There’s no question that abandoning fossil fuel subsidies will benefit the economy and the planet, but as protests in Ecuador show, reforms require careful design and considerate execution in order to look after the vulnerable and get citizens on board.

We know fossil fuel subsidies are costly, inefficient and environmentally harmful. There is a compelling case to put a stop to them. But to do so effectively isn’t as easy as drafting new legislation, announcing the change and sitting back to a round of applause. If done too hastily, scrapping such subsidies can lead to widespread political unrest, as has been the case this month in Ecuador. President Moreno has witnessed firsthand that, in order to get citizens on board with such reforms, there must be a foundation of trust, along with a clear plan to protect vulnerable segments of the population and, ideally, to phase in the reforms gradually.

What happened in Ecuador?

On October 1, Moreno’s government announced the rapid removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel as part of a larger austerity package (el paquetazo) initiated by the government in response to an International Monetary Fund loan from February 2019 that is conditional on fiscal reforms. The removal of these subsidies alone were estimated to result in savings of around of USD 1.4 billion per year.

One immediate effect of the subsidy reform was a significant hike in fuel prices, with gasoline prices increasing by 25 per cent and diesel prices roughly doubling. This sparked a wave of public outrage over Decreto 883, marked by 12 days of violent protests, which at one point led the government to move out of its capital city, Quito.

While it may be tempting to associate fossil fuel subsidy reform with protest, it is important to acknowledge this is not the usual outcome

While the protests were initiated by transportation workers, Indigenous groups from the Amazon and the Andes took on a leading role. Not only are Indigenous Peoples from rural areas especially vulnerable to an increase in transportation fuels for buses, cars and tractors, some may also cling to low fuel prices as the only tangible benefit they have seen from oil drilling and other forms of resource extraction in their homelands.

After negotiations with the Indigenous Nations Confederation on the weekend of October 12 and 13, mediated by the United Nations, Moreno cancelled Decreto 883 and agreed to reinstall fossil fuel subsidies.
 

A familiar story?

The situation in Ecuador is just one example of how reforms to fossil fuel subsidies and energy prices can, if done too hastily, trigger citizen-led protests. In France, President Macron’s attempt to increase fuel taxes was met with the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement. The persistent large-scale protests in 2018 and 2019 prompted the French leader to first suspend and eventually cancel the environmentally minded price reform. In 2017, Mexican protestors took to the streets to protest el gasolinazo, an abrupt 20 per cent hike in diesel and gas prices. The backlash over the Mexican government’s subsidy reform caused economic disruptions, blockades and violent demonstrations.

But while it may be tempting to associate fossil fuel subsidy reform with protest, government instability and eventual backtracking on the new policy, it is important to acknowledge this is not the usual outcome. 50 countries across the globe successfully reformed at least part of their fossil fuel subsidies between 2015 and 2018; this shows that, on the whole, governments are learning how to design and implement reform policies that stick.

How can fossil fuel subsidy reform be successfully implemented?

1. Create visible and effective compensation packages

Most importantly, governments must prepare for reforms by first organizing and implementing social welfare programs that compensate for the impending hike in energy prices and can be targeted at those who need them most. Social welfare systems already in place can be supplemented to further cushion the effects.

A major review of the political economy of subsidy reforms highlights that improvements in social protection systems are critical to the success of reforms. In order to harness public support for the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, social compensation programs should be implemented alongside or even prior to reforms. This might have been one of the faults of President Moreno’s reform package for Ecuador, which promised welfare payments for the poor but did not deliver these in time to get people on board with the reform and cushion the effects for vulnerable populations. In the context of carbon pricing, recent research from Nature Climate Change suggests that it is important to design compensation mechanisms such that they concentrate benefits on key constituencies, as this can help increase public support. Targeted transfers can turn groups that would likely oppose the removal of subsidies into constituents who are more likely to ensure that reforms go smoothly and stay in place over the long run.

There are many examples of countries implementing fossil fuel reforms successfully by employing effective compensation packages. The Philippines managed to smooth the transition away from fossil fuel subsidies by using targeted cash transfers to help build a national safety net alongside lifeline tariffs to protect the poor in the process of reforms. Indonesia’s first large-scale unconditional cash transfer system was created in only six months in order to compensate for subsidy reforms. The country used a basket of social protection policies covering education, health insurance, food subsidies, cash transfers and infrastructure programs. Ghana’s reform of subsidies to gas and diesel was accompanied by a livelihoods program to support families. Morocco expanded a national conditional cash transfer as well as education and health insurance schemes at the same time as reforming.

2. Generate positive social dialogue

In the context of the gilets jaunes protests in France, the Global Subsidies Initiative has highlighted the role that social dialogue and citizen engagement play in getting the public on board with reforms. In the early stages of now successful reforms in Ghana and Indonesia, governments consulted with labour unions, consumer associations and other stakeholder groups. Listening to citizens can help policy-makers understand their needs and positions and adjust reform plans to reflect their concerns.  In addition, targeted communication campaigns can help to get across the rationale and benefits of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. In Indonesia, for example, President Joko Widodo made the subsidy reform a topic of his election campaign, explaining all the benefits that budgetary savings could unlock. Indonesia freed up USD 15.6 billion and increased its budgetary expenditure by a similar magnitude in safety nets, transport, infrastructure and transfers to villages.

3. Understand that change is good, but not all at once

In the case of Ecuador, a large part of the nation’s discontent may be traced back to the sheer force with which the reform hit its citizens. Ecuadorian policy-makers would likely have been better served with a more careful and gradual removal of fuel subsidies, which the International Monetary Fund had also advised. Small price increases are easier to swallow and made it possible for citizens to adapt to the new price situation over time.

Research by Jordan Kyle at Columbia University further highlights that a phased approach is advised in environments marked by political mistrust and corruption. Citizens tend to be on board with fossil fuel subsidy reforms only when the government can credibly demonstrate that they will also deliver on social compensation promises. Implementing reforms step-by-step allows citizens more time to start trusting that governmental compensation schemes will indeed reach them. According to Kyle, Indonesia’s success in reforming fossil fuel subsidies can in part be traced back to the trust-building and phased nature of its reform approach.

What’s next for Ecuador?

There is hope that a second attempt at reforms in Ecuador will be successful. In his statement on the repeal of the reform, President Moreno announced “the Government will replace Decreto 883 with a new one that contains mechanisms to focus resources on those who need them most.” This time around, Moreno vowed to work with the Indigenous movement to design a convincing reform package. Chances are, citizens won’t judge this package by its ability to reduce the fiscal deficit but by its potential to make their lives better. What matters in the end is that public funds are reallocated to serve societal welfare more effectively and equitably.

Want to know more?

To find out more, have a look at the IISD Global Subsidies Initiative’s Guidebook on Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and further research from IISD on strategies for a just transition.

“The world is waking up and change is coming, whether you like it or not.” The words of Greta Thunberg were buzzing through different media channels the week I arrived in Jakarta to launch IISD and the Swedish Energy Agency’s new report, Getting to 23 Per Cent: Strategies to Scale Up Renewables in Indonesia.

We soon realized that Greta’s calls to action, along with many other rallying cries, weren’t just in the media; they were being shouted on the streets as the country was holding its first-ever climate strike. Thousands of people, youth especially, were calling for Indonesia and countries around the world to live up to their commitments on climate change. Students were coming together to demonstrate that they were no longer willing to simply go along with what their leaders were proposing. 

We launched our report at a local hotel, as part of an event called “The Future of Renewable Energy Policy.” It may not have attracted the fanfare or media attention of the climate strikes, but the findings in the report address precisely what Jakarta’s protesters were looking for—solutions to the energy crisis that can be implemented now. Swedish Ambassador Marina Berg set the stage by reminding those in attendance to heed Greta’s words, because we were the ones with the ability to set the necessary wheels in motion.

My colleague Anissa Suharsono carefully explained what more than two dozen experts she and the IISD team had interviewed were recommending, in particular some concrete ways that Indonesia can break out of its coal dependence and embrace renewables. Indonesia has installed less than 1 GW of solar and wind electricity in the period from 1985 to 2017. If the country intends to meet its commitment to the Paris Agreement, the share of renewables in its energy sector must nearly double in the next five years, hitting 23 per cent of the nation’s total energy by 2025.

Is this even possible? Technically, yes. Our study shows that Indonesia hasn’t been using renewable resources to their greatest potential. The experts we interviewed were confident that a few adjustments to Indonesia’s policy approach could boost sustainable energy investments and allow Indonesia to meet its goals in time. Our recommendations for Indonesia are therefore to immediately:

• Press pause on coal: By all accounts, Indonesia is already over-expanded on coal and must place a moratorium on building any new coal plants.
• Seize the sun: While land acquisition is a challenge in Indonesia, the country is poised for a solar rooftop resolution that can be achieved with simple regulatory reforms.
• Get the prices right: This means ending subsidies and fiscal supports for coal and reforming the country’s “BPP” pricing system, which currently prohibits renewables from earning the same market price as coal power.
• Evolve from biofuels to bioenergy: There are concerns over the economic and environmental sustainability of biofuels in Indonesia, but there are lots of options for bioelectricity that can diversify electricity supply and reduce emissions at the same time.

Although representatives from the Indonesia Renewable Energy Association (METI) indicated that Indonesia might be even further from its goals due to inconsistencies in reporting, there were nonetheless signs to remain hopeful. Ida Nuryatin Finahari, the Director General of Geothermal in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR), outlined new plans to grow renewables in the coming years; while there wasn’t full agreement with IISD’s suggested path forward, it was reassuring to hear their commitment.

Debate was spirited when it came to the future of solar versus coal, and how quickly changes could be made. Everyone agreed, however, that it’s absolutely necessary for Indonesia to expand its renewable energy sources, and do this as soon as possible.

I walked away feeling that perhaps I wasn’t the only one who felt the urgency behind the student-led climate strikes this week; everyone in the room seemed to understand that now is the time to act. The clock is ticking and the climate can’t wait.

Building resilience in fragile regions must be a priority, not an afterthought, in our efforts to reach global goals.

We’ve known for a while that conflict and political instability—especially when coupled with extreme weather events such as hurricanes or drought—inevitably leads to poverty, food insecurity, limited access to clean water and sanitation, unreliable infrastructure and displacement.

What we’ve learned more recently is how global warming exacerbates all this, at a rapid pace, and with no respect to borders. In 2019 alone, there has been an unprecedented number of major reports linked to food, climate change and biodiversity (including the Global Commission on Adaptation report, the IPCC Climate Change and Land report, the EAT–Lancet report, the FSIN 2019 Global Report on Food Crises and IPBES report, along with hundreds of other studies).

We know, unequivocally, that the climate crisis will hurt the world’s most vulnerable populations first and hardest, but will the 193 United Nations member states who pledged to “leave no one behind” live up to their promise? And will the socio-political momentum of the Global Climate Strikes, Climate Action Summit and Covering Climate Now commitment by mainstream media do anything to focus the spotlight on these communities who struggle most to have their voices heard?

It’s difficult to say. Despite this wealth of knowledge and momentum on the world stage, current data still points to disappointing trends. In recent years, we‘ve seen growing levels of food insecurity at the global level, with the number of undernourished people increasing from 783 million in 2014 to 821 million in 2018. As is usually the case, increases in food insecurity are concentrated in those places facing both extreme weather events and conflicts. At the same time, over 70 million people are currently displaced by persecution, violence and conflict, a figure that has risen year on year for the last seven years. Compounding these threats are widespread losses in the resilience of agricultural landscapes due to plummeting biodiversity levels, including a 60 per cent loss of vertebrate animal populations since the 1970s and two in five insect species now facing extinction.

The situation will almost certainly get worse before it gets better; research has shown that countries with a high dependence on agriculture, a recent history of conflict and discriminatory political institutions in a position of power are particularly likely to experience more violence, food crisis and displacement due to climate change.

How can we stem the tide? One tangible step in the right direction is sharing and amplifying work already being done to boost resilience in these countries and communities. This is exactly what initiatives like the Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) are doing. GRP is comprised of public and private organizations joining forces to ensure vulnerable people in fragile regions are able to thrive in the face of uncertainty, surprise and change. The GRP and its partners believe resilience is fundamental to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and staying true to the commitment of leaving no one behind. Since more of the world’s poor and hungry will become concentrated in regions that face the combination of extreme weather events and political instability, our focus should be accelerating resilience innovation in these areas.

An example of this is the Linking Social and Financial Capital to Enhance Resilience of Agro-Pastoral Communities (LEAP) initiative, in which the GRP and partner Mercy Corps worked to strengthen the resilience of farmers, livestock herders and others working in agriculture in Mali and Niger by expanding their access to financial services. By making informed decisions about their household finances and learning to better manage risk, participants were able to access new credit options, including warehouse credit for farmers and tailored credit products for women’s groups. More than 200,000 people signed up to receive financial education on a regular basis, and the percentage of women involved in financial decision-making increased substantially.

Going forward, the GRP will build on its experience bringing resilience projects and concepts to Africa and Asia, focusing its future innovation support on fragile regions facing the triple challenge of extreme weather events, food and water insecurity, and political instability. As part of its efforts to synthesize and accelerate learning, GRP also launched its GRP Resilience Insights report at the UN Secretary General’s Summit. It distills learning from more than 60 programs across 16 countries and 150 reports, offering key takeaways regarding how the most effective resilience strategies can be deployed.

