Transcript Slide 1

FINANCE CLINIC:
The Investment & Financial Flows
Assessment and its application
for LEDS & NAMAs
Presentation overview
Introduction (25 mins)
• Context
• I&FF methodology overview
• Key results
• Clarifications
I&FF Methodology: in depth (25 mins)
• Key definitions
• Approach
• Example: Namibia electricity generation
Discussion (40 mins)
UNDP project: Capacity Development for
Policy Makers to Address Climate Change
•$6M global project funded by Norway, Switzerland, Finland,
UNDP, UNF
•Implemented against backdrop of Bali Road Map (2008-12)
Objectives
•Increased national capacity to co-ordinate inter-ministerial
views & enhance participation in UNFCCC process
•Support for long-term climate change planning and priority
setting, in order to provide a better understanding of the
magnitude and intensity of national efforts required to tackle
climate change
What does the I&FF assessment seek
to answer?
From a development perspective, what
does my country need to do
to address climate change in
selected key sectors, and
what financial landscape will be required
to achieve those needs?
Components of UNDP’s climate
finance readiness framework
I&FF can
support
I&FF applicability to LEDS & NAMA
development
Methodological approach is scalable: Can be used to cost
out a sectoral LEDS or a single NAMA
Provides sense of who are the core investors & what types
of policy changes might be required to attract investment
•
Chile and Costa Rica: I&FF results for transport sector provided
inputs to underlying analysis for transport NAMAs
• Colombia: I&FF study on panela being scaled up to NAMA
• Bangladesh: I&FF provided baseline information for climate
public expenditure & investment review
• Niger: I&FF results incorporated into National Action Plan for
Climate Change and National Development Plan
• Paraguay: I&FF results fed into national CC policy and national
mitigation plan
Presentation overview
Introduction (25 mins)
• Context
• I&FF methodology overview
• Key results
• Clarifications
I&FF Methodology: in depth (25 mins)
• Key definitions
• Approach
• Example: Namibia electricity generation
Discussion (40 mins)
Methodology development: Investment
& Financial Flows Assessment
Approach:
• I&FF approach adapted from UNFCCC methodology used for
estimating global flows  bottom-up approach for national
estimates
• Sectoral guidance chapters elaborated by five regional
centres
• Extensive peer review process
Applied in: Bangladesh, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Gambia, Honduras, Liberia, Namibia,
Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uruguay
WHAT?
What does national
I&FF assessment
seek to answer?
The I&FF assessment considers:
 What are the adaptation/ mitigation options for key
sectors in the next 25 years?
 Who is currently investing in the sector? Who are the major
players & funding sources within government, private
sector & households?
 What shifts/increases in I&FF will be needed in the sector?
 What will be the overall needs for additional I&FF to
address climate change?
 What policies & incentives are suitable to induce the
necessary shifts & changes?
HOW?
I&FF methodology
•For each sector, evaluate investments & financial flows for two
policy scenarios:
– Reference scenario
– Adaptation or mitigation scenario
•Cost the additional flows needed to implement new adaptation
or mitigation measures: that is, subtract the difference between
the two scenarios
•Disaggregate by:
•
•
•
•
years
type of measures,
investment entities (government, private sector, households),
funding sources (domestic, ODA, …)
WHO?
