Global energy governance

This chapter explores the emergence of the existing global energy governance architecture, as the "overarching system of public and private institutions that are valid or active" in the energy field. It focuses on intergovernmental energy organizations that trace their origins to the post-World War II emergence of producers in what is called the "Global South," and the impact on oil-consuming advanced economies in the North of the former's clout in world politics of the 1970s. The chapter looks at the United Nations and the role of several of its constituent parts in governing energy. It examines the benefits and challenges of building a global energy governance architecture that is more integrated internally while at the same time better able to capitalize on overlaps and synergies with other global policy domains, especially those in climate change and international development. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the future of global energy governance, including the prospects for a World Energy Agency

Setting the sun on off-grid solar?: policy lessons from the Bangladesh solar home systems (SHS) programme

After decades of growth, the Bangladesh Solar Home Systems (SHS) programme, the world’s largest domestic solar off-grid electrification scheme which has frequently been heralded as a model for other developing countries, is in danger of collapsing as end user support and installation levels have plummeted. This paper explores the reasons behind this development, tracing the programme run by the Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL) from its early expansion employing pioneering partnership and financing models, to its more recent decline. It finds that the government’s simultaneous implementation of several competing on- and off-grid energy access projects and lack of regulatory oversight alongside significant subsidy decreases which made SHS uncompetitive, led customers to abandon the programme. This, in turn, is putting at risk Bangladesh’s objective of achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 – affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all – by 2030

Improving Cost-Benefit Analysis to Catalyse Finance for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

There is under-investment in climate adaptation and resilience-building globally, as well as in the G20 countries. Consequently, the significant benefits of such interventions are not realised. Drivers of under-investment include lack of information on risks, the costs of addressing those risks, and the complete benefits of doing so. Climate adaptation and resilience-building interventions can enable governments, international financial institutions, and the private sector to make better investment decisions and close the financing gap. Building on work showing that the full benefits of many types of adaptation investments are far greater than often assumed and accrue even if the extreme event does not occur, this Policy Brief proposes actionable recommendations for incorporating a triple dividend approach into the economic and financial assessments of adaptation investments in a way that will facilitate their scaling up by the G20 countries as well as globally

COPA Financing and Fundraising Mechanism: A Review and Concept

Written on behalf of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK), this study is a contribution to the development of a financing mechanism (FM) for the sustainable refrigerant management of ODS/HFC banks in current and future partner countries of the Climate and Ozone Protection Alliance (COPA) which seeks to accelerate the mitigation measures needed to address these amounts

The Triple Dividend of Building Climate Resilience: Taking Stock, Moving Forward

Highlights ▪ The triple dividend of resilience (TDR) is an approach that considers avoided losses (first dividend), induced economic or development benefits (second dividend), and additional social and environmental benefits (third dividend) of adaptation actions. The second and third dividends are especially important since they accrue regardless of whether the actual climate risk materializes. ▪ The second and third dividends are often highly significant. They can exceed the value of avoided losses and can generate project benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) greater than 1 even when the value of avoided losses is not considered. ▪ Accounting for the full range of benefits demonstrates higher BCRs for adaptation investments than are often assumed. In turn, this can help increase access to project finance, improve project design, and improve ex post monitoring and evaluation. ▪ Researchers and practitioners are developing more effective appraisal tools for analyzing the benefits of climate resilience investments and are generating more information useful in decision-making. ▪ Investors in the public sector stand to benefit from increased use of the TDR by having more consistent and comparable assessments across sectors and donors. The private sector stands to benefit by better understanding both second dividend financial benefits and third dividend nonmarket benefits that flow from investing in resilience