《国际开发性金融俱乐部(IDFC):2021年绿色金融地图报告(英文版)(46页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《国际开发性金融俱乐部(IDFC):2021年绿色金融地图报告(英文版)(46页).pdf(46页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、IDFC Green Finance MappingReport 2021November 2021Over$1 trilliontotal green financesince 201520%of total new commitments in 2020 were green finance commitments$185 billionin green finance in 2020TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 42020 Key Findings 4Climate Finance in 2020 6Biodiversity Finance in
2、2020 6Improving Green Finance Mapping Methodology 71.INTRODUCTION 92.METHODOLOGY 122.1 TRACKING POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE GFM 123.GREEN FINANCE MAPPING OUTCOMES 153.1 CLIMATE FINANCE 183.2 BIODIVERSITY FINANCE 264.ALIGNMENT WITH THE PARIS AGREEMENT 305.CONCLUSIONS 326.APPENDICES
3、336.1 APPENDIX A.1:LIST AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IDFC OECD MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS 336.2 APPENDIX A.2:LIST AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IDFC NON-OECD MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS 336.3 APPENDIX B:METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY 346.4 APPENDIX C:METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE ESTIMATING PRIVATE SECTOR MOBILI
4、ZATION 386.5 APPENDIX D:ELIGIBLE PROJECT CATEGORIES 406.6 APPENDIX E:DATA TABLE 426.7 APPENDIX F:INDEX OF ACRONYMS 447.ENDNOTES 454EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1$=US dollar.Since 2011,the International Development Finance Club(IDFC)has conducted a periodic mapping of member institutions green finance contribut
5、ions.In 2020,cumulative green finance commitments by IDFC members surpassed the$1 trillion1 mark since the Paris Agreement was signed.This is a major milestone,which materializes IDFC members ability to deliver on unprecedented flows of green finance.Adaptation finance continued to grow,increasing b
6、y 42%over 2019 and more than fivefold compared to 2016 to reach$27.5 billion.Mitigation finance suffered a shortfall in 2020,driven,at least in part,by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to allocate resources to emergency response and economic recovery.Despite this challenge,six institutions increas
7、ed their green commitments in 2020,compared to 2019.In light of new priorities triggered by the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic,IDFC institutions redistributed their green financing efforts towards adaptation and resilience while also including more conservation efforts.Indeed,at the inau
8、gural 2020 Finance in Common Summit,IDFC members com-mitted to step up investment in conservation,sustain-able use,and the restoration of biodiversity.To better reflect these priorities,this years Green Finance Mapping(GFM)report separates IDFC finance commit-ments to biodiversity projects,alongside
9、 conventional climate finance and other environmental objectives.Such efforts form part of a broader trend that acknowl-edges the intersectionality between the climate and biodiversity crisis,both in terms of causes,conse-quences,and potential(policy)solutions.2020 KEY FINDINGS IDFC members reported
10、 total green finance commitments of$185 billion.This represents a 6%decrease from 2019,primarily driven by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Figure ES 1:IDFC green finance commitments in 2020 by theme 5 In 2020,green finance represented approximately 20%of total new commitments reported by IDFC me
11、mbers.Since 2015,green finance commitments have consistently represented more than one-fifth of total IDFC investments.-Climate financeconsisting of all activities related to the mitigation of greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions and adaptation to climate changeaccounted for 96%of total green finance(or$178
12、.5 billion).-Finance for green energy and mitigation of GHGs was the largest climate finance category,representing 82%.However,in the context of a challenging year,mitigation finance declined 10%,primarily driven by lower commitments for the transport sector.2 For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finan
13、ce flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.-Adaptation projects represented 15%of climate finance,an increase of 42%from 2019.This continues four years of consecutive growth,achieving over five times the level of adaptation commitments in 2016.Finance to projects containing elements of
14、 both mitigation and adaptation has been steadily increasing,but remains a small portion of total climate finance,at 2.6%(or$4.7 billion).Finance for biodiversity projects reached$14 billion in 2020.This includes,for example,finance for water supply,wastewater treatment,biodiversity conservation,and
15、 waste management,among others.Additionally,IDFC members reported$1.4 billion of finance for other environmental objectives.Figure ES 2:IDFC green finance commitments in CLIMATE FINANCE IN 2020 Sources of finance:IDFC institutions based in non-OECD countries committed$102 billion in clima
16、te finance,a 26%decrease from$138 billion in 2019.The share of climate finance coming from these institutions has also decreased from 74%in 2019 to 57%in 2020.IDFC institutions based in OECD countries committed$76 billion,up by 55%from$49 billion in 2019.Geographic destinations:The East Asia and Pac
17、ific region continues to attract the majority of climate finance,accounting for 55%of commitments in 2020(down from 69%in 2019).Western Europe was the second highest recipient of climate finance,accounting for 31%of the total(or$54.5 billion),proportionally higher than its 15%share in 2019.3 For thi
18、s new topic of the GFM,other members need to adapt their tracking of biodiversity investments.-The share of total climate finance commitments made in the home country of IDFC member institutions was 86%($154 billion),while 14%($25 billion)was spent internationally.-81%of the climate finance committe
19、d internationally($20 billion)flowed from institutions based in OECD countries to non-OECD countries.Financing instruments:94%of total climate finance commitments were provided in the form of loans at$168.5 billion,a share similar to previous years.$6.3 billion was provided through grants,a 70%incre
20、ase from$3.7 billion in 2019.BIODIVERSITY FINANCE IN 2020 Seven IDFC institutions reported investments in biodiversity in 2020,3 for a total of$14 billion,Figure ES 3:Climate finance commitments in 2020 by source of finance(OECD/non-OECD)and region of destination7or 7.5%of total green finance commit
21、ments.39%of biodiversity finance commitments($5.4 billion)went to non-climate finance related biodiversity projects,while an additional$8.6 billion consisted of climate finance projects simultaneously reporting biodiversity objectives.4.6%of these dual-benefits projects had biodiversity objectives w
22、ith an internal weight higher than 50%of the total value of the project.Sources of finance:IDFC institutions based in non-OECD countries committed 90%($12.6 billion)of biodiversity finance.Geographic destinations:The East Asia and Pacific region attracted 84%of biodiversity finance commitments in 20
23、20($11.8 billion),followed by Latin America and the Caribbean at 10%($1.4 billion).Sectors:Most biodiversity finance went to water preservation projects(24%),followed by wastewater treatment(16%),and agriculture and natural resources(15%).IMPROVING GREEN FINANCE MAPPING METHODOLOGY To inform this ex
24、ercise,IDFC members completed a survey,from which data are checked for consistency and aggregated.The number of reporting institutions for 2020 is 21 out of 26 total IDFC members.The IDFC survey uses the Multilateral Development Banks(MDBs)and IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation and Adapta
25、tion Finance Tracking.The list of reporting institutions and reporting coverage varies from year to year.Consequently,comparison with previous GFM figures may not be entirely consistent.Following the Common Principles,uncertainty is overcome via the principle of conservativeness where climate financ
26、e is preferred to be under-reported rather than over-reported.In particular,adaptation commitments are expected to be conservative,since adaptation-related activities are broadly context-specific and institutions are not always able to identify relevant projects consistently.Figure ES 4:Biodiversity
27、 finance commitments in 2020 by source of finance(OECD/non-OECD)and end use8For the first time this year,and in response to growing international momentum on the topic,the GFM tracks biodiversity as a separate category from other environmental finance.IDFC members could report on biodiversity financ
28、e at the project-or aggregate-level,weighted according to each institutions internal method for calculating the percentage of project funding allocated to biodiversity benefits.91.INTRODUCTION Global climate finance flows reached a biennial average of$632 billion in 2019/2020,the highest tracked lev
29、el to date,but still far below the estimated needs to achieve the international climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement(CPI,2021).Total global climate finance flows continue to be evenly split between public and private actors.However,the sectoral and regional breakdown vary much more across t
30、he different sources of finance:71%of private finance in the period 2019/2020 flowed to renewable energy generation,with private commitments primarily going to East Asia and Pacific,North America,and Western Europe.Public actors displayed a more balanced portfolio,prioritising energy systems and low
31、-carbon transport alongside investments into agriculture,forestry and land use,water and wastewater,and cross-sectoral projects,among others(CPI,2021).This Green Finance Mapping(GFM)report assesses financial commitments made by the International Development Finance Club(IDFC)members in 2020 a challe
32、nging year that revealed the intricate relationship between planetary-and human-health,as well as the vulnerabilities of“business-as-usual”economic growth.In spite of the challenges posed by the pandemic,the 10th anniversary of this GFM report marked an important milestone for IDFC:cumulative total
33、green commitments since 2015 surpassed the$1 trillion mark.Such progress confirms IDFCs position as the largest provider of climate finance in the world.With bold ambitions for continued increases in climate finance flows,an IDFC Climate Facility was launched in 2019;the Facility is designed to fost
34、er knowledge transfer and capacity building amongst member institutions,ultimately with a view towards increasing the effectiveness and catalytic potential of climate finance.Currently still in the four-year pilot phase,the Facility is also focused on facilitating access to the Green Climate Fund(GC
35、F)by providing project preparation support.In light of increasing evidence linking the climate and biodiversity crises in terms of causes,consequences and possible solutions,IDFC members have also committed to step up investment in the conservation,sustainable use,and restoration of biodiversity a p
36、riority reflected in this years GFM report via the explicit tracking of biodiversity finance.IDFC recognizes the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the current biodiversity finance landscape,hence this report,for the first time,provides a dedicated analysis of financial commitments with
37、biodiversity as principal objective,as well as climate finance with biodiversity co-benefits,in anticipation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework(GBF)to be formulated at the 15th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)in October 2021 and April-May 2022 in Kunming,China.On th
38、e occasion of the 2020 Finance in Common Summit(see Box 1),IDFC members issued a Common Position Paper on Biodiversity,highlighting the challenges to achieving the objectives of the future post-2020 GBF and aligning all members investment portfolios to this framework.At a more granular level,many ID
39、FC members have recently begun to display stronger pledges to climate action and green finance more broadly,the extent to which will be reflected in future iterations of the GFM report,notably:Agence Franaise de Dveloppement(AFD)announced it would double its financing for ecosystem protection to EUR
40、 1 billion each year,aiming to ensure 30%of climate finance simultaneously provides biodiversity co-benefits by 2025,with an in-house biodiversity unit to support implementation(AFD,2021)Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA)pledged to strengthen organisational management from a climate change
