It is essential that the international aid sector reduces its ecological footprint

The issue of the international aid sector’s environmental and climatic footprint may seem marginal because of the minimal responsibility of the sector compared to other economic sectors, and also because of our social mission, particularly the imperative to save lives, here and now. It can also seem marginal in relation to the numerous risks of collapse. However, there are several reasons for the sector as a whole to be more exemplary. Firstly, the obligation to ‘do no harm’ and the need for coherence between our international aid projects and our practices, which are sometimes potentially harmful for the environment. The environmental footprint of the aid sector should thus be considered as a symptom of our dependence on thermo-industrial production methods, which we currently need to implement our social mission¹, but which are responsible to a great extent for our greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing our ecological footprint, over and above the imperative of doing no harm, is a way of preparing for a possible future when our operational models will need to be revised. As such, reducing the sector’s footprint with a view to a transition or a collapse scenario – for example, material and energetic decline as described by Arthur Keller² – will lead to a virtuous circle where new operational methods, new forms of solidarity, and ways of functioning in degraded mode, which are less dependent on fossil fuels and thermo-industrial production systems, will be able to be developed.

Reducing our footprint is therefore an imperative that needs to be considered in parallel to collapse scenarios in order to help to limit – at our level – the probability of the worst scenarios.

A drastic reduction is necessary

Though it is necessary to reduce both the aid system’s carbon footprint, and more widely, its environmental footprint (waste, the use of water, timber, cement, and its material footprint in a broad sense taking into account the lifecycle of goods and the material resources needed to produce them, particularly in connection with extractive/mining industries…), this article focuses on reducing the sector’s carbon footprint given the urgent nature of the situation but also the overall impact of decarbonising all the sector’s activities.

Massive, urgent and long-lasting reductions

Despite the climate negotiations that have taken place in recent years, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere reached a new record in 2018 according to the World Meteorological Organisation³. The climate crisis is already upon us. The United Nations speaks of ‘a lost decade’⁴ (2009-2019) and this inaction has major consequences for the efforts that are necessary to respect the objective that was fixed by the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C. To reach this goal, countries have to reduce their carbon emissions by 7.6% each year between 2020 and 2030 – or a reduction of more than half in ten years – and pursue their efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050⁵ . Twice the effort is therefore needed than if they had taken action as of 2010, and all the more difficult as emissions have risen an average of 1.5% over the last decade. If current practices continue, the increase in the average global temperature will be over 4°C by the end of the century.

Thus, in addition to the physical risk that comes from the growing number of extraordinary natural phenomena, climatic risk also includes a ‘transition risk’ which comes from the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a risk that is principally linked to our use of energy. Energy has been and continues to be an essential factor in the development of societies, but it is also a crucial issue in terms of reducing the environmental footprint of all the functions of societies. Massively reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases in order to contain the climate crisis therefore means proportionately reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, while it is important to underline that such a reduction is complex due to its systemic and multi-sectoral nature (we will return to this below).

Global accumulation

Another reason to single out greenhouse gas emissions in terms of reducing the aid sector’s ecological footprint has to do with their physical properties. Indeed, regardless of their origins, their nature and the geographic location of the emitters on the planet, all emissions become part of the global accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus contributing to systemic climatic risk. In other words, all the activities of the aid sector are concerned and their direct and indirect environmental and carbon impact at all levels need to be taken into account. This therefore concerns: means of transport – from home to headquarters, from headquarters to the field – , the supply chain and the life cycle of products, waste production and management, the construction, rehabilitation and use of buildings, food and non-food item production and use, medicines and medical equipment, water management, energy generation and use for operational purposes, and, lastly, information and communication technology use…

Drastically reducing the sector’s carbon footprint is both a huge, systemic challenge and a source of opportunity, including in terms of leverage with other sectors (for example, in terms of the capacity to negotiate with suppliers, as the ICRC does⁶). Without forgetting the other forms of local environmental pollution, such as the production of non-recycled plastic waste or untreated waste water.

Steps towards an exemplary aid sector

Different areas of action are listed below: these should not be tackled in a linear way, but in interaction with each other, in the hope that this will generate positive feedback loops. Moreover, some of the proposed areas of action are inter-dependent and/or implemented at the same time.

Build awareness-raising narratives and tools.

While numerous aid organisations are beginning to commit themselves, or have already committed themselves to reducing their ecological footprint, there is an urgent need to build a common narrative in order to bring the whole sector on board and convince all organisations to go further given the nature of the emergency. The reticence that exists in the sector needs to be deconstructed. Ethical issues related to the imperative to reduce emissions and the choices that will have to be made need to be discussed. This can be done by developing awareness-raising tools, writing articles and developing case studies that show the relevance and feasibility of new approaches with a reduced environmental footprint. It should be pointed out that this internal awareness-raising effort also concerns donors.

Choices will be necessary
A drastic reduction will have an impact on the quantity of aid and will require widespread debate among aid organisations to decide what is feasible and ethical. However, it is important to underline that part of the reduction of emissions could be implemented without compromising the quality and quantity of aid, particularly in relation to air transport: banning short-haul flights when there is an alternative by train, giving priority to direct flights, improved management of supplies in order to limit air freight (better planning, pre-positioning, local purchasing…).

Reinforcing and then extending the community of action, structuring and systematising the sharing of information, expertise, resources and tools to help actors take the leap

Numerous organisations are already taking action. The aim should therefore be to capture, map and document the good practices already taking place, but also to build bridges and dialogue between actors. Lesson learning and sharing has begun between French-speaking organisations via the Humanitarian Environment Network⁷ and Coordination Sud’s Climate and Development Commission. At the international level, there is the OCHA/UNEP Joint Environment Unit⁸. However, this effort to create synergy needs to accelerate and needs to include actors from the private and public sector, at the international, regional and local levels, and, of course, environmental organisations, universities and research centres. For example, medical sector NGOs could learn from initiatives such as the Global Green and Healthy Hospital network and Health Care Without Harm, which are important sources of know-how, and can be replicated.

Already mobilised
Handicap International has developed a ‘Guide to Eco-friendly Practices for Field Workers’.
CARE France and Christian Aid have set themselves objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
UNOCHA also has tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of relief operations.

This lesson-sharing should allow case studies to be produced to document and show the feasibility of tried and tested approaches, so as not to re-invent the wheel or conduct a lot of separate pilot projects. The objective is to deconstruct arguments regarding technical complexity and the idea that certain environmentally-friendly options are incompatible with an emergency response, and also, if required, to explain the return on investment (of energy efficiency measures, in particular). Even though this may be derisory compared to the challenges ahead, it is often a necessary step within organisations in order to introduce changes, and it is necessary to be pragmatic in order to be efficient. This could also be a way to establish a catalogue of good practices (BEPO: Best Environmental Practical Options) that take into account financial, technical and environmental criteria. The notion of residual environmental risk could be included, that is to say the environmental risk that cannot be reduced in relation to the humanitarian imperative, but which, in order to be acceptable, needs to be measured, analysed, documented and integrated, and then compensated, if possible. The principle of ‘apply or explain’ could be introduced to tackle environmental risk and the impact that we do or do not choose to avoid. Donors have a crucial role to play in terms of ensuring that such criteria are taken into account, suggesting incentives (for example, making funding available for structural costs) or encouraging and/or funding these experience-sharing exercises.

Regarding ‘digital obesity’
“Digital technologies now emit 4% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), that is to say more than civil aviation. This share could double from now to 2025 to reach 8% of all GHG emissions, i.e. the current share of car emissions. Reducing the threat of climate change requires drastically reducing global greenhouse gas emissions in the next few years; however, the energy consumption required for digital technologies is increasing by 9% a year […]”. (Source: The Shift Project, 2018) The so-called “dematerialisation” of practices and the growing use of new information and communication technologies (NICTs) thus has a material and energy impact, and therefore a “carbon” impact that must be taken into account in the alternatives proposed for the sector.

In order to act quickly and reduce emissions significantly, this community of actors should consider pooling financial, logistical and human resources. This will involve discussing improvements together in order not to duplicate efforts and to coordinate and carry out joint actions to limit our impact. For example, a joint supply system that aims to limit the impacts related to the transportation of merchandise, the development of joint projects to reduce waste and improve its management, or the sharing of human resource practices in order to share good practices…

Drawing up an environmental charter with concrete objectives

It is crucial that a group of international aid organisations makes a clear commitment in the form of an environmental charter, which other organisations could then sign up to. The aim would be to build momentum within the sector, without waiting until every actor was ready to commit themselves. Signing up to the charter would be based on commitments from each actor, and eventually this charter could become restrictive.

In this regard, we could refer to the Global Green & Healthy Hospital network and how organisations sign up to it: any medical organisation or body can join the GGHH by sending a letter of intention stating the organisation’s support for the GGHH programme and/or its commitment to meet at least two of its sustainability goals⁹. Signing up gives access to a documentary and technical database, as well as a platform to discuss good practices with the other members of the network. These commitments should lead to proactive communication in order to encourage the rest of the sector to do the same and to show other sectors that an ‘alternative’ model is possible.

This charter should also include clear objectives and a trajectory for reducing the carbon footprint in keeping with the scientific consensus. To do this, it is necessary to have guidelines for measuring the main environmental impacts of the sector. Indeed, actors need to identify the main areas to work on and actions that can be put in place quickly and will produce a significant impact, or ‘quick wins’, in order to prioritise actions. This framework should also make it possible to control the evolution of practices and measure the effectiveness of reduction measures. This point is all the more important because once the ‘quick wins’ have been dealt with (such as the reduction of unnecessary flights, to take the simplest example), the actions needed will be more and more complex to implement and will require greater effort and reform. The capacity to measure progress is important to raise awareness internally (so that people are really conscious of the environmental impacts), and also to be accountable to donors, partners, employees and affected people.

