Tag Archives: multilateral climate finance

Uncertain Future of the Climate Investment Funds Makes Achieving Climate Finance Goals Tougher

June 14, 2016 | and

 

On June 15th and 16th members of the Joint Trust Fund Committee of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) meet in Oaxaca, Mexico, to discuss, among other issues, the strategic direction of the fund. One topic to be discussed is the CIF’s “sunset” clause, which was conceived at the fund’s establishment and requires it to conclude its operations once a new financial architecture – now embodied by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) – is effective.

Now that the GCF is operational, some feel that the “sunset” clause should be activated. In any case, the CIF does not currently have sufficient resources to finance the projects in its pipeline or those of new pilot countries.

Contributing governments are certainly in a tough position. They are faced with the question of whether or not to re-up their financial commitment to the CIF, but have recently pledged significant resources to the GCF – over $10 billion in total – and their budgets for climate aid are under pressure as resources are diverted to address other immediate needs such as the European migration crisis.

The lack of clarity regarding the future of the CIF is having a real impact. The dearth of financial resources for the CIF and uncertainty regarding whether new resources will be made available is disrupting recipient countries’ project pipelines and delaying the development of investment plans for new CIF pilot countries. This is also creating doubt within the multilateral development banks (MDBs) regarding how much and what type of concessional finance they will have access to. This is important because of the role concessional finance plays in overcoming investment barriers and helping MDBs to mobilize internal resources to meet their climate finance commitments.

As the CIF Joint Trust Fund Committee meets this week and makes major decisions on the fund’s future direction, it is worth reflecting on what role the CIF has played within the global climate finance architecture and what unique elements it has brought to the table. A study recently published by CPI – The Role of the Climate Investment Funds in Meeting Investment Needs – can help inform this reflection. The report highlights climate-relevant investment needs and assesses the CIF’s distinctive role in bridging investment gaps compared to other multilateral climate funds.

It concludes that the CIF should be kept in operation to maintain progress towards meeting international climate finance targets, particularly while the GCF gets up to speed and in light of key temporal and structural differences that exist between the two funds. The CIF has played a particularly important role in financing climate action because of a few distinctive features. These include:

  • The CIF’s programmatic approach. In partnership with the MDBs – the CIF’s implementing entities – the fund involves recipient countries’ private and public stakeholders in the development and implementation of policy reforms and investments aligned with countries’ climate strategies. It starts with countries being informed of the indicative amount of resources they are eligible for, followed by the development and endorsement of the investment plans and finally approval of projects. This approach, which has provided a certain level of predictability to both the recipients and implementing partners, represents a role model for the development and implementation of countries’ Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs). Translating INDCs into concrete investments will similarly require the mobilization of multiple stakeholders under coherent strategic investment plans and the development of supportive policy and governance frameworks.
  • The range of financial instruments available through the CIF and the fund’s risk appetite. Although some have yet to be fully utilized, the range of financial instruments offered by the CIF has proven to be particularly well-suited to foster the piloting of first-of-a-kind approaches and business models, and to take on market risks that others are not willing to take. A survey of developing countries and their climate finance priorities indicates that flexibility in financing terms and types of financial instruments provided is of “critical” importance to advance climate objectives.
  • The CIF’s focus on private sector engagement in mitigation, forestry and adaptation. The CIF has allocated more finance to drive private sector investment in these sectors than any other multilateral climate fund. It has also been the first to develop dedicated approaches to achieve this end, such as the private sector set-asides for forestry and adaptation, and is one of the only multilateral climate funds that offer concessional loans for these activities, as opposed to just grants. Building on this experience, the CIF holds the potential to further enhance private sector engagement in these areas going forward.

The CIF has experience and a functional structure in place, which can help to maintain momentum and bridge major climate investment gaps. Other climate funds have notable strengths, but do not necessarily offer the same capabilities as the CIF.

While the establishment of the GCF is intended to fill investment gaps, questions remain regarding the extent to which the fund will be able to deliver the scale and type of support recipient countries need in the short to medium-term as it gets up to speed.

As decision makers shape the international climate finance architecture and make choices about which funds and approaches they choose to support, they should consider the unique and positive features of existing funding mechanisms and how these features can help effectively address countries’ current and future investment needs.

Given the real scarcity of resources available, there is no easy answer. If they decide to keep the CIF alive, it may be worth exploring and taking decisions on alternative funding modalities to maintain at least certain elements of the CIF operational and mitigate a potential loss in the momentum it has created.