41、 perspective,with emphasis on disclosure of climate-related information,while they also developed a climate change support tool in order to improve project development and mainstream climate change measures(mitigation/adaptation)institution-wide(JICA,2020)Korean Development Bank(KDB)announced that 2
42、021 would be a landmark year for their 10sustainability practices,establishing a new department dedicated to mainstreaming sustainability into the institutions agenda,as well as expanding green financial products and services(KDB,2020)The Development bank of Latin America(CAF)enhanced its collaborat
43、ion with other PDBs including,for example,a co-financing framework with the European Investment bank(EIB)to fund climate action projects boosting jobs and competitiveness,and a partnership with AFD to mobilise funds for green initiatives across Latin America(CAF,2020)The Industrial Development Bank
44、of Turkey(TSKB)announced it intends to prioritise the weight of SDG-linked loans within the total portfolio at 90%until 2025(TSKB,2021)The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank(BSTDB)approved a new climate change strategy aiming to achieve net zero emissions by 2050,while gradually increasing the sha
45、re of funds directed to climate activities and projects with climate co-benefits to at least 30%in the next ten years(BSTDB,2021)In short,both as a collective and as individual entities,IDFC continues to bolster the momentum behind,and ambition for,more green finance.4 At the New York Climate Action
46、 Summit(2019),IDFC pledged to deploy more than$1 trillion in climate finance by 2025,an increasing portion of which is to be specifically allocated towards adaptation activities.Robust and consistent tracking of green finance flows will be essential for IDFC members to assess,and evaluate,progress t
47、owards achieving their green finance pledges.4 Data gaps,especially in certain sectors,make it challenging to estimate the true volume and impact of green finance.Committing to better reporting,including filling these data gaps,is essential to understanding the current state of green finance,measuri
48、ng progress and mapping specific actions to reach Paris-aligned goals within this decade.This report presents the methodology used in,and the findings derived from,the annual GFM exercise,concerning commitments made by 21 IDFC members during the year 2020.The report,prepared with the support of Clim
49、ate Policy Initiative and Trinomics,is structured as follows:Section 2 outlines the methodology used to record IDFC members institutions green financial commitments Section 3 presents GFM outcomes,including aggregated flows across IDFC and breakdowns by region of destination,financial instrument,sec
50、tor of use,and sub-sectoral technologies Section 4 discusses IDFCs commitments for aligning with the Paris Agreement Section 5 summarises trends and concludesBox 1:Finance in Common Summit,2020The first Finance in Common Summit was held in November 2020,a meeting in which 453 Public Development Bank
51、s(PDBs)gathered to collectively commit to align their activities with climate-resilient and sustainable development.The Summit emphasised the opportunity to harness COVID-19 recovery packages to meet Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs)and long-term strategies,a critical juncture for both the c
52、limate and biodiversity crisis.The Summit culminated in a Joint Declarationof which IDFC was a signatoryissued by all PDBs worldwide,confirming their role and responsibility to support not only green finance,but a green financial system.Given their ability to bridge the public with the private secto
53、r,and their agility in moving between domestic and international agendas,PDBs emphasised a collective responsibility to reorient global finance flows towards climate action and the fulfilment of sustainable development goals more broadly.The 2021 Finance in Common Summit,which was hosted on 19-20 Oc
54、tober 2021 in Rome by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti(CDP),promised to turn attention towards the transformation of agriculture and agribusiness for food security,under the broader aim of adapting to climate change and ensuring biodiversity preservation.IDFC engaged with the whole coalition of PDBs,repres
55、enting investments of over 2,000 billion dollars,to reiterate its commitment to tackling climate change and aligning its activities and strategies with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.On this occasion,IDFC published with the MDBs the updated Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tra
56、cking,communicated the high level of climate finance observed amongst members,and worked to improve on transparency.Source:Finance in Common(2021).11122.METHODOLOGY 5 Average annual exchange rates were drawn from the Global Economic Monitor(World Bank,2021).6 The 21 respondents included:AFD,Bancolde
57、x,BICE BNDES,BOAD,BSTDB,CABEI,CAF,CDB,CDC,CDP,DBSA,HBOR,ICD,JICA,KDB,KfW,PT SMI,TDB,TSKB,and VEB.Additionally,AFD,BNDES,CAF,CDB,DBSA,JICA,and KfW also reported their biodiversity finance commitments.There were 22 respondents on 2019 data,17 respondents for 2018,18 respondents for 2017,and 20 respond
58、ents for 2016 and 2015.The methodology utilized for the GFM reports has evolved over time to improve the transparency,comparability,consistency,and flexibility of the process.For the first time,this edition(covering 2020 commitments)separately tracks finance commitments to biodiversity in addition t
59、o climate finance.The survey template sent out to IDFC members was expanded to include additional reporting features dedicated to biodiversity finance commitments.For climate finance,the IDFC survey is aligned with the MDB-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking and MDB-IDFC C
60、ommon Principles for Climate Change Adaptation Finance Tracking.In the absence of common principles for biodiversity finance,the IDFC survey was built on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD)guidelines and uses the DAC markers dedicated to the Rio Convention on Biological
61、Diversity(CBD)(see Section 2.1).As in previous years,mapping is conducted in three stages:i.Collecting commitments data using a survey template filled out by member institutions.All commitments were reported in U.S.dollars,which institutions converted using World Bank exchange rate data where requir
62、ed.5 Detailed guidelines were provided to IDFC members on the categorization of projects and use of this template,including standardized definitions of regions,categories,and instruments;lists of eligible projects;and methodologies for estimating private finance mobilization.Specific guidelines for
63、the biodiversity component of the survey were developed for the first time and are further detailed in Section 2.1.ii.Checking the data and verifying reliability and consistency of reporting.Institutions were encouraged to note and report any deviations from the guidelines,and inconsistencies were i
64、dentified and corrected.In cases of uncertainty,the reported estimates are conservative,following a preference for under-reporting rather than over-reporting green finance.iii.Analyzing the dataset and presenting findings at aggregate and organization levels.Commitments by individual institutions we
65、re published for the first time in the 2017 GFM exercise,a practice continued in the current edition.This years mapping is based on survey responses from 21 out of 26 IDFC members,of which seven also reported financial commitments to biodiversity.6 All institutions submitting data this year also ret
66、urned surveys last year,with the exception of one.Four of the 21 institutions that responded to the survey reported no green finance commitments for 2020,primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Annual fluctuations in the number of reporting institutions and in coverage across green finance activities
67、 does affect year-to-year comparisons.Given reporting constraints,estimates were made for KfWs breakdown of domestic finance with respect to sectors,destinations and instruments,based on ratios reported in 2019.2.1 TRACKING POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE GFM The methodology used to tr
68、ack biodiversity finance flows builds upon prior work of the IDFC in the report“Benchmarking report on Biodiversity Practices of Development Banks”(IDFC,2020)and the study on“Testing of Reporting Methodologies on Biodiversity Finance”(Belvaux,2020).It is based on the OECD approach using the Common R
69、eporting Standard(CRS)codes and the Rio Markers rating system.13This is the first time that biodiversity is included in the GFM survey as a separate dedicated section.In previous years,IDFC members could report on biodiversity as a sub-category of the Other Environment category.This year,IDFC member
70、s could report their financial flows targeting biodiversity either as a primary objective or as a co-benefit to interventions targeting climate or other environmental issues.Members could report biodiversity relevant finance at the project or aggregate level.Only positive contributions to biodiversi
71、ty,also known as net gains,or co-benefits,are tracked in this years survey.Compliance to do no significant harm principles and contributions to achieve neutrality or to mitigate environmental risks when undertaking projects7,were not counted.However,the GFM survey template leaves room for IDFC membe
72、rs to report qualitative information on best practices or specific procedures related to net gains.Eligibility criteriaAs stated by the OECD Development Assistance Committee(DAC),to be relevant for biodiversity,an activity should comply with at least one of the following eligibility criteria:1.Conse
73、rvation or enhancement of ecosystems,species or genetic resources,and/or enhancement of the sustainability of their use,through in-situ or ex-situ measures,or the restoration of existing damages;or2.Integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns within recipient countries development ob
74、jectives,economic decision making and sectoral policies,through measures such as institution building,capacity development,strengthening the regulatory and policy frameworks,research,technology transfer,knowledge management and stakeholder engagement;or3.Elimination,phasing out or reform of incentiv
75、es,including subsidies,harmful to biodiversity,and provision of positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;or7 As defined by environmental safeguards published by ADB(2021),AFD(2018)and IFC(2021).4.Maintenance of genetic diversity of seeds,cultivated plants and farm
76、ed and domesticated animals and their related wild species;or5.Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources,including by appropriate access to these resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies,as internationally agreed;or6.Developing
77、 countries efforts to meet their obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD).A comprehensive list of activities eligible to classify as biodiversity finance is included in Appendix D.Justification based on project documentationIn addition,biodiversity relevance should be justified
78、in the project documentation on three levels:Context:The biodiversity theme is discussed as a relevant issue for the intervention in the background information(typically the sector context section of the project document)Objectives:An explicit intent to address the biodiversity theme is expressed,pr
79、eferably,at the level of the overall objective or specific objective(s)or expected results Activities:The intervention includes activities that clearly address identified issues in relation to the biodiversity themeWeighting system for scoring activities with relevance for biodiversityAccording to t
80、he OECD DAC Marking scoring logic,the level of biodiversity relevance is indicated by a DAC Marker 1 or 2:DAC Marker 2 indicates that the project has been undertaken specifically to contribute positively to biodiversity(principal objective).DAC Marker 1 indicates that elements of the project contrib
81、ute positively to biodiversity(significant objective).14Drawing on the DAC approach,the GFM weights finance for projects which are primarily dedicated to biodiversity conservation as 100%of their value(principal objective).Finance for projects in other categories which have biodiversity benefits is
82、weighted as 30%,8 or at the internal rate used by the reporting member institution if one is provided(significant objective or co-benefit).It should be noted that this methodology is not widely used yet:only seven out of the 26 IDFC members reported biodiversity finance.Common principles for biodive