While there is great urgency in the climate movement and a need to have “less talk, more action,” we must remember at the same time that steamrolling ahead with ideas that haven’t been researched or tested can backfire (so, too, can projects that haven’t taken local or grassroots opinions into consideration). Yes, let’s act now, but let us also amplify the voices of the least-developed countries and most fragile populations, allowing these voices to influence the global policy agenda and ensure that future climate investments are reaching the people who need them most. 

Nathanial Matthews is Program Director at Global Resilience Partnership; Deon Nel is the organization's CEO. 

In an effort to demonstrate how trade policy can be used to support climate and environmental objectives, the leaders of five countries—Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway—today launched an initiative that firmly melds these issues together, with sustainability at its core.

The planned Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) aims to generate momentum toward developing wider, globally agreed solutions to environmental challenges. Negotiations are scheduled to commence in early 2020 among the five-country group and be completed as swiftly as possible, while ensuring a high-ambition outcome.

Under the planned ACCTS, the countries involved would slash barriers to trade in environmental goods and services, phase out their fossil fuel subsidies, and encourage the promotion and application of voluntary eco-labelling programs and mechanisms. The countries envisage ACCTS to be a “living agreement” that can be updated and take on additional issues, as needed.

Environmental goods and services, according to a common definition developed in the 1990s by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD) and Eurostat (the EU’s statistical agency), are “activities which produce goods and services to measure, prevent, limit, minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil, as well as problems related to waste, noise and eco-systems.”

Environmental goods include a wide range of products related to clean energy generation, such as wind turbines and solar photovoltaic cells. They can also include products designed to monitor indicators of environmental health or degradation, such as instruments for measuring air or water pollution. These goods can also involve products whose purpose is to rectify environmental harm, such as by treating effluents. Import tariffs are one of the more visible barriers to trade in environmental goods.

Over the past two decades, there have been various efforts to develop multi-country agreements aimed at slashing tariffs on environmental goods. The most recent effort was the proposed Environmental Goods Agreement, a “plurilateral” negotiation among various WTO members aimed at eliminating tariffs on a host of products, which was suspended in 2016. Environmental services, however, have received relatively little attention in major trade negotiating efforts to date, especially after related talks at the World Trade Organization (WTO) under its Doha Round stalled several years ago.

If environmental goods are the hardware for addressing climate change, environmental services are the software that ensures they work as intended. Environmental services include companies that monitor cities’ water supplies to help them identify costly leaks, or those that install solar projects and wind turbines. Barriers to international trade in services typically take the form of obstacles to foreign investment or hindrances to rapid entry. Including environmental services in ACCTS is a notable innovation, one that recognizes the importance of maintaining the synergy between environmental goods and environmental services during the process of trade liberalization.

Applied tariffs on many manufactured goods in Iceland, New Zealand and Norway are already low. However, setting binding ceilings on the potential tariffs they could levy on environmental goods imports would send an important signal: that these countries are willing to limit their policy space in exchange for giving environmental goods producers and exporters in the ACCTS countries the certainty they need to make long-term business decisions. This, in turn, could help increase the uptake of environmental technologies, reduce the cost of environmental protection and help improve the competitiveness of cleaner energy technologies vis-à-vis fossil fuels, which are generally subject to low import barriers.

Fossil fuel subsidies encourage more fossil fuels to be produced or consumed. They result in higher emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases but also of local pollutants, such as lung-clogging airborne particulates. They also cost some countries billions of dollars that could be spent on social needs, such as healthcare or education. Ending fossil fuel subsidies would improve the competitiveness of cleaner energy technologies and free up funds that could be repurposed to help in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

Both the Group of Twenty (G20) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) regional forum pledged 10 years ago to “phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.” But the medium term is upon us, and subsidies have not been phased out. There is now growing demand to move beyond these voluntary pledges to mutually binding commitments.

Voluntary eco-labels are, in a way, the flip side of the coin. They are generally seen in a positive light, as they inform consumers about the environmental credentials of products. But they are open to manipulation and can discriminate against some products on the basis of arbitrary or unfair criteria. “Food mile” labels, for example, look at the distance between production and consumption, but not the emissions generated across the product’s life cycle, including through its production, packaging and method of transport.

The WTO has established a “Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards” (Annex 3 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade), which covers standards developed by both governments and private entities. Private standard-setting bodies are encouraged to notify their adherence to the code on the WTO-ISO Standards Information Gateway. To date, few non-governmental standard-setting bodies have. Collaboration across countries on their design, use and promotion could make eco-labelling programs and schemes far more effective, sending clearer signals to consumers of their environmental impact, which in turn could incentivize production of more sustainable goods.

With slow global progress on these issues, why might we be optimistic that the ACCTS will succeed? The five countries have different perspectives, come from a mix of world regions and are at different levels of economic development. However, their participation in other negotiations on trade and environmental agreements points to areas of consensus, and the ACCTS is a prime opportunity for this coalition to take a leadership role in this area and to inspire others to do the same.

Starting small, with just five countries, is a deliberate choice—although others will be welcome to sign on in future. The ACCTS countries plan to extend their concessions on environmental goods and services to all WTO members, that is to say, on a most-favoured nation (MFN) basis.

In the trade community, this approach is novel. In previous plurilateral agreements involving tariff concessions, such as the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and the subsequent ITA-II, the agreements were concluded only once the parties had accounted for a critical mass (e.g., 90 per cent) of global trade in the products involved. This was important for them in order to avoid the "free-rider" problem.

By contrast, the ACCTS countries have agreed to dispense with the critical-mass requirement, in a landmark move in trade rule-making that shows their commitment to achieving positive environmental outcomes and not just improving export opportunities.

In effect, the parties are saying: we are not looking at this agreement simply to boost trade flows;  we believe it is the right thing to do for the environment. To the larger group of WTO members, it also says: we are not going to just sit here and wait for you to act. We are prepared to be proactive and ambitious.

Given that other, larger trade negotiating efforts have stalled at the multilateral and plurilateral levels, we believe the world should welcome this new initiative. If the ACCTS members can deliver innovative and meaningful outcomes at the interface of trade and the environment, it could serve as a trailblazer agreement that other WTO members could work to join in the future if they are able to meet the required commitments and disciplines, with the potential for global impact that will benefit us all.

By Ronald P. Steenblik is a Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Susanne Droege is a Senior Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

To get where we need to on climate action, we need to do a lot of things.

Here’s what we don’t need to do.

