As one of the largest global climate finance mechanisms, the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) have accumulated since 2009 a wealth of data on investments’ contributions toward net-zero emissions and adaptive, climate-resilient, just, and socially inclusive development pathways. With its rigorous and inclusive monitoring and reporting, CIF goes above and beyond annual results reports, and provides in-depth reviews of results within specific thematic or developmental dimensions of climate change with the Results Deep Dive Series. The Series offers greater granularity on the drivers and implications of various performance characteristics.
We asked CIF’s Sandra Romboli, Lead, Monitoring & Results, to highlight key findings from the six publications of the Results Deep Dive Series on co-financing; costs of renewable energy; climate policy; and land management and biodiversity.
1. What have you found when looking at CIF data on mobilizing co-financing?
We crunched the numbers on co-financing to check if we have delivered on co-investments from partners in multilateral development banks and the public and private sector. We examined results from CIF’s Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which supports clean energy transformation in 29 developing countries, and from the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries (SREP), enabling 25 of the world’s poorest countries to foster transformational change and pursue low-carbon energy pathways.
As of December 2022, CTF’s committed portfolio entailed $5 billion of own-account debt and equity investments, complemented by $51 billion of expected public and private co-investment, or a 1:10 co-financing mobilization ratio. Other climate funds stand at an approximate average of 1:4.5 based on our sample. CIF’s outstanding result is driven by high co-financing for solar technology (1:18.7); clean transport (1:14.4); geothermal (1:12.3); and hydropower (1:10.9).
SREP targeted some of the world’s poorest countries and still achieved co-financing levels of 1:5.7 on average. We looked at how this varies by grid types, and found that co-financing tends to flow to projects with on-grid technology. Off-grid and mini-grid projects generated less co-investments.
2. What can we learn from the CTF portfolio on the costs of various renewable energy sources?
For CTF, we wanted to understand the cost per MW of CIF-funded installed capacity for various renewable energy sources. We found that, in general, the cost per MW of installed capacity is driven by the maturity of the technology in use. Newer technologies, which may be regarded as relatively unproven, and lack the innovation to drive down costs in the supply chain and improve efficiency, are relatively more expensive. This means that our concessional resources might no longer be needed to invest in wind technology, but are still crucial for countries deploying energy storage, solar, and geothermal projects.
3. Are you able to measure outcomes on climate policy? If yes, what are they?
To understand CIF’s impact in generating systems change and shaping climate friendly policies in developing countries, we took a deep dive into data from our Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). As of December 2022, PPCR has supported 837 policies, plans, strategies, and frameworks that aim to integrate climate change considerations. These efforts represent close to 100% of the support expected through the programming window (i.e., 99.8 percent of PPCR’s target across 36 projects in 16 countries). At the national and sectoral levels, expectations were even exceeded, with 106.5 percent and 100.6 percent of policies supported, respectively.
For example, in Mozambique, PPCR helped strengthen the enabling environment through technical support: this enabled a national climate change strategy and monitoring framework to be adopted. Moreover, PPCR supported seven sectors in Mozambique to integrate comprehensive climate change actions into their plans and strategies. Cambodia, where 50 villages developed disaster risk management plans that are responsive to flood and drought conditions, provides a good example of policy development at the local level with PPCR support. In Samoa, 18 districts adopted Community Integrated Management Plans for climate resilience, in coherence with the national programmatic approach.
4. What did you learn from looking at data from the Forest Investment Program (FIP)? Is the program delivering for land management and biodiversity?
Since 2008, the FIP program has invested in preserving forests as a means of combatting climate change by enhancing carbon stocks in Indonesia and 22 other countries. At this stage, FIP investments of $598 million had mobilized co-financing of $1.165 billion from public and private sources. The climate benefits generated through this investment include the reduction of a cumulative 27.7 million tCO2 eq emissions so far. We have found evidence that these results supported biodiversity outcomes in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Mozambique (as detailed here).
Institutional and community capacities are the foundations for lasting sustainable land and forest management. FIP projects reached over 423,000 individuals with capacity building all over the world, including 5,300 officials from across 120 agencies at the national, provincial, and district levels, who received training and updated technical knowledge. Over 1,800 local institutions and villages were engaged in sustainable land and forest management activities, ensuring the sustainability of these measures at the front lines of forest protection. Overall, FIP helped reduce pressure on 1.1 million hectares of forest and supported 371 million hectares in sustainable land and forest management.
Sandra leads the Results Team at CIF. An economist and evaluator with 18 years of operational, analytical, and advisory expertise, Sandra acquired her experience at the World Bank, the United Nations, the Global Environment Facility, and also from the private sector.
With extensive experience in monitoring and evaluation system development, results and impact management, portfolio analysis, and implementation of independent evaluations, Sandra’s specialist subjects are climate change, forestry, environment, and rural development.
At the World Bank, Sandra worked on the environmental portfolio in Ethiopia, as a technical expert in support of the government on flagship programs, including the Sustainable Land Management program and the Climate Resilient Green Economy initiative.
Sandra holds a Master’s degree in Development Economics and a second Master’s degree in Business Administration from Lund University in Sweden.