STATEMENT: Countries Announce New Climate Pledges at UN Summit, But Far More Action Needed
NEW YORK (September 24, 2025) — The UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit closed today with several new climate commitments from countries setting emissions targets through 2035 — a critical waypoint on the path to net zero by mid-century. The Summit is an important milestone as the UN prepares its NDC Synthesis Report next month, which will assess the collective impact of new pledges before this year’s COP30.
This statement reflects both country announcements and official NDC submissions made so far, drawing on preliminary Climate Watch data to show their potential emissions reductions in gigatons compared to countries’ 2030 targets.
Following is a statement from Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO, World Resources Institute:
“We cannot sugarcoat it: these new climate plans do not put us anywhere near on track for a safe future. The lack of ambition from most major emitters so far, barring a few, underscores the immense political challenge countries face of transforming their entire economy. Yet vulnerable countries continue to step up with bold climate leadership.
“Countries’ last round of NDCs put the world on track for up to 2.8°C of warming, already exposing billions of people to more frequent and intense heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods. By 2035, the world needs to cut 31.2 gigatons of emissions to stay on track for 1.5°C, or 20.2 Gt for 2°C. The NDCs and announcements so far would reduce that by just 2 gigatons — only 6% of what’s needed for 1.5°C and 10% for 2°C.
“By COP30, it is critical that all countries deliver the most ambitious possible climate plans, especially the major emitters still missing from the table.
“Some countries are taking steps to transform key sectors of their economy. Falling costs are accelerating this momentum: clean energy, heat pumps, and electric vehicles are now the lowest cost option in many parts of the world — creating jobs, boosting countries’ growth and competitiveness, securing reliable clean energy, and improving people’s quality of life. Countries need to do much more to seize this momentum and scale up renewable energy and clean transport solutions.
“The stakes could not be higher. Climate-related disasters cost the world at least $300 billion in 2024 alone, and without stronger steps these losses will continue to escalate. By COP30, all countries must present a clear response and double down on solutions within our grasp to cut emissions and build adequate resilience.”
International Climate Action NDC COP30 Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 04 Levers to Help Scale Net-Zero Carbon and Resilient Housing
The built environment accounts for over one-third of global emissions. In rapidly developing markets like India and Mexico, a surge in housing construction faces a pivotal choice: lock in high-carbon infrastructure or, with the right interventions, enable resilient, low-carbon designs and create millions of green jobs.
When supported by integrated policies, targeted finance and adaptive business models, these markets have the potential to leapfrog to net-zero carbon and resilient buildings (NZCRBs), reducing emissions, strengthening climate resilience and delivering important socio-economic benefits — from lower energy bills to healthier living conditions.
Yet, progress remains slow: NZCRBs make up less than 1% of global building stock, with residential buildings comprising an even smaller percentage. While demand for efficient housing is growing rapidly, fragmented policies, limited financing and pilots that fail to scale still limit progress. By focusing on residential housing where these challenges converge and urgency is greatest, this article aims to unpack the most persistent barriers.
To unlock large-scale solutions and investment, it is essential to first clarify a shared definition of NZCRBs and then carefully map the systemic barriers to overcome.
What Are Net-Zero Carbon and Resilient Buildings?NZCRBs minimize energy demand, employ renewable energy and are built or retrofitted using low-carbon or recycled materials. They are designed to withstand climate shocks, such as heat waves, flooding and storms, while reducing emissions through the entire life cycle of the building from material sourcing to operation to end-of-life.
There are many types of NZCRBs, including those designed for residential, commercial and institutional uses. Unlike traditional sustainability-certifiable buildings, which primarily focus on reducing energy use and environmental impact, or resilience-oriented buildings, which emphasize physical durability and disaster risk reduction, NZCRBs deliberately integrate both priorities. They simultaneously address decarbonization and climate adaptation, aligning the built environment with net-zero carbon pathways and safeguarding communities against intensifying climate hazards. This holistic approach ensures that homes are not only energy-efficient and low-emission but future-proofed and capable of maintaining safety and livability during extreme events.
The relative balance between the “net zero” and “resilience” dimensions of NZCRBs can differ across geographies. In medium-income, temperate regions with stronger energy policies, like in Mexico and Latin America, the emphasis often leans toward decarbonization, maximizing efficiency, renewable integration and carbon-neutral materials. In contrast, in climate-vulnerable and rapidly urbanizing regions such as India and Southeast Asia, resilience features may be prioritized, which could include passive cooling, flood-proofing and structural durability, with net-zero measures introduced incrementally. This geographic differentiation underscores the importance of context-specific pathways: All NZCRBs share common principles, but their design and implementation must reflect local climate priorities, regulatory frameworks and socioeconomic realities.
While NZCRB design principles can apply broadly, our focus is scaling both net-zero and resilient residential dwellings, given their outsized impact and opportunity. These homes offer clear benefits: lower energy costs, healthier indoor environments and reduced vulnerability to climate risks. However, key barriers persist, such as limited affordability, lack of tailored finance, weak policy enforcement, entrenched unsustainable practices and limited technical capacity — especially in emerging markets.
What’s Holding NZCRBs Back? And How Can Sustainable Buildings Be Scaled?Smaller developers and building owners often face high upfront costs when shifting to NZCRBs. Energy-efficiency upgrades frequently place the financial burden on owners, while tenants capture most of the benefits. This split-incentive challenge is common in rental housing markets and hampers upgrades. In India, for instance, landlords of low-income rental units are often reluctant to invest in passive cooling or energy-efficient retrofits because tenants capture the utility savings but lack the security of tenure to justify contributing to upfront costs. Similar dynamics have been documented in Mexico’s rental housing sector, where building owners hesitate to finance rooftop solar or insulation improvements without mechanisms to share benefits and costs with tenants.
Risk‑sharing models, such as joint investments among owners, cooperative financing and owner–tenant agreements help distribute costs more fairly. In Europe, green lease arrangements are emerging to align incentives, explicitly linking rent structures to energy performance so both landlords and tenants gain from efficiency upgrades. These innovations tackle resistance and unlock investment, boosting investor confidence, fostering transparency and reducing the initial costs of action.
For residential buildings, pairing inclusive finance and supportive policy frameworks specifically addresses affordability and equitable access. However, policy gaps and weak enforcement continue to slow progress. Both local and national governments play critical roles as market catalysts. Well‑designed and consistently enforced building decarbonization and resilience policies — integrated across housing, energy, utilities and planning —are needed to directly target regulatory fragmentation and unsustainable practices. For example, the Eco Niwas Samhita, India's Energy Conservation Building Code for residential buildings, sets mandatory efficiency standards for building envelopes, shading and ventilation, helping reduce heat and energy use in low- and middle-income housing.
In Mexico City, while detailed NZCRB‐type standards are less widespread (especially for low-income housing), the city’s complementary technical standards have been incorporating energy-efficiency and sustainability requirements into the building permit regime, especially for larger residential and mixed-use buildings. These are being updated to cover more resilience dimensions as well.
Stakeholder collaboration is often missing in practice, leading to fragmented standards, duplicated efforts and limited uptake of sustainable building solutions. In cities, global developers experiment with pilot NZCRB projects, but without platforms to share data or lessons, results remain siloed, stifling replication and market confidence. Stakeholder collaboration is therefore essential. Cross-sector knowledge hubs that share best practices and facilitate data exchange are crucial for setting standards and supporting government benchmarking for greater transparency and accountability. These platforms turn lessons learned into practice, provide businesses with supply chain and market intelligence, and address technical gaps and market barriers by creating the conditions for NZCRBs to move from pilots to market standards.
The Four Levers to Scale NZCRBsAgainst this landscape of challenges, WRI's All in for a Net Zero Built Environment initiative has identified four critical levers for driving transformative change: coordinated action, supportive policies, tailored finance and business model innovation.
Each of the levers is mapped to different barriers. By directly targeting specific challenges like affordability, weak policy signals and lack of technical or financial innovation, these strategies provide a coherent pathway to scaling. While the four interconnected levers are essential for scaling NZCRBs in India and Mexico, the levers can also be applied globally.
1) Commitment and CollaborationScaling NZCRBs requires coordinated action across national and local governments, developers, financial institutions, utilities and community groups. City action plans and national roadmaps have proven critical in Europe, and more recently also in Mexico and India, to help bridge policy gaps by identifying retrofit targets and integrating housing, energy and planning policies. These strategies ensure coherence between local ambitions and national climate goals. Knowledge hubs and multi-stakeholder task forces that bring together architects, builders, investors, utilities, regulators and civil society can harmonize standards, track implementation and share best practices across markets. Embedding social inclusion within these structures ensures that vulnerable and marginalized groups are represented in decision-making, leading to equitable and effective outcomes. Without this vertical, horizontal and inclusive coordination, policies risk missing cross-cutting issues, such as aligning building codes with electricity access or linking housing subsidies to low-carbon design.
2) Supportive PoliciesMandatory energy codes for life-cycle emissions and climate-resilience standards accelerate mitigation, while incentives like tax breaks and fast-track permitting reduce compliance costs for builders and investors. Robust codes paired with life-cycle assessments ensure that emissions are addressed from construction through operation and end-of-life, preventing carbon lock-in and enabling a true accounting of environmental impacts. These tools provide a foundation for scaling NZCRBs that remains sustainable over decades. Effective programs often sequence voluntary initiatives to pilot new approaches, gradually transitioning to mandatory codes as supply chains and markets mature. This approach enables innovation at early stages, while safeguards, such as subsidies and social housing, ensure that standards do not exclude low-income communities, due to affordability constraints, as they take effect.
3) Financial Instruments and MechanismsFinance is a significant and complex barrier to NZCRB adoption. Residential buildings require substantial upfront and long-term capital, which smaller developers or households often cannot access. Effective solutions include:
- Sovereign green bonds fund climate-friendly buildings, but typically only large developers can access them.
- Blended finance of philanthropic and public funds can reduce risk to enable the participation of smaller firms and affordable housing projects.
- Performance-based investments channel financing toward projects that achieve energy savings and align capital deployment with measurable results.
- On-bill and property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing tie repayments to utility bills or property taxes to reduce upfront cost of construction or retrofit.
Case Study
Mexico’s Hipoteca Verde and EcoCasa
By giving homeowners and developers tailored financial support, Mexico shows that affordability and sustainability in the housing sector can go together. Under Mexico’s sustainable strategy called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action, two programs stand out:
• Hipoteca Verde, run by Infonavit, which is both the national housing agency and the country’s single largest mortgage lender, offering additional mortgage lines for homeowners to install energy-efficient appliances.
• EcoCasa, run by Sociedad Hipotecaria Federal, which funds developers to design and build homes to passive standards that minimize energy use.
Both are financed through blended mechanisms combining national funds and international support. These programs reach low-income families, enable retrofits or efficient new builds, and embed sustainability into Mexico’s housing policy framework.
4) Business Model InnovationsPilots often stall without scalable delivery models. Successful approaches feature shared-risk structures such as third-party ownership, joint ventures and performance-based contracts like those offered by energy service companies. Creating enabling conditions for one-stop-shops is also essential, as these entities streamline design, financing and construction, reduce transaction costs and ensure consistent project delivery. Together, these models lower market entry barriers for developers and households, build investor confidence and help move NZCRBs from isolated pilots to market scale.
Case Studies
Bootes, India — One-Stop Net-Zero Construction
Bootes, a construction firm in India, uses a single turnkey contract to deliver sustainable buildings by managing engineering, procurement and construction. The use of prefabricated modules enables speed and cost savings. For example, a public net-zero library in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh was completed in just 90 days. The library generates 100% on-site energy, reducing carbon emissions by around 85%, cutting embodied carbon via use of locally sourced low-environmental impact materials, implementing water conservation through rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling, and integrating ventilation and daylighting strategies for healthy indoor environments. While the company works across building typologies, its prefabricated modules are relevant for residential housing too as they allow for rapid scale-up and reduced material waste and construction time and cost. The company guarantees energy performance, uses joint ventures to share capital risk and aligns projects with India’s national net-zero targets. By handling every stage under one contract, Bootes cuts red tape for residential housing and public infrastructure.
Energiesprong, Netherlands — Retrofit at Scale
Energiesprong is a Dutch-born initiative that retrofits social housing to net-zero energy in under 10 days. Prefabricated solar façades and insulated rooftops are combined with 30-year energy performance contracts, allowing cost recovery through energy savings. Now operating in the UK, France and Germany, Energiesprong acts as a market facilitator, coordinating housing agencies, builders and financiers. Its strength lies in bulk procurement, standardization and public-private co-financing. Energiesprong proves that retrofitting thousands of homes can be as scalable and efficient as new construction.
No One Size Fits All: Coordinating Models, Instruments and Institutions for NZCRBsSustainable buildings require significant, long-term investment for both construction and ongoing operation, as maintaining strong environmental performance is an ongoing process. To scale NZCRBs, it is essential to combine funding strategies, business models and supportive policies or regulations in practical ways.
Within the first two years, governments and partners should establish the foundation for scaling NZCRBs by carrying out baseline assessments of residential building stock and emissions, along with gap analyses to identify priority needs. Clear decarbonization targets should then be set and integrated into city and national climate action plans.
Early pilot projects, as seen in Mexico, India and Northern Europe for example, should deploy financial tools such as green mortgages, subsidies for low-income households, and on-bill finance, allowing authorities to test which models are most effective for lowering upfront barriers across different contexts and building types. At this stage, it is also crucial to establish multi-level governance coordination platforms that bring together housing ministries, municipalities, utilities, developers, financiers and communities to ensure alignment and reduce fragmentation.
In the mid-term (3 to 5 years), the focus shifts to institutionalizing these foundational steps. Targets and lessons from pilots must be translated into enforceable building codes, performance standards and fiscal policies that move beyond voluntary adoption. Incentive-based programs, particularly those designed for low-income housing, can scale up proven approaches while ensuring equity. Building institutional capacity for monitoring, compliance and enforcement will be essential to ensure targets are not only aspirational, but achievable in practice.
By the long-term (next 10 years), NZCRB goals should be fully integrated into broader frameworks of urban planning, zoning, ESG reporting and fiscal reform. This period should see the expansion of climate-resilient housing programs, the implementation of life-cycle carbon requirements in planning rules and the full alignment of residential building standards with net-zero targets. International partnerships will be key to support technology transfer, innovation and access to advanced materials and designs. Finally, adaptation and equity must remain at the center of all strategies, ensuring that decarbonization delivers not only emissions reductions but also greater resilience and inclusive benefits for all communities.
Scaling NZCRBs is not just about building homes; it is about transforming entire systems by aligning policy, finance and innovative business models to unlock market-wide change. When inclusive governance is part of the status quo, countries can move from pilot projects to full-scale and widespread adoption.
modern-building-kolkata-india.jpg Cities India Mexico Cities Buildings Urban Efficiency & Climate energy efficiency Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Roxana Slavcheva Rizkika Zulhijjiani Adriana Kocornik-Mina Sumedha Malaviya Shyny Sam Fairuz LoutfiAs Extreme Wildfires Threaten Forests, Indigenous Leadership Offers Solutions
Indigenous Peoples and local communities are among the world’s most effective forest stewards. Research continues to show that the lands they manage often lose less tree cover, store more carbon and support higher biodiversity than surrounding areas.
Yet a new report from WRI and WWF-Australia finds that these lands are disproportionately affected by increasing wildfires. Fueled by climate change, deforestation and decades of colonial-era policies that long restricted Indigenous rights to manage their lands — factors largely beyond the control of Indigenous Peoples and local communities — wildfire risk is rising for the very communities that have done the most to protect these forests, while contributing the least to climate change.
Here, we unpack the drivers behind these findings and explore how restoring autonomy to Indigenous Peoples and local communities can help reduce forest fire risk.
Indigenous and Community Lands Face Rising Fire RisksThe report analyzed satellite data from 2001 to 2024 in four fire-prone countries — Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States — and compared tree cover loss within forests from both fires and other causes across three land management types: Indigenous- and community-held lands, protected areas and all other lands.
Who Are Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples?
In the context of this report, local communities are groups of non-Indigenous individuals and families who live in the same area, share common interests and maintain strong social, cultural and economic ties to the land. They vary in size, identity, internal equity and the way they manage and use the land. This definition includes Afro-descendant communities.
Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct groups who self-identify as Indigenous and assert their rights and self-determination as stewards of their resources, environments and territories. They have deep ancestral ties to collectively owned lands, along with unique languages, knowledge systems, beliefs and livelihoods rooted in precolonial and pre-settler histories.
Across the four countries combined, Indigenous- and community-managed lands lost just 6% of tree cover over
Extreme wildfires: a growing threat — and a call to support indigenous and community leadershipthe past two decades, compared with 11% in state-managed protected areas and 18% in lands under other management. In every country except Canada, Indigenous- and community-held lands saw less overall forest loss than other lands and, in most cases, even less than protected areas. In Canada, rates of forest loss were similar across all land management types.
Yet in Indigenous and community lands, a much greater share of the forest loss — about 62% — was driven by fire; slightly less than in protected areas but nearly twice the share seen in other lands. Most of these fires are not started by the communities themselves; many originate from land-clearing fires in surrounding areas, and, in some cases, fire is used deliberately to pressure or displace communities. This suggests these lands may face greater fire-related impacts as global forest fire activity continues to rise.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities are highly effective forest managers, playing a critical role in preventing deforestation and other permanent forms of forest loss. As a result, their lands see less overall forest loss than other land types, but a larger share of that loss is driven by wildfires. As wildfires increase around the world, these lands are increasingly affected by climate change, deforestation in surrounding areas and restrictive fire policies, all of which amplify wildfire risks.
Indigenous and community lands in Brazil are particularly vulnerable to rising fire activity, having seen a fifteenfold increase in fire-driven forest loss since 2001. Much of this loss occurred in the Amazon rainforest, where forest fires were once very rare but have become increasingly common due to decades of deforestation and climate change.
Deforestation and Climate Change Fuel the Wildfire CrisisFrom the Amazon rainforest to Australia’s dry forests, extreme wildfires are no longer rare events. While fire can play a beneficial role in maintaining some ecosystems, climate change is making heat waves and droughts more frequent and severe, intensifying fire behavior and pushing ecosystems beyond their historical thresholds. In some regions, deforestation worsens these conditions by drying out forests and increases the risk that land-clearing fires will escape into surrounding areas.
Deforestation drives fires in BrazilIn Brazil, deforestation is a key driver of increasing wildfire activity. Clearing forests for agriculture fragments the landscape, allowing heat, wind and flammable grasses to spread deeper into intact forests. This makes them more fire-prone, increasing the risk of land-clearing fires escaping under hot, dry conditions and igniting surrounding forests. El Niño-driven droughts compound these risks by further drying out vegetation. Strong El Niño conditions leading into the 2016 and 2024 fire seasons, combined with high deforestation rates, fueled extreme wildfires in both years. As the planet warms, such events are expected to become more frequent, further amplifying wildfire risks across the country.
