Credit: Fiona Lambe / SEI.

By Eco Matser
AMSTERDAM, Aug 4 2020 (IPS)

The Sustainable Development goals on energy speak clear: universal access energy and clean cooking by 2030 (SDG7). But the current efforts are still lagging several steps behind the specific needs of the communities and are not enough to achieve energy access for all, especially clean cooking solutions.

Numerous studies have been done and plans have been developed how to do this, but most of them have overlooked people and their needs. The energy transition affects daily lives and we cannot ignore those who are potentially on the receiving end of these interventions.

We know that people can provide better guidance on how to move forward. This can be achieved by asking people themselves how they see this transition to clean cooking, how this would affect their habits and traditions, who can drive this change, and how they can actively promote it

We see a big gap between the sustainable objectives and the reality on the ground, and we know that people can provide better guidance on how to move forward. This can be achieved by asking people themselves how they see this transition to clean cooking, how this would affect their habits and traditions, who can drive this change, and how they can actively promote it. And this inclusive process should start now. 

Indeed, despite the progress and the essential role of clean energy services to spur socio-economic development, approximately 2.8 billion people lack access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking.

Access to clean cooking solutions remains particularly challenging in Sub-Saharan Africa, where progress has barely kept pace with population increase. Almost four million of people die every year for causes attributable to indoor air pollution, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), and most of them use traditional cooking fuels like firewood, charcoal and kerosene.

The COVID19 pandemic has stressed the fragility of the current socio-economic system, revealing the profound existing inequalities and questioning the pace of the efforts in achieving universal clean cooking access. 

Empower small communities 

Electric cooking has proven to be a cost-effective and feasible alternative, but a long-term successful energy transition must also address social impacts, behavioral and cultural factors.

These factors may be a barrier to the cooking transition, which should be dynamic and supported by other collateral needs, such as wider electrification in the communities. Scaling up these technologies requires a strong political will, targeted investments and policies, but also a better understanding of the socio-cultural aspects of cooking, such as taste, cooking practices, cultural norms, and gender roles. 

In Kenya, a group of people who currently do not have access to clean cooking technologies has been asked to plan a transition to clean and 100% electric cooking. The group explored ways to reach this.

During work sessions, the villagers use “backcasting” as methodology to explore possible pathways. In their view, the transition to electric cooking would not change food habits but would improve family safety and health.

It is also seen to leverage changes in the gender roles by relieving women of some of the household burdens, reducing the amount of time required for collecting fuels and doing chores, and allowing them to pursue income-generating opportunities, such as selling cakes and cookies.

The community envisions this change to be linked with access to a broader range of electrical appliances associated with modern living, and most of all they consider the community itself as a driver of change. 

The backcasting research with the Kenyan community showed once again that the clean cooking transition should start by empowering villagers, by supporting early saving and working with early adapters, and by building the know-how and confidence to engage with  government entities to access key services.

NGOs can play a crucial role in introducing new cooking transition technologies, demonstrating mini grids and training communities, but the community and specifically the early adopters of these technologies are those who can make this change real.

Governments and development partners, in turn, are called upon to spur progress on multiple levels, from public services and large-scale infrastructure to full electrification, to improved education and health facilities. All these sectors are profoundly interlinked and require cross-sectoral cooperation. 

Next steps 

Our study in Kenya with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) shows that people can imagine, envision and plan for a clean cooking future beyond fire. Once set goals, and given the technologies, fuels and finance availability, we have to make sure that investments are channeled into well-targeted measures that enable people in driving this change and make it happen. 

Our study is an initial step towards stressing the need of building a knowledge on the behavioral and cultural aspects of transitions to cooking with electricity.

Governments and donors must consider the household and community perspective, how the transition to electric cooking is perceived locally, and take actions based on the role and responsibilities of various actors engaged in the system, from the household to civil society. 

Excerpt:

Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

By Eco Matser
AMSTERDAM, May 4 2020 (IPS)

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities and revealed to what extent current economic models are not sustainable. It has also shown that most countries are not equipped to cope with a health crisis.

The World Food Program is warning that the lives and livelihoods of 265 million people in low and middle-income countries will be under severe threat unless swift action is taken to tackle the pandemic.

This is especially true for the 840 million people in the world who still do not have access to electricity. And the further 3 billion who rely on inefficient stoves and polluting fuels like kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal for cooking or heating.

In the light of the annual toll to human health, the environment, and local economies, clean cooking solutions should be part of a global forward-looking strategy. Including these solutions in the wider plan for the recovery is ambitious, yet necessary

According to a recent study by the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “There is a large overlap between causes of deaths of COVID-19 patients and the diseases that are affected by long-term exposure to fine particulate matter.”

The results of the study suggest that “Long-term exposure to air pollution increases vulnerability to experiencing the most severe Covid-19 outcomes.” Similar conclusions on the link between high mortality in northern Italy and the level of air pollution in this region have been drawn by the Aarhus University. The evidence builds upon previous research during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

This raises the question of the impact that a respiratory illness like COVID-19 could have on people who are already exposed to indoor pollution. Particularly the poorest and most vulnerable who do not have access to clean cooking options and already bear the burden of energy poverty.

Four million premature deaths

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year around four million people die prematurely from illnesses attributable to household air pollution. Women and children in many communities are disproportionately affected because of their traditional home-based activities, including cooking. As the WHO states, “Close to half of pneumonia deaths among children under five are caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.”

But at present, this issue is not getting the political attention it deserves. As a consequence, access to clean cooking solutions largely remains lacking, which vastly increases the risk for vulnerable groups during the current pandemic.

How to save millions of potential victims

The COVID-19 pandemic is intimately linked to the other challenges our world is facing. From outdoor and indoor pollution to climate change, from the over-exploitation of natural resources to the loss of biodiversity, these crises are all interlinked.

They are the product of a global socio-economic system that considers nature and ecosystems as its farms and factories. The response to the virus outbreak should not be limited to containing its spread in the short-term, but must entail a long-term vision of sustainability and inclusion.

There is an immediate need to ensure food security and support our health systems, especially in less developed countries and areas where lack of or unreliable electricity access prevents basic health service provision.

But going forward, governments have to respond to the pressing issues shaping our future. While an immediate health and financial response is crucial to prevent further spread of the virus and economic collapse, other long-term changes are urgently needed. One of these is the switch from traditional fuels to clean cooking solutions. This will protect millions of women, men and future generations by giving them a better chance of survival from COVID-19 and any new respiratory viruses.

A forward-looking strategy

Fortunately, the solutions already exist. But they have received too little attention and financial support. A Hivos/World Future Council report published last year shows that the costs of cooking with solar electricity using efficient slow cookers and pressure cookers have decreased in the last few years. So these clean alternatives are now competitive with the costs of traditional cooking fuels.

In the light of the annual toll to human health, the environment, and local economies, clean cooking solutions should be part of a global forward-looking strategy. Including these solutions in the wider plan for the recovery is ambitious, yet necessary. It is high time for governments, policy and decision-makers to embrace this new opportunity. They need to step up action and ensure an inclusive, resilient, sustainable and just future. After years of inaction on this front, now is the time to cooperate in a global response.

The big picture

Clean cooking solutions are part of the larger push towards decentralized renewable energy (DRE). COVID-19 will not only impact existing DRE projects that provide energy services to millions of people. It will also affect the future of the sector, jeopardizing our efforts to ensure a just energy transition for all. The DRE sector cannot be allowed to fail. That is why Hivos joined the Alliance for Rural Electrifications’ call to action for redirecting and adapting funding windows to the decentralized renewable energy sector.

We need to jointly strive for an inclusive energy sector. We must ensure that the most vulnerable people and the prime victims of this crisis are included in designing energy policies and programs.

This opinion piece was originally published here

Eco Matser is Hivos global Climate Change / Energy and Development Coordinator

Credit: Joe Brusky.

By Eco Matser
AMSTERDAM, Jan 22 2020 (IPS)

For the first time, the world’s elites meeting this year at Davos have listed environmental issues as their top concerns about the next decade.

The WEF’s annual Global Risks Report raises the alarm on increased extreme weather events, manmade environmental damage – including oil spills and contamination, major biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and failure of governments and businesses to mitigate and adapt to climate change. All resulting in loss of human and animal life, and major damage to infrastructure, with irreversible consequences for the environment.

“The political landscape is polarized, sea levels are rising and climate fires are burning. This is the year when world leaders must work with all sectors of society to repair and reinvigorate our systems of cooperation, not just for short-term benefit but for tackling our deep-rooted risks,” said Borge Brende, President of the World Economic Forum.

“The political landscape is polarized, sea levels are rising and climate fires are burning. This is the year when world leaders must work with all sectors of society to repair and reinvigorate our systems of cooperation, not just for short-term benefit but for tackling our deep-rooted risks,”

Borge Brende, President of the World Economic Forum

Does this mean that after Davos 2020 businesses and governments are actually going tackle these realities seriously and with the necessary financial investments? Seeing is believing.

Fundamental change of systems needed

If businesses and governments are serious about combating climate change, they must increase investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as in the larger development agenda (Agenda 2030). However, this alone will not be enough.

If businesses do not start fundamentally changing current financial systems, we risk gaining only short-term benefits instead of addressing the real root causes.

The current world economy still relies on fossil fuels and energy-intensive production systems. And the fossil fuel industry continues to receive large subsidies from governments and investment banks. Although investment in renewable energy is on the rise, as long as fossil fuels are subsidized we will not make a shift towards zero-carbon economies.

Many argue that not investing in fossil fuels hinders the development of low-income countries by denying them access to the same economic opportunities as high-income countries.

However, this just masks a lack of will on the part of the world’s business elites who have the power and finances to pioneer a true transition. They are ignoring the fact that the economics of renewable energy have changed and there are many ways for low-income countries to leapfrog fossil fuels.

To succeed, the governments and companies at Davos should do two things:

1. Apply an integrated approach to mitigation, adaptation and development.
2. Ensure an inclusive process and equal access to benefits of climate change measures.

An integrated approach

Mitigation, adaptation and development should not be three separate work streams. As shown in this article, effective climate action requires coherence between measures. Take investing in renewable energy. It directly reduces the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But when used to provide energy access to the most vulnerable, it also brings communities social and economic benefits that increase their resilience to climate change.

For example, access to energy provides services for small-scale farmers or community enterprises, like solar powered agricultural irrigation systems, or food processing and storage. This in turn increases their general economic and climate resilience.

Another example is access to clean cooking solutions instead of burning wood. This not only reduces air pollution and deforestation, but also improves women and children’s health and frees up time for studying or income-producing activities. This in turn strengthens their position in society.

Inclusive process and equal access

On the one hand, we must invest vast resources to mitigate and adapt to global climate change; on the other, we need to tackle the deep injustices that lie at the heart of the climate crisis. The challenge is therefore to ensure a just transition in which all communities have equal access to the benefits of measures taken to tackle climate change.

Ironically, developing countries bear the brunt of the effects of climate change created by 150 years of unfettered industrial and agricultural development in the West. So we, in the West, have a moral obligation to help finance an inclusive climate transition and achieve the SDG development agenda.

A truly just transition

A truly just transition means including those who are generally left out of the decision-making processes: women, youth, and local or rural (indigenous) communities. So give back power to local communities and offer opportunities for collaborative decision-making.

Access to information, public participation and direct involvement of local communities are key to foster transformative societal change. But failure to act on the climate crisis in an inclusive, participatory manner will certainly fuel even greater distrust of political elites and representative democracy.

So, as governments and businesses gather in Davos, we urge them to listen to the words of Borge Brende when he says world leaders must reinvigorate the system of cooperation and focus on long-term benefits.

Only when they start investing substantially in tackling root causes and transforming systems in an integrated and inclusive way, will putting climate change at the top of the WEF’s agenda really mean something. Hivos will follow the conversations with interest and believe when we see.

This opinion piece was originally published here

Excerpt:

Cooking with a biogas stove, photo: Sven Torfinn

By Eco Matser
AMSTERDAM, Jul 8 2019 (IPS)

Whoever still thinks climate change is purely an environmental issue, threatening only nature, needs to think again. Climate change is also essentially a human issue because of its devastating effect on human life – and rights. It exacerbates existing inequalities, undermines democracy and threatens development at large. Likewise, by far the greatest burden will fall on those already in poverty, while the rich will be able to buy their way out of rising heat and hunger.

Human rights and climate change

The latest report on climate change and poverty by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights puts it bluntly: “climate change threatens the full enjoyment of a wide range of rights,” – from the right to land, resources and food, to the right to good health. It will spark conflicts and aggravate all current forms of insecurity.

Equally important will be the impact on democracy. As the UN report outlines, governments struggle to get support for (the costs of) action to combat climate change and the major socio-economic transformations this requires. “In such a setting, civil and political rights will be highly vulnerable.”

We at Hivos, and a number of organizations and individuals with us, have long warned about the terrible impact climate change can have on development and how it so unfairly affects people living in poverty. For years, we have been calling for an integrated approach to combatting climate change that benefits both the environment and development goals. Here’s why:

Exacerbating poverty and inequality

People in poverty are far more vulnerable to climate shocks because they have fewer resources available to adapt or make themselves resilient. Hence, they are driven deeper into poverty. For example, farmers risk losing their income due to drought or other extreme weather, and (fishing) communities living in coastal areas will have to flee rising sea levels.

Eco Matser, Hivos global Climate Change / Energy and Development Coordinator

Apart from increasing inequalities between rich and poor, climate change is also causing a growing divide between ethnicities, the sexes, generations and communities (Amnesty International). Areas inhabited largely by migrants and ethnic or racial minorities are more exposed to problems like industrial pollution, overcrowding, food insecurity, landslides, and the impacts of resource extraction; women and girls are disproportionately affected across the board; (indoor) air pollution is particularly harmful to children and the elderly; and the lands of indigenous people are more vulnerable to changing weather patterns.

Reduced productivity

And there is the threat to all our economies. At present, heat stress already causes loss of productivity. This will rise to 2 percent of working hours by 2030 even if we manage to maintain the global temperature increase below 1.5°C, estimates Moustapha Kamal Gueye, Coordinator of the ILO’s Green Jobs Program.

The risk of “climate apartheid”

The UN report also cites what is possibly the most disturbing risk of all. A new era of “climate apartheid” where the wealthy pay to escape rising temperatures, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer. “Perversely, the richest who have the greatest capacity to adapt and are responsible for and have benefitted from the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions, will be the best placed to cope with climate change, while the poorest, who have contributed the least to emissions and have the least capacity to react, will be the most harmed,” the report states.

A just transition

For all these reasons, mitigating climate change is an urgent human rights obligation. But it also provides a huge opportunity to enhance these rights. The transition to a low carbon economy would actually strengthen workers’ and women’s rights and reduce the divide between individuals and between communities.

Providing access to clean and affordable energy resources will increase the (economic) wellbeing of people currently living in poverty. Replacing firewood with “clean” solar, biogas or electric cooking equipment not only reduces carbon emissions but provides much healthier conditions for women and children. The same goes for the energy needs of (remote) off-grid rural communities, which can be much easier met by wind and solar energy sources that in turn do not harm the environment. In fact, it is estimated that the renewable energy sector alone will create 18 million new jobs – also for the underprivileged.

Making the right link

Linkages made by some human rights organizations have referred to specific issues like the “right to food” or the “land rights” of indigenous peoples. But they barely ever make the connection between climate change and human rights writ large. This is we so warmly welcome the UN report on climate change and poverty.

Governments and the private sector have equally failed to integrate the two. In the Paris Agreement, governments committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support climate vulnerable countries to adapt to irreversible consequences. But missing is the fact that people have the right to be protected against climate change. That there needs to be a just transition, ensuring gender equality, and minority and indigenous rights, while reducing economic and social inequalities. And that the implementation should be transparent and participatory, in accordance with the right to information.

The private sector also has a huge role to play. Fossil fuel companies in particular must take responsibility for the negative climate effects they cause and transition to renewable energy, phasing out fossil fuel exploration and use.

Climate change policies must be human rights policies

In conclusion, integrating human rights into climate change policies will simply improve and expand their effectiveness. As the UN report states, “This crisis [climate change] should be a catalyst for states to fulfil long ignored and overlooked economic and social rights, including to social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter, and decent work.”

This opinion piece was originally published here

Excerpt:

Hydro plant, Sumba, Indonesia. Credit: Josh Estey/Hivos

By Eco Matser
AMSTERDAM, Aug 7 2018 (IPS)

As the energy sector is transforming, there is a growing consensus that sustainable energy is a catalyst for achieving most Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): it is crucial for better health, education, jobs, food production and conservation, as well as water use and quality.

Today, 1 billion people still live without access to electricity and 3 billion have no access to clean cooking fuels.

This transformation involves decentralized solutions that are changing how people interact with each other and their energy providers. It influences the role of citizens not only as consumers but also as “prosumers” or energy entrepreneurs.

Access to energy

Access to energy is not just an end in itself. It is also a stepping stone to overcome two major challenges the world is facing:

• mitigating climate change and degradation of natural resources
• ensuring that all people everywhere are able to take charge of their own lives in inclusive and open societies

Where does energy come into the picture?

Traditionally, having access to energy often meant you had to live near a power grid or rely on diesel and kerosene or firewood. But the urgency of combating climate change, combined with technological advances and significant price reductions, has rapidly increased the availability and affordability of renewable energy. In addition, the move from centralized power distribution to decentralized off-grid and mini-grid systems powered by renewables is gaining strength. This would make much more energy available for disadvantaged communities and remote areas.

To move forward, policies must become more supportive while energy finance needs to fundamentally change. Currently, the main problem is not a lack of finance, but how finance flows – mainly to on-grid systems in higher income countries – while the greatest need is for off-grid systems in lower income areas.

Sumba: a frontrunner example of energy transition

Eco Matser, Hivos global Climate Change / Energy and Development Coordinator

The Indonesian island of Sumba is a frontrunner example of an ambitious and innovative energy transition. Hivos introduced the Sumba Iconic Island initiative in 2009, and it has since become living proof that decentralized sustainable energy systems positively affect green, inclusive growth. This initiative succeeded thanks to its multi-stakeholder approach with governments (local and national), private sector, and community-based organizations closely working together. Through decentralized mini-grid and off-grid solutions, the project has provided energy access for more people than ever before. In addition, Sumba stands as an inspiring example for local citizens and the Indonesian government of the opportunities renewable energy brings.

Leaving no one behind

Transitioning to decentralized energy systems will be one of the key success factors for achieving SDG7 before 2030. If we want to create sustainable and resilient societies, we have to focus on the millions that still lack even basic energy services, while also drawing attention to the current inequalities in global energy systems. In particular, we must empower women and youth to become entrepreneurs in the green energy transition.

Working alongside local partners on the ground, we can make sure that future energy systems are developed with the end-user in mind. This means creating more enabling environments for energy entrepreneurship and channeling both public and private finance into decentralized solutions for low-income communities and remote rural areas. In countries such as Kenya and Nepal, the government has already successfully implemented financial pay-as-you-go models with personalized repayment schemes. Yet these best practices need to materialize faster and on a much larger scale if we are serious about leaving no one behind.

Multi–stakeholder partnerships

Another decisive component for universal energy access is the presence of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Without partnerships, the transition will struggle to pick up speed. This is why Hivos led the creation of the Brooklyn Coalition in 2017 to accelerate the uptake of decentralized renewable energy. Uniting the governments of the Netherlands, Nepal and Kenya, private sector actors Schneider Electric and Selco, and the CSOs Hivos, ENERGIA and SNV, this coalition works to promote green societies where citizens are the driving force behind new solutions for their energy needs. Here, there is a big role to play for organizations that represent civil society at the UN’s High-level Political Forum (HLPF) review of SDG7.

Equally important is the interlinkage with other SDGs. Energy access is also vital for sustainable production, resilient water resources and inclusive cities. Providing energy for households, communities and workplaces forms the basis of thriving societies.

With great progress in many countries worldwide, there is good reason to be optimistic. Now, we must stress the continued need for enabling policies and investment in decentralized renewable energy solutions to complement grid systems and bring everyone along in the green energy transition.

This opinion was originally published here

Excerpt: