The fact that more than 60 percent of the 1.11 billion people living in SSA are under 30 raises both development potential and energy demand, which current energy systems cannot meet adequately. Extensive research shows that community-based energy systems may be more effective than centralized systems to enhance energy access.[1] There are still few energy communities in SSA, mostly designed to bridge energy access disparities with underlying issues like poverty reduction and health improvement. However, millions of households in the region are beginning to see energy communities as a mechanism to achieve sustainability and resilience.
Energy in SSA has gotten less attention in the literature than in Europe, despite access difficulties due in part to the developing energy infrastructure. Ambole et al. find that the SSA energy projects either lack or do not have enough elements to be characterized as energy communities. The authors studied 19 community energy initiatives to evaluate the obstacles experienced and propose co-design approaches to effectively develop ECs.
Energy communities provide an innovative take on a socio-technical movement that promotes more democratic and participatory energy systems. In the debate on energy democracy and energy justice, it is frequently argued that voluntary methods, stakeholder engagement, participatory governance, cooperation, and local self-organization should be used to increase community involvement and ownership. For example, Omenge et al. argue in a study focused on Kenya that the success of renewable energy projects depends on active citizen participation and interactive stakeholder involvement that should start with project ideation and continue throughout the entire project life.[2] Muhoza and Johnson add that better integration of user perspective during project design, implementation, and assessment can identify possible shortcomings and obstacles of the energy services and tailor them to the local environment.[3]
According to Ambole et al., among the main reasons why energy communities lag in SSA are inadequate stakeholder engagement and citizen participation. Few countries have energy requirements at the local level, encouraging instead a top-down policy engagement, which has been criticized over time as inadequate for democratic energy policy formulation, design, and implementation. Most top-down strategies fail to effectively involve the local communities, only considering them in validation workshops and interviews after project choices have been made.
Other top-down strategies are expert-centered, which means that the communities they are designing for are given little to no input as experts construct energy solutions.[4]
Damien and Frame argue that SSA nations require contextualized community energy initiatives supported by tailored schemes, context-specific know-how, and strong leadership.[5] Research shows that community-managed MGs are a valid tool, in particular for rural areas that fall outside of the main electricity grid. For instance, increased ownership of rural mini-grids has been a key component for broadening the electricity microgrids in Tanzania. Nfah argues that local committees in Cameroon should oversee, run, and maintain installed energy systems and collect funds on a fee-for-service basis to guarantee local stakeholders’ profit from the projects.[6]
The following paragraphs aim to draw attention on three aspects. The first is the role of policymaking for the uptake of community-based energy initiatives. The second is the role of NGOs in empowering communities to take a more proactive role in energy self-production. The third is the role of cross-sector collaborations to co-design bottom-up energy solutions.
Nigeria’s Policies Fostering Bottom-Up Energy Initiatives
Nigeria operates a fully centralized energy system, primarily using hydropower and thermal power plants, that connects towns and individuals to a single energy source.[7] According to the Nigerian Council for Renewable Energy, power disruptions cost the country 126 billion naira ($ 984.38 million) yearly.[8] The National Energy Policy 2003 has the goal to create energy security through a robust energy supply mix, by diversifying the energy supply and energy carriers.
For the past three decades, the energy market, which is dominated on the supply side by the government-owned PHCN, formerly known as NEPA, has been unable to provide the minimum acceptable standards of electricity’s availability, accessibility, and dependability.[9] Nigeria has been implementing policies for the uptake of renewable energy, starting with the Nigeria Renewable Energy Master Plan 2005 and 2012 (NREMP) which offered a legal framework for achieving the goals of maintaining a renewable portfolio standard, establishing, and strengthening regulatory institutions, establishing fiscal and market incentives, incorporating renewable energy into nonenergy sector policies, and standardizing renewable energy products.[10]
The Renewable Electricity Policy Guidelines 2006 was created to guide the government’s vision, policies, and objectives to promote renewable sources in the electricity sector. It required the government to increase the country’s electricity production from renewable sources to at least five percent of all electricity produced and to a minimum of five TWh.