83、rsity finance tracking as they exist for climate finance still need to be built,in coherence with the forthcoming post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.While providing a first picture for tracking 8 30%was used as a conservative approach for mainstreaming biodiversity into climate projects,rather
84、than the 40%more typically used/recommended by OECD guidance.biodiversity investment,the methodology presented here will need to be refined to better reflect the CBD goals(i.e.,protection,restoration,integrated spatial management,governance,sustainable management of natural resources,reduction of lo
85、cal pressures).So far,the flat rate applied to all projects marked as“DAC 1”does not allow to identify the goal of investments with respect to biodiversity,as opposed to the GFM framework used for climate finance which allows to specify whether finance is reported towards climate mitigation or adapt
86、ation goals of the Paris Agreement.153.GREEN FINANCE MAPPING OUTCOMES 9 All figures are in US dollars nominal values unless otherwise stated.This report outlines green finance commitments by IDFC members in three major categories:climate finance,biodiversity finance and finance for other environment
87、 objectives.Climate finance is composed of financial flows for green energy and mitigation of greenhouse gases(GHG)(henceforth mitigation),adaptation to climate change,and projects that include elements of both mitigation and adaptation.Biodiversity finance includes,for example,finance for water sup
88、ply,wastewater treatment,biodiversity conservation and waste management,among others.In many cases,climate-related activities also have biodiversity co-benefits and vice versa(e.g.,a forestry project which includes,as a significant objective,the protection and sustainable management of biodiversity-
89、rich ecosystems).These co-benefits are assigned a specific weight depending on whether biodiversity was the principal objective or a significant objective,as explained in Section 2.1.The category of other environmental objectives includes finance for all those activities that have no climate and bio
90、diversity co-benefits.These may include projects which do not clearly integrate activities dedicated to biodiversity and nature-based solutions(e.g.,municipal wastewater treatment).In 2020,cumulative green finance commitments by IDFC members since the 2015 Paris Agreement surpassed$1 trillion9.This
91、is a major milestone,which materializes IDFC members ability to deliver on unprecedented flows of green finance.New green finance commitments by 21 IDFC members who responded to the GFM survey reached$185 billion in 2020(Figure 1),a decline by 6%from 2019 which was primarily driven by the impact of
92、the COVID-19 pandemic.In 2020,green finance represented 20%of total new commitments by the members:climate finance represented$178 billion accounting for 96%of total green finance,whereas finance for projects targeting solely biodiversity was$5.4 billion(3%).Within climate finance,$8.6 billion was d
93、edicated to projects with biodiversity co-benefits.Therefore,total biodiversity finance in 2020 reached$14 billion.An additional$1.4 billion was reported for other Figure 1.Breakdown of IDFC green finance commitments in 2020($billion)16environment objectives.Adaptation finance continued to grow,incr
94、easing by 42%over 2019 and more than fivefold compared to 2016 to reach$27.4 billion.This is aligned with the need to globally scale up adaptation finance,which still lags behind mitigation finance and represents only a small portion of overall annual climate finance commitments 7.3%in 2019/2020(CPI
95、,2021).Mitigation finance suffered a shortfall in 2020,driven,at least in part,by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to allocate resources to emergency response and economic recovery.Despite this challenge,six institutions(CABEI,CAF,CDP,JICA,KfW and TSKB)increased their green commitments in 2020,com
96、pared to 2019(Figure 2).Table 1 provides an overview of each IDFC institutions green finance commitments in 2020 compared to 2018/2019 broken down by category.Further findings on climate finance are discussed in Section 3.1 whereas Section 3.2 describes financial commitments to biodiversity in detai
97、l.Figure 2.Breakdown of IDFC green finance commitments in 2015-2020($billion)17Table 1.Green finance commitments by IDFC member in 2020 as compared to 2019($billion)Location of IDFC memberReporting member institutions in 2020Green energy and mitigation of GHGsAdaptationBoth mitigation and adaptation
98、Other environmentBiodiversity(weighted/total)Biodiversity(weighted/non-double-counted)Total green commitments 20020200202020202020192020EuropeKfW28235496295663261654700AFD30562675870526902VEB66866266686626CDP255934205260332
99、74746TSKB2274355232435BSTDB270IIBHBOR5Sub-total405668238844408385035067680Latin America and the CaribbeanCAF925323307BE(Banco Estado)BNDES512BCIE/CABEI5505110871462BancoldexCOFIDE101101BICE7
100、777NAFIN0Sub-total444761616306AfricaDBSA3571449198TDB1531210176BOAD343423CDG3839Sub-total544Asia and MENACDB8222018100475JICA552750007203783246224110100KDB882527882527PTSMI92259225ICD5050SID
101、BISub-total467046738Total7923465505185361183.1 CLIMATE FINANCE 3.1.1 CLIMATE FINANCE COMMITMENTS BY USE Climate finance commitments by IDFC members is tracked across three broad categories:1.Green energy and miti
102、gation of greenhouse gases(GHG);2.Adaptation;and3.Projects with both mitigation and adaptation elements.In 2020,finance for green energy and mitigation of GHG was the largest category and accounted for 82%of the total$178 billion climate finance.However,in the context of a challenging year,mitigatio
103、n finance declined 10%,primarily driven by lower commitments for the transport sector.While the COVID-19 pandemic has certainly played a role,lower mitigation commitments in these sectors can also be partially explained by the rapid decline in some technology costs.Thanks to these dramatic cost redu
104、ctions,the same asset would require a lower investment in 2020 than in previous years,hence lower financial commitments do not necessarily mean fewer assets being financed.Adaptation projects represented 15%of climate finance,an increase of 42%from 2019.This continues four years of consecutive growt
105、h,achieving over five times the level of adaptation commitments in 2016.Finance to projects containing elements of both mitigation and adaptation has been steadily increasing but remains a small portion of the total,at 2.6%.Green energy and GHG mitigationWithin$146 billion committed for mitigation p
106、rojects,the transport sector continues to receive the most finance$56 billion or 38%of the total(Figure 3).The share of transport,however,reduced by 12%compared to 2019.Energy efficiency finance reached$40 billion representing 27%of total mitigation finance,up by 11%compared to 2019.This is an encou
107、raging trend given that energy efficiency has long been underfinanced and can play a key role in sustainable post-COVID recovery packages.Renewable energy remained stable compared to 2019,at$35 billion,or 24%of total mitigation finance(see Figure 3).Figure 3.Green finance commitments to green energy
108、 and mitigation of GHG by subcategory,2015-2020(percent and$billion)Note:For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.19As shown in Figure 4,in 2020 most renewable energy finance was committed for wind,accounting for$13 billion,or 38%of the total co
109、mmitments.Finance for wind projects was mainly provided by institutions based in non-OECD countries($12.7 billion).In 2020,IDFC members further committed$8.3 billion to unattributed renewable generation investment(from OECD-based institutions),$7 billion to hydropower(mainly from non-OECD based inst
110、itutions)and$4 billion to solar generation.Compared to 2019,hydropower investments were up 23%,while solar and wind commitments were down 38%and 31%,respectively.The majority of solar investment in 2020($3.5 billion)was provided by institutions based in non-OECD countries.Finance for other mitigatio
111、n sectors(i.e.,agriculture,forestry and land use,lower-carbon and efficient energy generation,and others)totaled$15 billion,or 10%of total mitigation finance.In particular,finance for agriculture,forestry and land use increased by 25%compared to 2019,reaching$6.3 billion(Figure 3).Of the$146 billion
112、 committed by IDFC members to climate mitigation,58%was provided by institutions based in non-OECD countries(Figure 5).Non-OECD institutions international commitments to other non-OECD countries were$0.4 billion.OECD institutions overall commitments to mitigation increased from$41 billion in 2019 to
113、$60 billion in 2020,where most of the increase is attributable to financing in home country.Mitigation finance committed by institutions based in OECD countries to non-OECD countries amounted to$10 billion.AdaptationAdaptation finance reached$27.5 billion in 2020 increasing 42%over 2019 and more tha
114、n fivefold compared to 2016.IDFC members increased commitments towards disaster risk reduction by$4 billion compared to 2019 reaching$10 billion in 2020(Figure 6).Finance for water preservation was$14 billion in 2020,a$3 billion increase compared to 2019.These two sub-categories continue to be the m
115、ain activities(88%)where adaptation finance flows.Note:For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.Figure 4|Commitments to renewable energy technologies by technologies and OECD and non-OECD based 20Figure 7 shows the domestic and international flo
116、ws to adaptation projects,broken down by the location of the funding institution.Non-OECD institutions commitments to adaptation in their home countries represented the dominant share,at 61%,up by$2 billion in 2020,compared to 2019.Approximately$36 million went to other non-OECD institutions in 2020
117、.OECD institutions adaptation financing in their home country increased by$4 billion in 2020,equalling to 15%of total adaptation finance.In 2020,these institutions increased their adaptation financing to non-OECD countries by$2 billion compared to 2019,reaching a total of$6 billion.Tracking adaptati
118、on finance is difficult,as standardized definitions and methodologies for measuring adaptation benefits are less developed compared to mitigation activities.Based on the MDB-IDFC Common Principles,adaptation finance consists of projects with a stated intent to address any identified climate risks,Fi
119、gure 5|Commitments to green energy and mitigation of GHGs from IDFC members in 2020(percent and$billion)Figure 6|Green finance commitments to adaptation by subcategory,2015-2020(percent and$billion)Note:For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.2
120、1vulnerabilities and impacts,and requires adaptation activities to be disaggregated from non-adaptation activities as far as reasonably possible.Box 2 depicts an example of adaptation project financed by JICA in Indonesia in 2020.Figure 7|Commitments for adaptation to climate change from OECD and no
121、n-OECD IDFC members,2015-2020(percent and$billion)Box 2:Adaptation project case study:JICA in Indonesia Disaster Resilience Enhancement and Management ProgramIndonesia is already prone to floods,earthquakes,volcanic eruptions,and other natural disasters;a situation that threatens to worsen in the fa
122、ce of climate change.2018 was a particularly difficult year for the country which suffered heavy casualties and large financial loss from a series of earthquake-and tsunami-related disasters.The Ministry of Finance estimates annual disaster-related economic loss in Indonesia to be approximately$1.64
123、 billion.This compares to an annual disaster response fund(the“Dana Cadangan”)of$227 million set aside by the government.In June 2019,the Government of Indonesia launched the Disaster Resilience Enhancement and Management(DREAM)Program,in collaboration with the Government of Japan,through JICA to su
124、pport the implementation of disaster-related policies and strategies via policy dialogue,and strengthen the countrys capacity to deal with natural disasters.JICA is particularly active in the disaster-risk reduction(DRR)space,working to support and improve policies and systems relating to disaster p
125、revention,while providing technical assistance and capacity building to enhance the resilience of societies to natural disasters.In February 2020 and March 2021,JICA signed two Official Development Assistance(ODA)loans with the Government of Indonesia,providing JPY 31.8 billion($290 million)and JPY
126、50 billion($450 million),respectively,in support of the DREAM Program.Concurrent with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction,2015-2030,the Program was expected to help Indonesia along four key dimensions:strengthening DRR governance and mainstreaming;promoting understanding of disaster ris
