Climate Finance Effectiveness: A Comparative Analysis of Geothermal Development in Indonesia and the Philippines
Author | Kathryn Chelminski |
DOI | 10.1177/10704965211070034 |
Published date | 01 June 2022 |
Date | 01 June 2022 |
Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Environment &
Development
2022, Vol. 31(2) 139–167
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10704965211070034
journals.sagepub.com/home/jed
Climate Finance
Effectiveness: A
Comparative Analysis of
Geothermal Development
in Indonesia and the
Philippines
Kathryn Chelminski
Abstract
In light of commitments made under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and Glasgow
Climate Pact, trillions of dollars are needed to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries. However, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of
climate finance or how it impacts barriers to renewable energy development in re-
cipient countries. This article contributes to the literature by investigating climate
finance effectiveness through comparative case study analysis of its impacts on geo-
thermal development in Indonesia and the Philippines. The article finds that three
mechanisms of climate finance—utility modifier, social learning and capacity building—
work interdependently in impacting the financial, regulatory, and technical barriers to
geothermal development in Indonesia and the Philippines but are individually in-
sufficient to scale the industry; political will and energy shocks play a significant in-
tervening role. This paper raises policy implications for climate finance effecti veness
and renewable energy technology deployment in developing countries.
Keywords
climate finance, Indonesia, Philippines, geothermal, domestic politics, renewable
energy, technology transfer, effectiveness, global governance
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Kathryn Chelminski, Affiliated Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Toronto, The Observatory, 315 Bloor St
W, Toronto M5S 1A1, Canada.
Email: kathryn.chelminski@utoronto.ca
Introduction
To avoid global climate catastrophe, the climate finance needs are immense. An es-
timated $1.6 trillion to $3.8 trillion is needed through 2050 for a full energy trans-
formation, and an additional $280 billion to $500 billion is needed annually for
adaptation in developing countries (CPI, 2019). In the wake of COP26 Climate Summit
in Glasgow, the urgent demands for climate finance increased, yet we still have limited
understanding of how effective climate finance is at achieving its aims of fostering
sustainable climate mitigation and adaptation in recipient countries. In this context, this
article investigates climate finance effectiveness through comparative case study
analysis of its impacts on geothermal development in Indonesia and the Philippines.
Located in the Ring of Fire, a seismically active area in the Asia Pacific, Indonesia
and the Philippines are the world’s two largest producers of geothermal energy after the
US, yet they demonstrate different trajectories of geothermal development. Despite
Indonesia’s superior geothermal reserves (∼24 GW), it has only developed approxi-
mately 9% of its potential, while the Philippines has developed 44% of its potential
capacity (∼4 GW) (DOE, 2019;MEMR, 2020). This raises the question of why there
are disparities in the advancement of geothermal development and, namely, why the
Philippines has developed nearly its full potential of geothermal capacity while In-
donesia has not. While the trajectories of geothermal development in these countries
diverged over the years, and despite delays in achieving capacity targets, Indonesia
surpassed the Philippines in 2017 to become the world’s second largest producer of
geothermal energy. This advancement is a manifestation of how the government, with
the support of international development agencies, has successfully targeted certain
barriers that have plagued geothermal development in Indonesia for decades; never-
theless, a significant gap between targets and the reality of renewable installed capacity
remains. Meanwhile, the Philippines led in share of geothermal resources developed
since the government, supported by international aid, prioritized development in the
1980s–1990s; however, this growth plateaued after primary resources were developed,
and the lull has continued ever since.
To address the barriers to and costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation,
bilateral and multilateral aid have played an important role in clean energy de-
velopment; both Indonesia and the Philippines have received substantial amounts of
funding earmarked for renewable energy, yet many barriers to deployment remain in
both countries. Multilateral development banks committed approximately USD 192.4
billion in global climate finance between 2015 and 2019, and of the 2019 financing
commitments, 76% (USD 46.6 million) were earmarked for mitigation (African
Development Bank, 2020). This article investigates the ways through which cli-
mate finance has addressed barriers to geothermal development in Indonesia and the
Philippines from the 1970s to 2020. Using the term “climate finance,”this paper
examines multilateral, bilateral, and transnational development aid for climate miti-
gation and adaptation, as well as the complementary funding for capacity building,
policy advising, and technical assistance, as it relates to geothermal development
specifically.
1
Through comparison of two cases, this research explores the interaction
140 The Journal of Environment & Development 31(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial