Cape Town, South Africa Cape Town International Conference Center pptx

June 24–25, 2011
Cape Town, South Africa
Cape Town International Conference Center
www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/partnership_forum_2011
Inter-American Development Bank
WORLD BANK GROUP
Asian Development Bank
Climate Investment Funds

Proceedings
June 24–25, 2011
Cape Town, South Africa
Cape Town International Conference Center
Proceedings of the Climate Investment Funds
2011 Partnership Forum
June 24–25, 2011
Cape Town, South Africa
Cape Town International Conference Center
Production by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in collabora-
tion with the Climate Investment Funds Administrative Unit
Design by The Word Express, Inc.
Photos by Francis Dejon, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Climate Investment Funds Administrative Unit
World Bank headquarters
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
www.climateinvestmentfunds.org
III
Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS . . . . 3

Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OPENING PLENARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Election of Partnership Forum Co-Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
MESSAGES FROM PILOT COUNTRY MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Forest Investment Program (FIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Pilot Program For Climate Resilience (PPCR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Clean Technology Fund (CTF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Program for Scaling up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries
(SREP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Dialogue and Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
CTF Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
EMERGING LESSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PPCR Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Governance Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Expert Group Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
BREAKOUT GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Tapping Growth Potential in Climate Change through Innovative
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Panel Presentations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
Discussion and Dialogue with Panelists � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21
Putting Science to Work: State of The Art in Climate Modeling
and its Role in The CIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Ongoing Challenges and Latest Developments in
Climate Modeling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22
Initiatives to Develop Regional and Local Climate Projections � � � � � 24
Financing Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Programmatic Approach to Financing Transformation � � � � � � � � � � 24
Finance for the Poor and Underserved � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 26
Greening Clean Energy Sources: Managing the Social and
Biodiversity Trade-Offs for Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Wind Power and its Environmental and Social Impacts � � � � � � � � � 27
Dialogue with the Audience � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 27
Panel Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 28
Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 30
Why Adaptation Should be a Priority for the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Perspectives for the PPCR � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 30
Keynote Address � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31
IV • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
Panel Responses � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32
Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 33
Small Group Discussions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 34
Wrap-up � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 34
Greening Growing Cities: The Challenge of Climate-Smart Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Leap into Green Growth: Promoting Clean Technology Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Strategies and Opportunities for Promoting Green Growth � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 36
Impact of Clean Technology on Growth and Social Equity � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 38
How Can We Get It Done? Working as Partners at the Country-Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Mexico’s CTF Investment Plan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 40
Panel Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 41
Climate Registry as a “Common Delivery Platform” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 44
Discussion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 45
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
UNEP SYMPOSIUM ON THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEAR-TERM
CLIMATE PROTECTION AND AIR QUALITY BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Messages from Pilot Country Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Emerging Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
WRAP-UP AND KEY MESSAGES: REPORTS BACK FROM PLENARY AND
BREAKOUT SESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
CSO Panel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 54

Greening Clean Energy Sources: Managing the Social and Biodiversity Trade-Offs for Wind Energy � � � 54
Tapping Growth Potential in Climate Change through Innovative Partnerships � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55
Financing Transformation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55
Putting Science to Work: State of the Art in Climate Modeling and its role in the CIF � � � � � � � � � � � � � 56
Why Adaptation should be a Priority for the Private Sector: Perspectives for the PPCR � � � � � � � � � � � � � 56
Greening Growing Cities: Delivering Climate-Smart Mobility � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 57
Leap into Green Growth: Promoting Clean Technology Manufacturing � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 57
How Can We Get it Done? Working as Partners at the Country Level� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 58
UNEP Symposium on the Opportunities for Near-term Climate Protection and Air Quality Benefits � � � � 58
CLOSING PLENARY REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
PRESS CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
SIDE EVENT: THE ROLE OF GENDER IN MITIGATION EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
V
List of
Abbreviations
ACMAD African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development
ADB Asian Development Bank
AfDB African Development Bank
BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, Germany
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CIC Climate Innovation Center
CIF Climate Investment Funds
CMS Convention on Migratory Species
COP 17 17th Conference of the Parties, UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
CTF Clean Technology Fund
DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FIP Forest Investment Program
GCM Global Climate Model
GEF Global Environment Facility
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFC International Finance Corporation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LAMATA Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDB Multilateral Development Bank
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MENA Middle East and North Africa
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience
PPP Public-Private Partnership
REDD reduced emissions from avoided degradation and deforestation
in developing countries
REDD+ REDD plus conservation, sustainable management of forests
and enhancement of forest carbon stocks
SADC Southern African Development Community
SCCF Special Climate Change Fund
VI • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
SCF Strategic Climate Fund
SGP Small Grants Programme
SREP Program for Scaling Up Renewable Energy in Low-Income Countries
SPCR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience

UK United Kingdom
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNICEF UN Fund for Children
WFP World Food Programme
WMO World Meteorological Organization
1
Introduction
The 2011 Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Partnership Forum took place on
June 24–25 June, 2011 in Cape Town, South Africa. The Forum was organized
by the CIF Administrative Unit based at the World Bank and the African De-
velopment Bank (AfDB), in collaboration with other multilateral development
bank (MDB) partners.
1
It brought together nearly 500 participants, includ-
ing representatives of all CIF stakeholder groups: developed and developing
country governments, intergovernmental and bilateral organizations, United
Nations (UN) agencies, non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples,
the private sector, and science and technology experts.
Three years into the CIF and with 45 countries already running CIF-support-
ed pilot programs, the aim of the 2011 Partnership Forum was to provide an
opportunity for CIF stakeholders to share their experiences about how the
CIF is working in their countries, exchange lessons learned about what is most
effective and discuss how the CIF can be expanded or improved and share
on-the-ground achievements, challenges and knowledge, and help other CIF
stakeholders apply lessons learned. In particular, the Forum gave participants
an opportunity to reflect on the current status of all of the CIF funds and
programs: the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), Forest Investment Program
(FIP), Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and Program for Scaling

Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries (SREP). The Forum also
aimed to raise broader awareness of the CIF and the country selection process,
provide feedback to the CIF governing bodies, and identify opportunities for
further stakeholder participation.
The Forum included a plenary session featuring stakeholder perspectives, cur-
rent findings from the 45 pilot countries, presentations on lessons learned in
the CTF and PPCR as the first two operationalized CIF programs, and experi-
ences and reflections on CIF strategic directions, results and impacts. In ad-
dition, participants convened in a civil society organization (CSO) panel and
eight breakout sessions on issues related to: private sector engagement in ad-
aptation; climate-smart mobility; promoting clean technology manufacturing;
innovative partnerships; climate modeling; financing transformation; biodiver-
sity and social trade-offs for clean energy such as wind energy; and working as
partners at the country level. A learning symposium on the latest developments
in climate science was held, as well as a poster exhibit showcasing evolving CIF-
supported programs and projects in the 45 CIF pilot countries.
The Forum was preceded by a series of meetings of pilot country representa-
tives of the CTF, FIP, PPCR, and SREP countries. In addition, CSOs also
1
The CIF multilateral development bank
partnership consists of the African De-
velopment Bank, Asian Development
Bank, European Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development, Inter-American
Development Bank, and the World
Bank Group, including the Internation-
al Finance Corporation.
2 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
convened a set of consultations for observer constitu-
encies in the days prior to the Forum.

The following is the agenda of the 2011 CIF Part-
nership Forum. These Proceedings provide highlights
of the presentations and discussions for each Forum
session.
Climate Investment Funds 2011 Partnership Forum
June 24–25, 2011 — Cape Town International Conference Center
Convention Square, 1 Lower Long Street, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
Schedule of Meetings
Friday, June 24
8:30am–1:30pm
Opening Plenary
8:30am–9:30am Opening Remarks
Bobby Pittman, Vice President, African Development Bank on behalf of Donald Kaberuka,
President, African Development Bank
Hon. Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Finance, South Africa
9:30am–10:30am Messages from Pilot Countries Meetings
10:30am–1:30pm Emerging Lessons:
•
Governance: Panel
•
CTF Programming: Learning Briefs
•
Experts: Panel
•
PPCR Programming: Learning Briefs
1:30pm–3:00pm Lunch
3:00pm–6:00pm
Break-out Sessions
Tapping Growth Potential in Climate Change through Innovative Partnerships
Putting Science to Work: State of the Art in Climate Modeling and its role in the CIF

Financing Transformation
Greening Clean Energy Sources:
Managing the Social and Biodiversity Trade-Offs for Wind Energy
Saturday, June 25
8:30am–1:30pm
Break-out Sessions
8:30am–10:30am CSO Organized Panel
10:30am–1:30pm Why Adaptation Should Be a Priority for the Private Sector: Perspectives for the PPCR
Greening Growing Cities – The Challenge of Climate-Smart Mobility
Leap into Green Growth: Promoting Clean Technology Manufacturing
How Can We Get It Done? Working as Partners at the Country-Level
1:30pm–3:00pm Lunch
2:30pm–4:30pm Climate Science Update (UNEP)
4:30pm–6:30pm
Closing Plenary
4:30pm–4:40pm Closing Statement on The Road to Durban
Hon. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Minister of Intl Relations & Cooperation, South Africa
4:40pm–6:30pm Wrap-up and Key Messages
3
A Brief
History
of the Climate
Investment
Funds
Climate change is considered to be one of the most serious threats to sustain-
able development, with adverse impacts expected on the environment, hu-
man health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical
infrastructure. It is expected to disproportionately affect developing countries,
especially the poor, thus making climate change a central consideration in
poverty reduction and development efforts. Recognizing this, the UN Frame-