127、k;promoting investment in DRR resilience;and ensuring the country Builds Back Better in recovery,rehabilitation,and reconstruction.The Program was executed by the Ministry of National Development Planning between June 2019 and June 2021,with related line ministries including the Ministry of Public W
128、orks and National Housing,National Disaster Management Agency,etc.,supported by various experts of integrated water resource management and earthquake/tsunami analysis.In addition to the ODA loans a grant aid project was implemented to develop a disaster observation network,including the provision o
129、f seismometers.In line with JICAs stated priority to enhance climate risk assessment and countermeasures,the Program aimed to increase Indonesias capacity to respond to the risk of floods via the installation of a flood early warning system.The Program also contributes to adaptation to climate chang
130、e through climate risk mitigation by strengthening resilience to disasters which is incorporated into The Government Work Plan(RKP)based on The National Medium Term Development Plan(RPJMN)2020-2024,Disaster Management Master Plan(DMMP)2020-2044,Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR)strategies/plans,and contin
131、gency plan.In July 2021,AFD joined JICA in supporting the DREAM Program,signing a loan agreement for EUR 100 million($115 million).Along with Climate Action(SDG 13),the Program is designed to simultaneously work towards achieving Sustainable Cities and Communities(SDG 11)in Indonesia.Source:JICA(202
132、1).223.1.2 CLIMATE FINANCE COMMITMENTS FROM INSTITUTIONS IN OECD AND NON-OECD COUNTRIESClimate finance committed to projects in institutions home countries greatly outweighed finance committed internationally($154 billion vs$25 billion,respectively),in line with IDFC members different mandates accor
133、ding to their institutional arrangements.Out of the 21 institutions that reported climate finance commitments in 2020,14 are non-OECD based institutions and 7 are OECD-based.Non-OECD-based institutions provided the majority of climate finance in 2020,at$102 billion(down 30%from 2019),accounting for
134、57%of the total.For non-OECD institutions,nearly all 2020 commitments(97%)went to projects in the home country of the funding institution,with the remainder committed internationally.For the first time in 2020,non-OECD based institutions also reported international commitments directed toward OECD c
135、ountries,though only accounting for about 1%of total climate finance flows from these institutions.This included,for example,financing from CABEI,CDB and HBOR.OECD-based institutions committed the remaining$76 billion,or 43%of total climate finance in 2020(Figure 8).This was 57%higher than the$48 bi
136、llion tracked in 2019.Growth in 2020 was driven by domestic commitments,which more than doubled reaching$55 billion,or 72%of total finance from OECD-based institutions.In addition,$20 billion flowed internationally toward non-OECD countries and$1.7 billion went to projects in other OECD countries.To
137、tal financing provided in non-OECD countries reached$121 billion in 2020,representing 68%of total climate finance commitments.International commitments to projects in non-OECD countries was$22 billion.The breakdown of commitments made domestically and internationally varies greatly by category of gr
138、een finance.As Figure 9 shows,the majority of domestic finance flows targeted mitigation,which represented 92%of domestic flows in OECD countries($83 billion)and 83%of domestic flows in non-OECD countries($50 billion).The share of adaptation and dual benefits projects was higher for international fl
139、ows,at 49%and 44%combined in OECD and non-OECD countries,respectively.Figure 8|Climate finance commitments from OECD and non-OECD,2015-2020($billion)233.1.3 CLIMATE FINANCE COMMITMENTS BY INSTRUMENT TYPEAs in previous years,loans were the primary vehicle through which IDFC member institutions commit
140、ted climate finance,in line with the typology of their port-folios,accounting for$169 billion or 94%of the 2020 total,with concessional and non-concessional loans accounting for 29%and 62%,respectively.Finance committed in the form of grants increased by 61%in 2020 to$6 billion,or 4%of total climate
141、 finance.This share of grants in IDFC climate finance commitments is similar to the overall share of grants contributed by all development finance institutions in global climate finance flows(GLCF,2021).The overall share of grants in global climate finance has been steadily increasing over the past
142、five years,as public actors seek to build strong enabling environments and undertake demon-stration projects for sustainable investment across a range of sectors.Other instruments,such as guaran-tees and equity,continue to account for only a small percentage(2%)of IDFC climate finance commitments.Fi
143、gure 10 shows the breakdown of climate financing received by instrument type from 2015 to 2020,while Figure 11 demonstrates the variation by category Figure 9|Proportion of domestic and international climate finance commitments by category in 2020(percent and$billion)Note:For KfW,the breakdown of do
144、mestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.Figure 10|Climate finance commitments by instrument type,2015-2020(percent and$billion)Note:For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.24and year.Non-concessional(i.e.,market-rat
145、e)loans to mitigation decreased to$91 billion,while conces-sional loans and grants increased to$44 billion and$4 billion.Both non-concessional and concessional loans for adaptation projects increased in 2020,reaching$17 billion and$6 billion,respectively.3.1.4 CLIMATE FINANCE COMMITMENTS BY GEOGRAPH
146、IC DESTINATIONFigure 12 shows the distribution of climate finance by geographic destination in 2020.The majority of com-mitments($98.9 billion)went to the East Asia and Pacific region,accounting for 55%of total climate finance flows.Western Europe10 received the second largest amount of commitments
147、at$54.5 billion(or 31%of the total),a substantial increase on$28 billion(15%)in 2019.Climate finance commitments reaching Eastern Europe and Central Asia fell from$9.9 billion(5%)in 2019 to$2.8 billion(1.6%),mainly due to lower commitments in energy efficiency,while commitments to the other remainin
148、g regions remained largely the same between 2019 and 2020.These trends reflect the IDFC members relative scale within their region of 10 Reported as the European Union and the United Kingdom.Please refer to Appendix B for more details about regional groupings used for this analysis.operation and the
149、ir wider climate mandates.The East Asia and Pacific region received the majority of commitments going to mitigation and adaptation,recording$80.4 billion and$18.1 billion,respectively.This accounted for 55%and 66%of total commitments in each category.Sub-Saharan Africa received the highest amount of
150、 commitments going to projects with both mitigation and adaptation objectives(multiple objectives),at$1.1 billion,or 24%of the total commit-ments in this category.3.1.5 MOBILIZED PRIVATE FINANCEIDFC green finance tracking has included private sector mobilization since 2014,but generalizable findings
151、 remain difficult primarily due to limited data and varying methodologies.In this mapping exercise,the IDFC survey included a simplified template for members to report their total commitments to projects receiving co-financing from private institutions,as well as from other IDFC institutions and oth
152、er public institutions.Where possible,member institutions also disaggregated their reported mobilized finance by the financial instrument used.Note:For KfW,the breakdown of domestic finance flows was estimated based on figures reported in 2019.Figure 11|Climate finance commitments by instrument and
153、category,2015-2019(percent and$billion)25Among the six institutions reporting co-financing data,five members provided an instrument breakdown and four members provided data at the project-level.In total,these institutions reported around$3.6 billion mobilized in co-financing for climate finance proj
154、ects from other public and private institutions.The majority of this was provided by private institutions($3 billion)followed by other public institutions and other IDFC institutions(Figure 13).Mitigation received the largest share of co-finance from private institutions and other public institution
155、s.Adaptation received only$54 million in co-financing from private institutions.While this reflects a significant adaptation finance gap,this result is partly due to challenges in tracking and accounting for private investment in adaptation sectors.Among co-financing received from private institutio
156、ns,concessional loans accounted for the largest share at 63%(up from 14%in 2019),followed by non-concessional loans at 35%(down from 61%in 2019).Box 3 provides an overview of the Bio-CLIMA Project in Nicaragua,financed by CABEI and which received co-financing from the Green Climate Fund(GCF)and the
157、Global Environment Facility(GEF).Going forward,blended finance,using a mixture of concessional-and commercial-capital,will be crucial to crowding-in private sector investment to help Figure 12|Climate finance commitments by geographic destination in 2020Figure 13|Co-finance mobilized for climate fin
158、ance projects in 2020,by source and category($billion)26deliver on the Paris Agreement.3.2 BIODIVERSITY FINANCE In addition to climate finance,this edition of the GFM tracks finance flows to projects delivering biodiversity benefits.These can include financial flows targeting biodiversity either as
159、a primary objective or as a co-benefit to interventions targeting climate or other environmental issues.In previous editions of the GFM,IDFC members could already report on biodiversity as a sub-category of the Other Environment category.For 2020,seven IDFC institutions reported investments in biodi
160、versity,namely AFD,BNDES,CAF,CDB,DBSA,JICA,and KfW,for a total commitment of$14 billion,or 7.5%of total green finance in 2020.39%of these commitments($5.4 billion)went to projects which had biodiversity as the sole objective.An additional$8.6 billion was further invested in climate finance projects
161、simultaneously reporting biodiversity objectives.In particular,4.6%of these dual-benefits projects had biodiversity objectives with an internal weight higher than 50%of the total value of the project.Box 4 provides an example of project funded by AFD in Madagascar which showed clear co-benefits and
162、was therefore tagged as both biodiversity and adaptation finance.The relatively low level of reporting for biodiver-sity finance is not surprising given this was the first attempt to track these financial commitments as part of the GFM.Therefore,reported figures only partly reflect IDFC members acti
163、vities in the field.IDFC members are committed to continue improving the methodology for tracking biodiversity finance in the coming years,making it more refined,specific,and harmonised.Box 3:Co-financing case study CABEI Bio-CLIMA Project in Nicaragua:Integrated Climate Action for Reduced Deforesta
164、tion and Strengthened Resilience.Nicaragua is the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.The most impoverished populations live within the Caribbean Region which houses the BOSAWS Biosphere Reserve in the Northwest and the Rio Suan Juan Biosphere in the Southeast.The BOSAWS Reserve occupie
165、s approximately 2 million hectares(15%of the countrys total land area),making it the second largest rainforest in the Western Hemisphere after the Amazon.Concessional finance from PDBs can help mobilize additional(concessional)capital from climate funds.With a total investment of$116.6 million,the B
166、io-CLIMA project will work to incentivize and scale-up sustainable,climate-smart land-use practices,especially in support of indigenous peoples residing within both Biosphere Reserves.Alongside the$44.2 million loan provided by CABEI through its special window,the Poverty Reduction and Economic and
167、Social Exclusion Program(35%concessional resources),Bio-CLIMA received co-financing of$64.1 million from the Green Climate Fund(GCF)split between a$38 million loan and a$26.1 million grantand$8.3 million in grant funding from the Global Environment Facility(GEF).Given its geographic positioning,Nica
168、ragua is particularly vulnerable to climate risks,with family farmingthe basis for national food securityhighly sensitive to both excessive precipitation and drought.Bio-CLIMA intends to exploit opportunities for cocoa cultivation in the region as temperatures increase above the range suitable to tr
