Tag Archives: climate finance

EU winter package brings renewables in from the cold

December 1, 2016 |

 

Joint press conference by Maroš Šefčovič and Miguel Arias Cañete on the adoption of a Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy

Christmas came early yesterday in Brussels, with the release of some heavy reading for the EU’s parliamentarians to digest over the festive season. Or at least that was the more jovial take on the launch of the EU winter package from Maroš Šefčovič, the EU vice-president in charge of the Energy Union (pictured).

Targets to cut energy use 30% by 2030, the phasing out of coal subsidies and regional cooperation on energy trading are central to the proposals, which updates the regulations and directives that support targets set out in 2014 as part of the Energy Package 2030.

Whether this gift is not just for Christmas will be down to the EU parliamentarians who have two years to debate these proposals and implement them.

So where does it leave us with the growth of renewables, the underpinning for a decarbonised power sector? If the EU meets its 2030 target, 50% of electricity should be renewable compared with an EU average of 29% today. That target remains unchanged, so those engaged in producing clean energy for Europe’s electricity grid should be reassured – up to a point.

A great deal was made of scrapping priority dispatch for renewables after that proposed change was ‘leaked’. In the end, the Commission merely soften its language but the outcome remains the same on priority dispatch, implying that policymakers think that renewable generation should be more responsive to the market.

Yesterday, Šefčovič and the Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete both acknowledged that renewables need to be more integrated into wholesale markets, and those markets need to be more coordinated with each-other. Specifically, the package encourages member states to:

  • ensure that renewables participate in wholesale and balancing markets on a “level playing field” with other technologies. In particular, the new package removes the requirement for renewables to be given priority dispatch over other generation types (which most, but not all, member states currently abide by). It instead requires dispatch which is “non-discriminatory and market based”, with a few exceptions such as small-scale renewables (<500kW). In addition, renewables should face balancing risk and participate in wholesale and balancing markets.
  • increase integration between national electricity markets across the EU. Requirements include opening national capacity auctions to cross-border participation and an interconnection target of 15% by 2030 (ie, connecting 15% of installed electricity production capacity with neighbouring regions and countries). Earlier this year, the Commission established an expert group to guide member states and regions through this process.

What does this all mean for investors? The obvious concern is that removal of priority dispatch and exposure to balancing markets will increase revenue risk for renewables generators.

So, why is the EU removing these rules on priority dispatch once the mainstay of the Commission’s wholesale market rules? The main argument is to help reduce the costs of balancing supply and demand, and managing network constraints. Generally, it is most economic to dispatch renewables first because their running costs are close to zero regardless of whether they have priority dispatch.

But, when there is surplus generation, the most economic option is sometimes to curtail renewables ahead of other plant. For example, turning down an inflexible gas plant only to restart and ramp it up a few hours later can be expensive and inefficient. By contrast, wind generators can be turned down relatively easily.

Therefore, giving renewables priority dispatch can sometimes increase the overall costs of managing the system. When renewables were a small part of the market, any inefficiencies caused by priority dispatch were small and easy to ignore, while it helped reduce risks around renewables investment. But now renewables are set to become the dominant part of electricity markets it is harder to ignore.

Nevertheless, risks around balancing for wind can cause real headaches for investors. In our report from earlier this year, Policy and investment in German renewable energy we found that economic curtailment could increase significantly, potentially adding 17% to onshore wind costs by 2020.

The amount a generator is curtailed depends on a wide range of uncertain factors which wind investors have little or no control over (eg, electricity demand, international energy planning, network developments and future curtailment rules).

What could happen next?

So to maintain investor confidence (and avoid costly lawsuits) existing renewables investments need to be financially protected as rules are changed. There are many ways to do this. For example, priority dispatch status could be grandfathered for existing generators (as the winter package suggests) or, as set out in our recent report of Germany, generators could be fully compensated for curtailment through “take-or-pay” arrangements.

More generally, very clear rules around plant dispatch and curtailment are needed to avoid deterring investment. Ideally, dispatch will be determined by competitive, well-functioning balancing markets, where renewables are paid to be turned down based on what they offer, rather than by a central system operator curtailing without compensation.

