RELEASE: 2025 P4G Vietnam Summit Concludes, Driving Climate Action and Green Investment in Emerging Economies
Global leaders gather to discuss scalable solutions for climate impact; P4G announces $4.7 million in funding and technical assistance for 17 startup partnerships.
HANOI, VIETNAM (April 25, 2025) — The 2025 Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 (P4G) Vietnam Summit concluded with an urgent call to action and renewed global commitment to scaling innovative climate solutions and unlocking green investment in Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs).
Hosted by the Government of Vietnam on April 16-17 under the theme "Sustainable and People-Centered Green Transition," the Summit brought together over 800 leaders from governments, businesses, multilateral institutions and civil society to explore scalable climate solutions and build partnerships that support startups across Africa, Asia and Latin America.
This included discussions on strategies for fast-tracking the green transition in EMDEs, business matching that paired startups with investors and the Green Growth Exhibition, which showcased climate startups’ products and solutions.
H.E. To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, opened with the need for comprehensive national planning, bold public sector leadership and private sector involvement to scale green growth, noting Vietnam's commitment to integrating the green transition into its national development strategy. Other high-level attendees included Pham Minh Chinh, Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; and Abiy Ahmed Ali, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, with virtual remarks by Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark and Emmanuel Macron, President of France.
A pre-summit hosted by P4G, a World Resources Institute initiative, took place on April 14-15, showcasing climate startups through panel sessions and the P4G Pitch Day, and convening its National Platforms — high-level public-private country networks that support climate entrepreneurs — and the Global Advisory Council for their annual meetings.
Key outcomes and achievements from the pre-summit include:
- P4G announced $4.7 million in grant funding and technical assistance for 17 startup partnerships in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.
- Over 70 climate startups from Vietnam and other developing economies pitched their business models to investors, with several, including P4G-funded startups Crustea, Sabio and agriBora, attracting investor interest.
- P4G signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Republic of Korea committing $1.8 million to accelerate P4G’s impact — reaffirming Korea's long-standing support for sustainable growth in emerging economies as a P4G founding member.
- Participating countries endorsed a declaration calling for people-centered green growth policies and support for global entrepreneurship and innovation.
“The Summit was a clarion call for countries to invest in climate innovation and design strong policies that support climate startups,” said Robyn McGuckin, Executive Director, P4G. “P4G is showcasing how startups are a powerful yet underutilized tool for mobilizing private investment toward national climate goals.”
At COP29, wealthy nations agreed to increase climate finance for developing nations by $300 billion annually by 2035, but this falls short of the $1.3 trillion needed. The Summit serves as a model for how public-private partnerships can help fill that gap and drive tangible solutions for climate action, job creation and economic growth.
As attention turns to the 2027 P4G Ethiopia Summit, the momentum from Hanoi provides a foundation for ongoing progress, with a continued focus on innovation, inclusion and securing the investments needed to drive resilient country transitions.
About P4G
P4G helps early-stage climate startups in emerging markets and developing economies become investment ready. We provide startups with grants and technical assistance, and partner them with national level public-private platforms to help navigate the marketplace. Through this approach, P4G strengthens market systems for climate entrepreneurs and accelerates just and resilient country economic transitions. Hosted by World Resources Institute and funded by Denmark, the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea, P4G accelerates food, water and energy partnerships in Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa and Vietnam. Learn more at p4gpartnerships.org.
About World Resources Institute
WRI works to improve people’s lives, protect and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and with partners in over 50 nations. Learn more at wri.org.
What We Know About Deep-Sea Mining — and What We Don’t
Minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earth elements are essential ingredients in everything from wind turbines and electric vehicles to cell phones, medical technologies and military infrastructure. Mining for these materials on land is already well established, but with demand surging, some are now looking to tap the seafloor for its millions of square kilometers of metal ores.
Some countries and companies have already begun exploring underwater mineral deposits and mining techniques — but the prospect of deep-sea mining remains controversial. Despite years of research, little is known about the deep ocean. Many fear that extracting minerals from it could pose grave consequences for both marine life and planetary health.
While nations can currently pursue deep-sea mining in their own domestic waters, the world is still awaiting exploitation regulations from the UN's International Seabed Authority (ISA) that will dictate whether and how it could proceed in international waters, where the bulk of the ocean's critical minerals are found.
With the future of deep-sea mining still under debate, here's what we know so far about the proposed practice and its impacts — and what we don't:
1) What Is Deep-Sea Mining and How Would It Be Done?Deep-sea mining aims to retrieve valuable mineral deposits found on the ocean's floor, hundreds or even thousands of meters below its surface. Alongside a diverse array of marine life at these depths are significant reserves of copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold and rare earth elements.
In the deep sea, these minerals are contained within slow-forming, potato-sized polymetallic "nodules," as well as in polymetallic sulfides (large deposits made up of sulfur compounds and other metals that form around hydrothermal vents) and metal-rich crusts on underwater mountains (seamounts). While there has been commercial interest in these minerals for decades, recent advancements in technology have made it feasible to mine these areas by sending vehicles down to harvest mineral deposits from the seafloor.
Mineral nodules on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a key area of interest for deep-sea mining. Photo by ROV KIEL 6000/GEOMARIn the case of polymetallic nodules — which are currently the primary focus for deep-sea mining in international waters — mining vehicles would remove mineral deposits from the surface of the seabed, along with the top layers of sediment, using a suction device not unlike a vacuum cleaner. The materials collected would then be piped up to a surface vessel for processing. Any waste, such as sediments and other organic materials, would be pumped back into the water column.
The bulk of the most attractive mineral deposits are found on vast seafloor abyssal plains in international waters. One area of particular interest is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean. This mineral-rich region already hosts exploration contracts for 17 deep-sea mining contractors, with their combined exploration areas covering approximately 1 million square kilometers (about the same area as Egypt).
2) What's the Current Status of Deep-Sea Mining?While exploratory mining to test equipment has occurred at a small scale, deep-sea mining has not yet been undertaken commercially. But some national governments and mining companies plan to begin as soon as possible.
A few countries have already approved permits to explore mineral resources in their own domestic waters (known as "exclusive economic zones," or "EEZs"). However, most deep-sea mining interest is concentrated in international waters, which means the industry's future will largely hinge on how the ISA decides to regulate it. After years of negotiations, the ISA is due to adopt a final set of regulations in July 2025 that will govern responsible commercial mining operations in international waters.
Opinion remains deeply divided on whether deep-sea mining should be allowed at all. Given the insufficiency of information on how it could affect marine environments, countries such as Germany and Canada, as well as the European Parliament, have called for national and regional moratoria on deep-sea mining. Portugal recently passed a law banning the practice in its national waters for the next 25 years.
Meanwhile, Canadian mining company The Metals Company announced in March 2025 that, through a U.S. subsidiary (The Metals Company USA LLC), it had begun the process of applying for licenses and permits under the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's mining code, known as the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 (DSHMRA). This pathway is possible because the U.S. has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under which the ISA sits. Hence the U.S. is not an ISA member and is not bound by ISA processes.
This could potentially accelerate the timeline for commercial deep-sea mining by circumventing the ISA's permitting process altogether. Depending on the outcome of The Mining Company's application, other companies may follow this route, undermining international efforts to secure shared standards.
3) What Are the Potential Benefits of Deep-Sea Mining?Proponents of deep-sea mining argue that it can help meet the world's pressing need for critical minerals, which will likely only continue to grow as countries invest more in decarbonization, digitization, defense and infrastructure. Estimates suggest that global demand for nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements may double by 2040 in a net-zero emissions scenario. Several studies have concluded that there is no shortage of mineral resources on land, but the world still faces significant hurdles in locating viable reserves and quickly scaling up mining and processing operations.
Some also view deep-sea mining as an alternative pathway that can circumvent certain risks associated with mining on land. Since extraction would occur exclusively at sea, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be associated with environmental hazards such as deforestation and freshwater pollution that can impact communities neighboring terrestrial mines. Yet others argue that infrastructure built to process and transport deep-sea minerals would require land acquisition and development, which may impact local communities' property, food sources and lifestyle.
Similarly, the difficulty in accessing deep-sea mineral deposits for exploitation means that artisanal (small-scale) mining operations would be impossible, and strong regulation of labor conditions may be feasible. This could potentially avoid the human rights abuses associated with some terrestrial mining operations. However, experiences of labor abuse in distant-water fishing operations show this outcome is not guaranteed.
4) What Are the Risks of Deep-Sea Mining?While the deep sea was once thought to be devoid of life — too dark, cold and starved of food for anything to survive — we now know that it is the largest habitable space on the planet and home to a dazzling array of life. To date, tens of thousands of species have been found in the deep ocean. Estimates say there could be millions more. In the Clarion-Clipperton Zone alone, a key area of interest for deep-sea mining, researchers have recently discovered over 5,000 species that were entirely new to science.
A starfish in a field of manganese nodules on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Thousands of previously unknown deep-sea species have already been discovered in this area, which some seek to mine for its mineral resources. Photo by ROV-Team/GEOMARWith exploration and testing still in the early stages, further research is needed to determine the possible ecological impacts of deep-sea mining. But the science to date paints a concerning picture.
- Direct harm to marine life: There is a high likelihood that less mobile deep-sea organisms would be killed through direct contact with heavy mining equipment deployed on the seabed, and that organisms would be smothered and suffocated by the sediment plumes these machines are likely to create. Warm mining wastewater could also kill marine life through overheating and poisoning.
- Long-term species and ecosystem disruption: Mining activities could impair the feeding and reproduction of deep-sea species through the creation of intense noise and light pollution in a naturally dark and silent environment. For example, the sound pollution from these activities could negatively impact large mega-fauna like whales, posing further risk to populations already strained by climate change and other human activities. Because many deep-sea species are rare, long-lived and slow to reproduce, and because polymetallic nodules (which may take millions of years to develop to a harvestable size) are an important habitat for deep-sea species, scientists are fairly certain that some species would face extinction from habitat removal due to mining, and that these ecosystems would require extremely long time periods to recover, if ever.
- Possible impacts on fishing and food security: It's not just the seafloor that's at risk. Under current designs, waste discharge from mining vessels could spread over large distances, potentially kilometers away from the areas being mined. This may pose a threat to open ocean fish and invertebrates which are crucial to international fisheries — such as tuna stocks that help drive the economies of small island developing states like Kiribati, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands. Effects of this mining waste could include suffocation, damaged respiratory and feeding structures, and disrupted visual communication within and amongst species, alongside changes in the oxygen content, pH, temperature and toxicity of seawater. However, more research is needed on the characteristics of the discharge plumes themselves and the tolerance of ocean species to fully understand these impacts.
- Social and governance risks: While extraction would occur offshore, the deep-sea mining industry would still need shoreline facilities for processing and transshipment of material. This would require land acquisition and development, which has historically driven habitat loss affecting coastal communities that depend on marine resources. Though the UN has designated high-seas minerals "the common heritage of [hu]mankind" and declared that any mineral extraction should benefit all nations, the current regulatory regime of the ISA appears to promote the flow of mining profits to developed states, or to shareholders of mining companies, rather than being inclusive of developing nations.
- Potential climate impacts: The ocean is the world's largest carbon sink, absorbing around 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Microscopic organisms play a critical role in this climate-regulating system, helping to sequester carbon in the deep sea and reduce emissions of other planet-warming gases (such as methane) from seabed sediments. The loss of deep-sea biodiversity following mining activity may impact the ocean's carbon cycle and reduce its ability to help mitigate global temperature rise.
The global supply of critical minerals (including rare earth elements) must grow in the coming years, and quickly. But there is no easy answer to meet this demand responsibly given the immature state and potential dangers of mining at sea and the well-understood harms associated with mining on land. While mineral resources on land appear sufficient to meet global needs, the world must address how to responsibly scale up supply in a way that minimizes environmental, social and governance risks while also creating benefits (such as safe, good-paying jobs) for nearby communities.
Circularity is an important pathway to meet the demand for minerals while reducing dependency on new mining. IEA estimates that significantly scaling up recycling could reduce the need for newly mined minerals by 40% for copper and nickel and 25% for lithium and cobalt by 2050. For some minerals, such as lithium and battery-grade nickel, the share from recycling will remain low for another 5-10 years before end-of-life EV battery volume starts to rise. For other minerals, such as copper and cobalt, there is already opportunity to scale recycling today, since they are widely used in many sectors such as electronics and infrastructure.
Better recycling practices in established waste streams, such as from electronics and electrical equipment, can help alleviate some short-term supply pressure while preparing the secondary supply chain to handle a large volume of end-of-life zero-carbon energy products in the future. There is also a range of research efforts underway to obtain the necessary minerals without mining virgin land, including recovery from coal waste or hard rock mine tailings.
How technology evolution is changing demand for minerals should also be considered. Take batteries as an example: There is a growing shift away from nickel manganese cobalt oxides (NMC) batteries toward lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries. LFP batteries gained significant market share from 2015 to 2022, and their key materials, lithium and iron, are not targets of deep-sea mining. Emerging technologies such as sodium-ion batteries also have the potential to alter the EV battery market by replacing lithium and cobalt with cheaper, more abundant options.
With Serious Questions Still Unanswered, What Comes Next?After failing to reach an agreement at previous meetings, the ISA is aiming to finalize regulations for commercial mining during its 30th session in July 2025. It is crucial that the regulations fully consider the following key questions and knowledge gaps:
- What is the potential magnitude and extent (both in space and time) of deep-sea mining impacts on marine species and environments, and what are the likely ecological consequences?
- What are the potential social and economic impacts of deep-sea mining? Is it possible for the industry to be advanced in a way that meets the UNCLOS goal of fostering sustainable economic development, international cooperation and equitable trade growth for all countries?
- How can a circular mineral economy be further developed to lessen the need for environmentally intrusive practices? More research must be conducted into land-based and urban mining practices to improve their efficiency, as well as into improving product design to reduce demand for and increase recycling of critical minerals.
- What are the possible positive and negative implications of deep-sea mining in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as well as for furthering research into deep-sea environments?
- What regulations could be developed to ensure that the financial benefits from deep-sea mining operations, should they occur, are equitably distributed among nations?
Finally, for the exploration of deep-sea mineral resources to continue, regulations should be transparent and collaborative, with participation from interested parties and key stakeholders — including ISA members, mining corporations and scientists. The regulations need to be backed by science and other forms of knowledge, enforceable, and offer effective protection for delicate marine environments from the impacts of mining.
Editor's note: This article was originally published in July 2023. It was last updated in April 2025 to reflect developments in deep-sea mining policy.
deep-sea-mining-vessel Ocean Ocean climate change Clean Energy Trending Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Oliver Ashford Jonathan Baines Melissa Barbanell Ke WangWhat Would Ambitious Climate Commitments Look Like for the World’s Top Emitters? It’s Complicated
It’s been nearly 10 years since 194 countries adopted the Paris Agreement on climate change. And while many have made strides forward, their collective efforts still fall far short of what’s needed to avoid increasingly dangerous impacts and limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).
The UN’s latest assessment, for example, finds that countries’ current policies put the world on course for 3.1 degrees C (5.6 degrees F) of warming, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions holding steady at 57 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2030 and 2035. To limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, these emissions must instead decline rapidly to 33 GtCO2e in 2030 and 25 GtCO2e in 2035.
The good news is that this year presents a prime opportunity to change course, with countries set to put forward new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) ahead of COP30 in November 2025. The Paris Agreement requires that each successive NDC reflect a country’s “highest possible ambition,” as well as its “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” All eyes are now on governments to establish bold, new emissions-reduction targets for 2035, as well as strengthen their existing targets for 2030, in line with these core tenants. But as NDCs begin to trickle in, a critical question remains: What would ambitious targets look like for major emitters like the European Union or China?
The short answer? No matter which way you slice it, major emitters need to go further.
The longer answer is more complicated ...
5 Approaches for Setting National Emissions-Reduction Targets for 2030 and 2035Divvying up the responsibility of achieving any global goal to individual countries is a complex, value-laden process. For example, should countries that can achieve the largest and cheapest emissions reductions set the most ambitious targets? Or should wealthy nations that have historically emitted the most GHGs shoulder the greatest responsibilities?
Various corners of the climate community tackle these questions differently, using a range of methods to develop near-term national benchmarks. These perspectives can yield distinct — and for some countries, contradictory — results.
To illustrate what ambition looks like under different lenses for six major emitters, we compiled 2030 and 2035 national benchmarks derived from five of the most widely used approaches and compared them to targets in these countries’ most recent NDCs. They include:
1) 1.5°C-aligned, Least-cost Pathways: Modelled scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C at the lowest possible cost — such as those featured in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — are among the most common sources for establishing national benchmarks. While some global climate models can now generate least-cost pathways for major emitters, others still lack country-level data. They instead simulate global or regional scenarios that must be downscaled to the national level.
A Deeper Look at 1.5°C-Aligned, Least-Cost Pathways
In addition to maximizing cost-effectiveness globally, one of the main benefits of deriving national benchmarks from 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost scenarios is that they can account for important interactions across sectors (such as how decarbonizing power generation alongside scaling up electric vehicles can reduce transport emissions) and countries (for example, how supportive policies adopted in one major economy can help reduce the cost of zero-carbon technologies more broadly and, in doing so, accelerate adoption in other nations).
But these scenarios have also faced criticisms that extend beyond their treatment of equity and fairness. More specifically, some 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways feature large-scale carbon removal from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation that could harm biodiversity, food security and human rights.
So, while we present 2030 and 2035 benchmarks from least-cost pathways that hold warming to 1.5 degrees C from the IPCC scenario database, we filter out those that rely on unsustainable levels of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation to achieve this temperature goal, following criteria developed by Climate Analytics and used for global, sectoral benchmarking in the State of Climate Action series. Ideally, other approaches that rely on these least-cost pathways as a starting point for national benchmarking — namely 1.5 degrees-C-aligned, fair-share perspectives — would employ similar filters.
2) 1.5°C-aligned, Fair-share Pathways: A well-cited critique of relying solely on least-cost pathways to establish national benchmarks is that they ignore equity and fairness. Not only do inequalities in incomes, energy use and GHG emissions among countries persist in IPCC scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, but because they prioritize economic efficiency, these least-cost pathways can also assign some developing countries disproportionate responsibility for reducing GHG emissions, relative to their contributions to the climate crisis. Fair-share perspectives attempt to address such limitations — for instance, by considering historical responsibility for total emissions, economic capacity and equality in per capita emissions — when determining each country’s contribution to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C.
But even defining equity and fairness across different fair-share approaches remains hotly contested, and such perspectives do not necessarily consider feasibility. Some countries’ fair-share contributions, for example, require GHG emissions to reach net zero or net negative by 2030, but such steep declines strain the bounds of feasibility even under the most favorable political conditions. In these select cases, approaches may allow for countries to compensate for what they cannot reduce domestically by financing emissions reductions beyond their borders.
3) National Modelled Pathways to Net Zero: Still other methods avoid global pathways entirely and instead rely on country-specific modeling. These scenarios focus not on determining an individual nation’s contribution to the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, but rather on achieving that country’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions. They show how steeply emissions need to decline in 2030 and 2035 to stay on track to reach net zero — typically around mid-century for most countries.
4) Linear Trajectories to Net Zero: A related but simpler approach gaining traction among some governments is a “linear or steeper” trajectory to net zero. Essentially, if countries drew a straight line to their net-zero target — for example, 0 GtCO2e in 2050 — then their 2030 and 2035 targets should either be on this line or below it, reflecting a constant decline in GtCO2e each year. But the devil is in the details, as the starting point governments select may significantly impact the steepness of the line; the steeper the line, the more ambitious the national benchmarks will be.
5) Bottom-up, Feasibility-focused Modeling: This method relies on country-specific modeling to determine what level of mitigation is feasible within a given nation, irrespective of a global limit on warming or that country’s commitment to reach net zero. Often relying on more granular, country-specific data, these studies primarily estimate GHG emissions reductions that could be achieved if a government instituted a carbon price, championed a specific policy portfolio or deployed a particular suite of zero-carbon technologies. Some of these modeling efforts also quantify mitigation that is possible if a country pursues a “just transition” or achieves national development priorities, alongside efforts to mitigate climate change. These scenarios may end up charting pathways to net-zero emissions or show that deep GHG emissions cuts in line with 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways are feasible, but these end goals are not inputs to the modeling.
This list of methods is not exhaustive. For example, we excluded a carbon budgeting approach due to a lack of national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035. But like 1.5 degree C-aligned, fair-share pathways, this method aims to more equitably distribute responsibility for achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal by allocating the global carbon budget to countries according to their relative shares of the world’s population.
What Do Ambitious 2030 and 2035 Emissions-Reduction Targets Look Like for 6 of the World’s Biggest Emitters?Together, China, the United States, India, the European Union, Brazil and Indonesia currently emit more than half of the world’s GHGs each year. Their near-term climate ambition, then, plays an outsized role in determining whether the world can reduce emissions enough to hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
Relying on the five approaches above, we assessed just how ambitious these major emitters’ current mitigation targets are, as well as what strong 2030 and 2035 targets could look like for those that have not yet submitted their new NDCs.
The headline is that while most major emitters have set near-term targets that would be considered ambitious under at least one perspective, none feature targets for 2030 and 2035 that are sufficiently ambitious across each of the five approaches assessed. What’s more, all six NDCs fall well short of what’s needed to keep the 1.5 degrees C limit within reach.
BrazilAmong the first countries to submit a new NDC in November 2024, Brazil committed to reduce GHG emissions 59-67% by 2035, relative to 2005. While President Lula’s government did not strengthen the country’s 2030 target that aims to lower GHG emissions 53% from 2005 levels, it did reiterate Brazil’s pledge to reach climate neutrality by 2050. If achieved, these targets would cause GHG emissions to fall from 2.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030, 0.84-1.0 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.
Brazil’s target for 2030 is considered ambitious under only two of the five approaches, while its target for 2035 is fully aligned with just one. More specifically, linear trajectories to net zero show that the country’s GHG emissions drop to 1.1-1.5 GtCO2e by 2030 and 0.85-1.1 GtCO2e by 2035 — equivalent to cuts of 43-56% and 57-67% from 2005 levels, respectively. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling affirm that near-term reductions of this magnitude are possible.
Aligning Brazil’s NDC with 1.5 degrees C, however, would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to 1.5 degrees C show the country’s GHG emissions dropping 84-93% by 2035, relative to 2005, while a fair-share approach developed by Observatório do Clima calls for similarly steep declines, with GHG emissions decreasing 93% from 2005 levels by the same year. In real terms, this means that GHG emissions would fall to just 0.17-0.42 GtCO2e by 2035.
Although Brazil has already submitted its new NDC, there are still opportunities for President Lula’s administration to deepen mitigation efforts over the next decade. For example, the government has yet to publish a long-term strategy, which could help guide implementation.
ChinaChina overtook the United States as the world’s largest emitter in the early 2000s, with annual GHG emissions climbing from roughly 6.9 GtCO2e in 2005 to nearly 13 GtCO2e in 2021. In its most recent NDC published in 2021, the Chinese government committed to peaking CO2 emissions before 2030, reducing the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP produced (also known as carbon intensity) by at least 65% from 2005 levels by 2030, and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Lack of detail in China’s most recent NDC as well as some ambiguity in the scope of the country’s net-zero target makes it challenging to translate these commitments into absolute levels of GtCO2e. But a recent analysis from Climate Watch suggests that the country’s GHG emissions would reach roughly 13 GtCO2e in 2030 if the government achieved its near-term intensity target.
China’s 2030 target falls short on ambition across all approaches. These lenses, however, differ on the magnitude of cuts required by the end of this decade. 1.5 degree C-aligned, least-cost pathways, for example, show steep declines down to 4.9-5.9 GtCO2e, while country-specific modelling to net zero suggests smaller decreases to roughly 11 GtCO2e. But across all perspectives, GHG emissions fall below the 13 GtCO2e implied by China’s current NDC. This suggests that there’s considerable room for China to strengthen its 2030 target.
These five approaches also call for continued GHG emissions reductions through 2035. Fair share-based perspectives suggest relatively modest declines in GHG emissions to 7.3-12 GtCO2e (note that these figures exclude emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), which acts as a net sink and accounts for -5% of China’s total net emissions). Modelled pathways to net zero also fall within this range. Yet other approaches imply much deeper cuts. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, for example, indicates that China could reduce its GHG emissions to 4.8-8.9 Gt CO2e by 2035, while 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways project emissions falling all the way down to 3.8-4.6 GtCO2e in the same year.
Emitting roughly a quarter of the world’s GHGs, China’s ambition on climate change significantly impacts the world’s ability to confront this global crisis. A bold, new commitment to slash economy-wide emissions by 2035, as well as a far stronger 2030 target in the country’s next NDC, could go a long way in keeping the 1.5-degrees C limit within reach.