169、aditional coffee production.Interventions will be focused on areas exhibiting the highest risk of deforestation,organised around three key components:conserving and producing for life;good governance;and developing adaptive capacity.As well as forest conservation and restoration activities,and direc
170、t technical assistance,efforts will be directed towards ensuring cultural and behavioural attitudes become compatible with climate-smart,sustainable development.The investment by CABEI,GCF and the GEF is expected to reduce 47.3 million tons of greenhouse gases while increasing the resilience and dec
171、reasing the socioeconomic vulnerability of 665,821 people in the region.Source:Green Climate Fund(2019).273.2.1 BIODIVERSITY FINANCE COMMITMENTS FROM INSTITUTIONS IN OECD AND NON-OECD COUNTRIESOut of the seven institutions that reported biodiversity finance flows,four are based in non-OECD countries
172、(BNDES,CAF,CDB and DBSA)while three are OECD-based(AFD,JICA,KfW).Institutions based in non-OECD countries provided the majority of biodiversity finance in 2020,having committed$12.6 billion,or 90%of the total.Institutions based in OECD countries accounted for the remaining$1.5 billion committed for
173、biodiversity projects in 2020,or 10%of the total.In terms of biodiversity sectors(see Appendix D),institutions based in non-OECD countries invested$3.4 billion in water preservation(27%of the total commitments from these institutions),$2.2 billion in biodiversity conservation(18%)and$2.1 billion in
174、wastewater treatment(17%).A third of investments from these institutions also went to agriculture and natural resources($1.7 billion)and water supply($1.6 billion)(Figure 14).Financing from OECD-based institutions was more concentrated in a handful of sectors.Half of commitments($732 million)was dir
175、ected to biodiversity conservation projects,followed by agriculture and natural resources(22%or$324 million).Support to national,regional,or local policy,through technical assistance or policy lending accounted for 16%of commitments from these institutions($229 million),while wastewater treatment re
176、ceived 10%($145 million).For non-OECD based institutions,nearly all 2020 commitments(93%)went to projects in East Asia and Pacific.The remaining 7%of finance from non-OECD based institutions was directed to projects in Latin America and the Caribbean($926 million).It should be noted that,given the l
177、ow number of IDFC members reporting on biodiversity finance(seven out of 26),the specific geographic focus of these institutions inevitably affects the geographical distribution of commitments.Box 4:Biodiversity project case study AFD in the Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands Hotspot:Ecosystem-base
178、d Adaptation The Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands Hotspot is one of just thirty-six biodiversity hotspots,covering Madagascar,the Mascarene Islands,Comoros,and the Seychelles.A biodiversity hotspot is one of planet Earths most biologically rich,yet most threatened,regions.To qualify as such,the r
179、egion must:contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants not found elsewhere on the planet;and have lost at least 70 percent of its primary native vegetation(CEPF,2021).Via the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF),AFD has committed$43 million towards strengthening the sustainable management
180、 of the environment amongst civil society organisations in the aforementioned hotspot countries.As part of the GFM exercise,the project was tracked as“Biodiversity conservation(2)”meaning that biodiversity was the principal objective of the project.However,it also qualifies as climate finance,tagged
181、 as“Agriculture,Natural Resources and Ecosystem-based Adaptation”,an example of the mutual co-benefits that often arises when tracking climate-and biodiversity-projects.Indeed,many biodiversity projects offer climate co-benefits,and vice-versa.AFD will manage the funds,with the CEPF the implementing
182、 agency on behalf of Conservation International.Grants will be awarded to a variety of civil society organisations who work on both conservation and climate change mitigation/adaptation in the region,with the aim of empowering communities to conserve natural areas that provide food,water,and shelter
183、 from climatic shocks.Nature-based solutionsoffering multiple co-benefits(social,economic,environmental and health)for(vulnerable)people in the hotspot countrieswill be the primary focus of project activities,along with capacity building and the creation of enabling environments such that biodiversi
184、ty and conservation can be mainstreamed into local and regional governance mechanisms.Source:CEPF(2021).28Figure 14|Biodiversity finance flows from OECD and non-OECD IDFC members by sector in 2020($billion)Note:“Biodiversity conservation(1)”includes projects where the biodiversity component was weig
185、hted at the default score of 30%of the project value(i.e.biodiversity was a significant objective).This corresponds to a DAC Marker 1 for biodiversity relevance(see Section 2.1).“Biodiversity conservation(2)”includes projects where biodiversity was given a weight of 100%(i.e.biodiversity was the pri
186、ncipal objective).This corresponds to DAC Marker 2 for biodiversity relevance(see Section 2.1).Figure 15|Biodiversity finance flows from OECD and non-OECD IDFC members by geographic destination in 2020($billion)29Biodiversity finance provided by OECD-based institutions was more equally distributed a
187、mong regions and was mainly invested internationally.The Latin America and the Caribbean region was the main destination having attracted 34%of commitments in 2020.Transregional flows accounted for 16%,while South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa received 14%each,followed by East Asia and Pacific at 12%(
188、Figure 15).3.2.2 BIODIVERSITY FINANCE COMMITMENTS BY SECTORIn 2020,the sector receiving the largest share of biodiversity finance was water preservation,at 24%(or$3.4 billion),with funding coming from institutions based in non-OECD countries.Wastewater treatment was next at 17%($2.3 billion)followed
189、 by agriculture and natural resources($2.1 billion).Biodiversity conservation projects,including both those having biodiversity as a principal and a significant objective,accounted together for 22%,or$3 billion.As shown in Figure 16,all sectors received the majority of their financing from IDFC memb
190、ers based in non-OECD based countries,with the exception of policy support where 75%of financing in 2020 was provided by OECD-based institutions.Figure 16|Biodiversity finance flows from OECD and non-OECD IDFC members by geographic destination in 2020($billion)304.ALIGNMENT WITH THE PARIS AGREEMENTT
191、he concept of alignment with the Paris Agreement has set a renewed context for climate action within the financial community,in particular amongst Public Development Banks,and has become fertile ground for research,as well as a topic of discussion in international climate negotiations.National and r
192、egional development institutions can play a crucial role in efforts to shift global finance toward a sustainable future.They are best placed to enable strong interconnections between public and private sectors and have an important capacity to redirect financing flows towards activities that are vit
193、al to the transition to low carbon and climate-resilient economies.In particular,IDFC member institutions can act as game-changers in the achievement of long-term national climate objectives.In support of making flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilie
194、nt development,IDFC members,along with MDBs,pledged to align finance flows with the Paris Agreement at the One Planet Summit in December 2017(MDBs and IDFC,2017).Since then,IDFC has made considerable progress to advance understanding of Paris alignment and mobilize action towards alignment.In Septem
195、ber 2019,at the occasion of the United Nations Secretary-Generals climate summit in New York,and then at COP24,IDFC members published a position paper(IDFC,2018)and a study(CPI and I4CE,2019),commissioned with the European Climate Foundation,fleshing out the meaning of alignment,along six core princ
196、iples:-Increasingly mobilize finance for climate action-Support country-led climate related policies-Seek to catalyze investments,and to mobilize private capital(local and international)-Recognize the importance of adaptation and resilience,especially in most vulnerable countries-Support the transit
197、ion from fossil fuels to renewables financing-Engage a process of internal transformation of the institutionsIn support of the above commitments,IDFC commissioned a clear and practical guide on how to reach a better alignment of each members strategies,programs,and operations,with the requirements o
198、f the Paris Agreement.This operationalization framework,produced by the two independent think tanks NCI and I4CE and published in June 2021,provides some useful guidelines on how IDFC membersand the financial community at largecan go further,ensuring that their whole portfolios(not just the climate
199、finance portions)are supportive of,or at least do not undermine,the objectives of the Paris Agreement.As each institution is different,this report does not seek to define a common methodology to be applied by all,but instead presents a“menu of options,”with a number of actionable recommendations,too
200、ls and processes designed to align any financial institutions vision with the goals of the Paris Agreement at the country,strategic,and operational levels.Indeed,aligning with the Paris Agreement will also require a process of internal transformation amongst all actors,developing the appropriate ins
201、titutional architecture and internal capacity to deliver on alignment targets(I4CE and NCI,2021).Moreover,it has been acknowledged that ensuring Paris alignment also means ensuring alignment of intermediated finance,therefore,clear rules and guidance on this should be devised moving forward(NCI,2021
202、).Other recent developments include:the Joint Declaration issued by 453 Public Development Banks worldwide at the inaugural Finance in Common Summit(2020)to help green the financial system(see Box 1);and the launch of the internal IDFC Climate Facility in 2019.The Facility aims to further institutio
203、nalize and facilitate collaboration among members on climate change,while strengthening the capacity of development banks to design climate mitigation and adaptation projects,as well as new joint business opportunities in this area.The Facility will also support project preparation and mobilization
204、of international co-financing for projects to support IDFC members on the above commitments.A part of this work will involve further development of standardized definitions for green financing activities and common 31principles for finance tracking,with inputs from all IDFC members.The newly release
205、d MDB-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking(2021),whose implementation will be an important focus for the Climate Facility moving forward,considers new mitigation activities that can help achieve the structural changes demanded by the Paris Agreement.This refresh of the Comm
206、on Principles will be reflected in future iterations of the GFM exercise and reporting requirements therein.In addition to IDFCs overarching Climate Facility,individual members have also worked to establish their own initiatives for catalysing climate-or climate-aligned finance(see Box 5).Finally,th
207、e partnership with the GCF signed in June 2019 is an additional resource for IDFC members,as it supports further knowledge sharing on climate finance,integration of climate considerations in financial institutions,facilitates access to GCF resources(with co-financing from IDFC members and support to
208、 capacity building activities),as well as increasing joint outreach and awareness raising.In 2019,two new members of the club were accredited to the GCF(reaching a total of 13)and five projects submitted by members were approved by the GCF for an amount of$265 million(reaching a total of 15 projects
209、 representing$985 million of GCF co-financing to IDFC).Moreover,during the first edition of the Finance in Common Summit in November 2020,IDFC and the GCF launched a joint publication titled“A strategic alliance to realize the full potential of public development banks in financing the green transit
210、ion”examining how Public Development Banks(PDBs)can unlock their potential for a green,low carbon and resilient future.The five key pillars on which the GCFs work can catalyze public capital are:co-financing and risk-sharing;promoting sound governance and management;deepening local capital markets;s