Read More

Making Climate Finance Count – Increasing Transparency in the Lead Up to COP 21

November 23, 2015 |

 

As 2015 draws to a close, there is a strong hope that the Paris climate summit could represent a turning point in the global fight against climate change. To support discussions, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) recently published two reports.

Earlier this week, we released our Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2015, the most comprehensive information available about which sources and financial instruments are driving investments, and how much climate finance is flowing globally. This report sheds light on global progress towards the level of low-carbon and climate-resilient investment needed to constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to levels consistent with the 2°C global temperature goal and to adapt to an already changing climate. It also illuminates how different types of public support are addressing different needs, and how they are interacting with private sources of finance. Such understanding can position policy makers and investors to more effectively manage the risks and seize the opportunities associated with climate change.

We found that global climate finance flows reached at least US$391 billion in 2014 as a result of a steady increase in public finance and record private investment in renewable energy technologies. Public actors and intermediaries committed US$148 billion, or 38% of total climate finance flows. Private finance increased by nearly US$50 billion in 2014 and resulted in a record amount of new renewable energy deployment, particularly in China. About 74% of total climate finance flows, and up to 92% of private investments were raised and spent within the same country, confirming the strong domestic preference of investors identified in previous years’ Landscape reports and highlighting the importance of getting domestic frameworks for attracting investment right.

This global outlook provides a complementary, big picture perspective to a recent report prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in collaboration with CPI to provide an up-to-date aggregate estimate of mobilized climate finance and an indication of the progress towards developed countries’ commitment under the UNFCCC to mobilize US$100 billion annually for climate action in developing countries by 2020. While US$100 billion will not meet the climate challenge by itself, it is currently the primary political benchmark for assessing progress on climate finance and an important starting point for getting us on a low-carbon, climate-resilient pathway.

Our estimates indicate that climate finance reached US$62 billion in 2014 and US$52 billion in 2013, equivalent to an annual average over the two years of US$57 billion. Bilateral public climate finance represents a significant proportion of this aggregate, provisionally estimated at US$22.8 billion on average per year in 2013-14, an increase of over 50% over levels reported in 2011-2012. Multilateral climate finance attributable to developed countries is estimated at US$17.9 billion in 2013-2014. The remaining finance consists of preliminary and partial estimates of export credits and of private finance mobilized by bilateral and multilateral finance attributable to developed countries.

The OECD report makes a significant contribution to informing international discussions and enhancing transparency on climate finance ahead of COP 21 in Paris in two ways. It provides a robust number including preliminary estimates of mobilized private finance for the first time and does so based on a transparent methodology. This represents real progress. In 2011, when we began gathering data for our Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports there was very little in the way of common methodologies and definitions. Since then, we have worked with the OECD, a group of Multilateral Development Banks, the International Development Finance Club and the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance and others, to develop definitions and methodologies that have helped to close data gaps, improve comparability and increase understanding of climate finance.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to international negotiators to decide what should and should not count towards the US$100 billion commitment and how best to approach the wider climate challenge. Our hope is that the lessons learned from our recent climate finance reports can help to further improve the transparency and comprehensiveness of climate finance measurement and reporting to develop tracking systems that ultimately help governments to spend money wisely.

A proper measurement, tracking, and reporting system is a critical building block to ensure finance is used efficiently and targeted where it is needed the most. By shedding light on the intersection between public policy, finance and private investment, we will continue to help decision makers from developed, developing and emerging economies optimize the use of their resources.

This article was originally published on Climate Change Policy & Practice, a knowledge management project of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). See: http://climate-l.iisd.org/

Read More

Policy Watch: UN climate talks wrap up, Indonesia approves landmark forest protection deal, and Africa’s largest solar plant close to breaking ground

December 11, 2012 |

 

This week, climate policy headlines from around the world include results from the UN climate talks, Indonesia approving a conservation deal that will protect 200,000 acres of forest, and Norway contributing $180 million to help Brazil slow deforestation.

Elinor Benami, Chiara Trabacchi, and Xueying Wang contributed headlines to this edition of Policy Watch.

UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation
The summit established for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change. Developing nations hailed it as a breakthrough, but condemned the gulf between the science of climate change and political attempts to tackle it.

The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, extends to 2020 the Kyoto Protocol. It is the only legally-binding plan for combating global warming. The deal covers Europe and Australia, whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%.

But the conference also cleared the way for the Kyoto protocol to be replaced by a new treaty binding all rich and poor nations together by 2015 to tackle climate change. The final text “encourages” rich nations to mobilize at least $10bn (£6bn) a year up to 2020, when the new global climate agreement is due to kick in. Full article.

Read More