”

Overall, the teams received a total of $50,000 in seed funding plus incubator space to launch their start-ups and make a positive impact on the Lake Winnipeg watershed.

The winners are:

1st Place ($20,000): Particuleye Technologies from University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, and Queen’s University, addressing microplastics;

2nd Place ($15,000): LasIR Nutrient Technology from University of Manitoba, addressing water and land management in agriculture;

3rd Place ($10,000): Typha Co. from University of Manitoba, addressing watershed investment;

4th Place ($2,500): Water Secure from University of Regina, addressing drinking water in remote centres;

5th Place ($2,500): AbbaTek Group from University of Manitoba and Memorial University of Newfoundland, addressing the issue of microplastics

“I’m so proud of the work our finalist teams put into this Challenge and we at IISD are delighted by the results,” said Jane McDonald, IISD’s Executive Vice President.

“It’s been impressive to watch these youth continue to invest their time, energy, and talent into coming up with innovative solutions to some of the toughest problems plaguing Lake Winnipeg—and they did so amidst a global pandemic! We are confident these teams will continue to make a splash as leaders in the water sector for future generations.”

“Congratulations to all the finalists in the 2020 Lake Winnipeg AquaHacking Challenge!” said Désirée McGraw, President & CEO of Aqua Forum, the organization which oversees the AquaHacking Challenge.

“I salute your commitment to a better future by solving wicked water problems in Canada. We are certain that this is only the beginning of your journey as entrepreneurs and positive disruptors in the water sector. Thank you to everyone that has collaborated toward the success of our first-ever Aquahacking Challenge in the Prairies.  I want to underscore what a pleasure it has been to work with our partner and host, the nationally-respected and globally-renowned International Institute for Sustainable Development.”

To watch the recording of the event, click here.

A program with more information on the teams, their solutions, and more can be found here and you can find a backgrounder on the competition below.

Special thanks to the sponsors and partners of the AquaHacking Lake Winnipeg 2020 Challenge: De Gaspe Beaubien Foundation, RBC Foundation, Lavery Lawyers, Ovivo, Mitacs, IBM, Government of Manitoba, The Winnipeg Foundation, Johnston Group, Canada Life, Eco Canada, James Richardson & Sons, Ltd., The North West Company, Manitoba Technology Accelerator, Economic Development Winnipeg, North Forge, Taylor & McCaffrey LLP, and Aqua Forum.

-30-

For more information and to arrange an interview with the winners, contact:

Sumeep Bath Communications Manager, IISD Experimental Lakes Area

[email protected]

(204) 958-770 ext. 740

Laurence Basso Communications Coordinator, Aqua Forum

[email protected]

(514) 254-9611   

Johannesburg, October 13—South African government subsidies not only result in higher fuel costs for consumers, but they also help to prop up one of the world’s biggest polluters, according to new research from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

In their policy brief, The Role of Subsidies in South Africa’s Coal-Based Liquid Fuel Sector, IISD experts estimate that coal-based fuels produced by Sasol’s Secunda Plant received in excess of ZAR 8 billion in total government support during 2019. The Secunda plant is South Africa’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter after Eskom and the single-biggest point source of greenhouse gases in the world.

Of this support, Sasol received approximately ZAR 1.55 billion in direct subsidies through the Basic Fuel Price, a regulated price paid to producers of petroleum and synthetic fuels. This subsidy is responsible for 3.7% of Sasol’s total revenue from energy operations.

On top of this, the company received a further subsidy of over ZAR 6.5 billion due to exemptions from the Carbon Tax Act 15 of 2019 that permits Sasol to emit 302 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2016 and 2020. Under these exemptions, Sasol pays no tax on more than 90% of its emissions.

Richard Bridle, Senior Policy Advisor at IISD, says that this subsidy would provide much greater benefits to the public if it were spent on policies that are aligned with social or economic priorities, such as improving public transport, targeting support at vulnerable groups, or simply reducing the price of fuel.