The National Bio-fuels Policy and Incentives 2007 aimed at using agricultural products to grow and support the domestic fuel ethanol industry. A biofuels commission was established and a regulation on biofuels was issued by the Minister of Petroleum Resources. Furthermore, the policy established a research agency for biofuels and funded R&D. Finally, an incentive program for those involved in the biofuels development sub-sector was implemented as part of the policy’s contribution to the regulatory environment for renewable energy.
The National Renewable Energy and Efficiency Policy 2015 is Nigeria’s first and only coordinated tool to advance the development of renewable energy sources and raise energy efficiency levels. The national grid’s accessibility limitations were acknowledged by the policy, which considered renewable energy as the best way to close the gap. To encourage the growth of Nigeria’s market for renewable electricity, the government aims at offering guarantees and financial structures. Between 2014 and 2018, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Power Africa funded the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Project (REEEP).
Then there are also State-level regulations. For example, a net metering scheme for rooftop solar project has been launched in Lagos.[11] Other strategies put in place include mini-grid rules that the federal government has developed to handle concerns including tariffs for developers. Only projects with an energy capacity of between 100 KW and 1 MW are subject to the mini-grid regulation. These are constructive actions in the direction of clean energy power production.[12] The Solar Sisters women-led renewable energy NGO establishes women-to-women networks, recruits, trains, and mentors women to achieve “last mile” distribution for solar devices and clean cookstoves. Almost 2,500 business owners in the Solar Sister network offer services to over 350,000 individuals.[13]
Policymaking coupled with entrepreneurial and social drive has sparked a few community-led energy initiatives. Solar-as-a-service-provider has been launched in some parts of Nigeria in July 2022. For example, Ecoligo (a Berlin-based Impact Investment Provider) supports and equips one of Lagos-based manufacturing company TLM Investment Ltd with a 178 kWp solar system. Now, most companies have started implementing solar initiatives as they learn more about its advantages.[14] Another project is the Sharing the Power project introduced by the Rocky Mountain institute (RMI) in collaboration with Nayo Tropical Technology which is providing energy to peri-urban areas. It has been conceptualized as community-centric mini-grids.[15] In this project, coownership, inclusive governance, benefit-sharing, safeguarding community investment, gender and social inclusion are highlighted.
The Role of Power Africa in Kenya
Power Africa is a US Government-led partnership to convene resources from the private sector, international development organizations, and governments to increase energy access in SSA.[16] In Kenya, the organization supports the development of 779 MW of electricity generation projects.[17] Power Africa advocates for a community-oriented approach to energy infrastructure development, which can support utilities in building capacity and engaging local communities in the energy transition.
To provide community engagement standards to infrastructure project developers, Power Africa published the Guide to Community Engagement for Power Projects in Kenya, which is based on global best practices and their adaptations to the Kenyan context, as well as knowledge and data obtained from civil society organizations, regional administrations, local leaders, and community and religious figures. Power Africa distributed this source as a reference tool to electricity producers, transmission businesses, distribution businesses, and regulators. The guide emphasizes that community consultations are insufficient for meaningful involvement. In fact, all energy project phases must be approached holistically and based on trust and transparency, consent without coercion or intimidation, and fair compensation to affected communities. With Power Africa’s support, energy companies evaluate their performance to build institutional and human capacity, including community participation, and develop initiatives that standardize best practices and policies to foster social responsibility in renewable energy production.