211、trengthening capacity and deal flow management;and facilitating access to the global climate finance landscape and key actors or networks therein(GCF and IDFC,2020).Box 5:Climate Finance Facility Development Bank of Southern Africa(DBSA)Housed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa,this private
212、sector Climate Finance Facility(CFF)is the first of its kind in Africa,utilising the green bank model tailored to the specific regional requirements of Southern Africa.It is intended to alleviate market constraints inhibiting private sector investment,while helping to crowd-in and catalyse market-ra
213、te capital for infrastructure projects with mitigation and/or adaptation objectives.As such,it provides a key support unit for targeted countries(South Africa,Eswatini,Lesotho and Namibia)working towards meeting their Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.Conceived of in 2017
214、 at the San Giorgio Group meeting,convened by Climate Policy Initiative,the CFF is anchored by two funders-DSBA and the Green Climate Fund(GCF)-both of whom contributed$55 million along with additional grant funding to cover start-up costs.Convergence and ClimateWorks provided seed funding to suppor
215、t DBSA with the initial design and launch in 2019.The Facility has begun utilizing two main credit enhancement instrumentslong-term subordinated debt and tenor extensionto facilitate access to market-rate capital at scale amongst commercially viable projects otherwise inhibited by local banking cons
216、traints.The CFF is likely to play a crucial role in helping to meet Sustainable Development Goal 13(Climate Action)in the Southern African region,along with other SDGs,including but not limited to,Goal 6(Safe Water and Sanitation),Goal 7(Affordable and Clean Energy)and Goal 8(Decent Work and Economi
217、c Growth).Mitigation and adaptation projects incubated by the CFF are to be crafted with a gender lens,where possible,explicitly designed to benefit local communities and vulnerable groups.Source:Convergence(2019);DBSA(2021).325.CONCLUSIONS In 2020,IDFC institutions committed$185 billion in green fi
218、nance,representing 20%of total new commitments made by reporting institutions.Compared to 2019 levels,green finance commitments declined 6%,primarily due to the unprecedented challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to reallocate public resources to emergency response and economic recov
219、ery.Despite this challenge,in 2020,cumulative green finance commitments by IDFC members surpassed the$1 trillion mark since 2015,a major milestone which demonstrates the ability of IDFC members to deliver unprecedented flows of green finance.In 2020,six IDFC institutions reported higher overall gree
220、n finance commitments,compared to 2019.At the same time,adaptation finance continued to grow,reaching a record-high investment of$27.5 billion,reflecting growing awareness around the need to build resilience to the impacts of climate change.To better reflect the growing international recognition of
221、the intersectionality between climate and biodiversity,as well as IDFC members efforts to scale-up investment in the conservation,sustainable use,and restoration of biodiversity,the GFM survey this year was improved to specifically track biodiversity finance commitments,alongside conventional climat
222、e finance and other environmental objectives.In 2020,seven members reported biodiversity finance flows for a total of$14 billion.The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)Conference of the Parties(COP 15)in October 2021 and Spring 2022 will set a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of goals,out
223、lining actions for countries.Much like the Paris Agreement,CBD COP 15 is expected to trigger financial commitments for alignment.In line with this forthcoming framework,IDFC members will improve and harmonise the biodiversity finance tracking in coming years so as to increase and mainstream biodiver
224、sity in their investments,and align them to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework as is being done for climate finance commitments and the Paris Agreement.While the COVID-19 pandemic may have negatively impacted green finance flows in 2020,in 2021 IDFC members have made strong pledges to clima
225、te action and green finance which will likely be reflected in next years GFM exercise.At the 2017 One Planet Summit,IDFC members committed for the first time to align their finance flows with the Paris Agreement.In 2019,at the United Nations Climate Action Summit,they further pledged to mobilize sig
226、nificant financing volumes for achieving the Paris Agreement objectives and launched the IDFC Climate Facility to support members in their efforts to integrate climate change into their mandates and align their approaches to address the needs of financing related projects.IDFC members are strategica
227、lly positioned to strengthen climate action and promote a post COVID-19 green recovery.This is a real and much needed opportunity,given the scale and urgency of both the climate and health crises,their interlinkages,and mutual solutions.By scaling up finance and redirecting priorities toward green s
228、ectors,IDFC can support governments in the implementation of ambitious green recovery plans.Moreover,with their participation in green projects,they can also help further mobilize private investments.Finally,they are well positioned to foster effective collaboration and dialogue among market actors,
229、governments,and regulators.336.APPENDICES 6.1 APPENDIX A.1:LIST AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IDFC OECD MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS6.2 APPENDIX A.2:LIST AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IDFC NON-OECD MEMBER ORGANIZATIONSREGIONORGANIZATIONEuropeAgence Franaise de Dveloppement(AFD),FranceBlack Sea Trade and Development B
230、ank(BSTDB),GreeceCassa Depositi e Prestiti(CDP),ItalyIndustrial Development Bank of Turkey(TSKB),TurkeyKfW Bankengruppe,GermanyCentral and South AmericaBanco Estado(BE)ChileNacional Financiera(NAFIN),MexicoAsia and MENAThe Korea Development Bank(KDB),South KoreaJapan International Cooperation Agency
231、(JICA),JapanREGIONORGANIZATIONEuropeCroatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development(HBOR),CroatiaVnesheconombank(VEB.RF),RussiaCentral and South AmericaBanco de Inversion y Comercio Exterior S.A.(BICE),ArgentinaBancoldex S.A.,ColombiaBanco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econmico e Social(BNDES),Brazil
232、Central American Bank for Economic Integration(BCIE/CABEI),Honduras Corporacin Financiera de Desarrollo S.A.(COFIDE),Peru Development Bank of Latin America(CAF),Peru AfricaBanque Ouest Africaine de Dveloppement(BOAD),TogoCaisse de Dpt et de Gestion(CDG),MoroccoDevelopment Bank of Southern Africa(DBS
233、A),South AfricaThe Trade and Development Bank(TDB),BurundiAsia and MENAChina Development Bank(CDB),ChinaPT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur(PT SMI)Indonesia Exim Bank,IndonesiaSmall Industries Development Bank of India(SIDBI),India Inter-regional institutionsIslamic Corporation for the Development of the
234、Private Sector(ICD),Saudi ArabiaInternational Investment Bank(IIB),Russia Hungary346.3 APPENDIX B:METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGYWith no standardized and internationally agreed definitions for green and climate finance,this methodology provides working de
235、finitions for both the terminologies.Green finance is a broad term that can refer to financial investments flowing into sustainable development projects and initiatives,environmental products,and policies that encourage the development of a more sustainable economy.Green finance includes:(i)climate
236、finance;(ii)biodiversity finance(including,for example,for water supply,wastewater treatment,biodiversity conservation and waste management);and(iii)finance for other environmental objectives,that is finance for all those activities that have no climate and biodiversity co-benefits.Within climate fi
237、nance,mitigation financial flows refer to investments in projects and programmes that contribute to reducing or avoiding GHG emissions,whereas adaptation financial flows refer to investments that contribute to reducing the vulnerability of goods and persons to the effects of climate change.Thus,for
238、the purposes of the mapping exercise,green finance is split into four separate categories/themes:Green energy and mitigation of GHG Adaptation to climate change impacts Biodiversity Other environmental objectivesTo provide accurate and comparable data for this mapping exercise,a consistent categoriz
239、ation of mitigation and adaptation activities was agreed to by IDFC members,taking into consideration the outcomes of the MDBs-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Finance Tracking.This year,IDFC member further agreed on a categorization of biodiversity activities.The mapping exercise adopted a two-st
240、ep approach based on:A global definition of mitigation,adaptation,and biodiversity projects.A list of definitions is provided in Table B1.A core list of project categories that were consensually accepted by all IDFC members as projects that typically contribute to tackling climate change.A list of p
241、roject categories is provided in Appendix D.The categories were adopted from the 2011 IDFC GFM methodology and updated according to the MDBs-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Finance Tracking.As there are significant challenges to unambiguously attributing specific investments to only one of the fo
242、ur themes,it was decided to split each theme into separate subcategories with clear project activity examples.The category on green energy and mitigation was also disaggregated further into sub-subcategories,based on the developed MDBs-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking.T
243、his approach also helps to avoid double-counting of projects.Additional details on the themes,subcategories,and sub-subcategories are provided in Appendix D.In those cases where IDFC members did not have,or refrained from providing,subcategory information,non-attributed data were provided.In 2021,MD
244、Bs and IDFC agreed and released new Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking which take into account new mitigation activities in line with the structural changes required for the Paris Agreement.These newly released Common Principles will be reflected in future iterations of the GF
245、M exercise and reporting requirements.Similarly,the methodology for biodiversity finance tracking will be further enhanced to integrate any relevant developments from the UN Biodiversity Conference(COP 15)with regards to the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.In this study,data provided are for
246、 financial flows committed in the year 2020 in the form of inter alia loans(concessional and non-concessional),grants,guarantees,equity,and mezzanine finance.A definition of financial instruments is provided in Table B2.New commitments refer to financial commitments signed or approved by the board o
247、f the reporting institution during 2020.Cross financial flows between IDFC banks are minimal in the green financing area and hence are not accounted for in the assessment.Table B3 shows the regional grouping used for the analysis of green finance flows this report,Table B4 provides a definition of p
248、rivate sector co-financing and Table B5 provides a definition of climate policies.35Table B1|Definition of Categories/ThemesBIODIVERSITY SOURCEDefinitionAn activity will be classified as biodiversity-related(score Principal or Significant)if it promotes at least one of the three objectives of the Co
249、nvention on Biological Diversity(CBD):(1)the conservation of biodiversity,(2)sustainable use of its components(ecosystems,species or genetic resources),or(3)fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilization of genetic resource.OECD DAC(2018)CLIMATE-CHANGE MITIGATIONSOURCEDefinitionAn act
250、ivity will be classified as related to climate change mitigation if it promotes“efforts to reduce or limit greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions or enhance GHG sequestration”.Reporting according to the Principles does not imply evidence of climate change impacts and any inclusion of climate change impacts is
251、 not a substitute for project-specific theoretical and/or quantitative evidence of GHG emission mitigation;projects seeking to demonstrate climate change impacts should do so through project-specific dataMDBs-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking V2Criteria for EligibilityWh
