Aug 17, 2022
The Scaling up Renewable Energy Program in Low-income Countries (SREP) is found to be highly relevant to national-level country needs, priorities, and opportunities. This is one of the salient findings from a new independent evaluation of an innovative and ambitious program launched by the Climate Investment Funds just over a decade ago.
The report, entitled “Evaluation of Scaling up Renewable Energy Program in Low-income Countries”, provides objective insights into how the program delivers large-scale energy access projects in challenging country contexts, such as states affected by conflict or fragility. These countries are often underserved in terms of concessional finance, and as the evaluation notes, “SREP was developed with a clear and responsive mandate to flexibly address energy transition challenges across a range of developing country contexts”.
SREPS relevance and coherence
Overall, SREP occupies an important niche in the global climate finance landscape, as the evaluation confirms. The evaluation also found SREP to be highly relevant and coherent in often evolving national and global contexts, since it launched in 2010. However, this varied from country to country as a reflection of the complexity of delivering large-scale energy access programs in diverse contexts.
Relevance is assessed on whether an intervention’s project objectives and design respond to global, country, or partner needs while coherence considers the compatibility of an SREP intervention with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution
For example, in Bangladesh, SREP’s relevance to national priorities contributed to a positive evolution of the country’s rural grid electrification since 2015. At that time, 74 percent of the population had access to electricity; today, 99.5 percent do. However, reviewing a solar irrigation pump project in Bangladesh points to some disharmony with SREP’s objectives and deliverables to that of other players (such as government departments or local delivery agencies) with divergent business models or fee structures.
From Honduras to Mali or Nepal to Vanuatu, various country contexts revealed varying challenges to SREP’s relevance and coherence.
Programmatic Approach
SREP’s programmatic approach was another outstanding feature that, the evaluation finds, “created momentum around renewable energy, at a time when sector dialogue was nascent in many SREP countries.” This approach incorporated country-led investment plans, fostered government-level support, and promoted collaboration with multilateral development banks (MDBs) for many first- and early-mover investments.
This was also observed by an MDB official in an interview with evaluators: “The SREP programmatic approach [through] collaboration with government and other MDBs was an effective way of linking to national plans [and was] very useful to prioritize what governments [want to pursue in the context] of wider development plans.”
Another MBD official notes how investment plans and their broader scope proved a valuable component: “The investment plan is a fantastic instrument up front. Instead of offering one single project, it’s a plan for transformation, which is fabulous. You have predictability of resources, and a couple of different MDBs and bilaterals together. Those pieces are really nice.”
But, as with all innovative and ambitious programs, the SREP programmatic approach needs ongoing attention because, as the evaluation found, it was difficult to sustain throughout project implementation. This alerts the CIF and its partners to opportunities for “more coherent delivery and learning in some cases.”
Other challenges related to the investment plan structure and its impact when resources became scarce or uncertain, particularly later in the program lifetime. The evaluation notes that SREP’s funding commitments did not increase proportionately, even though the number of eligible countries grew.
The evaluation thus provides several lessons for new CIF programs and other climate finance facilities. These include right-sizing country allocations, programmatic ambition as well as developing flexible private sector financing windows.
The CIF Evaluation and Learning Initiative commissioned the independent report to take stock of SREP’s challenges and achievements to date, and as a learning opportunity to further enhance innovative climate investments.
Learn more:
