Tag Archives: Green Climate Fund

Five Ways to Build Effective Climate Finance Readiness Programs

October 6, 2015 | and

 

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) will review its first project proposals at its eleventh meeting later this year, just in time for the international climate negotiations at COP 21 in Paris. This important milestone for the Fund comes after it has received USD 10.2 billion of initial contributions as part of developed countries’ commitment to mobilize $100 billion climate finance per year by 2020 from public and private sources. The impact for developing countries could be significant, with countries receiving substantial funding from the GCF to combat climate change and protect its infrastructure and people from its effects.

However, this promising start is only half the battle. Countries also need systems in place to absorb money, mainstream climate change considerations into national policies, and coordinate across government and partners to build a good project pipeline to channel funds effectively and to mobilize more public, private, domestic and international resources.

To respond to this need, a number of climate finance readiness programs from international actors have emerged in recent years, including a Readiness and Preparatory Support Initiative under the GCF itself and the Climate Finance Readiness Program run by GIZ and KfW and commissioned by Germany’s Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. For example, Vietnam, with support from GIZ, is working with the Ministry of Planning and Investment on coordinating and assessing international climate finance, building capacity, and kick-starting a process that in the end will support the country to fulfill the direct access option of the GCF.

CPI has worked to assess these types of approaches in a new paper that measures mobilization of finance from technical assistance and climate finance readiness support, based on detailed analysis of five GIZ technical assistance programs. Below we draw out five early lessons on how international actors and recipient countries can maximize the impact of their readiness programs:

1. Strong coordination of readiness support programs by recipient countries will likely be more cost-effective and raise more climate finance. With a number of readiness support programs starting to operate in single countries, caution needs to be taken to avoid overlap and overburden on recipient countries. Readiness support from multiple partners is usually justified due to the range and volume of needs. But strong direction and coordination has to come from recipient countries themselves so that support does not become fragmented. The GCF and other providers of readiness support are already making efforts to coordinate their support but systematic, recipient-led approaches could ensure countries get the most out of the process. On their side, donors can consider co-financing existing programs as the Czech Republic did with the GIZ program.

2. Readiness programs can support countries to build the necessary frameworks and institutions to both absorb international climate finance and channel domestic finance. Countries need to combine a vision for low-carbon and climate-resilient growth with a focused and realistic implementation plan in which the role of both domestic and international stakeholders is clear. Readiness support can help countries to develop these visions, carry out planning, integrate GCF financing into planning frameworks and build institutions that can absorb the funding. Readiness support providers should strive for a stable and long-term in-country presence to support this.

3. Readiness programs need to provide different types of support to help governments to mobilize different sources of finance. In many markets, governments are looking for ways to combine finance from public and private actors to achieve their policy goals. This requires different types of support from readiness programs, e.g. support to meet the institutional and fiduciary requirements to access international climate finance; technical assistance to support the design of financial incentives and national mechanisms that can mobilize domestic public finance; and advice on legal frameworks, building attractive markets, and developing project pipelines to unlock private investment.

4. Technical capacity building organizations should coordinate closely with development finance institutions. Doing so will not only increase countries’ abilities to absorb GCF funds but also give them a pipeline of climate-relevant projects to channel those funds to. Readiness support can work to bring on early stage ideas and develop a more complete and strategic flow of the kind of finance-ready projects that financial cooperation partners are typically looking for.

5. Mainstreaming climate change into national, subnational and sectoral planning, polices and budgets builds policymakers’ capacity and improves mobilization of domestic and private finance. Mainstreaming can encourage governments to divert resources from high-carbon and inefficient alternatives to climate-compatible interventions and supports the development of policies that help to mobilize private investment. By revealing more clearly how finance is flowing it can also provide donors with the opportunity to align their activities with national policies and priorities.

Read More

By the Numbers: Tracking Finance for Low-Carbon & Climate-Resilient Development

February 3, 2015 |

 

Landscape of Climate Finance 2014

 

In December 2015, countries will gather in Paris to finalize a new global agreement to tackle climate change. Decisions about how to unlock finance in support of developing countries’ low-carbon and climate-resilient development will be a central part of the talks, and understanding where the world stands in relation to these goals is a more urgent task than ever.

Climate Policy Initiative’s Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2014 offers a view of where and how climate finance is flowing, drawing together the most comprehensive information available about the scale, key actors, instruments, recipients, and uses of finance supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes.

