working paper

Just transitions in the oil and gas sector

Considerations for addressing impacts on workers and communities in middle-income countries

Download PDF

Introduction

Growing Pressure to Move Away from Fossil Fuels

The oil and gas industry faces significant pressures due to increasing concerns about the climate and environmental impacts of fossil fuels, investor skepticism about the future demand for oil and gas, the rapid deployment of clean energy technologies, and the growth of green policies to meet decarbonization goals. The broader context is the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels to avoid warming above 1.5°C, which would unleash the worst impacts of climate change, and to limit the financial risks posed by stranded fossil fuel assets.

The energy transition will have enormous implications—both in terms of opportunities presented and challenges posed—for middle-income oil- and gas-producing countries. Although the quantity of oil and gas some middle-income countries produce is small, collectively, these countries accounted for approximately half the world’s oil and gas in 2021 (Table 1). Their economies rely on these fossil fuels. Volatile prices in the past have already left these countries struggling to balance their budgets when oil and gas revenues fall. A more permanent decline in oil and gas production and consumption could have devastating impacts on middle-income producer nations unless the transition is managed carefully. The risks include declines in government revenue, export revenue, jobs, and revenues that flow to subnational governments (SNGs).

Table 1 | Distribution of Oil and Gas Production by Income Group of Countries (2021)

Income Group

Oil Production (%)

Gas Production (%)

High-income countries

51.9

47.9

Middle-income countries

47.6

52.0

Low-income countries

0.5

0.1

Note: Countries have been grouped into high-, middle-, and low-income based on the World Bank’s classification of countries by income level.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from EIA (n.d) and Sonnichsen (2022b).

The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA) finds that staying within a 1.5°C pathway would require no exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields beyond those already approved for development (IEA 2021d).6 Oil demand is estimated to decline by about 75 percent, from 88 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2020 to 24 mb/d by 2050, and demand for natural gas is expected to fall 55 percent, to 1,750 billion cubic meters (bcm), over the same period.7 Consistent with the IEA’s NZE Scenario, oil prices would decline to US$35/barrel by 2030 and $25/barrel by 2050.8

Demand for both oil and gas products is expected to decline at different rates due to differences in their markets (including in oil’s larger role as a global commodity), in their eventual end uses and products, and in how quickly they may have to decline to slow climate change.9 The IEA’s NZE Scenario suggests that oil production and use will need to fall faster and further than gas to achieve 1.5°C, largely due to oil’s greater carbon intensity.10 Oil may also face particular pressures due to vehicle electrification.11

Demand for gas may be propped up by policymakers in some countries who view it as a solution to provide energy access to millions of residents who lack electricity as well as an option for transport and cooking fuel. In 2021, the Nigerian government declared the 2020s the “Decade of Gas” and launched an initiative to use gas to power the economy by 2030 (Delay 2021; Esiedesa 2021).12 Alternatives to gas—including renewable energy combined with battery storage—may soon eclipse gas as the most cost-effective way to generate electricity.13 However, gas is used in many sectors of the economy—including in industry, largely as feedstock or for process heat, and as cooking fuel—unlike oil, which is largely used as a transportation fuel.

Nonetheless, recent analyses reveal that, to limit global warming to 1.5°C, oil production at 20 of the world’s largest oil companies needs to decline by 50 percent or more by the 2030s, and global oil and gas production must decline by 3 percent every year until 2050 (Dalman and Coffin 2021; Welsby et al. 2021). This has major implications for producing countries and companies that may be banking on monetizing oil and gas reserves in the future but instead may be left with stranded assets in a low-carbon world.

The Role of Oil and Gas Companies in the Energy Transition

Although international oil companies (IOCs) and national oil companies (NOCs) will both influence the pace of the transition, NOCs that are central to the economic systems of oil- and gas-producing middle-income countries will be key players in navigating the transition.

Some IOCs have begun to expand their businesses into clean technologies such as renewable energy, hydrogen, and carbon capture technologies.14 Nevertheless, this still represents less than 1 percent of their total capital expenditures (IEA 2020a; Larson 2021). Driven by climate commitments, community restiveness, and security risks from armed groups, some IOCs are also divesting small portions of their fossil fuel assets. For instance, Shell is divesting from its onshore oil assets in Nigeria, and Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, and Eni have sold $28.1 billion in assets globally between 2018 and mid-2021 (Hurst 2021; Nwaoku 2021).

However, in the countries they are departing, IOCs may be leaving behind local environments heavily polluted and degraded by their operations, and questions could remain over who will pay for remediation. They might also be leaving behind economic legacies characterized by limited economic diversification along with a concentration of resources in fewer hands, which could hinder a just transition away from oil and gas.

NOCs, including those fully focused on domestic production and those with both domestic and international operations, are key players in the global market, accounting for over half of global oil and gas production and 40 percent of investment in the sector (Manley and Heller 2021; Figure 1). When IOCs divest from fossil fuels, NOCs and domestic producers often step in to buy these discarded assets, and what they do with these assets will be increasingly important (Adams-Heard et al. 2021; Raval 2021).

Although the largest NOCs are in the Middle East, NOCs are also present in African, Latin American, and Asian middle-income countries (IEA 2020a).15 NOCs play a central role in these countries’ political economies and are subject to domestic political pressure to employ citizens, generate revenues to pay for government programs, supply inexpensive domestic energy, and advance their governments’ domestic and foreign policies (Alkadiri and Ewers 2020; Muttitt et al. 2021).

Figure 1 | Ownership of Oil and Gas Reserves, Production, and Upstream Investment by Company Type (2018)

Notes: Oil and gas companies are grouped into four categories. Domestic national oil companies (D-NOCs) and international NOCs (I-NOCs) are fully or majority owned by national governments. Whereas D-NOCs focus on domestic production, I-NOCs such as Equinor and Petronas also have international operations. Majors are integrated companies listed on U.S. and European stock markets. Independents are either fully integrated companies like the majors but smaller in size or independent upstream operators. This paper uses the term NOCs to refer to both domestic and international national oil companies and IOCs to refer to majors and independents.

Source: IEA 2020a.

Unlike IOCs, NOCs are not facing the same level of shareholder and investor pressure to reduce emissions and diversify their portfolios to include more clean energy.16 On the contrary, in countries that depend on the revenues they distribute, NOCs are more likely to expand production and grow their market share by investing in new oil and gas projects (Cahill 2021). Because of their significant role in their national economies, NOCs’ actions and decisions are closely intertwined with the political ambitions and policy directions of their governments. Therefore, engagement with NOCs needs to start with an understanding of the bigger-picture plans and ambitions of national governments (Gillies et al. 2021).

In addition to facing less pressure to diversify toward clean energy, many NOCs can shield themselves from oversight and scrutiny from government and civil society (Heller and Kaufmann 2019). Institutional frameworks and accountability mechanisms may not be in place to ensure that NOCs or smaller private operators provide safe workplaces, have the capacity to clean up spills, or reduce methane/natural gas flaring (Adams-Heard et al. 2021).17

Debt could also make it hard for NOCs to slow oil and gas production. Some NOCs are carrying large amounts of debt, as much as 10–20 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP), posing financial risks for their countries (Heller and Mihalyi 2019). Governments have had to spend billions of dollars bailing out NOCs in recent years, causing a significant drain on public finances. Mexico’s Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is the most indebted oil company in the world, with $110 billion in debt on its balance sheet (Reuters 2021). Moody’s has estimated that subsidies to Pemex could cost the Mexican government 2.3 percent of GDP annually (Webber 2020).

NOCs’ large role in global oil and gas production—which could expand as IOCs diversify—and their historical lack of operational transparency carry significant implications for how the energy transition will transpire in their respective countries.18 In some middle-income countries, the economic clout of NOCs could stall efforts to diversify away from oil and gas production.

The Benefits and Risks of Transitioning Away from Oil and Gas

Failing to plan for or begin the transition away from oil and gas will delay a range of benefits the transition could offer while creating risks for middle-income producer countries.

Shifting away from fossil fuels could alleviate the negative impacts of oil and gas extraction on local communities and the environment (Johnston et al. 2019). The Niger Delta is just one place where oil extraction has contaminated land, water, and air, with devastating consequences for people’s lives and livelihoods (Elum et al. 2016).

Diversifying away from oil and gas, and finding growth opportunities in the clean energy economy, can serve as a buffer against volatile commodity price cycles and offer a more stable path for equitable development. Technological advances have driven down the cost of renewable energy, and investing in it could help provide affordable energy to 3.6 billion people living in energy poverty across Africa and Asia (Cozzi et al. 2022; Curtin et al. 2021). Investment in distributed renewable energy could also boost employment. According to one estimate, this includes 25 million direct jobs and 520 million downstream jobs made possible by giving communities across Africa and Asia access to electricity (Curtin et al. 2021).

Transitioning away from oil and gas can also help mitigate or reduce the “resource curse,” which encompasses a wide variety of social, economic, and political challenges that have prevented many countries from benefiting from the exploitation of their own abundant natural resources (NRGI 2015a; Ross 2015). Some countries that rely on extracting oil and gas often fail to adequately diversify national or local economies and tend to be more prone to authoritarianism, conflict, corruption, and economic stagnation than their resource-poor peers (Lashitew et al. 2021; NRGI 2015a; Ross 2015).

But the transition from fossil fuels will need to be planned and managed carefully. The economies of many middle-income oil- and gas-producing countries are not diversified, which has already made them vulnerable to the boom-and-bust cycle of commodity prices and created volatility. A more permanent decline in the oil and gas industry will exacerbate those challenges. Although a number of metrics can be used to determine the extent of a country’s dependence on the oil and gas industry, our analysis of three metrics—oil and gas revenues as a share of total government revenues, oil rents as a share of GDP, and fossil fuel exports as a share of total exports—highlights the vulnerability of several middle-income oil- and gas-producing countries to a decline of this industry (Figure 2). Without growth in other sectors to offset losses, a long-term contraction in the oil and gas industry, resulting in curtailed production and loss of revenue, could have major repercussions for these countries (UNU-INRA 2019).19 Section 2 describes these issues.

Figure 2 | Middle-Income Countries among the Most Dependent on Oil and Gas Production

Notes: Oil and gas revenue as share of total government revenue shows 2015–2018 average oil and gas revenues as a percentage of total government revenues. Data on oil and gas revenues as share of total government revenues (based on analysis by Coffin et al. identifying 40 countries with the greatest fiscal dependence on oil and gas revenues) is not available for Argentina, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Indonesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Oil rents are the difference between the value of crude oil production at regional prices and total cost of production. Oil rent data is shown for 2019 and is available from the World Bank. Fuel exports include natural gas, coal, oil, and oil products. Fuel exports data is shown for 2019 and is available from the World Bank. Fuel exports data for 2019 was unavailable for Algeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, and Turkmenistan.

Source: Coffin et al. 2021; World Bank n.d.a, n.d.b.

The long-term shift away from oil and gas will contribute to job displacement and insecurity for workers and communities supported by the oil and gas industry. Section 3 describes the workforce characteristics of workers directly and indirectly supported by the sector and their relevance for enabling a just transition.

Unless policymakers act now to align their policies with future investment trends and develop and implement just transition policies, they will be left with stranded oil and gas infrastructure assets along with impacted workers and local communities. Section 4 proposes three key considerations for policymakers as they begin planning for a just transition away from oil and gas.

Box 1 | Meaning and Evolution of Just Transition

There is a wide spectrum of approaches for defining and interpreting the term just transition. A focus on decent work and social dialogue, aimed at addressing the impacts of the transition on workers and affected communities, has been essential to the labor movement’s efforts and laid the essential groundwork for a just transition lens. Decent work involves paying fair wages, ensuring the security of work and safe working conditions, providing benefits or social protection, and allowing for labor rights, career growth, and for workers to have a voice in what affects them.a Further, the International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines on just transition emphasize social dialogue, which includes “all types of negotiation, consultation and exchange of information between or among representatives of governments, employers and workers on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy.”b

Recently, perspectives on just transition have emerged that go beyond issues of workers and their affected communities to encompass a broader range of marginalized groups of people, such as women, Indigenous peoples, and people of color. In addition, some interpretations of just transition have broadened to encompass a broader set of sectoral and systemic changes.c The aim is to apply principles of equity and justice to wider aspects of society and economies as the zero-carbon transition takes place.d These more transformative forms of just transition can include changing dominant economic and power systems, promoting ecological resilience, and pursuing approaches that center marginalized groups.e In addition, building resilience and adapting to climate impacts, as well as addressing loss and damage due to climate change, have also been incorporated in some recent approaches to just transition.f

Although the concerns of affected workers and communities remain central, the term just transition is often now associated more widely with the need to shift in equitable ways to societies and economies that are zero-carbon and sustainable.g

The issue of just transition has gained increasing traction over the past decade: the ILO developed guidelines for a just transition in 2015; the concept has been addressed in outcomes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the Paris Agreement; multilateral development banks have signed onto high-level principles guiding their engagement around just transition; and a number of countries have included just transition in their nationally determined contributions or embarked on just transition policies.h Meanwhile, workers in trade unions continue to be highly active in promoting just transition.i

Sources: a. European Commission n.d.; Jaeger et al. 2021; b. ILO 2018a, 3; c. Morena et al. 2018; d. Pinker 2020; e. CJA 2019; Indigenous Environmental Network n.d.; Morena et al. 2018; f. PCC 2022; g. Pinker 2020; h. ADB et al. 2021; Fransen et al. 2022; ILO 2015; Pinker 2020; UNFCCC 2020; i. CUT Brasil 2021; IndustriALL 2019.

Start reading