252、ere data are unavailable,any uncertainty is to be overcome following the principle of conservativeness where climate finance is preferred to be under-reported rather than over-reportedThe Principles are activity-based as they focus on the type of activity to be executed,and not on its purpose,the or
253、igin of the financial resources,or its actual results.The list of activities eligible under these principles are illustrated in Table 1Project reporting is ex-ante project implementation at board approval or financial commitmentClimate finance tracking is independent of GHG accounting reporting in t
254、he absence of a joint GHG methodology.The Principles require mitigation activities to be disaggregated from non-mitigation activities as far as reasonably possible.If such disaggregation is needed and not possible using project specific data,a more qualitative/experience-based assessment can be used
255、 to identify the proportion of the project that covers climate mitigation activities,consistent with the conservativeness principle.This is applicable to all categories,but of particular significance for energy efficiency projects.Mitigation activities or projects can consist of a stand-alone projec
256、t,multiple stand-alone projects under a larger programme,a component of a stand-alone project,or a programme financed through a financial intermediary.In fossil fuel combustion sectors(transport,and energy production and use),the methodology recognizes the importance of long-term structural changes,
257、such as the energy production shift to renewable energy technologies,and the modal shift to low-carbon modes of transport.Consequently,for renewable energy and transport projects ensuring modal shift,both new and retrofit projects are included.In energy efficiency,however,the methodology acknowledge
258、s that drawing the boundary between increasing production and reducing emissions per unit of output is difficult.Consequently,greenfield energy efficiency investments are included only in few cases when they enable preventing a long-term lock-in in high carbon infrastructure,and,for the case of ener
259、gy efficiency investments in existing facilities,it is required that old technologies are replaced well before the end of their lifetime,and new technologies are substantially more efficient than the replaced technologies.Alternatively,it is required that new technologies or processes are substantia
260、lly more efficient than those normally used in greenfield projects.The methodology assumes that care will be taken to identify cases when projects do not mitigate emissions due to their specific circumstances.MDBs-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking V2CLIMATE-CHANGE ADAPTA
261、TIONSOURCEDefinitionAdaptation finance tracking relates to tracking the finance for activities that address current and expected effects of climate change,where such effects are material for the context of those activities.Adaptation finance tracking may relate to activities consisting of stand-alon
262、e projects,multiple projects under larger programmes,or project components,sub-components or elements,including those financed through financial intermediaries.IDFC-MDBs Common principles for climate change adaptationCriteria for EligibilityAdaptation finance tracking process consists of the followi
263、ng key steps:o Setting out the context of risks,vulnerabilities and impacts related to climate variability and climate change;o Stating the intent to address the identified risks,vulnerabilities and impacts in project documentation;o Demonstrating a direct link between the identified risks,vulnerabi
264、lities and impacts,and the financed activities.Adaptation finance tracking requires adaptation activities to be disaggregated from non-adaptation activities as far as reasonably possible.If disaggregation is not possible using project specific data,a more qualitative or experience-based assessment c
265、an be used to identify the proportion of the project that covers climate change adaptation activities.In consistence with the principle of conservativeness,climate finance is underreported rather than over-reported in this case.IDFC-MDBs Common principles for climate change adaptation36INSTRUMENTDEF
266、INITIONLoansA loan is a debt evidenced by a note that specifies,among other things,the principal amount,interest rate,and date of repayment.of which concessional loansLoans which are extended on terms substantially more generous than market loans.The concessionality is achieved either through intere
267、st rates below those available on the market or by longer pay back periods or a combination of these.of which non-concessional loansLoans with regular market conditionsGrantsGrants are transfers made in cash,goods,or services for which no repayment is required.Other Instruments includesGuaranteeForm
268、al assurance that liabilities of a debtor will be met if the debtor fails to settle the debt.EquityA stock or any other security representing an ownership interest.Table B2|Definition of InstrumentsTable B3|Definition of Regions(adapted from the World Bank)EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFICEASTERN EUROPE AND
269、 CENTRAL ASIALATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANMIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICASOUTH ASIAAmerican SamoaAlbaniaAntigua and BarbudaAlgeriaAfghanistanCambodiaArmeniaArgentinaDjiboutiBangladeshChinaAzerbaijanBelizeEgypt,Arab Rep.BhutanFijiBelarusBoliviaIran,Islamic Rep.IndiaIndonesiaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazi
270、lIraqMaldivesKiribatiGeorgiaChileJordanNepalKorea,Dem.Rep.KazakhstanColombiaLebanonPakistanLao PDRKosovoCosta RicaLibyaSri LankaMalaysiaKyrgyz RepublicCubaMoroccoMarshall IslandsMacedonia,FYRDominicaSyrian Arab RepublicMicronesia,Fed.StsMoldovaDominican RepublicTunisiaMongoliaMontenegroEcuadorWest B
271、ank and GazaMyanmarRussian FederationEl SalvadorYemen,Rep.PalauSerbiaGrenadaPapua New GuineaTajikistanGuatemalaPhilippinesTurkeyGuyanaSamoaTurkmenistanHaitiSolomon IslandsUkraineHondurasThailandUzbekistanJamaicaTimor-LesteMexicoTuvaluNicaraguaTongaPanamaVanuatuParaguayVietnamPeruSt.LuciaSt.Vincent a
272、nd the GrenadinesSurinameUruguayVenezuela,RB37PhilippinesTurkeyGuyanaSamoaTurkmenistanHaitiSolomon IslandsUkraineHondurasThailandUzbekistanJamaicaTimor-LesteMexicoTuvaluNicaraguaTongaPanamaVanuatuParaguayVietnamPeruSt.LuciaSt.Vincent and the GrenadinesSurinameUruguayVenezuela,RBSUB-SAHARAN AFRICAEUO
273、thersAngolaMauritaniaAustriaTrans-regionalInclude funds that are channelled to more than one region and/or that are channelled through multilateral climate funds.BeninMauritiusBelgiumBotswanaMozambiqueBulgariaBurkina FasoNamibiaCyprusBurundiNigerCzech RepublicAustralia CameroonNigeriaDenmarkCanada C
274、ape VerdeRwandaEstonia Japan Central African RepublicSo Tom and PrincipeFinland United States ChadSenegalFranceComorosSeychellesGermanyCongo,Dem.Rep.Sierra LeoneGreeceCongo,RepSomaliaHungaryCte dIvoireSouth AfricaIrelandEritreaSouth SudanItalyEthiopiaSudanLatviaGabonSwazilandLithuaniaGambia,TheTanza
275、niaLuxembourgGhanaTogoMaltaGuineaUgandaNetherlandsGuinea-ZambiaPolandBissauZimbabwePortugalKenyaRomaniaLesothoSlovakiaLiberiaSloveniaMadagascarSpainMalawiSwedenMaliUnited Kingdom386.4 APPENDIX C:METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE ESTIMATING PRIVATE SECTOR MOBILIZATIONDescriptionDefined as the amount of financial
276、resources contributed by external entities alongside finance invested by an IDFC member.EligiblilityIDFC INSTRUMENTPRIVATE FINANCE MOBILIZEDATTRIBUTION IF SEVERAL PUBLIC SECTOR ACTORSGrantsPrivate finance loans,equityAllocate mobilised investment on a pro-rata basis to different public financiers in
277、dependent of the specific instruments applied.LoansPrivate finance loans,equityEquityPrivate finance loans,equityGuaranteesPrivate finance loans,equityCredit linesPrivate finance loans,subtracting original loan amount to avoid double countingSampling vs.Complete coverage It is acceptable to derive r
278、epresentative mobilisation factors(e.g.1.5 for revolving credit lines to banks or 1.5 for equity in project finance)for homogenous fractions of the portfolio based on a representative subset of projects.Member institutions were asked to indicate which factors were used per instrument type in the sur
279、vey sheet.SourceKfW,2015.Proposal of a methodology for tracking publicly mobilized private climate finance.Table C1|Joint DFI Group39DescriptionImplies a causal link for when specific mechanisms stimulate the allocation of additional financial resources to particular objectives.EligibilityIDFC INSTR
280、UMENT PRIVATE FINANCE MOBILZEDATTRIBUTION IF SEVERAL PUBLIC SECTOR ACTORSSyndicated loansPrivate finance loans in the syndicateIf public arranger,allocate 50%of private finance loans to arranger,and the remainder to all public financiers on a pro-rata basis.If private arranger,allocate 100%of privat
281、e finance loans on a pro-rata basis among public financiers.Shares in Collective Investment Vehicles(e.g.funds)Private finance equity in CIVAt the time of each private investment,50%of amount to those in riskiest tranche pro-rata,and the remainder 50%pro-rata to all(including those in riskiest tranc
282、he).GuaranteesPrivate finance loans(full value)Allocate private finance on a pro-rata basis among public financiersCredit linesAdditional loans from local private finance institution,equity from private end-borrower(estimated).If credit line is longer maturity than typical loan for target borrowers,
283、apply factor for use of revolving funds by credit line.(calculated by estimating the proportion of the average loan maturity against the credit line term and multiply by average utilization rate(percentage of the finance available in similar credit lines).Allocate private finance on a pro-rata basis
284、 among public financiersDirect investment in companiesPrivate loans,equity during financing roundAt the time of the financing round,50%of private finance amount to those in riskiest part of corporate structure e.g.equity or mezzanine,and the remainder 50%pro-rata among all public financiersSampling
285、vs.Complete coverage It is acceptable to derive representative mobilisation factors(e.g.1,5 for revolving credit lines to banks or 1,5 for equity in project finance)for homogenous fractions of the portfolio based on a representative subset of projects.Please indicate which factors were used per inst
286、rument type in the survey sheet.SourceOECD DAC,2018.DAC methodologies for measuring the amounts mobilised from the private sector by official development finance interventions.Table C2|OECD Development Assistance Committee406.5 APPENDIX D:ELIGIBLE PROJECT CATEGORIES Despite the efforts of MDBs and I
287、DFC to develop Common Principles for Climate Finance Tracking,a key challenge of the mapping study is to overcome the varying definitions for green finance and to distin-guish the finance flows,attributed to green energy and mitigation of GHG,adaptation,biodiversity and other environmental objective
288、s,categories,from each other.In order to most effectively distinguish between these categories,guidance was provided to IDFC members.Much of this guidance was determined in close coordi-nation with representatives of IDFC.Disaggregated data was collected as shown in Table D1 below.IDFC members were
289、asked to disaggregate their financial commitments to:(i)green energy and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions;(ii)adaptation to climate change;and(iii)biodiversity by sub-sector and activity,wherever possible.Table D1|Eligible Project Categories(based on MDBs-IDFC Common Principles,2015)CATEGORYSU
290、BCATEGORYACTIVITIESGreen energy and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions1.Renewable Energy1.1 Electricity GenerationWind powerGeothermal power(only if net emission reductions can be demonstrated)Solar power(concentrated solar power,photovoltaic power)Biomass or biogas power(only if net emission re
291、ductions,including carbon pool balance,can be demonstrated)Ocean power(wave,tidal,ocean currents,salt gradient,etc.)Hydropower plants(only if net emission reductions can be demonstrated)Renewable energy power plant retrofits1.2 Heat Production or other renewable energy applicationSolar water heating
292、 and other thermal applications of solar power in all sectorsThermal applications of geothermal power in all sectorsWind-driven pumping systems or similarThermal applications of sustainably/produced bioenergy in all sectors,incl.efficient,improved biomass stoves1.3 Measures to facilitate integration