“Because of the way fuels are priced in South Africa, consumers are forced to prop up Sasol every time they fill up their tank,” says Bridle. “It doesn’t matter if you take a taxi, a bus, or drive your own car, for every ZAR 100.00 that you spend on synfuel, ZAR 5.00 goes to Sasol. Synfuels make up around 30% of all gasoline sold in South Africa.”

These subsidies distort the market and lock in coal consumption in the transportation sector, the report shows.

“South Africa’s reliance on coal is already badly polluting local air in several cities. Subsidising Sasol adds to the pollution burden and hurts consumers,” says Mostafa Mostafa, Policy Advisor, IISD.

Sasol faces an uncertain future as a result of rising costs, falling share price, and a debt crunch that resulted in the company being downgraded to “junk” status by Moody’s Investor Service earlier this year.

Sasol has applied for various postponements to meet new plant environmental standards by 2025. According to The Life After Coal Campaign , the South African government proposed doubling the new emission limits on sulphur. And Sasol is a greenhouse gas emissions giant in South Africa—in 2018, its greenhouse emissions were more than the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s next 30 biggest emitters combined.

“In some cases, well-designed subsidies may be justified if they are put in place for good reasons, like increasing energy access or reducing pollution,” says Mostafa. “But here, subsidies are having the opposite effect on both fronts: they lessen the incentive for Sasol and other major polluters to reduce carbon emissions while increasing prices for consumers.”

The experts recommend that:

The Ministry of Transport in South Africa focus on aligning energy policy with social and environmental objectives. This will promote a shift to cleaner energy sources and gradually reform pricing policies to stop subsidies to domestic petroleum refining at the expense of South African consumers.

The Carbon Tax Act 15 of 2019 be enforced by 2020 to adhere to the “polluter pays” principle. This should apply fairly to all companies operating in the liquid fuel industry that have previously been exempted from a carbon tax, including Sasol.

Data behind all figures published by Sasol be made publicly available so they can be critically reviewed. In the absence of transparency, IISD’s experts estimated market price support based on the cost of procuring equivalent fuels via imports.

Media contact:

Paulina Resich, Media & Communications Officer
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
email: [email protected]
phone: +33620571517

If donors double their investments and spend the money wisely, they could help end hunger by 2030, a coalition of research groups said in a call-to-action ahead of World Food Day. Donors must spend an additional USD 14 bn a year between now and 2030, roughly double what they currently spend on aid for food security and nutrition, according to new research from the Centre for Development Research (ZEF), Cornell University, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Maximo Torero, Chief Economist at FAO, said: "The world produces enough food to feed everyone. So it’s unacceptable that 690 million people are undernourished, 2 billion don’t have regular access to sufficient amounts of safe, nutritious food, and 3 billion people cannot afford healthy diets. If rich countries double their aid commitments and help poor countries to prioritize, properly target and scale up cost effective interventions on agricultural R&D, technology, innovation, education, social protection and on trade facilitation, we can end hunger by 2030."

The call-to-action represents a coming together of two projects—Ceres2030: Sustainable Solutions to End Hunger, led by Cornell, IFPRI and IISD, and joint research from FAO and ZEF. Both sets of findings will be presented at an event on 13 October hosted by the German government, where donors are expected to pledge money to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP).

Ceres2030 and FAO-ZEF used different methodologies but arrived at the same conclusion: donors should double their spending. Ceres2030 built a computable general equilibrium (CGE) economic model to assess the best way to end hunger sustainably, in line with the second UN Sustainable Development Goal. 

David Laborde, Senior Research Fellow at IFPRI, said: "We found that if donors double their aid, alongside poorer countries also increasing spending from their own budgets, then by the end of the decade we could end hunger, double the incomes of 545 million small-scale farmers, and limit agricultural emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement."

Joachim von Braun, Director of ZEF and Chair of the Scientific Group that advises the UN on the upcoming Food Systems Summit, said: "Our study shows that an additional USD 39-50 billion per annum is needed to end hunger by 2030, as envisaged by the second Sustainable Development Goal. To make good on the promise that G7 countries made in Elmau in 2015 to lift 500 million people out of hunger, donors must spend an additional USD 11 to 14 billion per annum, which is about double their current aid spending on food security. This investment must contribute to long-term development and sustainability."

Ceres2030 also developed a groundbreaking new AI machine-learning tool, described in a paper in Nature Machine Intelligence, which was used by a young, female-led team of over 70 researchers from 23 countries to answer eight research questions covering areas such as water scarcity and employment for the future. The findings were published in a new collection of eight peer-reviewed journal articles in Nature Research, which show how governments can best target their spending to end hunger, whilst also increasing the incomes of smallholder farmers and reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment. 

Jaron Porciello, Associate Director at Cornell University, said: "We used our new AI tool to analyze half a million articles from the last 20 years. The tool helped us identify the 10,000 most relevant articles, from which we could then draw valuable conclusions about what works to end hunger. This approach could be replicated to build a scientific evidence base for many of the world’s most complex policy problems. We urge governments to use our findings to ensure their aid spending is as effective as possible."

The Ceres2030 and FAO-ZEF studies both recommend that donors make interventions evidence-based and designed to support each other, including investing in agricultural R&D, supporting social protection programs that provide food or cash to those in aid, and driving inclusion, such as through improving female literacy and providing training for rural youth. Spending should focus on where need is greatest—primarily sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Carin Smaller, Director of Agriculture, Trade and Investment at IISD, said: "This is a call to action. If rich countries double their aid commitments on food security and nutrition, the end of hunger will be within reach. With just 10 years to go to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we need a concerted, coordinated effort—led by evidence and fueled by adequate funding. Our five organisations have provided donors with the evidence they need to end hunger sustainably, now it’s time to act."

For more information about the research, or to arrange an interview, contact: 

• Ceres2030: Jon Date, [email protected] / +44 (0) 7533 011983
• FAO: Kimberly Sullivan, [email protected]
• ZEF: [email protected]

You may also wish to contact Nature Research for more information or to view their press release:

• Nature Research: Bex Walton, [email protected]  / +44 (0)7816 450031

Notes to editors

• Ceres2030, ZEF and FAO have published a joint policy paper to explain the differences in methodologies between the two sets of economic modelling, which can be shared with journalists under embargo on request.
• Ceres2030: Sustainable Solutions to End Hunger is a partnership between Cornell University, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The project is funded by the German Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to build the evidence needed to inform effective global action to achieve SDG 2, zero hunger.
• Ceres2030's new research is being released across a number of different reports and articles:
  • An overall findings summary paper
  • A new special collection of peer-reviewed articles, published in Nature Research journals. This includes eight new evidence syntheses (on: Employment for the future; Reducing food loss; Vibrant food systems; Climate-resilient plants; Livestock feed solutions; Water-scarce solutions; Policies for sustainable practices; Farmers’ organisations), and two further ‘Perspective’ articles.
  • A new report on Ceres2030's new economic modelling.
• Research being published by ZEF/FAO includes:
  • Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Investment Costs and Policy Action Opportunities for Reaching a World without Hunger (SDG 2), Bonn and Rome, Oct 2020.
  • ZEF and Akademiya2063. 2020. From Potentials to Reality—Transforming Africa’s Food Production, Bonn and Dakar. Oct. 2020.

Today, the NEWPCC Project Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from both the city and the province tasked with implementing interim phosphorus reduction to improve the health of Lake Winnipeg, released an updated plan.

Continued urgency from both governments is needed to meet their 2019 commitments to accelerate phosphorus reduction to improve the health of Lake Winnipeg.

Previous deadlines to meet the NEWPCC’s phosphorus licence limit of 1 milligram per litre (1 mg/L) have not been met while algal blooms worsen in Lake Winnipeg. According to today’s updated plan, actual commitments to reduce phosphorus are still pending.

As members of the NEWPCC Project Advisory Committee, we have identified two concrete opportunities to tackle the treatment plant’s steadily increasing phosphorus loads and protect Lake Winnipeg well before long-term upgrades are slated to be complete:

• By April 2022, implement the recommended interim phosphorus solution to reduce phosphorus concentrations as much as possible within the constraints of the plant’s existing infrastructure;
• By January 2021, commit to designing NEWPCC’s new biosolids facility to address existing constraints and optimize the interim solution, ensuring that compliance with the 1 mg/L phosphorus limit is achieved no later than 2028 when biosolids construction is complete.

LWF, IISD and LWIC remain committed to our roles as advisors throughout this process. This role includes maintaining transparency and accountability, and communicating outcomes to the public. In this role, we stress that as a licensee under Manitoba’s Environment Act, the City of Winnipeg must operate the NEWPCC in a manner that safeguards our province’s lakes and rivers. As provincial regulator, the Government of Manitoba has the responsibility to enforce compliance with the licenses it issues.

The Problem: Excess phosphorus is harming Lake Winnipeg

Research from IISD Experimental Lakes Area has taught us that excessive amounts of phosphorus drive the growth of potentially toxic algal blooms (a process called eutrophication) in freshwater ecosystems, such as Lake Winnipeg.

Since the NEWPCC began operating in the 1930s, First Nations and other communities on the shores of Lake Winnipeg have directly experienced the consequences of its phosphorus pollution. The eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg is not a new environmental challenge, but it is an increasingly urgent one. Improving the health of this ecologically, economically, and culturally important freshwater resource requires phosphorus reduction from all sources across the watershed.

The NEWPCC is the single largest “point source” of phosphorus to Lake Winnipeg. Localized, concentrated point sources of phosphorus – like NEWPCC – are the easiest to identify, quantify and address through the implementation of proven technical solutions.

Total phosphorus concentrations at the NEWPCC are routinely three times higher than the provincial licence limit set in 2005, which states that phosphorus levels in the facility’s effluent must not exceed 1 mg/L. The first deadline for compliance with the phosphorus limit was Dec. 31, 2014; this was subsequently extended to Dec. 31, 2019. Today, the NEWPCC remains non-compliant with its phosphorus licence limit.

The Solution: Implement interim phosphorus removal – then optimize it

LWF, IISD and LWIC have been advocating for a phosphorus-removal process at the NEWPCC called chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT). This process is widely used in jurisdictions across North America to reduce phosphorus loading and protect freshwater ecosystems; dozens of municipalities around the Great Lakes have employed variations of CEPT to achieve phosphorus limits of 1 mg/L.

Despite CEPT’s success in other jurisdictions, today’s updated plan suggests that the process can only lower total phosphorus concentration in NEWPCC effluent by 23 per cent, from 3.5 mg/L down to 2.7 mg/L. While this falls short of the phosphorus reduction required at the NEWPCC, it is a necessary first step to addressing the environmental impact of the treatment plant.

The updated plan says that the NEWPCC currently doesn’t have enough biosolids capacity to optimize CEPT and meet the phosphorus limit. Biosolids, also called sludge, are a by-product of wastewater treatment; phosphorus-removal processes like CEPT concentrate phosphorus within sludge, keeping it out of the liquid effluent which is discharged into local waterways. This increases the volume of sludge produced.

If sludge capacity currently limits the effectiveness of CEPT, then the NEWPCC’s new biosolids facility should be built to address this limitation, so that the plant can achieve phosphorus compliance as soon as possible by optimizing the CEPT process.

LWF is an environmental, non-governmental organization advocating for change and coordinating action to improve the health of Lake Winnipeg. Learn more.

LWIC is a collective voice for First Nations around Lake Winnipeg. Learn more.

Ranchi, October 1 — Better-off households in Jharkhand receive more than twice the share of government electricity subsidies collected by poor households, as revealed in a survey of over 900 households released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Initiative for Sustainable Energy Policy (ISEP).

In both rural and urban areas, the richest two-fifths of households received at least 60% of electricity subsidies, while the poorest two-fifths received only 25%.

The statewide survey could represent a larger trend in India, where residential electricity subsidies are skewed toward non-poor households.