We don’t need to continue debating whether humans are the cause of global warming. The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists, along with a clear majority of the general population worldwide, already agree on this. We don’t need to quibble over the minutiae of every single action we are or aren’t taking in our personal lives to make a difference—yes, let’s cut down our meat consumption and use energy-efficient light bulbs; no, we mustn’t all live off the grid and eat only root vegetables.

What should we do? Think bigger, for starters.

We should demand that investors factor climate risks into their analyses. One asset manager, AllianceBernstein, recently became so convinced of this that it is requiring all portfolio managers and analysts to attend a climate change bootcamp.

We should reform subsidies that work against sustainable development, such as the hundreds of billions of government dollars spent on fossil fuel subsidies instead of on social programs or renewable energy.

We should make sure we’re not leaving anyone behind as we move to a low-carbon world. That starts with using the right data showing us where vulnerable people are at risk. And it means breaking down silos, listening to underrepresented voices and working together—because it is only through the collective and concerted effort of citizens and school children, business leaders and power brokers, activists and analysts that we will overcome the inertia that endangers us all.

As global citizens, world leaders and youth activists come together in New York this week under the umbrella of the UN General Assembly to discuss, debate, protest and participate. We really hope the focus will be on putting solutions into action—and on how we can all be working together.

IISD’s work is grounded in collaboration because we know this approach leads to better outcomes. We convene the world’s largest forum on sustainable mining, bringing together industry, governments and international organizations. We conduct research at the world’s only freshwater institute that tests whole ecosystems, working with communities, business leaders and scientists from around the world. We manage the preeminent global network helping vulnerable people adapt to a changing climate, producing concrete actions at the national level in countries like Fiji and Ethiopia. And we work with governments and partners to help remove or reform harmful subsidies that work against climate action.

Climate change is a complex and truly global challenge. The economic, social, political and moral implications don’t stop at any border. Our response must be coordinated at all levels—from international laws and policies, to agreements between countries, to action at the city level, to individual behavioural change.

What happens next is up to us, and the time to start is now.

A version of this op-ed was originally published in Portuguese by “A Tarde” newspaper from Salvador, Brazil, on August 19, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

This week, people from all over Latin America are gathering at an event supported by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Salvador, Brazil, to discuss—and hopefully act on—the climate crisis we are all experiencing, a crisis that increasingly defines our day-to-day lives as it threatens and destroys the delicate ecosystem we inhabit.

Two themes are emerging from the ongoing dialogue at this event.

First, our collective efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change are well-intentioned – but they aren’t happening fast enough.

At its simplest, adaptation means taking action to maintain or improve our current state of well-being in the face of new challenges to our natural surroundings. Examples of adaptation could include collecting rainwater when there is a water shortage, or forming neighbourhood groups to share knowledge and find solutions to collectively protect local elderly from higher temperatures.

Adaptation and mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) are what governments and people around the world are currently doing to try to control the climate crisis – both are important pursuits, but the pace of these projects and initiatives isn’t matching up with the pace of global warming.

Second, we must reimagine a new world for ourselves and future generations, understanding that it will be different than the one in which our parents and even our ancestors were raised. Climate change isn’t selective in who it punishes; it doesn’t see borders and it doesn’t favour one government over another. Its effects will affect everyone on the planet, and we must acknowledge that, at this point, there is no returning to “how things used to be.” That said, going forward will be difficult.

As we transition from our current state to this new future state, we must acknowledge the emotional aspect of this – the feelings of loss, guilt, or insecurity that might arise, but also the potential for freedom, new perspectives, and the excitement of being responsible for creating a new vision for how to be.

The process of making this new vision a reality will need to be collaborative but also confrontational, and undoubtedly messy – because despite the climate crisis being an unprecedented emergency, governments and corporations are largely responding as if it were a familiar challenge we’ve faced before that can be resolved with a few good inventions and improved technologies. Except it won’t. And this will soon become abundantly, uncomfortably clear.

One way we can make the transition a little less bumpy is by ensuring we are listening to the voices of young leaders with new ideas for how people can live more sustainably, and to indigenous communities where sustainability has already been woven into every aspect of living. These voices, in scientific circles, have thus far been considered “non-technical” (implying they are not knowledgeable) and hence unfit to contribute to shaping a new future, which has only hurt our progress.

The old model of addressing, and adapting to, the climate crisis has been about prioritizing tech-focused and engineering projects while silencing ideas that posit that the solution is equally dependent on humans behaving and interacting differently among ourselves and with the environment. The old system, which still reigns, has failed to produce a vision of a future that benefits the majority of people or ecosystems.

It is no surprise, then, that the adaptation actions resulting from this paradigm are often one-sided, driven by interests and knowledge foreign to the large majority of those inhabiting this planet. Today’s climate crisis reflects those institutional arrangements and the social and environmental injustices they promote.

Our planet demands deep-rooted change, and that requires everyone’s contributions. Knowledge has many faces and languages, not just those spoken by people and institutions in positions of power. When we talk about solving the climate crisis, we should have more than just a technical lens; we should also be talking about compassion, grief, fear and hope.

*français ci-dessous**

After a week full of dialogue and knowledge exchange, parliamentarians who are part of a new network on gender equality and agriculture now face the important task of turning lessons into long-term engagement.

Representatives from a range of African countries came together in Kigali, Rwanda, for a deep dive into how to integrate gender considerations into agricultural policies and laws. Many agreed that, while the exchanges were fruitful, the next steps will be vital: how to translate these lessons and experiences into long-term policy change and continued engagement between country governments.

“A platform for learning between regions and blocs will definitely open up a give-and-take spirit so we can learn with our sister countries and networks so we don’t lose time when our partners have found solutions,” said Solina Nyirahabimana, Rwandan Minister of Gender and Family Promotion.

Rwanda as a case study

The first part of the “learning exchange” was a training workshop featuring various sessions on gender-sensitive policy design and implementation. It was then followed by a high-level policy dialogue with presentations from multiple Rwandan ministries, as well as officials from other countries. Participants wished to understand the pathway Rwanda has taken, given that the country is often regarded as a model for gender equality in certain core areas.

Currently, women hold 40 per cent of ministerial portfolios in Rwanda and represent more than 60 per cent of parliamentarians in the Chamber of Deputies. The World Economic Forum ranked Rwanda sixth out of 149 countries in its latest gender gap report.

A subsequent high-level policy dialogue focused largely on examining Rwanda’s work in developing a gender-responsive budget process. Many participants had already repeatedly raised the example as a useful case study of how the country has worked to make gender a component of its national- and sector-level policy planning. Notably, Rwanda also has in place a Gender Monitoring Office designed to monitor efforts to mainstream gender considerations into different sectors, from energy to urbanization and rural settlement.