European UnionSubmitted in 2023, the European Union’s most recent NDC commits its 27 members to reduce GHG emissions at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030, as well as to collectively achieve climate neutrality by 2050. If fully implemented, the region’s GHG emissions would fall from today’s 3.1 GtCO2e to 2.1 GtCO2e by the end of this decade and to 0 GtCO2e by midcentury.
The EU’s current target for 2030 aligns with just two approaches. Linear trajectories to net zero show the region’s GHG emissions falling to 1.5-2.2 GtCO2e by the end of this decade, with bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling suggesting that the upper bound of this range is possible. But to help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, the EU would need to strengthen its near-term ambition. More specifically, least-cost pathways aligned with this temperature goal project GHG emissions declining to 1.9-2.0 GtCO2e — equivalent to a 57-60% reduction from 1990 levels. A fair-share-based contribution from the EU would require still greater ambition. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) drop to near or below zero, representing at least a 91% reduction from 1990 levels. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the region’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.29 GtCO2e per year since 1990.
Looking beyond 2030, continued steep declines in emissions are paramount. EU lawmakers are currently debating a new target proposed by the European Commission that would reduce GHG emissions 90% by 2040, relative to 1990. And while the region’s 2035 target is not yet formally on the table, policymakers are actively discussing how to estimate it. Some are drawing a straight line from the EU’s 2030 target to its existing 2050 target and arguing that the 2035 target should achieve a 66% decline from 1990 levels, while others are drawing a straight line from the EU’s 2030 target to the proposed 2040 target and advocating for a 73% reduction from 1990 levels by 2035. Approaches that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C call for even greater ambition. Least-cost pathways, for example, model a 71-80% decrease in GHG emissions relative to 1990, while fair-share approaches indicate that the EU’s GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) fall by more than 100%. Therefore, only the 73% reduction under discussion among EU lawmakers could be considered sufficiently ambitious for a 1.5 degrees C future.
IndiaIndia’s GHG emissions have yet to peak, rising in recent years from about 2.0 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.4 GtCO2e in 2021. India’s most recent NDC from 2022 commits to reducing the amount of emissions released per unit of GDP produced (also known as emissions intensity) by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaffirms its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. The government, however, has yet to clarify whether these targets refer to all GHGs or just to CO2, and this lack of clarity complicates efforts to assess the country’s ambition. But assuming that India’s pledge to reduce emissions intensity covers all GHGs, recent analysis featured on Climate Watch suggests that achieving this near-term target would further increase emissions to 4.7 GtCO2e by 2030.
While all approaches allow India’s GHG emissions some room to increase through 2030, its current target aligns with only two of them. Country-specific modelling efforts that estimate feasible GHG emissions reductions under different policy portfolios, for example, show India’s emissions reaching between 3.4-5.1 GtCO2e in 2030, while national modelling to net zero similarly project GHG emissions rising to 4.8 GtCO2e by the end of this decade. 1.5 degrees C-aligned, fair-share approaches — which are particularly salient in the context of India’s relatively small historical contribution to the climate crisis, low per capita emissions and development challenges — show somewhat smaller increases in GHG emissions to 3.7-4.0 GtCO2e by 2030 (excluding emissions from LULUCF, which act as a net sink and accounts for just -1% of India’s total net emissions).
While approaches diverge on whether India’s emissions can continue rising through 2035, all agree that GHG emissions cannot grow substantially beyond levels implied by the government’s 2030 target. On one end of the spectrum, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways model GHG emissions declining to 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035, while on the other, country-specific modelling to net zero indicates that GHG emissions roughly stabilize at their projected 2030 value of 4.8 GtCO2e in 2035. Fair-share approaches similarly find that GHG emissions remain relatively steady at 3.7-4.1 GtCO2e in 2035. But bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling project a more mixed bag of GHG emissions rising and falling between 2030 and 2035 across different scenarios.
IndonesiaIndonesia’s latest NDC from 2022 commits to lowering GHG emissions almost 32% by 2030, relative to a business-as-usual scenario (its “unconditional” target). With additional climate finance from international funders, the government could achieve more aggressive cuts of just over 43% (its “conditional target”). These targets translate to absolute GHG emissions of 2 GtCO2e (unconditional) or 1.6 GtCO2e (conditional) in 2030, as compared to the approximately 1.4 GtCO2e emitted today. The Indonesian government has also previously pledged to peak GHG emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2060.
Indonesia’s 2030 targets fall short of all but one of the approaches. Indeed, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways show GHG emissions declining to 0.80-0.88 GtCO2e by 2030, while bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling call for cuts of a similar, albeit smaller magnitude. Only country-specific modelling to net zero by 2060 shows GHG emissions rising from current levels to reach 1.6-2.8 GtCO2e by 2030 — a range that encompasses both the country’s conditional and unconditional targets.
Submitting a new NDC this year offers Indonesia an opportunity not only to strengthen its current target for 2030, but also to set a new, ambitious target for 2035. National modelling to net zero by 2060 generally show GHG emissions peaking in 2030 before declining to between 1.3-2.4 GtCO2e in 2035, while linear trajectories to this same pledge show slightly deeper cuts from Indonesia’s 2030 targets to 1.0-1.6 GtCO2e. 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways chart even more ambitious declines to 0.61-0.78 GtCO2e in 2035, with bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling affirming that cuts of this magnitude could technically be achieved.
United StatesJust prior to leaving office, the Biden administration published the United States’ new NDC. It commits the world’s second-largest emitter to reducing GHG emissions 61-66% from 2005 levels by 2035, as well as reaffirms the country’s previous pledge to cut emissions 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. In real terms, this NDC promises that GHG emissions will fall from 6.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.2-3.3 GtCO2e by 2030, 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.
But with the change in administration and President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the federal government is already beginning to roll back climate action, as well as adopt tariffs that are disrupting efforts to combat the climate crisis. Still, civil society groups and many state governments have rallied around this new NDC and have committed to still make progress toward these targets.
U.S. targets for 2030 and 2035 are fully consistent with three of the five approaches. Lowering GHG emissions to 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 falls within the range estimated by bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, pathways to net zero, and linear trajectories to net zero. These same trends hold for the U.S.’ existing target for 2030.
But aligning the U.S. targets with a 1.5 degrees-C future would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to this temperature limit, for example, call for GHG emissions to fall to 2.4-3.1 GtCO2e by 2030 and 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035. Only the most ambitious bound of the U.S. target for 2035 falls within this range. Fair-share perspectives posit that the U.S. — as the world’s wealthiest country, a nation with relatively high per capita emissions and the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs since the pre-industrial era — has an imperative to go further still. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) fall at least 87% by 2030 and 99% by 2035, relative to 2005. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the country’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.90 GtCO2e per year since 2005. Since such steep declines would prove enormously difficult to achieve domestically, the United States could still deliver a fair-share contribution to 1.5 degrees C by providing additional finance to support emissions reductions and carbon removals beyond its borders.
Will Major Emitters Submit Stronger NDCs?The Paris Agreement is clear: NDCs should reflect countries’ “highest possible ambition,” with each round putting forward stronger targets than the last. But as this analysis confirms, there are still gaps between major emitters’ near-term targets and what’s urgently needed to keep the 1.5 degrees limit within reach. For some countries, their 2030 and 2035 targets also fall short of the ambition required to stay on track to achieve their own net-zero pledges.
Greater ambition from all countries — and especially these major emitters — is paramount. In a moment of global economic uncertainty, the need for ambitious climate action that targets both inclusive economic prosperity and long-term stability is stronger than ever. The NDCs that governments submit this year, as well as the plans and finance they put in place to achieve them, will decide the fate of the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. Major emitters must meet this moment by stepping up their ambition in their new round of NDCs.
About the Data
Brazil
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to Brazil’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario by Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and from the two ‘Just Transition’ scenarios from the Climate and Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to net zero, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from its 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from Observatório do Clima (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Brazil’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
China
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to China’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Carbon Neutrality’ scenario by the Energy Policy Simulator and the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘GHG Net Zero’ scenario. For linear trajectories to China’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from China’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. Because China’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Climate Mitigation’ and ‘Towards Sustainability’ scenarios by Lu et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Climate Watch, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
European Union
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the minimum and maximum values of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s filtered pathways. Regional modelled pathways to the EU’s net-zero pledge were not available. For linear trajectories to the EU’s net-zero pledge, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the EU’s 1990 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
India
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to India’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Enhanced NDC’ scenario by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative. For linear trajectories to India’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from India’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2070. Because India’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Long-term Decarbonization’ and ‘NDC-SDG Linkages’ scenarios by the Energy Policy Simulator, GEM India’s ‘Net Zero’ scenario and the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Climate Watch, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
Indonesia
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘DDS Low’ and ‘DDS High’ scenarios by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and the ‘NZ2060’ scenario by the Low Carbon Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing straight lines from the country’s 2030 NDC targets and stated peak value in 2030 to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
United States
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Central’ scenario by Jones et al. (2024), the ‘Net Zero’ scenario by Jenkins et al. (2024), the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario and the Energy Policy Simulator’s ‘NDC’ scenario. For linear trajectories to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the U.S.’ 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Higher Ambition’ and ‘Higher Ambition+’ scenarios by Iyer et al. (2025), the ‘Enhanced Ambition’ scenario by Zhao et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report in 2021.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
installing-solar-panels-hebei-province-china.jpg Climate NDC climate policy net-zero emissions greenhouse gases National Climate Action data visualization Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Next-Generation Climate Targets: A 5-Point Plan for NDCs 10 Big Findings from the 2023 IPCC Report on Climate Change What Does "Net-Zero Emissions" Mean? 8 Common Questions, Answered By the Numbers: The Climate Action We Need This Decade Projects Authors Clea Schumer Sophie Boehm Kirian Mischke-Reeds Cynthia ElliottA Look at China’s Innovative Corporate Carbon Accounting and Rating Platform
China's commitments to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 come with an enormous financing need. Estimates suggest the country must invest at least RMB 2-4 trillion (approximately US$275-$550 billion) per year in green and low-carbon projects to meet these goals. Public funding alone can cover only about 10%-15% of this required investment, leaving a large financing gap that private sector capital must fill. This makes the development of carbon-linked financial products and investment mechanisms a priority.
China's sustainable finance market is already large and growing, with trillions in outstanding green loans and green bonds. Yet many companies — especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)— still face difficulties in accessing green finance. SMEs often lack the necessary data for emissions disclosure, making it difficult for them to demonstrate reductions and qualify for green financial products. A survey conducted in 2023 found that around 60% of small and micro enterprises did not know how to measure their greenhouse gas emissions, reflecting significant gaps in technical capacity that hinder their access to green finance.
Financial institutions, for their part, struggle to incorporate climate factors into decision-making due to inconsistent and incomplete corporate climate-related data. Without clear climate-related data, they cannot accurately assess companies' carbon performance or develop appropriate green financial products. The issue is further compounded in hard-to-abate industries like steel, cement and petrochemicals, as it's difficult for financial institutions to define transition activities and recognize meaningful decarbonization efforts.
To bridge this gap, China has developed an innovative Corporate Carbon Accounting and Rating Platform, which leverages digital technologies to automatically capture and evaluate carbon performance of corporates in a way that financial institutions can easily understand. The platform has been piloted in at least six regions across China since 2021.
Here we offer an overview of the platform, breaking down how it can help scale China's sustainable finance and enhance financial inclusion — particularly for SMEs and hard-to-abate industries — as well as potential opportunities to support its expansion.
What Is China's Corporate Carbon Accounting and Rating Platform?The Corporate Carbon Accounting and Rating Platform is a digital solution that automates the collection of corporate emissions data to help streamline carbon accounting and carbon performance evaluation. Its results are used to inform financial institutions in delivering finance with special terms linked to climate performance.
Here's how it works:
- Data acquisition: The platform dynamically collects corporate energy consumption data for operational emissions1 along with economic activity data (such as output, value-added and tax revenue). Data is sourced from statistics managed by local government departments (such as taxation, environment and economics) and centralized in a government-backed data platform.
- Carbon performance evaluation: Using an embedded carbon accounting model, the platform generates key indicators, such as carbon emission intensity per unit of output and emission reduction rates relative to a baseline year. These metrics are then translated into company ratings based on a structured rating methodology.
- Application: The rating results are provided either as scores or color codes, which financial institutions can use to screen clients and charge differentiated loan interest rates to support their emissions-reduction activities. Currently, loans are the most commonly used financial instruments linked to the platform.
The platform is different from traditional corporate carbon rating approaches in a few key aspects.
First, it offers top-down data acquisition empowered by digital technology. Unlike the traditional bottom-up self-reporting approach to collect emission data from corporates, this platform sources data directly from local departments or energy management systems. This centralized data acquisition process helps generate timely and high-quality results.
In addition, it facilitates government involvement to drive synergies. Local governments play an active role in the initial construction of such a platform, facilitating direct data access through official endorsement. This government involvement also encourages broader participation from financial institutions and corporates, unlocking greater data availability and financial resources.
While the platform is initiated by local governments, its construction and operation are managed by public data management entities, such as State Grid Huzhou Electric Power Company, Quzhou Energy Big Data Center and Shenzhen Credit (a government-backed credit information platform). This means its coverage and ratings systems vary by city or region.
What Benefits Does the Platform Bring?China's platform is intended to help both enterprises and financial institutions unlock more opportunities for sustainable finance. By streamlining carbon accounting, enhancing data accuracy and linking carbon performance to financial resources, the platform improves efficiency and helps businesses pursue decarbonization efforts — especially benefiting SMEs and businesses in hard-to-abate industries.
Specifically, it offers several novel benefits:
Using ratings to provide simple language to financial institutions and facilitate transition finance: The platform translates carbon-related data into clear rating results, providing a common language within each city or region for assessing and comparing carbon performance between companies in the same sector. This helps financial institutions make informed decisions on sustainable finance, especially in hard-to-abate industries.
The platform also captures more detailed company-level carbon reduction information than is available in other green financing products, enabling banks to recognize credible transition activities easily. For example, Shandong leveraged the platform to launch the region's first "transition loan" for the petrochemical sector.
Lowering the cost of data acquisition, especially for SMEs: One of the advantages of the platform is to reduce costs of data acquisition for both enterprises and financial institutions, particularly for small businesses. By centralizing data collection and utilizing government resources, the platform allows financial institutions and companies to generate emissions results without incurring additional costs.
Improving efficiency to access emissions data: By directly integrating real-time energy consumption data from local energy systems and tax records, the platform allows corporates to instantly access their carbon performance results. For financial institutions, reliable and readily available data improves efficiency in assessing corporate carbon performance, enabling more precise decision-making when offering sustainable financial products.
- Incentivizing corporates to improve their carbon performance: The platform effectively links carbon performance ratings to tangible financial benefits, creating a clear incentive for companies to improve their carbon efficiency. For example, companies with better carbon ratings in pilot regions like Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Qinghai have access to lower-interest loans and preferential financial terms. This encourages businesses to invest in greener technologies and pursue carbon reduction strategies aligned with broader climate goals.
China follows a "pilot-then-promote" approach to policy implementation, first testing in designated pilot zones before scaling new policies nationwide. Huzhou and Quzhou serve as national green finance pilot zones, while Shenzhen, as a pioneering hub of China's reform and opening-up, continues to be at the forefront of green finance innovation and policy experimentation.
As of 2024, pilot practices with the new platform were implemented in six cities: Quzhou, Huzhou, Shenzhen, Zhaoqing, Qinghai and Guangzhou, and more are evolving. While the platform offers the same core function in each case (using digital data acquisition to calculate emissions and generate ratings), detailed approaches — such as rating criteria, data acquisition method, sectoral coverage, the operating entity and more — vary across regions. Among these, Quzhou, Huzhou and Shenzhen are the most representative.
Quzhou: A pioneer with broad sectoral coverageQuzhou, the first city to launch this platform in 2021, covers a wide range of sectors, including industry, agriculture, energy, construction, transportation, residential life and forestry carbon sinks. As of August 2023, Quzhou's carbon accounting and rating platform covered 2,766 industrial corporates, 1,000 agricultural entities, 98 energy corporates and 129 construction entities. The platform uses real-time energy data collection via devices installed at enterprises, with updates every 15 minutes.
Based on the rating methodology, corporates are labelled by different colors, influencing the credit granted from financial institutions. Commercial banks can access and utilize corporate carbon credit reports through the "Qu Rong Tong" (衢融通) platform, a multidimensional data platform built on provincial and municipal data-sharing systems. These reports include three key components: corporate energy consumption structure, carbon emission data and labeling results.
For example, in Qujiang Rural Commercial Bank's "Carbon Finance Easy Loan" (碳融易贷) product (Figure 1), enterprises labelled as "Deep Green" receive an interest rate discount of 50 basis points (BP), while "Light Green" enterprises receive a 30BP reduction. In contrast, "Yellow" and "Red" enterprises face cautious support or are restricted from new credit access. These loans can support projects such as industrial equipment upgrades, energy efficiency improvements and sustainable agricultural practices.
Figure 1: Qujiang Rural Commercial Bank's "Carbon Finance Easy Loan" Huzhou: Wider applications backed by a strong data-sharing mechanismIn Huzhou, the platform is widely recognized as the "Industrial Carbon Efficiency Code" and is now being scaled up to the provincial level. This code displays carbon emission results with their corresponding ratings (Figure 2). The platform in Huzhou covers 49,345 industrial enterprises above a designated size in Zhejiang Province. It is supported by a robust data sharing mechanism, which leverages Huzhou's policies connecting key departments for energy and economic data integration.
Distinct from other pilot cities, the platform in Huzhou has a wider range of applications beyond green finance, extending to energy-saving services and energy trading. Huzhou Municipal Bureau of Economy and Information Technology, in collaboration with the grid company and third-party service providers, offer free energy-saving assessments and develop carbon-reduction plans for enterprises rated at Levels 4 and 5, and subsidize 10% of the costs for energy-saving and efficiency improvement projects. "In Huzhou, the primary goal of establishing this platform is not just monitoring, but actively guiding enterprises in their low-carbon transition," said a representative from the Municipal Bureau of Economy and Information Technology.
Huzhou also pioneered a dedicated local policy supporting green electricity trading through its platform. The platform can automatically link a company's green electricity procurement to its performance rating, which helps corporates improve their code level. By November 2024, Zhejiang had facilitated 3.3 billion kWh of green electricity trading.
As of February 2025, the platform had enabled RMB 30.318 billion (US$4.17 billion) in green loans and supported 210 firms in green electricity trading, helping to cut 1.4 million tons of carbon emissions. It had also supported 81 projects, such as industrial energy efficiency upgrades, renewable energy adoption and process optimization, reducing emissions by a further 64,000 tons. For example, a cement company in Huzhou replaced outdated production lines with a smart manufacturing system, lowering coal consumption per ton of cement by 10% annually through the loan provided.
Figure 2: Huzhou's Industrial Carbon Efficiency Code Shenzhen: Empowering SMEs to access green financingLaunched in July 2024, Shenzhen's carbon accounting and rating platform primarily serves SMEs, with 85% of the 50 pilot companies being small and medium-sized enterprises. Unlike Quzhou and Huzhou, Shenzhen uses digitalized tax data to capture relevant invoices, calculate carbon emissions and generate rating reports. The third-party provider, a consulting firm expert in carbon rating and sustainability, develops the carbon rating methodology; Shenzhen Credit2 (深圳征信) operates the platform, providing access to invoice data and generating rating reports; while Shenzhen Green Exchange3 (深圳绿色交易所), Shenzhen's official carbon trading platform, oversees the accounting process and ensures data accuracy through cross-validation. This highly efficient process enables users to download reports within five minutes, significantly reducing the previous weeks-long workload for carbon emissions accounting.
The rating report categorizes corporates into nine levels from AAA to CCC, with five indicators (energy efficiency, carbon emissions efficiency, energy-saving effect, emission reduction effect and industry efficiency) each scored out of 100. The report also presents the energy consumption structure and carbon emissions in the form of a pie chart and includes other emission information, such as annual emissions, carbon reduction, per capita emissions, annual energy consumption and energy savings, among others.
In Shenzhen's first phase, the "Carbon Reduction Loan" product was promoted, with eight pilot banks using the ratings in credit approval, loan pricing and risk management. Companies with significant emission reductions receive differentiated benefits such as lower interest rates, longer terms and more favorable loan conditions, with maximum discounts of up to 30 BP. Banks can allocate funding to specific projects or general-purpose loans. For example, Postal Savings Bank Shenzhen Nanxin Branch issued a RMB 3 million (approximately US$412,000) loan to an environmental tech firm for wastewater treatment upgrades.
Carbon accounting platforms factsheet:
Quzhou
Huzhou
Shenzhen
Leading departmentQuzhou Branch of the People's Bank of China, Quzhou Market Supervision AdministrationState Grid Huzhou Power Supply Company, Huzhou Economic and Information Bureau, Huzhou Statistical BureauShenzhen Municipal Bureau of Ecological Environment, Shenzhen Branch of the People's Bank of ChinaEnergy collection typeCoal, oil, natural gas, electricity, heatCoal, oil, natural gas, electricity, heatElectricity, fuel, steam, heatRating indicator• Emission intensity per unit of output
• Emission intensity per unit of added value
• Emission intensity per unit of tax revenue
• Emissions level (emission per unit added value)
• Carbon utilization level (carbon efficiency level of an enterprise within its industry)
• Neutrality progress (% of achieving carbon neutrality)
• Three key dimensions (emission efficiency, emission reduction effect, industry endowment)
• Five major themes (energy efficiency, carbon emission efficiency, energy-saving performance, emission reduction performance, and industry efficiency)
• Nine indicators (rate-based, intensity-based)
Rating outcomeReport-based (Enterprise carbon credit report)Code-based (Industrial carbon efficiency code)Report-based (Corporate carbon account rating report)What Challenges Still Need to Be Addressed?While China's platform presents a promising solution for integrating carbon performance into financial decision-making, a few challenges emerged along with its implementation. These could become more prominent issues as it rolls out in more places.
Limited emissions coverage and data accessibilityA major limitation of the platform is its incomplete coverage of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, with Scope 3 emissions currently excluded, which hinders alignment with international standards like the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol. The platform focuses mainly on energy consumption, failing to capture all relevant emissions sources such as fugitive emissions, outsourced logistics, and emissions from leased assets or company-owned vehicles. This results in an underestimation of a company's carbon footprint and may lead to biased rating results.
For example, in Huzhou, the platform only accounts for emissions from electricity, natural gas, coal and petroleum, neglecting mobile combustion and industrial process emissions. Companies that have more emissions from mobile combustion and industrial process will receive more favorable ratings compared with those don't, even if they may not have better carbon performance.
Lack of a consistent rating methodologyThe inconsistency in carbon rating methodologies across pilot regions presents another challenge for scaling the platform. Different regions use varying evaluation systems, criteria and thresholds, such as color-coded classifications (as in Quzhou's four-color system) or financial credit-style ratings (as in Shenzhen's AAA-CCC system), making it difficult to replicate elsewhere.
Although Shenzhen, Quzhou and Huzhou have led the way in publishing their accounting and rating methodologies, none of them are national standards, so the reliability and authoritativeness are yet to be proved. As a matter of fact, pilot banks in Shenzhen found the rating result of their clients were sometimes out of expectation, leading to the question of whether the methodology accurately reflects the carbon performance of corporates.
Insufficient financial and policy incentives to motivate participationSo far, the platform's adoption has primarily been led by local governments in pilot regions. They convene expert groups, hire technology providers, fund the running of the platform, and sometimes provide moderate financial incentives to encourage voluntary participation from enterprises and financial institutions. For example, Shenzhen provides a RMB 500,000 (approximately US$68,800) subsidy to banks and financial institutions that achieve significant business growth through carbon accounting and rating platform innovations. However, banks and their clients aren't always motivated to provide or authorize access to additional data for carbon rating purposes, as they may not see clear benefits of joining the scheme.
More incentives could help keep the platform running and growing. Such incentives could be leveraged from existing monetary, fiscal and industrial policies, such as interest rate discounts using PBOC's carbon reduction lending facility, or tax credits originating from green industry policies. Expanded incentives could help sustain the platform's financial viability and encourage broader adoption.
What's Next?Looking ahead, this platform could play a pivotal role in bridging finance and corporate decarbonization. It offers significant potential for broader applications, in areas such as energy savings diagnostics, government project screening, corporate climate disclosure, supply chain decarbonization and more, as more corporates get involved. Huzhou's experience may be a good reference point for exploring applications in energy saving diagnostics and green electricity trading.
For now, pilot regions are continuously refining the platform based on their experiences. For instance, Shenzhen is currently evaluating the applicability of the methodology and plans to promote it as an industry standard. Additionally, the city aims to expand policy incentives and explore broader applications for the platform.
Other regions can seek to replicate the platform by leveraging digital technology and a robust rating methodology. Successful implementation will likely require active government involvement and policy support, including both financial and policy incentives.
1 Operational emissions (scope 1&2 emissions): such as natural gas used in company-owned boilers, fuel for company vehicles, and purchased electricity, etc.
2 Shenzhen Credit: officially known as the Shenzhen Credit Service Platform, an official local credit reporting platform in Shenzhen, consolidating over 500 million government data records. It offers a range of credit reporting products — including corporate credit reports and enterprise profiles — to local banks. The platform plays a key role in financial credit reporting, governance, and public services.
3 Shenzhen Green Exchange: Formerly known as the Shenzhen Emissions Exchange, it was established in 2010 as China's first pilot carbon trading platform. Rebranded in 2024, it serves as Shenzhen's designated trading platform for carbon allowances and credits, supporting market-based mechanisms for emissions reduction.
guangzhou-industrial-zone.jpg Finance China Finance climate finance greenhouse gas accounting Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Siqi Zhong Ting Su Xiaozhen Li Xinyi ZhangSTATEMENT: Kenya to host 11th Our Ocean Conference in 2026
LONDON (April 16, 2025) – The Republic of Kenya has been confirmed as the host of the 11th Our Ocean Conference (OOC) in 2026.
Launched in 2014 by the U.S. Department of State and former Secretary of State, John Kerry, the Our Ocean Conference is an annual event that brings together governments, the private sector, NGOs and the academic community to drive urgent ambition and action for the ocean. World Resources Institute is the Secretariat of the conference.
The conference supports efforts across finance, policy, capacity building, research, and more, focusing on six key areas: marine protected areas, sustainable blue economy, climate change, maritime security, sustainable fisheries and marine pollution.
To date, the conference has generated over 2,600 commitments worth more than $140 billion — a testament to its vital role in global ocean protection and sustainable management. The 2026 edition will mark the first time the conference is held on the African continent, spotlighting the region's ocean leadership and priorities.
Following is a statement from Tom Pickerell, Global Director, Ocean Program, World Resources Institute:
“Kenya has long been an advocate and leader on ocean issues — as an active member of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel), the host of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and a pioneer in ambitious policies to tackle plastic pollution and foster a sustainable ocean economy.
“The Our Ocean Conference is a critical platform for mobilizing finance and catalyzing vital ocean action. In its first ten years, it has been an effective mechanism to further progress against multilateral agreements and encourage new announcements of marine protected areas. Our research shows that each successive conference has raised ocean ambitions both globally and regionally.
“As the first Our Ocean Conference to be held in Africa, Kenya will have the opportunity to draw global attention to the region's priorities and challenges — ranging from ocean-climate resilience and sustainable fishing to maritime security, marine conservation, pollution and the sustainable ocean economy.
“As the Our Ocean Conference Secretariat, we look forward to working with next year’s host as they define priority action areas, shape the agenda, and build on the expected momentum of the 10th conference in Busan later this April, to mobilize a new wave of commitments into the conference’s second decade.”
Ocean Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0How Cities Are Placing People at the Center of Urban Mobility Transformations
What does it take for cities to create a true systems change that creates a holistic, positive shift of the entire urban system? Finding and celebrating examples of this feat is at the heart of the WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities.
Since 2018, WRI has received more than 900 submissions to the Prize, selected 20 finalists and awarded four $250,000 grand prizes. As we tell the independent jury that selects the grand prize winners, we believe each finalist, every cycle, could be a worthy grand prize winner. They have all demonstrated transformative impacts over multiple years. These projects were not just good ideas; the local governments and community organizations behind them executed brilliantly and their communities have already seen meaningful change.
We recently checked in with three former Prize finalists (one of whom won the grand prize) that focus on different aspects of sustainable transportation to see how their transformations have endured. From ultra-low emissions zones to bus rapid transit networks and school safety zones, these three projects show how cities around the world can reimagine urban mobility, not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also improving the lives of billions of residents.
Equality in Safety: SARSAIRoad crashes are the leading cause of death among young people in Africa. Even for survivors, the consequences can be life-altering: a road-traffic incident can derail a child’s education or end career prospects, while medical costs can push families into poverty. In some countries, road-traffic crashes cost between 1% and 9% of GDP.
Amend, a nonprofit with offices in Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania, won the inaugural 2018-2019 Grand Prize for School Area Road Safety Assessments and Improvements (SARSAI), an innovative road safety project around 18 schools in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
A group of children utilize a crosswalk near their school in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Drawing from lessons learned with SARSAI, the organization Amend is now taking its road safety work to other cities and countries across sub-Saharan Africa. Photo by WRI.Within Dar es Salaam, a neighborhood’s volume of road-traffic injuries was closely correlated with socioeconomic indicators, such as income levels and educational attainment. SARSAI worked with local communities to conduct standardized road safety assessments and provide community education workshops. They then implemented cost-effective, site-specific safety interventions focused on school zones. They installed bollards, speed bumps and footpaths to provide students with safer commutes to school, improved signage to affect traffic, and did community outreach to involve key stakeholders in the design of interventions.
Though the work was focused on the infrastructure around schools, the result was a sea-change for entire communities on how they saw and addressed road safety. Amend’s safety interventions reduced child-vehicle collisions by 26% and lowered vehicle speeds by 40%, protecting children who had previously borne the brunt of crashes, but also improving safety for all road users.
Since winning the Prize for Cities grand prize, Amend has extended its street design services far beyond Dar es Salaam.
“The Prize gave us a big boost as we were starting down this path a few years back,” said Jeffrey Witte, executive director of Amend. “We are now scaling up the principles in SARSAI to roads projects across Africa.”
The nonprofit launched a Safe Schools Africa program in 2022, with help from multiple development banks, including the World Bank and European Investment Bank. The program applies SARSAI’s evaluation and design process to roads in Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. So far, it’s helped city planners design more than 948 kilometers (589 miles) of pedestrian-friendly roads, according to Amend. In two years, the project has benefited approximately 100,000 students across 100 schools and received enough funding to continue work into 2030.
In December 2024, Amend earned the Prince Michael International Road Safety Award for its work across Africa.
The evolution of Amend and the approaches pioneered with SARSAI is a testament to the importance of simple, data- and community-backed road safety interventions and the reverberating impacts on a city of safer, smarter infrastructure.
Achieving Inclusion Through Safety: Zu PeshawarLaunched in 2020, and a finalist for the 2021-2022 Prize, the Zu Peshawar bus rapid transit (BRT) service created a more efficient, inclusive alternative to a public transport system that had posed chronic problems for riders in Pakistan’s sixth largest city. Peshawar’s previous patchwork system of hundreds of informal bus operators had clogged streets and offered poor service. It did not reach all parts of the city, it was inaccessible to the disabled, and women and transgender riders frequently faced harassment.
Zu Peshawar transformed the city’s transport infrastructure by creating the first formal public transport system. Informal service operators were folded into a municipality-run agency with, initially, 27 kilometers (16.8 miles) of BRT corridors, 30 stations and 220 diesel-electric hybrid buses. New buses came equipped with low floors to accommodate wheelchairs. A gender action plan was developed, including reserved seating for women and video monitoring. Later, a bikeshare system and 120 kilometers (75 miles) of new footpaths were also launched by the city.
The improvements translated to increased user satisfaction and passenger volume across public transport. Despite launching during COVID-19, Zu Peshawar nonetheless quickly reached 265,000 daily riders (in a city of 2 million) and measured a 10-times increase in female public transport ridership.
A woman boards a section of a city bus for women only. Zu Peshawar’s dedicated seats and bus designs have protected women, transgender and disabled riders while growing access to opportunity for all residents. In its next phase, it stands poised for electrification and continued expansion. Photo by WRI.The past three years have seen continued growth in the system. According to Imran Mohammad, TransPeshawar’s general manager of operations, Zu Peshawar’s fleet has grown to 244 buses with wheelchair accessibility. The system, he said, now serves 300,000 peak daily riders, with women accounting for 30% of all bus riders and provides access to approximately 5,000 people with disabilities.
“This is unbelievable for us,” said Mohammad. “Because at the time, we were not supposing that this project will increase ridership so much.”
Thanks to the surge in demand, Zu Peshawar is poised for additional expansion. The BRT system recently began feasibility studies for a Phase II, which would add another 20 kilometers (12 miles) of high-speed bus corridors and 250 fully electric buses to the city by 2030. The new buses will replace existing diesel buses and help expand the fleet. Meanwhile, other major Punjab cities have followed Peshawar’s example. Last May, Lahore announced its purchase of 300 e-buses and construction plans for new terminals.
This growing adoption of mass transport comes on the heels of changing national policy. Mohammad pointed to Pakistan’s involvement in COP29 — which included a pledge to protect climate-vulnerable children and a call for climate contributions — as a sign of the federal government’s commitment to environmental mitigation efforts.
Zu Peshawar — the first “Gold Standard” BRT system in the Indian peninsula and the first public transport system in Pakistan to feature diesel-electric hybrid buses — created crucial momentum. “At that time, the people in the other cities were afraid of the new technology,” Mohammad recalled. But after the new model and new vehicles improved service and lowered operational costs, other cities got the “courage” to change, he said.
In July 2022, TransPeshawar won the “Best Smart Ticketing Programme” from Transport Ticketing Global and was an honorable mention for the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy’s Sustainable Transport Award in 2022 and 2024.
Zu Peshawar reflects the transformative power that public transportation has to improve the lives and the functioning of an entire city.
Cleaner Transport for All: The Ultra-Low Emission ZoneIn 2019, an Imperial College London study found that if no further action was taken to reduce air pollution, around 550,000 Londoners would develop diseases attributable to air pollution over the next 30 years, cumulatively costing the health and social care systems 10.4 billion pounds (about $13.3 billion) by 2050. In response, in 2020, London launched the world’s first-ever Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). The ULEZ was a Prize finalist in 2020-2021 for its innovative approach and already significant impact on reducing pollution in London.
At its core, the ULEZ is simple: The scheme imposes fees on all gas- and diesel-powered vehicles throughout a prescribed area of London’s downtown, as well as additional fines on vehicles with non-compliant tailpipes. The fees are then invested into the city’s public transport system. Its aim is to incentivize and support cleaner modes of travel and reduce congestion.
But the details also reveal the close ties between transport, public health and social justice. Because of urban design and other factors, road transport pollution in London disproportionately affects low-income communities of color, who, despite contributing the least to air pollution, bear the heaviest burden. By restricting high-emission vehicles and investing in cleaner transport, the ULEZ directly addresses these inequities.
The ULEZ diverted 44,100 vehicles off the roads and drove down roadside nitrogen oxide pollution by 44% within a year of its implementation. Revenue from ULEZ policies was used to replace old diesel buses with electric-powered ones. Additionally, to ease the financial burden of switching to fuel-efficient vehicles in low-income communities, the mayor introduced the UK’s largest-ever scrappage scheme, allocating 210 million pounds (about $253 million) in 2023 to help residents and businesses transition to cleaner vehicles, making cleaner air mobility more accessible to all residents.
Since being named a Prize finalist, London’s city government has expanded the ULEZ to encompass all city districts. By 2024, the city’s fleet of zero-emissions buses was expanded eightfold, reaching over 1,400 buses comprising electric and hydrogen fuel-cell models, in addition to thousands of electric taxis and new vehicle-charging infrastructure. A 2024 report credited the ULEZ with a 62% decrease in roadside nitrogen oxide emissions between 2017 and 2023. Roadside concentrations of fine particulate matter, which can damage lungs and increase risk of heart disease, fell by 40% during that time.
“The success of London’s approach has accelerated policies to reduce air pollution, with Clean Air Zones, based on the structure of the ULEZ, now introduced in Birmingham, Portsmouth and Bath, and others planned in the UK,” said Sarah Morris, air quality manager at the Greater London Authority.
London still lays claim to the toughest congestion pricing scheme in the world, but it has been joined in recent years by similar efforts in Stockholm, Milan and New York City.
By reducing pollution, expanding mobility access and protecting vulnerable communities, London’s ULEZ shows that sustainable transport can be a critical intervention for public health and social justice.
Bicyclists and buses share the roads in London. By placing fees on noncompliant, gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, London’s Ultra-Low Emissions Zone has allowed the city to invest in electric mobility and more active modes of transport. Photo by WRI. Creating Transformative ChangeNavigating the complex city systems that create meaningful change is incredibly challenging. Recognition can play a key role in amplifying successful initiatives, helping them gain momentum, scale up and ultimately reach other communities that might learn from them. The WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities and other awards like it not only help validate impactful work but can help projects attract support and expand their platforms for change.
Ultimately sustained investment and recognition in public transit will be key to building more accessible, resilient and thriving cities. An estimated 4.6 billion riders globally used public transportation in 2024, yet half of all urban residents still lack access to public transit. Finding new ways to invest in public transportation and active mobility is increasingly urgent as cities seek to rein in carbon emissions and continue building thriving economies. Investment in global urban transport infrastructure must double by 2030 in order to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) benchmark.
These transformative projects exemplify this balancing. When transportation networks connect children to education, workers to jobs and communities to essential services, they do more than move people — they fuel productivity, improve public health and drive economic growth, creating stronger and more equitable cities for all.
men-cycling.jpg Cities WRI Ross Center Prize for Cities Urban Mobility Cities GHG emissions transportation Health & Road Safety Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Hanwen Zhang Meghna Ray Jen ShinSTATEMENT: Countries Agree to Global Fee on Shipping Industry’s Emissions
LONDON (April 14, 2025) — Countries agreed on a draft deal through the International Maritime Organization to place a price on the shipping industry’s emissions. The agreement, which is set to be formally adopted in October, requires ships to pay a fee based on the carbon intensity of their fuel mix and is intended to spur the transition to lower-emission fuels.
The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, of which WRI is the Secretariat, has previously shared a set of priority actions for the shipping industry’s sustainable transition.
Following is a statement from Tom Pickerell, Global Director, Ocean Program, World Resources Institute:
“While the agreement is a step forward, it falls short of the ambition the climate crisis demands. The agreement will likely deliver only a fraction of the emissions cuts needed for the IMO’s own 2030 climate goals, doing too little to speed the shift to zero-emission ships.
“The lack of a universal carbon levy misses a major opportunity to fund green fuels and infrastructure, especially for vulnerable coastal countries.
“Shipping drives global trade and connects communities, but decarbonizing marine transport is critical to ensuring the long-term resilience of global supply chains and the ocean’s health.
“We urge governments and the shipping industry to build on this agreement and rapidly establish national targets for decarbonizing shipping, support the development of zero-emission fuels, modernize fleets, and transform port infrastructure.”
Ocean GHG emissions carbon pricing Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0How Inclusive Dialogues Are Paving the Way for a Just Transition in Peru
As Peru prepares to submit its updated national climate plan, known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC), ahead of the annual UN climate summit (COP30) in Brazil this year, the country has a pivotal opportunity to create a climate policy that benefits Peruvian society while also protecting communities and workers employed in more traditional and carbon-intensive sectors.
This just transition approach also ensures that the benefits and consequences from climate actions are shared fairly and that vulnerable populations are supported as the country shifts to a net-zero economy.
While Peru does not currently have an official definition of just transition in its national policy framework, some local organizations have begun to shape an understanding of what it could mean for the country. For instance, organizations like the Natural Resource Governance Institute highlight that the global shift to clean energy can intensify socio-environmental conflicts associated with mineral extraction. In Peru — where minerals critical to clean energy technologies, such as copper, are abundant — this transition presents both economic opportunities and social and environmental challenges, such as increasing deforestation, loss of biodiversity and displacement of vulnerable and indigenous communities, among others.
To help Peru create a more inclusive climate policy grounded in the principles of a just transition, WRI and Peru’s Ministry of Environment (MINAM) organized inclusive dialogues in 2024 to gather perspectives from different stakeholders.
Here’s how Peru approached participatory climate planning and what resulted from these inclusive dialogues.
Citizen Participation in Planning a Just TransitionFor several years now, Peru has been promoting various avenues for different groups and levels of society to participate in and promote climate action. These spaces include the National Commission on Climate Change (CNCC), the National Women’s Committee on Climate Change, the Platform for Indigenous Peoples to Confront Climate Change and the Youth Promotion Group on the CNCC.
Indigenous peoples' participation in these dialogues recognizes the value of their ancestral knowledge in caring for existing ecosystems and their traditional practices in managing climate risks. Creating spaces for women to participate provides opportunities to confront gender inequalities through a just transition process as well.
The 2024 dialogues organized by WRI and MINAM included an in-person event and a webinar. The discussions were aimed at convening people with less access to formal participation, like women’s and youth organizations and Indigenous communities, with representatives from government, unions, multilateral development banks, the private sector and various grassroots and international organizations. These dialogues contributed to constructing the national position on just transition for COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024.
"Citizen participation is crucial in planning for a just transition in Peru because it ensures that decisions reflect the needs and priorities of affected communities, fostering inclusion and equity," said Milagros Montes, a representative of Jóvenes Peruanos frente al Cambio Climático (Peruvian Youth against Climate Change). "Youth are a key part of this process because they represent the generation that will face the greatest impacts of climate change and have the creativity, energy and vision to drive innovative solutions with global impact. Their involvement ensures that policies are resilient and aligned with a more just and sustainable future."
Lessons Learned from Inclusive DialoguesThe dialogues provided valuable lessons on how the country can effectively integrate just transition principles into its national policies, specifically in its upcoming NDC. One key takeaway is the need to ground the concept in both national and local contexts. While the term has gained traction globally recently, it often carries perspectives shaped by narratives from wealthier nations, which may not fully align with Peru’s priorities, needs and challenges.
During the workshop in Peru, participants discussed how to integrate just transition policies into the country's national policies. Photo by WRI.To address this gap, it is essential that local voices and goals have a central role when deciding on specific interventions for the transition to a low-carbon future. For example, as highlighted in the discussions, ensuring access to decent, dignified and well-paid work for communities affected by the transitions is a clear goal for the community. The future and the path towards it must reflect Peruvians' lived realities, cultural values and socio-economic conditions. Local actors — especially those usually underrepresented in decision-making processes, such as Indigenous communities, workers, women and youth — should have opportunities to define what justice means for them in the context of climate action.
This kind of bottom-up governance could be more appropriate for promoting energy transitions and gaining public support. Identifying key stakeholders and creating safe spaces for dialogue are essential to guaranteeing effective citizen participation in transition policies.
Another lesson from the dialogues is the need to address diverse notions of justice when discussing just transitions. Discussions around this topic mostly focus on redistributive justice, which concerns the fair distribution of risks and opportunities resulting from climate action. However, there are other types to consider: restorative justice seeks to repair the damage generated by the traditional economy; procedural justice ensures that the transition process is inclusive, transparent and equitable for all parties involved; and intergenerational justice underlines the responsibility of current generations towards future generations.
Lastly, justice-focused climate action offers a unique opportunity to address long-standing social and economic inequalities while promoting sustainable development. A just transition must prioritize those most affected by climate change and socio-economic inequalities. Climate action initiatives should aim to reduce poverty by creating green jobs, improving access to essential services and fostering equitable economic growth.
As Peru moves forward, the country can build on its existing participatory climate infrastructure to embrace a bottom-up governance approach that allows policies to be grounded in local realities and that includes communities that have historically been excluded from decision-making. While the NDC update offers a valuable opportunity to articulate the country’s commitment to a more just and equitable climate agenda, concrete efforts and actions to fulfill that commitment is what will have an impact.
peru-just-transition-dialogues.jpg Climate Peru National Climate Action Clean Energy Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities climate policy Climate Equity Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Héctor Donado Rocío García García-Naranjo Ruth Mier y Terán Celine Novenario Alex Simpkins Iryna PayosovaNational Development Banks Can Do More to Help Drive Countries’ Green Transformations
We know that global efforts to rein in climate change are far off track — and we know what's needed to right the ship: Rapid and transformative action to slash emissions and build resilience to climate impacts, in a way which puts people at the heart. But who will finance and implement these changes?
According to the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, developing countries (excluding China) will need to invest $2.3-$2.5 trillion per year in nature and climate action by 2030, from both domestic and international sources. This is about 77% more than current financing levels.
Funding from international sources such as multilateral development banks (MDBs) — which are already key providers of climate finance — will play a major role in closing this gap. But additional sources will also be needed. How countries will mobilize their own domestic resources (both public and private) is therefore an increasingly important question.
National development banks (NDBs) don't often feature in these conversations. But they could play a much bigger role moving forward.
With combined assets of approximately $20 trillion, the collective firepower of NDBs far exceeds that of MDBs, whose assets amount to less than $3 trillion. And NDBs have several features that make them uniquely poised to help drive countries' transitions to greener and more sustainable economies. They're focused on national development goals, have strong local expertise, can lend in local currency, may make decisions more quickly than MDBs and more.
In fact, NDBs already provide one-fifth of climate finance globally. Yet they could be doing much more: According to a recent survey, the share of green assets in their credit portfolios is only 14% on average.
We examined a few NDBs that are supporting countries' green transformations and which barriers they need to overcome.
Why National Development Banks Are Key to Environmental SolutionsNDBs are public financial institutions typically created and owned by a single government. They use domestic public resources and leverage finance from private domestic and international capital markets to fund domestic development goals. Traditionally, NDBs have tended to support infrastructure projects (such as in energy and transport); agriculture; or micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises — all of which have a critical role to play in countries' green transitions.
The Finance in Common Summit 2025, held in Cape Town, South Africa in February 2025, gathered the community of public development banks writ large, including national development banks. Messages from this summit underscored the urgency of mobilizing the full spectrum of capabilities from NDBs to deliver on development and climate goals.
NDBs share some of the features that have made MDBs such important players in the climate sphere. Like multilateral development banks, NDBs operate under public mandates and thus — while needing to make financially sound decisions — are not purely profit-driven like private sector banks are. This allows them to provide patient long-term capital for climate projects that do not meet the risk-return profile needed for private investments. NDBs also often benefit from a public guarantee, which not only underwrites this approach to risk, but also allows them to raise money from capital markets to fund projects and significantly increases the size of their lending portfolios.
Unlike commercial banks, these institutions prioritize development over profit, and they usually have some form of concessional (affordable) financing to support policy-related goals. They are well-placed to address financing gaps at local and national levels through their strong local presence and expertise, as well as their ability to support project origination and smaller projects. Crucially, NDBs lend in local currency; this eliminates exchange rate risk, helping to bring down the overall risk of green projects and make them more viable. And they may have more streamlined decision-making or faster processes than MDBs.
Moreover, NDBs exist in nearly every country. The most comprehensive estimates are that 480 national development banks exist across 154 countries globally. Most of these nations (60%) have more than one institution.
While not all NDBs are deeply involved in climate action, several have introduced innovative approaches to green financing.
1) Providing Tailored Financial SolutionsNDBs have an intimate understanding of their domestic markets, including local policy environments and economic conditions. This expertise allows them to design and implement solutions that align with national priorities while addressing specific local challenges and lending in local currency.
Example: Supporting a just energy transition in South AfricaAs South Africa looks toward a low-carbon future, it's grappling with many competing priorities: how to reduce its heavy dependence on coal while also expanding energy access, reducing poverty and helping workers in the fossil fuel sector shift to more sustainable jobs. Of the ZAR1.48 trillion (about US$98.7 billion) South Africa estimates it needs to meet its climate goals, almost half (45%) is still unmet.
The Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) has emerged as a key player in realizing the country's plans to transition away from fossil fuels and increase investment in renewable energy.
DBSA disburses funds from international development finance institutions (including MDBs) to municipalities, private companies and NGOs, which tend to be too small for these international actors to reach.
In addition to its own direct investments, DBSA oversees project implementation as an intermediary. In September 2024, the bank matched a ZAR1.98 billion (EUR100 million/about US$104 million) loan from the European Investment Bank for its Embedded Generation Investment Programme. The program contributes subordinated debt and concessional equity — notably, in local currency with DBSA managing exchange fluctuations through hedging — to help launch small and medium-sized renewable energy projects by independent power producers.
DBSA is also incorporating labor and social concerns in its support for a just energy transition in South Africa. In November 2024, the bank secured a grant from the French Development Agency (AFD) to expand skills development, training and entrepreneurial support in Mpumalanga Nkangala District, a major region for the country's coal sector. These efforts aim to help workers navigate the transition away from coal.
Technicians install rooftop solar panels in Cape Town, South Africa. The Development Bank of South Africa is helping channel finance into workforce training programs that will assist coal workers in transitioning to more sustainable livelihoods. Photo by Suretha Rous/Alamy Stock Photo. 2) Addressing Market Gaps and Financing Public Policy-Oriented ActionsNDBs can help fill a gap by financing projects that are essential for building more sustainable economies but are not currently attractive to commercial banks. Financing climate adaptation is particularly challenging because projects can be small and fragmented and a range of investments are needed — from those that largely generate public goods and avoid losses to those that generate revenue streams.
Example: Financing adaptation projects in IndiaThe National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) is India's primary development finance institution, driving sustainable growth and resilience in the country's rural and agricultural sectors. The bank has recognized the importance of embedding climate in its funding considerations: Today, it's leading projects that address adaptation and resilience needs across economic and social strata in the country.
NABARD prepares annual plans for all districts in the country, quantifying opportunities for investments in adaptation and resilience projects. It has also developed a green taxonomy to identify and prioritize funding for climate projects.
For example, NABARD channels international finance — including from the Adaptation Fund and Green Climate Fund — into local climate resilience projects, ensuring that underserved rural areas receive financing for critical adaptation efforts. As of March 2024, NABARD's financial report mentions that the bank had so far supported 40 climate change projects with financial assistance of ₹1971 crores (about US$237 million).
Among these projects, the bank has financed over 1,800 water harvesting structures (such as check dams and percolation tanks) in the water-scarce areas of Rajasthan. This has improved water availability, supported irrigation and created local employment opportunities. It's helping strengthen climate resilience in the region while sustaining both social and economic outcomes which rely on reliable access to water.
Women harvesting wheat in Rajasthan, India. India’s National Bank for Agriculture and Rural development has funded extensive projects to improve local livelihoods by making agriculture more resilient to climate change. Photo by David South/Alamy Stock PhotoAnother notable initiative is the bank's Tribal Development Fund, designed to support diversified livelihoods for tribal communities. The fund has supported over 600,000 families through more than 1,000 projects across the country. One such project in Telangana has transformed 500 acres into sustainable horticulture farming and brought 115 acres under irrigation. The beneficiaries saw their annual incomes increase by over 200%, on average, from around ₹30,000-₹40,000 (about US$347-$462) per year to around ₹100,000-₹168,000 (about US$1,156-$1,942) per year.
3) Mobilizing Public and Private Actors to Mitigate RisksGreen projects often face high upfront capital costs and higher perceived risks that can deter private investors, especially in developing countries.
Like MDBs, NDBs have a variety of tools at their disposal for derisking. These include co-financing with private banks and using blended finance mechanisms (such as guarantees and, in some cases, subsidized terms) to catalyze private sector participation in green investments.
Example: Mobilizing private investments for green projects in BrazilThe Brazilian National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES)'s long-term strategy underscores its role in promoting a green and just transition. It's especially focused on diversifying partnerships and developing blended finance approaches to attract more private finance.
Notably, BNDES reserves a portion of the profits from its commercial loans or equity investments for seed funding to projects that support social, cultural, environmental and technological objectives. For example, its Socio-Environmental Fund matches up to R$1 in grants for every R$1 invested by the private sector in projects that support education, the environment, or job and income generation — a model the bank terms "matchfunding." By matching private sector investments with grants, BNDES shares the associated risks of these projects and stretches its public funds further by mobilizing private sector financing and partnerships.
In 2021, BNDES used matchfunding to increase the scale of ecological restoration projects using both native species and agroforestry systems across Brazil. The Floresta Viva ("Living Forest") initiative aims to invest R$693 million (about US$118 million) over seven years to restore between 25,000-35,000 hectares across the country, with up to 50% financed by BNDES's Socio-Environmental Fund and the remainder financed by private sector institutions.
Challenges Faced by National Development BanksDespite their potential, NDBs face significant hurdles to increasing the scale of their green investments — from limited capital to a lack of technical know-how. But here, too, some NDBs are charting a way forward.
Limited capital and dependence on government supportMany NDBs' balance sheets are insufficient for addressing the magnitude of domestic challenges. As governments face ongoing budget constraints, NDBs are looking to external funding sources to bridge their financing gaps.
NDBs can seek more international funding to expand their capital base. However, since they lend in local currency, the question of who ultimately bears the exchange rate risk (international actors or NDBs) is unresolved. A 2023 survey estimates that two-thirds of NDBs are exposed to currency risks and most external financing to these banks, including from MDBs, happens in hard currency.
NDBs can also syndicate loans to share risks across a group of lenders and mobilize private finance on a subordinated basis — for example, through secondary market mechanisms or an originate-to-share model. The Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank (TDB) has grown its investor base to over 40 institutional investors in the past decade through capital layering, offering different segments of risk capital alongside debt issuance. In 2023 alone, TDB increased its lending by 10% from the previous year (to US$19.1 billion) through syndications and acted as a lead arranger for US$4.1 billion in lending.
NDBs in stronger and larger economies will likely have an easier time implementing such solutions. For example, if their domestic capital market is strong enough, NDBs can issue bonds in local currency to avoid exchange risks. South Africa's Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) recently raised over ZAR2.0 billion (about US$112 million) for its inaugural sustainability bond, which included a significant subscription by International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank's private sector arm.
Scarcity of concessional financingNDBs are well-versed in using their funds to leverage private resources. However, they can struggle to obtain the grants needed to blend with private finance for green projects where returns are — or are perceived to be — too low to mobilize private investment alone. BNDES overcame this challenge by reserving a portion of its profits for grants in projects that support social and environmental objectives, bringing about programs like the Floresta Viva initiative.
Flocks of birds in the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland. The Brazilian development bank BNDES has used a matchfunding model to raise private sector finance for restoration, biodiversity protection and other nature-based projects in the Pantanal and other critical areas. Photo by elleon/iStockNABARD, in another instance, has been exploring alternative mechanisms to bolster its adaptation and resilience investments. The global Adaptation Fund metes out money for countries' adaptation efforts, but it's not a lot — the allocation for India is capped at approximately $20 million; too limited to adequately address the need of even any one state in India. Recognizing this, NABARD has sought to leverage separate, additional concessional finance beyond the Adaptation Fund. In 2024, NABARD signed an MoU with the Government of Goa and World Bank to set up a blended finance facility to leverage various sources of concessional finance through MDBs, bilateral institutions and philanthropic foundations for climate action. By attracting private finance through this World Bank-powered facility, NABARD can do more than it would have been able to do alone. It ensures that precious grant finance is used strategically to leverage far more investment.
Insufficient capacity and institutional barriersDespite the lack of a project pipeline being a significant constraint in increasing climate finance — and the potential of NDBs to help with project development — NDBs often have insufficient technical capacity for developing green investments. Governments and international organizations can help build up institutional and staff capacity to improve NDBs' ability to effectively design, implement and manage green projects and portfolios.
NABARD, for example, regularly organizes training sessions to strengthen its institutional capacity to address climate needs through the Centre for Climate Change at the Bankers Institute for Rural Development (BIRD).
NDBs also work with various implementation agencies and project partners who often lack technical expertise to develop high-quality project documentation. Regular capacity building can enhance their ability to craft robust investments that integrate climate goals.
Capacity challenges in NDBs can also be more structural, applying not only to their ability to develop green projects but to build lending portfolios that generate sufficient returns. In such instances, oversight and fiduciary management training are needed. These could be provided by capacity-building units of MDBs or other institutions that support NDBs in strengthening fiduciary frameworks and green finance capacity.
Lack of robust impact measurement frameworksNDBs are often hindered in their ability to attract public and private co-financing due to a lack of robust frameworks for measuring and reporting on the environmental and social impacts of their investments. Aligning their reporting with government-wide frameworks and global goals (such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement and Global Biodiversity Framework), can help to enhance NDBs' relevance and impact.
In its role as a financial intermediary, DBSA overcomes this challenge by measuring and reporting the results of executed projects directly to the national monitoring system for South Africa's Just Energy Transition Investment Plan. (This, in turn, is linked to the country's national climate plan under the Paris Agreement.) DBSA supports implementing institutions that receive funds channeled through the bank to fulfil these reporting requirements. At the same time, DBSA becomes a more attractive intermediary for international co-financing since the environmental and social impacts of its projects are both clearly reported and linked to national priorities and goals.
This demonstrates the valuable role that governments can play: working with NDBs to ensure they are maximizing support for domestic priorities and plans associated with these international agreements — and monitoring their contributions to this effect.
Accelerating Green TransformationsNDBs could be catalysts in countries' green transformations. With their combination of local expertise, public mandate and ability to de-risk investments and provide local currency lending positions, NDBs can be critical agents of change. However, their potential remains largely untapped due to structural and financial constraints.
Stronger partnerships with international institutions (such as MDBs and bilateral development finance institutions) can provide NDBs with technical assistance, knowledge sharing, and additional sources of funding or co-financing. Though the diverse landscape of NDBs can make it challenging for international actors to identify and form relationships with these institutions, many NDBs are engaging more in international forums like the Finance in Common Summit and environmental negotiations.
NDBs can play a more integrated role with other transition financiers by participating, or even leading (such as BNDES has), in country platforms. Country platforms allow NDBs to achieve far greater scale and impact by combining their strengths in project origination, local currency lending and smaller scale financing with dialogue on policy reform as well as financial instruments from MDBs and the private sector.
Moving forward, governments, international organizations and the private sector should work together to empower NDBs, ensuring they can combat environmental crises while fulfilling their sustainable development mandate, helping to support growth and jobs. Given the constraints on resources and importance of the task, making national and international, public and private finance work better as a system has never been more important. By helping NDBs make full use of their capabilities, the global financial system can accelerate countries' transitions to a safer, more sustainable future.
solar-water-pump-karnal.jpg Finance Finance climate finance adaptation finance development low carbon development Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Carolyn Neunuebel Gauri Atre Valerie LaxtonTree Cover Is Still Declining Overall in Latin America, but New Data Shows Where It’s Coming Back
Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have major goals to restore their degraded landscapes.
Forest loss has been a decades-long problem, with the region losing nearly 15 million hectares of trees (1.2% of the total) from 2015 to 2023. However, recognizing the importance of forests for both people and nature, 18 countries have committed to protect and restore over 50 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030 as part of Initiative 20x20.
With five years left to achieve the goal, how are countries doing?
For a long time, measuring progress on restoration has been a difficult task, due to lack of consistent and credible data. But for the first time, new satellite data can “see” year to year where trees are growing, where they remain standing and where they’re disappearing.
Produced by the University of Maryland, this data enables us to determine the dynamics of tree cover change across Latin America from 2015 to 2023. While it is not a perfect proxy for measuring restoration progress — satellites can’t tell whether tree cover gain is due to planned restoration, natural regrowth or industrial plantations — we can combine it with other datasets to get some insights.
The data shows that while Latin America overall lost more tree cover than it gained from 2015 to 2023, progress is being made compared to historical trends. Among the 18 countries participating in Initiative 20x20, three countries gained tree cover from 2015 to 2023, 10 remained neutral and five experienced losses.
But looking strictly at the amount of tree cover a country had in 2023 compared to 2015 does not tell the entire story. The dynamics of yearly changes in tree cover and where those changes are happening can reveal a lot about progress on restoration and conservation. For example, in some countries, gains in tree cover were mainly from increased plantations, which don’t always benefit the environment.
Here are five key insights from the data:
1) Tree cover is very stable from year to year in some countries, but fluctuates significantly in others.With the new data, we can see whether there is more, less or the same amount of tree cover in 2023 compared to 2015. Our analysis shows that 13 of the 18 countries studied had about the same or more tree cover in 2023 as compared to 2015.
However, this “net neutral” status could result from very different scenarios: It could mean that tree cover remained largely unchanged over the time period; or it could mean that large swaths of tree cover were lost, but then replaced by an equivalent amount of gain elsewhere.
In terms of ecosystem health, unchanged tree cover is better. It means that old-growth forests remain standing to provide habitat for plants and animals, sequester carbon, protect water supplies and offer other critical services. Once forests are cut down, it can take decades for new trees to grow large enough to provide these services.
For example, tree cover in Costa Rica and Panama was very stable from 2015 to 2023, with only minor changes from year to year. Meanwhile, in Chile and Nicaragua, tree cover fluctuated tens of thousands of hectares from year to year, even though the countries’ total amount of tree cover in 2023 was roughly the same as in 2015.
These patterns reflect different dynamics. Chile, Nicaragua and the other countries where tree cover is more dynamic have more plantations or “working” forests that are continually harvested and regrown, as well as higher instances of disturbances like fire or hurricanes that cause losses which then naturally regenerate. The stability in Costa Rica and Panama points to greater forest conservation and fewer natural or human-caused disturbances.
2) Tree cover is expanding on farms.Proportionally, croplands experienced the highest net gains in tree cover of any other landscape — nearly 300,000 hectares, or a 24% increase relative to 2015 tree cover levels. The majority of this net gain was concentrated in seven of the 18 studied countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay.
While we can’t determine exactly what is going on in all these cases, some of this gain is from agroforestry and sustainable agriculture, including integrating trees with crops to stabilize soils and increase productivity. But most is likely due to plantation establishment, such as for timber, rubber and oil palm. For example, Uruguay saw a significant amount of gain in tree cover from 2015 to 2023, but it occurred primarily in the form of plantations.
While plantations can be beneficial when they take deforestation pressure off of natural forests or improve the productivity of formerly degraded lands, they can also be detrimental. For example, if plantations replace natural forests with monocultures or are planted in areas that do not naturally support forests, such as native grasslands, they can harm biodiversity, water availability and soil quality. These types of plantations are not usually considered restoration.
3) Many cities are becoming greener.Two-thirds (12 of 18) of countries studied had net tree cover gain in cities and near other built infrastructure, such as along major roads and highways. Trees in urban areas provide cooling shade, clean the air by filtering out pollutants, and create inviting spaces for people to enjoy time outdoors.
Two countries — Nicaragua and Colombia — led the way on “greening” their developed areas, with net tree cover gains of 3% and 2%, respectively. For example, Cali, Colombia was recently certified by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Arbor Day Foundation as one of the “Tree Cities of the World” due to its network of urban forests and green spaces within the city, which promote biodiversity and improve the quality of life for residents.
4) Protected areas are often the best way to conserve forests — when they’re effectively managed.Across all countries, 95% of tree cover inside protected areas was stable — meaning no gains, losses or disturbances occurred between 2015 and 2023. This indicates that establishing protected areas is often an effective way to conserve forests.
Peru, Ecuador and Chile had the most stable forests inside their protected areas, with more than 98% of the interior forest area showing no change.
However, in three countries — Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala — tree cover inside protected areas was more unstable than other areas, ranging from only 75%-80%. Net forest loss in these countries was actually higher inside protected areas than outside. While some of the observed forest loss may be due to natural disasters, policies and their enforcement deserve a closer look in these nations.
5) National policies to incentivize restoration show positive results.El Salvador and Guatemala have implemented unique, government-led programs that both prioritize and finance restoration. Data suggests these programs are having a positive impact on tree cover gain.
El Salvador was the only one of 18 countries to experience net tree cover gain across all land types, including inside protected areas. Deforestation has been a problem in El Salvador for decades; it lost all but 6% of its native forest cover by the 1970s. Though the country started with less tree cover than others in 2015, the data clearly shows that trees are coming back everywhere. These positive trends are at least in part due to political support for restoration, such as the government’s Environmental Incentives and Disincentives Program of 2022, which rewards sustainable activities and discourages landscape degradation. Newer policies, like the 2024 Environmental Assessment System to better evaluate the impacts of human activities on the environment and the 2025 National Program for the Restoration of Ecosystems and Productive Landscapes, should further encourage restoration.
Guatemala has also seen positive results. The Guatemalan government implemented its PROBOSQUE program in 2017, providing finance to smallholder farmers to conserve, plant and maintain trees on their lands. Analysis of mapped PROBOSQUE sites established between 2017 and 2020 show that 20,600 hectares of tree cover were stable and there was net gain of 830 hectares as of 2023. Continuing the PROBOSQUE incentives program, along with its associated mapping and monitoring, could help further support farmers and trees.
Using Data to Inform Progress and Spur More RestorationUsing this data, national and local governments can better identify successful programs or where change is needed. For example, in Guatemala, while PROBOSQUE has helped improve tree cover on farmers’ lands, forests inside the country’s protected areas are still being lost. Because the data shows the bigger picture of what’s happening to trees throughout the country, it can be used to monitor and inform policies and incentives.
Improved documentation of where restoration is occurring is also essential. We now have the data to see tree cover change, but we still need more information about where to look to assess progress against restoration goals and determine whether restoration efforts are actually producing healthier and more resilient ecosystems — which is ultimately the goal. Combining this data with on-the-ground documentation will enable people to better assess where countries stand on restoring their degraded landscapes.
In the 10 years of Initiative 20x20, an important lesson learned is that it takes many actors and a coalition of projects, policies and incentives working together to build momentum for success. Improving access and availability of data to monitor change is one more tool that can help support sustainable landscapes well into the future.
tree-planting-amazon.jpg Forests Latin America data data visualization deforestation agriculture Cities conservation National Climate Action Forests Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Katie Reytar Victoria Rachmaninoff René Zamora Cristales Peter PotapovThe Most Impactful Things You Can Do for the Climate Aren’t What You’ve Been Told
The message is everywhere: You (alone) can save the planet.
Choose a veggie burger instead of beef. Book this flight, not that one. Buy thrift over fast fashion. Shrink your "carbon footprint."
But here's what most people don't know: The very concept of a personal carbon footprint originated with oil giant British Petroleum (BP). In 2004, BP launched a carbon calculator to persuade people to measure their personal climate impacts. The campaign worked — shifting our collective gaze from fossil fuel companies, the biggest drivers of the climate crisis, to individuals like you and me.
Two decades later and with climate disasters rapidly intensifying, we're still caught in this sleight-of-hand. Choices made by corporations and governments continue to shape the speed and scale of climate disruption, while marketing campaigns around climate action try to shift our focus to consumer decisions.
New WRI research tells a different story. Our data shows that pro-climate behavior changes, such as driving less or eating less meat, could theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year1 — specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations.
But it also reveals that efforts focused exclusively on changing behaviors, and not the overarching systems around them, only achieve about one-tenth of this emissions-reduction potential. The remaining 90% stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)
This doesn't mean personal choices don't matter. In fact, they matter immensely — but not exactly in the ways we've been led to believe.
How Much Do Personal Choices Affect the Climate?According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprehensive shifts in human behavior could theoretically reduce global emissions by up to 70% by 2050. This would essentially wipe out emissions from China, the U.S., India, the EU and Russia combined.
But the key word here is "comprehensive." The IPCC is clear that these massive reductions would result from individual behavior change combined with supporting policy, industry and technological transformations that make those behaviors possible and widely accessible.
Understanding 'Average' Emissions
The 'average' person produces 6.28 tonnes of GHG emissions annually. But this number varies widely by country and income level. Wealthier, higher-consuming populations may emit up to 110 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year. Among lower-income groups, emissions can be as low as 1.6 tonnes of CO2e per year. For populations living in poverty, emissions will actually need to increase to meet critical development goals, such as expanding energy access.
What slice of this can be achieved through individual behavior change alone? WRI's new research is the first to quantify the gap between projected emissions reductions (what's theoretically possible) and real-world impacts (what's proven to be feasible). We calculated how much emissions could fall if everyone adopted key climate-friendly behaviors, then compared this with actual results from programs and interventions that attempted to change these behaviors at an individual level.
We found that, in theory, shifting to 11 pro-climate behaviors we analyzed in the energy, transport and food sectors could reduce individuals' GHG emissions by about 6.53 tonnes per year. This would more than cancel out what an average person currently emits (about 6.3 tonnes per year). However, our data also shows that when people attempt these changes in the real world, without supportive systems, they typically only reduce emissions by about 0.63 tonnes yearly — just 10% of what's theoretically possible.
It's not that individual changes don't matter; when someone switches to an electric vehicle (EV) or avoids a flight, they make a real impact. The problem is that without supportive infrastructure, policies or incentives (such as public EV chargers or financial subsidies), these programs struggle to drive the broad-based change the world really needs.
Electric vehicles at a curbside charging station in Amsterdam. Policies and investments that make low-carbon choices more affordable and convenient are essential to unlocking climate-friendly behaviors. Photo by arkanto/Shutterstock How You Can Help Drive Systemic ChangeGiven that climate change is heavily influenced by government and corporate decisions, our votes and collective consumer power are crucially important.
Voting at both the national and local levels is key, as elections directly determine whether governments enable or hinder pro-climate behaviors. In the U.S., for example, the Trump administration has called to repeal federal tax credits that make sustainable choices, such as EVs and home solar, more financially accessible for Americans.
When national policies shift away from climate action, state and local electoral pressure becomes even more crucial. In California, vehicle emission standards have preserved consumer access to cleaner transportation options amid threats of federal rollbacks.
Likewise, collective consumer pressure can help shift large companies toward more climate- and environmentally friendly practices. This means moving beyond individual purchases toward organizing campaigns that push companies to make sustainable choices the norm. Take Nestlé's Kit Kat: When Greenpeace exposed that the company was using palm oil linked to deforestation — threatening orangutan habitats in Indonesia as well as the climate — viral campaigns and public outcry forced Nestlé to drop the supplier and commit to sustainable sourcing within five years.
Which Day-to-Day Choices Have the Biggest Climate Impact?Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.
WRI's research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions. In order of climate impact, these behaviors are:
1) Shift to sustainable ground travelShifting out of gas cars by opting into public or active transit dramatically reduces emissions. Our research shows that living car-free is 78 times more impactful than composting. In other words, one person giving up their car has the same climate impact as 77 people taking up composting. Giving up your car may seem extreme or infeasible, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing; changes like switching to a hybrid or electric car can also have a significant impact.
2) Shift to air travel alternativesWhenever possible, replace flying with videoconferencing, train travel or even driving (ideally in an electric or hybrid vehicle). While air travel is not a significant factor for most of the world — 89% of the world's population has never set foot on a plane — it's one of the most carbon-intensive activities we can do. Those in higher income brackets who fly more frequently have a greater responsibility to lead in this area. (If you're an organization wondering what you can do to reduce business travel, WRI has some tools and insights.)
3) Install residential solar and increase home energy efficiencyInvesting in rooftop solar and improving home energy efficiency — such as by upgrading insulation, installing heat pumps or moving to a smaller house — can significantly cut emissions. While changing light bulbs or turning off appliances has a minor effect, structural home efficiency improvements and clean energy adoption drive far more significant reductions. Due to their high upfront cost, these actions are often more feasible with supportive government programs like tax credits and incentives.
4) Eat more plant-rich mealsReducing meat and dairy consumption, particularly beef and lamb, has a massive and underestimated impact on the climate. While shifting to organic food, buying local and reducing processed foods all have benefits, these changes pale in comparison to dietary shifts that move away from animal proteins. Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact.
How Can Governments and Industry Unlock Broader Change?These individual actions can have a real impact on emissions. But without systemic shifts and support, they will not drive change at the speed and scale the climate crisis demands.
To help people move away from gas-powered vehicles, governments can take steps such as investing in protected bike lanes and expanding electric charging infrastructure. Improved public transit, meanwhile, can drive down car use and make commuting cheaper and more efficient — a win for the climate and for our wallets and well-being.
In Bogotá, Colombia, consistent investment in cycling infrastructure coupled with supportive initiatives (like the popular Ciclovía program, where over 100 km of streets become car-free on Sundays and national holidays) have helped make sustainable transportation both practical and appealing. The share of trips made by bicycle in Bogotá rose from just 0.58% in 1996 to 9% in 2017, showing that when governments create the right conditions, sustainable behaviors can follow.
Pedestrians and cyclists take advantage of Bogotá's Ciclovía program, which closes some roads to car traffic on Sundays and national holidays; a prime example of how government initiatives can encourage low-carbon transportation. Photo by Ivan_Sabo/iStockIn the energy sector, governments can offer financial incentives for home solar, energy-efficient renovations and more. Take the Netherlands: Once labeled a "renewable energy laggard," it has become Europe's leading per-capita user of solar panels, in part thanks to generous subsidies and a net-metering system that allows homeowners to deduct electricity they feed into the grid from their usage.
When it comes to shifting diets, institutions like governments, public organizations and schools can increase plant-based meal options in cafeterias and canteens (such as by adopting "meatless Monday," like the Los Angeles Unified School District did in 2012). And businesses can make lower-carbon choices easiest and most affordable — for instance, by highlighting plant-based options on menus and pricing them competitively.
WRI's Coolfood initiative has demonstrated that simple changes can transform dining behaviors. When Sodexo (a global food service provider operating in schools, hospitals and corporate cafeterias) adopted descriptive dish names like "Sweet and Smoky Tacos," which centered taste and flavor rather than plant-based ingredients, the probability of consumers purchasing these dishes doubled.
How to Shift Behaviors Most EffectivelyOur research shows that how initiatives to change behavior are designed is important. We coded all interventions aimed at driving key pro-climate behaviors into six categories:
We found that "choice architecture" (such as putting more sustainable options front and center) and commitment devices to form longer-lasting habits (such as encouraging pledges to take public transport more often) are the most impactful tools. Meanwhile, information-based approaches (such as carbon footprint calculators) are among the least.
Importantly, sustainability initiatives in industry and policy must be aligned with evidence on effective emissions reductions, instead of adopting visible but minimal-impact measures. Offering recycling bins shows environmental awareness, but providing affordable solar solutions, plant-rich meals or electric transportation goes a longer way toward genuine climate progress.