I&FF assessment
requires multidisciplinary team
 For each sector:
 Environmental/climate specialists to build scenarios
 Planning experts to:
 Assess implications of the scenarios on existing development
plans in chosen sectors & consider how
mitigation or adaptation measures would be implemented
 Finance/economics experts to cost the measures
 Representatives from all relevant ministries
 Academic, NGO, & private sector inputs also useful
Example: Costa Rica
(biodiversity – adaptation)
Presentation overview
Introduction (25 mins)
• Context
• I&FF methodology overview
• Key results
• Clarifications
I&FF Methodology: in depth (25 mins)
• Key definitions
• Approach
• Example: Namibia electricity generation
Discussion (40 mins)
Key sectors identified for I&FF
assessments under UNDP project
Overview: Results by sector
MEASURES
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL COST
(MILLION US$)
SECTOR*
COUNTRY
Energy (M)
Bangladesh, Dominican
Renewable energy, energy efficiency,
20 (Gambia) –
Rep. Gambia, Liberia,
transmission & distribution, modernizing
950 (Bangladesh)
Namibia, Togo,
power plants…
Turkmenistan, Uruguay
Transport
Ecuador, Honduras
(M)
Transportation plan, filters in engines,
60 (Honduras) – 120
emission control centres…
(Ecuador)
Forestry
Ecuador, Gambia,
CO2 capture through afforestation &
5 (Paraguay) –
(M)
Honduras, Liberia, Niger,
reforestation, institutional strengthening…
150 (Honduras)
Paraguay
Agriculture
Bangladesh, Colombia,
Resistant livestock species & crops, early
0.6 (Gambia) –
(A/M)
Ecuador, Gambia,
warning systems, restoration of soil quality,
1890 (Bangladesh)
Liberia, Namibia, Niger,
capacity building…
Paraguay, Peru, Togo,
Uruguay
* M = mitigation; A = adaptation
Overview: Results by sector (2)
MEASURES
ANNUAL
INCREMENTAL COST
(MILLION US$)
Bangladesh, Costa
Water supply & sanitation, efficient irrigation,
-0.1 (a net saving!)
Rica, Dominican Rep.
erosion & flood control, implementing water
(Gambia) – 230
Gambia, Honduras,
law, rainwater harvesting…
(Bangladesh)
Fighting dengue, malaria, respiratory &
7 (Paraguay)
SECTOR*
Water (A)
COUNTRY
Peru, Turkmenistan
Health (A)
Paraguay
diarrheal diseases
Tourism
Dominican Republic
Beach management, hurricane management
40 (Dominican
by insurance
Republic)
Costa Rica
Conservation of ecosystems
60 (Costa Rica)
Peru
Awareness raising, infrastructure for fish
13 (Peru)
(A)
Biodiversit
y (A)
Fisheries
(A)
* A = adaptation
production
Key takeaways: view I&FF results in
context
• The I&FF assessments are not a mere costing exercise,
but an analysis of the whole financial landscape of a
sector
• All countries used same I&FF methodology, but decided
individually what sectors to select & what measures to
analyze within each sector  scope (& discount rate) has
impact on the results
• Results comparable with those of World Bank (Economics
of Adaptation to Climate Change) & UNFCCC (National
Economic, Environment & Development Study (NEEDS))
Takeaways: Sectoral considerations
• Additional costs may seem large, but must be considered
within context of planned baseline expenditures, e.g. in Peru,
baseline for agriculture was US$5,435 M, while adaptation
scenario was US$ 5,759 M additional cost US$324 M (↑ 6%)
• In many cases, the assessments show shifts in investments are
necessary, e.g. from one technology to another, or one
subsector to another  policies are key
• Savings from implementing measures possible: esp. in energy
mitigation due to increased energy efficiency, however those
savings cannot always be shifted on to other measures in the
scenarios because of the “owner” of the savings may differ
Examples
• Some measures result in net savings, e.g. in Namibia,
replacing diesel generators with solar power in off-grid
communities would generate $US 1,124 M in savings
(due to low O&M), but solar has higher upfront cost
• In Dominican Republic, selected mitigation measures in
electricity subsector require $5.82 billion of investments, but
generate $16.12 billion in savings (from O&M)
 what policy/ incentive mix would encourage uptake of
these mitigation measures?
Lessons learned
•Creating BAU and climate change scenarios involves complex
set of decisions and remains a challenge for many countries –
additionally, policy makers may not always agree with proposed
measures in the scenarios
•It is necessary to define very concrete measures for the
scenarios so that they can be adequately costed and prioritized
•The separation of Operation & Maintenance costs from other
investment costs (flows) was found to be very useful
All I&FF results online
More information on the I&FF methodology, country results, & an
extensive database: www.undpcc.org
 Methodology in 4 languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian
Q&A
?