It will also be necessary to define the boundaries of the sector’s carbon footprint, and relatively quickly extend this to indirect emissions. These are the emissions indirectly produced by an organisation’s activities, including the complete value chain of its activities, before and after. This represents a significant percentage of the sector’s footprint as it includes, for example, suppliers. It could follow the example of the ICRC, which has negotiated with its suppliers to reduce the use of palm oil, reduce its footprint in terms of raw materials, and ban the distribution of GM seeds or products. By making a commitment to environmentally- (and socially-) friendly production and supply chains and taking the whole lifecycle of products into consideration, the impact could be systemic and global, extending beyond exemplarity and beyond the sector.

Lastly, the charter could include a commitment to compensate for incompressible emissions via a compensation programme based on recognised standards¹⁰ or via the payment of a carbon tax, while recognizing the risks involved in such practices, which should be a last resort and not seen as a way of avoiding a genuine reduction in the sector’s environmental footprint. Why not consider, as CARE has done, instigating a carbon tax system within the sector that would allow mitigation activities to be funded?

Conclusion

Establish a quantified roadmap with dedicated resources

The points presented above should feed into an environmental, global and cross-sector roadmap that aims, principally, to organize the energy transition, promote and implement the best environmental practices, and reflect on operational approaches.

A roadmap is a framework for action and should describe concrete actions as well as the resources needed to implement them. It will complement the charter, and should define the main areas of action identified as priorities for the sector, such as: managing energy and carbon, supply chains and waste, life cycles, transporting people and merchandise, managing water, managing waste, construction and renovation project design, organisational development, the management of staff, partnerships and networks, or even governance and finances.

Above all, this roadmap will help to highlight opportunities and coordinate activities so that a transition plan can be implemented at the local, regional, national and international levels. Many of the proposed measures will result in a more efficient use of the organisation’s human and financial resources. The investment needed for the transition could therefore be partially compensated by significant savings in terms of transport or fossil fuel costs. And, of course, the cost of certain products could increase significantly if a carbon tax is implemented.

Lastly, the roadmap will be based on all the case studies and good practices that have been shared. Drafting and implementing it will require everyone’s support and it is only by working together that we will be able to make the sector exemplary. In any case, if we wait any longer, we will fail to meet the challenge facing us. Establishing an ambitious objective (and fulfilling it) as of 2020 is therefore the only option available if we want to stay below +1.5°C.

Aurélie Ceinos (CARE), Resilience & Climate Change Specialist
François Delfosse (MSF-Suisse), ‘Environmental Roadmap’ Project Manager

N.B.: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of CARE International or MSF.

Solar panels, refugee camps, Kenya

1. In their text, Humanitarianism in the Anthropocene, Sverre Molland and Darryl Stellmach describe “humanitarian action [as] an industrialized response to suffering. The same tools and techniques that power global capitalism also enable humanitarian action: transnational supply chains, administration, media and communications mobilize personnel and materials to faraway places.” Available at the following address: http://somatosphere.net/2016/08/humanitarianism-in-the-anthropocene.html
2. Arthur Keller trained as an aerospace engineer and now specialises in societal vulnerabilities, and ecological transition and resilience strategies.
3. They continue to rise: greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere reached new heights in 2018. Cf. https://public.wmo.int/fr/medias/communiqu%C3%A9s-de-presse/la-tendance-%C3%A0-la-hausse-se-poursuit-les-concentrations-de-gaz-%C3%A0-effet (published 25 November 2019).
4. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/lost-decade-climate-action-hope-emerges
5. Emissions Gap Report 2019 Global progress report on climate action, UNEP, 26 November 2019 (available at: https://www.unenvironment.org/interactive/emissions-gap-report/2019/index.php). See also the IPCC Press Release, 8 October 2018 : https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf
6. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/sustainable-development-icrc
7. https://www.urd.org/en/network/the-humanitarian-environment-network/
8. www.ehaconnect.org
9. The ten goals are as follows: 1. LEADERSHIP: Prioritize environmental health; 2. CHEMICALS: Substitute harmful chemicals with safer alternatives; 3. WASTE: Reduce, treat and safely dispose of healthcare waste; 4. ENERGY: Implement energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy generation; 5. WATER: Reduce hospital water consumption and supply potable water; 6 TRANSPORTATION: Improve transportation strategies for patients and staff; 7. FOOD: Purchase and serve sustainably grown, healthy food; 8. PHARMACEUTICALS: Safely manage and dispose of pharmaceuticals; 9. BUILDINGS: Support green and healthy hospital design and construction; 10. PURCHASING: Buy safer and more sustainable products and materials. (See: https://www.greenhospitals.net/sustainability-goals/)
10. United Nations-Carbon offset platform, UN certification of emission reductions, https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/uncertification