THE CLIMATE-PUBLIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (C-PIMA)
A shift toward green public investment is a triple win:
💪 Reduces emissions and boosts resilience
🌱 Crowds in private money and unlocks climate finance
💼 Creates jobs, boosts growth, and improves quality of life
Green infrastructure investment is critical for an inclusive, sustainable, and climate-focused recovery. Green and resilient public investment is an important enabler for a sustainable recovery—it creates jobs, spurs economic growth, addresses climate change, and improves the quality of life. It can also stimulate much needed private sector investment. Attaining the Sustainable Development Goals while getting on track to achieve Paris Agreement goals requires significant infrastructure investment. The economic and social outcomes of this investment depend crucially on the efficiency of public investment management, including from the climate change perspective.
The “Climate-PIMA” (C-PIMA) adds a climate-responsive dimension into the PIMA framework and assesses countries’ capacity to manage climate-related infrastructure. The C-PIMA helps governments identify potential improvements in public investment institutions and processes to build low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure (see Policy Paper for more information).
The C-PIMA involves an assessment of the five institutions of public investment management that are key for climate-aware infrastructure: C1. Climate-aware planning. C2. Coordination between entities. C3. Project appraisal and selection. C4. Budgeting and portfolio management. C5. Risk management. Each institution is further analyzed along three dimensions that reflect the institution’s key features.
The C-PIMA also assesses the three cross-cutting issues equally important to managing climate-relevant public investment management institutions: 1. The legal and regulatory framework, 2. Information systems and 3. Government staff capacity.
(Click on the interactive chart to explore)
National and sectoral planning:
Are national and sectoral public investment strategies and plans consistent with Nationally Determined Contribution or other overarching climate change strategy on mitigation and adaptation?
Land use and building regulations:
Do central government and/or sub-national government regulations on spatial and urban planning, and construction address climate-related risks and impacts on public investment?
Centralized guidance on planning:
Is there centralized guidance/support for government agencies on the preparation and costing of climate-aware public investment strategies?
Coordination across central government:
Is decision making on public investment coordinated across central government from a climate-change perspective?
Coordination with subnational governments:
Is the planning and implementation of capital spending of sub-national governments coordinated with the central government from a climate-change perspective?
Oversight framework for public corporations:
Does the regulatory and oversight framework for public corporations ensure that their climate-related investments are consistent with national climate policies and guidelines?
Climate analysis in project appraisal:
Does the appraisal of major infrastructure projects require climate-related analysis to be conducted according to a standard methodology with central support?
Public-Private Partnership framework including climate risks:
Does the framework for managing longer-term public investment contracts, such as PPPs, explicitly address climate-related challenges?
Climate consideration in project selection:
Are climate-related elements included among the criteria used by the government for the selection of infrastructure projects?
Climate budget tagging:
Are planned climate-related public investment expenditures, sources of financing, outputs and outcomes identified in the budget and related documents, monitored, and reported?
Ex post review of projects:
Are ex-post reviews or audits conducted of the climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes of public investments?
Do the government’s asset management policies and practices, including the maintenance of assets, address climate-related risks?
Disaster risk management strategy:
Does the government publish a national disaster risk management strategy that incorporates the potential impact of climate change on public infrastructure assets and networks?
Ex ante financing mechanisms:
Has the government put in place ex ante financing mechanisms to manage the exposure of the stock of public infrastructure to climate-related risks?
Fiscal risk analysis including climate risks:
Does the government conduct and publish a fiscal risk analysis that incorporates climate-related risks to public infrastructure assets?
Legal Framework, IT System, Staff Capacity
Each institution is assessed on institutional strength (the organization, policies, rules and procedures on paper). The C-PIMA can include discussion of the effectiveness of these institutions where there is adequate information, but there is no explicit scoring of effectiveness at this stage (see C-PIMA questionnaire).
Three possible scores— 1: not met, 2: partially met, 3: fully met—are assigned to each dimension, and the average of the three dimensions within an institution produces a score for that institution. C-PIMA country scores are summarized in a chart. In the chart, the further away from the center, the higher the C-PIMA scores.
Assess institutional readiness and gaps in PIM against the backdrop of climate change challenges.
Support the development and strengthening of framework for addressing climate-related risks in infrastructure investment and facilitate access to climate finance.
Identify reform actions and explore capacity development support from the IMF and other organizations.
Learn from—and share experiences with—other countries that face similar issues and challenges.
The findings and recommendations of a C-PIMA are summarized in a concise report. The report presents detailed C-PIMA assessment across the five institutions and fifteen dimensions of the framework and formulates a set of recommendations in the form of a roadmap of reform priorities.
Note: Country borders or names do not necessarily reflect the IMF’s official position.
⚠ Some users may experience reduced functionality using Internet Explorer. For the optimal experience, use Chrome or another alternative browser.
|The development of the C-PIMA framework has benefitted from the financial support of the European Union.|