Among the examples Nyirahabimana gave was the inclusion of gender equality into various national development frameworks, such as the National Strategy for Transformation 2017–2024, as well as the constitutional requirement that women hold 30 per cent of representation on all levels of decision making. As she and others noted, however, there are still challenges to overcome to make the integration of gender considerations in all levels of policy-making more successful.

“There is much that we shared: the way the policies in the programs are implemented in Rwanda and the way the budget cycle is done in planning, but also in the implementation so that gender is taken into account,” said Edda Mukabagwiza, Deputy Speaker of the Rwandan Parliament’s Chamber of Deputies, at the closing press conference.

Customary versus statutory land laws

Many national constitutions feature language guaranteeing equality between women and men. However, translating gender equality and equity objectives into practice often proves difficult. For example, rural women still face challenges when trying to access productive and economic resources, such as land.

“We all know that you cannot be active in agriculture if you do not have control of that land,” said Fatoumata Njie, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Gambia. She also noted that the quality of the land matters: for example, in some cases women have access to land, but it is less fertile than the land available to male farmers.

Moreover, customary rules that are discriminatory towards women can often take precedence over other gender-sensitive statutory laws. The result of this inconsistency often undermines women’s rights, she noted, describing examples in West African countries where some statutory legal protections for women are not implemented in practice.

“To deal with stereotypes, we need to be bold and intentional. It is not enough to have laws and policies in place,” Nyirahabimana said, calling for the creation of “tangible and innovative ways” to achieve gender-related objectives.

Looking ahead: Goal-setting and implementation

“The past days’ deliberations have indicated that yes, Rwanda has success stories, but it looks like ECOWAS has success stories too,” said Ama Pomaa.

Parliamentarians and civil society representatives also highlighted how important it is to engage a wider audience in the policy design and implementation process, which would help ensure improved buy-in and results. This approach would have to be catered to the needs, cultural and societal dynamics, and economic situations of those involved.

“The political will can be there, the policy can be there, the laws can be there, but the next phase and the most important one is the implementation. And the implementation requires ownership by the implementers,” said Nyirahabimana.

**This blog is part of a series devoted to the ECOWAS network meetings, with further installments forthcoming.

Quelles sont les prochaines étapes pour le réseau de la CEDEAO sur l’égalité des genres? Du discours à l'action

Après une semaine de dialogue et d'échange de connaissances, les parlementaires membres du réseau de la CEDEAO sur l'égalité des genres et les investissements dans l'agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire doivent faire face à la tâche importante de transformer les leçons en un engagement à long terme.

Des représentants de nombreux pays d’Afrique se sont réunis à Kigali, au Rwanda, pour étudier en profondeur la manière d'intégrer les considérations de genre dans les lois et les politiques agricoles. Bon nombre de participants ont reconnu que, si les échanges étaient fructueux, les prochaines étapes seraient décisives. Il s’agit de concrétiser les leçons et les expériences acquises en changement de politiques à long terme et en un engagement constant entre pour des gouvernements nationaux.

« Une plate-forme de partage d’expériences entre les régions et les blocs ouvrira certainement la voie à un esprit de compromis et d’ouverture de sorte que nous puissions apprendre de nos pays frères et de nos réseaux afin que nous puissions tirer profit des réussites de nos partenaires, » a déclaré Solina Nyirahabimana, ministre rwandaise du Genre et de la Promotion familiale.

Le Rwanda comme exemple

La première partie du « partage d’expérience » a consisté en un atelier de formation comprenant diverses sessions sur la conception et la mise en œuvre de politiques sensibles au genre. Elle a ensuite été suivie d'un Dialogue Politique de Haut Niveau avec des présentations de la part de plusieurs ministères du Rwanda, ainsi que de fonctionnaires d'autres pays. Les participants ont souhaité comprendre le chemin parcouru par le Rwanda, étant donné que le pays est souvent considéré comme un modèle d'égalité en matière de genre dans certains domaines essentiels.

Les femmes détiennent 40 % des portefeuilles ministériels au Rwanda et représentent plus de 60 % des parlementaires à la Chambre des députés. Dans son dernier rapport sur les disparités entre les genres, le Forum économique mondial a classé le Rwanda au sixième rang sur 149 pays.

Le Dialogue Politique de Haut Niveau s'est penché sur les travaux du Rwanda dans l'élaboration d'un processus budgétaire sensible au genre. De nombreux participants avaient déjà évoqué à maintes reprises Le Rwanda comme une modèle exemplaire en soulignant notamment la manière dont le pays s'est efforcé de faire de l'égalité des genres une composante de la planification de ses politiques nationales et sectorielles. En particulier, le Rwanda a mis en place un Bureau de surveillance de l'égalité des genres conçu pour suivre les efforts visant à intégrer les questions d'égalité des genres dans différents secteurs, de l'énergie à l'urbanisation en passant par l'habitat rural.

La ministre Nyirahabimana a, entre autres, cité l'inclusion de l'égalité des genres dans divers cadres nationaux de développement, tels que la Stratégie nationale de transformation 2017-2024 et a rappelé que la Constitution stipule que 30 % des femmes doivent occuper les postes à tous les niveaux décisionnels. Toutefois, comme la ministre Nyirahabimana et d'autres l'ont fait remarquer, il reste encore des défis à relever pour que l'intégration des considérations de genre à tous les niveaux de l'élaboration des politiques soit plus réussie.

« Nous avons discuté de beaucoup de choses : la façon dont les politiques des programmes gouvernementaux sont mises en œuvre au Rwanda et la façon dont le cycle budgétaire est planifié, mais aussi la façon dont il est mis en œuvre pour que le genre soit pris en compte, » a déclaré Edda Mukabagwiza, Vice-présidente de la Chambre des députés du Parlement rwandais pendant la conférence de presse qui a conclu les travaux.

Droit foncier coutumier et la loi foncière

De nombreuses constitutions nationales comportent des dispositions garantissant l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. Cependant, il s'avère souvent difficile de traduire dans la pratique les objectifs d'équité et d'égalité des genres. Par exemple, les femmes vivant en milieu rurales continuent de se heurter à des difficultés lorsqu'elles tentent d'accéder à des ressources productives et économiques, comme la terre.

« Nous savons tous que l'on ne peut pas agir librement dans l'agriculture si l'on n'a pas le contrôle de la terre, » a déclaré Fatoumata Njie, membre du Parlement gambien. Elle a également souligné l'importance de la qualité de la terre : par exemple, dans certains cas, les femmes ont accès à la terre, mais celle-ci est moins fertile que la terre dont disposent les agriculteurs hommes.

En outre, les règles coutumières discriminatoires envers les femmes peuvent souvent primer sur d'autres lois sensibles au genre. Le résultat de cette incohérence porte souvent atteinte aux droits des femmes, la ministre Njie. Elle a décrit des exemples dans des pays d'Afrique de l'Ouest où certaines protections légales pour les femmes ne sont pas mises en œuvre dans la pratique.