About 1.3 million hectares of forest — an area larger than the size of Puerto Rico — in Indigenous and community lands burned in those two years alone. Most of this loss occurred in the Amazon, home to more than half the Indigenous population in Brazil.
Climate change has increased fire risk in Australia, Canada and the USIn southeastern Australia, where over 84,000 Indigenous Peoples live in fire-affected areas, extreme fires burned 1.2 million hectares of Indigenous-held forest during the devastating 2019–2020 fire season. Strikingly, Australia accounted for about 32% of all fire-driven tree cover loss on Indigenous and community lands across the four study countries, despite containing only 8% of their total forest area. More than 20% of Australia’s temperate broadleaf forests burned during that season — roughly 10 times the typical amount that burns each year. In this region, climate change has made extreme heat events at least twice as likely, increasing the risk of severe wildfires.
In Canada and the U.S., climate change is extending fire seasons and increasing the likelihood of extreme heat and drought, raising the risk of extreme wildfires like those seen in Canada in 2023. Over the study period, roughly 2.3 million hectares of forests on Indigenous land burned across the two countries.
How the Wildfire Crisis Impacts CommunitiesBeyond forest loss, wildfires can devastate communities by destroying homes and sacred sites, displacing families, harming health and threatening food security and livelihoods. For many Indigenous Peoples, the loss of nature to fire is deeply personal, often likened to losing a family member.
In Canada, where Indigenous Peoples make up just 5% of the population, they accounted for more than a quarter of all wildfire evacuees between 1980 and 2021. Of the 16 communities evacuated five or more times during this period, 14 were Indigenous reserves. About 90% of smoke-related evacuations involved communities where more than half the population identified as Indigenous, leaving many at severe risk from smoke-related health impacts.
Studies have shown that Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Brazil and the U.S. are also disproportionately vulnerable to wildfire impacts, which often compound existing social and economic inequities.
While Indigenous Peoples are among the most affected, they are also among the most knowledgeable about managing fire on their lands. Their traditional practices, rooted in long histories of observation, stewardship and place-based knowledge, offer proven strategies to reduce wildfire risk and build resilience against wildfires.
Cultural Burning as a Traditional Management SolutionCultural burning, a traditional land management technique practiced by many Indigenous Peoples for thousands of years, involves small but frequent, low-intensity burns usually carried out during cooler, wetter periods. These burns reduce flammable fuel loads, encourage biodiversity and support livelihoods.
Unlike land-clearing fires or climate-fueled extreme wildfires, which tend to cause long-term ecological damage, cultural burning mimics natural fire cycles, such as those started by lightning, and helps prevent the buildup of dry, flammable vegetation. It also encourages new growth and maintains healthy, resilient landscapes.
Low intensity burns, conducted as part of Indigenous cultural burning practices, reduce fuel loads, support ecosystem health and maintain traditional land management methods. Image by Emma Renly/WRI Extreme wildfires are high intensity events that cause widespread forest loss and long-term ecological damage. They are frequently driven by extreme weather, uncontrolled land clearing and accumulated vegetation. Image by Matt Howard/WRI Colonial legacies hamper traditional practicesColonial governments often disrupted and criminalized cultural burning in favor of blanket fire-suppression policies, even in ecosystems that depend on periodic fire. By treating all human-set fires the same, these policies ignored the ecological benefits and cultural significance of traditional burning, increasing the risk of more extreme wildfires. In Australia, for example, disrupting Indigenous fire management in southeastern forests led to the accumulation of flammable vegetation and contributed to recent severe fires.
These policies also disregarded Indigenous sovereignty by restricting the use of Indigenous Peoples’ long-standing land management practices. Reversing this legacy requires recognizing and supporting Indigenous leadership in traditional fire stewardship.
Reviving Traditional Fire Stewardship Shows PromiseAround the world, there is a slow but growing movement to restore cultural burning practices. Policy shifts in Australia, Brazil, Canada and the U.S., are beginning to recognize and support Indigenous-led fire programs that combine traditional knowledge with modern firefighting technique. Collaboration among Indigenous leaders, fire agencies and scientists can help ensure these methods are applied effectively and adapted to current climate challenges. Across these regions, several successful initiatives demonstrate how cultural burning can deliver ecological, social and economic benefits:
- In northern Australia, the Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project conducts early dry season burns to prevent large, late-season wildfires. By reducing the area burned in hotter months, the program lowers greenhouse gas emissions, generates carbon credits to help fund community programs and shows how Indigenous-led fire management can deliver both environmental and economic benefits.
- In Brazil, Indigenous fire brigades in the Xingu Indigenous Territory combine traditional fire management with satellite monitoring to protect villages, crops and forest edges from escaped land-clearing fires. other Indigenous Peoples-led efforts coordinated with federal fire agencies, these actions help maintain biodiversity, safeguard food security and strengthen community resilience against extreme wildfires.
- In British Columbia, Canada, Indigenous-led fire crews are partnering with provincial agencies to reintroduce cultural burning in fire-prone landscapes. Low-intensity burns are being used to revitalize native plant species, improve habitat for deer and other wildlife and reduce the buildup of flammable debris. These efforts not only lower wildfire risk but also reconnect communities with traditional fire stewardship practices.
- In the U.S., the Prescribed Fire Training Exchange (TREX) builds capacity for cultural burning while strengthening coordination with fire agencies. In northern California, the U.S. Forest Service works with the Yurok and Karuk Tribes to apply traditional burning techniques that not only reduce wildfire risk but also increase the availability of plants used in basket weaving — restoring both ecological health and cultural traditions.
Reviving tradition to reduce wildfire risk
In Oregon, U.S., Lomakatsi Restoration Project, a nonprofit restoration organization, shows how Indigenous-led stewardship reduces wildfire risks while strengthening communities. Partnering with the Klamath tribal community and other Tribes with ancestral lands in the region, and with support from WRI’s Cities4Forests program and other partners, Lomakatsi crews thin overcrowded forests, carry out cultural and prescribed burns and build fire breaks to prevent catastrophic fires like the 2020 Oregon Labor Day Fires, which destroyed homes and sacred sites near the rural town of Chiloquin.
Beyond reducing the risk of catastrophic fire, these efforts protect water sources, restore wildlife habitat, build community resilience and strengthen the community-based tribal workforce. Lomakatsi trains and employs local Tribal members and youth in ecological restoration, creating stable career pathways in rural economies where opportunities can be limited. By partnering with tribal communities to revive cultural burning and blending it with modern restoration techniques, Lomakatsi Restoration Project underscores what research already shows: Indigenous peoples are among the most effective managers of fire-prone forests.
Supporting Indigenous land rights and enabling community-led fire management are essential to reversing the disproportionate wildfire impacts on Indigenous and community lands. Reviving traditional fire stewardship is essential for containing wildfires and protecting land, but it won’t succeed in isolation. Alongside efforts to restore traditional practices, governments, NGOs and the private sector must create the enabling conditions for Indigenous-led solutions to thrive.
Traditional fire management techniques like cultural burning can help restore ecosystems and promote biodiversity by encouraging new growth. Image by David Clode/WRITo support these efforts, five key areas of action can help restore balance to fire-affected landscapes and empower communities in these regions:
5 levers for action- Securing and upholding Indigenous and community land rights. Legally recognized land rights and reversing colonial-era fire suppression policies give communities the authority to manage forests using traditional practices. Recognized, protected and enforced rights allow communities to prevent illegal logging, restrict harmful land use and invest in long-term fire prevention that help reduce forest carbon emissions.
- Funding and training Indigenous- and community-led fire brigades. These brigades are often the first — and sometimes only — responders in remote regions. Long-term funding ensures they can maintain trained teams, operate year-round and access essential tools like protective firefighting clothing, water trucks and communications equipment. Investing in these brigades strengthens local capacity to prevent, detect and respond quickly to fires.
- Expanding access to fire monitoring tools and early warning systems. Modern satellite-based tools can alert communities to new fire outbreaks, illegal burns and deforestation in near-real time. Paired with training, these platforms enable communities to act quickly, share evidence with authorities and hold perpetrators accountable. Expanding access also requires reliable connectivity, technical support and local-language interfaces wherever possible.
- Ending deforestation in critical biodiversity areas. In many regions, wildfire risk is closely linked to deforestation. Stopping deforestation not only preserves biodiversity and carbon storage but also removes a primary cause of uncontrolled fires. Policies to halt illegal clearing, enforce supply-chain accountability and promote sustainable land use are critical for long-term fire prevention.
- Taking action on climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to preventing the hotter, drier conditions that lengthen fire seasons and increase fire intensity. Without urgent climate action, other fire prevention measures will be less effective in the long term.
Tools to support Indigenous- and community-led fire management
Platforms like LandMark map the boundaries and legal status of Indigenous- and community-held lands worldwide to increase awareness of the threats they face and their contributions to sustainably managing the environment. Mapping these territories enable Indigenous Peoples and local communities to document land encroachments and advocate for stronger legal protections. Other platforms like Global Forest Watch are also increasingly being used by Indigenous Peoples to identify and respond to wildfires in near real-time using satellite-based fire alerts that provide timely information on active fires and their locations.
A Rights-Based Path to Fire-Resilient ForestsExtreme wildfires are not inevitable. Tackling their root causes — deforestation, climate change and the suppression of traditional fire stewardship — can protect forests and the communities who depend on them.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities are not simply stakeholders in this effort; they are leaders with deep ecological knowledge and proven fire management strategies. Supporting their autonomy, rights and solutions is both a matter of justice, and one of the most effective strategies we have to safeguard biodiversity, protect carbon stores and build climate resilience in an era of escalating wildfire risk.
getty-images.jpg Forests climate change Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities fires biodiversity Climate Resilience deforestation Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors James MacCarthy Jessica Richter Stephanie Borcea Isabela BarrigaRELEASE: Ocean Panel Commits to Five More Years with New Workplan to Propel Ocean Action
New York (September 24, 2025) — The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) today committed to five more years of urgent, coordinated ocean action, backed by a bold new workplan through 2030. The Panel — comprising of 18 heads of state and government from coastal and island nations — works to accelerate progress toward a healthy ocean, resilient communities and a sustainable blue economy, amid mounting threats from climate change, overfishing and biodiversity loss.
At its annual meeting, held at the United Arab Emirates’ Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, the Ocean Panel unveiled a renewed agenda focused on moving decisively from commitments to action — and from ambition to global leadership. The updated workplan prioritizes strengthening global ocean data systems, which remain underfunded despite being essential for informed, sustainable decision-making. It also includes launching a new ocean finance working group to help mobilize the estimated $550 billion needed each year to support the shift to a sustainable ocean economy, by unlocking investments from both public and private sectors.
Efforts will also be intensified to accelerate the roll out of Sustainable Ocean Plans, with the goal of achieving 100% sustainable management of the world’s national waters. Panel leaders are calling on all ocean and coastal states to join them in this ambition through the 100% Alliance.
The announcement builds on momentum from the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France (UNOC3), where world leaders underscored the ocean’s role in tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity and sustainable development. Themed “The Road from Nice to Belém and Beyond: Advancing Ocean Action for Climate, Nature and People”, the Ocean Panel meeting included discussions on national ocean climate actions and collective progress toward the Paris Agreement goals.
“The ocean’s future depends on sustained global cooperation and the Ocean Panel’s next five years will play a critical role in driving it,” said Surangel S. Whipps Jr., President of Palau and Ocean Panel Co-chair. “The threats facing the ocean are too great for short-term efforts. They require long-term commitment, bold leadership and impactful delivery. The new workplan will ensure the Ocean Panel continues to at least 2030, with a strong focused on improving ocean data, advancing sustainable fisheries and boosting the ocean’s role in tackling climate change.”
“The Ocean Panel has significantly raised global ambition and deepened our understanding of how to sustainably use and protect our ocean,” said Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister of Norway and Ocean Panel Co-chair. “However, the ocean continues to suffer from mounting challenges. The Ocean Panel will work together and with partners to scale up solutions that protect nature, support people and create jobs, and strengthen the ocean’s role in tackling climate change.”
Ocean Panel members reaffirmed support for recent developments in global ocean governance, including the High Seas Treaty reached the 60 ratifications needed to enter into force last week. 11 Ocean Panel members have ratified the treaty so far, complementing their commitment to 100% sustainable ocean management.
Members also welcomed the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, ratified on September 15, 2025. This critical agreement targets harmful subsidies that encourage overfishing, setting the stage for further actions to protect vulnerable fish stocks.
“It’s clear that we must place the ocean at the heart of global action, recognizing its vital role in regulating our planet, sustaining biodiversity, and supporting communities. That is why the UAE championed ocean–climate action as hosts of COP28 and is now continuing its long tradition of marine and coastal conservation through its Sustainable Ocean Plan journey as part of the Ocean Panel,” said Her Excellency Ms. Razan Al Mubarak, IUCN President and UAE’s Sherpa to the Ocean Panel. “Nature conservation — from mangroves to marine life — is central to sustainable ocean planning. As we look ahead to the IUCN World Conservation Congress in the UAE and COP30 in Belém, this collective action will be critical to delivering the just, inclusive, and sustainable ocean economy the world urgently needs.”
Key priorities of the Ocean Panel’s new 5-year workplan:
- 100% Sustainable ocean management: Supporting member countries to complete and implement Sustainable Ocean Plans (SOPs), while continuing to call on all coastal and ocean states to join this commitment through the 100% Alliance campaign
- Global Ocean Observations: Securing reliable, accessible ocean data by expanding observation systems and calling for collective investment in this critical global resource.
- Ocean-Climate nexus: Expanding nature-based solutions such as mangrove and seagrass restoration, and championing the integration of ocean-based solutions into countries’ national climate plans (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs) through the Blue NDC Challenge.
- Sustainable fisheries and aquatic foods: Advancing climate-resilient seafood systems that support nutrition, livelihoods and economic security for coastal communities.
- Mobilizing finance: Addressing the $550 billion annual ocean finance gap by unlocking scalable, inclusive investment solutions aligned with sustainability goals.
- Equity and inclusion: Embedding equity into all aspects of governance, and elevating the voices of Indigenous peoples, women, youth and local communities.
About the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
Co-chaired by Norway and Palau, the Ocean Panel includes Australia, Canada, Chile, Fiji, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Palau, Portugal, Seychelles, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Together, these 18 nations represent 42% of the world’s coastlines, 37% of global EEZs, 18% of the world’s fisheries, 20% of the world’s shipping fleet. The Ocean Panel is supported by the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for the Ocean. Based on the shared understanding of the need to improve the state of the ocean, the countries in the Ocean Panel are committed to producing national sustainable ocean plans with the aim of sustainably managing 100% of the ocean area under national jurisdiction. Learn more at oceanpanel.org. World Resources Institute (WRI) serves as the Secretariat for the Ocean Panel. Learn more at www.wri.org/our-work/topics/ocean.
Local Action Helps Mainstream Net-Zero, Climate-Resilient Buildings in Mexico and India
Through the All in for a Net Zero Built Environment initiative, WRI Mexico, WRI India and partners worked closely with local governments, developers and community stakeholders to advance net-zero carbon and resilient buildings (NZCRBs) in four cities. These local interventions are proving essential to mainstreaming NZCRBs, building capacity, and launching demonstration projects in additional cities and at the national level.
Advancing Local Action with Global ImpactBuildings are responsible for 36% of energy use and nearly 40% of energy-related CO2 emissions globally. Without rapid decarbonization, the sector’s emissions could double by 2050 due to urbanization, population growth and increased demand for cooling as the planet warms. In this context, net-zero carbon and resilient buildings offer a major opportunity to align climate goals with economic and social benefits. Alongside cutting emissions, they can reduce energy bills, improve indoor air quality, lower urban temperatures and enhance disaster resilience.
Learn More: 4 Levers to Help Scale NZCRBs
Despite progress in some areas, NZCRBs still make up less than 1% of global building stock. We unpack the major barriers and lay out four levers that can help them scale faster. Read more.
Since 2023, the All in for a Net Zero Built Environment initiative has worked with cities in India and Mexico to accelerate NZCRB implementation through the development of national whole life carbon roadmaps and City Action Plans. These roadmaps and action plans not only chart technical solutions in the buildings sector, but also identify the policy, finance, governance shifts and partnerships needed to make these solutions mainstream. Participating cities and countries gain access to tailored technical assistance, peer-to-peer learning and global advocacy platforms to raise ambition and unlock investment in NZCRBs. The initiative also works to link local pilot projects with national strategies and global best practices. This helps ensure that innovations can be scaled, adapted and replicated — bridging the gap between isolated success stories and market transformation.
The program puts a strong focus on how NZCRBs can unlock co-benefits and spur economic growth. Mexico, for example, has positioned energy-efficient construction as a competitive asset that can reduce operating costs, attract green investment and create new jobs. Additional benefits highlighted in India include improving public health through better air quality, reducing energy poverty and mitigating extreme heat in cities.
Through the All in for a Net Zero Built Environment initiative, both Mexico and India are seeing local action spur national momentum toward a net-zero built environment.
Mexico: A National Roadmap Takes ShapeIn Mexico, WRI and Sustentabilidad para Mexico (SUMe) supported the cities of Monterrey and Hermosillo in developing City Action Plans, building on their near-term climate plans and decarbonization commitments. The cities identified transformative actions for the buildings sector from a whole lifecycle of carbon perspective and mapped them according to their urgency and priority.
These local efforts have helped catalyze a broader debate on how to embed net-zero targets into national housing subsidies, public works tenders and building codes. They have also fed into a series of working groups led by WRI México, SUMe and local stakeholders to design Mexico’s National Roadmap to decarbonize the built environment through the full building lifecycle. A national workshop in July 2025 convened more than 100 leaders from the construction sector, government, academia and civil society. This milestone event marked the culmination of a year-long process of technical studies, stakeholder consultations and scenario analysis designed to chart a credible pathway for decarbonizing Mexico’s buildings sector by mid-century.
The new roadmap sets out clear actions for the federal administration, including the adoption of mandatory energy codes, incentives for retrofits and low-carbon materials, and public procurement policies that prioritize NZCRBs. By linking climate ambition with economic opportunity, the plan positions Mexico to reduce building energy use by up to 35%, cut operating costs for households and businesses, stimulate demand for national green industries and create thousands of skilled jobs.
Participants stressed that without coordinated implementation across ministries and levels of government, the roadmap’s targets will remain aspirational, making cross-sector collaboration essential to turn vision into action. Ministries responsible for energy, housing and industry have already expressed interest in aligning their sectoral strategies with the roadmap’s milestones.
India: Cities Lead the Way on NZCRBsWRI India and the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) worked with two fast-growing cities, Nashik and Thiruvananthapuram, to turn national climate targets into actionable local plans for NZCRBs.
In Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala, WRI collaborated with municipal officials, state agencies, architects and community groups to co-develop and launch a City-level NZCRB Action Plan. The plan identifies 20 priority actions spanning the entire building lifecycle, including developing carbon databases for materials, introducing green procurement guidelines, integrating NZCRB principles into urban zoning and building permits, and adopting demolition waste recovery systems. Thiruvananthapuram’s commitment builds on its existing 17 MW of municipal rooftop solar capacity and seeks to extend energy efficiency gains to both new and existing buildings. The plan also incorporates climate resilience measures to counteract rising urban heat and monsoon flooding risks.
Nashik, a historic city in Maharashtra, is seeing unprecedented infrastructure investments driven by the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, making this a critical moment for the city to consider its carbon footprint in the buildings and construction sector. Nashik has already established its Climate Action Plan, yet this does not address embodied carbon emissions. In the newly developed action plan for building sector decarbonization, WRI India and Nashik’s local government set transformative actions that address both operational and embodied carbon, such as mainstreaming the use of renewable energy, adopting energy efficiency measurement in all building types, establishing a database of low and zero-carbon materials that are locally produced, and collaborating with academic institutions to provide skill development programs related to building decarbonization.
With India’s urban population projected to reach 600 million by 2036, these interventions aim to help curb rising building emissions, which already make up 32% of the country’s total. At the same time, they can enhance liveability and equity for a rapidly urbanizing population. The two cities’ experiences will inform similar roadmaps in other urban areas, creating a blueprint for integrating climate, development and housing priorities.
From Roadmap to RolloutThe next phase in both countries focuses on implementation and scale.
In Mexico, stakeholders are working to establish a national steering committee that will oversee roadmap execution, track progress and coordinate policy across ministries. Pilot projects will be launched in public buildings to demonstrate cost-effective pathways to NZCRBs, with the goal of attracting blended finance and private sector participation.
In India, Thiruvananthapuram will move from planning to pilot implementation, starting with municipal facilities and affordable housing projects that integrate solar PV, passive cooling and efficient materials.
Both initiatives will require sustained capacity building for local governments, training programs for construction trades and stronger data systems to monitor building performance. WRI and partners will continue to facilitate knowledge exchange between cities and countries, ensuring lessons from early adopters inform global standards and funding priorities. Key areas for future collaboration include:
- Recommend and, where appropriate, found, steering committees to monitor, coordinate and enforce NZCRB standards in Mexico and India.
- Develop pathways to launch pilot projects under the City Action Plans and roadmaps to demonstrate scalable NZCRB delivery across public and private assets and infrastructure.
- Share a compendium of international best practices to mobilize private sector finance through incentives, blended finance and business model pilots, and learn from experts in the field.
- Evaluate and iterate, using monitoring frameworks embedded in city plans and national strategies to refine policy and expand impact.
The All in for a Net Zero Built Environment initiative reflects a pivotal inflection point: from defining net-zero carbon and resilient buildings to building actionable roadmaps grounded in local realities and ready to be implemented at scale. Globally, the initiative has expanded its network to include a consortium of local and global partners (such as the World Green Building Council, local green building councils and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and participating jurisdictions. This provides a platform for cities, countries and industry representatives to share lessons on financing retrofits, scaling renewable integration and overcoming institutional barriers.
Early impacts demonstrate that roadmaps are not just documents — when co-created with stakeholders and tied to concrete investment and policy measures, they can become powerful accelerators of market change.
All in for a Net Zero Built Environment, supported by the We Mean Business Coalition, brings together key global partners — led by WRI, the World Green Building Council and World Business Council for Sustainable Development — to accelerate the implementation of net-zero carbon and resilient buildings by enhancing cross-sector and multi-level coordination. The objective is to accelerate market transformation and transition to a healthier, greener, more inclusive built environment. monterrey-mexico.jpg Cities Cities Buildings net-zero emissions Urban Efficiency & Climate Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Roxana Slavcheva Sumedha Malaviya Shyny Sam Fairuz LoutfiSTATEMENT: Now is the Time to Enforce, not Delay, the EU Deforestation Regulation
Brussels / The Hague (September 24, 2025) — The European Commission has once again proposed delaying the enforcement of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), pushing back its start date for a second year in a row. The new implementation date would be late December 2026. By postponing enforcement yet again, the EU risks undermining the credibility of the law, its reliability as a partner to commodity-producing countries and its global climate commitments.
The regulation is designed to prevent commodities linked to deforestation and forest degradation – such as coffee, cocoa, soy, beef, leather, palm oil, rubber and wood – from being sold on the EU market. The EUDR is one of the most comprehensive environmental laws ever passed, with the potential to reshape global supply chains.
Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice-President and Regional Director for Europe of World Resources Institute:
“The European Commission’s new proposal to delay the EUDR is troubling. Forest loss reached record levels in 2024, with 6.7 million hectares of tropical rainforest destroyed — an area nearly the size of Ireland. Every minute, we lose the equivalent of 18 football fields of tropical forest. At a time when Europe itself is reeling from extreme summer heatwaves and record forest loss due to devastating wildfires, postponing protections for forests sends exactly the wrong signal.
“The Commission argues that certain systems aren’t ready yet. Yet all the elements legally mandated in the regulation to support implementation — IT systems, guidance, FAQs, and benchmarking — have been in place for months. Many businesses have already invested in traceability, from using satellite monitoring to training smallholder farmers. Producer countries such as Malaysia, Ghana and Vietnam are also building national systems to support compliance. Delaying for the second time undermines companies that have proactively prepared, sending the wrong market signal thereby creating additional uncertainty for businesses.
“Regardless of the delay, the EUDR, which already passed through the full legislative cycle in 2023, should remain as is. There is political pressure to erode the law by, for example, introducing a so-called ‘no-risk’ country category. Such a move would make the EUDR much less effective as it would undermine the due diligence system, which is at the core of the EUDR. Such a clause would create large loopholes for deforestation-linked products. Our analysis shows that exempting EU Member States or other countries from the declaration requirement would allow unscrupulous actors to launder products linked to deforestation — such as leather from Brazil — into EU supply chains.
“The EU accounts for 13–16% of global deforestation through imports, despite having just 7% of the world’s population, giving it a disproportionate responsibility. We call on the EU Council and EU Parliament to reject this delay and move forward with the enforcement as planned. Further delay would not ease implementation challenges; it would jeopardize forests, climate goals, Europe’s credibility.”
Forests Europe deforestation commodities Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0What Does ‘Green’ Procurement Mean? Initiatives and Standards for Cement and Steel.
Decarbonizing cement and steel production — which together are responsible for nearly 14% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions — will be critical to achieving national and global climate goals. But progress has been slower than in other sectors, like transportation and power, for several reasons.
One prominent reason is the role of CO2-emitting chemical processes in steel and cement production. On top of that are entrenched manufacturing practices, slow turnover of equipment in plants, and the relatively high cost of low-carbon technologies — all of which make it difficult to introduce changes that would decrease emissions.
This is where “green procurement” comes in. Green purchasing, or procurement, is emerging as one of the most effective policy measures to drive early demand for low-emissions cement, concrete and steel. Within the public sector, green procurement means prioritizing the purchase of low-carbon products in government-funded construction projects. In the private sector, it means leveraging companies’ purchasing power to decarbonize their supply chains and investments.
The past few years have seen several green procurement initiatives and policies for cement and steel introduced around the world. However, they often differ in key areas — including reporting requirements, definitions of what qualifies as “green” or low-emissions, and the ambition of their emissions-intensity benchmarks. These differences can limit comparability and create challenges for suppliers and buyers operating across multiple jurisdictions.
To drive meaningful global progress, these initiatives need to work together. Harmonizing green procurement measures through aligned definitions, data frameworks and methodological approaches is essential to ensure they are interoperable and mutually reinforcing. Importantly, harmonization does not require uniformity. Rather, it means that different systems should be able to interact and align in meaningful and consistent ways.
Measuring Product-Level Emissions
Initiatives and policies around green procurement are increasingly based on “emissions-intensity” benchmarks; for example, how much CO2 is released per ton of cement or steel produced. Such benchmarks help determine if a product meets certain standards or qualifies for a certification.
- [Read more]
To set these benchmarks, programs usually require manufacturers to report standardized emissions data for each product. This is done through Type III Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which are like nutrition labels for environmental impacts. EPDs are based on Product Category Rules (PCRs), which explain how environmental impacts, including but not limited to GHG emissions, are measured and reported for specific product types. At the foundation of this system is lifecycle assessment (LCA) data with emissions and resource-use information that suppliers use to develop their EPDs.
While EPDs and PCRs provide standardized rules for measuring and reporting product-level emissions, the way green procurement initiatives and policies apply these tools can vary significantly.
The following are examples of green procurement initiatives and government policies currently being implemented for cement, concrete and steel:
Initiatives (benchmarks listed in Table 1):- The Industrial Deep Decarbonization Initiative (IDDI) was started under the UN Industrial Development Organization. IDDI launched the Green Public Procurement Pledge in September 2022 to encourage governments to report environmental data and use low- and near-zero-emissions cement/concrete and steel in their construction projects. IDDI has nine current member countries, including Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
- World Economic Forum’s First Movers’ Coalition (FMC), is a public-private partnership that was launched in 2021 targeting companies’ procurement of near-zero-emissions goods across seven emissions-intensive sectors. FMC includes 102 global companies, each of which has committed to using its purchasing power to create markets in at least one of these sectors. So far, 27 companies have committed to the steel sector target and seven companies have committed to the cement/concrete sector target.
- The Climate Group’s SteelZero and ConcreteZero initiatives are corporate partnerships committed to using net-zero steel and low- and net-zero-emissions concrete (and effectively cement, as its key ingredient). SteelZero, launched in 2020, is a partnership with ResponsibleSteel and currently includes 42 companies. ConcreteZero, launched in 2022, is a partnership with WBCSD and WorldGBC and currently includes 36 companies.
- In the United States, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocated $4.5 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to purchase construction materials with “substantially lower embodied carbon” under the Federal Buy Clean Initiative. Between 2023 and 2024, GSA and FHWA published low-emissions benchmarks (see Table 2) based on EPA interim guidance. In late 2024, EPA announced a draft approach under its Carbon Labeling Program. While these steps laid the groundwork for Buy Clean implementation, the Trump administration has since directed agencies to disregard these priorities at the federal level. The future of U.S. involvement in international efforts like IDDI and FMC is uncertain, though states like California, Colorado and New York continue advancing their own Buy Clean policies.
- The European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) allows it to establish “ecodesign requirements” for iron, steel and other products beginning in 2025 based on sustainability characteristics, including product carbon footprints. Cement ecodesign requirements will be established through the EU Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and will guide the bloc’s development of mandatory green public procurement rules and incentives through the ESPR. However, it remains unclear how the ESPR will align or interact with international initiatives, such as the IDDI, or national efforts.
- Ireland enacted a policy in 2024 mandating green public procurement of cement and concrete. It requires the purchase of blended cements with at least a 30% of the clinker (the most emissions-intensive ingredient in cement and concrete) replaced with supplementary cementitious materials for all public construction. The mandate also requires cement and concrete EPDs to be submitted when bidding for public contracts. This is the first stage of a decades-long strategy to decarbonize the Irish cement and concrete sector.
- Türkiye started implementing a green public procurement program for cement in early 2025. The government has placed a limit on the amount of clinker allowed in cement used for public construction projects, requiring public contracts to use cement with 20% clinker replacement through 2029 and 25% clinker replacement from 2030.
These green procurement initiatives focus on product-level accounting. Green procurement policies that require project-level emissions accounting (which considers the whole construction project, and not just individual materials used) have been enacted in countries such as Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K. and Sweden.
As part of the SteelZero initiative, member organizations must make a public commitment to buying and using 100% net-zero steel by 2050 and an interim commitment to buy and use low-emission steel for 50% of their steel requirement by 2030. Photo by Anthony Fomin/Unsplash Comparing Benchmarks and Decarbonization Ambition of Product-Level ProgramsThe main product-level green procurement initiatives and policies for cement and steel come with varying definitions of the regulated material. They set different benchmarks for what is defined as “low-emissions” or “near-zero emissions.” They also differ in their emissions-intensity benchmarks; the technological readiness of decarbonization options that can meet these benchmarks; and their targeted share of total purchases (for example, how much of their total purchases need to be “green”).
Understanding these differences will help guide conversations about harmonizing standards as low-carbon products become more available.
Among the above initiatives, the FMC is most focused on spurring the adoption of cutting-edge decarbonization technologies in the industrial sector. FMC recruits cement- and steel-consuming companies with high climate ambition. All signatories commit to making sure that at least 10% of their cement, concrete and/or steel bought by 2030 qualifies as “near-zero” (benchmarks given in Table 1). The FMC’s high decarbonization benchmarks target a small portion of the market, requiring technologies and approaches that have significant decarbonization potential but are less developed and not yet ready for large scale deployment. The aim of such a program is to spur investment and help create early demand for near-zero emissions products, even if they currently come with a “green premium” due to higher production costs. Scaling these solutions will require strong policy support and investment to drive down costs over time.
IDDI aims to encourage widespread uptake of green public procurement policies in member countries by offering different levels of commitment with decreasing carbon-intensity benchmarks. It allows member countries four commitment levels: The first only requires data reporting, while subsequent levels require increasing use of low- and near-zero products. IDDI allows multiple options for target setting, including methodologies and benchmarks from IEA, Responsible Steel, FMC, SteelZero, ConcreteZero and national green labels. This enables countries to set targets based on nationally determined circumstances. As with FMC, products meeting higher levels of commitments will likely have a green premium.
SteelZero and ConcreteZero have less stringent benchmarks but aim for wider market penetration compared to FMC. They set interim targets to purchase 50% low-emissions steel and concrete by 2030, increasing to 100% net-zero products by 2050. These two initiatives offer companies more flexibility by allowing multiple pathways for certification, such as through ResponsibleSteel, SBTi or other related standards. Products meeting these benchmarks could have a green premium.
Table 1. Benchmarks and standards adopted by public and private procurement initiatives
Initiative/ PolicyType
Definitions & BenchmarksTargeted Share of Purchases FMCPublic/private
Near zero emissions steel: 50-400 kg CO2e/t.
Near zero emissions cement: 184 kg CO2/t.
Near zero emissions concrete: 70-144 kg CO2/m3.
10% by 2030IDDIPublicMultiple options including using IEA, Responsible Steel, FMC, SteelZero, ConcreteZero standards and national labels.
IEA:-
Low Emission Steel: 400 - 2400 kgCO2e/t crude steel
Low Emission Cement: 240 - 750 kgCO2e/t cement Near Zero Steel: 50 - 400 kgCO2e/t crude steel Near Zero Cement: 40 - 125 kgCO2e/t cement
Signatories to decideSteelZeroPrivateLow emission steel: 350-2000 kg CO2e/t.Net zero steel: As close to zero as possible.50% low emission by 2030
100% net zero by 2050ConcreteZeroPrivateLow embodied carbon concrete: 150-382 kg CO2/m3.
Net zero concrete: As close to zero as possible with at least 90% mitigation.30% low carbon by 2025
50% low carbon by 2030
100% net zero by 2050
Notes: Range for steel, cement and concrete depends on scrap share, clinker ratio and concrete compressive strength respectively. Source: Authors’ analysis
Table 2. Benchmarks and standards adopted by public procurement policies in various countries
Government or AgencyType of PolicyMaterialDefinitions & BenchmarksU.S. GSARecommendation/prioritySteel20th Percentile: 611-2,228 kgCO2e/t
40th Percentile: 713-2,324 kgCO2e/t
Better than Average: 760-2,408 kgCO2e/t
Cement20th Percentile: 0.751 kgCO2e/kg
40th Percentile: 0.819 kgCO2e/kg
Better Than Average: 0.858 kgCO2e/kg
Concrete20th Percentile: 228-321 kgCO2/m3*
40th Percentile: 261-362 kgCO2/m3*
Better Than Average: 277-402kgCO2/m3*
U.S. FHWARecommendation/priority
Steel
20th Percentile Unfabricated Reinforcing Bar: 0.614 kgCO2e/kg
40th Percentile Unfabricated Reinforcing Bar: 0.678 kgCO2e/kg
Better Than Average: 0.755 kgCO2e/kg
20th Percentile Unfabricated Hot-rolled Structural Sections: 0.713 kgCO2e/kg
40th Percentile Unfabricated Hot-rolled Structural Sections: 0.816 kgCO2e/kg
Better Than Average: 1 kgCO2e/kg
20th Percentile Steel Deck: 1.63 kgCO2e/kg
40th Percentile Steel Deck: 1.85 kgCO2e/kg
Better than Average Steel Deck: 2.32 kgCO2e/kg
Concrete20th Percentile: 146-406 kgCO2e/yd3**
40th Percentile: 168-448 kgCO2e/yd3**
Better than Average: 177-478 kgCO2e/yd3**
CaliforniaRecommendation/priority
Steel
Hot Rolled Structural Steel: 1.01 tCO2e/t
Hollow Structural Sections: 1.71 tCO2e/t
Steel Plate: 1.49 tCO2e/t
Concrete Reinforcing Steel: 0.755 tCO2e/t
ColoradoRecommendation/priority
Steel
Fabricated Steel Reinforcing Bar "Rebar": 1030 kgCO2e/t
Fabricated Hot-rolled Steel: 1,220 kgCO2e/t
Fabricated Plate Steel: 1,730 kgCO2e/t
Fabricated Hollow Structural Sections: 1,990 kgCO2e/t
CementCement: 1,112 kgCO2e/tConcreteConcrete: 232-580 kgCO2e/m3New YorkRecommendation/priorityConcreteConcrete: 275-541 kgCO2e/y3European UnionRecommendation/priority;
Green taxonomy/ labels
Steel, Cement/ConcreteTo be determined starting 2025 through ESPR and Industrial Decarbonization Accelerator ActIrelandMandateCementMaximum Clinker Content of Cement: 70%TürkiyeMandateCementMaximum Clinker Content of Cement: 80%Note: While standards created by the U.S. GSA and the FHWA were planned to be replaced by those adopted by the EPA, implementation of the Federal Buy Clean Initiative has been halted.
*Depending on compressive strength
**Depending on compressive strength and region
***Depending on share of scrap inputs
Comparing low-emissions benchmarks across public procurement policies is challenging due to differences in the types of goods covered, regional variation in raw material availability, and a lack of harmonized definitions and interoperability. Much of this stems from differences among product sub-types and categories, each with distinct characteristics, production processes and emissions profiles. The figure above uses U.S. federal and California Buy Clean policies as examples to illustrate how they compare with key green procurement initiatives.
Because these initiatives and policies target various levels of decarbonization and would require technologies at different stages of development, they can complement one another. For example, less stringent emissions-intensity benchmarks with a higher bar on market penetration can incentivize the adoption of technologies and approaches that are widely available today. Meanwhile, more stringent benchmarks can send signals that there is interest in deep decarbonization technologies in the industrial sector and help increase investment and development. By addressing different stages of decarbonization, this range of initiatives allows countries and companies to make commitments that best fit their circumstances.
Harmonizing StandardsThere is a need for harmonization, or alignment, in standards across these green procurement initiatives and policies. But that doesn’t mean we need a one-size-fits-all solution. We will likely need multiple standards and protocols to cover the types of production and varied manufacturing practices across the world.
What is important is that these standards are interoperable: Consistent methodologies for measurements and data reporting, as well as clear definitions for scopes and benchmarks, are needed to ensure standards speak a common language and help avoid an undue administrative burden on manufacturers. Lack of alignment could risk sending contradictory signals to the market, resulting in an uneven playing field and undercutting decarbonization efforts.
Below are several important considerations for harmonizing green procurement standards:
- Level of accounting: Initiatives need to be mindful of how different entities (such as the private and public sectors) account for and set targets for cement, concrete and steel emissions. Approaches include product-level, project-level, facility-level or industry-level accounting (i.e., whether the emissions benchmark is specific to the product, such as concrete; specific to a project that can include many materials; specific to individual facilities; or an industry average for the material). Many green procurement initiatives and policies launched in the last few years have targeted product-level accounting. However, project-level accounting, such as whole building life cycle assessments, will also be needed to decarbonize the cement and steel sectors. This type of project-level accounting is required within IDDI’s Level 2 requirements.
- Scope of coverage: Coherence is needed in the scope (i.e., boundary of emissions accounting) and type of GHG emissions accounted for in each initiative (e.g., only CO2, or other GHGs as well). Manufacturers supplying low-emissions products to government contractors and private companies need to be able to use the same methodologies to account for and report their emissions intensities.
- Reporting mechanism: Initiatives and policies should seek alignment in their measurement methodologies, data collection and reporting mechanisms to allow an apples-to-apples comparison. This could include things like harmonized product category rules and a common methodology for environmental product declarations. The International Energy Agency published a report in April 2023 outlining the robust emissions measurement and data collection methodologies that are critical for achieving net-zero in the steel industry. Initiatives like IDDI have also published guidance for harmonizing data reporting standards. For data reliability and interoperability, initiatives will need to ensure the type of accounting used in data reporting is transparently declared in a standardized, digital format.
- Definitions: Definitions of terms like “low-emissions,” “near-zero emissions” and “net-zero emissions” need to be consistent across initiatives and policies to avoid confusion and misalignment in targets. However, consistent definitions don’t need to constrain flexibility. Standards can be made flexible by setting ranges and categories for emissions-intensity benchmarks, such as the Global Cement and Concrete Association's (GCCA) Low Carbon Rating for Cement and Concrete.
So far, the standards implemented by international green procurement initiatives have focused on North American and European practices. However, most of the world’s cement and steel production and use currently takes place in Asia, and demand for these products is set to increase rapidly in Africa. Green procurement initiatives need to bring these regions and their standards into the mix for alignment to drive meaningful decarbonization across borders. The green taxonomies for industrial products being set by India and China can provide a foundation for green public procurement policies in these countries based on national circumstances.
Green procurement initiatives should also align with the standards being set by climate-related trade policies, such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and national green taxonomies to prevent duplicate efforts and the risk of contradictory signals.
Green procurement is emerging as a powerful lever to accelerate decarbonization in cement and steel by creating early demand for low- and near-zero emissions products. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives depends on aligning definitions, data standards and methodologies across countries and sectors. With the right coordination and support, green procurement can play a central role in catalyzing a low-carbon industrial transition globally.
green-procurement-steel-wri_joe-holland-unsplash.jpg Climate United States Climate infrastructure industry low carbon development Paying for Paris Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Ankita Gangotra Willy Carlsen Katie Lebling Kevin Kennedy John FeldmannCities Are Heating Up. Better Infrastructure Can Cool Them Down.
In a city, a grassy park might be a place to stretch out with a book, an asphalt road your route to work, a building wall a canvas for a mural. But beyond their familiar roles, each of these surfaces plays a critical and often unseen role in shaping urban heat.
Many cities are warming at twice the global rate — a problem that's only worsening with rapid urbanization. And while rising temperatures are a problem everywhere, some cities and neighborhoods (often the poorest and most vulnerable) swelter more than others.
The reason for this comes down to the urban environment. Built infrastructure like roads, buildings and sidewalks, as well as natural infrastructure like trees and water bodies, determines how heat moves through a city. In most cities, the abundance of dark, impervious surfaces, like asphalt, traps heat and drives temperatures up — contributing to the urban heat island effect.
But urban infrastructure can also be one of the most powerful tools to keep people cool, without relying on energy-hungry air conditioning. The key is focusing on "surface infrastructure" — the places where the physical city and the atmosphere interact. In fact, cities around the world are showing that seemingly simple changes to surfaces, like painting roofs white or planting trees, can have a surprisingly big impact on temperatures. It's a matter of knowing how and where to use these solutions.
White roofs, like this one on Milos Island, Greece, can keep people cool inside while lowering surrounding temperatures. Photo by photopoems/Shutterstock What Makes a City Hotter — or CoolerUrban infrastructure interacts with energy from the sun — reflecting it, absorbing it, transforming it, storing it — in ways that shape the experience of urban heat. Understanding and harnessing these mechanisms is key to designing cooler cities.
Surfaces can absorb or reflect heatWhen sunlight strikes a surface, one of two things happens: The energy is either absorbed or reflected. While energy that gets reflected back into the atmosphere doesn't cause warming, energy that is absorbed by surfaces is re-emitted as heat. Dark surfaces tend to absorb energy and elevate temperatures; white or reflective surfaces tend to have the opposite effect.
There's more than one way to measure heat. Looking at different metrics offers a more complete picture of how effective heat solutions are — from lowering the air temperature outside to changing how hot it feels.
Land surface temperature (LST) uses satellite data to measures the temperature of surfaces such as roofs, treetops and roads.
Air temperature is measured about two meters above the ground using combined data from various weather stations. This is the metric commonly seen in weather reports.
Heat index measures it feels like outside by adjusting air temperature based on humidity.
Wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) is similar to heat index, but considers direct sunlight and wind speed in addition to air temperature and humidity.
Universal thermal comfort index (UTCI) accounts for the combined effects of direct sunlight, reflected radiation, air temperature, wind level and humidity to accurately measure heat's impact on the human body.
Strategically increasing reflectivity (also known as "albedo") — for example, by painting rooftops or pavements light colors — can significantly decrease local temperatures. Phoenix has reduced surface temperatures by over 7 degrees C (12 degrees F) in some areas by adding reflective treatments to pavements. In the Almeria region of southern Spain, after farmers whitewashed their greenhouse roofs, local air temperature fell by about 1.6 degrees C (2.9 degrees F) compared to surrounding areas.
Cool roofs have the additional benefit of lowering indoor temperatures and reducing the need for air conditioning. In Malaysia, white roof tiles have reduced annual household energy use by 13%, bringing down power demand as well as energy costs.
Measuring land surface temperature can tell us how these interventions directly impact temperatures of surfaces, like roofs or roads. But measuring local air temperature also gives us important information about how reflective surfaces impact temperatures and people more broadly.
Shade offers instant reliefTrees, as well as structures like awnings, bus shelters and covered walkways, intercept sunlight and prevent it from being absorbed by the ground — or by people. This dramatically improves how hot it feels outside, creating a respite even on scorching days.
While increasing shade may seem obvious, the benefits can be staggering. One study found that tree shade can reduce surface temperatures by up to 25 degrees C (45 degrees F) compared to sunny, asphalt-paved areas. Cities are taking note: A community-led project in Freetown, Sierra Leone, planted more than 1 million trees over the last five years to combat rising temperatures.
Thermal comfort indices can be used to measure how shade (or the lack of it) affects people, providing guidance for where to plant trees and build shelter.
Green spaces cool the air by releasing waterA grassy park often feels noticeably cooler than a sunlit sidewalk. This is in part thanks to "evapotranspiration" — the process by which water moves from the land to the atmosphere, both through plant leaves and direct evaporation of water. Much like how sweating cools the human body, evapotranspiration draws heat from the surrounding environment and uses it to transform liquid water into vapor, lowering local air temperatures in the process.
This property, combined with the shade they provide, makes urban trees an especially powerful tool for mitigating heat. Moist surfaces like soil and open water bodies have a similar effect, known as evaporative cooling.
Cities can tap into these benefits through strategies like green roofs, green spaces and permeable pavements (which have gaps that allow water to evaporate). Medellín, Colombia, has managed to decrease its local air temperature by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) by creating a network of "green corridors" — trees and vegetation strategically planted along roads, paths and bike lanes and connecting green spaces throughout the city.
The flip side is that evaporation also increases humidity, which can compound the health risks of extreme heat. When evaluating these solutions, it's important to consider their impact on the heat index — a metric which combines air temperature and humidity — to more accurately assess how people feel outside.
'Thermal delay' shapes daytime and nighttime heatDifferent materials absorb and emit heat at different rates, which shapes urban temperature cycles. For example, asphalt warms dramatically during the day and releases that heat well into the night, keeping cities sweltering after the sun goes down.
Water bodies, on the other hand, can absorb and store significant amounts of heat without much change in temperature. This is why water stays cooler than the air when it's hot out — and why swimming is so refreshing on a summer day. During the day, air near the surface of a water body is cooled by the water and can be carried by breezes, lowering temperatures in nearby areas. At night, water releases only a small share of its stored heat very slowly, helping to avoid the high nighttime temperatures common in heavily built-up areas.
In 2005, Seoul, South Korea, demolished approximately 6 kilometers of elevated urban highway to uncover and restore the Cheonggyecheon Stream. After the project's completion, researchers compared air temperatures near the stream to those in a developed area four blocks away and found it was nearly 6 degrees C (over 10 degrees F) cooler by the stream. Not only that, but the revitalized waterway has boosted tourism, created green space for residents to enjoy and lent a massive boost to biodiversity.
While thermal delay affects temperatures day-to-day, it also moderates temperatures over longer periods — reducing the occurrence of either extreme heat or cold because of the slow, constant release of stored heat. This is a primary reason why coastal land areas have milder climates than inland areas. The cooling and moderating effects of thermal delay are best measured using air temperature.
The rehabilitated Cheonggyecheon Stream in Seoul, South Korea has lowered nearby temperatures while creating new green space for residents to enjoy. Photo by Daniel Gauthier/iStock Matching Solutions with Cities' Cooling GoalsEach one of these infrastructure solutions offers value on its own. But to achieve broader or more complex goals — like reducing overall energy demand or keeping pedestrians and transit riders safe during heat waves — cities will often need a multi-pronged approach. By understanding the relationships between goals, heat metrics, cooling mechanisms and infrastructure solutions, cities can make more meaningful progress against extreme heat.
For example, a city might aim to lower overall temperatures while also keeping people cool in areas with high pedestrian traffic. To accomplish this, it could blend broad and localized strategies: A citywide effort to implement cool roofs and cool pavements would increase reflectivity across large surface areas, helping to reduce heat absorption and bring down air temperatures for the whole city. In neighborhoods with high pedestrian exposure — such as commercial corridors or transit hubs — incorporating more trees or shade structures could measurably reduce people's heat exposure and health risks as they go about their days.
This kind of tiered strategy allows cities to deliver both widespread heat hazard reduction and immediate relief in the places people need it most.
Explore the grid below to see how different infrastructure solutions can be combined to meet various resilience and health goals.
Heat Goals, Explained
- [Read more]
Cool people outdoors: Provide significant site- or corridor-specific reduction in thermal stress, as measured by thermal comfort indices like the universal thermal comfort index.
Lower area-wide temperatures: Reduce air temperatures across a large area throughout the day.
Flatten peak temperatures: Reduce air temperatures in the hottest period of the day across a neighborhood or city.
Reduce nighttime temperatures: Reduce nighttime minimum temperatures across a neighborhood or city. Particularly relevant for providing relief from heat stress during multi-day heatwaves.
Reduce surface temperatures: Reduce the absorption of heat by surfaces in the urban environment, as measured by land surface temperature.
Cool without adding humidity: Reduce air temperatures without contributing additional humidity to the urban environment, to manage the heat burden of an area as defined by heat index. Particularly relevant in areas with high baseline humidity during the warmest seasons.
Cool without water: Reduce the temperature of an area without requiring additional water resources. Particularly relevant in arid or water stressed regions.
Reduce indoor heat: Reduce the heat absorbed by buildings to reduce indoor air temperatures and thermal stress.
Reduce energy consumption: Reduce the heat absorbed by buildings in order to decrease energy demand for cooling the buildings.
Heat is a universal challenge — but mitigating it offers cities an opportunity to respond with creativity and local insight. Each built environment is unique, and each piece of infrastructure can either exacerbate heat or help reduce it.
The solutions listed here offer a flexible toolkit. By understanding how sunlight interacts with the urban landscape and intentionally using infrastructure to influence these interactions, cities can achieve clear, measurable goals for urban heat resilience and protect their residents in a warming world.
To learn more, see WRI's Urban Heat and Passive Cooling initiative.
The graphics in this article were produced by Sara Staedicke.
city-street-shade-sails.jpg Cities Cities Buildings Urban Development Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Elizabeth Jane Wesley Eric Mackres Kurt Shickman Eillie Anzilotti Madeline PalmieriFarmers Restore the ‘Cradle of Mankind’ in Kenya’s Greater Rift Valley
Every morning, Joyce Muthoni steps onto her farm in central Kenya with quiet determination. She moves from tree to tree — pruning, weeding, checking the soil — nurturing each seedling. Muthoni’s farm is a vibrant mix of crops and native trees, from maize and macadamia nuts to tree tomatoes, plums, loquats and over 60 avocado trees. This rich diversity has helped improve her farm’s soil health and boosted harvests. She now grows enough fruits and vegetables to both eat and sell at the local market, providing a steady income for her family.
But this is just the beginning of her day. Later, she travels deep into the nearby Kieni Forest, her hands in the earth once more. She works alongside other women in her local Community Forest Association (CFA) to care for young saplings they’ve planted, destined to become the forest’s future canopy.
Joyce Muthoni, a farmer with KENVO, at her farm in Kieni, Kenya. Photo by Prowl Limited/WRINestled in central Kenya, Kieni Forest is a lifeline for the surrounding community. For many, it offers opportunities to earn a living through ecotourism, conservation, small-scale farming, tree nurseries and sustainable timber harvesting of pine and cypress trees. Kieni is also the origin of several rivers, including the Kariminu, which supplies water to homes and farms. The forest’s many indigenous trees — including Prunus Africana, Olea Africana and others — provide cooling shade, nurture the soil and provide resilience against a changing climate.
Muthoni is more than a farmer; she is a custodian of ecological knowledge passed down through generations — learnings she now shares with her three grandchildren. She understands the rhythms of the land, the soil, the seasons, and the native species that once thrived there. She’s also part of Restore Local, a growing movement taking root to restore forests and degraded landscapes in Kenya’s Greater Rift Valley.
“I saw an opportunity not just to restore our land, but also revive our livelihoods,” said Muthoni. “Today, I guide others to restore the forest — because trees bring in rain, clean air and resilience in the face of climate change.”
A Changing Landscape in Kenya’s Greater Rift ValleyStretching across Kenya like a vast green artery, the Greater Rift Valley is one of the country’s most ecologically and culturally significant landscapes. It harbors an extraordinary array of ecosystems, from lush tropical rainforests and freshwater lakes to savannah and woodlands. The area teems with wildlife — particularly the famous “Big Five” of Africa: lions, buffalo, elephants, leopards and rhinoceros. The region is often referred to as the “cradle of mankind,” a landscape vital in the study of human and species evolution.
Yet even with its rich ecological and cultural heritage, the Greater Rift Valley faces growing threats. More than 30% of Kenya’s land mass is degraded. This causes a chain reaction of challenges from reduced agricultural productivity to water insecurity that cost the country at least 3% in GDP per year.
Things are especially severe in the Greater Rift Valley. Years of deforestation, unsustainable land use and changing climate patterns have depleted the land and affected livelihoods. Forests and biodiversity have disappeared in some places. Degraded soils can’t support the abundance of plants they once did. Crop harvests grow more uncertain.
But hope is taking root through local restoration champions like Muthoni.
Restore Local Takes Hold in Kenya’s Greater Rift ValleyMany land restoration projects are top-down, led by international NGOs or government agencies. WRI’s Restore Local initiative changes the model by putting local communities at the heart of restoration. Research shows restoration projects led by locals like small farmers and business owners are 6-20 times more likely to yield benefits to communities than those carried out by larger entities.
And the benefits are many. Restoring degraded landscapes through tree-planting, sustainable farming and other practices can boost food production, grow farmers’ incomes, provide clean water and mitigate disasters like droughts, floods and rising heat.
So far, Restore Local has invested in 44 institutions made up of farmers, small business owners and community groups in the Greater Rift Valley. The project provides capacity building, targeted financing, effective monitoring and policy support to “restoration champions.” The impact is already visible: Champions have planted 3.5 million trees in the region, with a target of planting 5.9 million and restoring 4,700 hectares of degraded land in the Greater Rift Valley. Their approaches and the benefits they accrue vary, but their efforts all add up to one central goal: revitalizing the world’s cradle of civilization.
David Wamuya of Afrex Gold Limited holds up an avocado sapling at one of the company’s tree nurseries. Photo by Third Factor Production/WRI Meet the Greater Rift Valley’s ‘Restoration Champions’In Nakuru, Kenya, Wezesha Community Based Organization is working closely with local farmers to restore their degraded farms. “When we first came here, the land was dry and bare, and crops were failing,” said Redempta Mutisia of Wezesha. “But we saw potential in the land and set out to bring it back to life.”
Farmers at a Wezesha tree nursery. Photo by Prowl Limited/WRIThe Many Benefits of Restoring Kenya’s Greater Rift Valley
Restoring the Greater Rift Valley could unlock wide-reaching environmental, social and economic benefits, including:
1) Food security: Restoring land supports soil health, reduces erosion and boosts crop yields, bringing greater food stability.
2) Improved livelihoods: Restoration creates jobs in tree nurseries, agroforestry, tourism and conservation. For women and youth in the Greater Rift Valley, restoration offers dignified income and greater participation in natural resource governance.
3) Improve water quality and quantity: Reforesting water catchment areas and rehabilitating degraded watersheds can improve the flow and quality of freshwater to lakes, rivers and springs.
4) Biodiversity: Restoring land creates conditions for native plants, animals and microorganisms to thrive.
5) Economic development: Degraded lands cost Kenya billions annually. Land restoration can boost economic returns by improving agricultural productivity, supporting biodiversity and ecotourism and creating jobs. It can also reduce economic costs by mitigating floods, droughts and other disasters.
6) Climate resilience and carbon sequestration: Restoration buffers communities from climate shocks like droughts and floods while capturing carbon through trees and soil.
Wezesha trains farmers on agroforestry techniques, which integrate trees alongside crops and animal husbandry. The community group emphasizes the value of growing diverse trees and crops as opposed to monocultures, which supports biodiversity, improves soil health and boosts farm yields. To date, Wezesha has worked with farmers to grow over 500,000 tree seedlings, including avocadoes, citrus fruits, cypress trees, Olea Africana and other species.
“In a few years, the land will be beautiful, and the birds will come singing again,” said Redempta.
Afrex Gold helps local farmers plant avocado trees on their farms. Farmers plant the avocado alongside subsistence crops. Most of them eventually fully dedicate sections of their farms to growing avocado trees, which fetch a high price. Afrex Gold supplies farmers with quality seedlings, trainings and access to markets via their own packing facility in Thika. Once avocados are ready for harvest, farmers sell their produce directly to Afrex Gold at pre-agreed rates. This eliminates intermediaries such as brokers and middlemen, allowing farmers to earn a reliable and fair income.
With the financial support received from Restore Local’s TerraFund, Afrex Gold has expanded its nursery and now produces 50,000 seedlings annually, distributed to farmers across the region.
“Since Afrex Gold introduced this initiative here, soil erosion has gone down, our avocado trees are doing well, and we are also able to improve our livelihoods from selling the fruit,” said Julius Muli, one of the business’s partner farmers.
Paran Women’s Group is a collective of 64 Indigenous women’s groups based in Ololunga, Kenya. They are working to restore degraded lands in and around the Mau Forest, one of Kenya’s most vital ecological assets and the largest of the country’s five main water towers. In addition to feeding major rivers and lakes, the Mau Forest regulates river flows, mitigates floods, prevents soil erosion and supports groundwater recharge. Paran Women’s Group blends ancestral wisdom with modern restoration efforts in conserving and restoring it.
“We have been able to restore 100 hectares of degraded lands in our community, leveraging intergenerational transfer of indigenous knowledge,” said Naiyan Kiplagat, the group’s founder. Paran has also distributed 70,000 seedlings to 3,000 women and is on track to plant 150,000 trees by the end of 2025. Women — most of them from the Masai and Ogiek Indigenous communities —are able to sell fruits and other goods that the trees produce, in addition to their traditional livelihoods as pastoralists.
Members of the Paran Women Group at one of their restoration sites on the slopes of the Mau Forest. Photo by Third Factor Production/WRI Restoration WorksAs birds return to reforested hillsides, as farmers harvest stronger crops, and as water once again flows through dry riverbeds, the message is clear: When we restore nature, we restore our livelihoods and ourselves.
But no single actor can do this alone. To scale and sustain these successes, restoration champions need continued support from governments, the private sector, civil society, communities and funders. It will take a united effort to restore millions of hectares, strengthen rural economies, and secure a better future for generations to come.
The Afrex Gold team at their avocado processing plant in Thika, Kenya. Photo by Third Factor Production/WRI“Restoration is not just about recovering what was lost; it’s about reimagining what is possible,” said Wanjira Mathai, WRI’s Managing Director for Africa and Global Partnerships. “It’s about dignity, opportunity and resilience rooted in the land. The champions we work with are lighting the path forward. Our role is to ensure that path becomes a highway, wide enough for millions to walk.”
Watch the videos below or on Youtube to meet the Greater Rift Valley’s champions and see their impact firsthand.
women-planting-trees.jpg Forest and Landscape Restoration Kenya restoration agriculture Food Forests biodiversity Climate Resilience Type Vignette Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Christine MboyaSTATEMENT: 8 African Nations Commit to 100% Sustainable Ocean Management
YAOUNDÉ (July 11, 2025) – Yesterday, eight African nations — Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and Nigeria — adopted the Yaoundé Declaration, committing to sustainably manage 100% of ocean areas under their national jurisdiction by 2030. The commitment was made at the International Conference on the Blue Economy in the Gulf of Guinea, held in Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Through the regional declaration, the eight countries have pledged to develop and implement Sustainable Ocean Plans (SOPs) that will guide the sustainable use, protection, and restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems. Other commitments will seek to tackle Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU) and strengthen marine security.
Following is a statement from Wanjira Mathai, Director of WRI Africa:
“The ocean is one interconnected system that spans beyond national borders, and governments must manage it that way. The Yaoundé Declaration is a powerful signal of regional leadership, showing that countries across the Gulf of Guinea are not just willing, but determined to build a sustainable, inclusive blue economy together.
“With the Our Ocean Conference coming to Kenya next year, this commitment sets the tone for African leadership on the global stage. Transboundary cooperation like this also helps shift African wisdom, solutions and priorities to the forefront, steering ambitious, homegrown answers to ocean challenges.
Following is a statement from Cynthia Barzuna, Deputy Director of WRI’s Ocean Program:
“The Gulf of Guinea is one of the world’s richest marine ecosystems — a lifeline for millions who rely on it for food and jobs. But it’s under siege from climate change, pollution, and overfishing. The Sustainable Ocean Plans these countries will develop offer a clear, actionable blueprint to manage 100% of their waters, balancing protection, prosperity and resilience.
“This commitment positions the Gulf of Guinea as a driving force in a global wave for ocean sustainability. It directly aligns with the goal of Ocean Panel, a coalition of 18 countries working towards 100% sustainable management of national waters. The Panel pioneered the concept of Sustainable Ocean Plans and, through the 100% Alliance, is urging all coastal and ocean states to follow suit.”
Editor’s note: WRI serves as Secretariat of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy — a group of 18 heads of state and government from countries committed to sustainably managing 100% of their national waters by 2030 — and coordinates the 100% Alliance, a global initiative co-led by Chile and France that encourages all other coastal and island countries to make that same commitment.
Grounding Global Water Risk Assessments in Local Data
More companies are assessing water risks, either voluntarily or in response to regulatory requirements. However, navigating the complex and diverse water challenges across global portfolios while under pressure from external stakeholders is complex. Global-level data is useful for a broad view, yet assessing water risks effectively also requires local insights.
Companies rely on tools like Aqueduct’s Water Risk Atlas to identify which parts of their operations and value chain face significant water risks. Aqueduct’s indicators are based on peer-reviewed, open-source, globally consistent data and methods, allowing for global benchmarking and screening. Water risks in Chicago can be directly compared to water risks in Cape Town and Cairo, all at the click of a button.
However, it’s important to recognize that Aqueduct presents a high-level view, not a ground truth assessment of water risks. Once global data is collected, companies should validate the results internally through staff conversations and externally through outreach as they finalize their priorities.
WRI partnered with Unilever to share a few real-world examples of how Unilever enhanced its water stewardship prioritization exercise by complementing the global Aqueduct results with targeted local feedback and insights.
Bridging the Global-to-Local GapA prioritization exercise is an essential part of the water stewardship journey. It helps companies make informed decisions on where to act, given that water is local and companies cannot act everywhere.
In Unilever’s case, the company must assess more than 300 production sites, offices and warehouses across 100 countries. It’d be nearly impossible for Unilever to run a water risk assessment of this scale using only local data. It could lead to data quality issues, data definition discrepancies and even data scarcity. By using Aqueduct’s global indicators, Unilever can spend fewer resources assessing water risks and more resources on taking action.
After this first step, Unilever contacts facility managers whose sites fall within a high-risk sub-basin, giving them the opportunity to provide feedback. If a manager disputes the water stress status — for example, if the Aqueduct data doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground — Unilever often brings in expert consultants to investigate the location using local data, such as details on the facility’s water source, provider and key water infrastructure.
When Global and Local Data AlignUsing Aqueduct’s Baseline Water Stress (BWS) indicator, which measures the competition over water resources, Unilever found that the global results resonated with local understanding the vast majority of the time. This holds true across different geographies and levels of water stress.
Unilever found that on sites exposed to Aqueduct’s most extreme water stress — where water demand outpaces natural replenishment — facility managers felt the challenge on the ground.
For example, in Konya, Turkey, Aqueduct showed extremely high levels of water stress, and local staff confirmed this challenge.
Turkey is a highly water-stressed country. It’s been plagued by recurring droughts in recent years that have impacted both people and nature. In Konya, competition over water resources is extremely high. Agriculture uses around 90%, leaving very little for domestic and industrial demand. According to Aqueduct, water demand exceeds the renewable, available water supply for three months of the year.
Unilever found through ground truthing that the region faces major water challenges, including sharply declining groundwater tables, erosion and even sinkholes in the landscape. This kind of corroborating local feedback, and alignment between global and on-the-ground data, reinforces the site’s priority status and creates momentum for action internally throughout the company, from the management team to the local facility team.
When Global and Local Data MismatchDespite its utility, a global model will never replace local knowledge. Aqueduct’s indicators are built using global assumptions, resulting in unique limitations that users must consider when evaluating the data. Specifically, Aqueduct is limited in its ability to model the local management of water.
Unilever found through its validation process with site managers that for a few facilities, the lived experience is different from what Aqueduct’s Baseline Water Stress indicator reported.
Reporting water stress in freshwater-abundant areasAqueduct reported high water stress in a few sub-basins next to the Great Lakes in North America — a region with abundant freshwater. How is this possible? This mismatch is due to how Aqueduct allocates water supply from Lake Michigan, routing water through natural discharge points rather than the human-made intake points.
To begin with, water demand is extremely high in the region. Illinois ranks as the fourth largest industrial water user in the world.
However, high water demand does not necessarily mean high water stress. In the case of the Great Lakes, human engineering enables water users to access its supply from multiple intake locations across the shoreline — a dynamic that no global hydrological model can capture because there is no global dataset on the human transfer and management of water.
Instead, Aqueduct models the outflow from Lake Michigan through the drainage network based on elevation data. In Unilever’s case, we found that Aqueduct models the outflow from Lake Michigan through the sub-basin adjacent to where it operates.
Because Aqueduct only uses a sub-basin's internal water supply to calculate its risk, agnostic to what neighboring basins have, Unilever’s resulting water stress score is high. Based on feedback from the local facility manager and consultations with the Aqueduct team, Unilever removed the facility from their prioritization exercise but kept it on the list for regulatory disclosures for consistency.
Reporting water abundance in areas of high stressIn a sub-basin near São Paulo in Brazil, Unilever encountered a different kind of discrepancy. This time, the local facility managers disagreed with Aqueduct’s low water stress result. They reported to Unilever’s sustainability team that the facility experienced water shortages in the past and had even resorted to trucking in water at times.
Indeed, São Paulo and its surrounding area have faced many water challenges in recent years. In 2014, the city nearly ran out of water. A major driver of the region’s water stress is poor water quality, something not captured by Aqueduct’s indicator. If the water is too polluted to use, then there will be less water available to use than Aqueduct models suggest. As a result, local water stress will be intensified.
In this area, water quality issues are largely driven by land degradation. Forests, for example, help to filter out pollutants, reduce heat and stabilize rainfall and soil moisture. Unfortunately, over three-quarters of the forest in São Paulo’s headwaters have been lost.
Compounding the water quality issue are large water transfers to the city of São Paulo, which are not modeled by Aqueduct.
Unilever understood that information shouldn’t only flow from the sustainability team to local facilities. Rather, the company took the local reports seriously and commissioned a regional analysis through external consultants to better understand the water challenges and potential solutions. As a result, Unilever added this facility to its prioritization exercise.
How to Reflect Local Realities in Water Risk AssessmentsUnilever’s case study shows that integrating local feedback into global risk assessments helps the company manage water risks more effectively by improving the prioritization process. Here are our key takeaways for companies to enhance their global water risk assessments with local feedback to ensure they reflect real-world conditions on the ground:
1) Use global data as a starting pointAfter using Aqueduct to run a water risk assessment, use the results to start conversations with your facility managers and other internal stakeholders. Allow information to flow in all directions. Create a list of locations to investigate for further analysis. These may include:
- Places with the highest levels of risk.
- Places with high risk and high business materiality metrics, such as financial value or product volume.
- Places where the Aqueduct result does not align with the local perception, whether it's an overestimation or underestimation of risk.
Clearly document all conversations, sources and research used to supplement the Aqueduct indicator. This is especially important when reporting to regulatory disclosure frameworks.
3) Review and revise oftenWater stewardship is an iterative process. Periodically check in on your priority sites (or potential priority sites) to assess whether any should be reclassified based on changing conditions. For example, a water risk assessment should be rerun when Aqueduct is updated every few years or when a company adds new facilities.
4) Communicate and share internally and externallyAt its core, water stewardship must be a collaborative exercise. The more companies talk publicly and share experiences with global-to-local data integration, the faster the community can connect, learn from one another and work toward water-secure outcomes. Communication should happen both internally and externally. Internally, communicate with teams outside the sustainability department, such as procurement, to enhance corporation action. Externally, share lessons with peer organizations and others operating in priority locations to foster collective action.
Using the Data for the Right PurposeThe integration of global and local data can strengthen the prioritization exercise, enrich the narrative and generate buy-in, ultimately improving the company’s water stewardship interventions.
What’s important is understanding how to supplement global data with local knowledge and understanding, whether you are using Aqueduct or any other global data product. Global data is a good place to start, but real change on the ground cannot be achieved without ground truth data.
global-water-risk-in-local-data.jpg Freshwater data Aqueduct drought Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Samantha Kuzma Marc Dettmann Lourens MeijerHow Advanced Transmission Technologies Can Revamp the Aging US Power Grid
The North American power grid is often referred to as “the world’s largest machine.” What may appear to be a haphazard collection of power plants and lines is actually an interconnected, highly engineered system of three networks stretching millions of miles across southern Canada and the continental United States. Its operators perform miracles every day, instantaneously connecting electricity supply from thousands of power plants with the demands of over 400 million people. Amazingly, this machine is 99.95% reliable; the average U.S. customer loses power only twice a year for a total of five hours.
However, 70% of the grid is over 50 years old, and it’s being tested in unprecedented ways. The American Society of Power Engineers gave the U.S. grid a grade of C- in its 2021 report card. Energy demand is growing for the first time in decades, spurred by resurgent manufacturing (much of which was spurred by investments in the Inflation Reduction Act), rapacious data center growth (largely due to artificial intelligence), and nascent electrification of industries once built on fossil fuels, such as the shift from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles. Meanwhile, increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events have battered the grid in recent years, costing consumers billions in extra energy expenses.
To safely and affordably meet increased electricity demand while decarbonizing the grid, we must build new high-voltage long-distance transmission lines (HVTLs). But this won’t happen overnight: New HVTLs take an average of 10 years to build and cost an average of $1 million per mile. Meanwhile, electricity customers nationwide paid $11.5 billion in congestion costs in 2023 — nearly double the amount they paid in 2020. Congestion occurs when there is not enough transmission capacity to deliver the cheapest sources of electricity, and higher-cost resources must be dispatched instead to meet demand.
The U.S. power grid needs help. Advanced transmission technologies are an important part of the solution.
High-voltage long-distance transmission lines are spread across a wind farm in Altamont Pass, Calif. By deploying advanced transmission technologies, the U.S. can expand and modernize the power grid. Photo by B. Christopher / Alamy Stock Photo. What Are Advanced Transmission Technologies?Advanced transmission technologies are a promising set of tools that can be used to quickly and cheaply expand the capacity and improve the operation of the existing grid. The category includes both grid enhancing technologies that can be installed on top of the existing grid, as well as advanced conductors that can replace and increase the capacity of existing lines. These technologies are well-tested and have already been widely deployed across the world.
Despite their “advanced” label, many advanced transmission technologies are surprisingly simple in concept. Take improvements to the line ratings for example: To limit the risk of overheating, transmission lines have historically been rated “statically,” meaning they only transmit power up to a threshold, conservatively set to be safe under the hottest conditions (when lines are unable to carry as much power as when it's cooler).
However, colder temperatures and higher winds actively cool transmission lines and therefore allow them to safely carry more power than their static line rating would suggest. This means that almost all statically-rated lines could be transmitting at least 10% more capacity 90% of the time. When simple sensors are installed, new “dynamic” line ratings (DLRs) can be adjusted in real time as wind and temperature shifts, allowing around 30% to 50% more power to be transmitted in favorable climates.
Other advanced transmission technologies use complex technologies to improve grid efficiency. For example, advanced power flow control devices (APFCs) allow grid operators to control how power is flowing across the grid by changing the resistances of different power pathways. Electricity, like water, flows along the path of least resistance. Building on this analogy, The WATT Coalition describes APFCs as “partial dams” which can be used to redirect “water” (power) across different channels, ensuring that more of the grid is used efficiently. APFCs boost overall system capacity and reduce congestion costs.
What Are the Benefits to Scaling Advanced Transmission Technologies?Perhaps the greatest advantage of advanced transmission technologies is that they can be deployed in a fraction of the time it takes to build new transmission lines. On the shorter end, DLR projects take an average of only three months to complete. Even more ambitious projects, like converting a line so that it transports direct current power instead of alternating current power, can triple the capacity of an existing line in half the time it takes to build a new line.
Secondly, advanced transmission technologies are cheaper to build than new transmission lines and unlock far more economic benefits than costs. Upgrading transmission lines with new, higher capacity advanced conductors can provide similar gains in capacity compared with building new transmission lines, yet they can be anywhere from five to 10 times cheaper per-mile. Grid enhancing technologies like DLR can provide an even greater cost-benefit return. In 2018, the Midwestern utility AEP spent $500,000 to install DLR on 25 miles of its lines. In only 10 months of monitoring, the system saved more than $15 million in congestion costs, providing a whopping 30 to 1 benefit-cost ratio in less than a year of operation.
Finally, advanced transmission technologies can improve reliability and public safety by reducing the likelihood of grid failures and wildfires. Take DLR, for example: On our warming planet, temperatures may sometimes be hotter than the ones used to conservatively set static line ratings. Whereas static lines will maintain line current even in high heat, lines with DLR will sense the extreme weather and lower current, reducing the risk of the line sagging into vegetation and igniting a fire. Advanced conductors also mitigate wildfire risk by reducing sag, while APFC systems can help quickly deenergize parts of the grid when needed.
Though the study of advanced transmission technologies for wildfire mitigation is an emerging field, governments are already recognizing their potential. For example, Utah’s recently passed HB 212 directs utilities to study advanced transmission technologies for their wildfire mitigation potential as part of the utilities’ integrated resource plans.
What Progress Is Being Made to Implement Advanced Transmission Technologies?Hundreds of utilities have already deployed advanced transmission technologies successfully in the U.S. Survey studies compiled by the Idaho National Laboratory for grid enhancing technologies and advanced conductors attest to their high benefit-cost ratios, ease of implementation and quick payback periods. To date, most of the advanced transmission technology projects undertaken by U.S. utilities have been voluntary and limited in scope. However, there are hopeful signs that U.S. policymakers are beginning to recognize the potential of advanced transmission technologies to meet our grid challenges quickly and cost-effectively and will enact legislation to make them more widespread.
Policy activity on advanced transmission technologies has been particularly robust at the state level. Since 2023, more than 10 states governed by both Republicans and Democrats have adopted advanced transmission technology legislation. Proving momentum, in 2025 alone, 17 states saw the introduction of related bills. These bills primarily work by requiring utilities and other transmission owners to study advanced transmission technologies as alternatives to building new lines. For example, South Carolina’s recently passed H 3309 requires utilities to assess advanced transmission technologies as solutions for transmission needs within their integrated resource planning process.
Activity at the national level is happening as well. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) last June that included a framework for requiring DLR on transmission lines. This has received broad support in comments from consumer advocate groups, utilities and grid operators. Supporters of a DLR requirement argue that such a regulation is necessary to secure “just and reasonable” electricity rates — core to FERC’s mandate — because of the cost savings that DLR unlocks for consumers.
What Are the Major Barriers to Deployment and How Can We Overcome Them?Advanced transmission technologies have not been widely deployed in the U.S., and many utilities, regulators, policymakers and consumers remain unaware of their benefits. Requirements to study advanced transmission technologies in utility proceedings such as integrated resource plans and (including those recently passed by Indiana and Ohio) will help to raise awareness of their benefits while giving advocates greater leverage to push for their adoption. and Ohio) will help to raise awareness of their benefits while giving advocates greater leverage to push for their adoption.
Governors can also work to encourage adoption. In 2023, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey convened a working group to study advanced transmission technologies and make recommendations for their adoption in New England. Governors can also include them in their budget requests, as New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham did in the 2026 budget by calling for a $1 million grid modernization grant program.
Ironically, the low costs of advanced transmission technologies, which make them such promising tools to quickly meet grid challenges, are also a barrier to their implementation. Simply put, they don’t make utilities as much money. Under traditional “cost of service” business models, regulated utilities are allowed to recover their capital costs plus an allowed rate of return through electricity prices.
As several advocates have pointed out, this incentive structure means that utilities can make more money by pursuing capital-intensive projects like new transmission lines over cheaper advanced transmission technology projects. Furthermore, these projects are not yet eligible for cost recovery in some states, meaning utilities aren’t able to profit from deploying advanced transmission technologies. Things are slowly changing, however; recent bills passed in Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Indiana have authorized cost recovery for these technologies.
Reforming outdated business models should be considered to spur adoption. One such proposal called “shared savings” would allow utilities to recoup some of the savings that result from projects in their electricity rates. Another policy idea, called performance-based ratemaking, would tie utility profits to meeting certain performance targets that incentivize advanced transmission technologies — for example, a target to increase the amount of power a utility can carry on its existing system. Finally, shifting from incentivizing to explicitly requiring utilities to deploy advanced transmission technologies in the public interest, as FERC did with the DLR ANOPR, is another way to deploy these technologies at scale.
A Critical InvestmentAt a time when customers face rising energy bills and terawatts of clean energy languish in queues to interconnect to the grid because of a lack of grid capacity, advanced transmission technologies represent our best hope for quickly and cost-effectively reducing the pressure on our grid. These technologies are essential complements to new lines and must at least be considered by utilities and regulators when they review proposals to increase transmission capacity.
In the U.S., momentum is growing to deploy advanced transmission technologies at scale, and an abundance of evidence shows that these technologies are safe, effective and affordable. Let us build on this momentum to secure the prosperous clean energy future we all deserve.
WRI's Ian Goldsmith contributed to this report.
advanced-transmission-technologies.jpg Energy U.S. Energy U.S. Energy Topics electric grid Clean Energy U.S. Climate Policy-Clean Power Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Joe HackInvestors Look to Nature to Shield Against Growing Financial Risks
Since the start of 2025, a quiet yet profound shift has begun to reshape global finance. In January, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, publicly acknowledged that "nature capital" — including biodiversity, water, soil and geology — plays a vital role in sustaining long-term corporate performance. For the first time at this scale, natural capital is being treated not as an externality but as a core asset class.
BlackRock isn't the only one. In early March, Goldman Sachs Asset Management introduced its Biodiversity Bond Fund: a groundbreaking fixed-income instrument dedicated to financing biodiversity protection and restoration.
Just weeks later, Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, which manages $1.6 trillion in assets, released an assessment of nature-related risks across approximately 90% of its portfolio, examining how investee companies both depend on and impact ecosystems.
These developments reflect a growing consensus among financial institutions: The current finance system must be reshaped to account for the foundational role of nature.
Putting Nature on the Balance SheetNature is disappearing at a staggering rate. The latest Living Planet Report revealed that wildlife populations plummeted by more than 70% on average over the last 50 years. Forests, the ocean and other critical ecosystems are in peril due to human-driven destruction and climate change. This collapse of natural systems can have devastating consequences both locally and globally, from the disappearance of fisheries and loss of coastal livelihoods to large-scale food system disruptions, natural disasters and economic instability.
Yet despite these growing risks, much of the financial system still prioritizes short-term returns, often at the expense of long-term environmental and economic resilience. As a result, capital continues to flow toward activities that overtax and degrade ecosystems (think: overfishing, unsustainable logging or razing rainforests for agriculture). In 2022, the private sector invested at least $5 trillion in activities that directly harm nature. This was 140 times more than it spent on nature-positive activities, according to the UN Environment Programme.
Even sustainable finance largely passes over nature. While green bonds are a growing asset class, the majority of proceeds are directed toward climate-related projects, with relatively few allocated to biodiversity.
But this status quo cannot hold in the face of ongoing ecosystem decline. With over half of global GDP highly dependent on nature, the risks are not just environmental — they are financial.
From a long-term investment standpoint, failing to account for nature degradation exposes portfolios to escalating material risks and jeopardizes future growth and revenue. One recent study finds that a collapse in key ecosystem services like wild pollination, marine fisheries and timber provision could result in annual economic losses of $2.7 trillion (2.3% of global GDP) by 2030. Another found that physical nature risks could reduce the valuations of seven major U.K. banks by 4%-5% over the next decade.
Financial institutions are also under mounting scrutiny thanks to emerging regulations — such as the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and EU Taxonomy — that mandate the disclosure of nature- and climate-related risks. The cost and consequences of noncompliance are rising and are becoming financially material.
As the financial sector begins to reckon with these risks, growing recognition of nature's value by influential players like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs signals that the tide is turning. Now, mainstream financial institutions must build on this momentum — leveraging their roles as lenders, investors, insurers and advisers to actively steer capital away from nature-destructive activities. A critical first step is to begin accounting for nature on the balance sheet.
Ecosystem services like pollination, healthy soils and water regulation underpin much of the global economy. Photo by Lakshmi Narasimha/Unsplash Nature-Based Solutions: A Strategic Response to Growing Nature RisksThere are two powerful ways that banks, asset managers, insurers and other financial actors can drive meaningful change for nature.
For one, financial institutions can act as direct drivers of sustainable finance by allocating capital to initiatives that protect, enhance or restore ecosystems. This includes direct investments in nature-based initiatives through dedicated funds (like Mirova's Natural Capital Fund) or investing in companies that embed nature-positive practices (such as regenerative agriculture) into their operations and supply chains.
Second, financial institutions can help enable broader, system-level change through their financing decisions. For instance, banks could divest from companies that fail to comply with regulations such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Or they could deploy financing structures that reward nature-friendly business models — from sustainability-linked loans to performance-based finance. In doing so, financial institutions can help reshape markets and realign incentives to favor long-term ecological and economic resilience.
In this context, "nature-based solutions" offer a powerful tool for the finance sector. Nature-based solutions are actions that leverage healthy ecosystems to address some of today's most pressing issues, such as climate change and disaster risk, while also benefitting people and nature. This could include restoring upstream forests to support climate regulation and improve water flows for hydropower; adopting sustainable farming practices to boost soil health and productivity; installing green infrastructure in cities to manage heat and flooding; or deploying biotech innovations, such as algae for wastewater treatment.
These are real, emerging investment opportunities that can deliver substantial returns and long-term benefits for nature. Take Natura & Co., a global beauty brand that integrates biodiversity-based sourcing from the Amazon into its core business. By investing in supplier communities and nature-positive practices, Natura has not only mitigated supply chain risk, but also tripled its stock price between 2015 and 2020. This surge in market valuation reflects stronger financial returns as well as growing investor and consumer confidence in a nature-positive business model.
Similarly, the AXA WF ACT Biodiversity fund invests in companies contributing to ecosystem preservation and restoration. With reported returns of approximately 10%, it demonstrates the financial viability of such investment approaches.
Investing in solutions like these offers financial institutions an opportunity to align impact with returns and position themselves at the forefront of a rapidly evolving market landscape. Meanwhile, it can help them mitigate nature-related risks, enhance portfolio resilience, and stay ahead of tightening regulatory and sustainability standards.
Investing in businesses and activities the protect, restore or sustainably use ecosystems can offer long-term financial returns. Photo by Barkah Wibowo/Unsplash Unlocking Finance for NatureWhile financial institutions increasingly recognize the importance of nature and biodiversity, most still lack the practical tools and guidance necessary to integrate nature-related considerations — and especially nature-based solutions — into their investment and lending decisions.
These investments are often technically complex and require specialized knowledge that remains underdeveloped within mainstream finance. Many institutions struggle with internal capacity constraints, including limited expertise to evaluate, structure and manage nature-based assets effectively. This can make it hard to identify investable opportunities or appropriately assess nature-related risks and returns.
In addition, the investment landscape for nature-based solutions is still immature. There is a limited pipeline of high-integrity, scalable projects. Many are small in size, requiring aggregation or blended finance to be viable, which often comes with high transaction costs. Long time horizons (10-30+ years), uncertain return profiles and limited liquidity present further barriers — particularly when compared to traditional assets, such as equities, real estate or bonds, that offer more immediate financial returns.
But there are ways forward.
New WRI research offers a comprehensive framework to help mainstream investors understand, invest in and leverage nature-based solutions effectively. It shows how financial institutions can leverage existing tools — such as sustainability-linked loans, blended finance structures and high-quality impact measurement frameworks — to begin integrating nature-based solutions into core investment processes today. In doing so, financial institutions can go beyond isolated project-level investments and begin catalyzing broader system change by influencing investee companies to shift entire value chains toward nature-positive outcomes.
Financing Nature Is Financing the FutureProgress this year signals a growing recognition of nature-related risks and opportunities among major financial actors. But this is only the start. To truly turn the tide, we need a systemic shift within the financial sector — one that prioritizes long-term impacts over short-term gains and fully integrates nature-related risks into financial decision-making and balance sheets. It is time to act now, moving from inspiration to operation to prevent ecosystems from passing irreversible tipping points.
For institutions looking to future-proof their portfolios, respond to evolving regulations and stay competitive in a sustainability-driven market, investing in nature-based solutions offers both an opportunity and an advantage. By embedding these solutions into their strategies, financial institutions can send powerful market signals to companies across their portfolios, encouraging nature-positive practices and further investment in ecosystem protection and restoration.
Ultimately, investing in nature is not just about doing good for the planet — it's a smart strategy to secure long-term value in an era of mounting ecological and financial volatility.
To learn more, read WRI's new Financial Sector Guidebook on Nature-Based Solutions Investment.
nantong-china-river-restoration.jpg Finance Finance nature-based solutions natural infrastructure Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Financial Sector Guidebook on Nature-Based Solutions Investment: Aligning Investment With Impacts and Showcasing Examples Financing Nature Is Good Business. Here's How Companies Can Start. What Exactly Are 'Nature-based Solutions'? Projects Authors Helen Ding Courtney Nina McLarenA Comprehensive Guide for Safer Roads and Livable Cities
Road traffic crashes kill about 1.19 million people each year and seriously injure another 20 million to 50 million. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists — the most vulnerable road users — account for half of these deaths and injuries. Even people in motor vehicles are at considerable risk, particularly on high-speed roads. Of all contributing factors, excessive speed is universally recognized as the leading cause of fatal and serious traffic incidents worldwide.
Guide for Safe Speeds: Managing Traffic Speeds to Save Lives and Improve LivabilitySpeed-related risks are both widely known and highly preventable. Proven solutions exist, and it is well understood where and how to effectively apply them. In collaboration with the World Bank, WRI has developed the Guide for Safe Speeds: Managing Traffic Speeds to Save Lives and Improve Livability. This guide presents strong evidence to support informed decision-making and addresses common misconceptions about speed management.
Why Speed Management Matters Beyond SafetyManaging speed isn’t just about safety — it’s also a powerful tool for improving quality of life, especially in urban areas. Slower traffic speeds reduce air and noise pollution, create safer spaces for walking and cycling and even help alleviate urban congestion, despite common misconceptions. These improvements encourage active mobility and support public health by reducing exposure to harmful pollutants and promoting physical activity.
Adopting a New Approach to Speed LimitsInstead of reacting to crashes after they occur, the guide promotes a forward-looking, systemic strategy grounded in the Safe System approach. This model recognizes that while human error is inevitable, both road fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and unacceptable.
Central to the guide is the Roads-for-Life (R4L) framework — a practical, research-backed methodology for setting and evaluating speed limits. It follows four principles to ensure all speeds limits are safe and credible. Safety for all users is recognized as the guiding principle with community wellbeing, predictability and network availability as supporting principles to ensure equity, practicality, consistency and compliance.
R4L not only helps determine safe speeds for existing roads but also assesses the safety implications of design speeds for new road projects. By aligning speed limits with road design and supporting them with the appropriate infrastructure, the framework enhances safety for all users within livable communities.
The Roads-for-Life Framework approach guides speed management implementation to achieve safer, more livable streets.
While our transportation and traffic systems have historically prioritized vehicle movement over the safety of other users, this guide offers tools to help shift toward systems that create a safer environment for everyone.
In many countries, speed limits are still determined based on the “desired” speeds of drivers. However, this approach overlooks a critical reality — the speeds drivers choose are not inherently safe, particularly for vulnerable road users (VRUs). The R4L framework provides a more context-sensitive approach, using a road hierarchy to set speed limits, in urban and rural roads, based on the specific road environment, the type of infrastructure and the mix of users present.
The Roads-for-Life Framework matrix helps select safe speed limits based on road type, function and presence of vulnerable road users in urban areas.
Building on this framework, the guide provides tools for decision makers and infrastructure engineers to implement effective speed management strategies and action plans. Once a city identifies a road for speed reduction interventions, it should classify the road type based on its capacity to move people and goods and the presence of vulnerable road users. Then, using the matrix, it can identify the safe speed limit. For example, an urban road with single lane roads in each direction, lined with coffee shops and small businesses where people frequently cross the street, would be classified as an “urban human activity road.” The safe speed limit for this road is a maximum of 30 kph (about 20 mph).
Making Safe Speeds a RealityThe guide provides a step-by-step approach to developing, implementing and monitoring speed management at a national, regional or local level. It also offers solutions for specific locations — such as busy arterial roads shared by vehicles and VRUs — outlining effective local policies, interventions, processes and enabling conditions for supporting safe speed limits.
Using case studies and emphasizing evidence-based interventions, the Guide for Safe Speeds serves as a key resource for policymakers seeking to make the case for safe speeds, secure political commitment and gain community support. By embracing these strategies, they can create safer, more livable environments for everyone on the road.
The Guide for Safe Speeds was published with funding support from Bloomberg Philanthropies and UK Aid.
architecture-1837176_640.jpg Cities transportation road safety Health & Road Safety Urban Mobility Cities Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects- Safe & Sustainable Mobility: Bloomberg Philanthropies Initiative for Global Road Safety
- Health & Road Safety
- Urban Mobility
Organized Crime in The Amazon: A Growing Threat to the World’s Greatest Tropical Rainforest
Brazil once again leads the world in the loss of primary tropical forests. New data shows the country accounted for 42% of global primary rainforest loss in 2024, largely due to widespread fires throughout the nation and in neighboring Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.
The 2024 spike in Amazon forest loss was due in large part to one of the worst fire seasons on record. But what’s often missed is the fact that recent fires in tropical primary forests are by no means a “natural” disaster. Rather, the conflagration represents a perfect storm of climate change-induced environmental conditions, governance failures and unchecked, organized criminality.
Fires in the Amazon are largely started by arson1 and related criminal activity accompanying agriculture, logging, mining and road building. In fact, a recent survey of government data concluded that 91% of forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon is linked to illegal activity like land-clearing for agriculture and artisanal mining, often orchestrated by well-structured international criminal enterprises.
Nature crime has long been an overlooked but growing driver of deforestation in the Amazon — one that’s pushing into new territories.
Tabatinga, Brazil lies at the heart of a thinly governed tri-border area in the northwestern Amazon. Photo by Matyas Rehak/Shutterstock Borderlands: Criminal Threats to the Amazon’s Most Remote RegionsForest loss in the Amazon has historically been greatest in the “arc of deforestation” stretching from east to west along the southern flank of the biome. This is also where the majority of the 2024 fires took place, where most forest conversion to agriculture and cattle ranching has occurred, and where most people in the Amazon live. But it is not the only part of the Amazon that’s threatened.
The twin cities of Leticia, Colombia and Tabatinga, Brazil lie at the heart of the thinly governed tri-border area of the northwestern Amazon, where Brazil, Colombia and Peru meet. A metropolitan area with a population of 110,000 lying just across the Amazon River from Peru, the two cities are the commercial center for a criminal economy that has boomed over the past 25 years. The proximity of these cities to their resource-rich rainforest hinterlands, connected to the wider world by the planet’s largest river system, has been fertile soil for the growth of organized crime.
It largely began with cocaine.
A wooden boat navigates a lagoon in the Javari Valley. Photo by Nowaczyk/Shutterstock Cocaine Blues: Drugs Take Root in the AmazonCriminal groups from Brazil and Colombia were initially attracted to the Amazon decades ago because of the trade in illicit drugs, principally cocaine. The coca plant (Erythroxylum coca) has traditionally been cultivated in the Peruvian Andes for thousands of years. More recently, coca cultivation has spread in the lowland Amazon to supply the illicit drug trade. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime reported in 2023 that cocaine’s use worldwide was at an all-time high.
Seizing on this insatiable global demand, a shifting constellation of Brazilian, Peruvian and Colombian organized crime enterprises have, over the past 25 years, systematically expanded coca cultivation and cocaine production in the tri-border area, including the critical transport route to Manaus about 1,000 kilometers downriver and onward to urban Brazil, Europe and elsewhere. A 2025 report by investigative journalism outlet Ojo Público determined that criminal organizations dominating the cocaine trade in the tri-border region were present in 54 of 75 border towns. While the razing of the rainforest for coca production in the tri-border area is not on the scale of clearing for agriculture and cattle in other parts of the Amazon, it is locally significant — particularly in the Peruvian border Province of Mariscal Ramon Castilla and in the neighboring Department of Putumayo in Colombia.
But moreover, cocaine development leads to other nature crimes that also fuel deforestation. In the tri-border area, Ojo Público found, for example, that drug trafficking is linked with the illegal timber trade — a sort of criminal “economy of scale.” Government suppression of airborne smuggling routes has also increasingly displaced drug trafficking and associated violence to the river routes, and hence to the Amazon border area.
Here, the criminal infrastructure built principally for cocaine is increasingly facilitating illegal deforestation, timber trafficking and illegal gold mining, via control of transport routes, corruption and intimidation of local authorities and communities, as well as the fear of violence.
Tree cover loss has steadily increased in the tri-border area, often driven by illegal activities. Data from Global Forest Watch.The convergence between nature crimes and drug trafficking in the Amazon is also greatly facilitated by the “flying money” rackets run by Chinese organized crime groups. Essentially, this is a combined barter-and-money-laundering system where precursor chemicals from China for the manufacture of fentanyl and other illicit drugs in Latin America are traded off the books for Amazonian wildlife, gold and other products of forest crime, thus serving as both a payment system and a method of laundering illicit funds.
Among those most impacted by this crime wave are Indigenous Peoples. The Amazon is home to some 1.5 million Indigenous People, whose ancestral territories are some of the most effective forest conservation areas. However, many Indigenous territories in the Amazon are not effectively protected by law or government authorities. This, in combination with their relative abundance of valuable timber, wildlife and gold, makes these areas attractive targets for illegal mining and logging.
Aerial view of an illegal gold mining operation. Photo by Tarcisio Schnaider/iStock All That Glitters: Illegal Gold Mining Fuels Environmental DestructionThe price of gold has skyrocketed in the past 20 years, and annual illegal gold flows now total more than $30 billion. Gold mining is a massive part of the illegal economy in the Amazon’s tri-border area and beyond, generating greater profits than cocaine. While some mining directly clears forests, other mining is river-based. It affects the entire forest ecosystem, including the Puré and Cotuhé rivers that traverse protected areas on the Colombian side of the border.
Gold mining directly damages forests through clearing and dredging rivers with heavy equipment. The widespread use of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, as an amalgamation agent to separate gold from ore not only poisons people, but also harms trees, birds and fish. Human health problem often persist even when mining stops, as has happened in Brazil’s Munduruku Indigenous territory.
Criminal groups are involved with gold mining in various ways. It is a main revenue source for Colombian non-state armed groups. Others use gold to launder illicit proceeds from the drug trade, bankroll massive dredges and other mining equipment, extort money from small-scale artisanal gold miners, or establish their own mining operations, often relying on forced labor. Criminal networks across Latin America are also involved in the trafficking of mercury.
Illegal gold mining is also prevalent in another Amazonian tri-border area where Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela meet; the illegal gold trade there has been openly promoted by Venezuela’s Maduro regime. The criminal utility of porous borders is well illustrated here: As recently as 2022, illegal Venezuelan gold was regularly smuggled into Brazil and onward to the United States and other international markets. After Inacio Lula de Silva assumed the Brazilian Presidency in 2023 and cracked down on illegal gold mining, the flow reversed, and traffickers began to smuggle illegal Brazilian gold into Venezuela, as well as into Guyana and Suriname.
Gold is not the only valuable mineral found in the Amazon. Organized criminal groups are reportedly seeking cassiterite, a chief ore of tin and a critical mineral for the green energy transition — sometimes called “black gold” — including in the Yanomami Indigenous territory of Brazil’s Roraima state.
A man carries a massive pirarucu fish in Leticia, Colombia. Photo by Nowaczyk/Shutterstock Fishy Business: Overharvesting the PirarucuThe Amazon is both a forest and the world’s greatest river system. Given the Amazon’s rich fisheries, it is not surprising that a booming illicit trade in high-value fish such as the protected pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) has become yet another criminal profit center in the Brazilian Amazon. The world’s largest freshwater fish is taken for its meat, scales and for the aquarium trade. It was pirarucu traffickers who in 2022 murdered British journalist Dom Phillips2 and Bruno Pereira, a member of Brazil’s Indigenous protection agency FUNAI, to thwart their investigation into illegal activities in the isolated Javari Valley on the Peruvian border. The region is home to one of the largest populations of uncontacted Indigenous People on Earth, but is also now a haven for drug and environmental crime. While some Indigenous and riverine communities fish sustainably for pirarucu and have helped fish populations rebound in some areas, the illegal trade still flourishes, having surged during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A jaguar rests in a tree in the Brazilian Pantanal region. Photo by Pedro Helder Pinheiro/Shutterstock New Frontiers: Ecuador’s Nature Crime CrisisAnd nature crime isn’t limited to the Amazon’s tri-border area. The Ecuadorian Amazon was largely spared the scourge of natural resource-related crime until recently. This changed dramatically in the past five years; there are thought to be at least 22 organized “narco-terrorist” groups operating in the country as of 2024. As in neighboring countries, narco-trafficking gangs in Ecuador have rapidly expanded into illegal logging and gold mining, often in national parks and Indigenous territories.
The global wind energy boom has also fueled organized crime in Ecuador, which holds large stocks of balsa (Ochroma pyramidale), the preferred timber for wind turbine blades. Ecuador produces over 90% of the world’s balsa, but booming Chinese demand over the past decade has decimated the country’s stock and spurred a wave of illegal logging that’s spilled into Peru.
Strategies for Reducing Nature Crime in the AmazonIn such a vast, resource-rich and thinly governed region, natural resource crime cannot realistically be eradicated, particularly given the entrenched durability of the trade in cocaine and other illicit drugs. But governments can reduce crime if they work together on deterrence and protect Indigenous People’s territories and rights.
Strengthening Cooperation on Nature Crime Among Amazon NationsNature crime thrives in thinly governed border regions where criminals take advantage of countries’ siloed jurisdictions by border-hopping to conceal crimes and evade capture. States need to cooperate more effectively than they do today to change this situation, particularly in the vulnerable borderlands.
An August 2023 summit of the heads of state of eight members of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) issued the Declaration of Belem, committing signatories to “promote the exchange of information and policy and intelligence cooperation to combat illegal activities and environmental crimes affecting the Amazon region.” Brazil followed up in 2024 by establishing an international policing and security center in Manaus that will eventually host officers from all ACTO member countries.
To make good on this commitment, countries need to strengthen and harmonize their laws pertinent to forest crime; increase information-sharing in real time among intelligence agencies, including remote-sensing information; and organize cross-border operations on trafficking in narcotics, timber, gold and wildlife. Cooperation among national financial intelligence units to detect and sanction money laundering and other financial crimes is also critical.
Brazil has already shown some success in thwarting illegal gold mining in the Yanomami Indigenous Territory that straddles the Venezuelan border. The country launched more than 4,000 suppression operations since 2024, which reduced illegal mining in the territory by more than 90% by early 2025.
Countries also need to strengthen their national legal frameworks. In April 2025, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the federal government to seize private properties where owners cause illegal deforestation or wildfires. Although likely to face appeal, the ruling is a major step towards blocking “regularization,” the process by which illegally cleared and acquired public land in the Amazon becomes legal, a main driver of deforestation. Unfortunately, that same month lawmakers in the Amazon state of Rondônia passed legislation granting amnesty to hundreds of cattle ranchers who had illegally cleared rainforest, in direct opposition to the Supreme Court ruling.
Effectively Protect Indigenous Rights and TerritoriesApproximately 163.8 million hectares — nearly 20% of the Amazon basin — consists of officially recognized Indigenous territories, home to an estimated 1.5 million people from more than 350 ethnic groups. These areas are comparatively better conserved than the rest of the Amazon and are also major carbon sinks. But legal recognition, by itself, is no talisman against invasion. Effective protection requires the removal — by force if necessary — of non-Indigenous gold miners, loggers, traffickers and other outsiders. Only the state has the legitimate authority to do this. And historically, the state has often come down on the side of the invaders.
With valuable resources in the sights of organized criminal gangs, territorial control will remain a struggle, with Indigenous Peoples often on the front lines. Allies can support Indigenous communities in monitoring their territories against incursions and securely reporting intelligence to trusted national and regional enforcement authorities.
Civil society organizations in Peru have made progress in this area by equipping Indigenous communities with geospatial monitoring tools and training, leading to a dramatic decrease in deforestation. Unfortunately, this promising approach was recently undermined by the Peruvian government itself, which effectively legalized deforestation in the name of “economic development.”
A more hopeful example comes from Colombia, which in early 2025 created a one-million-hectare territory to protect isolated Indigenous groups and the pristine forests they inhabit. This follows on a wider process to formally recognize 25 territories of more than 45 Indigenous Peoples as Indigenous Territorial Entities, together covering 36% of the Colombian Amazon.
Blue and gold macaws are one of many species that call the Amazon rainforest home. Photo by Passkorn Umpornmaha/Shutterstock Protecting the ‘Lungs of the Earth’As we think about the future of the Amazon, it’s instructive to reflect on the lives of two people whose fates have been intertwined with it. Marina Silva, who worked closely with rubber tapper and rainforest activist Chico Mendes until his murder in 1988, is now Brazil’s Minister of Environment, her second time in the post. She will play a critical role at the upcoming UN climate summit (COP30) in Belem, Brazil and is a champion of Amazon conservation.
Then there is Darci Alves Pereira, the man who confessed to murdering Chico Mendes on the orders of his father, a violent land-grabber in the Amazon state of Acre. Father and son were sentenced in 1990 to 19 years in prison, but “escaped” a few years later and, when recaptured, received early release. By 2024, Alves had changed his name, become an Evangelical preacher, and briefly served as local head of the political party of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former far-right president well-known for his opposition to Amazon conservation and hostility to Indigenous Peoples.
Many brave souls continue to defend the people and forests championed by Chico Mendes, Marina Silva, Dom Phillips and their compatriots. But the much more organized and powerful criminal successors of the Alves family are still very much with us, creating roadblocks at a time when momentum for forest conservation is needed more than ever. We ignore them at our peril.
Footnotes
1 Under drought conditions, a fire deliberately set to clear one area easily expands to adjacent areas. “Arson” may intentionally target a certain area, but spread to a much larger territory. If the original act of arson is deliberate, the perpetrator is culpable for all of the ensuring damage, whether caused intentionally or by reckless indifference to the likely consequences.
2 Dom Phillips’ posthumous book, How to Save The Amazon: A Journalist’s Fatal Quest for Answers was published in June 2025.
logging-amazon-rainforest.jpg Forests Latin America Brazil deforestation biodiversity Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Charles (Chip) BarberThe US Can’t Build a Competitive Industrial Future without Centering Communities
As the global economy shifts toward cleaner and more efficient manufacturing and production, the U.S. has the opportunity to create healthier communities and increase climate resilience as it shapes a more prosperous economic future.
The U.S. industrial sector is both a backbone of the economy — employing around 8% of all U.S. workers — and a major source of pollution, accounting for nearly 30% of national greenhouse gas emissions and much of the country’s hazardous air pollution. People in places like Louisiana’s 85-mile stretch of Cancer Alley between Baton Rouge and New Orleans have long suffered from factories releasing harmful toxins into the air, land and water.
Decarbonizing the highest emitting industries — steel, cement and chemicals — by boosting energy efficiency, deploying carbon capture and storage where appropriate and shifting away from fossil fuels can simultaneously cut climate-warming greenhouse gases and the toxic air and water pollutants that endanger communities.
By leaning into the fast-growing global market for low-carbon products, U.S. industry can stay competitive without repeating past patterns of pushing pollution burdens onto people and ecosystems. However, if worker and community-focused safeguards are not considered, this shift could trigger job losses, disrupt local economies and, if technologies like hydrogen or carbon dioxide pipelines are poorly regulated, introduce new environmental and health risks for nearby communities.
A Tale of Two Industrial Communities
Government policies can make a big difference in the way workers and local communities experience the impact from decarbonizing industry facilities. Here we look at two examples:
Port Talbot, Wales, UK:
The case of Port Talbot in the United Kingdom highlights the economic risk to communities and the tradeoffs of industrial modernization without protecting workers. A steel hub since the early 1900s, the town hosted a steel plant with blast furnaces, which burn coal to produce primary steel from iron ore, releasing climate-warming carbon dioxide and other toxic pollutants.
Until recently, the plant owned by Tata Steel, employed thousands of workers, but pollution from its aging blast furnaces also exposed people in the nearby town to serious health risks. In October 2024, Tata Steel shut down the blast furnaces with a plan, supported by a 500 million pound (approximately $660 million) government grant, to replace them with a lower-polluting electric arc furnace installation.
However, this shift will result in 2,800 layoffs of workers with specialized knowledge and skills that are not easily transferable. Without an adequate transition plan, thousands of workers are at risk of being left jobless with few alternatives.
A worker inside one of Port Talbot's blast furnaces. Photo by Avalon/Construction Photography / Alamy Stock Photo.Middletown, Ohio:
Cleveland-Cliffs' steel plant in Middletown, Ohio had the potential to demonstrate how decarbonizing its facility using proactive government policies could create and protect thousands of jobs, while reducing harmful pollution. But shifting U.S. policy priorities and waning investment have since blurred the future for clean industrial projects like this one.
In 2024, Cleveland-Cliffs was selected to receive up to $500 million from the Department of Energy through its Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP). The funding would have been used to replace one of its coal-powered blast furnaces with a less emissions-intensive direct reduced iron plant, which was expected to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 1 million tons per year, while also reducing toxic pollution to Middletown’s air and water. The changes would have created 170 new permanent positions and an additional 1,200 temporary construction jobs, while also preserving Cleveland-Cliffs’ overall 2,500 person workforce.
In early May 2025, however, the company said it would prolong the life of the heavily polluting blast furnace it had planned to replace in an effort to “better align with [the Trump] administration’s energy priorities.” Shortly after, the Department of Energy terminated $3.7 billion in IDP grants and other clean energy projects. However, the Cleveland-Cliffs grant was not among this list of terminations.
Centering Communities in Efforts to DecarbonizeOver the past six months, several federal policy reversals have clouded the outlook for clean-industry investment: the recission of several billion dollars in competitive grants for novel low-carbon projects, major corporate mergers in heavy industry were approved without emissions enforcement or guarantees for community reinvestment and carbon-pollution limits for power plants have been weakened.
Against this backdrop, efforts to reindustrialize and modernize American manufacturing to energy-efficient systems must still align innovation and climate action with economic revitalization, workforce development, environmental protection and public health improvements.
Importantly, the U.S. must not repeat past mistakes while creating and modernizing industrial facilities. Historically, fenceline communities — people who live near industrial facilities, which are often made up of residents from low-income backgrounds or communities of color — have long faced disproportionate pollution exposure and shouldered the public health burden of these industries.
Many fenceline communities exist today because of intentional government policies and practices, such as redlining and racially discriminatory zoning and disinvestment, which forced economically marginalized and politically excluded groups to live in what’s become known as "sacrifice zones." This reflects patterns of historic underinvestment and environmental harm imposed on economically and socially marginalized populations.
Fenceline communities are neighborhoods next to industrial facilities that experience direct exposure to its pollutants. Hum Images / Alamy Stock Photo.For example, people in fenceline communities throughout Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, which accounts for 25% of the petrochemical production within the U.S. from more than 200 factories, have an abnormally high cancer risk, with the risk being even higher for low-income people and people of color.
Prioritizing clean air and water, economic revitalization and community-driven decision-making is critical to addressing historical harms and making industrial decarbonization efforts durable. When communities are engaged meaningfully early on, policies and projects are more likely to earn public trust, avoid local opposition and secure the long-term support needed to sustain industrial transitions. Furthermore, such a shift can create economic benefits, such as reducing health care costs from improved air quality and fostering public and worker support for decarbonization initiatives, which are essential for durably scaling these efforts.
The shift away from fossil fuels has often failed to fully consider the needs of affected workers and fenceline communities. For instance, thousands of refinery workers could be left stranded as California phases down its petroleum refining. Beyond a handful of refinery-specific initiatives, just transition planning across the broader industrial landscape — particularly in steel, cement and chemicals — remains scarce.
If today’s industrial modernization and decarbonization efforts ignore workers, communities and environmental impacts, they could repeat past mistakes of accelerating plant closures without offering alternative economic opportunities, concentrating environmental risks in fenceline communities, eroding community trust and potentially delaying or canceling projects.
The Economic Case for a People-Centered TransitionRecent analysis from McKinsey & Company estimates that an economy-wide net-zero transition by 2050 could lead to 200 million new direct and indirect jobs while also causing a loss of 185 million jobs — resulting in a net gain of 15 million jobs worldwide by 2050. Without a well-managed transition, industrial decarbonization could result in local job losses and economic disruption.
Beyond avoiding the substantial economic risks and losses from climate change, modernizing U.S. industry in a way that prioritizes workers and communities can help revive historic manufacturing regions, attract investment and boost their economic prosperity. And at the same time, it would allow the U.S. to capitalize on deploying innovative new industrial technologies.
As the global economy shifts toward cleaner and more efficient manufacturing, innovative industrial production methods that utilize cleaner energy sources will become better positioned to compete globally. And as global markets and private sector buyers start prioritizing lower-carbon industrial products, U.S. government policies such as subsidies and technology demonstration grants are needed to proactively drive industrial innovation and ensure domestic industries don’t fall behind in a rapidly changing market.
At the same time, successful decarbonization projects will depend not only on market shifts and technological advancements, but also on how people are included. When the needs of workers, fenceline communities and local stakeholders are not addressed as part of transitions, companies risk encountering public opposition, costly legal challenges, project delays or cancellations, and increased costs associated with those risks, slowing progress.
For example, some experts have warned that if the financial and social burdens of the clean-industry shift — such as higher energy rates or job losses — fall disproportionately on lower-income households, workers or fenceline communities while benefits accrue elsewhere, public support for net-zero initiatives could erode, making it harder to pass and implement effective policies. And, while they recognize industry’s negative impact on air and water pollution, many members of fenceline communities rank economic considerations like job security as a far higher priority than local environmental well-being in surveys.
Fortunately for both industrial communities and the broader economy, environmental well-being and economic well-being are not mutually exclusive. For example, in the U.S., past policies that directed clean energy investments toward historically marginalized communities sought to support workforce transitions and strengthen declining local economies.
Strategies for Inclusive and Resilient Industrial DecarbonizationTo support responsible and equitable industrial decarbonization that aligns with economic opportunity and long-term community resilience, policymakers and developers should consider several strategies:
Create Industry Transition RoadmapsIndustry roadmaps that combine modernization pathways with steps for workforce transition can help policymakers proactively create long-term reskilling and job placement strategies when retrofitting, replacing and retiring heavy-polluting industrial facilities.Invest in Workforce Training and ReskillingDecarbonization should be paired with reskilling initiatives, wage protections, and local hiring mandates to minimize job displacement.
Targeted investments in vocational training, apprenticeship programs and STEM education can equip workers with the skills needed for new, clean industry jobs.
Prioritize Community BenefitsCommunity benefit plans or agreements, participatory planning processes and local advisory boards ensure fenceline communities have a key role in shaping industrial projects.
Developers and policymakers should engage communities early and consistently to increase transparency and trust in new decarbonization efforts.
Industrial decarbonization strategies should simultaneously advance local pollution reduction and environmental remediation, energy affordability and job creation.
Policies should avoid short-term economic disruptions by pairing emissions reductions measures with incentives for the use and reuse of recently closed or declining industrial sites for clean manufacturing, energy efficiency, and infrastructure investment.
Strengthening worker safety regulations and health protections ensures that industrial shifts do not lead to new forms of harm.
Embed Community Trust and Protective SafeguardsRequire every project to offer two-way engagement forums (listening sessions, advisory boards, co-design workshops) that communities can join if they choose.
Establish anti-displacement safeguards (e.g., property-tax relief, affordable-housing set-asides) to prevent gentrification as new projects raise land values.
Carrying Momentum Forward Amid Federal Rollbacks
In recent years, the U.S. federal government made considerable progress toward a more equitable transition to a low-carbon economy. For example, the Justice40 Initiative sought to ensure that some of the economic gains and environmental benefits of climate investments flowed to economically marginalized and environmentally overburdened communities. Incentives like the Energy Community Tax Credit Bonus were designed to help preserve jobs in regions historically dependent on fossil fuel industries.
However, many of these efforts at the federal level have been scaled back, weakened or eliminated in the first half of 2025. These rollbacks not only disadvantage communities and workers but could also create uncertainty for companies that may rely on stable incentives and local support.
Recent News: Nippon Steel Acquires U.S. Steel
Federal regulators approved Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel on June 18, 2025, contingent on a national security “golden share” that lets federal officials block plant closures and other moves. Community and labor advocates warn that, without binding, enforceable guarantees for worker protections, meaningful community participation, and a shift to low-carbon steelmaking, the deal could jeopardize union jobs and lock in coal-based production — along with the $7 billion to $13 billion in annual health costs it already imposes on frontline neighborhoods.
In the absence of strong federal direction, state and local governments and forward-looking companies will need to take the lead on responsible and fair decarbonization. Several states, including Colorado and Illinois, have implemented workforce transition funds, targeting clean industrial investments that prioritize job retention and local economic benefits. Industry leaders can also adopt voluntary commitments that strengthen public trust and reduce project risks, such as prioritizing U.S.-based supply chains to avoid carbon leakage, investing in worker training, and engaging with host communities early and consistently to develop community benefits frameworks. These strategies go beyond good public relations — they also avoid delays, legal challenges and reputational damage.
Industrial modernization and decarbonization are not merely about cutting emissions — they are about building a more resilient, competitive and inclusive economy that benefits both industry and the communities that sustain it. By implementing fair and responsible policies and practices that recognize the value of workers and communities, the U.S. manufacturing can position itself toward long-term success in a rapidly changing global economy.
baton-rouge-indudstrial-area.jpg U.S. Climate Climate Equity environmental justice industry U.S. Climate Policy-Clean Power Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Hannah Harasaki Willy Carlsen Ankita GangotraSTATEMENT: BRICS Countries Rally Around Assertive Climate Agenda Ahead of COP30
RIO DE JANEIRO (July 7, 2025) — The 2025 BRICS Summit concluded today in Rio de Janeiro, bringing together representatives from countries including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to advance a coordinated agenda on economic development, geopolitical cooperation and climate action.
Among the outcomes were calls for strengthened climate finance, improved carbon accounting and the creation of a developing country–led platform to align trade with sustainability goals. The summit also highlighted the role of technology transfer and resilience-building as integral to a more equitable global economy.
Following is a statement from Mirela Sandrini, Interim Executive Director, WRI Brazil:
“This year’s BRICS Summit sends the clearest signal yet that major emerging economies can step into a global leadership role to address the climate crisis. Spanning finance, trade, technology and resilience-building, the summit’s outcome underscores strong support for climate action from the countries gathered in Rio – even as the United States retreats.
“It is encouraging that BRICS nations called for more climate lending, deeper green bond markets and better carbon accounting – and created a new developing country-led platform to align trade with sustainability. Their commitment to protect tropical forests and scale up adaptation is a notable step towards safeguarding nature, building resilience and supporting human well-being. The specific mention of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility adds weight to that commitment. Crucially, they endorsed putting people and equity at the heart of a just transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.
“South-South collaboration of this scale and ambition can inject much-needed momentum into international climate diplomacy ahead of COP30. But a key test will be how BRICS countries implement climate commitments at home – from cutting emissions and building resilience, to supporting other developing nations through investment and lesson-sharing. Most importantly, the world will be watching for their new national climate commitments due by September, ahead of COP30.
“Brazil deserves credit for bringing the BRICS together behind a more assertive vision for climate action. Brazil is deftly weaving climate diplomacy into the fabric of broader global agendas – from its G20 Presidency to BRICS and soon the COP30 summit. This integrated approach helps reduce fragmentation across international fora and positions climate policy as a cornerstone of global economic and financial reform – driving the inclusive, green growth the world urgently needs.”
Climate China India South Africa Brazil Russia Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0STATEMENT: The Republican Budget Bill Will Hurt the U.S. Economy
WASHINGTON D.C. (July 3, 2025) — Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1., the Republican budget bill, by a vote of 218 to 214 following the U.S. Senate’s 51 to 50 vote passage earlier this week.
The new law turns back the clock on America’s clean energy leadership, with provisions such as the rapid phaseout of critical wind and solar tax credits and introduction of onerous Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) restrictions, rendering many clean energy investments unworkable or uncertain at best. Taken together, these provisions will raise Americans’ electricity bills, eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, decimate investments in U.S. manufacturing, and undermine the ability to meet rapidly growing demand for electricity.
Following is a statement from Dr. David Widawsky, Director, WRI US:
“While other countries are benefitting from accelerated investment in the clean energy economy, the U.S. is taking a step backwards.
“H.R.1. will undercut the Administration’s stated goal of ‘unleashing American energy’ and sends a chilling signal to families, businesses and investors alike. Abruptly phasing out clean energy tax credits will raise costs, slow innovation and jeopardize America’s energy security.
“Electricity demand is growing everywhere—and growing fast. The clean energy cuts in this bill will increase costs and constrain supply at a time when demand for electricity is surging. Working families, business owners and local governments will bear the brunt through higher electricity bills, fewer jobs, and reduced energy resilience to extreme weather. Billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, energy savings will be lost; failure to keep pace with growing energy demand will make brownouts and blackouts more likely; air will become less breathable; and American economic growth will be at risk.
“Fossil fuels alone won’t meet the skyrocketing energy demand from manufacturing, AI, electrification, and increasingly frequent and intense heat waves that prompt more AC usage. But America can create a more flexible, agile, and resilient power system with renewables and grid upgrades. Clean energy sources are better positioned to come online quickly to meet growing electricity needs and spur economic growth. That’s exactly what companies, state and local governments, utilities and families have been counting on, planning for and investing in.
“Many Americans remain committed to a clean energy future—and we expect to see progress from the cities, states and businesses that have become labs for innovation in recent years. While this bill throws up many roadblocks to progress, these innovators can and must continue driving the country’s energy economy forward. Opportunities remain for them to do so through coalition building, providing innovative financing and policy solutions, and facilitating infrastructure development for critical projects that serve their communities.
We simply can’t afford to double down on outdated energy sources and policies. Despite this setback, we are not going to give up the race for the secure, affordable and innovative power system that Americans need – and deserve.”
United States climate policy Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0STATEMENT: EU 2040 Climate Goal Should Stay the Course Towards a Net-Zero Economy
BRUSSELS (July 2, 2025) - Today, the European Commission presented its formal proposal to cut the European Union’s greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, from 1990 levels.
The revised EU Climate Law aligns with the lower limit of the 90%-95% reduction range recommended by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change in 2024. The 2040 target will be a critical input to the EU’s forthcoming national climate plan, or Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice President and Regional Director for Europe, World Resources Institute:
“A 90% emissions cut by 2040, as proposed by the Commission, keeps the EU on track for climate neutrality. It’s realistic, absolutely necessary and aligned with the bloc’s earlier commitment. If achieved, the EU will be well on its way to becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
The EU must back this credible 2040 target with a timely NDC by September with at least a 72.5% economy-wide emission reduction by 2035. This would set a clear, ambitious path for the green transition and show the EU is serious about leading the global energy race, investing in its industrial competitiveness and strengthening its energy security.
The proposed emission reductions must be delivered through domestic action. Overreliance on carbon credits would undermine the credibility of the EU’s target while diverting investment away from the EU’s clean tech industry. It is critical that monitoring and verification guardrails are put in place to limit the use of carbon credits to less than 3% of the target, ensure transparency and prevent emissions leakage.
The Commission also proposes leveraging carbon removal, which should be approached cautiously. While carbon removal can play a role in reaching the EU’s target, this must complement — not replace — deep emissions cuts. First and foremost, EU policymakers must take bold steps to phase out fossil fuels, scale up renewables, electrify transport and halt deforestation. Europe’s credible climate leadership will be vital as we approach COP30 in November.”
International Climate Action Europe NDC Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0
Managing Extremes: How South African Cities Are Tackling Water Crises
With about 464 millimeters of rainfall per year — less than half the global average — South Africa is one of the driest countries in the world. Its semi-arid climate, uneven rainfall distribution and persistent droughts leave the country facing chronic water shortages. At the same time, ecosystem degradation and climate change are causing increasingly frequent and intense flash floods.
Unlike tropical regions in Central and West Africa, where rainfall is relatively reliable, or parts of Eastern Africa with steady seasonal rains, South Africa must manage the growing demand on its limited water resources with extreme care: With high evaporation rates that sometimes exceed average annual rainfall, less than 9% of the country’s rainfall runs into rivers and less than 5% recharges groundwater aquifers. In its cities, rapid urbanization and industrial demand place additional pressure on already fragile water systems.
South Africa is not alone — cities around the world are grappling with water crises. But some are adapting. Cape Town is restoring its watersheds to help the city withstand major droughts, while eThekwini (the municipality that includes the city of Durban) is investing in improved drainage, nature-based infrastructure and complementary systems, such as early warning flood alerts, to strengthen local responses to extreme rainfall. These efforts show how cities can rethink water management to become more resilient in a changing climate.
Too Little Water: Protecting Supply and Preventing DroughtIn 2018, Cape Town nearly ran out of water.
After three years of severe drought, the city was just weeks away from Day Zero, when reservoirs were nearly empty and the government was preparing to shut off the water taps to homes and businesses.
Between February and April that year, residents were gradually limited to 50 liters of water a day — just enough for an average shower — which they collected from designated distribution points. Thanks to strict rationing and other water-saving measures, Cape Town was able to avert the crisis — but it was an extreme example of how droughts can impact cities.
The Theewaterskloof dam in Western Cape during a drought in 2017 (left) vs the same dam with regular water levels in 2019 (right). Photo by vlbently/iStock (left) and Olga Ernest/WikimediaCommons (right)The Day Zero crisis exposed how fragile Cape Town’s water system was. The city relies heavily on surface water stored in dams, which fill from rainwater running off surrounding catchment areas. But those catchments are under threat, especially from invasive plant species like pine, wattle and eucalyptus.
These trees consume significantly more water than native vegetation, reducing the amount that reaches reservoirs and, ultimately, shrinking the city’s water supply. In fact, invasive species use about 4% of the country’s available water every year — enough to meet the needs of at least 15 million people.
To build a drought-resilient city, Cape Town has turned to nature-based solutions, including removing invasive plants and restoring degraded catchment areas. These efforts are not only eco-friendly — they're also much cheaper to implement than costly engineered alternatives such as groundwater exploration, desalination (removing salt from seawater) and recycling wastewater.
Implementing Nature-Based SolutionsIn the wake of the Day Zero crisis, the Greater Cape Town Water Fund was launched — a public-private initiative led by the city, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and other partners. It’s designed to protect Cape Town’s key catchment areas through a payment-for-ecosystem-services model. Through this initiative, the municipality and local businesses pool funds to pay upstream communities to restore the land that supplies the city with water.
These upstream stewards include small-scale farmers, private landowners, small community businesses and local youth and women. They’re trained to remove invasive plants using a mix of herbicides, ringbarking (stripping a deep band of bark from the tree trunk to cut off nutrients to the canopy) and manual clearing. Over the years, TNC has also trained a specialized team of high-altitude rope technicians to tackle invasive species on steep mountain slopes that are otherwise inaccessible.
So far, the Water Fund has cleared nearly 63,000 hectares of invasive alien plants. Where they once crowded out the region’s native flora, the iconic fynbos (a unique shrubland found only in South Africa), which includes native species like the King Protea and Sugarbush, is now taking root. This ecological shift is freeing more than 17 billion liters of water every year, helping the city move closer to its long-term goal of recovering 100 billion liters annually by 2050.
Vegetation near the Breede river. At the front grows Indigenous shrubs; in the background are invasive eucalyptus trees. Photo by Amanda GcangaAs well as removing invasive species, efforts are underway to restore native vegetation and rebalance ecosystems. In the Breede and Berg riverbanks, a partnership of environmental NGOs, government departments and water management bodies is working with local communities to slow the spread of invasive species and plant tens of thousands of native trees across the catchment.
These efforts are a win for both water security and biodiversity, as invasive species are replaced with eco-friendly indigenous trees and shrubs such as wild olives and fynbos. It's also brought employment opportunities — more than 300 jobs so far — as well as new recreational activities to the region. These nature-based interventions are not just cost-effective; they’re strategic. If invasive species continue spreading across Cape Town’s catchments, the city’s water losses could double by 2045.
A study by the Development Bank of Southern Africa on the country’s water investment gaps towards 2020 found that, despite high upfront costs, removal efforts reduce the need for expensive water infrastructure projects later on. When comparing total future costs, actively clearing invasive plant species reduces investment expenditures by 9% by 2050, while inaction increases costs by about 13% — a total potential cost savings of 22% for the country.
A local nursery for Indigenous plants use to restore the catchment areas after invasive species are removed. Photo by Amanda Gcanga Too Much Water: Preventing Flooding and Riverine RisksIn 2022, the eThekwini Municipality — home to Durban, a coastal city located in KwaZulu-Natal — faced the opposite of Cape Town’s drought crisis.
It suffered one of the deadliest and most damaging floods in South Africa’s history. More than a third of the region’s expected annual rainfall fell in just 24 hours, causing extensive damage to homes, infrastructure and ecosystems, costing the city more than $1.5 billion. More than 400 lives were lost, and tens of thousands were displaced.
eThekwini faces some of South Africa’s most complex river and flood-related challenges. Home to more than 7,400 kilometers of rivers and streams, and facing an increasingly unpredictable climate, the region is particularly vulnerable to both flash floods and prolonged inundation. Rapid, informal urban expansion adds further pressure. Settlements often spread along riverbanks and in low-lying floodplains, where housing, roads and drainage systems are ill-equipped to withstand the heavy seasonal rains that are intensifying with climate change.
Damage caused by floods in the KwaZulu-Natal province in April 2022 (left) and in May 2022 (right). Photo by KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government (left) and eThekwini Municipality (right)The city has taken bold steps to reform riverine management with the launch of its pioneering Transformative Riverine Management Programme (TRMP) in 2020 — one of the most ambitious efforts in the country to align communities, government and businesses around the value of restoring and protecting urban rivers.
Rather than treating river restoration as a narrow or localized issue, the TRMP takes a holistic approach, recognizing the many pressures that contribute to flooding in riverine areas, including informal settlements in floodplains, stormwater runoff, solid waste and debris in the city’s rivers, and invasive plant species in and around the city's water bodies. To address these issues, the municipality is working with communities along river corridors to help clear invasive plants and waste, promote river stewardship and maintain stormwater and sewer infrastructure. All of these actions help strengthen the city's natural and built infrastructure to better absorb and manage stormwater during heavy rains.
The program has also supported creating retention ponds (a basin that holds stormwater runoff and slowly releases it), weirs and wetlands to slow water flow and reinforce riverbanks. In addition, community-driven early warning systems have been introduced to alert residents ahead of extreme flood events.
These investments in flood resilience make financial sense in the long run. The TRMP helped eThekwini build a solid business case for riverine resilience, showing that every dollar spent could generate between 1.8 and 3.4 times its value in broader social, environmental and economic benefits.
In 2022 alone, the city spent upwards of $1.5 billion in flood recovery, including repairs to roads, sewage systems and power lines — a huge cost for the city. Under business-as-usual scenarios, eThekwini faces annual losses of $9 million in infrastructure repair costs. But with a city-wide TRMP, the city will be able to save upward of $100 million in future infrastructure maintenance and recovery costs, particularly for flood-resilience assets like its culverts (a pipe or tunnel that allows water to flow under roads, railways or pathways).
These interventions go beyond ecological and social gains. They also reduce risk for businesses and insurers. Major floods can lead to soaring insurance premiums for companies with high-value assets, as well as cause significant financial losses for insurers. In this context, the TRMP has helped elevate river management as a shared priority across public and private sectors. It also brings wider benefits, from job creation and urban greening to stronger institutional coordination — showing how a systems-based, participatory approach can generate meaningful progress in riverine resilience.
Toward a Shared Urban Water FutureThe experiences of Cape Town and eThekwini show how cities around the world can strengthen urban water resilience through community-based approaches and the protection of natural ecosystems. While water challenges can be severe, integrating nature-based solutions with forward-looking planning can help communities better manage water risks in a changing climate.
WRI in Johannesburg
In South Africa, these lessons are especially relevant to Johannesburg, South Africa’s largest economic hub. Faced with growing water risks, the city is looking ahead and rethinking how it manages its rivers and catchment areas through the City Water Resilience Approach.
While the Jukskei and Klip rivers are not major water supply sources, they are an important starting point for restoring nature and reducing flood risks. Through the SUNCASA project, Johannesburg and its partners are creating a plan to clean up the Jukskei River catchment, which will help address flood risks to local communities, businesses and infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for a similar initiative to eThekwini’s river management program.
On average, people in Johannesburg use about 275 liters of water a day — around 60% more than the global average. Because of this, protecting the Vaal and Lesotho catchments is critical in making sure the city has enough water in the future.
Recent droughts have shown just how fragile the system is. In 2024, water levels in the Vaal Reservoirs dropped to 35%, down from 75% in previous years. This makes it even more important to invest in ways to handle climate changes and water scarcity.
In 2022, WRI developed a Water Resilience Profile for Johannesburg under its Urban Water Resilience in Africa Initiative. It showed that managing the catchments well and coordinating across the whole river basin are top priorities, especially as the city of 6 million faces rising water demand and frequent shortages. Over the next few months, WRI will work on finding ways to invest and build partnerships to restore the Vaal River Basin, which also serves the larger Gauteng region with nearly 15 million residents.
For Johannesburg, and other cities across the world, climate change, rapid urban growth and aging infrastructure mean the economic, environmental and social costs of inaction will only keep growing. But restoring rivers and catchment areas offers a rare opportunity to tackle multiple challenges at once: floods and droughts, supporting biodiversity, improving equity, making public spending more efficient and helping secure long-term water supply. It’s a lesson worth learning from the cities already leading the way.
design-sem-nome-8.png Cities South Africa urban water resilience nature-based solutions floods drought rivers Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Amanda Gcanga Nikara Mahadeo Eden Takele