«Status of Climate Finance in Indonesia Country Assessment Report Dennis Tänzler (adelphi) Martha Maulidia (GIZ) August 2013 Funded by: Climate and ...»
3.2.2 Indonesia’s Public Finance and Budgeting Cycle The domestic budget process in Indonesia is initialized by the President’s vision, which is then translated into national and regional long-term, mid-term and short-term plans. These plans, that are evaluated and renewed every five years, serve as guidance for budget allocations at the national, regional and local government level. The current plan contains 11 national development priorities, three of which are related to climate change: food security;
energy and environment; and disaster management (including climate change related).
The administration of foreign assistance starts with a letter of agreement between the donor agency and the government. The Ministry of Finance registers the project and sets up an account to track the flow of the financial means. The relevant ministries prepare a work plan to be approved by the Ministry of Finance and BAPPENAS to ensure compatibility with national plans. Once these procedures are completed, the project moves towards implementation followed by monitoring, reporting, and evaluation and auditing. In its current stage, the MoF accounting system cannot yet track funding for climate change projects. This is because there are no criteria to separate mitigation and adaptation activities from other projects. BAPPENAS and GIZ have developed an aid information management system (AIMS) to track development assistance. However it does not differentiate climate change from other development projects.
Since the scale of climate finance has grown significantly in recent years, there is a need to provide appropriate mechanisms and modalities to access and deliver financing. Available financing sources can be accessed from public sectors, development banks, carbon market P a g e | 23 Strengthening Public and Private Climate Finance in Indonesia Final Report, August 2013 and private capital. There is a wide range of possible delivery mechanisms that can be considered in channeling public funds to recipients, including through the annual government budget, direct access (grants, loans and investments), export credits, debt swaps and many others. Mechanisms for channeling private sources include direct investment, commercial bank loans, asset financing, forward contracts, carbon credit, and payment for environmental services (DNPI 2009).
3.2.3 Climate Finance Institutions and Instruments in Indonesia As part of the developing climate finance architecture, national climate funds have gained some prominence. These funds are a type of mechanism that support countries in accessing and blending climate finance from multiple sources to fund climate change actions at national and sub-national levels. The Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) was launched to mobilize and pool multilateral and bilateral grants for financing national climate change policies and programmes. The ICCTF was initiated by the government to coordinate climate change activities in the country, increase accountability, and avoid lengthy disbursement procedures. The ICCTF has also the role of aligning donor assistance to national development priorities, improving access to financing, and facilitating private sector involvement in climate change.
The ICCTF is governed by a Steering Committee comprising members from various government ministries, and advised by a Technical Committee of staff from different ministries as well. Day-to-day coordination and Secretariat functions fall under the remit of BAPPENAS (ICCTF 2013a). The ICCCTF includes expenditure funds as well as revolving investment funds. The fund currently prioritizes three financing windows: land-based mitigation; energy; and adaptation and resilience.
Exhibit 4: ICCTF structure and operations (Source: ICCTF 2013a) The fund has a 3-phase design: phase 1 and 2 operate as an ‘Innovation Fund’, providing only grants - in phase 1 only to government (ministry) led projects, and subsequently opening up to regional and local governments, public-private partnerships, NGOs and universities in phase 2. Phase 3 is designed as a ‘Tranformation Fund’ which can generate revenues through revolving investments, opening up to private finance and carbon markets.
The phased design, with restrictions on type and recipients of funding in initial phases, has helped develop capacities and technical experience of both the ICCTF and recipient ministries. The ICCTF has not yet moved into Phase 3 as it is waiting for the government to P a g e | 24 Strengthening Public and Private Climate Finance in Indonesia Final Report, August 2013 draft policies and regulations for cooperating with private funding sources (Frankfurt School/UNEP 2012).
The ICCTF has funded three pilot projects in 2010, one in each financing window:
Sustainable Peat Land Management (USD 1.2 million, led by Ministry of Agriculture); Energy Conservation (USD 2.2 million, led by Ministry of Industry); and Public Awareness of Climate Change (USD 1.2 million, led by the Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics) (ICCTF 2013a). In July 2012, the Steering Committee granted approval of three new projects to be implemented between 2012 and 2014: Sustainable Degraded Peatland Management (led by Ministry of Agriculture); Community Forest Management (led by Ministry of Forests); and Health Vulnerability Assessment (led by Ministry of Health). The ICCTF currently has USD 5.7 million in remaining funds for disbursement to these and other approved projects (ICCTF 2013b).
Exhibit 5: ICCTF funded pilot projects in 2010
The monitoring and evaluation system used by the ICCTF focuses on six aspects: efficiency, effectiveness, impact, transparency, relevance and sustainability. The monitoring and evaluation process includes a pre-project assessment, monitoring and spot-checking, regular evaluations (mid-term and final); quarterly financing reporting submitted by projects, documenting and dissemination of lessons learned, and independent international auditing.
The Steering and Technical Committees will regularly receive the results of monitoring and evaluation. However, capacity for accurately monitoring and reporting GHG emissions reductions from mitigation activity is limited, in part because Indonesia still lacks a business as usual baseline for emissions (Frankfurt School/UNEP 2012).
In addition, the Government of Indonesia initiated the Indonesia Green Investment Fund (IGIF) under the Government Investment Unit of MOF. IGIF is aimed at leveraging private and market-based financial resources for low-emission development projects and programmes. However the operationalization of IGIF is still pending.
Other architecture related to climate finance delivery mechanisms, besides the national
funds, can be described in a rather complex picture as below:
3.2.4 Status of Climate Finance Flows Based on data from Climate Funds Update (2013), Indonesia has received the second highest level of climate finance commitments (excluding CDM financing) after India. Until late 2011, it was estimated that international public support for climate action to Indonesia had reached USD 4.4 billion. Donors’ activities on climate finance in Indonesia show a variety of modalities, institutions, and funding channels (Brown and Peskett 2011, MFF/CPEIR 2012).
In terms of volume, the vast majority of climate finance pledges have been in the form of loans (73%), and just 8% as grants, yet in terms of projects the trend is reversed: 82% of climate change projects have received grant funding while just 12% of projects were loan based. Majority of finance is coming from 7 large loan projects, 6 of which are from Japan’s Fast Start Finance, while the remaining concessional loan comes from the Clean Technology Fund. Most financing has gone into funding general mitigation projects (85%) or towards REDD (5%), with just 2% going towards adaptation action, and 8% towards multiple foci activities. In terms of project count, the proportions are more even – 43% of projects are mitigation focused, 34% REDD, 16% on adaptation, and 7% addressing multiple foci. Again, this means that mitigation projects, though not disproportionate in number, receive the largest share of funding.
Indonesia receives support under the “Fast-Track Finance” for 19 mitigation, adaptation and REDD+ programs. These programs include the Forest Investment Programme (FIP), the USD 30 million of Norway-Indonesia LoI, some programs under Germany’s International Climate Initiative, and programs financed by the Netherlands through the World Bank such as ASTAE, already counted in the USD 4.4 billion. Donor countries that have committed to providing the funds include the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Most programs are channeled bilaterally (11) while the remaining 8 projects are channeled multilaterally. Most donors provide grants while the Clean Technology Fund provides loans and the Forest Investment Programme allocates both grants (53.5%) and concessional loans (46.5%) of the total investment of USD 70 million. The total known commitment under the Fast Track Finance for Indonesia is around USD 616.5 million. Most of this amount has been counted in the total international finance of USD 4.4 billion calculated by Brown and Peskett (2011).
In addition to the commitment described in the two tables in the Annex to this report, other donor agencies have also pledged climate finance support to Indonesia. These include the US Millennium Challenge Corporation, which allocated USD 332.5 million (from total USD 600 million) to green prosperity, and the French Development Bank’s (AFD) pledge to Indonesia’s Green Investment Fund (the amount is still unclear). In addition, UK Climate Change Unit has committed GBP 50 million (or around USD 80 million) from 2011 to 2015 for climate change related activities in the form of grants and technical assistance. If the pledges materialize, Indonesia can expect total international finance of over USD 5.3 billion in the near future.
While this amount seemingly represents a relatively high value, certain conclusion could be drawn from an analysis of this situation. First, donor investment seems to be centered on REDD+ / land use related mitigation actions, which seems appropriate considering the high share of the emissions stemming from these sectors in Indonesia. GHG emissions scenarios, however, point to exponentially rising emissions from the energy sector in future and this is something donors need to consider when planning future financial support.
Furthermore, the systematic tracking, monitoring, and evaluation of international contributions to address climate change has not yet reached an adequate level, a fact which was confirmed during meetings and interviews with stakeholders. BAPPENAS and the Ministry of Finance would greatly benefit from such an improved system.
The CPEIR study estimated the use of state budget to finance climate change mitigation actions. The study tracked the Ministry of Finance’s budget codes up to program and activity
The total expenditure on climate change mitigation amounted to around IDR 5.5 trillion (around USD 579 million). The study concluded that budget allocations had increased significantly both in nominal and real terms, and there was an overall public expenditures increase of about 5%. The study further concluded that these trends are testament to the national planning system’s ability to foster a substantial increase in public spending on climate change mitigation actions (CPIER 2012).
Since the CPEIR report only focused on mitigation financing, there is no available assessment of domestic expenditure on climate change adaptation actions in Indonesia. A similar approach of tracking budget codes is much more challenging in the area of adaptation as there is no agreed definition on what constitutes an adaptation action exactly to enable its classification and tracking within the existing national budget.
P a g e | 28 Strengthening Public and Private Climate Finance in Indonesia Final Report, August 2013 3.2.5 Private Finance Private funding for climate change in Indonesia mostly centres on investments in the energy sector, especially in renewable energy, cleaner energy, and energy efficiency. An independent study by the Pew Research Centre revealed that global private funding in clean and renewable energy in 2011 grew to USD 263 billion (Pew 2012). According to the report, domestic and foreign private companies in Indonesia recorded more than five times the growth in clean energy investment in 2011 compared to previous years by spending more than US$ 1 billion.
A first attempt was made by the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (2012) to track the overall investment data in the past three years (2010-2012) on low carbon technology in Indonesia (see Table 3 in Annex 5). Meanwhile for foreign direct investment, certain sectors benefited as can be seen in Table 4 in Annex 5.
Since accurate data on investment in climate change are lacking, the two tables in Annex 5 may give an illustration of a first approximation of private contribution in several investment sectors. In general, both domestic and foreign direct investments show increased values from 2010 to 2011. Based on the types of projects in which private companies are likely to invest in low-carbon technology, several sectors become apparent such as agriculture, transport and others (see Table 4 Annex 5). These sectors indicate the possibility of a favourable investment climate. For domestic direct investment, these sectors combine a total of 31.4% of investments made in 2011. Meanwhile, in 2011 foreign direct investment, similar sectors account for 28.6%.