« Pour lutter contre les stéréotypes, nous devons faire preuve d'audace et d'intention. Il ne suffit pas de mettre en place des lois et des politiques, » a déclaré la ministre Nyirahabimana, qui a appelé à la création de « moyens concrets et novateurs » pour atteindre les objectifs liés au genre.

Perspectives d'avenir : détermination des objectifs et mise en œuvre

« Les délibérations de ces derniers jours ont démontré que oui, le Rwanda a des réussites, mais il semble que la CEDEAO en a aussi, » a déclaré l’honorable Ama Pomaa.

Les parlementaires et les représentants de la société civile ont également souligné l'importance de faire participer un public plus large au processus de conception et de mise en œuvre des politiques, ce qui contribuerait à garantir une meilleure adhésion et de meilleurs résultats. Cette approche devrait être adaptée, au besoin, à la dynamique culturelle et sociétale et à la situation économique des personnes concernées.

« La volonté politique peut être là, les politiques et les lois peuvent bien exister, mais la phase suivante est la plus importante. Il s’agit de la mise en œuvre. Et celle-ci nécessite l'appropriation par les bénéficiaires et les responsables de la mise en œuvre, » a conclu la ministre Nyirahabimana.

**Ce blog fait partie d'une série consacrée aux initiatives du réseau de la CEDEAO.  D'autres articles suivront. 

**français ci-dessous**

We often see high-level, headline figures about gender in agriculture, such as how women make up approximately half of the agricultural labour force in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet challenges to women’s participation in agricultural production and economic opportunities are often deeply nuanced and specific to their regional, national and local contexts.

Wednesday, July 17 wrapped up the first part of a learning exchange visit in Kigali, Rwanda, devoted to forging connections between African lawmakers, civil society organizations and international agencies to examine gender-sensitive policy implementation in agriculture. The week in Kigali has two main objectives. The first is to establish a common basis of understanding around key aspects of gender and its integration into policy. The second is to create a platform for discussion of the policy variations in practice and how different countries can adapt them according to their needs and circumstances.

“This learning exchange and high-level dialogue is an opportunity for all of us to discuss these critical issues and propose strategies to mainstream gender in agriculture and food security, based on experiences and expertise,” said the Right Honorable Donatille Mukabalisa, Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies in Rwanda, during the opening session of this week’s meetings.

The event is part of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Network of Parliamentarians on Gender Equality and Investment in Agriculture and Food Security, launched in December 2018 by the ECOWAS Parliament in Abuja, Nigeria. The network was started with the support of IISD, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Oxfam.

Using a “Gender Lens”

“Any time you sit in parliament, any time you sit in any committee, any time you do anything, you must put on your gender lens,” said Milton Kamwendo, one of the moderators for this week’s learning exchange.

This week’s learning exchange brought together members from national and regional legislatures from around the continent, including members of the Rwandan and ECOWAS parliaments and the East African Legislative Assembly. High on the agenda was how to address gender in the agriculture sector—in setting national strategies, in trying to meet continental objectives set under the African Union, and in integrating the targets and indicators of Sustainable Development Goal 5 on gender equality. We heard that countries face different challenges in both meeting and monitoring their achievement of these objectives.

Sharing the experiences of Rwanda, as the event host, was a core component of the exchange. Agriculture makes up approximately one third of Rwanda’s GDP, and the country has made efforts at the national and sector levels to mainstream gender into its highest priority policies. One example has been the work to integrate gender-responsive planning and reporting into the country’s budget, according to the Honorable Euthalie Nyirabega, a Rwandan Member of Parliament (MP). However, she noted that changing cultural norms remains difficult, along with financial inclusion and limited levels of gender-disaggregated data.

Land Law Reform, Literacy and Societal Dynamics

A recurring theme during the learning exchange was the importance of addressing low literacy levels, particularly for rural women. This has a range of implications for women, from signing contracts that affect their working conditions and the benefits they receive from agricultural production, to their understanding and awareness of laws and frameworks involving land ownership and access.

Most African countries are currently reforming their land laws, but any successful legal reform depends greatly on the readiness for change, not only from government and traditional customary and religious authorities but also from the beneficiaries—rural men and women. Therefore, enhancing dialogue, raising better awareness and ensuring civil society engagement can play a transformative role in moving toward gender equity on land issues.

Value Chains and Cross-Border Trade

Ensuring women can effectively participate in value chains and cross-border trade was another recurring theme this week. Public agencies, civil society and other stakeholders can play a significant role in making sure that women do not lose out on potential economic opportunities and benefits as a result of existing value chain structures.

Juliana Kantengwa, a former Rwandan MP of two decades, told participants this week of one example she witnessed during a visit to the country’s national border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Women engaging in cross-border trade in food supplies would often have to leave their children at the border for hours in order to cross into the DRC and conduct their business. “Next time she’d have to choose between that heavy heart of leaving her child or not going to trade,” she said. The construction of a centre at that border, supported with government funds, has been one way of ensuring that female traders are not faced with that choice. This was one of several examples raised of actions that governments can take to make sure that women are not prevented from engaging in higher value-addition parts of the chain that could yield greater economic benefit.

*This blog is part of a series devoted to the ECOWAS network meetings, with further installments coming up on the high-level policy dialogue and field visits that form part of the event.

Comment intégrer les considérations de genre dans l'agriculture ? Un réseau de parlementaires africains cherche à tirer des leçons par le biais d’un partage d’expérience entre pays.

Les femmes représentent environ la moitié de la main-d'œuvre agricole en Afrique subsaharienne. Pourtant, les obstacles criants à la participation des femmes à la production agricole et aux possibilités économiques sont souvent très nuancés et spécifiques à leur contexte régional, national et local sont criantes.

Le mercredi 17 juillet à Kigali, au Rwanda s’est conclu la première partie d'une visite de partage d’expérience consacrée à renforcer les liens de coopération entre les législateurs africains, les organisations de la société civile et les agences internationale. La réunion avait pour but d’examiner la mise en œuvre de politiques agricoles sensibles au genre et poursuivait deux objectifs principaux. Le premier objectif visait à établir une base de compréhension commune des aspects clés du genre et de son intégration dans les politiques. Le second était de provoquer une plate-forme de discussion sur la variété de pratiques et de politiques et de considérer la manière dont les différents pays peuvent les adapter en fonction de leurs besoins et de leur situation.