“Energy access is vital for development, and subsidies are provided so that electricity is affordable. But our research shows that it’s the poorest who are receiving the smallest benefits,” says study co-author Shruti Sharma of IISD. “This doesn’t make sense—there’s an opportunity to improve equity here.”

In FY2019, India’s subsidies for electricity consumption amounted to at least INR 110,391 crore (USD 15.6 billion). According to the report, How to Target Residential Electricity Subsidies in India: Step 2. Evaluating Policy Options in the State of Jharkhand, electricity subsidies in Jharkhand vary between INR 1 and INR 4.25 per kWh, depending on the type of household and amount of energy used—but every kWh consumed receives some amount of government support. Since wealthier households can afford to consume more, they capture a larger share of the benefits.

“According to this model, those consuming more than 800 kWh per month can receive up to four times more government support than those who use below 50 kWh,” says Shruti Sharma.

Researchers note that the unfair distribution of energy subsidies is a pervasive problem internationally, and, since many other Indian state governments have tariff and subsidy structures similar to Jharkhand, this issue is likely widespread. The experts highlight that the lack of good data on targeting electricity subsidies is a major knowledge gap across the country. To make support for energy access more fair for poor households, researchers say, the government must fill that gap.

To improve the system, they recommend that state electricity departments in India should rationalize subsidies for rich households and target government support to poor households. This approach could even allow support for the poorest to be increased, the study indicates.

The report provides specific recommendations for governments based on the Jharkhand study.

In the short term, the researchers recommend a highly cautious approach, given the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on citizens: removing the subsidy only for households consuming more than 300 kWh of electricity per month. Once the economy begins to recover, the report says, governments should progressively reduce subsidies for blocks between 50 kWh and 200 kWh per month and exclude households that do not hold poverty ration cards.

With these reforms, the Jharkhand electricity distribution company (DISCOM) could free up INR 306 crore (USD 44 million). Savings could be redirected to improve electricity supply, support poor households consuming less than 50kWh per month, or assist with recovery from COVID-19.

For other states in India, the report recommends finding context-specific solutions with similar analysis of who benefits most from electricity subsidies and by testing different targeting strategies. Experts say this would allow states to improve targeting of subsidies without compromising energy access and affordability. They should also work together with state government agencies that maintain registries of the poor, researchers suggest, to make sure energy access policies align with accurate data on household wealth. 

“People across India have been hit hard by the economic shock of COVID-19. It is more pressing than ever to ask: are the right people receiving government support?” says Christopher Beaton, the project lead at IISD. “And could we do a better job at focusing support on the people who really need help the most?”

Note for the editors: The measurement of poverty in Jharkhand is based on a deprivation index; according to that, in FY 2016, 46.5% of the population was poor. Based on this poverty rate and monthly expenditure data of surveyed households, the lowest two quintiles capture the majority of the population that is defined as poor by state definitions.

सर्वाधिक गरीब परिवारों के मुकाबले बिजली सब्सिडी का दोगुने से ज्‍यादा का फायदा ले रहे हैं खुशहाल लोग – अध्‍ययन

शोधकर्ताओं ने कहा- सुधारात्‍मक कदम उठाए जाएं तो बचेंगे 306 करोड़ रुपये और तंत्र भी ज्‍यादा समानतापूर्ण बनेगा।

1 अक्टूबर 2020 : झारखंड में राज्य सरकार द्वारा गरीब परिवारों को दी जा रही बिजली सब्सिडी का दोगुने से ज्यादा फायदा संपन्न परिवारों की झोली में जा रहा है। इंटरनेशनल इंस्टीट्यूट फॉर सस्टेनेबल डेवलपमेंट (आईआईएसडी) और इनिशिएटिव फॉर सस्टेनेबल एनर्जी पॉलिसी (आईएसईपी) द्वारा आज जारी किए गए सर्वे में यह तथ्य सामने आया है 

