The following are excerpts from our interview with Francesco La Camera. Find the full text below.
On IRENA’s role. “[Our] work is aimed at enhancing the role of renewables in the global energy system; it does this through its analyses, reports, and the direct support we give to member countries in planning and defining energy strategies. More recently, we have also been facilitating projects, i.e. connecting actors with financial resources.”
On the race to decarbonise. “We’re on the right path, the world is moving towards a new energy system dominated by renewables, complemented by hydrogen and the sustainable use of biomass. There’s no doubt about that, the process is irreversible. The problems we face are the speed and scale of this transformation, which are not consistent with the Paris targets. We could say that we will get there, but late, thus not effectively counteracting the catastrophic impacts of climate change.”
- “81% of the newly-installed generation capacity in 2022 was renewable. That’s 260 gigawatts. But to bring ourselves in line with the Paris Agreement, we would need to install 800 GW each year. Until 2030, at a global scale, we will need $5.7 trillion in investments on renewables, infrastructure, energy efficiency, and everything related to development.”
On renewables and energy security. “The Ukrainian crisis has made it even more evident: a centralised energy system based on fossil fuels has led to strong dependencies, to which 80% of the world’s countries are subject, with all the consequences this entails. Hence the need to focus on a decentralised system, on the role of renewables not only to secure clean energy but also, and above all, to get out of energy dependency.”
- “There are those who, seizing on the difficulty generated by the Ukrainian crisis, think they can solve energy security issues by still resorting to hydrocarbons. In my view, this strategy will not get us very far, and at the same time, it does not put us in a position to accelerate and increase the scale of the transition.”
On the critical raw materials. “We can solve problems with the right policies, allowing mining to take place within the given timeframe, environmental protection rules, and respect for human rights. […] We need to make the processes of excavation and refining sustainable. And we need to keep the focus on technologies, preferring those that use already-available minerals or none at all. Finally, we must strengthen recycling and circular economy policies.”
On Italy’s role. “[It] has done a lot on renewables over the past years, even though the commitment has waned somewhat recently. The authorisation system is slowing down investments. I hope it will be overcome; I know there are efforts to streamline procedures. Also, Italy can become a critical junction in the Mediterranean, a contact between North Africa and Europe in carrying over green hydrogen and clean electricity.
In mid-January, the members of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) confirmed Francesco La Camera for a second term as Director-General. The Italian comes from thirty years of experience in the fields of climate, sustainability and international cooperation, and his election reaffirms the agency’s confidence in his leadership in a decisive period for the climate challenge – amidst growing investments but still-distant goals, geopolitical upheavals and the general race towards energy self-sufficiency. So Decode39 caught up with him for an all-round interview.
Can you summarise what IRENA is and what it does?
It is an Abu Dhabi-based intergovernmental agency with a global character. It was established through an international agreement approved by the member countries, which are 168 (plus the EU), while another 16 are in the accession phase. IRENA’s work aims to enhance renewables’ role in the global energy system through its analyses, reports, and the direct support we give to member countries in planning and defining energy strategies. More recently, we have also been facilitating projects, i.e. connecting actors with financial resources. Our work in programming support allows us to transform ideas into concrete actions on the ground.
Where does the funding come from, and how do you manage it?
IRENA’s budget is distributed among several countries according to the UN guidelines and is approved every two years. It also lives on voluntary contributions. On the facilitation side, we operate through initiatives such as the Climate Investment Platform, launched together with the United Nations Development Programme; SEforALL, an UN-recognised global NGO, in collaboration with the Green Climate Fund; and the Energy Transition Acceleration Financing Platform. IRENA has acquired over 350 partners, including large multilateral and development banks, and has opened up to private and public entities through these platforms. This mainly happens through direct presentation on our part: an example is the first Investment Forum, which we held at the G20 in Bali. So far, we have raised over a billion dollars and expect more to come; we are working on a list of projects that will reach funding before the upcoming COP28.
What’s the agency’s role at the Dubai Conference?
IRENA’s main task is to provide support: cost reports, labour reports, and our Transition Outlooks, which are both regional and domestic. We have assisted over 80 countries in presenting their NDCs (nationally determined contributions, ed) at the Glasgow Conference in 2021. This year, at the COP28, the UN’s climate department (UNFCCC) will present the first formal assessment of the state of implementation of the commitments made at the Paris Conference in 2015. As an intergovernmental agency, we are not part of the negotiation process between countries, but we do have initiatives to support the fight against climate change – such as the Alliance for Industrial Decarbonisation, the Alliance for Offshore Wind Development, the Alliance for the nexus between food water and renewable energy. Through our global report, we also contribute to the stock-taking process, providing numbers to answer the question: are we or are we not in line with the Paris Agreement?
Are we?
No. In fact, we try to explain how to close the gap between where we are and where we should be. We’re on the right path; the world is moving towards a new energy system dominated by renewables, complemented by hydrogen and the sustainable use of biomass. There’s no doubt about that, the process is irreversible. The problems we face are the speed and scale of this transformation, which are not consistent with the Paris targets. We could say that we will get there, but late, thus not effectively counteracting the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Can you quantify the gap?
81% of the newly-installed generation capacity in 2022 was renewable. That’s 260 gigawatts. But to bring ourselves in line with the Paris Agreement, we would need to install 800 GW each year. Until 2030, at a global scale, we will need $5.7 trillion in investments in renewables, infrastructure, energy efficiency, and everything related to development. We have been delaying action for years, but the longer we go on, the harder – and more expensive – it will become to carry out the transition in a realistic timeframe.
Along with your appointment, IRENA approved its five-year strategy (2023-2027). Can you break it down for us?
Compared to the previous plan, all countries now recognise the crucial role of renewables in building energy security. The Ukrainian crisis has made it even more evident: a centralised energy system based on fossil fuels has led to strong dependencies, to which 80% of the world’s countries are subject, with all the consequences this entails. Hence the need to focus on a decentralised system, on the role of renewables in securing clean energy and, above all, getting out of energy dependency.
You are the only Italian elected by the States as head of an international organisation. At the dawn of your second mandate, how do you see the future of IRENA?
In these four years, we have succeeded in making the agency’s profile even more recognisable. We are seeing growing interest in our activities and have managed to get the message across – which is now mainstream – of the urgency of building a new energy system based on renewables, green hydrogen, and biomass. Our vision now unites everyone, and our ability to support and plan has made us even more relevant, especially in directing and identifying the best solutions, also in terms of investment. We will work to build the narrative necessary to close the gap, and we will dedicate ourselves to this in the next Transition Outlook (due out at the end of March) that we will launch during the Energy Transition Dialogue in Berlin.
What role does Italy play in the world’s energy transition?
Of course, because of my role, I cannot comment on the direction of an individual country. I can only say that Italy, as a member of the G7, has done a lot on renewables over the past years, even though the commitment has waned somewhat recently. The authorisation system is slowing down investments. I hope it will be overcome; I know there are efforts to streamline procedures. Also, Italy can become a critical junction in the Mediterranean, a contact between North Africa and Europe in carrying over green hydrogen and clean electricity.
Let us move on to specific issues. In some markets (such as the US), there’s a perception of growing resistance to ESG investments.
This is a partial picture. Bloomberg just wrote that investments in renewables have caught up with those in fossil fuels for the first time in history. The US itself is pushing green technologies while favouring its own industries: hence the idea of a European sovereign fund to balance the US initiative. The best way is always to look at the data: installed renewable capacity continues to increase because it is cheaper. We cannot speak of a counter-trend but rather of setbacks: we’d warn that, in some cases, investments can result in stranded assets. There are those who, seizing on the difficulty generated by the Ukrainian crisis, think they can solve energy security issues by still resorting to hydrocarbons. In my view, this strategy will not get us very far, and at the same time, it does not put us in a position to accelerate and increase the scale of the transition.
The push towards renewables is highlighting the environmental and economic costs of sourcing the critical materials that underpin renewables infrastructure.
This is something we are working on as an agency. In the meantime, we have to consider that other sectors also use these materials. While it’s true that accelerating the transition results in increased friction on prices, we have to look at the mining sector in all its complexity. We do not think this is an insurmountable barrier; we must be careful, but we can solve problems with the right policies, allowing mining to take place within the given timeframe, environmental protection rules, and respect for human rights. In the end, we are talking about the so-called “rare earths” – which are not actually rare. We need to make the processes of excavation and refining sustainable. And we need to keep the focus on technologies, preferring those that use already-available minerals or none at all. Finally, we must strengthen recycling and circular economy policies. In short, this is not a problem that jeopardises the transition.
The International Energy Agency identified nuclear power as an important ally in achieving carbon neutrality and ensuring continuous, baseload electricity. How do you judge this technology?
At IRENA, we do not deal with nuclear power because member countries have not recognised it as a renewable source. It seems to me an established fact that the international community must make an extraordinary effort during this decade not to exceed 1,5°C of global warming (the goal of the Paris Agreements, ed). If everyone agrees on this, I think they can also agree that nuclear energy does not serve the purpose. Nobody is talking about shutting down existing power plants, of course, but building a new one takes over 12 years – which puts it outside of the useful time horizon. And we need to consider the cost, because nuclear power is not a cheaper option than renewables. All this makes me think that nuclear power is not helpful in the fight against climate change, which must be tackled with the technologies we already have and continued innovation. We do have nuclear fusion on the horizon; perhaps in 2040 we will see the first industrial-scale plant. That may be a viable perspective… but the decisive fight against global warming is between now and 2030.
