The promises and challenges of green hydrogen in the Global South

Will green hydrogen development differ from the previous experiences of renewable development? Will investors invest more consciously in achieving quality life in peripheral regions to mitigate risks of environmental and social disruptions and ensure energy justice in energy production? What does a transformative investment design entail to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of GH2 development across the Global North and South? 

The project researchers mapped the state of knowledge and conducted case studies on green hydrogen transitions in the Global South with a focus on Brazil and South Africa. They studied the technological, economic, and socio-environmental implications of GH2 policies and strategies, and explored the possibilities of transformative public and private investments in new GH2 development. Additionally, expert scholars, industry representatives and public stakeholders gathered in Utrecht, the Netherlands for a workshop to share their experiences of green hydrogen development in the Global South. 

‍

“System change is needed through reducing production and consumption of energy – and after that just a little bit of GH2 should be produced domestically – and after that just a little bit can be exported. For exports, there should be very strict environmental standards, and trade should fit into a wider framework of Global North-South climate reparations

– 2022 workshop, detailed in the report.

‍

Our communications officer caught up with co-author Kei Otsuki to discuss the report. 

‍

The report outlines difficulties that will arise in trying to prioritise the social dimension of a transition beyond technological and economic dimensions. Can you explain how these take shape? 

Social dimensions consider much wider aspects of human life than, say, monetary income increase/decrease or improvements/deterioration of physical infrastructure. It’s about cultural and social continuity or change including gender relations, migration, livelihood transformation, etc. Much of transitions thinking and practice do not properly grasp changes in these aspects of human life.

Are there complementary investments alongside GH2 that would aid investment in GH2 for it to succeed not just from an economic standpoint but from a social/cultural one? 

At the moment, no. The discussion is going on, for example, in Brazil where indigenous communities are facing displacement due to the expansion of GH2 infrastructure, as to how to plan resettlement in areas where the cultural rituals and livelihoods can be conducted.

What tangible barriers are there to the success of GH2 projects? Such as shocks, geopolitical tensions, financing, for example? 

First of all, the benefits for the areas/communities surrounding the projects need to be clear and convincing. Currently, much of the “success of GH2 projects” focuses on national development (which is a pretty abstract concept for local citizens affected by the infrastructure expansion and the associated displacement). Second, there’s no clear coordination between existing infrastructure that distributes energy (grid) and new infrastructure that produces energy. Thus, the distribution of energy within the GH2 country is not taking place while transport for the export is still costly. This means that better coordination between the national government utility and private multinational producing GH2 needs to be in place. 

There are numerous potential barriers to a just energy transition. Can you provide some more detail about the issues of training and employment? (And how/if knowledge transfer is considered within this?) 

 In general, when large scale energy projects are introduced, the government/company promises the local citizens better paid and stable employment or capacity development. However, as we point out in other cases of mining for critical minerals (necessary for batteries, for example, see Namaganda et al., 2023 in our inFront project website), the conditions are often precarious: people are made redundant pretty easily when the demand is low. The skilled workers are brought in from outside and local populations hardly benefit from capacity development. In the long run, the companies/governments need to invest in human resources so that the backlash and conflicts surrounding the energy projects do not take place.

How sustainable is GH2? (Considering the critical material scarcity for electrolysers and the questions as to whether it will support wind and solar production.) 

It is not only a question for GH2 – it is for all the renewable energy production and electrification of mobilities and creation of smart cities, etc. (which require a large amount of minerals and other materials). We are witnessing the massive increase in extraction of minerals globally. I find it vitally important to think of, already, how to decommission the extraction sites and aged infrastructure in order to think about real sustainability of energy transition that is so materially intensive.   

“Green hydrogen could become an enormous driver of development and prosperity for the Global South– if the risks are understood and past mistakes are not repeated.” Can you elaborate on the issues of green colonialism?  

The question is really about ownership of energy projects and how it is concretely linked to the process of territorialization. Who is really deciding where the project is built with what spatial consequences? Why are the local populations surrounding the project usually explained later when the project concession is already defined by someone else? We need to be asking these questions when the planning starts and investment decisions are discussed. 

In the report, when it comes to considering gender in the GH2 transition there seems to only be positive sentiments. How much research is there into this? 

Not much. It will be interesting to do more concrete research on this, not only around GH2 but in energy transition in general.

‍

“The lack of legal protections for land of traditional communities and an economic structure which permits exploitation is more important to the justice outcome than which technology (green or blue) is used eventually.

– 2022 workshop, detailed in the report.

‍

Read the full report online or discover more about the inFront project. 

‍

‍