Climate finance has fallen, mainly due to reductions in solar PV costs

Overall, the gap between the finance needed to deal with climate change and the finance delivered is growing while total climate finance has fallen for two consecutive years. This could put globally agreed temperature goals at risk and increase the likelihood of costly climate impacts.

Read More

Six climate finance themes out of Lima that will shape 2015

December 17, 2014 |

 

Government representatives from around the world met last week in Lima, Peru to negotiate global emissions reductions as part of the annual UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP20). Once again, the need to mobilize more investment in a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy was an important point of debate.

Climate Policy Initiative’s analysis is playing a key role informing serious discussion on climate finance and finding solutions to increase the effectiveness and scale of climate finance investments. Here are the themes we saw at this COP that we feel will shape climate finance action and debate over the next year.

Entrance-to-Lima-Cop20

Entrance to Lima COP20

1. Finance is flowing but it’s not enough.

The COP20 High-Level Finance Ministerial began with a presentation of the UNFCCC’s Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows 2014. This research, which draws on Climate Policy Initiative’s work to track climate finance, tracked between 340 and 650 USD billion in annual investment. As CPI has shown, this figure is far short of the need.

Global Landscape of CLimate Finance needs

Annual climate investment compared to the need

2. Governments voiced support for innovative initiatives that unlock private finance.

CPI’s analysis shows that while public finance often provides the conditions for climate investment to take place, private investors contribute the largest share of finance, year after year, in countries across the world. It also shows that public finance alone will not be enough to meet the investment need. Several government representatives spoke of the need to find innovative ways to unlock increased private investment. Representatives from Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and U.S. used their time on the COP plenary floor to voice support for one such initiative – The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance – which CPI supports as its Secretariat, advancing innovative financial instruments to drive significant additional investment in developing countries.

3. The Green Climate Fund reached more than $10 billion in commitments – good progress ahead of COP21 in Paris next year.

Following the pledges from Japan, the U.S. and UK over the last weeks, Australia, Belgium, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Austria, Spain, Norway, and Canada helped the Green Climate Fund reach its $10bn goal at this COP with new pledges. These pledges to help developing nations deal with climate change are good news. They increase the chances for a global climate deal next year in Paris, and if spent wisely, can supplement domestic public resources where they fall short and drive billions in private investment toward low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

4. Finance for adaptation is becoming a higher priority.

The Green Climate Fund restated its intention to use half of its finance for adaptation purposes. Germany also stepped up on adaptation, committing an additional 50 million euros to the Adaptation Fund. CPI’s work shows that while adaptation finance grew by 12% last year, it still falls short of the need.

 5. Tracking of climate finance continues to improve.

Following on recommendations from the UNFCCC’s Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows 2014, many countries used their time on the COP20 plenary floor during the Finance Ministerial to talk about the need for an agreed-upon definition of climate finance and improved tracking systems. CPI’s analysis supports this need and shows that climate finance tracking can support countries’ attempts to formulate better policies.

 6. Economic growth and combating climate change can go hand in hand.

Last but not least – there was a growing sense that acting on climate can also spur economic growth at this year’s COP. Many experts have documented that climate change and the resulting extreme weather would have huge social and financial costs to the global economy. This year, the New Climate Economy report showed that measures that reduce climate risk can not only help to avoid a shrinking economy in the future, but can also help grow the economy, today.

 FelipeCalderon-speaks-about-New-Climate-Economy-from-COP20

President Felipe Calderón speaks about the New Climate Economy report from the COP20 plenary floor

Going into 2015, one big-picture lesson is clear – climate finance will continue to be an important focal point for those working to respond to climate change. CPI will continue to work to provide analysis that supports these discussions.

Read More

3 Reasons for Measured Optimism about Climate Finance

December 4, 2014 |

 

A version of this blog first appeared on Responding to Climate Change: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/21/three-reasons-to-be-optimistic-about-climate-finance-flows/

This year’s UN climate talks opened in Lima earlier this week and for those who hope the world can avoid dangerous climate change, some major recent announcements have given cause to celebrate. Last month, the world’s two largest emitters – the U.S. and China – reached a deal to tackle emissions. Then, the U.S., Japanese, and UK governments joined others by pledging billions to the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations deal with climate change. These political announcements are clearly timed to inject momentum into the negotiations taking place in Lima. But key questions remain unanswered: What do these financial pledges mean in terms of existing investment in a low-carbon economy future? How should money be spent? And are we on the right track?

