Stock take of members’ reported use of Rio marker data

and practice for reporting to international conventions

Stephanie Ockenden

Development Co-operation Directorate, OECD

Introduction

1. Background: Objectives of stock take, evidence base and approach

2. Key Findings

3. Review proposals to improve the use of Rio marker data for reporting against quantitative financial targets and to international conventions

4. OECD DAC Secretariat engagement and expert input into these conventions

5. Summary

3

Background: Objectives of the Stock Take (Part II)

To support Task Teams objectives & Task A, notably: i) Facilitating improved use and understanding of the Rio markers through greater communication and outreach;

iii) Supporting international communities to clarify their information needs and to use or to build on the existing DAC data and systems, avoiding the need for duplicative systems; and

iv) To increase transparency and support greater accountability in reporting against the Rio Conventions.

Neither the objectives, nor outcomes of the Task Team, are intended to prejudge any outcome of the discussions under the UNFCCC or other Rio conventions. Aim to provide evidence, information and options in a timely manner to inform key international discussions.

4

Background: Evidence Base & Approach

Evidence base:

• Members’ survey responses: 22 DAC members – Thank you!

• Reporting guidelines and templates under the conventions

• Sample of Parties Biennial Reports to UNFCCC

Approach:

• Compiled evidence from review of surveys and desk research

• Focus on climate change and reporting to UNFCCC

• No triangulation of survey responses, Biennial Reports, OECD DAC Rio marker data.

5

Key Finding: Large number of members draw in Rio markers as a basis for reporting to the Rio conventions

Rio marker data (as reported to

CRS) Select Coefficient

Estimate Finance Flow for

International Reporting

Originally Rio markers designed to help preparation of National Communications/National Reports to the Rio Conventions

New financial commitments and a variety of reporting requirements, which differ by convention, change objectives and needs for finance data

A large number of members draw on Rio markers to provide the basis for their reporting to the UNFCCC, UNCBD and UNCCD on bilateral ODA.

But high awareness and recognition for the limitations of the Rio marker methodology for reporting quantitatively against financial commitments.

Many members adopting “innovations” for reporting to the international conventions – in particular applying coefficients to adjust the share of finance reported internationally:

6

Key Finding: Some emerging norms - the majority of members (around 80%) report 100% principal of finance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

≤ 10%≤ 20%

≤ 30%≤ 40%

≤ 50%≤ 60%

≤ 70%≤ 80%

≤ 90%≤ 100%

Nu

mb

er

of

DA

C M

em

be

rs

Share of Principal Rio marker data reported to Rio Conventions (coefficient)

UNCCD UNCBD UNFCCC

Source: Preliminary draft stocktake, summary of members survey responses

7

Key Finding: Use of the significant maker appears to be the issue when reporting quantitatively, where there are no common standards

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

≤ 10% ≤ 20% ≤ 30% ≤ 40% ≤ 50% ≤ 60% ≤ 70%≤ 80%

≤ 90%≤ 100%

Nu

mb

er

of

DA

C M

em

be

rs

Share of Significant Rio marker data reported to Rio Conventions (coefficient)

UNCCD UNCBD UNFCCC

Source: Preliminary draft stocktake, summary of members survey responses

• Different approaches and coefficients may relate to the nature of different member portfolios, and how the marker is applied.

• Comparability and the need for harmonisation are pressing concerns

• Some forthcoming new research in this area

8

Key Finding: Range of other adjustments and “accounting rules” further complicates the picture….

Range of other adjustments:

• Treatment of the overlap between adaptation and mitigation, climate and biodiversity

• Baseline calculations to support interpretations of new and additional

• Adjustments to reflect list of recipient countries

• Adjustment to reflect on some activities

Range of accounting approaches:

• For reporting on bilateral and multilateral ODA

• Reporting on a mix of commitments and disbursements.

• Range of approaches for financial metrics (i.e. use of exchange rates).

Reporting approaches open to interpretation - risks low transparency , double counting, and lack of comparability

Many members note that they draw on DAC definitions on these types of “accounting rules”, but this is not across-the-board

9

Key Finding: Reporting on OOF partial….

Range of comments were received from the members’ surveys.

Survey revealed that very few members are reporting on OOF to the Rio conventions to date. This reflects:

• not all countries have OOF-related instruments, and fewer have OOF-related instrument targeting objectives of the Rio conventions, hence reporting is not always relevant, and,

• the measurement and monitoring of climate-related OOF has been limited and is only partial to date.

Of members reporting to the DAC on OOF, only France noted that they do report on OOF commitments to the UNFCCC based on OECD methodologies.

10

Key Finding: Mixed approaches for Multilateral reporting

Unclear rules on how “bi-multi” flows should be treated when reporting to the UNFCCC - range of approaches..

Many member report only to a limited extent. For reporting to the UNFCCC, many report on special multilateral climate funds but few identify and attribute a climate-specific share of core multilateral contributions.

Variety of approaches adopted across a sample of members for reporting on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) to the UNFCCC - there is no consistent approach: • For the GEF, under half of the sample do not identify a climate-specific share of finance, whilst

the remainder apply a range of somewhat similar but slightly different attribution rules (i.e. 30%, 32%, 32.6%, 33%, 40%, 50%, 57%...).

• For the CIFs, the presentation is variable in terms of whether finance is identified by specific program, aggregated for the CIFs as a whole, or reported under the World Bank.

Number of members plan to report on multilateral climate-specific flows going forward based on OECD DAC imputed shares and efforts from the OECD DAC and IFIs - but timeliness is an issue and availability of data….

11

Key Finding: Mechanics of practical reporting and templates burdensome…

Significant calls for greater harmonisation and streamlining of reporting standards and formats to avoid additional administrative and reporting burden.

Harmonisation was also cited as important to improve data comparability, transparency and clear communication to a range of stakeholders (including recipients and civil society).

Suggestions to develop means to support practical reporting and compilation of tables, e.g. through automating approaches to translate Rio marker data reported to OECD DAC into a format suitable for reporting to the convention

OECD DAC Secretariat engagement and expert input into these conventions

Participation in the Long-Term Finance Expert meetings, July and September 2013

Participation in the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) meeting, August 2013

Submissions by the OECD to the SCF in July 2013 and January 2014

OECD-CPI consultation event at COP19, Warsaw

Bilateral OECD-UNFCCC Secretariat meeting, February 2014

Participation in the first SCF expert ‘mini-workshop’, March 2014

Participation in the BIP

Submission of data to the BIP (latest February 2014).

13

Summary

Responses to the survey reflected concerns that different reporting approaches risk undermining comparability and transparency of the data

Survey highlights the need for harmonisation in how the data are used for reporting to international conventions.

Question of how OECD can best support members and the international community in achieving this?