Category Archives: NDC Blog Posts

We believe the current approach to framing, designing, and implementing energy transition plans and partnerships risks jeopardising long-term and sustainable just energy transitions across Africa and among the broader Global South.

Current transition plans appear too narrowly focused on decarbonisation and global climate objectives, rather than looking to the broader goals of the economic and sustainable development of African countries. A poorly framed energy transition plan with restricted net zero emission aims could result in transformation (if any) that is economically and environmentally damaging, as well as technically redundant.

Last month, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) announced its collaboration with McKinsey & Company to create Energy Transition and Investment Plans (ETIPs) that would assist poorer countries in achieving net zero emissions by mid-century. Ghana, Kenya, and Barbados are among the initial target countries. Many more will follow. According to SEforALL and McKinsey, the programme was inspired by the success of their previous collaboration in creating an Energy Transition Plan (ETP) for Nigeria in the run-up to COP26 in Glasgow, based on which Nigeria’s president made a net zero commitment by 2060 at the summit.

Energy transition plans, partnerships, and agreements have become a popular strategy for pursuing just energy transitions in poor countries. While the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are part of the formal submissions under the obligations of Parties in the Paris Climate Agreement and they cover adaptation and mitigation measures across all economic sectors, energy transition plans and agreements are informed by bilateral country relationships, though supportive of the goals of the Paris Agreement. They also mostly target the energy sector.

Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) are a new financing cooperation approach primarily aiming to assist largely coal-dependent middle-income economies in shifting their energy portfolios to renewable alternatives. South Africa was pledged USD$8.5 billion at COP26 from a coalition of donor nations, including France, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Germany, in a declaration designed to accelerate its transition away from coal as its primary energy source. The declaration led to the first JETP. Since then, a USD$20 billion JETP-styled pledge has been made with Indonesia, and other nations, including India and Senegal, are said to be in train.

While recognising that these types of energy transition arrangements can assist developing countries to accelerate ambitious climate action and reach net zero by mid-century, we believe the current approach to framing, designing, and implementing energy transition plans and partnerships risks jeopardising long-term and sustainable just energy transitions across Africa and among the broader Global South.

One key risk in the current approach is the positioning of energy transition plans as short to mid-term financial or programming endeavours, rather than long-term transformative programmes aimed at economic, social, and environmental prosperity. Energy transition partnerships between the Global North and developing countries should catalyse learning, leading to shared understanding and transformative action for system-wide energy transitions. This is especially true for Africa, given its diversity, distinct energy and economic needs, and long history of unequal engagement with Europe and the Global North.

An important component will be inclusive communication with key stakeholder groups, to find common ground and ensure the energy transition path taken is socially sustainable and equitable. This means understanding the numerous parties involved in current supply chains of fossil fuels and related services, other existing power provisions, as well as the implications of alternative renewable energy sources. It also requires a framework for evaluating common principles, including macroeconomic impact, environmental resilience, basis for and access to finance, reduction of inequalities and climate justice. Accurately identifying associated social and economic dangers takes time and must be part of the planning process.

The true promise of JETPs, ETPs, and ETIPs lies in their use as a foundation for serious national discourse and structured dialogue about medium to long-term transition visions. It is an opportunity to identify social, institutional, political, and technical imaginations, impediments, and stumbling blocks, as well as substantial lock-in dangers, and then to analyse where and how innovative financial partnership could play a catalytic and learning role in it all.

It is interesting that SEforALL and McKinsey claim the desire to expand the ETIP to other developing countries is based on the success of their Nigerian model, while facts and experience have suggested the need for a more cautionary tale. Many have observed that the Nigerian ETP was constructed rapidly, behind closed doors, by multinational consultants using proprietary modelling tools, rather than through a collaborative process incorporating national discourse and national expertise, to which the continuous energy policy debate could recur again and again. It is possible that the Nigerian government’s very limited success in mobilising significant money since the elaboration of the ETP may be partly attributed to the apparent lack of national debate and transparency.

The true promise of JETPs, ETPs, and ETIPs lies in their use as a foundation for serious national discourse and structured dialogue about medium to long-term transition visions. It is an opportunity to identify social, institutional, political, and technical imaginations, impediments, and stumbling blocks, as well as substantial lock-in dangers, and then to analyse where and how innovative financial partnership could play a catalytic and learning role in it all.

Furthermore, the financing of energy transition plans and collaborations must mark a watershed moment in climate finance history. Recognising that the global North is obliged to financially support the global South in their climate response strategies, requires a corresponding step change in partnership with renewed focus, additional resources and financing offers that are aligned with the fiscal realities of the countries being supported. JETPs should not be seen as technological solutions offering modelling engines, as SE4All claims in their announcement, to the exclusion of wider just transition concepts including energy ownership democratisation, local production, loss compensation and regenerative livelihoods.

Transition arrangements and accords must respect heterogeneity. Only when the concept, design, and implementation of JETPs are founded on awareness of the wide diversity of countries’ energy demands, as well as their economic, social, and political environments, can they then have tremendous potential to build societal resilience. The geopolitical landscape of finance and much else – both in terms of access and cost of finance, is becoming increasingly murky and volatile.

In Africa, for example, consideration needs to be given to the extent of oil and gas dependence (including contribution to GDP), level of energy access, possibility of alternative generation, skills and employment rates, and quality of the existing grid, which are just a few of the many factors influencing energy access. A keen focus on diversity will help avoid JETPs being framed as transferable solutions, which is presently the case. The focus must be on context relating to specific country situations (including the type of energy needs for cooking, heating, cooling, mobility, and agriculture; existing energy resources/potential; existing energy infrastructure; existing jobs and strategies for industrialisation; and the proportion of the economy comprising energy-intensive sectors).

Given the minimal share of past emissions and even in next decades’ emissions of African countries, Senegal and other LDCs would seem as good examples of where new fossil energy investments are compatible with the objective of global climate action and climate justice, provided they do not trap the country in a stranded asset.

More essentially, JETPs depend on national capabilities, support structures and access to domestic finance as well – particularly for middle income global South countries. It is essential that finance be a partnership of risk sharing, mainstreaming of justice across public and private, international and national financing streams.

In addition, JETPs should not be seen as a device for asking African countries to phase out fossil fuels. A phase-out may be optimal in some countries, but not in others where fossil fuels are not the dominant source of energy – but may be an untapped resource that African countries wish to explore. JETPs should not be viewed solely through the prism of debate about renewable versus fossil energy. Instead, emphasis should be on determining how diverse technologies and innovations may best suit the country’s short- and long-term development needs.

While key voices in Senegal, for example, consider gas as a transition energy, they do not want a situation in which the EU’s de facto embargo on the use of natural gas in Africa stifles development of renewable energies. They believe proceeds from gas extraction should instead be used to gradually fund transition to sustainable energy. And the debate on gas development becoming stranded assets needs to be held with regards to the specific Senegalese situation.

Given the minimal share of past emissions and even in next decades’ emissions of African countries, Senegal and other LDCs would seem as good examples of where new fossil energy investments are compatible with the objective of global climate action and climate justice, provided they do not trap the country in a stranded asset.

Current transition plans appear too narrowly focused on decarbonisation and global climate objectives, rather than looking to the broader goals of the economic and sustainable development of African countries. A poorly framed energy transition plan with restricted net zero emission aims could result in transformation (if any) that is economically and environmentally damaging, as well as technically redundant.

Chukwumerije Okereke is the Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Development, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Nigeria, while Sébastien Treyer is the Executive Director, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), France; Chantal Naidoo is Founder and Executive Director, Rabia Transitions Initiative, South Africa; Youba Sokona is Special Advisor for Sustainable Development at the South Centre, Geneva, Switzerland; Ann Kingiri is the Director, Research and Innovation at the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya; and Elisabeth Hege is Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) France.

---

First published in Premium Times

By Chukwumerije Okereke

Dr. Okereke is director of the Center for Climate Change and Development at Alex Ekwueme Federal University in Nigeria.

Several environmentalists last year presented Africa’s leading climate negotiators with a bold idea: A technology called solar geoengineering could protect their countries from the worst effects of climate change, they said. While insisting they were impartial, representatives from the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative said that these technologies, which claim to be able to re-engineer the climate itself, either by dimming the sun’s rays or reflecting sunlight away from the earth, could quickly and cheaply turn the tide of dangerously rising temperatures — and that poor countries might have the most to gain.

It wasn’t the first time Westerners have tried to persuade Africans that solar engineering projects may be in our best interest. And it won’t be the last. In May, another international nonprofit, the Climate Overshoot Commission, headquartered in Paris, is hosting an event in Nairobi to help drum up support for research on solar geoengineering and other related technologies it says could be helpful in reducing risks when the world exceeds its global warming targets.

As a climate expert, I consider these environmental manipulation techniques extremely risky. And as an African climate expert, I strongly object to the idea that Africa should be turned into a testing ground for their use. Even if solar geoengineering can help deflect heat and improve weather conditions on the ground — a prospect that is unproven on any relevant scale — it’s not a long-term solution to climate change. It sends a message to the world that we can carry on over-consuming and polluting because we will be able to engineer our way out of the problem.

The solar engineering technology attracting the most attention would use balloons or aircraft to spray large quantities of aerosols — tiny particles of, for example, sulfur dioxide or engineered nanoparticles — into the stratosphere to dim the sunlight. It’s called solar radiation management and it’s highly speculative.Without using the whole earth as a laboratory, it’s impossible to know whether it would dim anything, let alone how it would affect ecosystems, people and the global climate.

Other proposed techniques include covering deserts with plastic; genetically engineering plants to have brighter, more reflective leaves; creating or making clouds whiter; and deploying millions of mirrors in space. The point of all of them is to counter warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet and reflecting it back to the stratosphere.

Africa is already suffering the effects of climate change, such as drought, floods and erratic weather. And while geoengineering advocates see these technologies as a solution to such problems, the technologies run the danger of upsetting local and regional weather patterns — intensifying drought or flooding, for example, or disrupting monsoon cycles. And the long-term impact on regional climate and seasons is still largely unknown. Millions, perhaps billions, of people’s livelihoods could be undermined.
These technologies would also theoretically need to be deployed essentially forever to keep warming at bay. Stopping would unleash the suppressed warming of the carbon dioxide still accumulating in the atmosphere in a temperature spike known as “termination shock.” One study found that the temperature change after ending solar radiation management could be up to four times as large as what’s being caused by climate change itself.

The other risk is that geoengineering will divert attention and investments from building renewable energy and other climate solutions in Africa. The continent has received only 2 percent of global investments in renewable energy in the last two decades, and the lack of access to capital is perhaps the biggest obstacle for countries that would like to cut down on fossil fuels.

Funding does not seem to be a problem for geoengineering researchers, however, particularly those in the United States. The Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program has been expanding rapidly, supported by Bill Gates and philanthropists from Silicon Valley, while George Soros recently announced his intention to back solar geoengineering projects in the Arctic. The University of Chicago has also this month announced the creation of the Climate Systems Engineering Initiative to partner with national labs to explore these and other strategies.

But should we even be studying geoengineering at all? More than 400 senior climate scientists and scholars from around the world have called for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. If it goes before the United Nations, it could result in a ban on real-world research on this technology.

Regardless, advocates have tried to entice African governments by offering to fund research projects, claiming that more research will shed more light on the dangers and benefits of the technology. One such organization, the Degrees Initiative, says its mission is to put “developing countries at the center” of the discussion around solar radiation management. But this just appears to be a way of trying to make Africa a test case for an unproven technology. Indeed more studies into this hypothetical solution look like steps toward development and a slippery slope to eventual deployment.

A striking example of rogue solar geoengineering is the case of the American start-up Make Sunsets, which recently launched balloons from Mexico to inject sulfur into the atmosphere with the claim this would offset carbon emissions. Data on the balloons’ final location, what happened with the released particles and any impact on warming were never made public.

The Mexican government was unaware of the exercise until after the fact, at which point officials swiftly announced a ban on solar geoengineering activities. The decision to test the technology without permission or notice was reckless, and the decision to do it in Latin America echoed some of the worst aspects of colonialism.

African nations should strongly resist letting their territories be used for experimental exercises like this. And they must join efforts to strengthen the de facto moratorium (under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity) on the development and deployment of these technologies. The technologies are potentially dangerous, and a major distraction from the real change that we all know wealthier nations need to make if we have a hope of outrunning climate devastation.

Chukwumerije Okereke is director of the Center for Climate Change and Development at Alex Ekwueme Federal University in Nigeria.

First Published in New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/opinion/geoengineering-climate-change-technology-africa.html

The ongoing effort to stem the negative impact of climate change presents Nigeria with unique opportunities to boost its economy and improve electricity supply through renewable sources, expert on climate change issues, Professor Chukwumerije Okereke has said.

Okereke who is the Director, Centre for Climate Change and Development, CCCD, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, stated this in Abuja at the award ceremony for the winners of the second National Essay Competition titled ‘Climate Change and Nigeria’s Economic Development: A letter to Mr. Incoming President’.

Prof. Okereke said the essays written by the three finalists would be sent to whoever emerges Nigeria’s President in the general elections.

He noted that climate change was not just an environmental issue but a national emergency that should be paid serious attention to by all Nigerians.

According to him, “Many people misunderstand climate change as a small environmental problem somewhere. We are saying that climate change is a national economic development issue. It has to do with agriculture. It has to do with migration. It has to do with security. It has to do with water resources. It has to do with energy. It has to do with urban planning. It has to do with transportation.

“Nigeria is losing according to the statistics and research done by the UK Government up to $100 billion a year to climate change as at 2020. And that number may go up to $250 billion per year by 2050 if Nigeria fails to take drastic action to tackle the problem. And the youth is the future.

“They’re our leaders. You can see how massive their engagement in the current election campaign is. So we thought that it’s important to bring the youth together, to animate them, to equip them to empower them, to sensitise them so that they can champion the cause of climate change and the action to solve the problem in Nigeria.

“As to whether the right is going to get to the President, absolutely. We will make sure that we email these three winning essays to whoever becomes the next president”.

Prof. Okereke explained that the government needs to create more awareness among Nigerians on the impact of climate change and also set out a national plan to tackle the issues.

He said that the national plan has to be implemented to the letter and also ensure that institutions charged with implementing the policies are staffed with competent people to drive the process.

“The good news is that if we can act on climate change in a sensible and wise and intelligent manner, we can actually turn it from being a threat to being an opportunity. For example, in the area of renewable energy, we have just about 4,000 megawatts of energy that we are generating for a country of about 200 million people. South Africa generates about 40 gigawatts. And yet, Nigeria is a land of sun, we can harvest all the energy we need to meet our power and electricity from the sun.

“Second, we can begin to utilise what we call green agriculture to be able to deal with the issue of desertification, desert encroachment, the degradation of the Lake Chad lecture and begin to create opportunity for women and men to go into green agriculture, which will build resilience to climate change and also lead to a lot of job opportunities.

“We should stop the flaring of our gas in the Niger Delta, because its contribution is about 55 million metric tonnes of CO2 per annum to Nigeria. And yet if we harness those gases we can use it to power modular cooking and energy in the rural areas of the country”, he added.

Earlier, the Director General, National Council on Climate Change, Dr. Salisu Dahiru warned that the impact of climate change would affect all Nigerians regardless of position or status in life.

Represented by the Director, Energy, Transportation and Infrastructure, Dr. Michael Ivenso, he urged Nigerian youths, especially young women to take greater interest in matters of climate change for the good of the country.

The Society for Planet and Prosperity (SPP), GCA Capital Partners and Climate Advisers Network (Berlin) have listed 11 key measures for Nigeria to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060.

Professor Chukwumerije Okereke, an internationally recorgnised scholar, stated this at a news conference on Monday, March 20, 2023, in Abuja.

Okereke, who is Director, SPP, said that the 11 measures were adopted out of a long list of 35 measures identified in key policy documents across priority sectors: Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use, Industry and Housing, Oil & Gas, Power, Transport, Waste and Water.

Okereke listed the top 11 measures to include: on- and Off-grid generation of renewable electricity, elimination of Diesel and Gasoline generators by 2030, and Planting of 300 million trees by 2030.

Others included End gas flaring by 2030, reduce wood cooking and introduce clean cooking to 30 million households, Construction of 300,000 green home annually for 5 years, shift to Bus Rapid Transport with enforcement of emission standards.

He also added Transition to properly designed engineered landfill with state-of-the-art gas collection, enhanced irrigation powered by renewable energy, increase energy efficiency by reducing transmission losses, and restoration of landscape scale and recharge of Lake Chad Basin.

According to him, a rough calculation indicates that these measures could result in emission reduction of about 174.01 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, similar to fossil emissions of Algeria or Iraq in 2021.

The scholar said that the aim of the project was to present the steps and decisions in a format that is accessible to a wider public through communication materials that can stimulate and inform a wider public debate involving civil society, policymakers and more importantly, the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) as it embarks on its full implementation of its mandate.

“Taken together, the Top 11 measures are best-suited to private and blended types of investment, which is essential in the current circumstances and are expected to signal an observable shift in the course of decision making for massive economic and social development while putting Nigeria on the path of achieving her net-zero ambition by 2060,” Okereke said.

He said that Nigeria at the brink of multiple climate crisis submitted an ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), presented its Energy Transition Plan and subsequently passed the Climate Change Act into law in 2021.

He said that few months later, Nigeria launched its Long-Term Vision to 2050 (LTV2050) that is now expected to appraise the development of its Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy.

He added that the significance of these steps was to galvanise effective action towards meeting its commitment made at the COP26 in Glasgow to achieve net-zero target by 2060.

Okereke said that the project embarked by SPP, and others analysed decisions and actions that, if taken in the next five years, would underpin a socio-economic transformation required to enable Nigeria to meet the government’s 2060 net-zero objective announced at COP26 in Glasgow.

According to him, the context of the project with regards to benefits and successful implementation of each measure were assessed based on four criteria, listed to include:

1. Economic diversification, (youth) job creation and poverty reduction;
2. Security, social safeguards, and gender equality;
3. Food security & public and environmental health; and,
4. Sustainable and affordable power and transport to justify the diversity and sustainability of the measures.

The Nigeria government committed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2060 during the UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26) which took place in Glasgow, Scotland in 2021. This report outlines 11 measures covering multiple sectors: Power, Agriculture and Forestry, Waste, Oil and Gas, Industry and Housing, Transport and Water; and actions to be taken in the next 5 years to put Nigeria on the path to achieving net zero. The report indicated that these measures could result in socio-economic benefits, emission reduction, and gradual shift towards a more circular economy.