Second Experts’ Meeting of the

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT Task Team

on OECD Rio Markers, Environment &

Development Finance Statistics

Treatment of multilateral flows in

DAC statistics (RD 6)

Outline

1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC Secretariat on climate finance

2. Reconciling MDB data with CRS data

3. Calculating a coefficient for climate

4. Applying the resulting coefficient to members’ multilateral contributions to the MDBs

1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC on climate finance

Status of MDB Reporting on climate flows to DAC (May 2014)

AfDB Work in progress (preliminary data)

ADB Not started

EBRD Not started

EIB Not started

IADB Just reported (data received 27 May)

WB Reporting

1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC on climate finance

Proj ID Comm Amt CRS Code 1 % of CRS Code 1

CRS Code 1 Adaptation

%CRS Code 1

Mitigation %

P122319 200 21030 100 0 100

P125999 250 31140 100 100 0

P124174 200 23010 100 0 57

P129688 70 43040 100 79 0

P126542 30 31220 72 100 100

2. Reconciling MDB data with CRS data

Data can be uploaded in CRS format adjusted to store percentages:

Proj ID Commitment USD amount

CRS purpose

codeAdaptation

USD amountMitigation USD

amountOverlap

USD amount

P122319 200 21030 200 x 0%=0 200 x 100%=200 0

P125999 250 31140 250 x 100%=250 250 x 0%=0 0

P124174 200 23010 200 x 0% =0 200 x 57%=120 0

P129688 70 43040 70 x 79%=56 70 x 0%=0 0

P126542 22 31220 22 x 100%=22 22 x 100%=22 22

3. Calculating a coefficient for climate

Three steps for calculating a coefficient for ODA:

1. Sum of climate flows = adaptation (USD) plus mitigation (USD) minus overlap (USD)

= 3 020 + 3 192 – 1 215 = 4 997

2. Sum of total flows = 16 638

3. Share of climate flows in total outflows =

4 997 / 16 638 = 30%

4. Applying the coefficient to members’ multilateral contributions to the MDBs

« imputed multilateral contributions »

Australia 7.1 0.0 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.3 54.7Austria 4.4 0.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 58.7Belgium 7.0 6.4 11.6 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 76.5Canada 17.5 0.0 0.0 132.6 200.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.1 357.7Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.4Denmark 5.5 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 27.9EU Institutions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3Finland 5.6 10.6 3.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 41.3France 0.0 83.8 0.0 154.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.2 249.4Germany 35.7 25.7 14.1 226.1 0.0 25.7 4.0 0.0 12.6 344.0Greece 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.3Iceland 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7Ireland 0.0 0.0 1.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 11.8Italy 2.1 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.4Japan 48.5 0.0 0.0 409.0 377.3 87.1 2.4 0.0 21.3 945.5Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 36.1Luxembourg 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7Netherlands 16.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0New Zealand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5Norway 5.9 3.4 2.9 46.1 0.0 36.1 3.3 0.0 1.4 99.1Poland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.2Portugal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1Slovak Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5Slovenia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9Spain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4Sweden 0.0 17.0 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.7 102.9Switzerland 9.7 1.1 1.3 63.5 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 1.9 82.5United Kingdom 26.6 0.0 0.0 351.8 69.7 153.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 601.9United States 38.3 0.0 0.0 397.5 229.6 74.9 9.8 0.0 31.5 781.6Total 230.3 148.3 35.5 2199.0 876.8 382.3 25.0 14.8 103.1 4015.1

Imputed multilateral contributions

Members' contributions (disbursements) to international organisations multiplied by the share of outflows targeting climate change, USD million

Adaptation Fund

(100%)

Total imputed multilateral

climate change-

related aid

GEF(32%)

IDA(30%)

MontrealProtocol(100%)

GEFLDC fund(100%)

GEF special climate

change fund(100%)

UNFCCC(100%)

Clean Technology

Fund (100%)

Strategic Climate

Fund (100%)

Consolidated Review of Funds -

Annex 2 (RD 6)

Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)Identification of new “green” funds… 114 (out of 174) ODA-eligible multilateral institutions from the

Annex 2 list identified as potentially climate adaptation-, mitigation-, biodiversity-, desertification- and/or environment-related.

Of this, 21 relate to institutions that have already been contacted by the DAC for input (i.e. the World Bank Group, and regional development banks).

In addition members noted that six other funds should be considered for inclusion on Annex 2 list: Green Climate Fund (GCF), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Global Mechanism (of the UNCCD), Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

• Exercise revealed little information to estimate coefficients - highlighted that coefficients best derived from information provided by institutions…

Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)Task to be taken forward through collaboration & voluntary input… Highest priority - continue collaborative efforts to improve the identification

and measurement of green MDB flows within DAC statistics.

