Search

The objective of this transport component of the broader Africa Climate Business Plan (ACBP) is to begin to mainstream climate benefits into the World Bank’s transport program for Sub-Saharan Africa, the better to assist African countries in bringing their climate change efforts to scale. It is a first step towards mainstreaming responses to the climate challenge into transport programs in Africa, and it represents the first time the Transport & ICT GP has produced a work plan for its investment and technical assistance operations that takes into account the content of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and attempts to align World Bank support to the goals stated therein. The transport work plan under this Africa Climate Business Plan will consist of up to $3.2 billion in investments and technical assistance over the 2016-2020 period – including $2.8 billion in World Bank funds. Those investments will help to make progress on two strategic objectives: (1) improving the resilience of African transport infrastructure to climate change by defining four pillars of resilient transport; and (2) improving the carbon-efficiency of transport systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This paper conducts an integrated assessment of climate change impacts and climate mitigation on agricultural commodity markets and food availability in low- and middle-income countries. The analysis uses the partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM to generate scenarios to 2080. The findings show that climate change effects on the agricultural sector will increase progressively over the century. By 2030, the impact of climate change on food consumption is moderate but already twice as large in a world with high inequalities than in a more equal world. In the long run, impacts could be much stronger, with global average calorie losses of 6 percent by 2050 and 14 percent by 2080. A mitigation policy to stabilize climate below 2°C uniformly applied to all regions as a carbon tax would also result in a 6 percent reduction in food availability by 2050 and 12 percent reduction by 2080 compared to the reference scenario. To avoid more severe impacts of climate change mitigation on development than climate change itself, revenue from carbon pricing policies will need to be redistributed appropriately. Overall, the projected effects of climate change and mitigation on agricultural markets raise important issues for food security in the long run, but remain more limited in the medium term horizon of 2030. Thus, there are opportunities for low- and middle-income countries to pursue immediate development needs and thus prepare for later periods when adaptation needs and mitigation efforts will become the greatest.

The World Bank Group has committed to achieving universal access to electricity by 2030 under the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative. This is a daunting challenge: more than 1 billion people do not have access, and another 1 billion have chronically inadequate or unreliable service. Most of those without access are poor, and the largest share is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Achieving universal access within 15 years for the low-access countries (those with under 50 percent coverage) requires a quantum leap from their present pace of 1.6 million connections per year to 14.6 million per year until 2030. The investment needed would be about $37 billion per year, including erasing generation deficits and meeting demand from economic growth. By comparison, in recent years, low-access countries received an average of $3.6 billion per year for their electricity sectors from public and private sources, including $1.5 billion per year from the World Bank Group. Development outcomes of the Bank Group’s assistance were generally favorable compared with other infrastructure sectors. However, performance in improving financial viability of country electricity sectors was below expectations. There were significant gaps in the Bank Group’s coverage of low-access countries, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Median implementation time of World Bank investment projects was nine years, with time overruns attributable to inadequate project design and borrower capacity. Support for off-grid electrification was low and sporadic, with a few notable exceptions. The Bank Group’s growing non-conventional renewable energy portfolio is dealing with technology and regulatory challenges. Tracking welfare and gender impacts in World Bank projects has improved, and International Finance Corporation (IFC) has made a beginning in addressing these issues. The Bank made some significant pilot contributions to addressing the affordability of electricity connections. Collaboration grew among World Bank, IFC, and MIGA through joint projects, which helps break ground for the private sector in some high-risk and fragile countries, and supports a few large and complex projects. The scale of the SE4All challenge requires the Bank Group to reposition itself as a global solutions provider in the sector, going well beyond the confines of its own direct support for access. This evaluation points to the urgency for the Bank Group‘s energy practice to adopt a new and transformative strategy to help country clients orchestrate a national, sustained sector-level engagement for universal access. A major challenge in this effort is to deploy the Bank Group units’ individual and collective strengths beyond Bank Group–led projects and transactions to stimulate private sector investments for closing the financing gap, especially in generation, for low-access countries.

Global trajectories for reducing carbon emissions depend on the local adoption of alternatives to conventional energy sources, technologies, and urban development. Yet, decisions on which type of capital investments to make, made by local governments as part of the normal budget cycle, typically do not incorporate climate considerations. Furthermore, current academic and professional literature specific to climate change draws attention to decision-making tools that would require access to technical expertise, data, and financial support that may not be practical for cities in low- and middle-income countries. Arguably, the methodologies most able to effect this transformation will be those that are convenient and affordable to administer, and that offer straight-forward low carbon alternatives to traditional forms of infrastructure investment. Current methodologies for capital investment planning that do not take climate change into consideration can result in prioritization of investments that diverge from a low carbon path and a potential missed opportunity to reap financial benefits from efficiency gains. This paper concludes that relatively minor alterations to common procedures can reveal the trade-offs and local benefits of low carbon alternatives in the capital investment planning process. This paper was written as an input to the preparation of the Climate-Informed Capital Investment Planning Guidebook, a how-to guide for local government staff, which will be published in 2015.

Developed under the auspices of the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) and with advice and input from its Baselines Working Group, this document offers guidance and options for the development of emissions baselines, a key component for assessing the emission reductions in in both market and non-market based mechanisms. In the context of this document, a baseline refers to a scenario that describes expected or desired greenhouse gas emissions levels and that can be used as a basis for determining the amount of emissions reductions achieved as the result of a crediting, trading, or other mechanism. This document is divided into two parts. Part one (sections two and three) presents the context for emissions baselines, introduces key concepts and terms, and describes principles, considerations, and potential trade-offs that can inform decisions in the development of robust and transparent baselines. Part two provides a step-by-step description of how guidance users , a term we use here for those using this guidance, can develop baselines. Part two begins with a brief description of options for baseline development and approval, and proceeds in six further sections (5-10) to present options to define and update baselines. In the future, this document will be supplemented by additional documents illustrating how the guidance presented here can be applied to specific market or non-market mechanisms involving a variety of economic sectors and GHG emission sources. Finally, this document is intended to be dynamic. Over time, as experience is gained and consensus emerges on best practices, this document may evolve to provide more specific guidelines, where and as appropriate.

This document provides an overview of baseline setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) crediting mechanisms. The first section briefly explains the general purpose and objectives of setting a crediting mechanism baseline. The second section summarizes key policy considerations in defining and setting baselines. The final section covers important technical elements of baselines and provides an overview of various methods that can be used to estimate baseline emissions. The main purpose of this technical note is to examine key issues for baseline setting in the context of scaled-up crediting mechanisms. Many of the technical and policy considerations presented here, however, are relevant to existing project-based crediting mechanisms as well, and the discussion takes into account concepts developed and experience gained under these mechanisms. In addition, most of the concepts and examples presented here are relevant to setting baselines in the energy and industry sectors. Where relevant, however, examples from other sectors, including forestry and land-use, are used to illustrate important ideas.

Mexico, Costa Rica, and Ecuador have substantial experience with implementing payments for ecosystem services (PES) and conservation incentive programs. Yet, many aspects of their experiences remain poorly understood and will require special attention in any new or expanded use of these types of incentives. As these countries, along with many others, get ready to implement integrated approaches to Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD or REDD+), they seek to understand how the lessons and challenges from their past experiences, as well as the wider lessons from similar initiatives around the world, can inform their emerging REDD+ strategies, policies, institutional frameworks, and tools. This report describes examples of how each of these topics has been tackled in national programs and how these experiences can inform the development of REDD+ in the three focus countries and beyond.

This publication is the result of an initiative to promote an exchange between Brazil and African countries on lessons learned about the role of community forestry as a strategic option to achieve the goals of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). The initiative was supported by the World Bank with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and coordinated by the Amazonas Sustainable Foundation (FAS) with support from the National Forestry Agency International (ONFI). Representatives of five countries from the Congo Basin (Cameroon, Gabon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Republic of Congo) and Madagascar participated in this initiative. This publication organizes information, analyses and conclusions on issues relevant to the design and implementation of REDD+ strategies. The findings do not represent an official position of any of the institutions or governments involved. In fact, the material presented here aims to stimulate further discussions, as the REDD+ debate is still unfolding and could benefit greatly from technical exchanges among the various ongoing initiatives. This publication has the following sections: (i) a conceptual approach to community forestry and REDD+; (ii) the key issues of REDD+ in connection with community forestry in Africa; (iii) how REDD+ and forest carbon (FC) are being developed in Brazil; and (iv) conclusions.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the challenges and the practical successes that a selected number of countries are experiencing in moving towards 'climate-smart' agriculture while also meeting the food requirements of a growing population, broader economic development and green growth objectives. It complements papers prepared in 2010 on technologies and policy instruments, research, and farmers' perspectives. The paper is also intended to provide a broad country perspective to two additional papers produced for a meeting of African Ministers of Agriculture which took place in Johannesburg in September 2011. The main conclusion is that a number of countries have made impressive progress in integrating 'climate-smart agriculture' into broader development and growth programs. Several countries are supporting policy measures and programs to conserve soil and moisture while enhancing productivity and competitiveness, and are addressing the particular concerns of drought-prone semi-arid areas. They are improving agricultural water management and watershed management, and addressing sea-surges, salinity and coastal flooding. Some countries are also including climate-smart agriculture as a core element in broader green growth agendas. The private sector has a key role to play in climate-smart agriculture, especially where the enabling environment has been favorable. Achieving climate-smart agriculture needs an integrated approach, tackling productivity and food security, risk and resilience, and low carbon growth together, but integration and institutional coordination remains a challenge in many countries.

Since 2005, a growing number of vulnerable communities and nations have used the human rights lexicon to argue their case for an urgent and ambitious response to climate change. The purpose of this Social Development Department Working paper is to examine the emergence of a new discourse linking climate change and human rights, and to assess its social and political implications, particularly as they relate to development practitioners. The scope of this paper is to explore what relevance this new discourse has on what David Kennedy calls the 'vocabularies, expertise, and sensibilities' of development practitioners (Kennedy 2005). The methodology for this paper involved interviews with academics and policy practitioners who have shaped this emerging discourse; a wide-ranging literature review of texts relevant to the fields of development, climate change and human rights; discussions with development professionals who have the daily responsibility of operationalizing approaches to reducing vulnerability and building resilience; and finally drawing upon the author's own experience leading the Maldives' government's initiative on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change and as a consultant within the Social Dimensions of Climate Change Cluster of the World Bank's Social Development Department. It is important to stress that this paper is not a legal piece. Human rights are as much about ethical demands, calls for social justice, public awareness, advocacy, and political action as they are concerned with legal norms and rules. Sen has pointed out a 'theory of human rights cannot be sensibly confined within the juridical model in which it is frequently incarcerated' (Sen 2004, 319). Consequently this piece will focus on the wider, political economy aspects of the interface between human rights and climate change. It is further appropriate to state that this is not an advocacy piece. The paper deliberately avoids being normative or prescriptive in recommending a human rights-based approach to developing climate change operations. It does examine why vulnerable populations chose to embrace this approach, why they continue to view it as a transformative strategy, and what some of the successes and challenges have been.

This study reports the results of “action research” to identify and prioritize stakeholder driven, locally relevant response options to climate change. These response options comprise the basis of local action plans developed to address agricultural adaptations to climate change in three diverse agroecoystems: the Yaqui Valley in northwestern Mexico, the Mantaro Valley in central Peru, and the western littoral regional of Uruguay. The study has three primary objectives. The first is to develop and apply a pilot methodology for assessing agricultural vulnerability to climate change and for formulating response strategies to inform private and public sector decisions in the Latin America region. The second objective is to formulate recommendations for investments in each of the selected agro-ecosystems in a range of areas including agricultural technology adaptation, infrastructure investments, public and private sectoral support activities, and institutional and policy changes. The final objective is to disseminate the study results in the Latin America region to help increase understanding of the impacts of climate change and alternative adaptation response strategies.

The case for scaling up mitigation efforts is urgent and has been made repeatedly in the last few years whether denominated in gigatonnes of needed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per year or tens of 'gigadollars' of needed annual investments in zero and low carbon technologies and systems. The World Bank is now beginning to actively engage partners it contemplates in its new carbon partnership facility. As these discussions 'get down to business', it will be helpful to have a better understanding of the types of scaling up opportunities and the steps that need to be taken to get proper policy frameworks in place (internationally and domestically) to ensure carbon finance plays an effective role. This paper is organised as follows : Section 2 provides detail on what 'scaling up' means in practice. It draws from literature looking at this question from a range of perspectives; and Section 3 looks at the policy and investment situation for scaling up activities that exists today, i.e. in advance of any new policy instruments being considered in a post-2012 context.

This strategic framework serves to guide and support the operational response of the World Bank Group (WBG) to new development challenges posed by global climate change. Unabated, climate change threatens to reverse hard-earned development gains. The poorest countries and communities will suffer the earliest and the most. Yet they depend on actions by other nations, developed and developing. While climate change is an added cost and risk to development, a well-designed and implemented global climate policy can also bring new economic opportunities to developing countries. Climate change demands unprecedented global cooperation involving a concerted action by countries at different development stages supported by "measurable, reportable, and verifiable" transfer of finance and technology to developing countries. Trust of developing countries in equity and fairness of a global climate policy and neutrality of the supporting institutions is critical for such cooperation to succeed. Difficulties with mobilizing resources for achieving the millennium development goals and with agreeing on global agricultural trade underscore the political challenges. The framework will help the WBG maintain the effectiveness of its core mission of supporting growth and poverty reduction. While recognizing added costs and risks of climate change and an evolving global climate policy. The WBG top priority will be to build collaborative relations with developing country partners and provide them customized demand-driven support through its various instruments from financing to technical assistance to constructive advocacy. It will give considerable attention to strengthening resilience of economies and communities to increasing climate risks and adaptation. The operational focus will be on improving knowledge and capacity, including learning by doing. The framework will guide operational programs of WBG entities to support actions whose benefits to developing countries are robust under significant uncertainties about future climate policies and impacts-actions that have "no regrets."

This strategic framework serves to guide and support the operational response of the World Bank Group (WBG) to new development challenges posed by global climate change. Unabated, climate change threatens to reverse hard-earned development gains. The poorest countries and communities will suffer the earliest and the most. Yet they depend on actions by other nations, developed and developing. While climate change is an added cost and risk to development, a well-designed and implemented global climate policy can also bring new economic opportunities to developing countries. Climate change demands unprecedented global cooperation involving a concerted action by countries at different development stages supported by "measurable, reportable, and verifiable" transfer of finance and technology to developing countries. Trust of developing countries in equity and fairness of a global climate policy and neutrality of the supporting institutions is critical for such cooperation to succeed. Difficulties with mobilizing resources for achieving the millennium development goals and with agreeing on global agricultural trade underscore the political challenges. The framework will help the WBG maintain the effectiveness of its core mission of supporting growth and poverty reduction. While recognizing added costs and risks of climate change and an evolving global climate policy. The WBG top priority will be to build collaborative relations with developing country partners and provide them customized demand-driven support through its various instruments from financing to technical assistance to constructive advocacy. It will give considerable attention to strengthening resilience of economies and communities to increasing climate risks and adaptation. The operational focus will be on improving knowledge and capacity, including learning by doing. The framework will guide operational programs of WBG entities to support actions whose benefits to developing countries are robust under significant uncertainties about future climate policies and impacts-actions that have "no regrets."