1.5°C compatible pathways
The DRC’s updated NDC is composed of a 19% conditional and 2% unconditional GHG emissions reduction target below BAU levels by 2030.1 The conditional target translates into an increase in emissions of 92% above 2015 by 2030, or 275 MtCO₂e/yr (excl. LULUCF). The NDC provides general mitigation actions which are intended to contribute to quantified emissions reduction targets, but it lacks a quantified breakdown for each mitigation action. Actions are listed for the energy, agriculture, LULUCF, and waste sectors. No actions are listed for the industrial processes sector as its contribution to the DRC‘s GHG emissions balance is minimal. The implementation of the DRC’s NDC is conditional on financial support, with an estimated cost of 48.68 billion USD of which 25.60 billion USD would be needed for mitigation measures.1
Our analysis of 1.5°C compatible pathways indicates that the DRC would need to reduce emissions by 14% below 2015 levels or 124 MtCO₂e/yr (excl. LULUCF) by 2030.
The LULUCF sector contributed 75% of the DRC’s total emissions in 2018, mainly driven by deforestation. When excluding LULUCF, emissions are predominantly driven by the waste sector, and mostly consist of methane (92% in 2018). The remaining share of emissions comes from the energy (5%) and agriculture (3%) sectors, when excluding LULUCF.
Long term pathway
As of January 2023, the DRC has not submitted its long-term strategy. To be consistent with 1.5°C compatible pathway, the DRC would need to cut its GHG emissions (excl. LULUCF) by 9%–51% below 2015 levels by 2050.35 The most important sectors with substantial emissions reduction potential are LULUCF and the waste sector.
LULUCF emissions account for 75% of the country’s emissions (in 2018). In 2008, the DRC shifted from being a net carbon sink to a net carbon source.3 Without decisive action, the DRC could lose about 10% of its forest area by 2030 and 15–20% by 2050.3 However, with the right policies in place, the DRC’s immense forest cover of around 137.7 million ha (in 2020) could help the country become a carbon sink again.12,29
After LULUCF, the second most emitting sector is waste mostly driven by methane (CH₄) emissions, constituting the highest share (92% in 2018) of the country’s emissions, when excluding the LUUCF sector.1 Democratic Republic of the Congo. Contribution Déterminée à l’échelle Nationale révisée. (2021).
2 African Development Bank. National Climate Change Profile: Democratic Republic of the Congo. (2018).
3 Ministère de l’Environnement et Développement Durable. Troisième Communication Nationale de la République Démocratique du Congo à la Convention Cadre sur le Changement Climatique. (2015).
4 African Energy Commission (AFREC). AFREC Africa Energy Balances 2019. (2019).
5 African Energy Commission (AFREC). Africa Energy Efficiency for the Residential Sector 2019. (2019).
6 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Atlas of Africa Energy Resource. (2017).
7 Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). Democratic Republic of the Congo (2019).
8 International Energy Agency (IEA). Data and statistics: Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018. (2022).
9 Radio France Internationale. RDC: l’immense enjeu et problème de l’accès à l’électricité. (2019).
10 World Bank. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (2019). doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1435-8.
11 Democratic Republic of Congo. Contribution Prévue Déterminée au niveau National (CPDN). (2017).
12 Democratic Republic of the Congo. Contribution déterminée au niveau national de la République Démocratique du Congo. (2017).
13 IEA. Africa Energy Outlook 2019. Preprint at (2019).
14 African Energy Commission (AFREC). AFREC Africa Energy Database. (2019).
15 Democratic Republic of Congo. Plan National Stratégique de Développement 2019-2023. (2019).
16 The World Bank. World Development Indicators database.(2019).
17 Ministère du Plan. Fiche technique sur l’énergie. (2021).
18 Kusakana, K. A Review of Energy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. in International Conference on Desalination and Renewable Energy (ICDRE) (2016).
19 Democratic Republic of Congo. Politique Nationale de l’Energie de la République Démocratique du Congo. (2022).
20 International Energy Agency (IEA). Data and statistics: Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2019. (2022).
21 CAFI. Sustainable Consumption and Partial Substitution of Wood Energy – DRCongo. CAFI web page 1–3 (2021).
22 CAFI. New Fund to develop sustainable energy in the DRC. CAFI web page 1–3 (2020).
23 IRENA. Democratic Republic of Congo – Energy profile. (2022).
24 FONAREDD. Fonds National REDD. FONAREDD web page 1–1 (2022).
25 IEA. Africa Energy Outlook 2019. (2019).
26 Democratic Republic of Congo. Troisième Communication Nationale. (2014).”:https://studylibfr.com/doc/4699335/troisi%C3%A8me-communication-nationale
27 The World Bank. La Banque mondiale approuve 750 millions de dollars pour soutenir la gouvernance, le transport et la connectivité numérique en République démocratique du Congo. The World Bank media web 1–4 (2022).
28 Democratic Republic of Congo. Plan Directeur des Transports urbains de la ville de Kinshasa. (2019).
29 FAO. (2020). République démocratique du Congo.
30 Deshmukh, R., Mileva, A., & Wu, G. C. (2017). Richesses Renouvelables : Comment le solaire et l‘éolien peuvent électrifier la RDC et l’Afrique du Sud.
31 TV5 Monde. (2022, May). RDC: Kinshasa veut multiplier sa production de pétrole | TV5MONDE – Informations.
32 The assessment was made based on Figure 2 provided in DRC‘s 2021 NDC document.
34 Global cost-effective pathways assessed by the IPCC Special Report 1.5°C tend to include fossil fuel use well beyond the time at which these could be phased out, compared to what is understood from bottom-up approaches, and often rely on rather conservative assumptions in the development of renewable energy technologies. This tends to result in greater reliance on technological CDR than if a faster transition to renewables were achieved. The scenarios available at the time of this analysis focus particularly on BECCS as a net-negative emission technology, and our downscaling methods do not yet take national BECCS potentials into account.
35 Global cost-effective pathways assessed by the IPCC Special Report 1.5°C tend to include fossil fuel use well beyond the time at which these could be phased out, compared to what is understood from bottom-up approaches, and often rely on rather conservative assumptions in the development of renewable energy technologies. This tends to result in greater reliance on technological CDR than if a faster transition to renewables were achieved. The scenarios available at the time of this analysis focus particularly on BECCS as a net-negative emission technology, and our downscaling methods do not yet take national BECCS potentials into account. To note that the emissions range by 2050 is very broad due to high uncertainties in the assessed models.
Democratic Republic of the Congoʼs total GHG emissions
excl. LULUCF MtCO₂e/yr
- 1.5°C compatible pathways
- Middle of the 1.5°C compatible range
- Current policy projections
- 1.5°C emissions range
- Historical emissions
Energy system transformation
The DRC’s primary energy mix consists mostly of traditional biomass (95%). Non-biomass renewables had a share of 3% in 2017, and oil 2%.4 The high share of traditional biomass is mostly due to the use of fuelwood and charcoal for domestic and industrial application which contributes to deforestation in the DRC.
1.5°C compatible pathways show that the share of non-biomass renewables in the DRC’s primary energy mix will need to scale up from 3% in 2017 to around 30% in 2040, and almost 50% by 2050. While the share of biomass decreases across time, it is also playing an important role in decarbonising primary energy, still present in some analysed scenarios with a 20–60% share in 2050. A shift away from traditional biomass towards a higher uptake of non-biomass renewables would reduce emissions while improving air quality and bringing related health benefits. This shift would also address negative sustainability implications which are linked to the use of traditional biomass, such as wood and charcoal.
Many of our analysed pathways show the penetration of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technologies in the energy mix. BECCS is currently not available at scale, and the cost of these technologies makes it an unlikely option to decarbonise the economy. The modelling used for this analysis also provides conservative assumptions in the development of renewable energy technologies resulting in greater reliance on technological carbon removals than if a faster transition to renewables was achieved.
Exploitation of the DRC’s significant hydropower resources combined with decentralised renewable energy sources could provide an alternative to the DRC’s heavy reliance on traditional biofuels and waste for energy. However, further developing hydropower requires significant financial investment, improved maintenance of infrastructure, and technical capacity building. The use of hydropower also has high environmental impacts and future climate change impacts on generation capacity will need to be considered in hydropower planning.
Democratic Republic of the Congoʼs primary energy mix
petajoule per year
- Negative emissions technologies via BECCS
- Unabated fossil
- Nuclear and/or fossil with CCS
- Renewables incl. biomass
Democratic Republic of the Congoʼs total CO₂ emissions
excl. LULUCF MtCO₂/yr
- 1.5°C compatible pathways
- 1.5°C emissions range
- Middle of the 1.5°C compatible range
- Historical emissions
1.5°C compatible emissions benchmarks
Key emissions benchmarks of Paris compatible Pathways for Democratic Republic of the Congo. The 1.5°C compatible range is based on the Paris Agreement compatible pathways from the IPCC SR1.5 filtered with sustainability criteria. The median (50th percentile) to 5th percentile and middle of the range are provided here. Relative reductions are provided based on the reference year.
Indicator | 2015 Reference year | 2019 | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | Year of net zero incl. BECCS excl. LULUCF and novel CDR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total GHG Megatonnes CO₂ equivalent per year | 143 | 185 | 124 87 to 153 | 113 79 to 143 | 116 70 to 131 | |
Relative to reference year in % | −14% −40 to 7% | −21% −45 to 0% | −19% −51 to −8% | |||
Total CO₂ MtCO₂/yr | 11 | 13 | 14 11 to 15 | 9 4 to 14 | 5 1 to 13 | 2066 2054 |
Relative to reference year in % | 25% −3 to 39% | −19% −60 to 22% | −59% −87 to 16% |