« Cet échange d'apprentissage et ce dialogue de haut niveau sont pour nous tous l'occasion de discuter de ces questions cruciales et de proposer des stratégies pour intégrer le genre dans l'agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire sur la base de nos expériences et de notre expertise, » a déclaré la très honorable Donatille Mukabalisa, Présidente de la Chambre des députés au Rwanda, lors de la séance inaugurale.

L'événement est né d’une initiative du Réseau de parlementaires de la Communauté économique des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (CEDEAO) sur l'égalité des genres, les investissements en agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire lancé en décembre 2018 par le Parlement de la CEDEAO à Abuja au Nigéria. Le réseau reçoit l'appui de l'IISD, de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) et d'Oxfam.

Adopter une "perspective genre"

« Chaque fois que vous siégez au Parlement, chaque fois que vous siégez à un comité, chaque fois que vous faites quoi que ce soit, vous devez mettre vos "lunettes genre,"  » a déclaré Milton Kamwendo, l'un des modérateurs de la visite de partage.

L'échange d'apprentissage a réuni les membres des parlements nationaux et régionaux du continent. Étaient présents les membres des parlements du Rwanda et de la CEDEAO et de l'Assemblée législative de l'Afrique de l'Est (EALA). Les discussions ont porté sur l’intégration des problématiques de l'égalité des genres dans le secteur agricole lors de l’élaboration de stratégies nationales dans le but d'atteindre des objectifs continentaux fixés par l'Union africaine (UA) et la prise en compte des cibles et des indicateurs du cinquième objectif de développement durable en matière d'égalité des sexes. Les pays font face à des défis différents en ce qui concerne la réalisation de ces objectifs et leur suivi .

Le partage des expériences du Rwanda,  pays hôte de l'événement, a été un élément central de cette rencontre. L'agriculture représente environ un tiers du PIB du Rwanda et le pays a fait des efforts aux niveaux national et sectoriel pour intégrer le genre dans ses politiques prioritaires. Selon l'honorable Euthalie Nyirabega, députée rwandaise, l'intégration d'une planification et de rapports sensibles au genre dans le budget du pays est un exemple de ce travail. Toutefois, elle a noté que des résistances liées aux normes culturelles, de même que l'inclusion financière et les niveaux limités de données désagrégées par sexe demeurent des enjeux.

Réforme du droit foncier, alphabétisation et dynamique sociétale

Au cours du partage d’expérience, le faible niveau d'alphabétisation, en particulier chez les femmes ren milieu urales, a été un thème récurrent. L’analphabétisme parmi les femmes en milieu rural comprend plusieurs aspects, dont l’incompréhension des contrats qu’elles signent, les conditions de travail et les avantages qu'elles tirent de la production agricole et un bas niveau de sensibilisation au sujet des lois et des politiques relatifs à la propriété et à l'accès au foncier.

La plupart des pays africains sont en train de réformer les lois liées au foncièr, mais le succès d'une réforme juridique dépend en grande partie de la volonté de changement, non seulement de la part du gouvernement et des autorités coutumières et religieuses traditionnelles, mais aussi des bénéficiaires, c'est-à-dire les hommes et les femmes qui habitent en zones rurales. Par conséquent, le renforcement du dialogue, la sensibilisation et l'engagement de la société civile peuvent jouer un rôle transformateur dans la réalisation de l’égalité des genres en ce qui a trait aux questions foncières.

Chaînes de valeur et commerce transfrontalier

Un autre thème récurrent cette semaine a été de veiller à ce que les femmes puissent participer efficacement aux chaînes de valeur et au commerce transfrontalier. Les organismes publics, la société civile et les autres parties prenantes peuvent jouer un rôle important en veillant à ce que les femmes ne perdent pas des opportunités et des avantages économiques potentiels du fait des structures existantes de la chaîne de valeur.

Juliana Kantengwa, qui a été députée rwandaise pendant deux décennies, a partagé avec les participants un exemple dont elle a été témoin lors d'une visite à la frontière nationale du pays avec la République démocratique du Congo (RDC). Les femmes qui se livrent au commerce transfrontalier de denrées alimentaires doivent souvent laisser leurs enfants seuls pendant des heures lorsqu’elles traversent la frontière pour vendre leurs denrées alimentaires . « La prochaine fois, elle devra faire un choix : laisser le cœur lourd son enfant ou ne pas travailler, » dit-elle.

La construction d'un centre pour enfants à la frontière, soutenu par des fonds publics, a été un moyen de faire en sorte que les commerçantes ne soient pas confrontées à ce choix. Il s'agit là d'un des nombreux exemples d'actions que les gouvernements peuvent prendre pour s'assurer que les femmes ne soient pas empêchées de s'engager dans des maillons de la chaîne à plus forte valeur ajoutée qui pourraient générer de plus grands avantages économiques.

*Ce blog fait partie d'une série consacrée aux réunions du réseau de la CEDEAO. D'autres versements suivront sur le dialogue politique de haut niveau et les visites de terrain qui font partie de l'événement.

Two years ago, I co-authored a report that made a media splash beyond anything I’ve done in my almost 30 years of writing. Mining a Mirage – co-written with collaborators from the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development; the Columbia Centre on Sustainable Investment; and Mining Shared Value – warned that massive job losses from new technology would jeopardize mining’s social license to operate.

Two weeks ago, the same project team gathered above a rustic craft brewery in Paris, together with 30 global experts from the private sector, government, trade unions, civil society and academia to do a deeper dive into the trends and policy options. In the month and a half leading up to the Paris roundtable, we facilitated an innovative online discussion hosted by the World Bank’s GOXI: a platform for discussion in the extractives sector space. Both were part of an ongoing effort: the New Tech, New Deal project.

Halfway to our report launch in the spring of 2020, we thought it made sense to reflect and relate seven preliminary takeaways.

1) Disruptive technology is not new, but this wave is different.

Disruptive technology has been changing the face of mining, with labour and other impacts, since mining began. But the coming wave is different in quality and speed than anything we have seen before.

2) Technology is not a homogeneous force.

Some new technologies—like automation and drones—will replace labour. Others—like artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, smart sensors and machine learning—will boost productivity without significant job losses. The same technology will have different impacts in different settings. For example, more diversified economies will feel the labour impacts less severely, and certain technologies will be rolled out at different paces in different contexts.

3) New technology takes jobs and makes jobs.

New jobs will be needed in areas such as data processing, GIS mapping and software design. These are better-paid jobs than the jobs they replace, such as trucking, drilling and blasting. In specific cases, new technology may increase viability so much that, while jobs per tonne are falling, the vastly increased scale of operation will mean more jobs. Overall, though, we are likely to see a net decrease in jobs in the mining sector due to automation.

We don’t expect to find any single perfect solution that addresses all the challenges posed by new technology in the mining sector.

4) Local communities will struggle.

Even if new high-skill jobs are better paid and safer, workers from nearby communities may be challenged to fill them. First, mining workers of the future will control machines remotely, in operation centres located miles away from mine site in cities or in other countries. In such cases, locals would have to relocate—a commitment not everyone can make. Second, locals may lack the capacity to be trained for the new jobs, particularly in countries and regions where primary and secondary education are poor or where there are weak links between mining companies and educational/vocational institutions.

5) There will be new kids on the block.

Given the massive research and development investments needed to operate the mine of the future and the increasing share of the value chain accruing to capital goods, we expect technology providers to become more dominant players as direct and indirect investors.

6) Artisanal and small-scale mining adds another layer of complexity.

Fewer semi-skilled positions in the formal sector may drive more poor labourers to the informal sector, which creates new problems. And that sector—which, despite its challenges, does act as a force for development—may face increasing struggles competing with ever-more productive formal sector mines.

7) Some technologies may be part of the solution.

Some aspects of the new technology can act to offset the negative labour impacts with positive social and environmental impacts. There is, for example, the possibility that the data-connected mine of the future could give local communities access to real-time data on operations, tailings dam indicators and water quality, or give tax authorities better data on production levels. We may also see such things as more women working in remote operations centres; increased worker health and safety; lower greenhouse gas emissions; and shared infrastructure with the potential to foster economic development, such as high-speed Internet and renewable electricity.

What kinds of solutions do we see as possible? The answers will vary from place to place. As noted above, training and education may be part of the answer, as might shared infrastructure. Other possibilities include mining companies acting as facilitators of non-mining-related economic development; higher taxes, or different tax or ownership structures; and increased focus on local content policies such as mandates for local hiring, purchasing or processing. All of these possibilities have their strengths and weaknesses, many of which are discussed in depth in our GOXI dialogues.

We don’t expect to find any single perfect solution that addresses all the challenges posed by new technology in the mining sector. It will take more consultation, in-country study and analysis (and possibly a few more French craft beers) to get us closer to understanding the full array and potential of the policy options available. Watch this space.

Aaron Cosbey is a Senior Associate with the IGF and co-leads the local content and new technology work alongside Isabelle Ramdoo, IGF’s Senior Associate and Development Economist.

The New Tech, New Deal project is supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

This is the fifth and final instalment of our blog series on engaging the private sector in National Adaptation Planning (NAP) processes. To learn more, read our guidance note on the subject.

Lemonade is the perfect drink for a hot summer day: cool, crisp and refreshing. And while it can help us beat the summer heat, soaring temperatures in many parts of the world could threaten the future of the core ingredient needed for this beloved summer fixture.

Lemons—as well as other citrus fruits including limes, mandarins and tangerines—are especially vulnerable to heat waves and water stress. In the citrus-growing region of Souss Massa in central Morocco, heat waves in 2015 and 2016 resulted in a 30 to 40 per cent drop in blossoms. And while Morocco’s citrus production recovered by 2018, climate change is expected to increase the frequency of heat waves and severe droughts in the region, posing a threat to local businesses dependent on the crop.

To preserve the growth of these fruits and secure livelihoods across the industry, private sector actors—including farmers and processors—will need to adapt their businesses to a future of increasing temperatures and lengthening drought. This applies, broadly, across a wide range of industries and countries. However, a number of barriers prevent engagement in climate change adaptation policies and programs. Businesses may be unaware of what adaptation options are available to them, or may be unable to receive appropriate financing for responses. Further, there may be regulatory or institutional obstacles preventing their participation. But even if a business is operating with the right information, financing and policy requirements, it may still lack the technical capacities to participate in adaptation.

Capacity building is a key enabling factor to private sector engagement in the NAP process and a fundamental precondition for participation in the Paris Agreement. It is imperative that governments work in tandem with civil society actors, development partners, academia and businesses to identify and address capacity gaps.

The needs can be great. Many private sector actors, for example, may lack the capacity needed to understand or use climate information and to integrate climate risk management into their business operations. Climate risk assessments are especially useful in establishing the business case for adaptation and identifying subsequent actions—though it may be a new skill for many ongoing operations. Businesses and individuals may also require enhanced capacities in the use of technologies and equipment needed to adapt (the adoption of conservation agricultural practices, for example, or the use of drones for pollination). They may also need help to develop the business models needed to bring adaptation products and services to market, or to implement business strategies that can reduce their exposure to climate risk.

Governments—through the NAP process—can help to address these capacity shortfalls through the development and delivery of training or outreach programs. To reach larger audiences and tap into existing private sector networks, targeting business multipliers is a good first step in this endeavour.

Governments can also offer guidance notes or training on ways to measure returns on climate change adaptation investments, including cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, portfolio risk analysis for financial institutions, and new metrics that measure returns beyond the financial. Further, capacities are often needed to translate these assessments into responsible management plans and concrete actions. Building on risk assessments, governments can ensure that private sector actors have access to adaptation decision-making support tools designed to help them understand and incorporate climate risks into business activities. Many such tools are available.

The Climate Expert Initiative, for example, developed under the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit’s (GIZ’s) Private Sector Adaptation to Climate Change Program, provides a four-step approach for private sector actors conducting climate risk management and planning. The tool is designed specifically for companies, including micro-, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), to analyze climate risks and opportunities and generate strong adaptation strategies.

So what does this have to do with the lemons in Morocco? Agrumar Souss, a citrus processing company, was trained to use the Climate Expert Initiative tool to assess its exposure to climate change and identify corresponding business opportunities and pathways. The assessment found that impacts like floods, drought, rising temperatures, and heat waves could have devastating impacts upon its business, drawing examples from the heat waves of 2015 and 2016. Using the tool, Agrumar Souss identified adaptation measures they could take to enhance their climate resilience in response, including using anti-backflow systems to address heavy rains, strengthening windbreaks in company orchards to reduce the trees’ exposure to strong winds, and using irrigation pumps powered by solar energy to address increasing droughts. In doing so, the company is contributing to the country’s overall adaptation aims and goals, as set out in the NAP process.

While there are many barriers to private sector engagement in the NAP process, there are often also corresponding solutions. In order for the NAP process to be successful, it is vital that governments promote four key enabling factors—information sharing, financing, institutional arrangements and capacity building—to get the private sector on board.

Any opinions stated in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the NAP Global Network, its funders, or Network participants.

Read the other four parts of this blog series:

• What is the Business Case for Private Investment in the NAP Process?

• Knowledge is Power: Why information sharing is key to engaging businesses in the NAP process

• Paying for it: How governments can help the private sector overcome financial barriers to investing in adaptation

• For MSME Day, We Look at How Institutional Arrangements Can Engage Small Businesses in Climate Adaptation

Find out more about our work on Financing NAPs.