Subsidies for electricity consumption are the largest of all of India’s quantified support for energy: direct tariff subsidies from state and union territory (UT) governments amounted to INR 110,391 crore (USD 15.6 billion) in fiscal year (FY) 2019. The report authors estimate that cross-subsidies added at least another INR 75,027 crore (USD 10.2 billion). Rising electricity subsidies are indicative of poor performance by electricity distribution companies (DISCOMs) with regard to the Ujjwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana (UDAY) scheme, a central government bailout that required them to improve financial performance by 2019.

DISCOM finance trends show indicators moving in the wrong direction:

• Sales revenue as a share of total expenditure has fallen 3% from FY 2016 to FY 2019, despite the fact that UDAY required DISCOMs to increase revenue recovery. In FY 2019, 24 of 31 states and UTs had a revenue gap.
• 19 of 31 states and UTs have a higher cost of supply than in FY 2016. Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim are the jurisdictions where FY 2019 costs are significantly lower.
• Most states and UTs have not reduced billing losses in line with targets. Under UDAY, states had to reduce “aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses” to 15% by FY 2019. Poor collection is typically the biggest contributor to these losses. In FY 2019, only 6 of 31 states and UTs had met this target.

In different states, subsidy outcomes are moving in different directions, but there are common challenges with tariff design and cross-subsidies across states:

• A PFC report shows that 24 states and UTs provided direct tariff subsidies in FY 2019. In 12, there has been an increase in subsidies as a share of total expenses since FY 2016; in seven, there was a decrease; and in five, the subsidy share remained constant. Among the jurisdictions with decreasing dependence, only one (Himachal Pradesh) had no revenue gap, indicating true progress. 
• Nationally, agricultural consumers were allotted 75% of total subsidies, followed by domestic consumers at 20% and industries at 4%. Only four states (Delhi, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh) have specified subsidy support for a fixed number of units. In every year from FY 2016 to FY 2019, at least seven states and UTs had not transferred the full subsidy amounts to DISCOMs by the end of the financial year.
• No state or UT billed consumers within the National Tariff Policy target range of +/-20% of the average cost of supply (ACoS). In 12 of 31, both industrial and commercial users were charged over 120% of ACoS, and both domestic and agricultural users were charged less than 80%.

Recommendations in the report to improve policy-making on subsidy allocation and targeting can be implemented only if transparency and data reporting are considerably improved:

• Only 13 states and UTs with subsidies clearly report subsidy data, with only seven reporting on subsidies by category. Further, data on 15 states and UTs show significant variation depending on the source of reporting (PFC or state documentation such as tariff orders.

While the report shares some immediate impacts of COVID-19—shown in this report with recent point-in-time statistics—many effects will be felt in our community for years to come. In this report, we focus on 14 Peg indicators we think will eventually reflect those longer-term impacts. Collectively, these indicators provide a baseline measure of Winnipeg’s well-being when we entered the pandemic. We hope by highlighting potential long-term impacts, we will inspire people to act to lessen the severity of these effects.

Our reports only give a snapshot of the information available on the Peg website (mypeg.ca).

The handbook provides a catalogue of prescriptions, through guidance notes, examples of good practices, and very practical indications that members of parliament and parliamentary advisors can use to create a reliable, coherent, and transparent “enabling environment” in several areas related to investment in agriculture and food systems. It sets out key stages of processes and mechanisms for MPs and advisors to consider while promoting responsible investment in agriculture and food systems

This report highlights the discrepancy between countries’ planned fossil fuel production levels and the global levels necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. This gap is large, with countries aiming to produce 120% more fossil fuels by 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated response measures have introduced new uncertainties to the production gap. While global fossil fuel production will decline sharply this year, government stimulus and recovery measures will shape our climate future: they could prompt a return to pre-COVID production trajectories that lock in severe climate disruption, or they could set the stage for a managed wind-down of fossil fuels as part of a “build back better” effort.

This special issue of the Production Gap Report looks at how conditions have changed since last year, what this means for the production gap, and how governments can set the stage for a long-term, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.

Healthy and resilient ecosystems are recognized in various international bodies and agendas, including the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Specifically, ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) as a nature-based solution is gaining importance since it recognizes that ecosystem services help reduce communities’ vulnerability to climate change. EbA can generate social and economic returns and provide multiple benefits—including improved health, biodiversity protection, food security, and alternative livelihood opportunities, all of which can build resilience to climate change.

National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes present a strategic opportunity to raise the profile of EbA approaches, providing a framework—and, potentially, financial resources—for implementation at scale. Based on this , the NAP Global Network undertook an review of 19 NAP documents to better understand the extent to which EbA, as a tool for adaptation, has been taken up in NAP processes. This analysis highlights the extent of integration and identification of ecosystems and EbA into NAPs, trends in how EbA was incorporated, and opportunities to strengthen the profile and quality of EbA.

Estimated at USD 478 billion in 2019, fossil fuel subsidies strain the public purse, contribute to climate change, slow the uptake of renewable energy, and lead to local air pollution and associated impacts on public health. Their reform could thus lead to a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental benefits.

As the only global institution with binding rules to regulate subsidies, the World Trade Organization (WTO) would seem well positioned to support such reform. For this to happen, however, something would need to change. In contrast with measures to support renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidies have so far remained largely unchallenged under the global trade body’s dispute settlement mechanism.

Against this backdrop, this report explores whether WTO rules and practices are fit for purpose in addressing fossil fuel subsidies and encouraging the clean energy transition. While some fossil fuel support measures could be challenged under the WTO’s existing subsidy rules, the report highlights that there are important strategic, political, and legal–evidentiary hurdles that limit this possibility. It also emphasizes that the WTO’s disciplines are squarely focused on the trade effects of subsidies, leaving environmental concerns unaddressed.

The report suggests ways to strengthen the WTO’s role in supporting fossil fuel subsidy reform and the clean energy transition. In particular, WTO members should: (1) boost transparency around public support to fossil fuels, (2) better enforce the WTO’s existing subsidy rules, and (3) start an informal dialogue with a view to establishing new, stronger rules on fossil fuel subsidies. More research would also be needed on the trade impacts and legality of fossil fuel support measures, as well as on how new rules could best be crafted.

Allow us to present this activity book that will have you puzzling, chuckling, and even experimenting with your friends and family—all while learning more about the world’s freshwater laboratory’s 52nd glorious trip around the sun.

Despite various commitments since 2009 to end government support for fossil fuels and make “finance flows consistent with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development” (Paris Agreement, Article 2.1c), G20 governments continued to provide significant support to fossil fuels in 2017–2019. G20 governments provided $584 billion annually (2017–2019 average) via direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures, price support, public finance, and state-owned enterprise investment for the production and consumption of fossil fuels at home and abroad.

The sustainability assessment consists of the following steps:

1. Valuing, in financial terms, the environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits (externalities) caused by the two energy generation assets.
2. Assessing the potential costs induced by climate change risks and how the implied costs affect the financial performance of the energy generation assets if those risks materialize. Air temperature increase (physical climate risk) and the introduction of a carbon tax (transitional climate risk) were assessed as climate risks.
3. Integrating the valued externalities and climate risk-related costs into the three components of the assessment:

• Cost-benefit analysis.
• Calculation of the levelized cost of electricity.
• Financial analysis, calculating performance results for the equity and project internal rate of return of both assets.

The results across the three assessment components demonstrate that the wind portfolio is the more climate resilient and more profitable investment choice as well as the more beneficial (less costly) energy generation asset from a societal point of view.

While soybeans will continue to be an important commodity for the foreseeable future, the sector faces critical sustainability challenges related to deforestation, biodiversity loss, excessive use of herbicides, and human rights violations.

This report, part of IISD's Sustainable Commodities Marketplace Series, examines the growth and potential for VSSs to mitigate some of soybean production's worst environmental and social impacts.