The move to integrate renewables into balancing markets means they will compete with other options to balance the system such as storage and demand-side measures. These flexibility options should benefit from the sharper price signals and greater interconnection implied by winter package. But there is no clear consensus yet on the right business and regulatory models to support investment in flexibility. However, CPI is currently working on a programme as part of the Energy Transitions Commission to explore the role of flexibility in a modern, decarbonised grid and will be publishing our findings soon.

Ultimately, there is an unavoidable trade-off in designing electricity markets: it is very difficult to provide incentives for generators, storage and the demand-side to dispatch efficiently through market mechanisms without also exposing them to some risk. Yesterday’s announcement in the winter package means more countries will have to face this dilemma.

Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, the information in this blog is not supported by CPI evidence-based content. Views expressed are those of the author.

Read More

Powering climate action – the 2016 Fire winners

November 28, 2016 |

 

The Paris Agreement marks the start of a new era in climate policy, with commitments to climate action made by governments, private sector entities, and NGOs around the world. However, for these commitments to be realized and a corresponding transition to a 2-degree pathway achieved, trillions of investment will need to be mobilized – and quickly, with a significant portion coming from private sector sources.

Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) is at the forefront of work to respond to the urgency of the climate challenge by targeting scarce public resources to mobilize significant private finance into low-carbon, climate-resilient development. As part of its climate finance program, CPI serves as Secretariat to The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (The Lab), which convenes public and private stakeholders to design, pilot, and accelerate transformative financial instruments, with the aim to drive billions of dollars of private investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The Lab and its initiatives have been endorsed by the G7 and have raised nearly USD 600 million in seed funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience projects. Currently, the Lab is seeking ideas for its next cycle that can drive finance in India and Brazil. The Lab also presents The Fire Awards, which identify and accelerate powerful, early-stage pilots and businesses that can unlock private finance for clean energy and green growth around the world.

Indeed, in the six months following the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Future of Energy Summit in New York, there have already been several successful outcomes for the 2016 Fire Winners, which kicked-off implementation of work plans to achieve growth goals, with support of Fire Working Groups in May:

  • In September, the team behind Affordable Green Homes, a project to catalyze a market for affordable green housing in Sub-Saharan Africa, was invited to participate in the formal launch of a UN and private sector platform to generate financing solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals. At the launch meeting, led by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, International Housing Solutions (the global private equity firm leading Affordable Green Homes) was recognized for its innovative approach to drive investment in and deliver energy and water efficient housing. The team will continue to help shape the direction of the UNSG platform.
  • The Developing Harmonized Metrics for the PAYG Solar Industry initiative championed by Anna Lerner of the World Bank Group, also moves forward, achieving a major milestone with the recent publishing of a white paper titled, How can Pay-as-you-go Solar be Financed?. The paper, which was one of the main outputs of the Fire Working Group, explores a number of the risks and challenges associated with structured finance solutions for the PAYG sector. On 11th October, the paper was also presented and discussed in a dedicated session at the BNEF Future of Energy EMEA Summit in London. The session was led by Itamar Orlandi (Head of Applied Research, BNEF). Panelists included Fire Working Group Members, David Battley (Director of Structured Finance, SunFunder) and Peter Mockel (Senior Industry Specialist, Climate Business Department, IFC), as well as Giuseppe Artizzu (Head of Global Energy Strategy, Electro Power Systems Group), Mansoor Hamayun (Chief Executive Officer, BBOX), and Manoj Sinha (Co-Founder and CEO, Husk Power Systems). The white paper is available on the BNEF website.
  • An announcement was released on the planned scale-up of the Investor Confidence Project (ICP), an Environmental Defense Fund led initiative to standardize and increase investment in energy efficient buildings. The scale-up plan is founded on a new partnership with the Green Business Certification, Inc. (GBCI), which also administers the LEED, EDGE, PEER, WELL, SITES, GRESB, and Parksmart certification programs. The new partnership aims “to achieve a true, worldwide standard to unlock the potential of energy efficiency.” The Fire Secretariat will host a dedicated 2 hour roundtable in London on 7th December to discuss and build momentum for the new partnership. The roundtable will comprise Fire Working Group Members and key stakeholders in the investment and real estate sectors. If you would like to attend, please let us know at info@financeforresilience.com. More information on the new partnership is available on the ICP and decentralized energy
  • Finally, Grips, which provides reliable, clean energy beyond the world of fossil fuels and public grids, was supported by a Fire Working Group to make connections with over a dozen investors, which will help the initiative move forward. In recognition of its innovative approach to deliver competitive, clean energy to industrials in developing countries, Grips’ CEO, Alexander Voigt, was also invited to participate in the technical workshop to set up a UN-led platform to scale-up finance for the Sustainable Development Goals.

These achievements mark major milestones for the 2016 Fire Winners, as they continue to blaze forward and grow their impact. For those interested in learning more about any of the 2016 Fire Winners or to be involved in upcoming consultations, please contact us at info@financeforresilience.com.

“Getting access to international experts and advice made it possible to accelerate the launch of the KPI framework, grow our partner network and identify new useful applications for the data platform.” –Anna Lerner, World Bank Group

“Winning FiRe has clearly accelerated the implementation of Grips. Through the increased exposure to an international audience of financial and energy experts we have received an increasing number of project leads, partnership requests, and financing offers. We are currently advancing discussions on all sides.”–Arvid Seeberg-Elverfeldt, Grips

The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance identifies, develops, and pilots transformative climate finance instruments, with the aim to drive billions of dollars of private investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Made up of public and private sector members, the Global Lab and its initiatives have been endorsed by the G7 and have raised nearly USD 600 million in seed funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience projects.

The Fire Awards accelerate powerful, early-stage pilots and businesses that can unlock finance for clean energy and green growth. Climate Policy Initiative serves as the secretariat for the Fire Awards alongside the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (The Lab). The Fire Awards and The Lab are funded in part by Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance provides in-kind support.

Read More

A call for innovative green finance ideas to help India meet its climate goals

November 24, 2016 |

 

Last week, I was in Marrakesh speaking at this year’s UN climate change conference, COP22, where I witnessed an important transition in moving from talk to action. Just a few weeks before the start of COP22, the Paris Agreement officially entered into force – the historic international agreement for action on climate change that emerged from COP21 last year. While COP21 was about promises and commitments, COP22 was about working out the details to put those promises in place.

Under the Paris Agreement, India has pledged that renewable energy will be 40% of the country’s expected electricity generation capacity in 2030, along with a 35% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 from 2005 levels. In addition, India has also set one of the most ambitious renewable energy targets of all – 175 GW of renewable energy by 2022, including 100 GW of solar power.  These important targets are not only good for the climate, but can also help meet the energy demand of India’s rapidly growing economy and population.

However, a lack of sufficient financing for renewable energy in India may present a formidable barrier to achieving these targets. This was a key item of discussion at COP22.

An upcoming report from Climate Policy Initiative shows that in order to meet the target of 175 GW of renewable energy by 2022, the renewable energy sector in India will require $189 billion in additional private investment, a significant amount. The potential amount of investment in the renewable energy sector in India is $411 billion, which is more than double the amount of investment required. However, in a realistic scenario, the amount of investment expected falls short of the amount required by around 30%, for both debt and equity.

A call for innovative green finance ideas - Potential equity and debt investments

In this context, and as India moves to implement its commitments under the Paris Agreement, the work of the India Innovation Lab for Green Finance is increasingly important. The India Lab is a public-private initiative that identifies, develops, and accelerates innovative finance solutions that are not only a better match with the needs of private investors, but that can also effectively leverage public finance to drive more private investment in renewable energy and green growth.

The India Lab has recently opened its call for ideas for the next wave of cutting-edge finance instruments for the 2016-2017 cycle, in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and public transport. Interested parties can visit www.climatefinanceideas.org. The deadline to submit an idea is December 23rd.

The India Lab is comprised of 29 public and private Lab Members who help develop and support the Lab instruments, including the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Ministry of Finance, the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA), the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the development agencies of the French, UK, and US governments.

In October 2016, the India Lab launched its inaugural three innovative green finance instruments, after a year of stress-testing and development under the 2015-2016 cycle. They will now move forward for piloting in India with the support of the Lab Members. The three instruments include a rooftop solar financing facility, a peer-to-peer lending platform for green investments, and a currency exchange hedging instrument. Together, they could mobilize private investment of more than USD $2 billion to India’s renewable energy targets.

Now that the Paris Agreement has been ratified and the real work begins, the India Innovation Lab for Green Finance can help India transition from talk to action by driving needed private investment to its renewable energy targets. Visit www.climatefinanceideas.org to learn more and submit your innovative green finance idea by December 23rd.

A version of this first appeared in the Huffington Post.

Read More

Increased understanding of how finance is mobilized can support efforts to spend resources wisely

November 16, 2016 |

 

Developed countries’ goal to ‘mobilize’ USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the climate action needs of developing countries will not close the global climate finance investment gap. However, it is an important political benchmark for assessing progress on climate finance within the context of multilateral negotiations. This provides policy makers with both challenges and opportunities.

On one side, reaching more consistent definitions for climate finance and eligible activities will be politically challenging. However doing so could promote transparency and help build trust between countries.

On the other, close scrutiny of the USD 100 billion could help to maximise its impact and help policymakers everywhere to learn lessons about what works and what works better in terms of ensuring international and national public resources drive private investment in climate action.

One word in the negotiating texts best encapsulates both the challenge and the opportunity – ‘mobilize’. The goal to ‘mobilize’ USD 100 billion a year was originally set at the international negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. Last year’s Paris Agreement also refers to a ‘collective mobilization goal.’

CPI has helped to unpack the diversity of opinions about how this term should be applied. However, few disagree that in part this ‘collective mobilization goal’ is a recognition that implementing countries’ nationally determined contributions will require trillions not billions of dollars. To make this shift, public finance must be catalytic, driving private investment by tackling viability, risk and knowledge gaps that private actors cannot or are unwilling to bear.

In some sectors and markets, this means public finance will need to play more of a leading role in discovering, developing, and piloting new technologies and approaches that do not yet deliver returns sufficient to satisfy private investors, or which are perceived as having unmanageable risks.

Initiatives and studies from a range of organizations have explored different methodological approaches to estimate the extent to which public climate finance, support or policy can be said to have ’mobilized’ private climate-related investments. These include the co-financing approach proposed by multilateral development banks (MDBs), the methodology of the Technical Working Group composed of donors from the OECD member countries that was applied by the OECD and CPI in the “Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100 billion goal” report, and a CPI report on mobilized private finance for adaptation which explored the legitimacy and feasibility of measuring the more “indirect” impacts of public finance and support on mobilizing finance.

The accounting methods and data provided in these reports are helping countries and individual actors to understand two things. Firstly, what is being counted and what is being excluded in different ’mobilization’ approaches. Secondly, the complex interplay between different sources of finance and the range of actors and instruments involved in its delivery – work that CPI has led since 2010.

The Paris Agreement may also help. It charges the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) with developing accounting guidelines for national-level reporting by 2018 to support better tracking of finance provided and ‘mobilized’ through public interventions.

Reaching agreement will be a complex, technical and politically challenging exercise for the SBSTA but will build on existing work to further enhance transparency around domestic climate finance and allow decision-makers to assess more easily the role different actors in the financial system play in achieving overarching economic and environmental goals.

CPI remains committed to supporting this process and to improving decision makers’ understanding of climate finance flows at the global, national and local levels.

Since 2010, CPI has supported decision makers from the public and private sectors, at international, national and local levels, to define and track how climate finance is flowing from sources and actors, through a range of financial instruments, to recipients and end uses. Providing decision makers with robust and comprehensive information helps them to assess progress against real investment goals and needs. It also improves understanding of how public policy, finance and support interact with, and drive climate-relevant investment from diverse private actors, and where opportunities exist to achieve greater scale and impact.

This blog is part of a series on climate finance tracking challenges. Read more here.

Sign up for updates to stay informed on this and other aspects of our work.

Read More

National-level climate finance tracking can help countries meet NDC goals effectively

November 10, 2016 |

 

Around the world, 74% of total global climate finance and over 90% of total private climate finance is raised and spent in the same country. As low-carbon, climate-resilient assets become increasingly attractive to national actors compared to the alternatives, action on climate is largely happening within national contexts.

In fact, the domestic bias of climate finance is likely understated. CPI’s Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports have repeatedly highlighted substantial data gaps around domestic budgets in particular.

In 2014, the majority of global climate finance was raised and spent in the same country. Because domestic investment dominates, it is vital to get policies right. This requires robust national-level climate finance tracking.

The majority of finance was raised and spent in the same country. Because domestic investment dominates, it is vital to get policies right. This requires robust national-level climate finance tracking.

Clearly, understanding how finance flows within countries is key to accelerating countries’ transitions toward low-carbon and climate-resilient economies.
CPI has worked with counterparts in Germany, Indonesia and most recently Côte d’Ivoire to track their climate finance and other organizations are also tracking climate finance at the national level. For example, Institute for Climate Economics (I4CE) used CPI’s approach as a foundation to conduct a similar exercises in France, Trinomics has done similar work in Belgium, and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has worked with seven Asia-Pacific countries to understand climate-related public expenditures in their national budgets.

While these countries have made a start, more work is urgently needed as improved national tracking will critically inform countries’ efforts to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted under the Paris Agreement. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that, to implement NDCs, energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies require$13.5 trillion in investment over the next 15 years. Ensuring that investment from a range of national and international sources is optimized will help ensure impact and value for money.

There are many benefits to improving national-level climate finance tracking systems

Identifying, tagging, and tracking budget allocations that respond to climate change challenges enhances governments’ ability to allocate appropriate resources at the national and local levels and ensure they are being spent as intended.

Increasing understanding of what different domestic and international, public and private actors are investing, in which climate-relevant activities, and what instruments they are using to deliver finance, can help identify blockages, and highlight opportunities to better coordinate spending and reallocate finance to areas where it will have more impact.

Extending the scope of tracking exercises beyond climate finance can reveal how much public money is flowing to support business-as-usual investments including in fossil fuels, and unsustainable land use. Understanding where public incentives are misaligned with climate goals can highlight opportunities to improve policies and ensure public spending is coherent.

CPI has designed related tools to inform decision makers thinking around this broader question and is applying them in the context of REDD+ related finance in Côte d’Ivoire to support the country’s work to develop a REDD+ strategy.

Ultimately, such tracking provides a basis for decision makers to ensure that limited domestic and international public resources are targeted where and how they are needed most to help countries achieve their goals. Effective tracking provides a starting point to inform discussions about what is happening, and informs the design of more cost-effective policies and financial instruments to mobilize investment.

CPI remains committed to improving understanding of climate finance flows at the national and local levels.

Since 2010, CPI has supported decision makers from the public and private sectors, at international, national and local levels, to define and track how climate finance is flowing from sources and actors, through a range of financial instruments, to recipients and end uses. Providing decision makers with robust and comprehensive information helps them to assess progress against real investment goals and needs. It also improves understanding of how public policy, finance and support interact with, and drive climate-relevant investment from diverse private actors, and where opportunities exist to achieve greater scale and impact.

This blog is part of a series on climate finance tracking challenges. Read more here.

Click here to sign up for updates on this and other aspects of our work.

If you would like our support tracking your climate finance flows, get in touch here.

This article first appeared on Public Finance International.

Read More

Improved and integrated private disclosure data can help broader tracking efforts

November 8, 2016 |

 

As part of efforts to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C, the Paris Agreement states that countries participating in the international climate negotiations shall make ‘finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’.

CPI’s Global Landscape of Climate Finance and San Giorgio Group Case Studies have highlighted the important role of public resources and policies in influencing growth pathways. However, while data collection at the international level has improved in recent years (for example through the OECD DAC system), many governments and public organizations still lack a comprehensive system to track and report domestic climate-related expenditures and international climate finance.

In terms of collecting and publically reporting information about its climate finance investments, the private sector lags even further behind.

Integrated private disclosure data - Finance captured by Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2015 and data gaps

This is problematic for governments and investors alike. Exposure to climate risks will have widespread effects on the value of assets and therefore, the ability of pension funds and insurance companies to pay out to their beneficiaries. Costs of compliance with standards or policies, risks of stranded assets, changing agricultural and commodity prices, increased scarcity of essential resources like water, disruptions in business supply chains, and damage to infrastructure and other assets will all impact companies’ and investors’ financial performance, as well as countries’ economic growth.

Investors are gaining more clarity on the exposure of their financial assets to climate change risk through companies’ increasing disclosure of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data. To date, demand for companies to disclose the climate risks they face has mainly been driven by disclosure initiatives and pressure from investors, with mandates from financial regulators and exchanges increasing in importance.

However, as CPI analysis has shown, there is little consistency in the quality and scope of information disclosed. Definitions are applied in different ways and many metrics are preliminary. Last December, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) reported that 93% of listed U.S. companies face some degree of climate risk but only 12% have disclosed it.

The challenge in the medium-term is to harmonize and improve definitions and metrics to provide investors and policymakers with comparable and reliable data with which to compare performance and formulate investment policies. Forthcoming recommendations on how to standardise such disclosures from the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures are due in December could provide some guidance. In the short-term, increased transparency is a good start.

Green bonds provide a case in point. Concerns about where finance raised from these bonds goes have led a number of different organizations to develop different assurance solutions. However, recent trends show issuers may be choosing transparency as the least cost option.

In 2015, 72% of green bond market by value sought an independent review. In the third quarter of this year, less than half did so, with issuers themselves opting instead to disclose how the proceeds of bonds will be used, and their process for selecting green projects.

Investors in the market seem broadly satisfied with this for now but this could change.

French investors now face their own for disclosure requirements both on how they are managing climate risk and how they are contributing to “energy and ecological transitions.” A French law, the first to introduce mandatory carbon reporting by investors, requires investors with a balance sheet of €500 million or more to submit their first reports on how they are approaching these issues by June 2017.

What remains less clear is whether such disclosure will provide enough comparable and reliable detail on the kind, location and performance of assets (e.g. in terms of emissions reductions, increased energy productivity, or increased resilience to adverse weather conditions) to provide more comprehensive overviews of how finance is accommodating climate change impacts and opportunities.

While some questions remain, increased transparency will certainly support investors and regulators’ efforts to mainstream ESG investment, and to move from understanding to managing climate risk, thus optimizing climate-related investment opportunities.

Increased transparency will also open new opportunities for financial product and service providers to refine existing and create new green investment products that reduce capital costs for the organizations driving energy and land use transitions.

Integrated private disclosure data - Investment framework for managing climate risks and opportunities

Greater clarity on public and private finance flowing to climate-relevant sectors where little reliable information is currently available can also improve policymakers’ understanding of how public and private interests and capabilities interact, enabling them to refine support frameworks to ensure effective spending and to maximise the economic benefits of transitions in energy and land use.

CPI remains committed to supporting investors to improve their understanding of climate risks and highlighting how to make the most of the opportunities presented by countries’ transitions to low-carbon and climate-resilient economies.

Since 2010, CPI has supported decision makers from the public and private sectors, at international, national and local levels, to define and track how climate finance is flowing from sources and actors, through a range of financial instruments, to recipients and end uses. Providing decision makers with robust and comprehensive information helps them to assess progress against real investment goals and needs. It also improves understanding of how public policy, finance and support interact with, and drive climate-relevant investment from diverse private actors, and where opportunities exist to achieve greater scale and impact.

This blog is part of a series on climate finance tracking challenges. Read more here.

Sign up for updates to stay informed on this and other aspects of our work.

Get in touch with CPI’s lead analyst working on private capital markets.

Read More

CPI analysis supports C40 call for action on increasing cities’ access to climate finance

October 19, 2016 | and

 

This week at Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) is making a call for action on municipal infrastructure finance, highlighting the financing needs of cities and their key role in driving sustainable, low-carbon and resilient growth.

Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) endorsed this call to action as part of our work to support cities’ access to climate finance and to help them achieve value for money. In the last year, we worked with the Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance to publish its State of City Climate Finance 2015 report and are currently analysing the green bond markets in order to develop guidelines for cities in developing countries to raise climate finance from this fast growing source of climate finance. This second piece of work is part of the Green Bonds for Cities project.

Our work supports C40 findings. For instance, C40’s call to action identifies multilateral and bilateral development banks as important actors in responding to city needs. Our analysis finds that taken together DFIs provide 94% of all green bond flows to cities in developing countries and multilateral and bilateral DFIs provide 82% of all green bond finance channelled to developing countries in general.

There are other possibilities for cities to tap green bond finance flows, however, aside from cities issuing their own bonds. National development banks provide an interesting option, for instance. While multilateral DFIs were the first to direct green bond flows to developing countries, domestic DFIs such as national development banks (NDBs) are now providing a growing share, now up to 18% of flows.

Green Bond DFI Flows to Developing Countries

The market is changing elsewhere too. Development finance institutions were the sole providers of green bond finance to developing countries from 2008-2013 but domestic corporates in the renewable energy sector have since begun to issue bonds. They have been joined by commercial banks from China and India which have linked the finance raised to green loans. City or municipal-based infrastructure development companies also commonly raise finance for cities in developing countries such as China, often with central government guarantees.

Global green bond market flows to developing countries

Our market analysis will feed into guidelines for city administrators and stakeholders in developing countries on how to access increased finance from the green bonds market. In the coming weeks, CPI and partners working on the Green Bonds for Cities project will provide toolkits and training sessions. The project is funded as part of the Low-Carbon City Lab (LoCaL) under Climate KIC.

CPI will also soon publish analysis looking into the role of NDBs in supporting implementation of nationally determined contributions. Sign up here for updates on these and other projects.

Read More

Understanding green bond data can help cities in developing countries tap the market

September 6, 2016 |

 

The population in developing and emerging countries is urbanizing at three times the rate of developed countries. But cities in the ‘Global South’ have limited access to capital to invest in water, energy, housing and transportation systems to meet the needs of growing urban populations.

Many of them raise capital through local banking sectors whose loan terms are often unsuitable for funding new infrastructure. Capital markets offer an alternative source of cheaper and longer-term finance but less than 20% of cities in developing countries have access to local capital markets and only 4% have access to international capital markets.

In recent years, green bond markets have emerged as a new way for investors in the capital markets to access sustainable investments. Cities have taken note. European cities in France and Sweden have been issuing green bonds since 2012. Municipalities in the US have a long track record of raising low-cost debt in the municipal bond market but only recently have begun to label bonds as ‘green’ in order to meet this demand signal from investors.

So how much finance has flowed from green bond markets to cities in developing countries?

Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) analysis shown in the chart below shows that approximately USD 2.2 billion of total flows in the green bond market have been directed towards cities in developing countries (“the South”) compared to USD 17 billion in developed countries (“the North”).

Global green bond market flows

The figure below breaks down the sources of those flows to cities in the North and South. Cities in the North mainly use their own municipal (MUNI) issuance power (84%) but also benefit from Development Finance Institutions (DFI) linking city-based projects to their green bonds (13%) while cities in the developing countries in contrast rely almost entirely on DFIs to raise finance for their projects (94%).

To date, Johannesburg’s USD 137 million bond is the only municipal green bond issued in developing countries. Important work to help address this imbalance is underway. It aims to develop local capital markets and improve the creditworthiness of cities.

But if a city cannot issue bonds, what is the potential of other channels open to them to access finance from green bond markets? Helping local governments and city administrators in developing countries to identify these channels and increase their access to the green bond markets is one way to close this investment gap. This is why CPI is contributing analysis and developing guidelines for accessing the green bond markets as part of the Green Bonds for Cities project.

Our analysis shows the sources of green bond market flows to developing countries are diversifying.

Since 2008, USD 39 billion has been directed to projects or activities in developing countries. From 2008-2013, this consisted entirely of flows from Development Finance Institutions but, from 2014, domestic corporate issuance began to grow and was then joined by issuance from commercial banks from China and India in 2016.

Global green bond market flows to developing countries

Clearly, cities don’t necessarily need to issue their own bonds to tap the green bond market. City or municipal-based infrastructure development companies could provide one option for them to do so. Such companies commonly raise finance in developing countries such as China, often with central government guarantees.

Public-private partnerships with corporations or commercial banking institutions could help cities leverage their green bond issuances for new infrastructure developments.