करीब 900 परिवारों पर किए गए इस सर्वे के मुताबिक शहरी और ग्रामीण दोनों ही इलाकों में बिजली पर दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी में से कम से कम 60% हिस्सा अमीरों (रिचेस्ट टू फिफ्थ) के पास पहुंच रहा है वहीं सिर्फ 25% भाग गरीबों (पुअरेस्ट टू फिफ्थ) के पास जा रहा है। 

झारखंड में किए गए इस सर्वे से पूरे भारत की बड़ी तस्वीर का अंदाजा लगाया जा सकता है, जहां घरेलू बिजली पर दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी उन परिवारों तक पहुंच रही है जो गरीब नहीं हैं।

इस अध्ययन की सह लेखिका और आईआईएसडी से जुड़ी श्रुति शर्मा ने कहा ‘‘विकास के लिए हर किसी को बिजली की उपलब्धता जरूरी है और सभी लोग बिजली खरीद सकें, इसके लिए सब्सिडी दी जाती है,  लेकिन हमारा अध्ययन यह जाहिर करता है कि सबसे गरीब परिवार को सबसे कम फायदा मिल रहा है। ऐसी सब्सिडी का कोई फायदा नहीं। इस मामले में समानता लाने के लिए व्यवस्था को बेहतर बनाने की पूरी गुंजाइश है।’’

वित्तीय वर्ष 2019 में भारत में कम से कम 110391 करोड़ रुपए (15 अरब 60 करोड़ डॉलर) बिजली पर सब्सिडी के रूप में दिए गए। 'हाउ टू टारगेट रेजिडेंशियल इलेक्ट्रिसिटी सब्सिडीज इन इंडिया : स्टेप टू. इवेलुएटिंग पॉलिसी ऑप्शंस इन द स्टेट ऑफ झारखंड' शीर्षक वाली इस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक झारखंड में बिजली पर दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी प्रति किलोवाट 1 रुपए से लेकर 4 रुपये 25 पैसे के बीच है। यह इस पर निर्भर करता है कि घर में कितनी बिजली का इस्तेमाल किया जा रहा है। मगर खर्च किए जाने वाले प्रत्येक किलोवाट में कुछ धनराशि सरकारी सहयोग के तौर पर शामिल होती है क्योंकि खुशहाल परिवार ज्यादा बिजली का इस्तेमाल करने में सक्षम होते हैं लिहाजा वे सब्सिडी के तौर पर दिए जाने वाले लाभ का एक बड़ा हिस्सा हासिल कर लेते हैं।

श्रुति शर्मा के मुताबिक इस मॉडल के अनुसार जो परिवार 800 किलोवाट प्रति माह से ज्यादा बिजली खर्च करते हैं उन्हें 50 किलो वाट से कम बिजली खपत वाले लोगों को दी जाने वाली सरकारी सब्सिडी की सहायता के मुकाबले 4 गुना ज्यादा फायदा मिलता है।

अध्ययनकर्ताओं ने यह माना कि बिजली पर दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी के असमानता पूर्ण वितरण की समस्या पूरी दुनिया में व्याप्त है और चूंकि भारत के कई अन्य राज्यों में बिजली शुल्क दरें और सब्सिडी का ढांचा झारखंड से ही मिलता जुलता है इसलिए इस बात की पूरी संभावना है कि देश के अन्य राज्यों में भी यह समस्या मौजूद हो। विशेषज्ञों ने इस बात को रेखांकित किया है कि ऊर्जा सब्सिडी को वास्तविक रुप से जाहिर करने के लिए सटीक आंकड़ों की कमी के कारण पूरे देश में एक बड़ा नॉलेज गैप बन चुका है। शोधकर्ताओं का मानना है कि गरीब परिवारों को बेहतर ढंग से बिजली पहुंचाने में मदद के लिए सरकार को यह अंतर खत्म करना होगा।

शोधकर्ताओं का सुझाव है के तंत्र में सुधार करने के लिए भारत के विभिन्न राज्यों के बिजली विभागों को खुशहाल परिवारों को दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी को अधिक समानतापूर्ण बनाना चाहिए और गरीब परिवारों को सब्सिडी का समुचित लाभ उपलब्ध कराने की दिशा में काम करना चाहिए। इससे गरीबों को दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी में बढ़ोत्‍तरी करना भी मुमकिन हो सकेगा।

