The WAHU movement – driving Ghana’s future with e-bikes

Ghana’s urban transport system has grown rapidly in recent years. For delivery riders, motorcycles are attractive because they are affordable, manoeuvrable in heavy traffic and have mature fuel and repair networks. The downside is that this locks the sector into petrol and diesel consumption, local air pollution and exposure to fuel price volatility. At the core of the WAHU movement therefore stands the idea of making clean mobility "practical and affordable" for the people in the country’s gig delivery sector by developing an A6.2 activity that meets the requirements of the two governments of Ghana and Switzerland.

Early uncertainties were profound. These related to how to build the framework and the methodology to prove additionality, how to prove, with rigorous testing, that the technology and the e-bikes themselves would perform reliably, and whether customers would adopt the vehicles at certain price points.

The concept of the WAHU activity was planned as a “complete operating system” designed to replace petrol and diesel kilometres by providing commercial gig workers with a reliable source of income through e-bikes. The rationale behind this mitigation activity is therefore the reliability it offers to gig workers. The locally manufactured and assembled electric bicycles are designed specifically for Ghanaian roads and operating conditions. Integrated measures focus on technical assistance as well as adequate working conditions and the well-being of the riders, including insurance coverage, training and enhanced safety features. A connection to IoT/GPS hardware is provided to record mileage and enable fleet management, both of which are critical for operations and verifiable emissions accounting. Additionally, a digital platform connects riders with jobs in the gig economy, managing payments, subscriptions, maintenance schedules, recharging and regulatory compliance, thereby keeping vehicles on the road and ensuring regular earnings for riders.

To achieve this complex concept, the WAHU activity relies on carbon finance that bridges the "market creation" gap, whereby explaining the financial additionality is crucial. The development team therefore had to demonstrate that, in the early years of the activity, unit economics are negative, due to relatively high manufacturing costs at low production volumes and a higher cost of capital. Achieving scale therefore depends on the ability to offer riders affordable weekly payments that enable broad adoption. Without carbon revenues, these payments would need to increase materially to cover the driver’s costs, which would likely reduce adoption and prevent WAHU from reaching the volumes required to unlock economies of scale and lower production costs. The additionality assessment had to compare the activity’s performance with and without ITMO revenue and demonstrate that only carbon finance would make the activity financially viable by 2030 as volumes grow and cost reductions materialise.

To address additionality in the context of the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the MADD shows that the activity is not a mandatory measure that would therefore happen automatically in the baseline scenario. Rather, it complements Ghana’s official climate and transport ambitions by accelerating electrification in the segment of two‑wheelers, which would otherwise remain dominated by fossil fuel use. Electric vehicles are included in Ghana’s whitelist for the percentage of the conditional NDC that defines eligible activities/technologies.

The validation process follows a clear sequence: completeness checks, a detailed review of the MADD and its annexes based on a standardised checklist, the formulation of questions in the form of Clarification Requests (CRs) and Corrective Action Requests (CARs), iterative clarification with the activity owner, and quality assurance over the whole validation process. For international activities, an important element of our work is collaborating with local experts who are familiar with national circumstances and requirements. We strive for balanced cooperation that enables knowledge transfer in both directions.

Effective validation requires good cooperation with the activity owner or developer. We therefore placed a strong emphasis on holding a joint kick‑off meeting with WAHU and maintaining a structured exchange throughout the process. At the same time, as a validation and verification body (VVB), we deliberately maintain professional distance and independent judgement. We always communicate our questions through a formal catalogue of CRs and CARs. This approach ensures transparency, traceability and consistent treatment across all activities. Maintaining neutrality is central to our role. If needed and suitable for the process, we hold meetings to clarify questions from the activity owner or developer.

It is important to emphasise that the WAHU validation took place in the first half of 2024. At that time, no official validation checklist for international A6.2 activities was available. EBP therefore translated the Swiss domestic validation checklist of the FOEN and adapted it for international use. Over the past two years, the FOEN has continuously refined its approach based on its learnings from the authorisations. A key outcome for EBP is therefore the FOEN’s "Process description for authorisation and specific requirements for monitoring, reporting and verifying of mitigation activities under Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement". We actively use this document in combination with the other relevant documents to further strengthen and standardise our validation procedures and to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The learning process is ongoing. We continuously strive to improve the quality of our validation procedure together with all stakeholders involved, including the FOEN, host country governments, the KliK Foundation and project developers. One area on which EBP is placing greater emphasis is social sustainability. We systematically involve experienced social experts to assess topics such as human rights, social safeguards, stakeholder engagement and grievance mechanisms.

During validation with EBP, the project team was asked to significantly strengthen the evidentiary basis for their key assumptions, including baseline vehicle characteristics, the methodology for measuring the travelled distance, and quality assurance procedures. Another aspect focused on clarifying the boundary conditions and applying more conservative rules – for example, clearly defining which types of rides are eligible for crediting, and which are excluded, to eliminate any ambiguity. In parallel, it was asked to refine monitoring procedures and introduce robust plausibility checks to ensure that the independent verification, as part of the annual Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), can be conducted efficiently and transparently, incorporating cross-checks with charging data, as well as comprehensive documentation of battery end-of-life management.

According to Bernard Ayittah, the authorisation process with the two partner countries was not a one-off discussion, but ultimately evolved into a strong and rigorous MADD. One important issue he highlighted was the refinement of the presentation of financial additionality beyond WAHU’s business model to an assessment of the rider’s side. This was achieved through the transparent analysis and demonstration of the traceability of assumptions and data sources and through conservative measures. Ghana’s Carbon Market Office also requested a study on fuel economy in urban and rural terrain, as "country-specific" evidence is becoming essential for authorisation.

Every aspect of this pioneering A6.2 activity required learning, adaptation and iteration throughout the validation and authorisation procedure to ensure truly comprehensive, credible and robust solutions. All key elements of the MADD were subject to thorough scrutiny, requiring substantial coordination, repeated analysis and comprehensive evidence gathering. In retrospect, as Valerie Labi noted in her concluding remarks, it was precisely this iterative review process that built confidence and ultimately made authorisation possible.