Examples of energy projects that center around local communities include the Geothermal Development Company (GDC), which developed a community engagement strategy to reduce project delays and disruptions. Another example is the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO), whom Power Africa supported in completing its Resettlement Policy Framework, which outlines action plans for communities impacted by land acquisition for transmission infrastructure and includes provisions for prompt and fair compensation for resettlement, loss of assets and standards of living. The framework can serve as a policy guide for power transmission projects in East Africa. Finally, Power Africa is guiding, through capacity building, utilities, and other energy sector stakeholders, in developing draft policies on community engagement, land access, revenue allocation, and resettlement compensation to amend Kenya’s Energy Act of 2019.[18]
Cross-sector Collaborations in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa
By investigating case studies from Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa, Ambole et al. looked at how cross-sector collaborations can support the co-creation of trans-local energy communities. The authors demonstrate how energy communities are, at first, context-based, driven by their specific energy challenges. However, because of the complexity of energy issues, partnerships with nonlocal stakeholders are necessary to make the most of resources and skills.
Thus, to create a shared understanding among the local stakeholders, NGOs, policymakers, and academia, the authors explore a transdisciplinary co-design methodology. They created a baseline by gathering information about households and communities via surveys, focus groups, and participatory mapping. They then hosted community discussions, design thinking workshops, and policy seminars for various stakeholders sharing the outputs from the data analysis. The local case studies were then enlarged to a regional scope attaining the trans-local viewpoint. The authors conclude that their co-design endeavor requires a long-term collaborative agenda, best fostered by interdisciplinary academics with a focus on community energy empowerment.[19]
Ambole et al. also state that co-designing the statutory, regulatory, and socio-technical configurations that will support the development of energy communities in various contexts is necessary. In this regard, they suggest that community energy intermediates, such as NGOs and knowledge institutions focused on energy and community engagement, should connect local communities with energy companies and investors who can help them develop and fund energy projects. They can also conduct feasibility studies and offer co-design tools, business services, and policy advice to the community. Finally, intermediaries should support communities with training and foster interaction with decision-makers to ensure that incentive-based regulatory frameworks are developed.[20]
[1] Rogers, J.; Simmons, E.; Convery, I.; Weatherall, A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4217–4226.
[2] Omenge, P.M.; Eshiamwata, G.W.; Makindi, S.; Obwoyere, G.O. Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment and Its Substantive Contribution to Environmental Risk Management: Insights from Eia Practitioners and Other Stakeholders in Kenya’s Renewable Energy Sub-Sector. In Energy and Sustainability VIII; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2019; pp. 133–144.
[3] Muhoza, C.; Johnson, O.W. Exploring household energy transitions in rural Zambia from the user perspective. Energy Policy 2018, 121, 25–34.
[4] Ambole,A.; Koranteng,K.; Njoroge, P.; Luhangala, D.L. A Review of Energy Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa as a Transition Pathway to Energy Democracy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042128
[5] Damien, D.P.A.F. Critical Review of the Malawi Community Energy Model. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES Power Africa Conference, Livingstone, Zambia, 28 June–2 July 2016; pp. 78–82.
[6] Nfah, E.M.; Ngundam, J. Identification of stakeholders for sustainable renewable energy applications in Cameroon. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4661–4666.
[7] Hussaini, I., Onunze, C., Chiroma, A., Muhammas, S., & Ibrahim, S. (2014). Energy Resources Development in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges. November.
[9] Adenikinju, A. F. (2005). Analysis of the cost of infrastructure failures in a developing economy: The case of the electricity sector in Nigeria.
[10] Hussaini, I., Onunze, C., Chiroma, A., Muhammas, S., & Ibrahim, S. (2014). Energy Resources Development in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges. November.
[19] Ambole, A.; Musango, J.K.; Buyana, K.; Ogot, M.; Anditi, C.; Mwau, B.; Kovacic, Z.; Smit, S.; Lwasa, S.; Nsangi, G.; et al. Mediating household energy transitions through co-design in urban Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 55, 208–217 Also see Njoroge, P.; Ambole, A.; Githira, D.; Outa, G. Steering energy transitions through landscape governance: Case of Mathare informal settlement, Nairobi, Kenya. Land 2020, 9, 206.