One powerful tool for government action is countries' national climate commitments (NDCs). WRI research shows that the world's top emitters have historically overlooked behaviors with high emissions-reduction potential, such as food choices and air travel, in their NDCs. With new and updated NDCs due in 2025 under the Paris Agreement, countries have an immediate opportunity to address human behavior change in high-emitting sectors, both through deploying behavior change tools and putting supportive policies in place to make these shifts accessible.
Leveraging Our Collective PowerWhile our choices matter for the climate, the "carbon footprint" narrative has obscured where our true power lies. This individualistic framing fragments our collective strength, keeping us focused on isolated personal behaviors rather than the transformative power of collective action.
WRI's research suggests a more impactful path forward. Rather than calculating our carbon math, our most meaningful individual action may be expanding our collective civic footprint. This can transform not just what we consume, but what choices exist for everyone.
Our power has always been greater than we've been led to believe. It's time we reclaimed it.
1 Average per capita emissions based on data from WRI's Climate Watch platform. For more information, see here.
austin-airport-trash-recycling-compost-bins.jpg Climate GHG emissions climate change transportation Climate-Friendly Diets energy efficiency Clean Energy Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Mindy HernandezNature Crime Threatens Our Planet. Here Are 5 Ways to Fight Back.
The growing scourge of nature crime — which includes illegal forms of logging, mining, fishing, forest conversion and wildlife trade — is devastating ecosystems and species around the world, robbing communities and governments of valuable resources and revenues. These crimes are estimated to generate as much as $280 billion in annual criminal proceeds, according to Interpol — money that could go to communities for health, education and development initiatives.
Nature crimes are also accelerating the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, which have dire impacts on our planet. For example, half of all tropical deforestation is illegal, according to the World Economic Forum. From fires and floods to the destruction of critical ecosystems and the decline of iconic wild species, nature crimes are putting us at even greater risk.
The humphead wrasse has become a major illegal fishing target for Hong Kong's live reef food fish trade. Acceleration of nature crimes are contributing to biodiversity loss around the planet. Photo by Tatiana Belova /Shutterstock.What’s more, these crimes undermine global cooperation efforts on climate change, biodiversity and other environmental threats that are already hobbled by growing political rifts, bureaucracy, funding cuts, and in some countries, an inward, populist and sometimes xenophobic political turn.
Organized criminal elements are exploiting these political currents to exploit the planet's living resources, building on the opportunities of a globalized world.
It’s increasingly clear that we won’t be able to effectively slow the worst impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss without countering nature crime. Solutions, like emerging technologies that can trace product origins, strengthening legal frameworks and empowering Indigenous communities with tools and resources, are just some of the ways the world can fight back.
In the Amazon basin and elsewhere in the world, illegal mining — particularly for gold — is a major cause of tropical forest destruction. Photo by Tarcisio Schnaider/Shutterstock. A Persistent ProblemThis is not a problem that’s going away. Nature crimes are on the rise, with illegal gold mining among the fastest growing. Venezuela and Ecuador, for example, have reported large increases, especially since the price of gold rose significantly following the COVID-19 pandemic. The profits generated annually from illegal gold mining are estimated to be as much as $48 billion globally, according to Interpol.
Since 2016, the value of illegal gold exports surpassed cocaine in Colombia and Peru, respectively the largest and second-largest producers of cocaine globally. Cocaine and gold are becoming inextricably linked in many regions, with cartels using gold to launder illicit drug cash.
Indeed, convergence with other crimes is a regular feature of these environmental offenses. The links between illegal mining and illegal logging, for example, are well established. As a 2024 WRI report highlighted, the impact of mining, both legal and illegal, on global deforestation is striking, with nearly 1.4 million hectares of trees lost between 2001 and 2020 as a direct result of mining. That’s an area roughly the size of Puerto Rico.
At sea, illegal fishing fleets abound with human rights abuses and other forms of serious organized crime. In November 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned individuals associated with the Gulf Cartel due to their involvement in illegal fishing, human smuggling and narcotics trafficking in the Gulf of Mexico.
These are complex crimes. To address this, a new WRI report on nature crime, aims to provide greater understanding on how these crimes work, their enablers and their convergences, and offers a range of solutions to fight back.
Fishing vessels are spotted in a protected marine reserve off the coast of Asia. Illegal fishing is frequently linked to labor and human rights abuses and other forms of organized crime. Photo by Richard Whitcombe/Shutterstock. 5 Ways to Halt Nature CrimeHere are five approaches that, if executed effectively, could turn the tide on nature crime.
1) Follow the MoneyNature crimes are routinely entangled with financial crimes, with illicit profits laundered into the global banking system. While it is somewhat of a cliché, there has been proven success in following the money to prosecute environmental criminals for financial offenses. Given that many jurisdictions impose harsher sentences for financial crimes, like money laundering, than environmental offenses, focusing on the money is a key approach to taking down the perpetrators.
Yet there are challenges. The sheer complexity of the crimes, with layering of transactions to obscure illicit sources of funds, presents a major obstacle. Furthermore, the linkages between nature crime and financial crimes are often missed or not prioritized by investigators. This needs to change: Illegal forms of logging and deforestation, along with illegal mining, are the highest-value crime types linked to associated financial crimes, according to the multilateral Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog.
Progress, however, is being made. Last year saw the launch of the Amazon Region Initiative Against Illicit Finance, a partnership between Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and the U.S., to “combat the financing of nature crime and counter the transnational criminal organizations benefiting from it.”
The private sector is also stepping up, with WWF and Themis — a developer of anti-money laundering software — creating a new Environmental Crime Financial Toolkit. Launched at the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16), this resource helps the financial sector better understand illicit activities associated with nature crime. Elsewhere, the Private Sector Dialogue on the Disruption of Financial Crime Related to Crimes that Affect the Environment, hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in partnership with Interpol, the Nature Crime Alliance and United for Wildlife, bring together financial institutions, law enforcement, financial intelligence units and civil society to increase awareness of the financial fingerprints of nature crime. If banks get better at identifying financial flows linked to environmental crimes, the networks involved will face increasing disruption.
These efforts are making it harder for perpetrators to conceal their crimes — and their profits.
2) Seize the Potential of Emerging TechnologiesIn March 2024, Belgian authorities announced that some 260 metric tons of Russian timber had entered Belgium in violation of EU sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This discovery was not the result of intelligence tip-offs or vessel tracking. Rather, the timber’s origin was only established due to cutting-edge scientific techniques that leverage chemical and genetic information — one of several nascent technologies that could dramatically improve the detection of products resulting from nature crime.
Elsewhere, artificial intelligence is reshaping the fight against wildlife crime, with the development of camera traps that can differentiate between probable poachers and other individuals. This reduces false alarms while enabling rangers to know exactly what they are dealing with when receiving alerts.
Investing in and scaling these emerging technologies — alongside established ones such as geospatial monitoring that can identify nature crimes on land and sea — will equip frontline defenders and law enforcement actors with the tools that can thwart criminals on the ground.
3) Empower People and Communities on the FrontlinesIndigenous peoples and local communities are among the most affected by nature crimes such as land grabbing and illegal mining. As a result, they are often subjected to violence and intimidation by criminal gangs. In their role as frontline defenders, Indigenous communities must be supported in protecting their homes and livelihoods, as well as the biodiversity and ecosystems upon which we all depend.
This includes forging partnerships with the private sector, such as tech companies, to provide access to innovative tools and technologies that can give frontline defenders an advantage over the criminal gangs active in their area. Training communities to use platforms such as Global Forest Watch and other monitoring systems has already seen positive results. The challenge now is to scale these activities.
Building trusted relationships between Indigenous communities and law enforcement — bridging local intelligence with policing power and resources — is also essential. Such relationships will not only support investigations and prosecutions but can also lead to more effective protections for frontline defenders themselves, who are regularly murdered in the defense of nature.
The remnants of cut-down Spanish cedar in the Amazon forest of Peru. Spanish cedar, a valuable commercial timber species, is widely and illegally logged across the Amazon. Photo by André Bärtschi. 4) Ramp Up Multi-Sector ApproachesMulti-sector collaboration is a common thread across many of the approaches used to combat nature crime. It is essential in tackling the complex web of vested interests that drive environmental crimes around the world.
The Amazon Conservation Association (ACA) — a civil society organization — routinely cooperates with a federation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in Peru to monitor areas under threat from illegal mining. Using its Mapping the Andean Amazon Program (MAAP), which harnesses satellite imagery, ACA shares confidential reports with the federation, which then works with affected communities to determine if legal challenges should be brought and engage relevant government departments to bring them forward. Between 2022 and 2024, this collaboration has directly led to five major law enforcement operations — a strong example of multi-sector cooperation resulting in direct action against nature crime. In one such operation in Barranco Chico, Peru, authorities discovered illegal mining camps, where they destroyed heavy machinery, including diggers and trucks. Deforestation linked to mining subsequently decreased in this region, ACA reported.
Multi-sector approaches are also championed by initiatives like the Nature Crime Alliance, a global, multi-sector network hosted by WRI. With more than 40 members across governments, law enforcement and civil society, it is a model that in its two-year existence is already bearing fruit.
This month, the Alliance published a suite of new resources, developed in consultation with members, which aim to support law enforcement investigations and deepen civil society access to the latest research and insights on nature crime issues. Many of these resources have been shaped by the Alliance’s activities, such as supporting Interpol’s work to strengthen links with civil society organizations focusing on wildlife crime. The Alliance also runs a working group with Indigenous Peoples Rights International to empower frontline defenders via trainings, provide access to technologies, and advocate at the policy level.
Financial commitments in support of multi-sector collaborations are also emerging. In January, the German government announced a 5 million euro ($5.4 million) grant to Interpol and WWF to tackle environmental crimes in a strong example of greater collaboration between law enforcement and civil society.
If we are going to reduce nature crime, and protect global biodiversity, the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, and our national economic and security interests, we need to break the silos and get sectors working together more closely.
5) Strengthen Legal FrameworksAnother essential step is to ensure that legal and institutional frameworks are up to the task of prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of nature crime. Criminal activities are forever evolving and adapting. Laws and judicial processes need to keep pace.
Reforming legal practices, such as widening the threshold of evidence that is admissible in court, would make a huge difference. In many cases, evidence gathered by civil society organizations or journalists — such as remote sensor data — cannot be used in prosecutions. A shift here would significantly increase convictions. Similarly, establishing stronger land rights for Indigenous peoples and local communities, and properly enforcing these rights, will go some way in tackling offenses such as land grabbing.
At the policy level, developments to international frameworks could also bolster law enforcement efforts. The relationship between these frameworks and local laws can be seen in the UNODC’s analysis of the global criminalization of environmental crimes. This 2024 study noted that the environmental offenses which most frequently meet the definition of “serious crimes” under the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) are those that fall under well-established international frameworks; wildlife crime and waste trafficking, covered by the UN Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, respectively. However, these frameworks need to be strengthened. CITES, for example, has consistently failed to stem the trade in iconic animals such as cheetahs. Despite being accorded the highest level of protection under CITES, some 4,184 cheetahs were involved in trafficking incidents between 2010 and 2019, with cubs being traded through loopholes in the convention’s system. Today, it is thought that as few as 6,500 mature cheetahs remain in the wild.
Since 2020, there has been growing support for a new protocol to the UNTOC to cover the trafficking of wild fauna and flora in addition to its existing focus on human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and illicit manufacture and trafficking in firearms. This would unlock a range of international collaborative tools for law enforcement agencies.
Live cheetahs are widely trafficked from Africa to the Gulf States. More than 4,000 cheetahs were involved in trafficking incidents between 2010 and 2019. Now, there are fewer than 6,500 mature cheetahs that remain in the wild. Photo by slowmotiongli/Shutterstock. Making Progress in 2025These solutions highlight that fighting back against nature crime is possible. What we need now is the political will among governments and donors to ensure resources flow to where they are needed most. Throughout 2025, there will be meaningful opportunities for governments and international organizations to make significant progress. They include:
- The IUCN World Conservation Congress — the major international summit on protecting fauna and flora that convenes every four years, taking place this October in Abu Dhabi — presents a key opportunity to elevate political will for stronger action against nature crime. Several major civil society organizations are already coordinating on a new omnibus resolution motion on nature crime ahead of the Congress. The motion, should it be adopted, will complement ongoing efforts to integrate nature crime as a core priority in IUCN's four-year program of work (2026-2029), cementing the issue in the international conservation agenda.
- The UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) Conference of the States Parties will take place in December in Doha. As a legally binding treaty, the UNCAC is among the best tools to fight organized and international networks perpetrating environmental crime. The upcoming UNCAC COSP11 is therefore a major opportunity to influence policymakers and drive tangible change on this issue, with networks like the UNCAC Coalition’s Environmental Crime and Corruption working group leading the charge.
- The Conference of the Parties for CITES convenes in Uzbekistan in November. Establishing more stringent enforcement of the convention and closing loopholes to combat illegal international trade in endangered species of fauna and flora, such as the cheetah, would be a welcome development.
- Finally, the United Nations annual climate summit (COP30) will take place this year in Belem, Brazil, at the mouth of the Amazon river. Hopefully, this setting will encourage governments to highlight the threat that forest crime poses to conserving the threatened Amazon rainforests, a critical component of the global effort to limit the emissions that are driving climate change.
Bolstering these high-level frameworks can drive much-needed political will to counter nature crimes at the national or regional levels, thus supporting the strengthening of local laws and enforcement operations on the ground. They can also serve as a vehicle to promote the expansion of international sanctions for environmental crimes — a move that would make the consequences of committing these crimes in line with their devastating impacts.
In a world of contesting demands on funding and resources, nature crime has for too long been overlooked. Failure to make meaningful progress on this issue will spell the failure of global environmental goals. That is a price none of us can afford to pay.
Ivory_pyre_Kenya_-_US_Embassy_Nairobi-Flickr[1].jpeg Forest and Landscape Restoration restoration illegal logging fisheries deforestation Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Charles Victor Barber Luke FoddyUnderstanding the Paris Agreement's 'Global Goal on Adaptation'
A staggering 3.6 billion people — nearly half of the global population — are currently considered highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, ranging from droughts, floods and storms to heat stress and food insecurity. This number will only continue to rise as long as global temperatures keep climbing.
While the world must act swiftly to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and halt climate change, action is also needed to build the resilience of people already feeling its impacts — and those who inevitably will soon. Climate adaptation efforts must be quickly scaled up to safeguard vulnerable communities, from building sea walls for flood protection to restoring forests that maintain water supplies and planting more resilient crops.
Yet global progress on climate adaptation has been small-scale, slow and fragmented to date, coming up woefully short of the world's need.
The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) aims to address this shortfall by providing a clear framework and targets for measuring progress on adaptation. A well-crafted and widely supported GGA will guide global adaptation efforts by highlighting where and how adaptation plans and policies are being implemented, and which areas are falling behind.
Although the GGA was included in the Paris Agreement in 2015, the eight years that followed saw limited progress on developing it. However, countries finally agreed to an overarching framework at the 2023 UN climate summit (COP28). The framework provides a strong foundation, laying out key areas for global adaptation action. But it still lacks quantified, measurable adaptation targets as well as measures to mobilize finance, technology and capacity building (known as "means of implementation") — all of which are critical to driving real-world outcomes.
Negotiators are tasked with resolving these issues in 2025. They'll work to enhance the GGA framework so that it truly drives action at the scale needed, and so countries will have a useful set of indicators by which to measure and track its progress.
What Is the Global Goal on Adaptation?The Global Goal on Adaptation is a collective commitment under Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement aimed at "enhancing [the world's] adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change." Proposed by the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) in 2013 and established in 2015, the GGA is meant to serve as a unifying framework to drive political action and finance for adaptation on the same scale as mitigation. This means setting specific, measurable targets and guidelines for global adaptation action, as well as enhancing adaptation finance and other types of support for developing countries.
Flooded homes in Bangladesh after extreme rainfall. Many communities and countries that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts also have the fewest resources to scale up their adaptation efforts and build resilience. Photo by Muhammad Amdad Hossain/Climate VisualsThe GGA is meant to enable adaptation actions that are timely, scalable and specific. Because countries are experiencing climate change impacts to different degrees and are vulnerable to them in different ways, it is also meant to encourage solutions that consider local contexts and the particular needs of specific groups of vulnerable people.
How Can Countries Achieve the Global Goal on Adaptation and Its targets?The needs of all countries — especially those most vulnerable to climate change — must be fully included and addressed as countries work to enhance and implement the GGA. This means ensuring that the framework and its tracking mechanisms uphold four key principles:
Driving Climate Action for Vulnerable Countries
This article was written by members of the ACT2025 consortium, a group of experts from climate-vulnerable countries working to drive greater climate ambition on the international stage. Learn more about ACT2025 and its work here.
Focus on equity and justiceEquity and justice must be core considerations when operationalizing the GGA so that adaptation measures do not worsen existing inequalities. For instance, finance mechanisms should be designed to avoid increasing debt levels for developing countries — many of which are already heavily burdened by debt, limiting their ability to pay for climate action.
Support for locally led adaptationIndividual nations, states, provinces and communities must be able to tailor adaptation strategies to their unique contexts. To this end, the GGA should ensure that local populations, especially those most susceptible to the effects of climate change, are meaningfully involved. They should have true decision-making authority — including budgetary decisions — over which adaptation interventions are implemented in their communities, by whom and in what ways.
Compared to top-down approaches, locally led adaptation strategies can encourage ownership and effectiveness, reinforce social cohesion, and allow more flexibility in adaptation responses given the dynamic nature of climate change. However, they should still be aligned with national adaptation priorities.
The Principles for Locally Led Adaptation provide a useful framework to redistribute decision-making authority to the lowest appropriate level, including marginalized and particularly vulnerable groups such as Indigenous peoples, women, youth and others.
A locally led project in Mongu, Zambia aims to update an old canal system which is vital to the area's economy but often unusable due to climate-driven flooding. Context-specific projects like this are critical for enabling climate-vulnerable countries to implement national adaptation policies at the local level. Photo by CIF Action/Flickr Inclusive, science-based decision makingAdaptation actions should be based on the best available science as well as traditional and Indigenous knowledge to ensure effective and context-relevant strategies. The GGA must recognize the importance of integrating Indigenous peoples' wisdom into adaptation strategies, respecting their rights and knowledge systems, and promoting their active involvement in decision-making and designing solutions. Facilitating technology and knowledge transfer to developing countries will also be important to enhance local capacity for advancing adaptation efforts.
Alignment with other global sustainability goalsAdaptation efforts should complement and be integrated into other national and international development initiatives. This includes, for example, aligning with the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
What's Included in the Current GGA Framework, and What's Missing?The GGA framework put forth at COP28, named the "UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience" (UAE FGCR), highlights key areas in which all countries need to build resilience, such as food, water and health. These globally relevant themes can help bridge the gap between national and global adaptation priorities and ensure ambitious and unified messaging and outcomes.
The framework also lays out overarching (but not yet quantified) global targets which will help guide countries in developing and implementing National Adaptation Plans and other relevant policies. These include:
- Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment: By 2030, all Parties have conducted assessments of climate hazards, climate change impacts and exposure to risks and vulnerabilities, and have used the outcomes to inform their National Adaptation Plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies. Furthermore, by 2027, all Parties have established systemic observation to gather climate data, as well as multi-hazard early warning systems and climate information services to support risk reduction.
- Planning: By 2030, all Parties have country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent National Adaptation Plans, policy instruments and planning processes, and have mainstreamed adaptation in all relevant strategies and plans.
- Implementation: By 2030, all Parties have progressed in implementing their National Adaptation Plans, policies and strategies, and have reduced the social and economic impacts of key climate hazards.
- Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL): By 2030, all Parties have designed, established and operationalized systems for monitoring, evaluation and learning for their national adaptation efforts and have built institutional capacity to fully implement their systems.
These broad targets offer a good starting point to guide adaptation efforts. But there are important gaps in the framework, too. For example, it lacks specific, measurable indicators to track on-the-ground action and measure progress toward achieving global adaptation goals.
The GGA framework also reiterates that international climate finance for adaptation should be on par with finance for mitigation in developing countries, recognizing that current levels are far too low to respond to worsening climate change impacts. However, it is silent on how countries should mobilize this finance. Ambitious finance targets are necessary to ensure that adaptation efforts, especially in climate vulnerable countries and communities, can be implemented.
Also missing are references to "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" (CBDR-RC). This concept acknowledges that different countries have different levels of responsibility in addressing climate change according to their wealth and development levels.
What Progress Has Been Made Recently, and What Comes Next?Developing the Global Goal on Adaptation has been a complex challenge — in part because adaptation interventions are often hyper-local and context-specific, and in part because negotiators have struggled to reach agreement on key political issues (such who should pay for adaptation in developing countries, which are the least responsible for climate change but often bear its heaviest burden).
With a framework in place, negotiators are now working to resolve thorny questions about the GGA which were not answered in its initial text, such as how to track progress toward its overarching targets. They have already made some progress: At COP29 in 2024, for example, countries agreed to track means of implementation (finance, technology transfer and development, and capacity building). This will help measure how well countries are adapting to climate change and whether they are receiving the financial and technical support they need to do so.
But unanswered questions remain. Addressing the following issues will be critical to delivering adaptation action that truly meets the needs of developing countries:
- Financing adaptation action: Ensuring adequate and accessible funding for adaptation remains a formidable challenge in implementing the GGA. Closing the adaptation finance gap requires not only mobilizing highly concessional finance in a timely manner, but also developing innovative financing solutions to address current and future climate impacts. Adaptation methodologies and metrics should be set up to effectively track the quantity and quality of climate finance for adaptation to ensure these targets are not underfunded and poorly implemented. Attention must also be paid to ensuring that finance is accessible to communities and not bottlenecked in national capitals. Recent estimates indicate that only around 17% of adaptation finance ever makes it to the local level.
- Indicators and measurements: Negotiators are tasked with finalizing a set of indicators for tracking adaptation action and support. Eight groups of technical experts are now in the process of narrowing down thousands of proposed indicators to a final list of no more than 100 by COP30 in November 2025. The final set of indicators must be comprehensive, yet manageable and globally applicable. These indicators should effectively capture progress toward adaptation goals by encompassing a wide range of information, including environmental and social considerations as well as enabling factors (which was a key focus of discussion at COP29).
- Limited data and knowledge: Effective adaptation planning requires accurate and adequate data and knowledge about local climate impacts and vulnerabilities. Many countries, particularly those with limited resources, may lack the necessary scientific expertise, technical capacity and data to develop robust adaptation strategies, which can impact progress and tracking. Parties should consider measures to help develop and streamline data collection and analysis while pushing for improvements in data and knowledge sharing as part of GGA processes.
- Linking bottom-up metrics and solutions with top-down indicators: Metrics also need to be adaptable to different scales so they may be tailored to specific contexts but also aggregated at higher levels. Creating locally appropriate and context-specific indicator frameworks means defining metrics and solutions from the bottom up. However, these must be linked to national adaptation goals to ensure progress can be tracked systematically. In other words, a one-size-fits-all-approach is not an effective way to address adaptation issues, and the framework should not assume that. For countries to develop robust adaptation monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems, the GGA must help them take stock of local initiatives and systematically integrate this data into national and subnational-level MEL processes.
In addition, parties launched two processes — the Baku Adaptation Roadmap and the Baku High-level Dialogue on Adaptation, meant to foster implementation of the GGA — yet how they will do so remains unclear. As the scope of the roadmap and dialogue are developed, Parties must consider how indicators will be measured and tracked in practice; how adaptation finance links to the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance; how they can catalyze and strengthen regional and international cooperation to scale up adaptation action and support; and how other stakeholders can support its implementation.
Protecting the Most Vulnerable through the GGAThe UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience adopted in 2023 marked a major achievement after nearly a decade of lagging progress. COP29 also made important strides in advancing the process to refine the goal's tracking indicators and establishing new mechanisms to support implementation.
However, for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis, these advancements must swiftly translate into tangible action on the ground.
In the months and years ahead, negotiators must work to ensure that the GGA framework accelerates action towards strengthening resilience globally — such as through stronger protections for farmers facing drought, better infrastructure for coastal communities, and funding that reaches those who need it most — providing real support for the world's most vulnerable communities. Only then can the GGA truly drive adaptation action at the pace and scale necessary to meet the climate crisis head on.
Editor's note: This article was originally published in November 2023. It was updated in February 2024 to reflect progress made on the Global Goal on Adaptation at COP28 and in March 2025 to reflect progress made at COP29.
mud-dike-repair.jpg International Climate Action Climate Climate Resilience climate change International Climate Action COP28 adaptation climatewatch-pinned COP29 Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects- Allied for Climate Transformation By 2025 (ACT2025)
- Climate Adaptation and Resilience
- Locally Led Adaptation
- Adaptation Finance and Investment
Community Benefits Frameworks: Shortcomings and Opportunities for Greater Impact
Community benefits frameworks have a long history in the United States, helping to secure tangible benefits for local communities from proposed development projects while safeguarding against potential burdens.