293、 of renewable energy into grids New,expanded and improved transmission systems(lines,substations).Storage systems(battery,mechanical,pumped storage)New information and communication technology,smart-grid and mini-grid2.Lower-carbon and efficient energy generation2.1 Transmission and distribution sys
294、temsRetrofit of transmission lines or substations and/or distribution systems to reduce energy use and/or technical losses including improving grid stability/reliability,(only if net emission reductions can be demonstrated)1 2.2 Power PlantsThermal power plant retrofit to fuel switch from a more GHG
295、-intensive fuel to a different and less GHG-intensive fuel typeConversion of existing fossil-fuel based power plant to co-generation2 technologies that generate electricity in addition to providing heating/coolingWaste heat recovery improvements.Energy-efficiency improvement in existing thermal powe
296、r plant,industrial energy-efficiency improvements though the installation of more efficient equipment,changes in processes,reduction of heat losses and/or increased waste heat recovery413.Energy efficiency 3.1 Energy efficiency in industry in existing facilitiesindustrial energy-efficiency improveme
297、nts though the installation of more efficient equipment,changes in processes,reduction of heat losses and/or increased waste heat recoveryInstallation of co/generation plants that generate electricity in addition to providing heating/coolingMore efficient facility replacement of an older facility(ol
298、d facility retired)3.2 Energy efficiency improvements in existing commercial,public and residential buildings Energy-efficiency improvement in lighting,appliances and equipmentSubstitution of existing heating/cooling systems for buildings by co/generation plants that generate electricity in addition
299、 to providing heating/cooling3Retrofit of existing buildings:Architectural or building changes that enable reduction of energy consumption3.3 Energy efficiency improvements in the utility sector and public servicesEnergy-efficiency improvement in utilities and public services through the installatio
300、n of more efficient lighting or equipmentRehabilitation of district heating and cooling systemsUtility heat loss reduction and/or increased waste heat recoveryImprovement in utility scale energy efficiency through efficient energy use,and loss reduction3.4 Vehicle energy efficiency fleet retrofitExi
301、sting vehicles,rail or boat fleet retrofit or replacement(including the use of lower-carbon fuels,electric or hydrogen technologies,etc.)3.5 Energy efficiency in new commercial,public and residential buildings Use of highly efficient architectural designs,energy efficiency appliances and equipment,a
302、nd building techniques that reduce building energy consumption,exceeding available standards and complying with high energy efficiency certification or rating schemes3.6 Energy auditsEnergy audits to energy end-users,including industries,buildings,and transport systems4.Agriculture,forestry and land
303、-use4.1 AgricultureReduction in energy use in traction(e.g.efficient tillage),irrigation,and other agricultural processesAgricultural projects that improve existing carbon pools(,rangeland management,collection and use of bagasse,rice husks,or other agricultural waste,reduced tillage techniques that
304、 increase carbon contents of soil,rehabilitation of degraded lands,peatland restoration,etc.)Reduction of non Co2 GHG emissions from agricultural practices(eg:paddy rice production,reduction in fertilizer use).4.2 Afforestation and reforestation,and biosphere conservationAfforestation(plantations)on
305、 non-forested landReforestation on previously forested landSustainable forest management activities that increase carbon stocks or reduce the impact of forestry activitiesBiosphere conservation projects(including payments for ecosystem services)targeting reducing emissions from the deforestation or
306、degradation of ecosystems4.3 LivestockLivestock projects that reduce methane or other GHG emissions(manure management with biodigestors,etc.)4.4 BiofuelsProduction of biofuels(including biodiesel and bioethanol)(only if net emission reductions can be demonstrated)429.2 Financing InstrumentsCarbon Ma
307、rkets and finance(purchase,sale,trading,financing and other technical assistance).Includes all activities related to compliance-grade carbon assets and mechanisms,such as CDM,JI,AAUs,as well as well-established voluntary carbon standards like the VCS or the Gold Standard.10.Miscellaneous10.1 Other a
308、ctivities with net greenhouse gas reductionAny other activity not included in this list for which the results of an ex-ante greenhouse gas accounting(undertaken according to commonly agreed methodologies)show emission reductions1 In case capacity expansion only the part that is reducing existing los
309、ses is included2 In all cogeneration projects it is required that energy efficiency is substantially higher than separate production.3 ibid6.6 APPENDIX E:DATA TABLE GREEN ENERGY AND MITIGATION OF GHG EMISSIONS$BILLIONS IN 2016$BILLIONS IN 2017$BILLIONS IN 2018$BILLIONS IN 2019$BILLIONS IN 2020Transp
310、ort 79.6 94.636.981.956Renewable energy 37.1 47.229.535.135.1Energy efficiency 25.8 25.823.82640.2Lower-carbon and efficient energy generation 4.7 5.37.75.12.9Agriculture,forestry,and land-use 1.8 9.35.74.86.3Cross-cutting issues 1.0 1.22.01.94Miscellaneous and othersgreen energy and mitigation 0.9
311、0.70.35.20.4Waste and wastewater 0.4 0.30.31.21.6Unattributed 2.0-0.12.4-TOTAL153.3184.5106.3163.5146.4ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE$BILLIONS IN 2016$BILLIONS IN 2017$BILLIONS IN 2018$BILLIONS IN 2019$BILLIONS IN 2020Water preservation 1.7 5.66.41114Agriculture,natural resources and ecosystem-based a
312、daptation1.2 0.70.910.8Other disaster risk reduction 1.2 1.67.6610.2Miscellaneous and others-Adaptation0.6 1.60.20.51.1Local,sectoral,or national budget support to a climate change adaptation policy 0.1 0.10.30.11.4Coastal protection0.03 0.20.020.030.05TOTAL4.89.715.419.327.5PROJECTS WITH ELEMENTS O
313、F BOTH MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION$BILLIONS IN 2016$BILLIONS IN 2017$BILLIONS IN 2018$BILLIONS IN 2019$BILLIONS IN 2020TOTAL1.41.63.33.94.743OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES$BILLIONS IN 2016$BILLIONS IN 2017$BILLIONS IN 2018$BILLIONS IN 2019Industrial pollution control 6.0 14.04.20.2Water supply 3.2 1.8
314、1.84Waste water treatment 2.1 2.71.22Miscellaneous and others-other environment 1.6 1.31.22Sustainable infrastructure 0.7 2.60.20.8Waste management 0.1 1.50.21Biodiversity 0.1 0.30.060.03Soil remediation and mine rehabilitation 0.001 0.0010.00TOTAL13.824.210.1BIODIVERSITY$BILLIONS IN 2020Agriculture
315、 and natural resources2.1Water preservation3.4Water supply 1.6Waste water treatment 2.3Industrial pollution control-Waste management0.8Biodiversity conservation(1)1.2Biodiversity conservation(2)1.8Support to national,regional or local policy,through technical assistance or policy lending0.3Financing
316、 instruments0.6TOTAL14.1Note:In 2020,$1.4 billion of finance for other environmental objectives was tracked at the aggregated level.Note:Biodiversity finance was not tracked in the years prior to 2020.446.7 APPENDIX F:INDEX OF ACRONYMS ADBAsian Development BankAFDAgence Franaise de DveloppementAfDBA
317、frican Development BankBancoldexBanco de Comercio Exterior de ColombiaBEBanco de EstadoBICEBanco de Inversin y Comercio Exterior S.ABNDESBrazilian Development BankBOADBanque Ouest Africain de DveloppementBSTDBBlack Sea Trade and Development BankCABEICentral American Bank for Economic IntegrationCAFD
318、evelopment Bank of Latin AmericaCDBChina Development BankCDGCaisse de Dpt et de GestionCDPCassa Depositi e PrestitiCO2Carbon dioxideCOFIDECorporacin Financiera de Desarrollo S.A.MDB-IDFC Common PrinciplesCommon Principles for Climate Mitigation as well Climate Change Adaptation Finance Tracking,join
319、tly developed by MDBs and IDFCCOPConference of PartiesCPIClimate Policy InitiativeDBSADevelopment Bank of Southern AfricaHBORCroatian Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentICDIslamic Corporation for the Development of the Private SectorIEBIndonesia Exim BankIDFCInternational Development Finance Clu
320、bIFCInternational Finance CorporationIIBInternational Investment BankJICAJapan International Cooperation AgencyKFWKreditanstalt fr WiederaufbauKDBKorean Development BankMDBMultilateral Development BankNAFINNacional Financiera S.N.COECDOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOECD-DACOrga
321、nisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance CommitteePT SMIPT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur(Persero)PVPhotovoltaicSEIStockholm Environment InstituteSIDBISmall Industries Development Bank of IndiaTDBTrade and Development BankTSKBIndustrial Development Bank of TurkeyUNEPUnited Nations En
322、vironmental ProgrammeUNEP BFIUnited Nations Environmental Programme Bilateral Finance InstitutionsUNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVEBVnesheconombank457.ENDNOTES Agence Franaise de Dveloppement(AFD),2021.1 Billion for Biodiversity.Available at:https:/www.afd.fr/en/actualite
323、s/eu1-billion-biodiversityAFD,2018.Environmental And Social Framework.Available at:https:/www.afd.fr/en/ressources/environmental-and-social-framework Asian Development Bank(ADB).2021.Environment Safeguards.Available at:https:/www.adb.org/site/safeguards/environmentBelvaux,Eric.2020.Testing of method
324、ologies on biodiversity finance.Support to the IDFC Making Finance Work for Nature Group.Report shared by AFD.Black Sea Trade&Development Bank(BSTDB),2021.BSTDB Climate Change Strategy.Available at:https:/www.bstdb.org/BSTDB_Climate_Change_Strategy.pdfClimate Policy Initiative(CPI),2021.Preview:The
325、2021 Global Landscape of Climate Finance.Available at:https:/www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-2021.pdfCPI and I4CE,2019.Aligning with the Paris Agreement.Available at:https:/www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Imple
326、menting-alignment-recommendations-for-the-International-Development-Finance-Club-_-Executive-Summary.pdf Convergence.Blending Global Finance,2019.Case Study.Climate Finance Facility.Available at:https:/greenbanknetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Convergence_Climate_Finance_Facility_Case_Study_20
327、19.pdfCorporacin Andina de Fomento(CAF),2020.“CAF and EIB to Fund Climate Action Projects to Boost Jobs and Competitiveness.”Available at:https:/ Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF),2021.The Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands Hotspot Ecosystem Profile Summary.Available at:https:/ Bank of Southern Afri
328、ca(DBSA),2021.Climate Financing.Available at:https:/www.dbsa.org/solutions/climate-financingFinance in Common,2021.Joint Declaration of all Public Development Banks in the World.Available at:https:/financeincommon.org/Green Climate Fund(GCF),2019.Bio-CLIMA Nicaragua.Integrated climate action for red
329、uced deforestation and strengthened resilience in the BOSAWS and Rio San Juan Biosphere Reserves.Available at:https:/www.greenclimate.fund/document/bio-clima-nicaraguaGCF and IDFC.2020.A strategic alliance to realize the full potential of public development banks in financing the green transition.Av
330、ailable at:https:/www.idfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/7-idfc-gcf_final-version_eng.pdf I4CE and NIC,2021.Operationalization Framework on Aligning with the Paris Agreement.Available at:https:/www.i4ce.org/download/operationalization-framework-on-aligning-with-the-paris-agreement/46IDFC.2020.Bench
331、marking report on Biodiversity Practices of Development Banks.Available at:https:/www.idfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/idfc-benchmark-on-biodiversity-practices-of-development-banks-1.pdf IDFC.2018.IDFC Position Paper-Aligning with the Paris Agreement.Available at:https:/www.idfc.org/wp-content/up
332、loads/2018/12/idfc_alignment-with-paris-agreement_position-paper_12_2018.pdfInternational Finance Corporation(IFC).2021.Environmental,Health,and Safety Guidelines.Available at:https:/www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/policies-standards/e
333、hs-guidelines IUCN Red List.2021.Summary Statistics.Available at:https:/www.iucnredlist.org/statisticsJapan International Cooperation Agency(JICA),2020.Annual Report.Available at:https:/www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/annual/2020/index.htmlJapan International Cooperation Agency(JICA),2021.Japanese ODA Loan.Ex-Ante Evaluation.Available at:https:/www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluatio