Developing nations encounter significant challenges in accessing the necessary finance to meet climate goals. The emerging ‘Data-to-Deal’ approach is a collaborative effort by 60 specialists, which aims to address this by providing a flexible framework of options, tailored to individual country circumstances, aiming to enhance core functions and capabilities; it serves as a basis for concrete action, informing capacity building, technical assistance, and research. This paper argues for the mainstreaming of a holistic approach to accessing climate finance by outlining the components of the Data-to- Deal pipeline and showing the effectiveness of Data-to-Deal through the demonstration of its successful implementation in Costa Rica.

This paper presents an innovative approach to addressing critical global challenges in long-term energy planning for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The paper proposes and tests an international enabling environment, a delivery ecosystem, and a community of practice. These components are integrated into workflows that yield four self-sustaining capacity-development outcomes. Planning long-term energy strategies in LMICs is particularly challenging due to limited national agency and poor international coordination. While outsourcing energy planning to foreign experts may appear to be a viable solution, it can lead to a reduction in government agency (the ability of a government to make its own informed analysis and decisions). Additionally, studies commissioned by external experts may have conflicting terms of reference, and a lack of familiarity with local conditions can result in misrepresentations of on-the-ground realities. It is argued here that enhancing national agency and analytical capacity can improve coordination and lead to more robust planning across line ministries and technical assistance (TA) providers. Moreover, the prevailing consulting model hampers the release and accessibility of underlying analytics, making it difficult to retrieve, reuse, and reconstruct consultant outputs. The absence of interoperability among outputs from various consultants hinders the ability to combine and audit the insights they provide. To overcome these challenges, five strategic principles for energy planning in LMICs have been introduced and developed in collaboration with 21 international and research organizations, including the AfDB, IEA, IRENA, IAEA, UNDP, UNECA, the World Bank, and WRI. These principles prioritize national ownership, coherence and inclusivity, capacity, robustness, transparency and accessibility. In this enabling environment, a unique delivery ecosystem consisting of knowledge products and activities is established. The paper focuses on two key knowledge products as examples of this ecosystem: the open-source energy modeling system (OSeMOSYS) and the power system flexibility tool (IRENA FlexTool). These ecosystem elements are designed to meet user-friendliness, retrievability, reusability, reconstructability, repeatability, interoperability, and audibility (U4RIA) goals. To ensure the sustainability of this ecosystem, OpTIMUS is introduced—a community of practice dedicated to maintaining, supporting, expanding, and nurturing the elements within the ecosystem. Among other ecosystem elements, training and research initiatives are introduced, namely the Energy Modelling Platform for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific as well as the ICTP Joint Summer School on Modelling Tools for Sustainable Development. Once deployed via workflows, the preliminary outcomes of these capacity-development learning pathways show promise. Further investigation is necessary to evaluate their long-term impacts, scalability, replication, and deployment costs.

The climate crisis requires developing countries to urgently decarbonize energy systems and mobilize finance while balancing competing priorities such as economic growth, energy security, environmental sustainability, and social development. However, many developing countries face challenges in developing long-term energy planning strategies, including limited capacity and reliance on external consultants. To address these issues, 21 international organizations and research institutions have developed five strategic principles for energy planning: national ownership, coherence and inclusivity, human capacity development, analysis robustness, and transparency and accessibility of data and tools. This paper discusses joint efforts to promote and apply these principles using science-based evidence and analytical modelling tools, such as the Open Source Energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS) and the power system IRENA FlexTool. These tools are part of a suite of emerging modelling tools to support climate-compatible development policies and have been included in accessible teaching material, online courses, summer schools, and capacity development programs.

As current production and consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries, many leaders have stressed the need to adopt green economic stimulus policies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper provides an integrated multi-stakeholder framework to design an economic recovery strategy aligned with climate stabilisation objectives. We first employ quantitative energy and economic models, and then a multi-criteria decision process in which we engage social actors from government, enterprises and civil society. As a case study, we select green recovery measures that are relevant for a European Union country and assess their appropriateness with numerous criteria related to climate resilience and socio-economic sustainability. Results highlight trade-offs between immediate and long-run effects, economic and environmental objectives, and expert evidence and societal priorities. Importantly, we find that a ‘return-to-normal’ economic stimulus is environmentally unsustainable and economically inferior to most green recovery schemes.

As humanity’s current production and consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries, many opinion leaders have stressed the need to adopt green economic stimulus policies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. This paper provides an integrated framework to design an economic recovery strategy aligned with sustainability objectives through a multi-criterion, multi-stakeholder lens. The aim is to enable decisions by policy makers with the aid of transparent workflows that include expert evidence that is based on quantitative open-source modeling, and qualitative input by diverse social actors in a participatory approach. The paper employs an energy systems model and an economic input-output model to provide quantitative evidence and design a multi-criteria decision process that engages stakeholders from government, enterprises, and civil society. As a case study, the paper studies 13 green recovery measures that are relevant for Cyprus and assesses their appropriateness for criteria related to environmental sustainability, socioeconomic and job impact, and climate resilience. The results highlight trade-offs between immediate and long-run effects, between economic and environmental objectives, and between expert evidence and societal priorities. Importantly, the paper finds that a “return-to-normal†economic stimulus is not only environmentally unsustainable, but also economically inferior to most green recovery schemes.

We briefly consider the tensions between climate change and energy security policy imperatives, and highlight some concepts that may bring additional clarity to decision-making at the nexus of the two areas. We focus on developing countries and use the case of the Medupi supercritical coal plant in South Africa. The justification for the plant's construction stemmed from an Integrated Resource Planning process informed by South Africa's national utility. Often, as in the case of South Africa, there are tensions not easily captured in quantitative algorithms between, inter alia, a lack of access to electricity by millions of people (and associated welfare losses) and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. It is difficult to identify any formal processes that have prioritised climate change considerations over those of energy access. Thus, it becomes imperative to have a clear understanding of the consequences of this reality when considering power system expansion. We find that the processes often employed do not provide an entirely satisfactory precedent for future planning analyses, and the justifications do not adequately reflect the complexity of the decision space. Finally, we highlight some options by which these tools might be enhanced in areas including explicit and formal consideration of risk.