झारखंड में किए गए अध्ययन के आधार पर इस रिपोर्ट में सरकारों के लिए कुछ सुनिश्चित सुझाव दिए गए हैं।

शोधकर्ताओं का सुझाव है कि कोविड-19 महामारी के नागरिकों पर पड़ने वाले असर को देखते हुए अल्पकाल में बेहद सतर्कतापूर्ण रवैया अपनाना होगा और सिर्फ उन्हीं घरों की सब्सिडी खत्म करनी होगी जो हर महीने 300 किलोवाट से ज्यादा बिजली खर्च करते हैं। रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि अर्थव्यवस्था में सुधार की शुरुआत होने पर सरकार को 50 किलोवाट से लेकर 200 किलो वाट प्रतिमाह बिजली खर्च करने वालों वाले परिवारों को दी जाने वाली सब्सिडी में कटौती करनी चाहिए और उन उपभोक्ताओं को सब्सिडी के लाभार्थी लोगों की सूची से हटा देना चाहिए जिनके पास बीपीएल राशन कार्ड नहीं है।

इन सुधारात्मक कदमों से झारखंड की बिजली वितरण कंपनियां 306 करोड़ रुपए बचा सकती हैं। इस बचत का इस्तेमाल बिजली आपूर्ति में सुधार करने, प्रतिमाह 50 किलोवॉट से कम बिजली खर्च करने वाले गरीब परिवारों की मदद करने या फिर कोविड-19 से हुए नुकसान की भरपाई में मदद के लिए किया जा सकता है।

रिपोर्ट में भारत के अन्य राज्यों के लिए सुझाव दिया गया है कि सरकारें यह पता लगाएं कि बिजली सब्सिडी से सबसे ज्यादा फायदा किसको हो रहा है। इसके अलावा ऐसी ही अन्य लक्ष्यपूर्ण रणनीतियां अपनाकर काम करना होगा। विशेषज्ञों ने कहा कि इससे राज्य सरकारों को ऊर्जा की उपलब्धता और उसके किफायतीपन से समझौता किए बगैर सब्सिडी के ढांचे को बेहतर बनाने में मदद मिलेगी। इसके लिए राज्य सरकार की विभिन्न एजेंसियों के साथ मिलकर काम किया जाना चाहिए जो गरीबों की रजिस्ट्री के मामले देखती हैं ताकि नीतियों को उपभोक्ता परिवार की माली हालत को देखते हुए सटीक आंकड़ों पर आधारित बनाया जा सके।

आईआईएसडी के प्रोजेक्ट प्रमुख क्रिस्टोफर बीटन ने कहा ‘‘कोविड-19 महामारी के कारण अर्थव्यवस्था को लगे झटके का असर पूरे देश के लोगों पर पड़ा है, लिहाजा यह सवाल पहले से कहीं ज्यादा अहम हो जाता है कि क्या सरकारी मदद उसके वास्तविक हकदारों तक पहुंच रही है या नहीं, और क्या हम सही मायनों में जरूरतमंद लोगों की मदद पर ध्यान केंद्रित कर पा रहे हैं?

संपादकों के लिए नोट

झारखंड में गरीबी का पैमाना अपवंचन सूचकांक (डिप्राइवेशन इंडेक्स) पर आधारित है। इसके मुताबिक वित्तीय वर्ष 2016 में राज्य की 46.5% आबादी गरीब थी। गरीबी की इस दर और सर्वे के दायरे में लिए गए घरों के महीने के खर्च संबंधी आंकड़ों के आधार पर सबसे कम दो पंचमक (क्विनटाइल) के बराबर का हिस्सा झारखंड की आबादी के बड़े भाग को खुद में शामिल करता है। इस आबादी को राज्य सरकार की परिभाषा में गरीब के तौर पर प्रस्तुत किया गया है।