CLARIFICATIO
NS
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Presentation overview
Introduction (25 mins)
• Context
• I&FF methodology overview
• Key results
• Clarifications
I&FF Methodology: in depth (25 mins)
• Key definitions
• Approach
• Example: Namibia electricity generation
Discussion (40 mins)
Key definitions: Investment Flow
An investment flow (IF) is the capital cost of a new physical
asset with a lifetime of more than 1 year, e.g. capital cost of a
new power plant, a new automobile, a new household
appliance, or a new agricultural irrigation system.
Investment flows are limited to new physical assets because we
are considering the climate change implications for the duration
of the operating lives of the facilities and equipment purchased.
Key definitions: Financial Flow
A financial flow (FF) is an ongoing expenditure on
programmatic measures.
Financial flows encompass expenditures other than
those for expansion or installation of physical assets,
e.g., agricultural extension program for farmers, a
malaria prevention program to distribute mosquito
nets.
Key definitions: operation &
maintenance (O&M)
Physical assets purchased with investment flows will have
operation & maintenance (O&M) costs associated with
them, i.e., ongoing fixed and variable costs such as salaries
and raw materials
O&M costs need to be included because they can vary
considerably among investment flow types & have a
significant effect on the total cost of an investment
Example: mitigation measures
Sector
Energy
Forestry
Agriculture
Investment Type
Construction of new
high efficiency, fossilfuel fired, power plant
Investment Flows
Capital costs of
construction
Financial Flows
Equipment retrofit and
education program for
the commercial sector
on energy end-use
efficiency
improvements
Implementation of
reduced impact logging
operations
Capital costs of
equipment retrofits or
replacements in
commercial sector (e.g.,
retrofit of HVAC systems)
Program
implementation costs
for government and
commercial sector (e.g.,
audit of HVAC systems
to determine leaks)
Implementation of
improved livestock
feeding program
Capital costs of new
equipment to implement
reduced impact logging
techniques
Implementation costs,
including raw materials
and training
Key definitions: investment entities
& financial sources
Investment
Entity
Households
Source of I&FF Funds
Equity and debt
Domestic equity (including internal cash flow)
Domestic
Domestic
borrowingfor
(bonds
loans)
Identification of the entities
responsible
the and
investment
Corporations
Foreign direct investment (FDI)
decisions, andForeign
the sources
of the funds that are invested, is an
Foreign borrowing (loans)
important component ofForeign
an I&FF
because this
aidassessment
(ODA)B
information isDomestic
the starting
point for
the
evaluation of policies to
Domestic
funds
(budgetary)
change those decisions. Foreign borrowing (bonds and loans)
Government
Foreign
Bilateral foreign aid (bilateral ODA)
Multilateral foreign aid (multilateral ODA)
B
Domestic
ODA (official development assistance) provided to private corporations is primarily
foreign aid that is given to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Presentation overview
Introduction (25 mins)
• Context
• I&FF methodology overview
• Key results
• Clarifications
I&FF Methodology: in depth (25 mins)
• Key definitions
• Approach
• Example: Namibia electricity generation
Discussion (40 mins)
Steps in the Sectoral
Assessments of I&FF
to Address Climate
Change
1. Establish key parameters of assessment
• Define detailed scope of the sector
• Identify preliminary mitigation (or adaptation)
measures
•
I&FF does not quantify co-benefits, however qualitative
assessment is recommended
• Specify assessment period & base year
•
•
Base year 2005 recommended (or latest available)
Assessment period of 2005-2030 recommended
• Select analytical approach
2. Compile historical I&FF data and other input data for scenarios
•
•
•
Compile annual I&FF data, disaggregated by
investment entity, source, & investment flow
versus financial flow
Compile annual historical O&M data,
disaggregated by investment entity & source
Compile other input data for scenarios
2. Compile historical I&FF
data and other input data
for scenarios
Compile historical annual data on investments, financial
flows, and operation & maintenance costs
• At least 3 to 10 years of historical data should be collected
• I&FF data should be
– Compiled for each investment type
– Annual
– Disaggregated by investment entity & source
– Divided into investment & financial flows
• Compile information about the expected lifetimes of the
assets in operation during the historical period
2. Compile historical I&FF
data and other input data
for scenarios
Cost accounting issues
•Constant 2005 US$ are recommended
•Costs for assets should be reported in the year in which
they are expected to be incurred
•Discounting of costs should be done – it is recommended
to apply one public discount rate and one private discount
rate
3. Define reference/baseline scenario
Describe:
Socioeconomic trends
Technological change/advances
Business-as-usual investments
Define model/approach to be used for the assessment
4. Derive I&FF for baseline scenario

Derive annual IF & FF estimates, disaggregated by
investment entity (households, corporations,
government) and source (domestic or external)

Derive annual O&M estimates, disaggregated by
investment entity & source
Sector is selected for Adaptation
 A baseline scenario & an adaptation scenario
will be developed for that sector
Sector is selected for Mitigation
 A baseline scenario & a mitigation scenario
will be developed for that sector

Derive annual IF & FF estimates, disaggregated by
investment entity (households, corporations,
government) and source (domestic or external)

Derive annual O&M estimates, disaggregated by
investment entity & source
Estimate the changes in I&FF needed to implement the
mitigation (or adaptation) measures in the sector in
order to determine:



How cumulative incremental I&FF will change
How annual investments will change
Calculating how the cumulative changes in IF & FF
between the baseline scenario & the climate change
scenario will change:
1. First, estimate the total IF & FF needed to
implement each investment type in the sector
2. Second, sum all the values from the first
calculation to estimate the total IF & FF needed
to implement all the investment types in the
sector
Examples from Costa Rica
Total cumulative sum of
investments (2010-2030) in
biodiversity sector, by
investment type
Baseline
Adaptation scenario
Difference
Total cumulative sum of
investments (2010-2030) in each
sector, by funding source
Calculating how annual investments between the baseline
scenario & the climate change scenario will change
First, estimate the IF & FF needed to implement each
investment type in the sector -- shows how investments
in individual investment types would change over time
 Second, estimate the IF & FF needed to implement all
investment types in the sector, for each source/
investment entity -- shows how investments by each
source/investment entity change over time
 Third, estimate IF & FF for all investment types in the
sector, & for all sources -- shows how total investments
in the sector change over time

Costa Rica: Annual additional cost of
investments (2010-2030) for biodiversity
& water sectors
Water
Biodiversity
8. Evaluate policy implications



Determine policy instruments & measures
to encourage changes in I&FF
Identify the entities that are responsible for the
significant incremental changes in I&FF
Determine the predominant sources of their
funds, important to distinguish between public &
private sources of finance
9. Synthesize results and complete report
Integrate I&FF results, & evaluation of policy
instruments & measures, across sectors, & across
mitigation & adaptation
Summarize objectives of study, methodology, inputs, &
results in report
Complete reporting templates
Investment & financial flows
example: Namibia (2011)
Sub-sector: electricity generation
Scope: national
Namibia context
•
Total electricity demand far exceeds local electricity supplies -total installed electricity generation capacity in mid-2008 was
387 MW, while the peak demand exceeds 500 MW
•
In 2005, some 50% imported from neighbouring countries such
as South Africa and Zimbabwe
•
Electricity demand expected to triple to about 10 TWh by 2030
•
Small population (2 million) over large land area (800,000 km²)
•
High total annual per capita energy consumption due to:
•
•
•
Energy-dependent sectors of mining and agriculture
Long transport routes
high reliance on imports of fuels, consumer goods and
manufactured products
Electricity generation – historical IF, FF
and O&M (base year 2005)
Electricity Base Year IF & FF Data, By Investment Type, Investment
Entity, and Funding Source (million 2005 US$)
Hydro
IF
Investment Entity Category/Source of Funds
Households
Domestic
Equity & debt
Total Household Funds
0,00
Corporations
Domestic
Domestic equity
Domestic borrowing
Total Domestic Sources
0,00
Foreign
FDI
Foreign borrowing
ODA
Total Foreign Sources
0,00
Total Corporation Funds
0,00
Government
Domestic
Domestic funds
0,00
Foreign
Foreign borrowing
0,00
Bilateral ODA
0,00
Multilateral ODA
0,00
Total Foreign Sources
0,00
Total Government Funds
0,00
Total Funds
0,00
Data Sources: Based on model calculations using data from various sources
Diesel
FF
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
Coal
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
O&M
Costs
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
11,52
0,00
0,11
0,00
0,25
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
11,52
11,52
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,11
0,11
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,25
0,25
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
Namibia baseline scenario: electricity
generation
•
According to 2005 Rural Electrification Master Plan, only 1/3 of
Namibia’s population had access to electricity (67% of urban
areas and 10% of rural areas)
•
Under the baseline scenario, assumed provision of power to
supply electricity to all households is through off-grid diesel
generation
•
Total cost of investments estimated at US$1,147 million
between 2005 to 2030 (NPV $US 2005)
•
BAU based on new hydropower, coal and diesel investments
•
•
•
Hydropower plants in 2012, 2013, 2017 and 2019
Coal plant in 2015
Diesel – rural electrification
Baseline Scenario: IF, FF, O&M Costs
Cumulative Discounted IF, FF and O&M Estimates by Investment Type,
Investment Entity and Funding Source (million 2005 US$)
Hydro
1200
Investment Entity Category/Source
of Funds
Households
Domestic
1000
Equity & debt
Total Household Funds
Corporations
Domestic800
Domestic equity
Domestic borrowing
Total Domestic Sources
600
Foreign
FDI
Foreign borrowing
ODA 400
Total Foreign Sources
Total Corporation Funds
Government
Domestic200
Domestic funds
Foreign
Foreign borrowing
0
Bilateral ODA
FF
Multilateral ODA IF
Total Foreign Sources
Hydro
Total Government Funds
Total Funds
IF
FF
Diesel
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
Coal
O&M
Costs
IF
0.00
0.00
0.00
97.69
97.69
0.00
0.00
1,024.82
1,024.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FF
O&M
Costs
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Household
Corporation
Government
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
550.26
0.00
235.82
O&M0.00
Costs
235.82
786.08
786.08
IF
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
204.65
22.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.55
FF0.00 O&M Costs
0.00
0.00
9.55
Diesel
204.65
31.84
204.65
129.53
0.00
0.00
IF
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.21
162.12
98.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
69.48
FF 0.00O&M Costs
0.00
69.48
Coal 0.00
11.21
231.60
1,036.02
231.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98.94
98.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Baseline Scenario: IF, FF, O&M Costs
Annual IF, FF and O&M Estimates by Investment Type (million 2005 US$)
400
Hydro
IF
Year
350 2005
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214.72
113.46
0
0
0
83.39
0
374.51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FF
2010
Diesel
O&M
Costs
11.52
9.74
9.20
7.70
7.21
7.23
6.69
8.49
9.07
8.40
7.78
7.20
7.56
7.00
11.04
10.22
9.47
8.77
8.12
7.52
6.96
6.44
5.97
5.52
5.11
4.74
IF
3.40
32.64
0.93
1.08
1.26
1.46
1.69
1.97
2.29
2.66
3.09
3.58
4.16
4.84
5.62
6.53
7.59
8.81
10.24
11.89
13.82
2015
FF
Coal
O&M
IF
Costs
0.11
1.04
0.29
0.89
0.25
7.84
9.41
10.75
12.32
14.16
16.30
231.60
18.81
21.72
25.12
29.08
33.68
39.04
45.26
52.51
60.92
70.71
82.08
95.30
110.66
128.51
149.252020
-
FF
All investments
O&M
Costs
0.25
6.49
2.22
11.07
4.79
4.18
3.87
2.69
2.49
1.54
7.35
6.15
5.69
4.71
4.36
4.03
3.74
3.46
3.20
2.97
2.75
2.54
2.35
2.18
2.02
2025 1.87
IF
3.40
32.64
215.65
114.54
1.26
233.05
1.69
85.36
2.29
377.16
3.09
3.58
4.16
4.84
5.62
6.53
7.59
8.81
10.24
11.89
13.82
FF
Planned investments
2030
O&M
Costs
11.88
17.28
11.71
19.67
12.24
19.25
19.98
21.93
23.88
24.09
Hydro
Total
31.43
32.15
Diesel
Total
34.97
Coal Total
36.82
44.48
47.94
52.24
57.49
63.83
71.41
80.42
91.07
103.62
118.37
135.64
155.85
Namibia mitigation scenario: electricity
generation
•
National Development Plan (NDP), Vision 2030 and the White
Paper on Energy Policy all commit to shift to renewable energy
•
Significant investments in solar power and wind power (high
propensity for both types of energy)
•
Energy efficiency programme to address 5% growth in energy
demand per year (simplifying assumption, the cost of the
measures are assumed to be half the value of the saving in
energy consumption )
•
Reduction of energy imports from 50% to 30%
Mitigation Scenario: IF, FF, O&M costs
Cumulative Discounted IF, FF and O&M Estimates by Investment Type, Investment
Entity and Funding Source (million 2005 US$)
Hydro
800
Investment Entity
Category/Source of Funds
Households
700
Domestic
Equity & debt
Total
600 Household Funds
Corporations
Domestic
Domestic equity
500
Domestic borrowing
IF
Diesel
O&M
Costs
FF
IF
Coal
O&M
Costs
FF
IF
Solar
O&M
Costs
FF
IF
FF
1.099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.099
Wind
O&M
Costs
IF
Energy Efficiency
O&M
Costs
FF
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O&M
Costs
FF
618
0
0
28
21
0
IF
6
0
256
192
6
448
0
0
0
0
192
0
0
11
12
0
0
Total Foreign Sources
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
192
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
6
639
550
205
22
10
0
42
57
1
0
236
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
O&M
Costs
10
0
IF
0FF
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
300
Total Foreign
IF Sources
FF
Total Government Funds
Total Funds
Hydro
0
618
Total Domestic Sources
Foreign
400
FDI
Foreign borrowing
ODA
Total Corporation Funds
200
Government
Domestic
Domestic funds
Foreign
100
Foreign borrowing
Bilateral ODA
Multilateral
ODA
0
49
0
11
236
O&M
Costs
786
786
IF0
0
0
FF 0 O&M10
205 Costs32
205
Diesel
32
IF
0
0
0
FF
Coal
10
Solar
0
O&M
Costs
42
42
0 IF
0
1.099
0FF
0
0
Wind
0
O&M
Costs
0
4
IF0
0
FF
0
70
0
0
0
O&M
Costs
0
6
Energy Efficiency
0
12
Households 0
Corporations0
0
Governments
0
0
0
12
25
0
0
82
1.339
0
0
1
24
Mitigation Scenario: IF, FF, O&M costs
Annual IF, FF and O&M Estimates by Investment Type (million 2005 US$)
Hydro
250
IF
Year
200
150
100
50
0
FF
Diesel
O&M Costs
IF
FF
Coal
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
Solar
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
Wind
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
Energy Efficiency
O&M
Costs
IF
FF
O&M
Costs
IF
All investments
F
O&M Costs
F
2005
-
11.52
-
0.11
-
0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.88
2006
-
9.74
-
1.04
-
6.49
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.28
2007
-
9.20
-
0.29
-
2.22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.71
2008
-
7.70
-
0.89
-
11.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.67
2009
-
7.21
-
0.25
-
4.79
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.24
2010
-
7.23
-
0.40
-
4.18
38.20
0.03
-
-
123.76
0.27
161.96
12.11
2011
-
6.69
31.84
0.77
-
3.87
9.01
0.03
-
-
114.60
0.50
155.44
11.88
2012
214.72
8.49
-
0.72
-
2.69
10.46
0.04
-
-
106.11
0.70
2013
113.46
9.07
-
0.66
-
2.49
12.16
0.05
-
-
98.25
0.86
2014
-
8.40
-
0.61
-
1.54
14.12
0.05
-
-
90.97
1.00
2015
-
7.78
-
0.57
-
1.42
16.41
0.06
69.99
0.61
84.23
1.11
2016
-
7.20
-
0.53
-
0.66
19.06
0.07
-
0.57
77.99
1.20
97.05
10.22
2017
83.39
7.56
-
0.49
-
0.61
22.14
0.08
-
0.53
72.22
1.27
177.75
10.53
2018
-
7.00
-
0.45
-
-
25.72
0.10
-
0.49
66.87
1.32
2019
374.51
11.04
-
0.42
-
-
29.88
0.11
-
0.45
61.91
1.36
2020
-
10.22
-
0.20
-
-
34.71
0.13
-
0.42
57.33
1.38
2021
-
9.47
-
0.19
-
-
40.33
0.15
-
0.39
53.08
2022
-
8.77
-
0.17
-
-
46.85
0.18
-
0.36
49.15
2023
-
8.12
-
0.16
-
-
54.43
0.21
-
0.33
2024
-
7.52
-
0.15
-
-
63.23
0.24
-
2025
-
6.96
-
0.14
-
-
73.45
0.28
2026
-
6.44
-
0.13
-
-
85.33
2027
-
5.97
-
0.12
-
-
2028
-
5.52
-
0.11
-
2029
-
5.11
-
0.10
2030
-
4.74
-
0.09
2005
2010
2015
Hydro Total
331.30
223.86
Diesel Total
12.63
13.13
105.09
11.60
Coal Total
170.63
11.55
Solar Total
92.59
Wind Total
9.35
466.30
13.38
1.39
93.41
11.59
1.40
96.00
10.87
45.51
1.40
99.93
10.21
0.31
42.14
1.38
105.36
9.60
-
0.28
39.02
1.37
112.47
9.03
0.33
-
0.26
36.13
1.34
121.46
8.51
99.13
0.38
-
0.24
33.45
1.32
132.58
8.03
-
115.17
0.44
-
0.23
30.97
1.29
146.14
7.59
-
-
133.79
0.51
-
0.21
28.68
1.26
162.47
7.19
-
-
155.43
0.60
-
0.19
26.55
1.22
181.98
6.84
2020
2025
Energy Efficiency
total
92.04
12.36
2030
Cumulative Discounted IF, FF and O&M Estimates
by Investment Type, Investment Entity and
Funding Source (million 2005 US$)
Investment
Hydro
Diesel
Coal
Solar
Wind
Energy Efficiency
Entity/
Source of
ΔIF ΔFF ΔOM ΔIF
ΔFF ΔO&M ΔIF
ΔFF ΔO&M ΔIF
ΔFF ΔO&M ΔIF
ΔFF ΔO&M ΔIF
ΔFF ΔO&M
Funds
Households
0
0 -98
-1025
0
0 1,099
4
0
0 618
11
Corporations 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
6 639
12
Government 0
0
0
-1 -232
-57
0
0
0
0
82
2
Total Funds
0
0 2-98
-1026 -232
-57
1,099
4
70
6
1,339
24
2
All investment
types
ΔIF
1,619
709
-150
2,179
ΔFF
ΔO&M
To achieve the mitigation scenario with lower CO2 emissions (from
1,927,270 CO e/t to 6,780 CO e/t) and increased energy self-sufficiency,
Namibia will need an additional US$1,649 million over 2005-30
1200
1000
800
600
400
Baseline
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Mitigation
Hydro
Diesel
Coal
Solar
Wind
Energy
Efficiency
Additional
-493
18
-57
-532
Incremental Annual IF, FF and O&M
Estimates by Investment Type (million
2005 US$)
Hydro
Year
ΔIF
ΔFF
Diesel
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
Coal
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
Solar
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
Wind
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
Energy Efficiency
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
All investments
ΔO&M
ΔIF
ΔFF
ΔO&M
2005
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2006
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-3.40
-7.44
-
-
38.20
0.03
-
-
123.76
0.27
158.57
-7.13
2011
-
-
-0.80
-8.64
-
-
9.01
0.03
-
-
114.60
0.50
122.80
-8.10
2012
-
-
-0.93
-10.04
-
-
10.46
0.04
-
-
106.11
0.70
115.64
-9.30
2013
50
-
-
-1.08
-11.66
-
-
12.16
0.05
-
-
98.25
0.86
109.32
-10.75
2014
-
-
-1.26
-13.54
-
-
14.12
0.05
-
-
90.97
1.00
103.84
-12.49
Hydro
2015
0
-
-
-1.46
-15.73 -231.60
-5.93
16.41
0.06
69.99
0.61
84.23
1.11
-62.43
-50
2016
-
-
-1.69
-18.28
-
-5.49
19.06
0.07
-
0.57
77.99
1.20
95.36
2017
-
-
-1.97
-21.23
-
-5.08
22.14
0.08
-
0.53
72.22
1.27
92.39
Coal
-24.44
2018
-100
-
-
-2.29
-24.67
-
-4.71
25.72
0.10
-
0.49
66.87
1.32
90.30
-27.47
Solar
2019
-
-
-2.66
-28.66
-
-4.36
29.88
0.11
-
0.45
61.91
1.36
89.14
-150
2020
-
-
-3.09
-33.48
-
-4.03
34.71
0.13
-
0.42
57.33
1.38
88.95
2021
-
-
-3.58
-38.85
-
-3.74
40.33
0.15
-
0.39
53.08
1.39
89.82
EE-40.65
150
2010
100
-200
2022
-19.88
Diesel
-21.93
-31.09
Wind
-35.58
-
-
-4.16
-45.09
-
-3.46
46.85
0.18
-
0.36
49.15
1.40
91.83
-46.61
2023
-250
-
-
-4.84
-52.35
-
-3.20
54.43
0.21
-
0.33
45.51
1.40
95.10
-53.61
2024
-
-
-5.62
-60.78
-
-2.97
63.23
0.24
-
0.31
42.14
1.38
99.74
-61.81
2025
-
-
-6.53
-70.57
-
-2.75
73.45
0.28
-
0.28
39.02
1.37
105.94
-71.39
2026
-
-
-7.59
-81.96
-
-2.54
85.33
0.33
-
0.26
36.13
1.34
113.87
-82.57
2027
-
-
-8.81
-95.18
-
-2.35
99.13
0.38
-
0.24
33.45
1.32
123.77
-95.60
2028
-
-
-10.24
-110.55
-
-2.18
115.17
0.44
-
0.23
30.97
1.29
135.90
-110.78
2029
-
-
-11.89
-128.41
-
-2.02
133.79
0.51
-
0.21
28.68
1.26
150.58
-128.45
2030
-
-
-13.82
-149.15
-
-1.87
155.43
0.60
-
0.19
26.55
1.22
168.16
-149.01
Discussion
•
What do you think of the applicability of the I&FF
methodology as a tool for supporting development of NAMAs
and LEDS?
•
Do you think the I&FF methodology yields useful results for
policy makers? If not, why not?
•
What do you anticipate would be the main challenges that you
would face in your country in applying the methodology (e.g.,
scenario development, specific types of data)? How would
you proposed to overcome these challenges?
•
Who would be most difficult to engage if you conducted an
I&FF assessment at home (e.g., the Ministry of Finance,
planners from key line Ministries, etc)?