[20] Ambole,A.; Koranteng,K.; Njoroge, P.; Luhangala, D.L. A Review of Energy Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa as a Transition Pathway to Energy Democracy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042128
Energy communities are a central part of the energy transition strategies that set foot in Europe as a response to the European Green Deal. It is estimated that by 2050, 264 million European citizens will join the energy market as prosumers and generate 45% of the total renewable electricity on the market.[1] Europe is a pioneer in the energy community trend. Leading countries are Germany (1750 active energy communities in 2020), Denmark (700), the Netherlands (500), the United Kingdom (431) and Sweden (200), and they are often enabled by national investments.[2]
On the other hand, energy communities are still underexplored in the Global South, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, due in part to the still rudimentary energy systems in these countries. Nevertheless, these nascent energy systems, coupled with strong entrepreneurship and keenness to new technologies, offer the opportunity to co-create a framework in which energy communities can thrive and are effectively enabled to tackle energy poverty.[3]
In fact, when thinking of energy poverty, most of the times examples from Global South countries come to mind, where the struggle involves billions of people, it is more easily perceived by the wider public and recognized in international and national policy. Many countries in Africa are taking a stance towards addressing the needs of the vulnerable communities in fighting climate change and be part of the sustainable transition by redirecting funds to the most vulnerable groups.
For instance, in the 2016 Climate Change Act,[4] Kenya created a regulatory framework that provides mechanisms and measures to foster low carbon development through the Climate Change Fund. Regulatory frameworks are accompanied by NGOs’ efforts to engage local communities in the energy transition by developing energy communities, such as the case of Power Africa.[5] The regulatory frameworks and NGOs actions are examples of the efforts being put in by countries and international development organizations to enable vulnerable communities to take part in the transition, even if more strategic financing options and recommendations to support policy actions that will ensure effective economic growth are needed.
It seems that in many Global South countries, energy poverty is at least acknowledged at the national and international level, even if several difficulties are present when it comes to implementation, in particular due to the relatively low levels of investments in renewable energy. In fact, less than 8% of investments in energy transition technologies were made in the Asia-Pacific region in 2021 (excluding China), less than 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and less than 2% in Africa and the Middle East. Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, annual investment in zero-carbon energy has stalled in developing nations outside China. By the end of the 2020s, yearly capital investment on zero-carbon energy in poor nations must grow by more than seven times, to more than USD 1 trillion, to put the world on pace to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[6]
As exemplified by the European case, Global North countries are in the front row for what concerns energy communities. Despite so, there is a lack of acknowledgment in some countries concerning energy poverty. For example, in the Netherlands there is consistent national investment towards the energy transition but it is not directed at vulnerable communities. In fact, there is still no national policy that addresses energy poverty, which challenges the possibility to employ a bottom-up approach and implement local level policies.[7] This perspective undermines the general efforts to accelerate the energy transition, since if the needs of the vulnerable communities are not addressed, they will not be prompted to act sustainably, having more short-term pressing matters to deal with.
In contrast, in other Global North countries, the social aspect of energy communities and the attention to energy poverty is accentuated. One example is Italy, in which the presence of energy communities is much more limited than in other EU countries (only 35 active, 41 developing and 24 moving initial steps in 2022), but many of them are developed with a strong social drive and converge in the Network of Renewable and Solidarity Energy Communities(Rete delle Comunità Energetiche Rinnovabili e Solidali).[8]
According to Legambiente, an Italian environmental NGO, the development of energy communities can lead to savings of up to 25 percent for domestic users and up to 20 percent for SMEs, schools, and other facilities. This is a vital contribution for the more than two million households in energy poverty that struggle to secure power continuity, forced to forego energy services such as heating or to use outdated technologies risking their health and safety.[9]
The forthcoming research by Chiara Scalia aims at developing two experimental projects in the EU as a tool to fight energy poverty. The first is Co-Roma, a Rome-based platform that supports the development of social energy communities. Co-Roma has a wider scope of mapping and supporting common goods, in the wider Co-City framework. The second is Tilburg JET, a social energy community developed in a vulnerable district in Tilburg, NL, which provides a pathway for vulnerable communities to take part in the renewable energy transition.