Top Priority funds – identified 10 funds that may be considered top priorities – both in volume and high-significance (apart from MDBs). These are: UNFCCC, UNCCD, GEF, GEF-LDCF, GEF-SCCF, CTF (CIFs), SCF (CIFs), IPCC, Adaptation Fund and the Montreal Protocol.

Priority Funds –37 funds identified that may be significant. To rank priorities based on volume and availability of information.

Secondary Funds –57 funds identified as potentially relevant, but considered of lower importance. The Secretariat does not propose to review these under the current work plan.

• Do members agree with the proposed priority-list approach?

Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)Current imputed climate-related multilateral contributions

12

Australia 7.1 0.0 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.3 54.7Austria 4.4 0.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 58.7Belgium 7.0 6.4 11.6 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 76.5Canada 17.5 0.0 0.0 132.6 200.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.1 357.7Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.4Denmark 5.5 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 27.9EU Institutions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3Finland 5.6 10.6 3.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 41.3France 0.0 83.8 0.0 154.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.2 249.4Germany 35.7 25.7 14.1 226.1 0.0 25.7 4.0 0.0 12.6 344.0Greece 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.3Iceland 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7Ireland 0.0 0.0 1.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 11.8Italy 2.1 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.4Japan 48.5 0.0 0.0 409.0 377.3 87.1 2.4 0.0 21.3 945.5Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 36.1Luxembourg 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7Netherlands 16.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0New Zealand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5Norway 5.9 3.4 2.9 46.1 0.0 36.1 3.3 0.0 1.4 99.1Poland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.2Portugal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1Slovak Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5Slovenia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9Spain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4Sweden 0.0 17.0 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.7 102.9Switzerland 9.7 1.1 1.3 63.5 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 1.9 82.5United Kingdom 26.6 0.0 0.0 351.8 69.7 153.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 601.9United States 38.3 0.0 0.0 397.5 229.6 74.9 9.8 0.0 31.5 781.6Total 230.3 148.3 35.5 2199.0 876.8 382.3 25.0 14.8 103.1 4015.1

Imputed multilateral contributions

Members' contributions (disbursements) to international organisations multiplied by the share of outflows targeting climate change, USD million

Adaptation Fund

(100%)

Total imputed multilateral

climate change-

related aid

GEF(32%)

IDA(30%)

MontrealProtocol(100%)

GEFLDC fund(100%)

GEF special climate

change fund(100%)

UNFCCC(100%)

Clean Technology

Fund (100%)

Strategic Climate

Fund (100%)

FundClimate-related

Coefficient

ODA Coeff

Global Environment Facility (GEF) 32% 100%

Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) (GEF-Administered)

100% 100%

Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) (GEF-Administered)

100% 100%

IDA 30% 100%Clean Technology Fund (CTF) (CIFs) 100% 100%

Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) (CIFs includes FIP, SREP, PPCR)

100% 100%

UNFCCC 100% 61 % Montreal Protocol 100% 100%Adaptation Fund 100% 100%

Is there a need to distinguish between climate adaptation and mitigation? Is this feasible? Is there a trade-off?

The CIFs are treated as two separate funds but is there a need to distinguish between the four windows to support consistency?

Proposed Methodology Need to estimate overall “green” multilateral finance flows &

provide data to facilitate members’ reporting to the Conventions. Proposal to estimate shares across the Conventions and also to

identify areas of overlap – reflecting where finance may target multiple objectives.

For the purpose of reporting to the Conventions, there may be a need to net out the overlap from totals, to avoid double counting.

Where information is available - look to distinguish between climate adaptation and climate mitigation (as well as biodiversity and desertification objectives).

Proposal would be to consider all climate-, biodiversity-, and desertification-related multilateral flows as environment-related by default.

Proposed Next Steps The Secretariat will take forward the task of estimating “green”

coefficients for funds identified as priorities - in line with the priority list and methodology proposed. Progress to be discussed in future Task Team meetings.

The Secretariat to develop a joint proposal on behalf of the Task Team to submit to WP-STAT in September:

• for the inclusion of new funds on the Annex 2 list: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Global Mechanism (of the UNCCD), Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF);

• for the separate identification of the three windows for the SCF (FIP, SREP, PPCR) through introduction of individual channel codes;

• for the assessment of the need to revise the ODA coefficient for UNFCCC (in 2015);

• for the introduction of individual channel codes to identify a number of bilateral funds;