At Climate Policy Initiative, our analysis of global climate finance flows helps to identify who is investing in climate action on the ground, how, and whether investments are keeping up what is needed to transform the global economy. We have just released the latest edition of our Global Landscape of Climate Finance report. It shows global climate finance has fallen for the second year running and we are falling further behind the level of investment needed to keep global temperature rise below two degree Celsius – but reveals some positive news as well.

Firstly, that nations around the world are investing in a low-carbon future in line with national interests. Last year, climate finance investments were split almost equally between developed and developing countries, with USD 164 billion and USD 165 billion respectively. With almost three-quarters of total investments being made in their country of origin, the majority of climate finance investments are motivated by self-interest—either for governments or businesses. Motivations include increasing economic productivity and profit, meeting growing energy demand, improving energy security, reducing health costs associated with pollution, and managing climate risk including investment risks.

Secondly, that getting domestic policy settings right offers the best opportunity to unlock new investment. When policy certainty and public resources balance risks and rewards effectively, private money follows. In 2013, private investments made up 58% of global climate finance with the vast majority (90%) of these being made at home where the risk to reward ratio is perceived relatively favorably. Addressing the needs of domestic investors offers the greatest potential to unlock investment at the necessary scale. This is not to say that international and domestic public policies, support and finance don’t have complementary roles to play. It is significant, for instance, that almost all of the developed to developing country finance we capture in our inventory of climate finance flows came from public actors. But ultimately, it is getting domestic policy frameworks right, with international support where appropriate, that will drive most of the necessary investment from domestic and international sources.

Thirdly, that despite a fall in overall investment, money is going further than ever. While investment fell for the second year running, this is largely because of decreased private investment resulting from falling costs of solar PV and other renewable energy technologies. In some cases, deployment of these technologies is staying steady or even growing, even though finance is shrinking. In 2013, investment in solar fell by 14% but deployment increased by 30%. Technological innovation is reducing costs and because of this renewable energy investments in some markets are cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives, particularly in Latin America. Achieving more output for less input is one of the basic foundations of economic growth, so this is great news. From solar PV, to energy efficiency and agricultural productivity, growing numbers of low-carbon investments are competing with or cheaper than their high-carbon counterparts. This despite a highly uneven playing field in which global subsidies to fossil fuels continue to dwarf support for renewables and where carbon prices do not reflect the true costs of emitting CO2.

So what do our findings mean for the recent China/U.S. deal and Green Climate Fund pledges? Increasing political pressure on other countries to keep pace in terms of their domestic action and international commitments is an encouraging sign as the deadline nears for finalizing a new global climate agreement in Paris just one year from now. Reaching a global accord offers the best prospect for tackling climate change. But we must recognize that international agreements are themselves, guided by collective national interests. There is clear recognition that international public resources should complement and supplement national resources where these are insufficient. But if we are to bridge the investment gap they should also be focused on finding ways to lower costs, boost returns and reduce risks for private actors. Public finance alone will not be enough to meet the climate finance challenge.

Many private investors are ready to act. In September, over 300 institutional investors from around the world representing over $24 trillion in assets called on government leaders to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and implement the kind of carbon pricing policies that will enable them to redirect trillions to investments compatible with fighting climate change. Businesses and citizens are investing, and technological innovation means more and more investments are making economic and environmental sense. Accompanying innovation with policy, appropriately targeted finance and new business models can build the momentum and economies of scale to make the low-carbon transition achievable. The low-carbon transition isn’t just a way of reducing climate risk, it also represents a huge investment opportunity.

Read More

Expanding green finance: What’s already working and what’s next?

December 5, 2012 |

 

Despite reaching $364 billion in 2010/2011, global investment to combat climate change still falls far short of the level required to stabilize global temperature rise to 2°C. According to the IEA, we need to reach $1 trillion each year of incremental investment in energy supply and demand technologies, and more will be needed to achieve climate resilient development globally.

Policymakers and others will need to scale up what’s working, and explore new approaches to pool more capital from the private sector. However, investors’ real and perceived risks are increasing as a result of stalled international negotiations and national policy frameworks reforms.

On the 20th and the 21st September, Climate Policy Initiative hosted the Second Meeting of the San Giorgio Group (SGG) on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice to discuss what’s already working in green finance, what’s not working, and to identify new options to bridge the gap between supply of climate investment and the demand for mitigation and adaptation finance. Here is a summary of some of the highlights.

Read More