The projects are supported by several stakeholders: Luiss Guido Carli University, the MSc in Law, Digital Innovation and Sustainability, the research center LabGov.City, the multi-utility Acea, the research agency ENEA, the ENGAGE.EU university network and the Tilburg Municipality.
[2] Tarpani, E.; Piselli, C.; Fabiani, C.; Pigliautile, I.; Kingma, E.J.; Pioppi, B.; Pisello, A.L. Energy Communities Implementation in the European Union: Case Studies from Pioneer and Laggard Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12528. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141912528
[3] Ambole,A.; Koranteng,K.; Njoroge, P.; Luhangala, D.L. A Review of Energy Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa as a Transition Pathway to Energy Democracy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042128
[4] The Climate Change Act 2016, 10 179 (2016). Kenya.
[6] Aydos, M., Toledano, P., Dietrich Brauch, M., Mehranvar, L., Iliopoulos, T.G. and Sasmal, S., 2022. Scaling Investment in Renewable Energy Generation to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and 13 (Climate Action) and the Paris Agreement: Roadblocks and Drivers. Available at SSRN 4309067.
[7] See Feenstra M, Middlemiss L, Hesselman M, Straver K and Tirado Herrero S (2021) Humanising the Energy Transition: Towards a National Policy on Energy Poverty in the Netherlands. Front. Sustain. Cities 3:645624. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.645624.
See also Straver, K., Mulder, P., Hesselman, M., Tirado Herrero, S., Middlemiss, L., and Feenstra, M. (2020). Energy Poverty and the Energy Transition. TNO.
Continuano i nostri appuntamenti di GrInn Lab, oggi abbiamo avuto i collegamento il Dottor Guido Sgambati di Acea, un interessante intervento sulle comunità energetiche e uno stimolante Q&A con gli studenti del laboratorio!
“Il ruolo di Acea e delle ESCO in generale è quello di finanziare interventi di efficientamento energetico e condividere i benefici con il consumatore. Questo meccanismo è applicabile alle comunità energetiche rinnovabili creando grandi vantaggi sia all’ESCO che all’end user.”
When former U.S. President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2019, 61 U.S. mayors joined in opposition to the government and signed a declaration of commitment to the Agreement’s goals. This act set a powerful example for cities around the world to become aware of their potential for change. It testifies to the role that cities are acquiring in the international landscape. After all, although they cover only about 2% of the planet, since 2007 they have been home to more than 50% of the global population, with the prospect estimated by the World Bank of reaching 70% in 2070. Cities are also powerful economic agents, accounting for 80% of the world’s GDP, and also produce most greenhouse gas emissions, covering about 75% of the total. According to many scholars, the 21st century is witnessing the loss of political weight of the state and the rise of the city as an entity of international importance. On the other hand, cities have always been protagonists on the international scene, and many define the Westphalian world as a brief phase of the importance of states in a history characterized by the role of local entities.
Climate change has now conquered the global media scene, also because of the increasingly frequent natural disasters it induces. As unfortunately witnessed by this summer’s extreme events, climate change is no longer a distant prospect, estimated only by the scientific community, but a tangible reality. This leads the various global institutions to seek mitigation and adaptation strategies. In this context, a central role is played by cities.
When former U.S. President Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2019, 61 U.S. mayors joined in opposition to the government and signed a declaration of commitment to the Agreement’s goals [1]. This act set a powerful example for cities around the world to become aware of their potential for change. It testifies to the role that cities are acquiring in the international landscape. After all, although they cover only about 2% of the planet, since 2007 they have been home to more than 50% of the global population, with the prospect estimated by the World Bank of reaching 70% in 2070. Cities are also powerful economic agents, accounting for 80% of the world’s GDP, and also produce most greenhouse gas emissions, covering about 75% of the total [2]. According to many scholars, the 21st century is witnessing the loss of political weight of the state and the rise of the city as an entity of international importance. On the other hand, cities have always been protagonists on the international scene, and many define the Westphalian world as a brief phase of the importance of states in a history characterized by the role of local entities [3].