Perhaps the avenue with the most significant potential is through domestic, bilateral and multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs). DFIs could scale up their own green bond mandates to increase support for city-based infrastructure in developing countries, work to source and help finance projects, and eventually support cities to issue their own bonds through guarantees or other risk mitigation instruments.

Green Bond DFI Flows to North and South

The chart above reveals three interesting insights into DFIs’ green bond issuance:

  • Domestic DFIs in developing countries, such as NAFIN in Mexico and the Agricultural Bank of China, already account for 18% of total flows from DFIs’ green bonds to the South. They could provide a potential source of collaboration for cities.
  • Multilateral DFIs such as the World Bank, EIB, ADB and AfDB currently only link USD 2 billion of the USD 18 billion flowing to the south to city-based projects. There is potential to scale-up.
  • In combination, multilateral and bilateral DFIs such as EIB, EBRD and KfW’s send more green bond flows to projects in the North than the South. USD 25 billion of flows goes to the North versus USD 21 billion of flows to projects in the South.

CPI’s analysis will inform guidelines for city administrators and stakeholders in developing countries on how to develop a market access strategy for the Green Bonds for Cities project. From autumn 2016, this project will provide toolkits and training sessions with the aim of expanding green bond market flows to cities in the South.
CPI is working with South Pole Group on this in collaboration with ICLEI and Climate Bonds Initiative. The project is funded as part of the Low-Carbon City Lab (LoCaL) under Climate KIC.

This op-ed was originally published on Environmental Finance.

Read More

Video: Dr. Buchner on Translating NDCs into Investment Plans

June 21, 2016 |

 

The Paris Agreement commits countries to holding global temperature rise well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. Significant investments are needed to meet this target and accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient future. In this video-lecture for the International Center for Climate Governance (ICCG), Dr. Barbara Buchner, Climate Policy Initiative’s Executive Director of Climate Finance explains how to scale up financing for climate action and how to translate countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) into real investment plans.

Read More

Philanthropy’s Role in Financing a Climate-Resilient World

June 16, 2016 |

 

resLorenzo Bernasconi, Associate Director, The Rockefeller Foundation and Dr. Barbara Buchner, Executive Director, Climate Finance, co-authored this piece, which originally appeared on The Rockefeller Foundation blog.

In April of this year, leaders from 177 countries signed the Paris Agreement, with a goal to put the world on track to keep global warming below 2°C in order to avoid the catastrophic impacts of a warming planet. While mitigating the future impacts of climate change is crucial, there is a concurrent need to address the effects that are already present, and that are sure to increase. The Paris Agreement also raised the political profile of climate resilience, recognizing that adaptation represents a challenge with local, national, and international dimensions.

This is good news given that the effects of climate change are already threatening communities around the world. The Guardian recently reported that five islands in the Pacific have already been lost due to rising sea levels, and just last month US$49 million was committed to relocating an entire community of ‘climate refugees’ in rural Louisiana, with plans to move several other towns in the United States for similar reasons.

With the Paris Agreement—as well as the UN Sustainable Development Goals adopted in 2015—international attention on climate adaptation and resilience is rising, but so too are the costs.

The 2016 UNEP Adaptation Gap report estimates that adapting to climate change in developing countries could cost between US$280 and US$500 billion per year by 2050. Despite these rising costs, actual investments in climate adaptation lag. According to the Global Landscape on Climate Finance, only US$25 billion was invested in climate adaption activities globally in 2015—around 7 percent of total climate-related investment. While this is only a rough estimate due to a lack of information on domestic and private resilience investments, current investments clearly constitute only a fraction of what is needed to avoid costly and catastrophic future impacts.

Further compounding this gap is the fact that climate change disproportionally affects the poorest communities and individuals globally—those that often lack the means to build adaptive capacity. For example, the world’s 450 million smallholder farmers are especially vulnerable to droughts, extreme weather events, and other climate-related shocks, but have little financial or educational resources to build the resilience necessary to withstand this volatility.

“What’s needed is a paradigm shift to ensure that the benefits of building climate resilience—and the costs of failing to do so—are integrated into investment and planning decisions in both public and private sectors.”

It is clear from the rising costs and impacts that investing now in climate resilience makes good economic sense in the near and long term, but constrained national and local public budgets will not be enough to finance this transition.

Read More