work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the need to
provide additional financial resources to developing countries in order to help
them mitigate and manage the challenges posed by climate change. It was in
this context that the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) were established.
The CIFs, formally approved on 1 July 2008, are a collaborative effort among
the multilateral development banks (MDBs)
2
and countries to bridge the
financing and knowledge gap between now and a post-2012 global climate
change agreement. The CIFs were designed through consultations with vari-
ous stakeholders and are governed by a balanced representation of donors and
recipient countries, with active observers from the UN, the Global Environ-
ment Facility (GEF), civil society, indigenous peoples and the private sector.
The CIFs are comprised of two Funds, each with its own scope and gover-
nance structure:
Ç The Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which provides scaled-up financing
for demonstration, deployment and transfer of low-carbon technologies
with the potential to achieve long-term greenhouse gas emission reduc-
tions. Among other things, it funds low-carbon programs and projects
that are contained in countries’ national plans and strategies.
Ç The Strategic Climate Fund (SCF), which supports developing coun-
try efforts to achieve climate-resilient, low-carbon development through
2
The CIF multilateral development bank
partnership consists of the African De-
velopment Bank, Asian Development
Bank, European Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development, Inter-American
Development Bank, and the World Bank
Group, including the International Fi-

nance Corporation.
4 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
three programs funding new approaches to cli-
mate action with the potential to achieve scaled-
up, transformational action:
Ç Forest Investment Program (FIP), which sup-
ports efforts to reduce emissions from defor-
estation and forest degradation and enhance
forest carbon stocks by helping countries ad-
dress the drivers of deforestation and forest
degradation, and promoting sustainable forest
management;
Ç Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR),
which helps countries mainstream climate
resilience considerations into development
planning and action; and
Ç Program for Scaling Up Renewable Energy in
Low Income Countries (SREP), helping low
income countries exploit their renewable en-
ergy potential and move toward low-carbon
energy paths.
So far, donor countries have pledged US$6.5 billion
to the CIF, to be disbursed as grants, near-zero interest
credits and/or risk mitigation instruments. The coun-
try-led programs and investments, are implemented
with the help of the multilateral development bank
partners. Forty-five developing countries are currently
taking climate action with the support of the CIF.
With a strong emphasis on partnership and stakehold-
er engagement as the path to effective implementation,

and a commitment to knowledge as a central guiding
principle, the CIF convenes a yearly CIF Partnership
Forum to ensure effective lesson—sharing and stake-
holder involvement. In October 2008, an initial CIF
Partnership Forum was held at World Bank Headquar-
ters in Washington, DC, to provide an early oppor-
tunity to explore how best to promote dialogue and
open exchange on various aspects of the CIF and set
the stage for convening the Forum on a regular basis.
On March 18–19, 2010, the second CIF Partnership
Forum was held at Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Headquarters in Manila, Philippines, providing a plat-
form for stakeholders to reflect on the CIF’s first year
of operations, share their experiences and knowledge
gained, and extract useful lessons further implementa-
tion. It also aimed to share lessons learned from the
CIF design process and early implementation of CIF-
funded programs, in particular, from country-level
activities of the CTF and the PPCR, which had both
advanced to the implementation stage.
Three years beyond the CIF’s creation, the 2011 Part-
nership Forum was an opportunity to advance knowl-
edge and learning about the CIF among stakeholders
based on the expanded programs and operational ac-
tivities being undertaken by the 45 countries who are
undertaking pilot programs with CIF support.
Panelists discuss lessons learned, sharing CTF
experiences from Mexico and Turkey, and PPCR
experiences from Niger and St. Lucia.
5

The opening plenary took place on Friday morning, June 24, moderated by
Tumi Makgabo, Africa Worldwide Media.
Opening Remarks
The 2011 Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Partnership Forum opened on
Friday morning, June 24, with a series of opening remarks and a keynote
address. Bobby Pittman, African Development Bank (AfDB) Vice President
for Infrastructure, Private Sector and Regional Integration, read a message on
behalf of AfDB President Donald Kaberuka outlining the AfDB’s climate-
related work, such as green bonds, climate risk insurance, improvements in
market employment and expanding opportunities for green technologies.
He noted that although Africa has contributed the least to climate change,
the relative economic costs are higher than elsewhere, observing that climate
change casts a long shadow on Africa’s development prospects, including the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Pittman observed that over 600 million people in Africa lack access to en-
ergy, and also highlighted water challenges and dependency on agriculture.
He emphasized the AfDB’s work in the critical areas of sustainable forest
management and energy access, and stressed the need for climate finance so
that mechanisms can be put in place to meet Africa’s needs. He emphasized
the importance of making resources available to all countries, and allocating
them to projects and programs on the ground, as well as providing incentives
to the private sector to leverage investment.
Opening
Plenary
Pravin Gordhan.
6 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
In a keynote address, Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Fi-
nance, South Africa, said climate change is the central
issue facing humanity, testing man’s ability to overcome
adversity and the instinct to act only in one’s own self-

interest. He said the CIF is a pioneer, showing a new
way of addressing global issues and new coping mecha-
nisms. He urged “breaking the shackles” of the current
way of thinking on climate change, and stressed the
importance of political and administrative will.
Gordhan said the South African experience of na-
tional reconciliation provides an example of what
consensus building can achieve, by putting the needs
of the greater good above those of the individual. He
stressed the need for the right level of urgency, said
that reaching out to the most vulnerable requires
generosity of spirit and intellect, and emphasized the
importance of reconciling different interest groups.
He said the traditional paradigms of funding and aid
need to be transformed and the development trajec-
tory reformulated. He expressed hope that the delib-
erations at the CIF Partnership Forum would help
to move the discussions forward at UNFCCC COP
17 in Durban later this year and contribute to its
success.
Election of Partnership Forum Co-Chairs
Following the opening remarks, Renosi Mokate,
South African representative to the World Bank
Board of Executive Directors, and SCF Co-Chair
Andrew Steer, World Bank, were elected Partnership
Forum Co-Chairs. Mokate, highlighting South Af-
rica’s upcoming role as host of COP17, noted that
South Africa’s association with the CIF has been both
important and substantive, particularly in piloting
transformational technologies. She urged stakehold-

ers and delegates to engage in a Forum dialogue that
will result in constructive outcomes.
Steer highlighted the CIF’s origin, beginning three
years ago as a scaleable investment fund, underscor-
ing that the initial fund size of US$6.5 billion has
leveraged approximately US$40 billion in additional
funding. He said that CIF focuses on results and de-
velopment in a pro-growth manner. Stressing that
Africa receives the majority of the money disbursed
from the CIF, he lamented that the continent is still
not sufficiently engaged in climate change discourse.
Steer called for the swift operationalization of the
UNFCCC-proposed Green Climate Fund, noting
that it can learn much from the CIF as it is a “living
lab.” He said that much work still needs to be car-
ried out and discussed over the course of the Forum,
including feedback from the pilot country meetings.
Following these remarks, the plenary session contin-
ued with a series of working panels and discussions.
Bobby Pitman, Vice President, AfDB.
7
This session took place on Friday morning. Introducing this session, Tumi
Makgabo explained that in the days prior to the Partnership Forum, repre-
sentatives from CIF pilot countries had met to discuss their implementation
of CIF programs and projects and to exchange views and lessons learned
thus far in using CIF financing. She noted that pilot country meetings take
place twice a year for countries participating in the SCF, and once a year for
those participating in the CTF, and that the Partnership Forum provides an
ideal setting to learn about the discussions and main messages emerging from
these meetings. One representative from each pilot country meeting was then

invited to share the main messages from the various discussions held during
the meetings. The representatives were asked to describe the challenges and
opportunities faced in developing the pilot programs, discuss challenges faced
in engaging stakeholders during CIF programming, and highlight the most
important lessons from the meetings.
Forest Investment Program (FIP)
Victor Kabengele, Democratic Republic of the Congo, noted that the FIP
has great potential to support the accomplishment of national objectives of
forest management. To that end, countries are using existing institutional
Messages
from Pilot
Country
Meetings
Moderator Tumi Makgabo.
8 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
arrangements and have engaged with stakeholders
already active in forestry and climate change issues.
He noted that countries have identified several chal-
lenges, including the ability to bring relevant minis-
tries to the table, the need for coordinating REDD+
activities, the importance of overcoming socio-cul-
tural barriers including gender issues, and the lack of
capacity to implement and monitor REDD+ actions.
Pilot Program For Climate Resilience (PPCR)
David Kaluba, Zambia, said that work on vulner-
ability and climate resilience requires the participa-
tion of all sectors. This increases the complexity of the
national-level Strategic Programs for Climate Resil-
ience (SPCRs), adds challenges to the identification of
priorities, and makes coordination across institutions

and different government ministries a challenge. He
noted the importance of civil society involvement in
the development stage and providing a platform for
communities to learn from the programs. He high-
lighted different mechanisms and processes being pro-
posed for climate change, stressing that coordination
is a priority for countries. He described the process
of priority-setting across sectors, and said countries
have different approaches to choosing which sector
will take the lead on implementing measures to com-
bat climate change. He stressed that interacting and
creating partnerships with stakeholders is key to the
process. He also referred to the barriers preventing the
private sector from scaling up action in adaptation and
noted that governments could address those barriers
through information, regulation and finance. Kaluba
said the pilot country meetings provided platforms
where countries can pick up one or two things and
then use them to apply solutions to the problems in
their respective countries.
Clean Technology Fund (CTF)
Raúl Delgado, Mexico, noted that discussions among
pilot countries had underscored the challenge of al-
locating funds to climate change initiatives in devel-
oping countries where combating poverty is the main
priority. Delgado said that national and multilateral
funding was limited, and that resources and funds
from the private sector were needed as well. He said
long-term structural changes were also needed and
that all levels (state, municipal, federal) need to work

together to help align the private sector so that it can
work with governments. Delgado called for strong
leadership and civil society involvement from the
planning stages of programs to minimize perceived
risk, and attract more private sector involvement.
Program for Scaling up Renewable Energy in
Low Income Countries (SREP)
Narayan Prasad, Nepal, said the SREP provides op-
portunities for low income countries to address energy
constraints and exploit renewable energy’s national po-
tential. He referred to challenges such as the need for
countries to focus on immediate development needs,
providing basic energy and electricity services to the
poorest while trying to limit costs to ensure affordabil-
Victor Kabengele, Democratice Republic of the Congo.
MESSAGE FROM PILOT COUNTRY MEETINGS • 9
ity. He noted that while many ministries are linked to-
gether, they are not coordinating with each other. He
also highlighted the need to mainstream SREP into
the national development agenda, saying this was a
challenge as developing countries had numerous pov-
erty-related initiatives. He said all stakeholders must
be brought together and that while some gains have
been made in this regard, more needs to be done. He
said another challenge was to enhance institutional ca-
pacity to deliver results. He stressed the importance of
“preparation before transaction”, which would include
the acquisition of a good technical basis and internal
consultations. On monitoring and evaluation (M&E),
he noted that coordination was necessary at two levels:

externally among the external development partners
and internally between ministries. He said develop-
ment partners have their own reporting systems and
requirements, and that they are now trying to jump
into the programmatic approach.
Dialogue and Discussion
On overcoming challenges, Prasad emphasized the need
for a bottom-up rather than a prescriptive approach,
where available expertise on the ground is tapped. Del-
gado cited difficulties in identifying on-the-ground
solutions, which he said require planning and coordi-
nation. He said investments are risky, and that leaders
are needed to effectively coordinate and manage.
On challenges to stakeholder engagement, Kaluba
discussed the antagonism that may be present be-
tween government and civil society, as civil society
is often critical of government. He said civil society
must be broadly engaged in the design of SPCRs as
well as their implementation, monitoring and evalu-
ation. He said in many countries civil society is in-
strumental in designing SPCRs, and that civil society
engagement has become part of the process. He noted
difficulties with private sector engagement, observing
that their role and possible incentives to get them on
board were still being determined. He said the private
sector needed to be informed about climate change
issues affecting them and opportunities to partner.
Kabengele emphasized: improving engagement with
all relevant stakeholders, particularly civil society and
local and indigenous communities; ensuring political

commitment to help take the process forward; and
coordinating initiatives in order to avoid overlaps.
In the subsequent discussion, participants highlighted
issues related to, inter alia: enhancing participation
of all stakeholders; alleviating poverty to enable local
communities to access clean technologies; aid effec-
tiveness; low climate change literacy levels and the lack
of greenhouse gas accounting systems; mainstreaming
climate change science in the education system; the
efficacy of climate change campaigns; and lack of syn-
chrony between civil society and government actions.
On private sector engagement, Kaluba stressed that
businesses need to understand how climate change
impacts on them because the trend is for them to
take a short-term view. He highlighted collaboration
between government and institutions, which have
Naryan Prasad, Nepal.
10 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
climate change information, and business, which
requires this information. He also called for incen-
tives to encourage private sector participation. Rasad
observed that technology development has to be de-
mand-driven and take a bottom-up approach.
In closing, panelists summarized key lessons. Prasad
stressed blending together the knowledge of the sci-
entific and political communities, and addressing lo-
cal issues. Delgado highlighted the need to relay the
right message and perspective, and bringing the right
ministries on board. Kaluba emphasized the impor-
tance of country ownership, mainstreaming climate

change into development plans, and stakeholder par-
ticipation. He said that civil society is more in touch
with rural communities, and stressed incentives for
the private sector. Reflecting on the importance of
political will, Kabengele said that government is the
major stakeholder, but that all stakeholders should be
involved, including women. He stressed that the ap-
propriate business atmosphere was necessary for FIP
co-financing, that networking and communication
among all stakeholders was important, and that hu-
man and technological capacity building was needed.
Bobby Pittman, AfDB, Minister Pravin Gordhan.
11
Emerging
Lessons
CTF Programming
Robin Broadfield, consultant to the CIF Administrative Unit, shared lessons
learned from CTF country programming, specifically on the CTF investment
plans. He noted that the CTF objective is to accelerate low carbon growth
through a country-led process that reflects national priorities and operates in
a programmatic and partnership approach which taps the comparative advan-
tage of the MDBs and other partners. He observed that the CTF was the first
CIF Fund to get underway and that significant progress had been made, with
14 investment plans involving 17 countries endorsed and US$4.35 million of
CTF funds projected to leverage US$35 billion of co-financing from national
governments, private sector, the MDBs and bilateral donors. He said 21 proj-
ects were now approved for total CTF funding of US$1.45 billion.
Highlighting current activities, Broadfield said this now involved coordi-
nating an information gathering exercise from stakeholders to learn from
this phase to help orient future investment planning. He outlined lessons

learned, including: continued country leadership; transformation of rel-
evant sectors; inter-stakeholder partnerships; and increased private sector
involvement. On country leadership, he highlighted that investment plans
must be fully aligned with national development strategies to strengthen
country ownership. He noted that this was effective and efficient when ex-
ercised by ministers of finance in tandem with ministers of planning, with
input and support from key sectoral ministries of environment, transport,
forestry and energy.
Broadfield said that transformational change is fundamental to the rationale
of the CTF. He noted that investment plans define how and how much they
Robin Broadfield, Raul Delgado,
Mexico, Elvan Ongun, Turkey.
12 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
will contribute to eliminating or reducing costs and
regulatory, capacity and financing barriers to market
transformation. He also noted that it was vital at the
beginning of the planning stage to identify targets,
strategies and actions for achieving transformational
change. He said the limited CTF funds and capacity
can be overcome by focusing on targeting niche mar-
kets with high greenhouse gas mitigation potential. He
said eliminating barriers to low carbon market growth
requires demonstrating the technical and financial vi-
ability of low carbon technology, reducing their costs
and increasing national capacity for deployment.
On unique partnerships, Broadfield highlighted co-
ordinated action and collaboration by governments,
MDBs, bilateral agencies and other developing part-
ners. He said that the most challenging dimension is
the relationship between the MDBs with each other

and with national stakeholders, noting that MDBs
have now developed extremely strong collaborative
working relationships and that they can and should
promote strategic dialogue if there are gaps in donor
assistance coordination.
Broadfield said that private sector engagement is an
important aspect, as they bring finance, technical
skills and capacity to the table. He observed that the
target of one third of financing from the private sec-
tor had been achieved, but that their involvement was
still less than desired. Going forward, he called for
sustaining leadership and setting market transforma-
tion activities and targets.
Elvan Ongun, Turkey, spoke on her country’s CTF
experiences, saying that the Treasury had taken the
lead in inter-ministerial interaction and that the CTF
was a catalyst to eliminate barriers to clean energy.
These barriers include: lack of financial resources due
to limited access to funding because of perceived risks;
and insufficient technical capacity of local financial
institutions for evaluating clean energy investments
and projects. She noted that insufficient technical
capacity is also a problem in the private sector. On-
gun emphasized that the CTF is essential in break-
ing down barriers and improving public knowledge
on new clean energy technologies. She said the CTF
also motivated transformations and fostered unique
partnerships between the private sector and MDBs,
eliminating duplication and creating synergies while
coordinating donors. She underlined that private sec-

tor engagement from the beginning of the investment
preparation phase was very important.
EMERGING LESSONS • 13
Raúl Delgado, Mexico, underlined the successful co-
ordination effort in Mexico between ministries and
national development programs, such as the national
development plan, national climate change strategy,
and climate change program, which defined specific
goals for reducing carbon emissions. He said it was
easier to channel resources toward initiatives when
a solid plan was developed, and noted that changes
to laws had enabled better distribution of internal
resources. Delgado stressed that climate change mea-
sures must be attractive and offer tangible benefits
to the public, and highlighted the effectiveness of
Mexico’s mass transport system program. He said it
was not possible for governments to know all project
details and urged sending the right messages to the
private sector. He emphasized that climate change
was a complex issue that must be addressed by mo-
tivating people through incentives to act, showing
them the costs and savings of clean energy measures,
and supporting inter-ministerial work to make cli-
mate change mitigation important and relevant
across ministries.
PPCR Programming
Erik Reed, PPCR consultant to the CIF Administra-
tive Unit, shared lessons on the early PPCR program-
ming phase, observing that the PPCR is the only CIF
program that focuses on adaptation. He said the fo-

cus is on building resilience and that the approach is
promising. He highlighted five lessons: country lead-
ership; unique partnerships; transformational change;
the private sector; and leveraging funds.
On country leadership, he said expectations must be
realistic, since there might be limitations on the gov-
ernment which may impact its ability to lead when
the PPCR is being developed. These limitations in-
clude: lack of experience; institutional financial and
human capacity limitations; demand in response to
emergencies; insufficient resources dedicated to cli-
mate change; and changes in government focal points.
On unique partnerships, he highlighted that MDBs
work closely together and consult with civil society
during the planning phase, which is perceived as an
improvement on business as usual. He also noted that
development partners have been instrumental in real-
izing greater resilience at the country level.
On transformational change, he noted that country
visions vary; for instance, Niger is using the PPCR
to reduce vulnerability to food insecurity and Ban-
gladesh is scaling up investments to coastal districts.
On the private sector and leveraging funds, Reed ob-
served that the private sector is impacted by climate
change and is also an important source of funding.
He noted that the approach to engaging the private
sector needs to be different. In Niger, for example, the
International Finance Corporation (IFC) is working
with private firms on an insurance scheme for crop/
livestock protection. He noted the need to leverage

Erik Reed.
14 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
the comparative advantage and resources of partners,
observing that governments and MDBs must do this.
He said that in Tajikistan, the UK Department for In-
ternational Development (DFID) is using the PPCR
as an opportunity to engage with the government.
Laverne Walker, Saint Lucia, provided an overview of
the PPCR process in her country. She emphasized that
the process was driven from a country perspective, en-
suring ownership and commitment at all levels and not
only within the public sector. She said that all the con-
sultants working in the country were nationals to help
build capacity at the local level and because of their lo-
cal knowledge. She described consultations with both
the public and private sectors, underscored that some
organizations and businesses had been strategically tar-
geted and that civil society had been engaged from the
onset, and noted that the approach to private sector and
civil society is not necessarily the same. She emphasized
that the approach to getting messages across had to be
specific to the group being targeted and that national
SPCR process is an adaptive management process.
Dan-Bakoye Chaibou, Niger, discussed his country’s
experience with the PPCR, noting the decision-making
process involved in deciding that the Ministry of Fi-
nance would take ownership of the PPCR process and
consult with other ministries. He underscored the steep
learning curve, as many had not even heard of climate
change, but said that people were prepared to work to-

gether, and that the aim was to enable the involvement
of the most vulnerable. Lamenting that information of-
ten does not reach the grassroots level, he underscored
the development of information campaigns. He said
over 800 NGOs were involved across the country. Not-
ing the importance of making the program relevant to
the private sector, he highlighted examples in his coun-
try where the private sector is involved around the is-
sue of irrigation. He discussed transformational change
both in the planning process and at the local level.
In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted:
ensuring local community involvement in the design
and development of projects and plans to ensure sus-
tainability; enhancing private sector and civil society
engagement; using MDBs to build local capacity and
encourage investment; and payment of concessional
loans in local currency. Noting similarities in lessons
learned from the CTF and the PPCR, one participant
asked why the utilization rate of funds available under
the CTF is so much greater than under the PPCR and
whether this was because CTF funding is in the form
of loans while PPCR funding is in the form of grants
or concessional loans, which may be more difficult to
obtain. In response, Broadfield noted that the CTF fi-
nances projects in high-capacity, middle-income coun-
tries, with low carbon development strategies already
prepared and discussed. Reed emphasized that the fo-
cuses of the two programs were different, and that the
CTF began operations a year earlier than the PPCR.
Governance Panel

On the effectiveness of the CIF’s equitable gover-
nance structure, Jan Sheltinga, PPCR Sub-Commit-
tee member, Canada, said that the committees are
Dan-Bakoye Chaibou, Niger, Laverne Walker, St. Lucia
sharing PPCR lessons.
EMERGING LESSONS • 15
functioning well according to their mandate with
equal representation from donor and recipient coun-
tries. On a key criticism of the CIF about involve-
ment of recipient countries in setting up structures
and functions, Forum Co-Chair Steer said that: the
CIF was trying to avoid falling into the trap of the
past where one group dominated; the UNFCCC ne-
gotiations had laid out what the right kind of balance
should be; and the CIF was designed to be commen-
surate with that. He said it was exciting to have such
a diverse group of countries addressing serious ques-
tions in a de-politicized manner.
David Kaluba, PPCR Co-Chair Zambia, said that
the empowerment of low-income countries to have a
voice in the deliberations has been critical to the pro-
cess. Jean Bernard Carrasco, FIP Co-Chair, Australia,
acknowledged a differentiation regarding participa-
tion in the different trust funds, noting that in the
CTF, recipient countries are more active than in the
SCF, where participation needs to be encouraged and
facilitated. He noted the Global Support Program
and the pilot country meetings aimed to facilitate this
participation. Ahmed Moosa, SCF and PPCR rep-
resentative, the Maldives, commended the opportu-

nity that the CIF provides to sit down together and
work out a governance structure that enables things
to move forward in a speedy and efficient way. He
said the Green Climate Fund was looking at the CIF
model, which could, perhaps, speed up the availabil-
ity of funds to the most vulnerable countries. He said
the first fund that was made available to the Maldives
was from the SREP.
In the ensuing discussion, a representative from Zambia
asked about linkages between the CIF and long-term fi-
nancing. Steer responded that the Green Climate Fund
should look at the CIF, as well as other funds, during
the design process. He highlighted that many lessons
can be learned from the CIF, including those related
to its focus on development and results, its country-led
approach, and its governance structure. Emphasizing
that the CIF Administrative Unit operates the US$6.5
billion fund with a very small staff, Steer commended
the CIF Administrative Unit for running the Fund in
a very nimble, low-cost and efficient manner, and for
empowering decision-making and pushing those de-
cisions to the implementing agencies. He contrasted
the CIF model with the Global Environment Facil-
ity (GEF), which is a smaller fund with a much larger
staff, noting that the GEF makes more decisions itself
and undertakes more analysis, and has the governance
structure to do so. Steer underscored that the designers
of the Green Climate Fund need to decide what kind
of model they want, recommended that the CIF could
be used as a template by the Fund, and said it would

be great if the Green Climate Fund could be “up and
running on day one” with billions of dollars being dis-
persed in many countries.
Sheltinga reiterated that the CIF had a sunset clause,
which would come into effect once an alternative
long-term climate fund had been established. and op-
David Kaluba, Zambia, PPCR co-chair.
16 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS
knowledge transfers between countries’ CIF repre-
sentatives, Kaluba responded that it was not nec-
essarily a question of having the same people, but
rather more a question of building capacity and lead-
ership at the state level, and said that governments
understand the need for consistency. In conclusion,
Steer said he believed civil society involvement had
enriched the process.
Expert Group Panel
The panel shared experiences related to selecting the
countries to receive financing under the PPCR. Dan-
erationalized. She pointed to other effective funds and
mechanisms, such as the Least Developed Countries
Fund (LDCF), the Adaptation Fund and the Special
Climate Change Fund (SCCF), as well as other UN
initiatives, and said lessons can be learned from the
CIF as well as from other mechanisms in moving for-
ward.
As a challenge, a representative from Brazil highlight-
ed the need to ensure that the voices of those who
are not participating in the committees are still heard.
Carrasco agreed with the idea of broader consulta-

tions and sharing of lessons, and underscored that the
Transitional Committee of the Green Climate Fund is
placing heavy emphasis on regional consultations. La-
menting that some regional representatives have little
communication with pilot countries, Kaluba called
for mechanisms to enable constituents’ voices to be
heard, said pilot countries have to create networks to
communicate, and noted the creation of a platform
where interactions between donors and pilot coun-
tries can be facilitated.
On policy measures to reduce overall CO
2
levels,
Ahmed Moosa said the CIF serves as a platform from
which developing countries could learn to develop
national policies. Regarding a question on ensuring
Daniel Riley, US.
EMERGING LESSONS • 17
that without proper local leadership, projects will not
be sustainable and highlighted the importance of the
role of NGOs in the design and planning process. An-
other participant, however, cautioned that there is no
set methodology for achieving project sustainability.
Participants stressed that if plans were successful on
a smaller scale, there is an opportunity to replicate
them at a larger level. One participant highlighted the
importance of involving the private sector and civil
society in addition to having country-led processes
for formulating successful plans and projects, while
another encouraged the use of MDBs to build local

capacity and encourage investment.
iel Riley, US, noted that the selection process has to
be legitimate and use the appropriate criteria. Rolf
Zelius, Consultant for the CIF Administrative Unit,
observed that feedback from a questionnaire had re-
vealed the need for clarifying the PPCR’s objectives,
measuring achievements and improving the assess-
ment of pilot country motivation and ability to de-
liver results. He said in the future, expert groups could
benefits from advice from the MDBs and the UN.
David Kaluba, Zambia, observed that the Expert
Group, which makes recommendations on the se-
lection of pilot countries, takes into consideration
the different capacities of countries in consultation
with the MDBs. Responding to the challenges faced
by the Expert Group, Richenda Van Leewen, UN
Foundation, explained that the mandate of the group
was limited to evaluating countries and not specific
transactions and projects. On the group’s composi-
tion, she also noted that the members were drawn
from different disciplines, as a deliberate attempt to
bring different perspectives, and that several group
members had worked with communities in a range of
developing countries, so the depth of this experience
was brought to the process.
In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted
the importance of ensuring local community involve-
ment in the design and discussion of projects and
plans to ensure sustainability. One panelist noted that
the process in Niger for design and planning showed

Andrew Steer.