To ensure greater effectiveness in their international action, cities have, over time, formed networks, i.e., associations of local governments to share knowledge, collaborate with public and private actors and defend collective urban interests. More than 200 formal networks are currently in place, with four new ones growing each year. Networks focused on environmental issues account for nearly one-third of the total. Major ones include UCLG, C40 and ICLEI.
Another important network of cities is Urban 20 (U20), a parallel mechanism to the Group of 20 that works to provide recommendations to national leaders to implement urban policies that are fair, sustainable and cost-effective. In the year of Italy’s G20 presidency, U20 met in Rome in September under the co-chairmanship of the cities of Rome and Milan to discuss appropriate urban policies to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and to ensure a recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic that is both equitable and sustainable.
The pandemic has caused millions of deaths and displaced people around the world. What began as a health crisis quickly turned into a human and socioeconomic crisis. At the same time, the world has entered the “decade of action,” which requires accelerating sustainable solutions to major global problems, ranging from inequality to climate change. Being able to reduce global emissions by 50% means, according to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, mobilizing all sectors of society for a decade on three levels: global action, ensuring smarter leadership, resources, and solutions to achieve the SDGs; local action, integrating the necessary transitions into the legal frameworks, policies, budgets, and institutions of cities and local governments; and citizen action, which includes civil society, trade unions, the media, academia, and the younger generation, which are especially needed to spark a global movement that pushes for sustainable transformation [4].
In this context, the G20 countries are better equipped to deal with the health crisis because of their vast economic resources. However, since they are also the main producers of carbon emissions, they have a responsibility to be at the forefront of the fight against climate change. And this according to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the seventh of the Declaration on Environment and Development launched at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and among the fundamental principles of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, approved at the same international conference. In the aftermath of the pandemic and in the year of COP26, G20 national governments announced that they would cumulatively pour $13 billion in fiscal support, stimulus packages and recovery plans, which should be spent wisely and sustainably to significantly reduce GHG emissions, create job opportunities and increase resilience.
Well, despite the proclamations, only 7% of COVID-19 incentive packages are explicitly dedicated to green projects. Instead, the U20 mayors are proposing the full use of funds to contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement. This includes, in particular, an end to fossil fuel incentives and increased investment in green areas in cities, public transportation, and sustainable food systems. In addition, G20 countries should support developing countries to ensure a global and equitable green transition.
Another top priority of all recovery plans is job creation. Mayors suggest that a green and just recovery has the potential to create up to 50 million jobs by the end of 2025 in C40 cities. Equal employment opportunity, support for increasing women’s participation in the workforce, and regulation of informal work in key sectors are essential aspects of a fair and just transition.
Finally, recovery must be local. Although cities are home to the majority of the population of G20 countries and have been the hardest hit by the pandemic, they have not been adequately involved in developing recovery plans and the majority will not directly benefit. The co-chairs of the U20 2021 Summit are calling on G20 leaders to ensure that cities receive stimulus packages and that national recovery plans include at least 30 percent urban projects. They argue that cities already have ambitious climate action plans and should be supported in introducing recovery measures at the local level in order to build back better and become essential allies of nations in achieving climate goals [5].
The plans outlined by the U20 group of mayors are forward-looking, ambitious, and require a high level of cooperation among cities to achieve the goals that will lead to climate neutrality in 2050. Mayors are doing great work in persuading national leaders, and it is often because of them that more just and sustainable policies are being put in place. If every local entity worked towards the best possible stewardship of their land, achieving the SDG goals and the promise of a more sustainable world would easily become a reality: think global, act local.
References
[1] Climate Mayors (2019) Statement From The Climate Mayors in Response to President Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Climate Agreement. Statement originally released on 1 June 2017 with 61 signatories. Updated signatories on 27 November 2019. Text available at https://climatemayors.org/actions-paris-climate-agreement/