These frameworks have been used in both public and private construction for decades. Many of the earliest successful agreements were applied to large-scale urban infrastructure development projects, such as in 2001 to build the Los Angeles Staples Center. Today, community benefits frameworks are being applied to new sectors, including clean energy and transportation projects (from offshore wind to electric buses), as well as new geographies, with many renewable projects taking shape in more rural parts of the U.S.
As the deployment of clean energy projects accelerates, new projects often face local opposition which can lead to project delays and even cancellation. While not a silver bullet, community benefits frameworks can help increase public acceptance of and defuse local opposition to clean energy projects, increase a project’s chance of gaining permitting approval, cultivate trust between project developers and communities, and generate benefits for host communities.
To better understand how benefits-sharing agreements and plans can work for host communities, the World Resources Institute and Data for Progress developed a database of community benefits frameworks with detailed information on 72 publicly available benefits-sharing agreements and plans across the U.S.
Here, we give an overview of the frameworks, outline what is included in the database and offer key findings for improving these frameworks based on an analysis of the benefits-sharing agreements it contains.
What Are Community Benefits Frameworks?Community benefits framework is an umbrella term for a wide variety of benefits-sharing agreements and plans that have been used across the U.S. (The methodology document about this database provides further details on how they were found, analyzed and categorized in the database.)
Examples of Community Benefits FrameworksType of FrameworkAcronymDescriptionCommunity Benefits AgreementCBACBAs are legally binding agreements between a developer or company and local community organizations. The agreements direct benefits from a project to local communities. The benefits are negotiated based on a community’s priorities.Host Community AgreementHCAHCAs are legally binding agreements between a developer and the municipality where a project will be sited. In some states and municipalities, HCAs are being incentivized or even required for renewable energy infrastructure projects.Project Labor AgreementPLAPLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining agreements between labor unions and developers or contractors. They set the terms and conditions of employment for specific projects, specifying wages, benefits and working conditions.Good Neighbor AgreementGNAGNAs are established on a voluntary basis and are legally binding agreements between a business or developer and a neighboring community. The parties can address specific impacts the business will have on the community and come to a mutual understanding that benefits all parties.Community Benefits PlansCBPCBPs are non-legally binding roadmaps reflecting how a developer is planning on engaging with communities across project stages. Although they often don’t include enforcement mechanisms, they can help pave the way for legally binding agreements.Source: Saha et al., 2024 and Gross, 2009
While agreements such as CBAs, HCAs and PLAs are typically voluntary, they have also been required by city and state law. Some states, including California, have enacted legislation requiring "legally binding and enforceable agreements" between the developer and community-based organizations for renewable energy and other projects. Detroit has a community benefits ordinance that requires developers to enter into a CBA with a neighborhood advisory council which is formed to represent local communities where projects will be sited. Community benefit plans are also established on a voluntary basis, although in some cases they are required. For instance, under the Biden administration, CBPs had to be submitted as part of developers’ applications to receive federal funding for grants and loans under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or the Inflation Reduction Act.
What’s In the Database of Community Benefits Frameworks?The Community Benefits Framework Database includes 72 publicly available agreements and plans signed between 2000 and 2023, but it is not comprehensive of all agreements and plans ever negotiated in the U.S.
Inside the Community Benefits Frameworks DatabaseQuestionAnswerWhat type of information is included for each framework?Information on framework type, sector, location, parties to the agreement or plan, the year it was signed, the duration of the agreement or plan, the categories of benefits provided, the mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and enforcement, and whether the agreement includes conflict resolution mechanisms.What sectors are covered?Energy, education, entertainment, mining, construction, solar power, transmission and others. Where were frameworks negotiated?All across the U.S., with California and New York together accounting for more than half of agreements and plans included in the database.When were the agreements signed?Between 2000 and 2023.Which category of benefits is most common?Education and financial benefits are the most common across frameworks, followed by employment and workforce-related benefits.What is the most common type of community benefits framework in the database?CBAs account for about 44% of the database; HCAs make up 25%; and almost 10% are CBPs. How many agreements include language on monitoring and reporting, enforcement, and conflict resolution?79% of frameworks include language on reporting and monitoring mechanisms. Only 48% include text on enforcement mechanisms.Key Shortcomings Observed in Benefit-Sharing AgreementsThe ultimate success of community benefits frameworks hinges on several factors. Although this article does not discuss all these factors, many have been explored elsewhere. With very few community benefit plans in the database, the following analysis applies to legally-binding agreements, such as CBAs, GNAs, HCAs and others, which make up about 90% of frameworks included in the database.
Here, we focus specifically on shortcomings we observed, especially in terms of how agreements are written:
1) Ambiguous, Aspirational Goals with Few Implementation DetailsThe level of detail in the reviewed agreements varied widely.
Some agreements are less detailed and only provide general promises, limiting opportunities for communities to seek recompense if benefits are not delivered. The agreements tend to lack clear metrics, timelines or enforcement mechanisms that give weight to provisions. For instance, an agreement that includes a benefits provision made by a developer to “strive to create local jobs” lacks a clear pathway to enact and enforce it.
Stronger agreements spell out specific benchmarks, timelines and responsibilities for implementing agreed-upon benefits. Such agreements typically include clear commitments with binding language and concrete actions. For example, a developer "shall provide 100 affordable housing units" within a specific timeframe, or a developer "will hire 30% of workers locally."
One agreement, negotiated for a mixed-use building development in Washington state, obligates developers to begin construction on 200 units of affordable housing within four years. This CBA specifies not only the number of affordable housing units, but also articulates how affordable housing is defined, and includes specific requirements to ensure the units are large enough for families.
Examples of Common Language Patterns Across Strong and Weak FrameworksStronger Agreements Weaker Agreements Characteristic Example Characteristic Example Firm, binding language around developer’s responsibilities “Will provide 1,000 new reusable bottles...” Vague, subjective language around developer’s responsibilities “Make commercially reasonable efforts to construct...”; “should secure adequate funding for...”, or “Will make good faith efforts to provide a sufficient number of reusable bottles...” Specificity of benefit “Will hire 50% of new workers from [local municipality].” Goals or objectives instead of concrete benefit “Endeavor to hire 50% of new workers from the surrounding area” or “attempt to reduce...”Beyond what language is included, there are also patterns in which language is absent from weaker agreements. For instance, enforceable language, with terms like “binding,” “penalty,” and “independent monitoring” are rare. Similarly, clear and measurable targets, with phrases like “specific outcomes,” “measurable benchmarks,” and “timelines” are often absent or underdeveloped.
Key Takeaway
Clear, measurable targets and timelines can help ensure that commitments are actionable and enforceable, and developers can be held accountable. In particular, it is important to include specific language about benefits, who is responsible for delivering them and by when, as well as important details that may arise in implementing benefits.
2) Few Details on Negotiation Process and How Benefits Are ChosenThe agreements included in the database, for the most part, provide no information about the negotiation process, how the benefits were chosen, the specific criteria used to determine the benefits, who will qualify for the benefits and — perhaps more importantly — who will not. Including this information can enhance transparency, build community and developer trust and confidence in the agreement, and help with effective implementation of the agreement.
From the agreements themselves, it is not clear how benefits were chosen and which party influenced the different parts of that process. Most agreements use the term “benefits” as a catch-all phrase. Often, they are activities the developer undertakes to address a project’s negative impacts, or benefits that naturally arise from the project, such as new jobs or tax revenue. At times, compliance with existing laws, such as adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act or to “local laws and regulations,” is also framed as a benefit, raising questions about whether the developer carried out community engagement in good faith and to what extent community groups were part of the decision making process.
Robust benefits-sharing agreements should include additional tangible benefits requested by local communities that enhance their long-term prosperity. For example, Chevron and the city of Richmond, California entered into a community investment agreement over Chevron’s plan to modernize its Richmond refinery. This agreement details a three-month timeline of the city and developer’s community engagement efforts and the process — two local community workshops organized by the developer and public hearings held by the city’s planning commission — to identify benefits prioritized by the local community.
To boost groups’ capacity to negotiate for specific benefits, some developers have set aside funds for community groups to cover expenses during the agreement negotiation. The developer of the New Bedford HCA , for example, committed to reimbursing the city of New Bedford, Mass., up to $90,000 for costs incurred from negotiating the agreement, among other things. Another example from Philadelphia is the SugarHouse Casino CBA, in which the developer agreed to pay up to $35,000 in legal fees incurred by the authorized community signatories. Such funds can help level the playing field between the two groups by helping communities hire legal help or gain access to third-party expertise.
Although such dedicated funds can be helpful, it is important that agreements include explicit language allowing communities the independence to choose their own legal representation and third-party experts.
Key Takeaway
A well-documented process that includes details on the negotiation and community engagement process as well as how the proposed benefits were arrived at can help with accountability, public trust and effective implementation. Having sufficient time and adequate resources can help community members and organizations represent their interests and secure tangible benefits during the negotiation process. Leveraging data and tools to identify and prioritize benefits most useful to a community — something technical or legal experts can help with — is important to ensure positive outcomes.
3) Differences in the Quality of Monitoring and Reporting MechanismsAlthough about 78% of agreements featured in the database include monitoring and reporting provisions, there are differences when it comes to the quality of these mechanisms.
Monitoring and reporting responsibilities are often assigned to the developers. However, agreements typically provide little to no practical details on how to monitor, measure or report progress on implementing the agreement. In most cases, developers are only required to create annual progress reports on their compliance efforts. The agreements often lack a clear roadmap specifying what exact metrics should be reported and monitored, how frequently, and by what methods. As a result, communities struggle to independently track a plan’s implementation and hold developers accountable when necessary.
Some agreements with strong monitoring and reporting elements require progress to be monitored and reported on by independent third parties, or through oversight committees that include community representatives. For instance, one agreement between commercial fishing associations and telecommunications companies in San Luis Obispo, California requires the companies to host an independent observer on their cable installation vessels equipped with monitoring tools and technologies to verify the companies’ compliance with the agreement. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CBA in Missouri includes a detailed provision for the formation of an oversight committee, which meets quarterly with an independent monitoring party to report on progress and verify compliance with the CBA terms.
Key Takeaway
Creating committees that include community representation or hiring independent monitoring parties to evaluate progress on commitments are examples of strong monitoring and reporting mechanisms. These approaches can allow for independent oversight, measuring progress toward commitments as a first critical step towards enabling communities to hold developers accountable.
4) Lack of Clear Enforcement MechanismsEnforcement mechanisms refer to clear processes for holding developers accountable and penalizing noncompliance with a benefits-sharing agreement. Even though most agreements in the database are legally binding and include language on monitoring and reporting mechanisms, only about half of them include language on enforcement mechanisms. The reason for this absence is unclear.
Some agreements are vague regarding what enforcement will look like, simply including provisions to “enforce findings” with few specifics. Other agreements include provisions about parties to the agreement meeting to confer and determine mutually agreeable steps to get a developer back on track.
In contrast, stronger agreements tend to include provisions about the preparation of a corrective action plan to review why a specified benefit has not been provided or a certain goal not achieved. They typically also outline how specific remedial actions will be negotiated to achieve compliance.
In some cases, monetary enforcement provisions are included, such as the accruing of interest in the case of late payments of host benefit fees or arbitration awards. For instance, the Dearborn Street CBA in Seattle, Washington, establishes that the developer will contribute $50,000 to the city’s housing funds for each housing unit that is not completed or commenced after a given timeframe.
Key Takeaway
Well-designed enforcement mechanisms like late fees, monetary penalties or other consequences for default can serve to incentivize developers to abide by agreements and result in material consequences from failure to do so. Without adequate enforcement, community benefits frameworks can be undermined, and developers may fail to meet their obligations once the initial political or public pressure fades.
5) Lack of Provisions for Agreement Amendment and RenewalAround 84% of agreements in the database include information on how long the agreement will last. Only a few agreements — about 14% — include provisions that detail whether an agreement can be amended or renewed. Even fewer include provisions outlining what happens to promised benefits if a project changes ownership.
Provisions that provide opportunities for renegotiation, renewal or responsibility transfer clauses can help ensure the long-term sustainability of the benefits. Without such provisions, the benefits of an agreement may not last beyond a project’s lifetime or could be threatened if the project changes ownership. For instance, agreements may include affordable housing or community center commitments but may lack provisions that ensure units stay affordable once a development is complete.
One good example of these practices is the case of the Stillwater Mining Company GNA, in which the continued operation of the Montana mine is affixed to the GNA regardless of the mine’s ownership. This ensures the GNA will be enforceable as long as the mine is operational. It also provides a good practice example of an agreement that was amended several times to keep pace with evolving circumstances.
Other agreements included in the database, such as the SunQuest Industrial CBA in Los Angeles, did not include such ownership provisions. In SunQuest Industrial’s case, the developer’s bankruptcy eventually led to the sale of the project land to a new developer who no longer wanted to honor the CBA. Some have pointed out that, for these reasons, CBAs should include language that ties the agreement to the land or property asset itself.
Key Takeaway
Agreements that include language on a procedure to renew, amend, or transfer responsibility of the agreement — in the case of project closure or ownership transfer — can help guarantee that an agreement’s provisions are sustainable, and that the community will receive the benefits that a developer agreed to provide.
Moving Forward: Scaling and Improving Community Benefits FrameworksDespite the Trump administration halting many federal investments in clean energy and the associated advancement of social, economic and environmental justice, the broader momentum for clean energy infrastructure will continue with or without the federal government’s support.
Community benefits frameworks will remain an important tool to ensure that all communities, especially Black, Indigenous, low-income, rural and other communities of color, can meaningfully engage in the development of clean energy projects and derive benefits from them. This community benefits frameworks database aims to showcase the variety of features used across frameworks to assist communities, developers and researchers in advancing projects that benefit communities.
Further research and analysis are needed on the outcomes and effectiveness of community benefits frameworks to yield community benefits. Such research can help inform future actions by policymakers, project developers and community organizations to ensure widespread positive community impacts from clean energy projects.
neighborhood-construction-community-benefits-frameworks.jpg Climate United States U.S. Climate Clean Energy transportation industry U.S. Community Benefits Frameworks Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Danielle Riedl Willy Carlsen Evana Said Devashree Saha Grace Adcox Catherine FraserUnloading Coal Exposure: Where Are Banks Now, and What’s Next?
Banks have long funneled billions into coal, sustaining the world's biggest source of energy-related emissions well past the point when investors were aware of the impacts.
While some banks are scaling back to manage risks and tap into clean energy opportunities, progress is slow. In 2023, for every $1 of financing for wind, solar and grids, banks facilitated $1.12 into coal and other fossil fuels. In 2022, that figure stood at $1.35. The direction is right, but the pace is deficient.
Despite pledges to stop funding new coal projects, many banks, especially in Asia, where coal dependence runs deep, remain entrenched. And the challenge extends beyond power plants; banks are deeply embedded in the entire coal value chain, from mining and manufacturing to transport and auxiliary services. Cutting these ties demands faster, more decisive action — but their integration across business lines, financial products, and operations adds complexity.
To assist banks in navigating these challenges, a recent working paper from WRI assesses where banks are now and what they need to do to comprehensively unwind their coal investment.
Where Do Banks Stand on Coal Now?The coal sector is global and complex. Mined from the ground, coal is not just burned for power ("thermal coal") but is also used to create steel ("metallurgical coal"). And the sector is massive: Today more than a third of electricity supply originates with coal.
Banks can be involved in coal in three different ways:
- Sometimes a financier has a very clear-cut connection to expanding or sustaining coal, as in project finance to build new coal plants or equity in a coal company. They may directly invest in coal, holding debt or equity in projects or companies.
- They can invest in companies which are reliant on coal but do not produce or burn it directly, such as companies that indirectly use coal in their energy mix.
- Financial institutions may provide banking, capital markets underwriting, dealmaking or other services to clients involved in coal. These activities support the coal sector, too.
In addition to choosing whether they invest in or provide these services, banks may choose to ask those they work with to progressively transition away from coal. Investors have an interest in reducing the risk and enhancing the competitiveness of their investments, and they may engage with companies in ways they believe will enhance their performance — for example, by offering incentives to encourage them to avoid risks associated with coal. Increasingly, investors use the lens of "transition finance" to talk about finance or guidance dedicated to encouraging clients, with words or cash, to transition their business away from coal. This, too, is a form of coal exposure — but one with more nuanced implications.
Though some banks still need to catch up, the new standard is for banks to have robust policies to stop investing in new coal power on a definite timeline. Now leading banks are pushing beyond this, thinking more comprehensively about how to fully extricate their support for the coal economy and how to finance its transition.
Quitting new coal power is now standardAround 70% of the world's top 100 commercial banks have made the commitment to exit coal. In practice, most banks begin quitting coal by stopping loans for new coal mines and power plants.
WRI research found that most of the world's top banks by size have committed to a coal power phaseout timeline in line with or more aggressive than the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2040 target date for achieving net zero by 2050. Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are also setting principles to exclude coal activities from new operations.
Despite some differences, the trend is clear: Direct financing for new coal projects is drying up in most parts of the world. In 2023, most countries saw no new coal power plants. Outside of China, construction began on 3.7 GW of coal capacity, significantly lower than the 16 GW annual average from 2015 to 2022. The next step will be to move from excluding coal to divesting and transitioning existing investments.
Some banks are picking up momentumMany banks are moving into a more complex realm now, by steering clear of coal processing, heating, and industrial projects reliant on coal. About 10% of top commercial banks include financing for coal-related infrastructure in their coal exclusion and/or divestment policies. Strengthening oversight of coal-linked clients is also growing, with around 20% of major banks setting phaseout deadlines and tracking financed emissions to reduce coal exposure.
Few are moving toward the frontlineFew banks are proactively financing the low-carbon transition of existing coal power projects, leaving MDBs to lead efforts to retire coal plants early. private finance needs to play a more active role in financing coal retirement and transition. Despite new retirement plans and phaseout commitments, last year saw the lowest coal capacity retirement in over a decade. A key challenge is developing financial structures that cover transition costs while ensuring reasonable returns for private investors. But banks have the expertise and leverage to help.
Some banks are supporting the broader transition through the management of their coal and coal-related clients. With the rise of guidance on credible transition plans, banks now have more tools to assess their clients' pathways. Some banks, such as HSBC and Mizuho, have committed to helping their coal clients transition — but much more is needed to embed this support into standard practices and to ensure the credibility of these plans.
Meanwhile, those continuing coal financing have largely gone unnoticed, except by leading banks, watchful observers and analysts. Some banks continue to indirectly finance coal through subsidiaries, joint ventures, intermediaries and passive investments.
Facilitation of coal financing can also go off-the-book through bond underwriting and asset management, allowing coal financing to continue without proper oversight. Only a few banks have incorporated coal power underwriting into their coal exit policies and more accountable strategies are needed to address these risks.
Above all, ambition and innovation are needed to close action gaps and advance the frontlines.
Here to Help: Where Banks Should Start and How to ProgressNavigating the race away from coal requires careful planning, strategic execution, and continuous adaptation. Here's a three-step to guide the process:
1) Know where you areThis includes both understanding the extent of a bank's business entanglement in the coal value chain and evaluating the foundational elements needed for a successful phase-out — from top-level commitment, building internal capacity for implementation and establishing external channels for support, to communication and international cooperation. Checklists are a handy tool for banks to quickly and comprehensively scan gaps and resources.
2) Devise your prioritiesWhile mapping highlights broad trends of banks' coal phase-out practice, it is crucial for banks to improve and update their commitment and approach based on specific contexts and realities. A prioritization framework that guides banks in systematically assessing regulatory, market, technological and societal factors is helpful. Asking a series of recommended questions on each factor, such as how coal exit aligns with or contributes to a bank's overall strategy — whether in climate, sustainability, sectoral or country-specific approaches — can help identify the most urgent, feasible and impactful actions a bank should prioritize.
3) Stay measurableSetting clear, measurable metrics ensures actions are tangible and that progress can be reviewed effectively. We offer a metric-setting approach with corresponding examples (covering project, company and portfolio levels) to help banks set thresholds for their coal exit strategies. To drive progress in client transition, for example, our approach outlines a company-level method for assessing coal involvement and dependence using both relative and absolute values. These metrics evaluate involvement in new coal projects, economic and fuel reliance on coal, and emissions. They are applicable to coal producers, users and facilitators.
The three-step process — plan/review, decide, implement — is an ongoing, dynamic effort. Priorities should evolve, and metrics should gradually tighten. The tools provided are intended to standardize actions, ensuring they are both comparable and easily understood by a broader audience.
What's Next for Banks?Now that the complexities of coal financing are clearer and frameworks for action are in place, it's time to tackle some challenges beyond individual banks.
Quick wins for Asian banksAsian banks play a crucial role in driving the transition away from coal, due to their strong presence in global finance and history of funding coal-fired power projects.
While coal-investing nations like China, Japan and South Korea have pledged to halt overseas coal investments, the extent to which banks are translating these commitments into action remains uncertain. For instance, despite managing some of the world's largest assets, many Chinese banks have yet to publicly articulate clear, coal-specific financing policies compared to their global peers.
WRI's Net Zero Tracker found that China's Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank and Bank of China were among the least ambitious and vocal when it came to phasing out coal power in their portfolios. To bridge this gap, Asian banks can take immediate steps: systematically assessing their coal exposure, updating financing strategies to align with transition goals and clearly communicating their coal exit plans.
The tough reality of existing coalTackling existing coal assets requires ambition and innovation, but it also presents opportunities. Banks' deep ties to coal projects and coal-dependent clients can become a powerful asset in driving the transition. Besides cutting exposure, banks can take an active role in financing the early retirement, replacement or repurposing of coal power plants. This is especially relevant not just for utilities but also for industries like steel and mineral processing that rely on their own captive coal plants.
Learn more about how legal protections offered to foreign investors in Asian coal plants could stymy efforts to transition off coal — and how new efforts can bring together stakeholders to overcome this challenge.
However, ensuring a credible transition requires more than intent — it demands newly engineered financing strategies, stronger oversight, and standardized transition metrics to track progress. Banks can step up by working closely with clients to understand their transition needs, designing financial products that de-risk transition and clean energy investments, and collaborating with regulators to align phaseout plans with policy shifts.
Scaling change through financial collaborationOffloading coal assets alone doesn't guarantee a real-world phaseout. After all, another bank may step in to finance them. Moreover, banks have a clear role to play in ramping up clean energy, without which the energy transition can't occur. To make coal exit actions truly effective, banks must work together, aligning policies across financial institutions to create a level playing field, setting industry-wide standards that reduce backtracking or greenwashing, and supporting clean energy.
Stronger collaboration within the financial sector can amplify the positive impact of coal phaseout policies. When banks apply stricter coal financing criteria, not only to their own portfolios but also to co-financiers and financial intermediaries, they help prevent loopholes and reinforce broader market shifts.
virginia-coal-plant.jpg Finance Finance climate finance Energy Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Ye Wang Yan WangHow Philanthropy Can Boost Adaptation Finance in Developing Countries
The deadly destruction around the globe from increased floods, scorching temperatures and other extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change is setting back progress on economic development in developing nations.
These events contribute to a vicious cycle of deepening poverty and worsening vulnerability to climate change. This means that investing in adaptation and resilience — helping nations and communities not just prepare for and recover from climate impacts but have the infrastructure in place to stand up to future climate-related challenges — is crucial to boosting their development and well-being. Investing more in adaptation also generates a stream of fiscal and economic savings by avoiding future losses.
Yet investments in developing countries seriously lag behind growing adaptation needs. Among developing countries, financing for adaptation and resilience remains far below the $215 billion to $387 billion needed annually by 2030. In Africa, for example, increased spending on resilience is critical for food security, improving livelihoods, protecting supply chains and avoiding health crises from heat and drought. Also, until recently, global financing for loss and damage has received little attention despite major climate related disasters impacting communities.
The Role Foundations Play in Climate ActionThe 2024 report of the Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) stressed the urgency of bridging the large financing gaps that impede spending on both mitigation actions and building resilience to climate change. Beyond private finance, it particularly emphasized the need to mobilize funding that won’t contribute to a nation’s debt, including grant financing or financing at well-below market rates. Given large-scale reductions in early 2025 in the United States and much of Europe, foreseeable levels of Official Development Assistance will help developing countries, but will not meet their growing needs. Alternative sources of concessional and grant financing will be needed to help fill the growing finance gap.
To help close financing gaps, philanthropy can and should step up. In 2023, philanthropic giving for climate change is estimated to be between $9.9 billion and $16.4 billion annually, of which only about $600 million (3.6% to 6.1% of the total) is for adaptation, according to the ClimateWorks Foundation. Philanthropic giving for climate change is only 1.1% to 1.8% of total giving, which was an estimated $885 billion in 2023 — suggesting ample scope for scaling up.
Foundations’ climate-related support to developing countries has been increasing, albeit from a low base. Their funding for Africa, for example, tripled over the last five years, reaching $112 million in 2022. Still, the overall level, at 6% of total foundation funding, is not enough. Funding has been directed mainly to climate mitigation, primarily to sustainable energy but also to cross-sectoral approaches such as low-carbon cities, methane carbon dioxide removal and climate-related capacity-building. Foundations have not publicly tracked their funding for climate adaptation but a new survey shows that foundations are paying more attention to adaptation investments. This shift is overdue.
In late 2023 at the annual United Nations climate summit (COP28), a coalition of 21 leading philanthropy organizations, including the Rockefeller Foundation, Aga Khan Development Network, Temasek Trust and the Shockwave Foundation, began calling for greater action by governments and private stakeholders toward transformational change on climate adaptation. The Adaptation and Resilience Funders Collaborative now includes 60 foundations working together to learn, coordinate, and invest in climate adaptation and resilience. Separately, the World Economic Forum’s Giving to Amplify Earth Action (GAEA) is building public and private partnerships in order to multiply financial contributions for adaptation and nature.
However, considering the rate at which the adaptation finance gap is growing, more still needs to be done to boost the scale of philanthropic resilience financing. Even if foundations increased their grant-making for climate change in Africa nine times over — by 900% — the total would still only reach $1 billion. While a significant amount, that would still be only 2% of the estimated annual adaptation finance needs in Africa up to 2030.
Key questions to ask are: “How can philanthropy dramatically increase its giving in new and different ways?” and “What are ways in which its contributions can better leverage the strengths of other development partners?” Several of the ideas presented below are tied to efforts by multilateral development banks (MDBs) to lend ever more with their limited capital. Leveraging MDB financing presents mutually beneficial results.
5 Ways Philanthropy Can Scale Climate FinancingThere are many opportunities for philanthropy to increase their contributions to adaptation finance, from giving at the local level for specific community-based adaptation projects to more broad-based giving for sectoral, national or even global approaches. Common areas of foundation support for climate change include supporting financing options and access to climate finance, helping integrate adaptation planning into national and sectoral development plans, and providing finance at the community level for local investments, disaster risk management and “build back better” programs. Many foundations already have long-standing close ties and partnerships across Africa and other developing regions and countries, creating vital opportunities for direct giving. In Africa, for example, important country-specific needs include improved information for project planning and supporting governments to understand their climate risks/impacts and prioritize and sequence the most cost-effective interventions.
But foundations need new ideas for ways to invest in adaptation if they are to increase their giving. Here are five avenues for philanthropy to work proactively and innovatively with developing country governments and donors to scale up concessional climate financing. These proposals represent opportunities for expanding the quantity and improving the quality of MDB adaptation financing by crowding in, ideally, billions of dollars from large foundations seeking to achieve significantly larger impacts at a time when developing countries are facing increasing financial stress.
1) Co-Finance Projects with Multilateral Development BanksPhilanthropic organizations and each interested MDB can co-finance projects on climate adaptation, nature restoration and resilience-building, especially in low-income and climate vulnerable countries. Historically, philanthropists have contributed to numerous trust funds that MDBs manage for specific purposes, such as policy research and capacity-building. For example, at the World Bank, private non-profits are important contributors to its financial intermediary funds where partnerships combine resources to support global initiatives. But these funds have not been designed to co-finance large MDB projects with greater impacts than foundations could achieve on their own. By pooling philanthropic capital, such facilities could provide greater financing over a longer period, which many adaptation investments require.
Advocacy for this proposal is not new: It was proposed by the Center for Global Development as one argument for a large replenishment for the African Development Fund. By supporting MDBs’ country programs and projects through project-level co-financing arrangements, philanthropies can extend the scope and scale of their impact. Furthermore, in the case of adaptation, philanthropic grants are especially valuable because many adaptation actions reduce future climate risks but may not generate the financial returns required to repay MDB loans.
2) Provide Grant Financing for the Fund for Responding to Loss and DamageIn addition to providing grant financing for adaptation, philanthropies could support the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage operationalized at COP28. The fund was created to help developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Global financing of loss and damage has been largely neglected despite the major setbacks to economic growth and development caused by climate related disasters.
Even though developed countries should take the lead in financing loss and damage, there is also room for alternative sources of finance to help countries bear inevitable economic and social damages. In fact, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage says it plans to look at non-donor and private financing, although it has yet to broadly act on those intentions. Philanthropies already played a notable role in early awareness on the need for loss and damage financing at COP26 in 2021, contributing $3 million at that time. They could also help increase public pressure on developed country governments and catalyze support for the fund and support the development of innovative ways for non-donors to contribute to the Fund.
Philanthropy organizations are well-placed to provide some urgently needed early grant financing to augment the very limited funds pledged by countries so far to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. The benefits of doing so would allow developing country governments to meet growing explicit and implicit government liabilities related to climate loss and damage without incurring greater debt. However, it is not realistic for philanthropies to cover a major portion of the total projected needs. In fact, the negotiating bodies (and governments generally) are nowhere near to an understanding of what those total needs might be, or even agreeing on a methodology for estimating them. By becoming financial partners, early philanthropic support could help inform open discussions over funding issues.
3) Create Global Funding Mechanisms to Leverage MDB Core CapitalThe G20 Triple Agenda Report has the innovative proposal for non-government investors — including philanthropy — to expand MDBs’ financing capacity by creating global funding mechanisms. Philanthropists and other stakeholders could finance a mechanism that would allow MDBs to leverage their core capital and increase the impact of their financing in two ways. First, the facility could use grant contributions to lower the cost of MDB lending by buying down the interest rate. Second, MDBs could use the grant contribution to leverage four to five times the amount of philanthropic giving. This multiplier effect is due to MDBs sharing the risk of MDB loans, thereby allowing the MDBs to lend more with a given amount of core capital. Contributions of several billion dollars by philanthropies could stimulate additional MDB lending of $10 billion to $20 billion.
In this context, the International Financing Facility for Education (IFFED) has been cited as a promising model, including by the G20 Expert Group. Through the IFFED, guarantees by willing countries enhance philanthropy’s cash contributions to create a financial base that MDBs can use to leverage up to 4 times and thus boost lending. In addition, philanthropists can provide grant contributions that lower the MDBs’ lending rates (such as down to the lower terms offered by the highly concessional International Development Agency). A climate financing facility could be designed using this model. It is estimated, for example, that a $2 billion grant from philanthropists channeled through an IFFED-like climate financing facility could increase MDBs’ concessional lending by as much as $10 billion, and by even more if it catalyzed private financing. This promises to significantly leverage philanthropic funding in the form of boosted levels of multilateral concessional climate financing.
A mechanism that either improves the terms of MDB lending or leverages their core capital in new ways will require a governance structure that provides appropriate voice and representation to philanthropy. As new mechanisms emerge to bring in significant non-government participation within the MDBs space — such as this and the previous two proposals — shaping inclusive governance arrangements will inevitably be an important issue to resolve.
4) Contribute to Disaster Risk Insurance PremiumsCountries are increasingly seeking disaster risk insurance due to their high exposure to the economic and fiscal shocks caused by major disasters. While it is true that countries cannot insure themselves out of climate risk, the opposite is also true — that even countries with robust climate adaptation programs face unforeseeable risks with macroeconomic and fiscal impacts. Sovereign disaster risk finance increases the financial response capacity of national and subnational governments to meet post-disaster funding needs without compromising fiscal balances and development objectives. While some risk management approaches are contingent financing which defers obligations, sovereign insurance products transfer risk to others.
International financial institutions and the private sector are active in finding contingent financing adaptation insurance products. For example, the IMF’s Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust has provided direct debt relief to poorer countries hit by disasters, including climate shocks; the World Bank Treasury Disaster Risk Insurance Platform offers risk transfer solutions such as insurance, derivatives and catastrophe bonds; and private insurance companies participate in sovereign insurance, weather derivatives and macro-level risk pooling offerings.
For insurance products, philanthropies could step up to help developing countries pay for the premiums. The potential benefits to poor or climate vulnerable countries could be, on average, about 100 times the cost (although actual premiums depend, of course, on country-specific climate risks). This is not a new idea: In the past, bilateral donors have contributed that cost on behalf of low-income countries, such as when the European Union subsidized the premiums associated with parametric insurance under the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility. This idea of involving philanthropies in risk-pooling not only provides potential benefits many times greater than the cost: it would also give philanthropies leverage to help convince countries to take important climate adaptation measures before a disaster hits.
5) Develop Better Climate Adaptation MetricsAs philanthropies scale up their partnerships with the MDBs, the need for better metrics of climate risk reduction, resilience-building and loss and damage financing needs will continue to grow. All stakeholders and financiers need better metrics on how much risk reduction can be purchased through specific actions. For example, WRI is working with the Gates Foundation and ClimateWorks on improved economic analysis and metrics of the costs of reducing climate vulnerability. In fact, a wide range of analytical approaches are being tested — everything from tracking inputs (expenditures) to outputs (project deliverables) to outcomes (net risk reduction). Some are geared to the project level and others at the national level; some support donor priorities and others try to incentivize private sector investment.
Foundations, as informed partners to donors, governments and communities, should continue supporting the research and technical assistance required for all parties to converge on commonly accepted metrics. As vested partners, philanthropy can and should play an important role in debates over how adaptation and resilience financing — and loss and damage financing — gets measured, monitored and evaluated in the years to come. In short, improved metrics would, according to the World Bank, “create incentives for countries, donors, and the private sector to engage in more and better adaptation; to more effectively report on what the MDBs and clients are doing; and to establish a global standard for financial markets and public procurement.”
Scaling Up Climate Adaptation Finance with Help from PhilanthropiesPoverty is a chief driver of vulnerability, and in the absence of improved adaptation, climate change will worsen both vulnerability and poverty. Therefore, the task of building climate adaptation and resilience falls on all countries and donors alike. Every government will need to understand how to better manage climate impacts from the macroeconomic level of sovereign risk down to the local level of affected communities and impoverished households. Philanthropies can scale up their valuable work in their more traditional areas such as:
- Supporting developing country governments to build knowledge and capacity to better understand the economic and social implications of their physical climate risks, and to prioritize and sequence the most cost-effective interventions.
- Providing finance at the community level and/or providing support mechanisms that allow central government funding to reach the local level, whether for local adaptation investments, disaster risk management or build back better programs.
- Helping to cover the cost of sovereign disaster risk insurance, an important yet under-implemented option to help low-income manage unforeseeable risks with macroeconomic and fiscal impacts.
In addition, philanthropies can dramatically help step up the level of climate adaptation finance by proactively engaging with donors and governments in new ways. The first four proposals, above, represent significant changes in the role and scale of philanthropy — none of which are impossible given the growing number of large foundations in the 21st century. To the extent that foundations can join together and speak with a common voice, their voice would be stronger and facilitate progress more efficiently. The unprecedented challenge of climate change adaptation itself requires a higher level of philanthropic engagement.
An earlier version of this article first appeared in the e-Book "Pathways to Unlocking Climate Finance for Africa," published by the Climate High-Level Champions Team under the UNFCCC.
climate-adaption-finance.jpg Finance adaptation finance adaptation climate change Climate Resilience climate finance Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Marilou Uy Carter Brandon3 Ways to Manage Skyrocketing US Electricity Demand
From the introduction of electric lighting to the spread of personal computers, electricity demand in the United States grew almost continuously as it became increasingly integral to society and the economy. Around 2005, however, demand slowed, leading to stagnant load growth through the 2010s.
That era of stability is now over. In 2024, the national five-year forecast for electricity load was 5 times higher than 2022 predictions. Peak electricity demand is expected to increase by 128 gigawatts (GW) by 2029 — roughly 13 times the amount of electricity New York City consumed at its peak demand in 2023.
These latest load forecasts caught many by surprise and are creating turbulence across the energy sector. Electricity prices are already spiking. Utilities rushing to meet new demand are pushing to build more firm generation, including retaining — or even expanding — their fossil-fueled power plants. What’s more, new demand could put additional strain on an aging electricity grid that is overdue for upgrades and expansion.
State and federal energy regulators, as well as utilities and the federal government broadly, will be critical actors in addressing this new challenge, and they are actively pursuing solutions. Yet state and local policymakers can also play key roles — namely, by protecting their constituents from cost increases and addressing new sources of demand within their jurisdictions.
Here, we discuss some of the pathways available to state and local policymakers as they grapple with the challenges associated with rising electricity demand.
What’s Driving Increased Energy Demand in the US?There are many drivers of increased electricity demand in the U.S. One of the largest is data centers. One analysis estimates they could account for 44% of all U.S. load growth between 2023 and 2028. Thanks to increased demand for cloud services and the rise of complex artificial intelligence (AI) applications, private data center construction spending in the U.S. has surged to almost $30 billion a year, about double the spending in late 2022 when ChatGPT first came online. Since January 2023, over 50 GW of new data center capacity have been announced.
And data center construction is unlikely to slow anytime soon: Across the globe, capital expenditures for data centers are expected to exceed $1.1 trillion by 2029. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study predicted that data centers could account for 6.7%-12% of total U.S. energy consumption by 2028.
It’s not all ChatGPT and cat videos, however. A revitalized American manufacturing sector, spurred by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, has doubled real investment in manufacturing since 2021. Companies are now investing in new facilities to produce electronics, computer chips, electric vehicles, solar panels and more — all of which require large amounts of electricity to operate. Other heavy industries are also expanding: As of May 2024, companies have announced 3.8 GW of planned electrolytic hydrogen production facilities.
Electric vehicle (EV) adoption and building electrification are also driving new energy demand. Automakers sold a record 1.3 million EVs in the U.S. in 2024, accounting for around 8.7% of new cars sold. By 2030, EVs are projected to represent up to 46% of light-duty vehicle sales, requiring over 42.2 million charging points across the country.
Building electrification is also expanding, as improved performance and rebates nudge households toward electric appliances like electric water heaters and heat pumps. Overall, the residential sector is expected to see a gradual but steady 10% increase in electricity demand by the end of the decade.
The extent of load growth associated with each of these drivers varies by region. Large data center markets such as Silicon Valley, the Dallas/Fort Worth area, Phoenix, Chicago, and, in particular, northern Virginia are expected to be at the forefront of new data center expansion. Meanwhile, manufacturing investments are most concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest, including in Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Ohio and Michigan. And places like California, New York and New England are beginning to see electrification play a major role in increasing peak demand.
Electric vehicle charging stations in Bellingham, Washington. Electric vehicles and building electrification, combined with data center development and a resurgence in American manufacturing, are combining to increase energy demand in the United States. Photo by David Buzzard/Shutterstock What Are the Impacts of Increased Electricity Demand?Surging electricity demand is expected to have tremendous impacts on the U.S energy system, the country’s ability to fight climate change, and on electricity service and prices for households across the country. Some of these effects are already being felt: For example, multiple major technology companies are reporting increases in their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to extensive data center development.
As companies and utilities race to build the infrastructure that can meet future demand, there is pressure to meet new loads with clean generation. Because of their sustainability commitments, many tech companies are investing in solar and storage, as well as new sources of clean, firm energy like nuclear and geothermal. In September 2024, Constellation Energy announced that it would restart one of the reactors at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant as part of a power purchase agreement with Microsoft to support the company’s data center operations. Other companies have explored “co-location” models, in which a data center is built on-site with new or existing generation.
Some utilities and companies, however, are looking to retain or even build new fossil fuel generation to meet demand. Cloud computing startup CoreWeave, for instance, recently announced that its new Kenilworth, New Jersey data center would be powered by an existing on-site 25 MW gas-fired power plant. In Nebraska, the arrival of new data centers led the Omaha Public Power District to delay retirement of two coal-burning generators next to a disadvantaged community. On a wider scale, between December 2023 and July 2024, utilities across the country revised their Integrated Resource Plans to add 20 GW of new gas capacity and delay retirement of 3 GW of coal plants by 2035, likely driven by new demand sources. Together, this greater use of existing fossil fuel resources, as well as new development of natural gas plants, could increase power sector GHG emissions and air pollutants after years of progress.
Greater demand could also translate into higher energy bills for consumers. One report from global consulting company ICF estimates that increased demand will likely drive electricity prices almost 20% higher by 2028, with regions like Texas and New England potentially seeing even larger increases. Already, load growth is leading utilities to pass costs on to customers. Dominion Energy, which serves northern Virginia, the world’s largest data center market, recently estimated that its residential customers would see a 50% increase in their electricity bills by 2039 to support the buildout of new generation facilities. These prices may go up even further, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts the price of natural gas to increase by over 20% in the next few years.
Large load demand can also present an economic threat to the electricity system by creating “stranded” costs and assets. Utilities must build new distribution, transmission, and, depending on the area, generation infrastructure to serve new demand. They rely on stable estimates of power demand to plan their spending on these large, capital-intensive projects. However, efficiency gains and market volatility in the industries driving new large electricity loads, particularly among data centers, mean that there is significant uncertainty about the extent of future growth in energy demand. This means that utilities could be at risk of overbuilding for demand that never materializes, leaving other utility customers with the costs for unused or underutilized “stranded” assets.
Finally, greater demand could pose a threat to grid reliability by adding stress to an already overtaxed electricity system. The U.S. power grid is aging: Over 70% of the country’s transmission lines are more than 25 years old, with many approaching the end of their 50- to 80-year lifespans. Furthermore, extreme weather exacerbated by climate change is leading to more frequent weather-related power outages. This is especially worrisome considering new data center demand, since data centers operate with requirements for high levels of server “uptime” above 99%. While some projects are exploring how data center loads can become more flexible and put less stress on the grid during times of high demand, they are still in their early stages.
How Can We Address New Demand for Electricity in the US?This new reality of increased load growth presents challenges for policymakers. The biggest drivers of heightened demand — data centers, manufacturing and electrification — all represent major opportunities for economic development in communities across the U.S. Yet increased load threatens to slow down progress in fighting climate change and reducing air pollution, burden consumers with higher electric bills, and further stress an already over-taxed grid.
At the federal level, the new Trump administration has put its full support behind encouraging new data centers and producing significantly more oil and gas to meet energy demands. At a state and local level, policymakers must strike a delicate balance between economic development interests and commitments to energy affordability, reliability, public health and emissions reductions.
A few key tools can help them effectively manage electricity load growth in their jurisdictions:
Installing solar panels on a rooftop in Oak View, California. Clean energy can help meet growing needs for electricity in the United States. Photo by Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock Manage Sources of Electricity Demand DirectlyThe most direct avenue for tackling energy demand issues is to look to the sources of load growth themselves. That means directly mitigating the impacts of data centers, new manufacturing, and building and transportation electrification.
Economic development policies can help regulate new sources of demand. Many states, for instance, attract data center investment using favorable sales and property tax breaks. Policymakers could ty these tax breaks or other economic incentives to desired outcomes, such as meeting certain energy performance standards or procuring renewable energy. For example, in Arizona, data centers that attain a green building certification can extend the state’s transaction privilege and use tax exemption from 10 to 20 years. And in Illinois, data centers must be either carbon-neutral or certified under one or more accepted green building standards to qualify for the state’s sales tax exemption.
Meanwhile, zoning laws give local governments significant power to impact energy demand in their communities. In data center-heavy Loudoun County and Fairfax County in northern Virigina, policymakers recently revised zoning laws on data centers in response to local concerns about load growth, noise pollution and proximity to residential areas. Local governments can also use their zoning and permitting processes to promote the production of renewable energy at large industrial facilities.
Connecting new loads to the grid adds costs to the electric system, which may be borne by ratepayers through increased electricity prices, as opposed to by developers. States have powers to address this cost allocation issue. In 2025, legislators in multiple states — including Virginia, Georgia and California — introduced bills aimed at understanding and reducing data center development’s energy cost burdens to consumers. The bills direct state energy regulators to act on these cost issues, such as through analysis and ratemaking.
Governments outside the U.S. are also directly addressing electricity demand. In May 2024, Australia announced that all data centers serving federal agencies must achieve “excellent” or greater environmental performance standards by July 2025. And in 2023, Germany adopted an Energy Efficiency Law requiring all data centers in the country to meet specific energy efficiency metrics and source 100% of their electricity from unsubsidized renewable energy sources by 2030.
Address New Generation NeedsOn the supply side, policymakers can look for ways to use clean energy to meet increased demand. Cities and states can directly procure clean energy for themselves or their communities through a variety of mechanisms, including green tariffs and power purchase agreements. Decisionmakers can also promote clean energy development through codifying clean energy commitments and incentives. For examples, almost half of all states have legally binding GHG reduction and/or clean or renewable energy goals, which provide foundational support for clean energy buildout. Ongoing development, expansion, and enforcement of these types of laws can help ensure the new energy load is met by clean sources.
Further, reducing the timelines associated with permitting and siting of new large-scale generation and transmissions facilities can help ensure that necessary infrastructure additions keep pace with growing demand. States are well situated to act on this issue. For example, California and New York established new boards and authorities to oversee and streamline certain permitting and siting processes. Cities and towns also have a stake in large-scale projects, since infrastructure could be sited in their jurisdiction. Local leadership and staff can actively engage with state counterparts to define challenges and determine solutions to permitting and siting issues for critical generation and transmission development.
State and local governments can also support adoption of distributed energy resources (DERs), such as solar and energy storage, to address load growth. Distributed energy can directly lower consumers’ energy bills, enhance resilience and reduce strains on the grid. However, restrictive or unclear local laws and permitting processes can add significant barriers to adoption. Local action can be particularly critical for unlocking distributed energy: Research found that participation in SolSmart, a national designation and technical assistance program designed to help local governments reduce red tape related to solar installations, was associated with an 18-19% increase in installed solar capacity per month.
Expand Transmission CapacityTransmission is the key link between electricity supply and demand. Yet large-scale transmission buildout has slowed to a crawl over the past 10 years, threatening the ability for both new demand sources to connect to the grid and for new electricity generation facilities to come online. Having more transmission capacity, particularly between states and regions, would ease concerns about system reliability while enabling huge swaths of clean energy to interconnect and meet new demand.
State policymakers have authority to regulate how utility transmission plans are conducted and to introduce requirements and incentives that encourage transmission capacity growth. Multiple states like Minnesota, Massachusetts and California have passed laws requiring utilities to consider grid-enhancing technologies, which are designed to add more carrying capacity to existing transmission lines. Meanwhile, the Montana legislature ordered its Public Service Commission to establish an incentive for building new transmission lines with “advanced conductors” capable of transmitting more energy than standard technologies.
Finally, under two landmark federal orders issued last year, transmission providers are required to integrate state and local laws and regulations when conducting long-term transmission planning. State and local government staff can provide relevant data points to ensure their priorities are captured in transmission providers’ planning processes. Additionally, states have large roles in transmission planning scenario development and cost allocation through these orders.
Charting America’s Energy FutureThe U.S. needs more electricity than ever. Rapid data center growth, a rebounding American industrial sector and residential electrification are all increasing demand for electricity at a rate not seen for decades. If left unaddressed, this new demand spike could increase greenhouse gas emissions, inflate consumers’ bills and make the U.S. grid less reliable.
Fortunately, policymakers at all levels have a menu of options to choose from, with many are already working on solutions. Acting quickly is imperative for connecting critical new loads to the grid while ensuring that everyone can keep the lights on reliably, affordably and cleanly.
data-center-us.jpg Energy United States Clean Energy renewable energy electric mobility Buildings Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Ian Goldsmith Zach GreeneCarbon Dioxide Removal Must Be Scaled Responsibly. But What Does That Mean?
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has grown from a little-known concept to a fast-growing field in the last several years. Beyond the climate benefits from removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, many CDR approaches may also benefit people and the environment, like creating jobs to boosting soil health or reducing local ocean acidification. However, CDR projects can also come with unintended consequences or negative impacts, so robust governance frameworks must be in place to minimize any damages.
Comprehensive and fit-for-purpose governance frameworks are needed, for example, so that oil and gas industries don’t rely on CDR to justify their continued fossil fuel production. These frameworks can also help protect communities that already face increased pollution and harm from the fossil fuel industry from additional risks tied to land, water and energy use that may come from these new CDR facilities.
As the carbon removal industry ramps up, there is a growing emphasis on “responsible” carbon removal to ensure communities don’t experience harm and have access to local benefits. But what does this mean concretely? In the context of ensuring robust governance, what can be done to improve policy and regulation to deliver responsible outcomes?
Here, we answer some of these questions.
What Does Responsible Carbon Removal Entail?Responsible carbon removal emphasizes the importance of sustainably and safely deploying a range of CDR approaches that use chemicals, rocks, biomass, soils, the ocean and more to complement efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions without exacerbating any historical harms to communities or the environment.
At a project level, this includes thoroughly assessing the social, economic and environmental impacts of CDR projects and minimizing negative effects while equitably distributing benefits. At a policy level, it entails the creation of policies and regulations that ensure that CDR contributes to real climate benefits, while protecting communities and ecosystems.
Achieving responsible carbon removal therefore requires robust governance to minimize these trade-offs. In addition to its global climate benefit, it must deliver local tangible benefits like improvements to air quality or revenue to invest into communities and ecosystems rather than exacerbate inequities or environmental harms of other industries. It must also entail inclusive decision-making and complement — not substitute — ambitious emissions reductions.
Without public trust and community support, CDR projects may struggle to gain any social license and scale, limiting their ability to contribute to climate goals. For instance, other clean energy projects that did not adequately engage communities have faced delays or cancellations. Ensuring responsible implementation by industry and governments is therefore key to building that trust.
Key Questions to Inform Responsible CDR PolicyBelow we answer three key questions about the role of policymaking to ensure the responsible deployment of CDR.
How Can Policies Ensure that CDR Maximizes its Benefit to the Climate?Scientific consensus is clear: Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be necessary to complement efforts that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century to prevent further unprecedented warming across the Earth. There are however various concerns (including from academics and NGOs), ranging from the risk of delaying emissions reductions, to the need for more accurate measurements of projects’ net climate benefits. Some policy measures and safeguards can help address these risks:
Setting Separate Targets
Without adequate policy measures in place, scaling CDR in the next decades could risk shifting focus and resources away from the urgent need to reduce emissions today and transition away from fossil fuels. This risk is known as mitigation deterrence.
Separate long-term climate targets for emissions reduction and CDR can help address this risk, with some U.S. states, like California and Washington, providing early examples. This might be more easily achieved in states or countries with net-zero policies and greenhouse-gas reduction mandates, through which the role of CDR can be responsibly defined.
Under this approach, CDR is planned and accounted for separately based on a quantitative assessment of expected residual emissions. This clarifies how much CDR is planned to reach net-zero, ensuring transparency and preventing CDR from being misused to offset emissions that could instead be reduced.
Examples of separate targets in the USU.S. State PolicyCalifornia- • 2020 law mandates California meet net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045
- • Mandates 85% emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2045.
- • Remaining 15% to be addressed with CDR to achieve net zero.
- • Set a 95% greenhouse gas emission reduction goal by 2050.
- • Committed to reach net-zero that year.
- • Remaining 5% to be addressed with CDR.
Policymakers must refrain from planning for CDR to sustain fossil fuel use, which would undermine emissions reduction efforts and risk derailing climate targets. Emitting CO2 now and removing it later does not prevent its consequences: CO2 emissions cause irreversible climate damage, which CDR cannot undo.
Scaling CDR will also be constrained by sustainability limits on land, water and energy availability as well as societal impacts.
Lastly, CDR technologies are still largely in development. There is uncertainty as to the extent to which they will scale in the coming decades. Relying on the promise of a massive scale up to address residual emissions is therefore risky, highlighting the need to rapidly reduce emissions to the maximum extent possible.
Ensure Projects Maximize Net-Negativity
CDR projects must be net-negative. If a project’s emissions exceed removals, it is not net-negative and does not result in net carbon removal.
Policymakers can encourage net-negativity in several ways:
- Prioritize renewable energy use: Energy intensive CDR approaches like DAC must prioritize renewable energy to avoid fossil fuel emissions. However, the U.S. grid is not yet fully decarbonized and diverting limited renewable energy to power CDR at the expense of providing clean energy to buildings or transportation, could slow broader climate progress. Policymakers should prioritize funding projects that co-locate with renewable energy sources and incentivize the development of dedicated renewable energy infrastructure for CDR operations.
- Prohibit enhanced oil recovery (EOR): Policies must prevent CDR from prolonging fossil fuel dependence through EOR, which uses captured CO2 to extract more oil. While some argue EOR could be net-negative under some conditions, the climate math remains uncertain and the continued fossil fuel extraction negates the climate benefit of removals. More importantly, using DAC-derived CO2 for EOR also risks damaging public trust in CDR and therefore must be avoided. Some states, like California, have already prohibited this practice for carbon capture and sequestration and CDR projects, setting a precedent for stronger safeguards.
Establish High-Quality and Harmonized Measurement, Reporting and Verification Practices
Robust and harmonized measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) standards is the cornerstone of responsible CDR. MRV must prove that a project provides net-negative emissions, and permanently sequesters CO2, which is typically verified via third party verification.
Despite a number of efforts to advance best practices, the current MRV ecosystem for CDR is uncoordinated and unregulated. Without common standards it is unclear what constitutes high-quality MRV, risking a race to the bottom when it comes to quality.
Establishing a federal MRV function or an independent and authoritative standards body within government, that is free from vested interests is essential to ensuring a high-quality, transparent MRV ecosystem for CDR. This would provide accountability and verify that CDR projects deliver on their promised removals.
To avoid a proliferation of efforts, such a body should harmonize with existing efforts rather than duplicate them. In the long-term, a standardized MRV framework is critical for carbon removals to be recognized in national reporting and contribute toward countries’ nationally determined contributions, as well as to avoid perverse incentives that may result in double counting.
How Can CDR Policies be Designed to Avoid Reinforcing Existing Inequities?As policymakers develop frameworks for carbon removal, embedding equity and environmental justice principles is critical to ensure that benefits are maximized, risks are minimized and both are distributed fairly.
Low-income Black, Latino and Indigenous communities in both rural and urban areas, already bear disproportionate pollution burdens and poor health outcomes compared to higher-income, majority-white communities. Policymakers must prioritize designing safeguards to prevent exacerbating existing inequities and burdens, ensuring that historic harms are neither repeated nor worsened, while maximizing the potential improvements and benefits for host communities.
Require Meaningful Community Engagement
A recent survey found that 73% of voters support being consulted on new carbon removal projects, highlighting strong public demand for early and meaningful engagement. Strong policy frameworks must establish clear requirements for engagement that goes beyond informing potential host communities, especially on project siting and community benefits. Communities should have the opportunity to actively shape decision-making processes and should be compensated appropriately for their input and time. Policies should require developers to communicate transparently about the benefits and potential risks of a project and acknowledge that genuine community engagement includes the possibility of project rejection. Policies should provide clear, enforceable mechanisms to respect and act upon a community's decision to decline a project, ensuring future efforts in that location are appropriately reconsidered or redirected.
Strengthening Community Benefits as a Standard Practice
Community benefits plans can provide a structured framework for integrating community voices, outlining expected benefits, and ensuring that local priorities shape project implementation. While they do not carry the legal weight of a community benefits agreement, the plans are a critical tool for building trust, addressing community concerns and fostering long-term partnerships.
Community benefits plans have already been used in a handful of projects across sectors, however, they are not yet the norm. These plans should become standard industry best practice, with developers proactively adopting them rather than waiting for mandates. By voluntarily implementing community benefits plans, companies can demonstrate a commitment to equitable development, making projects more viable and reducing opposition.
While community benefits plans set the foundation for engagement, legally binding community benefit agreements codify commitments to tangible, enforceable benefits for communities. They can guarantee specific local benefits, such as revenue-sharing arrangements, infrastructure investments, or workforce development programs and provide accountability mechanisms that ensure developers deliver.
Policymakers can encourage or require community benefit agreements by embedding them into state-level policies or permitting requirements. This can provide a stable framework for equitable project development and ensure that communities hosting CDR projects receive durable economic and social benefits.
For communities to fully benefit from CDR projects, they must have the legal expertise, technical knowledge and negotiation skills to advocate for their interests when engaging with developers. Many historically marginalized communities lack the resources to navigate complex agreements, assess project risks or negotiate strong community benefits, often resulting in vague or insufficient commitments that fail to deliver long-term value.
To address this, policymakers and industry leaders should invest in capacity-building initiatives, such as legal support funds, community-led training programs and technical advisory services. Empowering community organizations as intermediaries and establishing publicly funded legal aid or negotiation support teams would help level the playing field, ensuring that communities can secure enforceable agreements that maximize both economic and environmental benefits.
Advance Innovative Benefit Models
Achieving equitable CDR deployment may also require initiatives that go beyond traditional benefit-sharing models. One promising pathway is creating opportunities for local communities to hold equity stakes in CDR projects, creating more enduring economic benefits while also fostering deeper trust and alignment between developers and host communities. CDR projects can generate revenue through carbon credit sales, corporate sustainability investments, government incentives and CO2 utilization in commercial products, making these benefit-sharing models potential opportunities for co-benefits.
For example:
- Community profit-sharing agreements: A percentage of the project’s revenue could be allocated directly to local community funds, supporting infrastructure, education or healthcare projects.
- Co-ownership models: Communities or local organizations own a portion of the project, granting them both financial benefits and decision-making power.
Examples from renewable energy sectors can provide examples for CDR. For instance, the Saulteaux First Nation in Canada partnered with a renewable energy company to co-own and operate a wind power project. The community holds a majority ownership stake, which has provided sustained and long-term financial returns, ensured local decision-making power and fostered community trust in the project’s development.
Establishing federal-level guidance and best practices for these models will help ensure consistency across projects while allowing for local customization. Transparent monitoring protocols, accessible reporting channels and clear enforcement mechanisms will be critical to ensuring these profit-sharing and ownership structures deliver on their promises.
Robust policy frameworks that center community decision-making and ensure equitable distribution of benefits are needed to ensure that CDR deployment supports environmental justice goals.
How Can CDR Policies Protect Lands, Ecosystems and Natural Resources?Building public trust in CDR will require careful evaluation of potential resource use, and community and environmental harms and action to prevent them.
Like any other industry, CDR uses resources like water and minerals. In addition, CDR facilities such as DAC plants require infrastructure such as CO2 pipelines, which occupy land. Responsible CDR projects should not only minimize any negative impacts of resource use, but should also be sited in locations that do not exacerbate resource concerns such as water shortages. To protect communities and ecosystems, projects should carry out environmental and social impact assessments and include legal mechanisms to ensure ongoing responsibility for mitigating any environmental harms that occur, while considering their entire value chain.
Conduct Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigate Impacts
Conducting both robust MRV and environmental impact assessments can identify resource needs, environmental impacts, human health impacts including cumulative pollution burdens, and help project developers plan to mitigate any negative impacts.
In the U.S., National Environmental Policy Act requires that for projects using federal funding or require a federal permit that federal agencies carry out environment impact assessments and provide environmental statements for any construction, permitting or planning action with significant environmental impact. Projects can choose to complete assessments even without federal involvement, a practice that CDR projects should pursue to plan for unintended impacts that could impede a project’s viability. Since environment impact assessments can be expensive for companies, state and local governments could establish grant or loan programs to support the process.
Environmental impact considerations and strategiesEnvironmental FactorKey Considerations and Mitigation StrategiesWater- • Different CDR approaches have varying water needs (e.g., solvent DAC is more water-intensive than sorbent DAC).
- • Projects with high water demand should be sited in water-abundant regions.
- • Effluent water must meet environmental standards for temperature and cleanliness.
and Biodiversity
- • Some CDR approaches, such as marine-based methods, may disrupt ecosystems, though full impacts remain uncertain.
- • Biomass-based CDR can threaten biodiversity if it leads to deforestation or land conversion. The sustainable sourcing of biomass feedstocks is also important (e.g. avoiding purpose-grown crops).
- • Certain methods, like enhanced rock weathering, may provide co-benefits (e.g., improving soil health), but mineral inputs must be free of contaminants.
- • CDR competes with other land needs (e.g., food and energy production).
- • Biomass feedstocks for CDR can displace food production, leading to emissions from land conversion.
- • Projects should avoid using land-intensive feedstocks and prioritize siting on repurposed industrial sites or brownfields.
- • Some solvent-based DAC systems may degrade and release pollutants, requiring safeguards against unintended chemical emissions.
- • Certain carbon management systems can be designed to capture co-pollutants like ozone, particulate matter, SOx and NOx, benefiting areas with high air pollution.
- • Some technologies, like Climeworks, can even produce net-positive water, adding a potential co-benefit to CDR deployment.
Implement Rigorous Environmental and Safety Standards
CDR projects must adhere to existing environmental and safety regulations, and policymakers should work with the emerging CDR industry to update and strengthen regulations and standards over time.
This includes having robust plans in place to mitigate adverse impacts such as excessive water use, chemical spills and carbon leakage while also implementing emergency response systems to protect nearby communities from unforeseen hazards. These measures will not only enhance environmental safeguards but could also foster public trust and confidence in the responsible deployment of CDR technologies. CDR projects should also plan for long-term responsibility for remediation of any adverse environmental impacts.
U.S. lawmakers have also begun developing policies to support the responsible deployment of some CDR technologies. Aspects of approaches like DAC are already largely covered by federal policies, such as the EPA’s regulation on sequestering CO2 in deep underground geologic formations. Many CDR approaches are however quite novel, meaning that the regulations that apply to these projects were written before they existed. This means that significant regulatory gaps remain, and comprehensive safety standards must be updated in response to development of these new approaches, including DAC, to ensure regulation is fit-for-purpose.
Creating Safe Frameworks to Scale CDRAs the field continues to evolve, policy frameworks must prioritize equity, environmental integrity and community empowerment to prevent CDR from replicating past harms.
A commitment to strong safeguards, inclusive decision-making and durable accountability measures will be essential to ensuring that carbon removal meaningfully contributes to long-term climate goals. If not implemented with high standards and adequate safeguards, CDR risks being scaled in ways that neglect public safety and environmental sustainability, diminishing its purpose as a climate solution and further endangering our ability to meet national and global climate goals.
climateworks-dac-mammothplant.jpg Climate United States carbon removal carbon removal legislation & policy U.S. Climate U.S. Climate Policy-Direct Air Capture Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Hannah Harasaki Danielle Riedl Haley Leslie-BoleBeyond the Thermometer: 5 Heat Metrics That Drive Better Decision-Making
The way scientists and policymakers measure heat as they seek to combat rising temperatures across the world’s cities requires more nuance than just looking at the daily outdoor temperature. There are a variety of tools that can help show a more complete picture.
Some measurements, like land surface temperature, can help compare different parts of a city. Others, like air temperature, heat index or wet bulb globe temperature describe the regional conditions across a neighborhood or urban area. Increasingly, experts look to more complex data, known as thermal comfort indices, to show the impacts on people where they live.
After 2024 was recorded as the hottest year on record researchers project a nearly 3 degree C (5.4 degree F) rise in temperature by 2100 if we don’t significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This increase would disproportionally impact cities — where the urban characteristics, such as miles of pavement and lack of green space, can add another 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) warming — and the more than 4 billion people who live in them.
As part of the global weather system, extreme heat can span across broad geographic areas, but individuals experience it at very local scales. Choosing the best metric to measure a desired outcome appropriately will be critical for cities worldwide to effectively address the challenge of urban extreme heat as temperatures continue to rise.
Traditional Ways of Measuring HeatWhen we talk about heat exposure, we are referring to a series of different heat sources that make someone hot. Suppose a person stands outside during a heatwave: direct radiation from the sun, reflected radiation from surfaces like roads or buildings, ambient air and moisture in the air, all contribute to how hot that person can feel.
Here are a few of the traditional heat metrics, their uses and limitations:
Land Surface TemperatureLand surface temperature (LST) is calculated from satellite data and measures the temperature of surfaces, including roofs, treetops and roads. LST doesn’t mean much to the everyday person, however, because it’s easy to calculate anywhere on Earth, researchers use it for scientific heat mapping and, for many years, have considered it the go-to for urban heat analysis. LST is useful in comparing different parts of cities and evaluating which surfaces are likely to absorb heat and slowly re-radiate it throughout the day. However, LST isn’t helpful for understanding people’s heat exposure because it doesn’t account for most of the ways humans experience heat: Even if a person is standing on cool grass, they will feel hot if they’re in the sun on a warm, humid day.
Air TemperatureAir temperature measures the temperature of the air about two meters above the ground. Because it is easily modeled and understood, air temperature is the measurement local news organizations and other outlets use in their reporting. It’s measured with a simple thermometer and gives a clear picture of a location’s ambient weather condition, minus any other factors (like humidity or sunlight) that might make a person feel hot. Because air temperature looks at the background conditions, air temperature is an ideal metric for analyzing and comparing temperatures across time.
Across a neighborhood or city, though, air temperature can be difficult to measure. Consistent measurements over a wide area rely on weather stations, which can be geographically sparse and expensive to maintain, or on low-cost sensors, which can be faulty and prone to breaking. Scientists then have to interpolate the data between observed points and model the temperature distribution across an area.
However, air temperature doesn’t capture other atmospheric or environmental factors, like the number of trees that provide shade,, that can affect how hot a person might feel in a particular area or neighborhood. Plus, it would take something really big, like a body of water or an entire neighborhood of cool roofs to significantly affect the air temperature of an area. So, if cities want to address the impacts of local heat exposure, air temperature would not provide enough specificity to inform human-scale interventions designed to protect people’s health.
Heat Index and Wet Bulb Globe TemperatureMeteorologists calculate what the temperature “feels like” using the heat index, a metric that adjusts air temperature based on humidity. For example, when humidity and temperature are high, the body has a harder time regulating its temperature through perspiration. In contrast, low humidity at a high temperature — often called “dry heat” — would feel cooler because low moisture in the air leads to the faster evaporation of sweat, which cools down the body. Heat index can therefore predict how the body will react to the weather on a given day, making it a helpful tool for determining if it’s safe to work outdoors or play sports.
Wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) is a similar metric, but it considers direct sunlight and wind speed in addition to air temperature and humidity. This metric can provide additional insight into heat exposure by determining how much hotter a person feels in the sun and with limited breeze.
Heat index and WBGT are measured with special thermometers or weather stations and interpolated like air temperature. Given that both these measurements account for more variable heat sources, heat index and WBGT are better indications of heat load— the cumulative impact of heat from the environment on a person —than temperature alone. But, just like air temperature, they don’t vary much across space and, therefore, cannot always account for changes across the local environment.
A man cools himself under a water spray in Krakow, Poland. Traditional methods for measuring heat don't always take into account how much heat people can feel on a hot day. Photo by Bogdan Khmelnytskyi / iStock.These traditional methods often used to measure heat sources do not describe all the dimensions of how someone feels heat or its impact on their health, which can vary widely from person to person. Environment, for example, plays a significant role and can change the impact even within a single city. Residents of downtown Los Angeles, with its crowded city blocks and lack of green space, will experience heat differently than those on the west side of the city who might benefit from the cooling effects of the Pacific Ocean.
Each heat measurement has utility and can inform different interventions — from cool roofs to early-warning heat alert systems. However, these traditional methods of measuring heat don’t account for the full scope of how heat affects people in their neighborhoods. For city officials to ensure their interventions adequately address the growing impacts of extreme urban heat, cities should also use thermal comfort modeling.
Measuring Heat with Thermal Comfort ModelingWhen someone stands outside on a hot day, direct radiation from the sun, reflected radiation from surfaces, ambient air temperature, wind level and humidity all simultaneously affect them. Thermal comfort metrics calculate the cumulative effects of these collective heat sources, providing our most detailed assessments of human heat exposure.
If, for example, a person walks down an asphalt street with partial shade coverage from trees at noon on a hot, humid day, thermal comfort metrics provide a sense of their heat exposure, combining factors such as sunshine filtering through the tree canopy, the hot asphalt below their feet and the weather around them. If the person walks back along the same street at 6 p.m., a thermal comfort metric can predict that they’ll feel cooler because of the longer shadows and the lower air temperature, even if the heat from the asphalt may have increased.
Thermal comfort is measured using a set of instruments, including specialized thermometers and a wind meter. But, more frequently, it is calculated using three-dimensional models that consider meteorology, direct and reflected radiation, tree canopy, buildings, land use, and shade. Scientists increasingly use metrics like the Universal Thermal Comfort Index, Mean Radiant Temperature, or Physiological Equivalent Temperature to calculate thermal comfort. In Singapore, for instance, planners model thermal comfort to pilot urban design interventions that reduce heat exposure, including wind corridors, green buildings and shade that can cool the spaces where people feel the hottest.
Thermal comfort metrics are calculated at very local scales — in radiuses between one and five meters — which capture variations in shade, vegetation, surfaces and other relevant aspects of a city’s design. As a result, thermal comfort indices help scientists not only understand individuals’ heat exposure but also heat-resilient infrastructure that could potentially mitigate that exposure.
Modeled metrics are also useful in prioritizing and locating interventions. Because thermal comfort metrics use modeling, they can show the local effects of constructing a new park, planting trees, or orienting buildings to provide shade to pedestrians. Modeled air temperature can similarly inform the impacts of scaling interventions, like cool roofs, across a whole city.
In recent years, improved high-resolution data availability around the world has made it possible to calculate thermal comfort modeling more accurately and cheaply, making these metrics feasible to use alongside traditional methods. Now, scientists and policymakers have more options when assessing extreme heat: They can choose the right indicator, physical scale and time-period to look at how the city affects how hot people get and how hot they feel.
Matching the Right Metrics to Local Heat GoalsAs temperatures continue to rise in cities worldwide, interventions to mitigate extreme heat will become increasingly important. Using the right metric to evaluate the impact of these interventions is critical in considering how, where and when the changes will be effective.
Different stakeholders have varied goals related to heat. As they plan for more heat-resilient cities with better infrastructure and co-benefits for cooling across sectors, they should select appropriate metrics for measuring and informing those goals. Some policies and projects will focus on protecting human health during heat events, while others might prioritize reducing the formation of ground-level ozone or lowering burdens on energy grids. Each goal depends on a different kind of heat metric and data to help plan and prioritize its implementation.
Potential heat-related goals and tracking metricsHeat Related GoalMetrics to Inform Implementation Lower citywide temperaturesAir temperatureProtect pedestrians outdoorsThermal comfort indices Set safety limits on outdoor activitiesHeat index; wet bulb globe temperatureKeep people cool in transit stops or in public spotsThermal comfort indices Reduce indoor heat exposure and energy useAir temperature; land surface temperature of roofsReduce the formation of ground-level ozoneAir temperatureEntire cities experience heat, but so do individuals, so city officials should consider interventions that target heat at a citywide scale to move the needle on ambient outdoor temperatures while also prioritizing local- to neighborhood-scale change to impact people’s day-to-day heat exposure.
Just as different metrics are appropriate for different goals, the same is true of metrics for measuring the effectiveness of different interventions. For example, cool roofs reduce heat across a neighborhood, so their effect is best measured by looking at regional air temperature. Shade protects individuals by lowering their heat exposure, and so it can be best understood through thermal comfort metrics.
As the risks of extreme heat continue to intensify in cities, leaders and policymakers need a diverse set of tools to understand and respond to risks. Simply knowing that it’s hot in a city is not enough: Choosing the right metric for each dimension of the heat problem can point policymakers and residents toward deeper knowledge of their local challenges and potential solutions.
urban-heat-measurement.jpg Cities Urban Efficiency & Climate Climate climate science Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Ruth Engel Eric Mackres Madeline Palmieri Eillie AnzilottiEducation Campaign for Public Servants, Students Advances Climate Action in Colombia
WRI Colombia led climate education and capacity-building workshops across five regions. The initiative helped local government leaders, public servants and teachers understand and implement the country’s long-term climate strategy (E2050) while expanding access to climate change education.
The ChallengeLike many countries, Colombia faces the urgent tasks of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and boosting resilience to the escalating threats of climate change. The country’s long-term climate strategy (E2050) includes a goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Achieving this target will require action on every level — not just from the national government, but also from local policymakers such as mayors and governors, as well as teachers entrusted with educating the country’s future decision-makers.
However, public servants, especially in rural and underserved regions, lacked sufficient knowledge and tools to incorporate the national climate strategy into their subnational development plans. Teachers did not have access to climate change curricula and other resources. Without targeted training and accessible educational materials for vulnerable populations, Colombia was unlikely to meet its climate goals.
WRI’s RoleWRI Colombia designed and led a series of educational and capacity-building workshops for public servants and educators, focusing on how to integrate E2050 into subnational development plans and educational curricula.
WRI hosted workshops in five regions of Colombia to enhance local policymakers’ and public servants’ understanding of E2050. This included education on the importance of net-zero targets and climate resilience, as well as how to incorporate these goals into subnational development plans for 2024-2028
For teachers, the WRI Colombia team developed an educational toolkit — including two games, an infographic, a climate journal to record daily observances and a storybook on carbon neutrality — provided in braille and Indigenous languages. The team worked closely with Colombia’s Ministry of Education and regional Secretariats of Education to produce and disseminate these materials. WRI also co-hosted the launch of the first climate-focused braille storybook at Colombia’s International Book Festival, raising national awareness of the need for inclusive climate education.
The OutcomeWRI Colombia played a pivotal role in advancing the roadmap to E2050 by empowering government officials, teachers and local communities. Over 100 public servants, including officials from mayors’ offices and governorships, integrated E2050 priorities into local development plans for 2024-2028, while 299 educators from public schools and underfunded and rural areas adopted interactive materials to train their students and peers on climate change issues. More than 4,800 students now have access to climate education that was previously unavailable in many regions.
By improving knowledge across government institutions and the education sector, this project has strengthened Colombia’s ability to implement long-term, inclusive climate solutions.
book-fair-bogota-colombia.jpg Climate Top Outcome: 2024 National Climate Action net-zero emissions Climate Resilience Type 2024 Top Outcome Exclude From Blog Feed? 0