The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

The second challenge is the need to be current. IEG’s evaluationsoften build heavily on completion reviews of closedprojects. That is not feasible in this case. On one hand, thenumber of projects has increased dramatically over the pastdecade, technology and financial engineering are changingrapidly, and the national and international policy contextis in flux. On the other hand, IFC projects are typically notevaluated until five years after approval, and Bank projectsare not evaluated until closure, often eight years or moreafter approval. Consequently, of the renewable energy andenergy efficiency projects initiated since 1990, IEG has evaluatedonly about 100; and though more than 450 projectswere initiated between 2003 and 2008, IEG has evaluatedonly 3 of them.These considerations lead to the following definitions ofscope.Temporal scopeFor background, the evaluation relies on a detailed andcomprehensive review of the low-carbon energy and urbantransportation portfolios from 2003 to 2008 and a comprehensivebut less-detailed review of the forest portfolio for2002–08. The post-2008 increase in climate-related activitiescould not be covered in detail, but is briefly describedin appendix J. For subsectoral analyses, however (such assolar photovoltaics or hydropower), the evaluation rangesback as far as 1990 to take advantage of information fromclosed and evaluated projects. It may also report on currentactivities.This evaluation looks at attempts toovercome the barriers that inhibit adoptionand diffusion of favorable technologies andpractices.Topical scopeThe evaluation is concerned with evidence of attempts tosurmount the barriers that inhibit the adoption and diffusionof low-carbon technologies and practices. Henceit excludes most attention to the WBG’s “high-carbon”activities, such as oil exploration, road construction, andthermal power. Indeed, as pointed out in the Phase I evaluation(IEG 2009), anything the WBG does to promoteeconomic growth will tend to put upward pressure on GHGemissions.Instead, the evaluation focuses on projects that potentiallypromote development and reduce GHG emissions, regardlessof whether they had a GHG goal. Where such a goalexists, it is appropriate to evaluate the WBG’s success inachieving it. Even where there was no explicit goal, it isuseful to try to understand the determinants of success orfailure.Pragmatically, these low-carbon sectors are renewableenergy, energy efficiency, urban transit, and forest projectsrelated to afforestation or reduced deforestation. The choiceof, and emphasis on, these broad sectors (energy efficiency,renewable energy, forestry, and transport) was informedby consideration of current overall emissions levels(figure 1.1), prospects for emission reductions (figure 1.2),emphasis in the Climate Investment Funds, and the scale ofWBG commitments.An important but unavoidable omission was a detailedtreatment of agriculture. Agriculture is a large source ofemissions from developing countries. Rice paddies andcattle, in particular, emit large quantities of methane. However,understanding of agricultural abatement options andtheir impacts is far less advanced than for energy, transport,and forestry. The evaluative base is small. So although thisis a crucial area for research and piloting, this evaluationlimits discussion to an agroforestry project that illustratesthe potential for climate cobenefits from agriculturaldevelopment.The core of the evaluation is an in-depth discussion ofspecific subsectors that are important areas in their ownright but that also illustrate the challenges affecting thebroader sectors to which they belong. For instance, thechallenge of promoting low-emissions urban transportationis illustrated through a detailed examination of busrapid transit, which is the single largest line of WBG actionin urban transit and ties together the issues of modalshift, fuel shift, and land use that are central to a city’stransport footprint.Table 1.1 presents a topical map of the evaluation.The choice of subsectors was informed by considerations ofevaluability (track record and data), current overall emissionlevels (figure 1.1), potential for generalizable lessons,and scale of 2003–08 WBG commitments.Within renewable energy there are in-depth discussionsof hydropower and solar home photovoltaic systems, thelargest and most longstanding areas of on-grid and offgridinvestment, respectively. There is also a discussionof the economics of on-grid renewable power that appliesto all technologies. A significant omission is biomasstechnology, itself a very heterogeneous category. Figure1.3 compares renewable energy coverage to the 2003–08portfolio.Within energy efficiency there is extensive discussion ofinvestments via financial intermediaries and of projectsthat reduce transmission and distribution losses. Togetherthese comprise about half the 2003–08 portfolio(figure 1.4). Also discussed at length are projects involvingcompact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), a tiny part of theportfolio, but, it is argued, one worthy of scaling up. The8 | Climate Change and the World Bank Group