climate finance seminar moe - undp initiative 07th...

UNDP – Climate Finance Seminar – Report 1

UNDP

National Action Programme to Mainstream Climate Change into Lebanon’s Development Agenda

(Climate Change Coordination Unit)

Climate finance seminar – MoE - UNDP Initiative

07th -08th July 2014, Beirut, Lebanon

Summary Report

Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

Sonnemannstrasse 9-11

60314 Frankfurt a.M.

Tel. +49-69-154008-614

Fax +49-69-154008-670

[email protected]

http://www.frankfurt-school.de

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.frankfurt-school.de/


Table of content

Frankfurt School of Finance & Management .................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 4

2 Introduction to Climate Finance .................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Climate finance architecture................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Climate finance readiness ................................................................................................... 5

3 Recent/current experience in Lebanon with climate finance ................................................. 6

4 Shaping Lebanon’s climate finance architecture ..................................................................... 7

5 The (potential) way forward ......................................................................................................... 7

6 Opportunities, Barriers, Risks and Instruments in Climate Finance ..................................... 9

6.1 Barriers for Climate Investments ........................................................................................ 9

6.2 Barriers for Climate Investments ...................................................................................... 10

6.2.1 Defining Barriers (Slide 13) ....................................................................................... 10

6.2.2 Classifying barriers to climate Finance investments (Slide 14) ........................... 10

6.2.3 Policy implication of the identified barriers (Slide 21) ........................................... 12

6.3 Climate Finance Instruments ............................................................................................ 12

6.3.1 Facilitating supply and demand for financing (Slide 23) ....................................... 12

6.3.2 Project Risks (Slide 24-27) ........................................................................................ 12

6.3.3 Support instruments (Slide 28 – 34) ........................................................................ 13

6.3.4 Risk sharing (slide 35 – 36) ....................................................................................... 15

Annex 1: Agenda ................................................................................................................................ 16

Annex 2: Pre-Seminar Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 17

Annex 3: Evaluation of the Seminar ................................................................................................ 22

Annex 4: Exercise - Support Programs in Lebanon ...................................................................... 24


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

With regard to climate change and the required response, the National Action Program to Mainstream Climate Change into Lebanon’s

Development Agenda (Climate Change Coordination Unit) coordinates strategic planning, and communication with national, regional and

international partners, as well as the recommendation of financial mechanisms needed at the national level.

On request of various stakeholders, a seminar on climate change finance had been scheduled for the 7th and 8th July 2014 in Beirut.

Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance prepared and facilitated the seminar and 30

representatives from ministries, national agencies and banks attended the one and a half day event.

The main messages from the seminar and feedback from the audience are presented within this report.

1.2 Preparation

During the preparation of the seminar, UNDP kindly shared a document that introduced the institutional framework in Lebanon, UNDP’s

engagement in climate change, financial and fiscal measures and the role of the Ministry of Finance.

In addition, a pre-seminar questionnaire was shared with the audience to collect information about their expectations and specific topics

regarding the current climate finance context in Lebanon.


2 Introduction to Climate Finance

This session introduced the current debate on climate finance and provided an overview about available international funding sources and

eligibility criteria, as well as the importance of national sources.

Following an introduction to international used definitions for mitigation and adaptation, the audience learned that the international

community has not agreed on a definition for climate finance. There is no centralised system for tracking all relevant climate finance

flows, but recipients are responsible for reporting and the lack of an internationally-agreed definition of climate finance has led to a

range of individual reporting approaches being adopted.

The lack of clarity leads to uncertainty over estimates of spending. However, efforts exist to track recent investments. With reference to

the Global Trends Report in Renewable Energy Investment 2014, the audience learned about the new global investment in renewable

energy from 2004-2013. Although in 2013, investment in new capacity declined, renewable power excluding large hydro increased its

share of total world electricity generation from 7.8% to 8.5%. Costs of generation from PV and onshore wind have fallen in recent years

and some projects are now being built in specific locations without subsidy support.

With reference to the Global Status Report 2014, the audience learned that the renewable power capacity jumped more than 8% in

2013; accounting for 56% of net additions. However, not all installed capacity is generating electricity. For instance, in some countries,

preconditions do not allow systems to go “online”; e.g. because the transmission and distribution network is not growing as fast as the

RE infrastructure.

In comparison to investments in RE, actual investments for adaption to climate change are not measured, but actual investment needs

are estimated. Studies suggest that developing countries’ needs for adaptation actions may be in the range of USD 100billion - USD 450

billion a year.1

The main source is still coming from the public sector and the major focus of the private sector to date has been on supporting

mitigation activities. Nonetheless, the private sector is gradually turning into an important source of climate finance (e.g. through direct

project lending and credit lines; investments in own assets to increase resilience, and through creating value for others (e.g. designing,

manufacturing and distributing goods and services).

2.1 Climate finance architecture

International and national climate funding sources are diverse in their nature and origin; being public and/or private and international

(multi and bi-lateral) and/or domestic 2. Various disbursement instruments (e.g. grants, loans, subsidies, incentives, equity) are available to

address different recipients.

On the international level, developed (Annex I) countries pledged “new and additional, predictable and adequate” financial resources for developing (non-Annex I) countries (Copenhagen Accord/Cancun Agreements; UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16); USD30 billion in Fast Start Finance

between 2010-2012 and USD100 billion a year from 2020.

In addition, a range of multilateral and bilateral climate funds exists; in principal, a number of them are also accessible for Lebanon

(e.g. the Climate Investment Fund). However, the actual disbursement of funds is still low compared to the pledges/commitments.

Access to international climate funds is possible through intermediaries (i.e. the fund management and oversight are often taken over by

an international agency), or through direct access (i.e. that seeks to ensure country ownership; transferring financial ownership,

responsibility and capacity for the country to access, manage and be accountable for resources). The direct access is already practiced by

the Green Climate Fund (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund and in near future by the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

2.2 Climate finance readiness

In order to prepare for climate funds, the international community refers to Climate Finance Readiness; taking into account different levels of national capacities; including financial planning, accessing/mobilising finance, delivering finance, as well as monitoring, reporting

and verification.

1 ODI and HBS, 2013, Climate Finance Thematic Briefing: Adaptation Finance 2 GIZ, 2013, The CF Cascade


With regards to direct access to climate funds, a (National) Designated Authority needs to be appointed that functions as coordinator

and liaison between the fund and government, but also appoints a National Implementing Entity that accesses and manages funds and

can demonstrate the application of basic fiduciary standards (e.g. financial integrity, transparency and self-investigations) and special

fiduciary standards (e.g. project management processes and oversight). Taking into account the Adaptation Fund, so far only 16 countries

managed the accreditation process (to qualify for direct access). The major challenge for applicants when applying for Adaptation Fund

accreditation is to fulfil or demonstrate compliance with fiduciary standards.

International climate funds have limitations (e.g. volume, focus); therefore, national sources become an important sources of finance;

environmental taxes (or eco-taxes) or tourist taxes; e.g. in Belize - out of the general airport departure tax of USD15, a total of

USD3.75 is earmarked for the Protected Area Conservation Trust.

Until recently, bonds seemed to have little chance to be used as an instrument on pure market base for RE finance due to the risk

aversion of the public as well and the high transaction costs. However, a number of bonds emerged recently. About USD20bn of green

'labelled' bonds were issued in 2014 (Climate Bonds Initiative).

When it comes to structuring the national climate finance architecture, different scenarios are used by different countries. Some countries

establish new entities (e.g. National Climate Fund) or diversify existing entities (e.g. diversify an Environment Fund by adding climate

change tasks). Regardless of which form is chosen, what is important is that clear mandates exist for mobilising and managing climate

finance, but also to safeguard clear governance processes and ensure coordination between different agencies.

Measuring, reporting and verification

One crucial role of a national climate finance institution is the coordination of information for frequent measuring, reporting and

verification (MRV) to climate funds. MRV builsd on a sound monitoring and evaluation framework and a system that helps tracking

climate finance (i.e. clear earmarking principles). Overall, MRV of climate finance will account for how scarce public resources are being

used and also to strengthen public awareness of how taxpayers’ money is used. At present, there is no internationally agreed MRV

system; different stakeholders use different reporting requirements and solid sound monitoring and evaluation frameworks are missing in

many cases.

A decision prepared by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) is scheduled to be taken by COP20 in Peru in

2014 on the development of methodologies for reporting financial information, taking into account existing international methodologies.

Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review

The first step in building a climate fiscal framework on national level is to develop a methodology that allows an analysis to be made of

how climate change related expenditures is being integrated into national budgetary processes. A tool that helps governments to assess

the demand and supply for climate funds and the sources of funds available from domestic and external sources is the Climate Public

Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR).

The CPEIR investigates policy development, institutional structures and public financial management and improves the understanding of

the role and responsibilities of institutions involved in managing the response to climate change and their interaction, but also quantifies

climate change related expenditures in the national budget, and through other funding channels, providing a baseline for future analysis.

The Ministry of Finance, as the agency with overall responsibility for overseeing delivery of the approved budget, should have information

systems that are robust enough to allow it to monitor and track expenditure on a regular basis. For climate finance, national budget

expenditure codes need to be identified and assessments of the identified activities should then be conducted, with an estimate made of

the proportion of expenditure considered relevant to climate change on a scale of 0 – 100%.

3 Recent/current experience in Lebanon with climate finance

Lebanon has substantial experience in mobilising and managing climate finance; e.g. using finance from the Adaptation Fund and the GEF

(however through intermediaries, as the Wold Bank), the Environment Fund for Lebanon, the Lebanon Recovery Fund and the NEEREA

financing mechanism for private sector entities (subsidized loans for EE and/or RE projects, in addition to a grant amount).

Moreover, a new credit line by EIB and Afd (EUR 50 Million) is expected in 2014 to be channelled through the ‘Banque du Liban’ for

on-lending (to small-scale private EE and RE projects).

Most of the participants are familiar with the existing programmes – or at least have heard about them; however they expressed some

concerns (see Annex 4); e.g.

- “…processes are unclear (especially for members from the private sector) and seem not straightforward…”


- “…selection of beneficiaries should be improved; e.g. loans have been given to the real estate sector, which eroded the space for SMEs...”.

4 Shaping Lebanon’s climate finance architecture

Being asked with the pre-seminar questionnaire; which public agency in Lebanon has the mandate to mobilise and manage climate

finance in order to tackle national mitigation and adaptation targets, the answers varied. While some participants indicated that the MoF

has the mandate, others highlighted that the Ministry of Environment (MoE) or the Banque du Libanon (BdL).

Source: Pre-seminar questionnaire

The audience was introduced to the national climate finance framework of Indonesia. Different national climate funds (with similar

objectives) try to attract funding or refinance and thus confuse the donor community. In addition double structures (and associated

processes) may waste resources.

In order to mobilise climate finance, in a coordinated manner, from sources like the GCF (including through the direct access modality),

Lebanon may need to start structuring its national climate finance architecture; taken into account clear mandates for mobilising and

managing climate finance (e.g. via a national climate finance institution).

A national climate finance institution (NCFI) – or an organisation that gets the official mandate for managing climate finance – may

collect sources of funds and direct them towards climate change activities that promote national priorities, blend finance from the public,

private, multilateral and bilateral sources and coordinate country-wide climate change activities. Moreover, an NCFI may be in charge of

quantifying financial resources to be allocated to finance adaptation measures and emissions reductions and identifying financial tools and

mechanisms to be used for these measures and action. A NCFI may also provide a central hub for climate change units within various

line Ministries to make collaborative and inclusive decisions on climate change.

5 The (potential) way forward

Following the presentation and discussion during day one, it can be concluded that structuring Lebanon’s national climate finance

architecture requires some preparations.

The way forward could start with:

- A detailed mapping of existing institutions and activities related to climate change (finance); including a CPEIR;

- An institutional review to assess institutional capacities (for mobilising and managing climate finance) and select a potential

national climate finance institution(s), but also to identify the capacity gaps that need to be addressed - to ensure basic

fiduciary standards (e.g. financial & administrative capacity) and specialised fiduciary standards (e.g. experience with project

design, management and monitoring and evaluation, financial management) are in place;

- A stakeholder consultation to verify the selection of a potential national climate finance institution(s);

- A legal process to legitimise a NCFI (to provide an official mandate for climate finance);

- The application for accreditation for direct access to climate funds, development of a (bankable) project pipeline.


6 Opportunities, Barriers, Risks and Instruments in Climate Finance

As discussed in the previous chapter, Lebanon is already engaged in climate finance. However, there still exist areas where Lebanon has

opportunities to become active or more efficient in implementing mitigation or adaption measures. After shortly discussing the

opportunities of Lebanon, this chapter aims to develop a better understanding of what may be understood as a barrier to investment.

For a common understanding we first provide a definition of a barrier and their consequences. The following section then focuses on the

various instruments like to mitigate the risks of climate finance projects.

6.1 Barriers for Climate Investments

Lebanon’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC lists opportunities to engage in climate finance. This include.g. in:

Mitigation: Electricity (more than 12% of the fuel mix to be supplied by RE sources by 2020), Manufacturing, Industry,

Transportation, Building Envelopes, Agriculture, Forestry, Waste

Adaptation: Agriculture, Electricity, Water, Coastal Zones, Forestry, Public Health

Mitigation opportunities in Lebanon (Slide 10)

Main challenges for Lebanon in climate change can be categorized into three groups: i) constraints for the preparation of national

communications, ii) difficulties in implementing the proposed mitigation and adaptation measures, and ii) financial constraints.3

The present and the future of RE4:

- Wind energy is already cheaper than conventional energy

- In the future, renewable energy will become even cheaper and conventional energy more expensive. With external costs

internalised, renewables are much cheaper than conventional energy sources (insurance costs for nuclear power plants are

highly insufficient/ subsidies for conventional energy are higher than for renewables)

- The costs of solar power and wind energy have decreased

- Choosing the renewable path pays off in the medium- and long-term

Estimated demand for EE/RE finance in Lebanon5:

The Lebanese Government is determined to both reduce energy consumption (or the growth of energy consumption) and increase the

share of RE in its energy mix to 12% - especially for new buildings, will likely represent the primary focus of the credit line, followed

by captive RE, and grid-connected RE

EE and RE investments and potential loan demand of SMEs until 2015

- Expected needed loan amount in EE/RE supported by NEEREA: up to USD 208 million

- Expected loan demand for EIB/AfD facility: USD up to 75 million

EE and RE investments and potential loan demand of larger companies until 2015

- Expected needed loan amount in EE/RE supported by NEEREA: up to USD 132.6 million

- Expected loan demand for EIB/AfD facility: USD up to 45.8 million

Figure 1: Mitigation – EE opportunities: two examples from Lebanon

Rafik Hospital (surface area 54,410 m2)

Energy costs: 3,043,582 USD

3 Further barriers are listed in the National Communciation of Lebanon, p. 165.

4 HBS, 2014

5 Frankfurt School/Fichtner, 2012, Feasibility of an EE/RE Finance Facility in Lebanon – conducted for EIB.


EE investment cots: 6,312,328 USD (incl. solar hot water, IT-energy mgt. exhaust gas boiler)

Cost savings: 1,618,455 USD/year (simple payback: 3.9 years)

Beverage Company (23,000 m2)

Energy costs: 1,113,203 USD

EE investments: 827,327 USD (incl. lightening, solar hot water, process equipment)

Cost savings: 253,873 USD/year (simple pay back: 3.3 years)

Source: Frankfurt School/Fichtner, 2012, Feasibility of an EE/RE Finance Facility in Lebanon (conducted for EIB)

Adaptation opportunities in Lebanon (Slide 12)

The country faces land degradation, decrease in vegetation and severe water shortages. Although some parts of Lebanon receive

substantial rainfall, a large portion of this rainfall is lost due to evaporation and surface runoff. In addition, unsustainable use of the

water resources and pollution threatening water supplies. An increase in temperatures and further decrease in precipitation is projected,

which will impact groundwater resources, resulting in higher irrigation costs making the agricultural sector to one of the most vulnerable

sectors and require investments in demand management and increasing water productivity (including modern irrigation techniques and

irrigation scheduling, crop choice).

6.2 Barriers for Climate Investments

6.2.1 Defining Barriers (Slide 13)

The term “barrier” (synonyms: obstacles, hindrances, impediments, frictions) is used in different contextual environments in finance and

economics. There exist various definitions regarding to barriers in climate finances. As identifying barriers is frequently used for policy

design and sometimes the definitions explicitly refer to policies, we argue that a descriptive understanding of the term is not sufficient.

Rather, we suggest that defining barriers require at least implicit reference to the social optimum. One simple consequence of such a

definition would be: if barriers prevent the social optimum from materializing then, obviously, overcoming all barriers means to advance

the situation closer to the social optimum (see Table 1).

Table 1: Definition of Barrier

“A barrier to investment in renewable energy or energy efficiency is an issue that keeps projects from happening which SHOULD HAPPEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE WHOLE SOCIETY.”

Source: Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre of Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance

This definition implicitly highlights as well that it cannot be the goal (e.g. of public support) to make all climate finance investments

attractive! Some projects may just be too expensive and are also not attractive from a social (economic) point of view.

6.2.2 Classifying barriers to climate Finance investments (Slide 14)

After having established this definition, we will provide an overview of the major barriers to mitigation and adaptation projects. The

barriers are divided into five subgroups: policy/regulation, financial market, institutional barriers within a finance institution, technological

barriers, and psychological and behavioral barriers. Regulatory barriers are typically either created by or result from a lack of

government action. Regulatory barriers include laws and regulations as well as the state policy. Examples for RE/EE include fiscal barriers

through subsidies for conventional energy or lack of coherent policies to promote RE/EE. Capital market barrier restrict investors to

invest through e.g. insufficient liquidity of financial markets or capital controls. Institutional barriers are barriers within the within a

finance institution e.g. lack of appropriate financial products and lending policies. Technological barriers related to scaling up deployment

of RE/EE technologies like maturity level of the RES technologies. Psychological and behavioral barriers include factors which influence the

actor’s decision e.g. like social, behavioural and cultural factors.


Based on the discussion during the workshop, the barriers for Lebanon have been identified and are summarized in Error! Reference

source not found. (and Annex 4).

Table 2: Barriers to climate finance in Lebanon

Legal/Adminstrative Barriers Financial barriers Institutional barrier

- complex procedures

- lack of policies/strategy

- lack of operational law

- lack of enforcement of laws

- lack of standards/norms

- outdated laws (law 462)

- awareness of financial funds

- availability of funds

- financial incentives

- misinformation

- fossil-fuel subsidy

- reluctance (commercial banks)

- lack of technical knowledge in commercial

banks

- lack of coordination

- lack of communication

- confusion of roles/responsibilities

Social barrier Technical barrier HR

- lack of incentives & financial incentives

- lack of consensus

- lack of awareness

- technology not adaptable to project - absorption capacity

- lack of proper expertise

Miscellaneaous Political

- sustainability

- land availability

- lobbying power of owner of private gen.

- lack of political will

Through the discussion, all participants agreed that the following barriers are the most important to address for Lebanon:

outdated laws (law 462)

fossil-fuel subsidy

lack of incentives & financial incentives (social barrier)

Barriers to RE/EE from an investor and imperfect market point of view (Slide 15 – 19)

Understanding the reasons for the lack of investment is essential for identifying desirable projects that have not yet taken place.

Subsequently, we the barriers are filtered with respect to the two questions

a. Are the barriers the result of a so-called market imperfection? If so, what is the market imperfection?

b. How does the barrier appear in the investor’s coordinate system of risk, return and potential other issues?

c. Is this barrier typical for RE/EE, general barrier for all infrastructure investments or characteristic for all kind of investments

in new technologies?

From the investor’s perspective risk and return (and time horizon) are crucial decision factors for any investment finance decision as well

as other institutional issues like investment practices of institutions or traditional restricted investment and lending policies that hinder

the investor from the investment. The economic perspective covers market imperfections. Market imperfections result where markets, in

the absence of regulation, are not able to deliver the most efficient allocation of resources (not welfare maximizing / optimal to society).

In a simplified way, there exists market imperfections as soon as the maximisation of the own utility has a negative or positive impact


(externality) on the utility on another actor. Market failures for investments in RE/EE mainly occur in association with emission

externalities, technological spill-over, imperfect financial market, asymmetric information and other potential unjustified market distortions.

6.2.3 Policy implication of the identified barriers (Slide 21)

One consequence of the above introduced definition is that if barriers prevent the social optimum from materializing then, obviously,

overcoming all or one barrier(s) means to advance the situation closer to the social optimum.

The table therefore can serve as a guide for the national policy design: a policy maker or government can go through the lines of the

table one by one and prioritize the barriers according to the investment environment in his/her country. This has been done during the

workshop with all participants. The participants judged based on their impression of the previously identified barriers by ranking them

from 1 (very important) to 5 (not important). The evaluation of all participants show the following priority list of barriers to be

addressed in Lebanon (Error! Reference source not found.)

Once the government or policy makers have identified the barriers which should be addressed they have basically two general options to

address each barrier:

Either the policy maker could try to correct the market failure (e.g. through introducing a price on carbon it this is lacking),

or

he could compensate the “symptom”, i.e. the disadvantage that appears to the investor, e.g. through public investment

support mechanisms.

6.3 Climate Finance Instruments

6.3.1 Facilitating supply and demand for financing (Slide 23)

Once the barriers are identified, the public sectors has various possibilities to support supply and demand for financing. It might be

noteworthy to say that bankers and projects developers have a slightly different opinion of which support mechanism might be more

suitable.

The public sector can use various instruments to address barriers for mitigation and adaption projects. However, in some cases, the

public sector and private sector /project developers may have different opinions on the right instrument(s) but also the respective terms

and conditions.

6.3.2 Project Risks (Slide 24-27)

Renewable energy infrastructure investments do carry the standard risks that come with financing projects in the field. Some of those

risks can at least partially be diversified, when investing in corresponding RE infrastructure portfolios, but some of those risks specific to

the sector will stay. Then there are some risks coming into play when looking at RE infrastructure investments at a higher-than-project

level. Perhaps the most relevant of those risks are risks of a changing regulatory environment (e.g. Basel III or Solvency II) which might

change the attractiveness of the underlying portfolio, another risk is the so-called exit-risk, e.g., the risk that once a project has been

financed and successfully built there may not be someone willing to buy that project at a reasonable price (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: RE vs conventional investment projects

RE projects are different from conventional investment projects also in the energy sector due to some characteristics:

• RE can have a high amount of cost, especially for project development and investment cost, and have a very different cost s tructure with an

extreme up-front share and usually very low operational cost.

• As RE projects are very capital intensive they are extremely sensitive to the structure and the conditions of capital cost financing .

• They often have insufficient data for prudent project analysis, due to lack of accurate reports on the supply of “fuel” at specific sites.

• This uncertainty and the limited possibilities of control of essential factors like “fuel” create a difficult risk profile with an elevated ratio of high risk

factors or unclear risk, incl. the difficulties in guaranteeing cash flow.

• Due to their time horizon, RE have a very long exposure period to risk.


• To avoid further handicap of competitiveness in comparison to conventional power they need cash-flow adequate terms, i.e. - long to extra-long

maturities and interest rates in the lower range of the market

Source: Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

The major risk for RE/EE projects are typically either prominent in the construction phase (e.g. equity risk), operation phase (e.g.

performance risk) or during the whole life time of the project (e.g. legal risks). Supplementary, there exist risk related to a certain

technology, like the drilling and exploration risks for geothermal projects. However, the risk of the different RE is varying widely, giving

a wide range of risk/cost combinations as the playing field for RE finance6:

6.3.3 Support instruments (Slide 28 – 34)

Public and private sector actors offer instruments that attempt to mitigate investment risk in renewable energy and energy efficiency

infrastructure either directly or indirectly. There are policies or instruments which reduce the project risks through a change of the

framework of the RE/EE infrastructure projects. Besides risk mitigation instruments covering specific or all risks, capital support

instruments have an indirect risk-mitigation effect and institutional support instruments mitigate the risks as well (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Support instruments

Institutional

supportFramework of RE / EE Infrastructure Project

Finance Instruments

Risk Mitigation Instruments Capital Support Instruments

All RisksSpecific Risks

Source: Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

Framework of RE/EE Infrastructure Projects

There exists various strategies or processes to normally implement at the domestic level that provide financial incentives or create a

market for transactions for certain desired outcomes or improve the performance of the project itself. These measures directly reduce the

risks associated with the projects. Examples are Fiscal/financial incentives such as subsidies, CO2 taxes, energy and other taxes, Feed-in

tariffs/premiums �Market-based instruments such as GHG emission allowances, green certificates or white certificates.

Capital Support Instruments

Capital support instruments are financial tools that provide public capital (direct financing / Co-investments) and indirectly have a risk

mitigation effect. Also, the provision of capital at more attractive interest rates (due to the cheaper refinancing of DFIs/IFIs) can also

help to improve the financial viability of RE and EE investments. These include Direct Investment /Co-Financing, concessional loan

funding, dedicated private equity funds, equity-investments of Dev. Banks, Public-private partnership, grants and interest subsidies. Figure

4 provides more information about some instruments.

Figure 4: Selection of financial and economic instruments

Financial and economic Definition of instrument Examples

6 KfW, 2005, Financing RE.


instrument

Equity Input of capital contributions that is converted to an ownership

share in the project activity

Balance sheet financing

� Project-level equity

Loans Financing secured through borrowing money at a given rate over a

given period of time. The lender has no share in the project but

instead is only interested in the return of the investment . Loans can

be provided at market rate through financial institutions or below

market rate subsidised by the government

Zero interest loans;

� Low-cost loans;

� Micro-finance;

� Provision of

assets/technology.

� Cash loans;

� Technology/assets obtained

on finance;

Grants Non-repayable funds disbursed by a governmental or regional entity

conditional upon certain qualifications as to their use or maintenance

of specified standards

Technology grant scheme

Risk Mitigation Instruments

The risk mitigation instruments are used to transfer risks from one entity to another specialized in pooling risks together. Risk Mitigation

instruments can typically separate in to instruments mitigation all risks (e.g. portfolio insurance) or a specific risk (e.g. Swap).

Guarantees are risk management tools provided by the public to reduce project risks. They promise to pay an amount of fund based on

certain conditions. They can remove many risk-related barriers to investment, as they can mitigate a large number of risks including

non-payment, poor technological performance, poor market performance, or non-fulfilment of contractual obligations from within

governments or private entities.

A SWAP, for example, is an agreement between two counterparties to exchange something (one "leg" of the swap) for something else

(the other "leg"). For our topic, an important financial problem of RET funding are cross currency swaps which allow the management

of exchange risk, as foreign exchange is a special concern for many RET projects. Power projects typically generate revenues in local

currency, while their financing costs and investment costs are denominated in U.S. dollars or other hard currencies, creating the risk of a

mismatch in the development of the exchange rate between the two currencies.

Figure 5: Examples of insurances

Political Risk Insurance

The three classic types of coverage are protection against restrictions on the transfer and convertibility of currency, expropriation of project assets,

and damage to project assets as a result of political violence. Coverage against breach of contract or certain changes in the regulatory regime which

amount to “creeping expropriation” can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Political risk insurance (“PRI”) is provided by

• the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (“MIGA”), an institution of the World Bank Group;

• the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (“OPIC”), an agency of the U.S. Government,

• by export credit agencies, and

• by various private insurers , especially Lloyd’s of London

Weather insurance/ Weather derivatives

Wind-, precipitation- and stream flow-linked derivatives are most suitable for Renewable Energy projects and a growing market is offering this service.

Wind risk is defined as the risk of lower than expected wind speeds and hence generation, resulting in lower revenues.

Source: Worldbank

As an example of wind insurance, a wind farm operator may choose to purchase an annual put option, struck at 95 Wind Power Index

units. This would give him/her in return compensation if the wind falls below that level, thus reducing his/her risk considerably.

With such an instrument RE project developers/financiers/investors can remove volume risks that cannot be managed in any other way.

After completion of a weather hedge, developers are able to realise projects with higher gearing, reduced cost of capital and raised

return on equity.


Institutional support

The implementation of refinancing instruments is often complemented by capacity building for the involved financial institutions. In a

broader sense, institutional support instruments mitigate as well the risks through improving the knowledge and management skills, or

increased access to information. Institutional support instruments include public, non-financial interventions that usually target multiple

risks. This category includes technical assistance and capacity building activities, e.g. to improve the institutional processes as well as

improving databases or tracking-tool methodologies.

However, the impact of project developer/financier as well as policy maker on the different risks varies between low, middle and high. To

effectively have an impact on the barriers, the risk sharing should be analyzed as well.

6.3.4 Risk sharing (slide 35 – 36)

Risks are priced on the perceived risk, i.e. the investor/financier will determine the total costs of capital based on his refinancing costs

or “risk-free rates” plus a risk margin. In new markets and/or technologies the perceived risk might significantly exceed the actual risk

with investors “preferring” business-as-usual over innovative financing. With bi- and multi-national development finance institutions being

more familiar with developing countries, their perceived risk and consequently risk margins will most likely come in below that of private

sector investors and financers.

Another important question to clarify is to discuss: Who should take the risk from an economic point of view? Who can take the risk?

Who wants to take the risk? There is a general rule providing advice, which actors should take which kind of risk – at least from the

perspective of incentive compatibility (or from the perspective of avoiding moral hazard). That is that the risk should be taken by those

actors who have the best capabilities to influence the outcome (or the origin of the risk). Rather independent of the question who

should take the risk, there is also the question of who can actually take the risk. Not all actors have the (e.g. financial) capability to

take certain risks, being liable for certain risks may simply put them out of operation. Last but not least there is the question who

wants to take the risk?

Risk mitigation strategies (slide 37-38)

Risks can be shared either as a whole to different stakeholders, or different stakeholders absorb specific risks. For the purpose of

illustration we divide the risks into three categories: 1) risks that can be managed by the private sector (e.g. operational risks), 2) risks

that can neither be managed by private nor the public sector (e.g. hydrological risks or currency risk) and 3) risks that cannot be

managed by the private sector but can be managed by the public sector (e.g. regulatory risk). Assuming no public support in form of

guarantees or other risk mitigation instruments, the revenues per kWh need to come in at a level taking into account the total risk

margin as priced by the private sector to allow them to deploy debt and equity capital. One way to increase the attractiveness of the

project would be to allocate the risks of category 3 to the public sector, e.g. by providing a World Bank PRG (so-called vertical slicing

of risks). Construction grants or first loss investments by the public sector represent horizontal slicing, i.e. the public sector absorbs the

initial losses in all risk categories.


Annex 1: Agenda

Agenda Climate Finance Seminar (07.07 – 08.07.2014) Monday, 07.07.2014 – The national and international climate finance architecture

9:00-9:30 Registration

9:30-9:45 Welcoming words (MoE-UNDP)

9:45-11:15 Session 1: Introduction to Climate Finance

This session introduces the current debate on climate finance and provides an overview about available international

funding sources and eligibility criteria, as well as the importance of national sources. It is to help participants to get an

insight into institutional arrangements and political framework for mobilizing, managing and monitoring of climate finance.

(Presentation)

11.15-11:30 Break

11:30-13:00 Session 2: Lebanon’s Experience in Climate Finance

Lebanon has already experience in climate finance. By addressing the question - who needs to be involved and why - the important stakeholders for climate finance in Lebanon will be elaborated. Moreover, based on the experience and

knowledge of the participants, existing climate finance mechanism and instruments will be discussed. The focus will lie

hereby on lessons learned and the perceived impact.

(Interactive session)

13:00-14:00 Lunch

14:00–16:30 Session 3: Getting Ready for Climate Finance

Countries want to prepare for climate finance readiness. This requires on national level to decide on an institutional set up (with different players and roles). This session introduces different options (e.g. selecting an existing or establishing a new

institution) for getting ready – e.g. by introducing the institutional arrangements in other countries. Together, the

important steps will be elaborated to prepare for climate finance readiness.

(Presentation and interactive session)

16:30–17:00 Summary of day one and introduction to the next day

Tuesday, 08.08.2014 - Climate finance instruments

16:00-16:15 Recap of day 1 and introduction of day 2

16:15-17:45 Session 4: Barriers for Climate Investments

This session introduces the major barriers with regard to investments in mitigation and adaptation projects. Together, the

participants will categorise the major barriers experienced in Lebanon.

(Presentation and interactive session to elaborate the context in Lebanon)

17:45-18:00 Break

18:00-19:30 Session 5: Policy Incentives for Climate Finance

Various public policy incentives and financial instruments are suitable to address GHG emissions reductions and mobilise

investments in adaption and mitigation. With reference to the previous session and together with good practice samples

from other countries, an overview of different instruments and criteria that define effective policy incentives will be

discussed.

(Presentation and interactive session to elaborate the context in Lebanon)

19:30-20:00 Wrap up, evaluation

Closing words

20:00 Iftar


Annex 2: Pre-Seminar Questionnaire

Project title: The Climate Change Coordination Unit -Training on Climate Finance

Seminar implementer: Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

Explanation: July 7th and 8th, initiated by MoE-UNDP, a climate finance seminar will take place with the overall objective to inform

national stakeholders about climate change finance and climate finance readiness. In order to prepare for the seminar and respond to

your demand and expectations with suitable content and material, we allow ourselves to circulate a short list of questions and kindly ask

you to return your answers by 25.06.2014 to [email protected].

Please note - the purpose is not to test your knowledge, but mainly to verify some information we have and identify areas to focus on

during the seminar.

Questions Answers

Have you joined a seminar-type event before where climate

finance was made to topic?

If so, which event was it (organiser; topic and number of days)?

Are you aware about an official (international agreed) definition

for climate finance?

Which public agency in Lebanon has the mandate to mobilise

and manage climate finance in order to tackle national

mitigation and adaptation targets?

Substantial climate finance experience exists in Lebanon (e.g.

NEEREA financing mechanism) – Are you familiar with them?

If so, do you have any feedback; e.g. regarding effectiveness or

associated processes?

Are you familiar with different climate finance instruments that

can be used e.g. to mobilise private sector investments (e.g. how

they work and when they are applied)?

Are you familiar with the measurement, reporting and verification

(MRV) concept?

If so, do you know how to apply it in Lebanon?

Do you have specific expectations concerning the seminar

content?

What are they?


Evaluation: Pre-seminar questionnaire (17 answers)

Questions Answers

1 a) Have you joined a

seminar-type event before

where climate finance

was made to topic?

b) If so, which event was

it (organiser; topic and

number of days)?

1) Yes (similar)

2) Yes

3) No

4) No

5) Yes

6) No

7) No

8) Yes

9) Yes

10) Yes

11) No

12) Yes

13) No

14) No

15) Yes

16) No

17) No

1) Online course. Few hours

2) ESCWA/RICCAR (long term working group over a year) – Arab Water Council (2 days) – MOE

(1 day): first two mostly relating to climate change impacts on water resources / economic and

social impact assessment

3) -

4) -

5) Frankfurt Finance School, in Frankfurt (5 day course)

6) -

7) -

8) GIZ funder project on Adaptation of the water sector (ACCWAM project)- climate finance was

one of the three topics introduced during the regional workshop in Egypt in January 2014

9) UNDP LECB programme Annual Global Meeting (3 days – out of which 1 was Finance related)

Topics: creating the enabling environment to attract climate investments including policy tools, and

mainstreaming public finance into national budget planning for climate actions

10) Attended a three-day forum on Using Country Systems to Manage Climate Change Finance,

jointly organized by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Korea and the UNDP Asia-Pacific

Regional Centre.

11) -

12) I have participated in conferences that have touched on climate finance in different ways. On

the national level, these include workshops to prioritise NAMAs for Lebanon and the Beirut Energy

Forum where I've moderate related panels. On the international level my participation has included

in:

- UNDP "Global Forum on Using Country Systems to Manage Climate Finance" and UNDP/GIZ

"Governance Challenges of Climate Finance." 1-3 December 2013. Incheon.

- "Attracting Climate Finance for Low Emission Development." UNDP. 25-27 September 2013.

Hanoi.

- “UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP18)” climate change negotiations, 1 – 8 December 2012.

Doha.

13) -

14) -

15) In fact, few events discussed the mentioned subject, namely those organized by the BDL and

LCEC as well as international organizations like IFC. The subjects are mainly related to NEEREA,

NAMA’s, and financing energy projects.

16) -

17) -

2 Are you aware about an

official (international

agreed) definition for

climate finance?

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) No

5) No

6) I think there is no clear definition internationally accepted by all. As I understand it, climate finance is any

investment/expenditure that goes to any climate related action (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increase resilience to

climate change…)

7) Not really. But it could be financing of any activity (policy or project) which adapts to or mitigates against the adverse

impacts of climate change.

8) Officially no, but I think the term speaks for itself: it’s funding directed for climate projects

9) Vague definition (as I think there’s no agreed definition)

10) There is no specific definition for climate finance. Generally, there exists country led definitions of climate finance with

different characteristics; some emphasis on domestic, international, or public or private, or in mitigation or adaptation.

11) No

12) So far, there exists no internationally agreed definition for climate finance. The term is used to generally refer to

sources of climate change finance that could be public or private, domestic as well as international, for adaptation or

mitigation.

13) No

14) Yes


15) Not really; the concept is clear but I don’t have a clear and concise official definition.

16) very briefly

17) Heard about it and it should be the financing of projects that are climate friendly or help decrease the carbon footprint

3 Which public agency in

Lebanon has the mandate

to mobilise and manage

climate finance in order

to tackle national

mitigation and adaptation

targets?

1) All ministries, particular MoE as national focal point to UNFCCC

2) MOE / National Climate Change Coordination Unit

3) Ministry of Finance in association with Ministry of Environment

4) MoE in close collaboration with MoF

5) Ministry of Finance



8) Ministry of Finance – Ministry of Environment

9) No clear mandate. But since MoE is focal point of e.g., GEF and AF, all GEF/AF funding goes through MoE.

When it comes to energy related mitigation financing, MoEnergy and Water has mobilised funding without coordination with

MoE (or perhaps other entities as well).

10) The Ministry of Environment mainly, as it coordinates projects related to climate change.


12) The Ministry of Environment is the leader on climate change issues in Lebanon and has been taking the lead on

mobilising climate finance specifically. However, the Ministry of Finance directly negotiates loans (some of which are direct ly

related to climate changes issues) and has the mandate to track financing to Lebanon more generally with improvements

being instituted recently (ex. In the recording of grants). The Council of Development and Reconstruction has the mandate to

search for external funding for projects (which could be climate relevant).

13) Ministry of Environment

14) BDL

15) Both BDL and the Ministry of Energy and Water are working on financing green projects, which could be considered as

part of the national mitigation efforts (NEEREA).

16) Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and Water, Presidency of Council of Ministers, BDL, LCEC

17) MoE?

4 a) Substantial climate

finance experience exists

in Lebanon (e.g. NEEREA

financing mechanism) –

Are you familiar with

them?

b) If so, do you have

any feedback; e.g.

regarding effectiveness or

associated processes?

1) Yes. Not being used for climate mitigation as much as they should be. Or at least emission reductions are not being

reported.

2) Yes

3) Yes, but the details of the mechanisms. I feel this has had some positive impact in terms of having people shift to

renewable sources of energy and away from the conventional fossil fuel sources.

4) Yes. The process is clear and good but the selection of the beneficiaries should take into consideration a set of priorities

such as the need for financing especially that resources are limited.

5) Yes. Requires review of applications and capacity, to see if it is in line with objectives. If there are no objective, i.e ., no

RE strategy yet, objectives have to be set.

6) Yes, I am familiar with some of those mechanisms. I don’t have a documented feedback (just people’s opinions which I

don’t really know how to judge), and I’m not familiar with the processes.

7) Yes. However the process is not straightforward. A user friendly interface should be created where all the steps are listed

in order to make it a standard and easy process.

8) If GEF or any bilateral grant for climate change is considered, yes I’m familiar with all of them. I am familiar with the

processes since I am closely related to the preparation of proposals and getting funds. The process is effective as long as an

IE such as UNDP is involved.

9) Yes. The mechanism seems to be not used for development purposes, but more on commercial basis. Not clear how much

reduction has taken place – especially with the absence of baseline information collection while approving the loan

(especially during retrofitting projects).

10) Yes. This financing mechanism (NEEREA) is facilitated through commercial banks in Lebanon, but have proven not to

meet its purpose. The purpose was to encourage small investments in RE and EE projects for investors who need it most.

The bulk of the funds went to single large investments in renewable energy.

Also, the mechanism provided by the Central Bank of Lebanon to use part of the required reserves in development sectors

such as education, housing, the environment etc., showed that the high majority went to housing loans. Commercial banks

don’t show interest in prioritizing development loans (as expected in any other country), and the Central Bank did not

encourage this as well.

11) Yes

12) Yes. The general feedback on the process to access the NEEREA for example is that it isn't clear for all members of the

private sector. Also, with respect to effectiveness, there is evidence to suggest that the bulk of loans have been given the


real estate sector such as to LEED and BREAM certification. Since these loans tend to be quite large, they may have eroded

the space for loans to be given to SMEs and to more diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

13) No

14) a) To a certain limit. b) No

15) Yes I am; NEEREA has financed more than 150 Million USD of projects till date, quiet an effective mechanism.

16) Yes. I am aware of it as it is part of the environmental incentives provided by BDL.

17) No

5 Are you familiar with

different climate finance

instruments that can be

used e.g. to mobilise

private sector investments

(e.g. how they work and

when they are applied)?

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) Not very well

4) The LEPAP (Lebanon Pollution Abatement Project) is in its starting phases; it intends to facilitate the financing of

execution of Pollution Abatement projects at industries. The process is similar to NEEREA; an environmental audit is needed.

5) Medium knowledge

6) No

7) No

8) NAMA? Previously CDM

9) Yes

10) Aware of international best practices in a number of sectors, and trying to identify the optimal mechanisms that can be

applied in Lebanon. With a primary fiscal deficit, high debt-to-GDP ratio, and heavy reliance on oil to produce electricity,

the pool of climate finance instruments for Lebanon has to be studied carefully, as not to exacerbate its economic and fiscal

problems.

11) Credit lines, loans

12) Yes but I'd be interested to learn about best practices from other countries, the most efficient instruments and which

are recommended for different objectives, what pitfalls to avoid when designing and implementing these instruments

especially from the Ministry of Finance side.

13) No

14) No

15) Few ideas about NAMA’s, but not in details.

16) No

17) No

6 a) Are you familiar with

the measurement,

reporting and verification

(MRV) concept?

b) If so, do you know

how to apply it in

Lebanon?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Yes

4) No

5) Yes

6) Yes

7) Yes

8) Yes

9) Yes

10) Very broadly

11) Yes

12) Yes

13) Very broadly (I have an idea about the

concept)

14) No

15) Yes

16) No

17) No

1) No

2) -

3) I believe it is applied through the national communications to the

UNFCCC

4) -

5) No

6) No

7) No, I do not know how to apply it.

8) No

9) Yes

10) No

11) -

12) To some extent but I could definitely learn more here when it comes

to what MRV is expected on the finance side.

13) -

14) –

15) MRV is a complex system and probably it would be better simplifying

it to be adopted in a country like Lebanon.

16) -

17)


7 Do you have specific

expectations concerning

the seminar content?

What are they?

1) -

2) Yes – deeper and detailed information on how to access climate change finance and assess potential integration into

national projects

3) Yes, to learn a little more detail about the climate finance mechanisms and their applications

4) Yes. I would like to know more about possible sources/type of financing under “Climate Finance”.

5) Not really. Yet looking forward for being better informed about climate related financial mechanisms, esp. that these are

expected to be significant in the near future.

6) Yes:

- general overview of climate finance: what is it, how does it work, where has it been applied, lessons learned, what is the

forecasted future of climate finance… (kind of climate finance 101)

- what are the opportunities for Lebanon regarding climate finance?

- how can Lebanon benefit from climate finance?

7) Yes. A customized approach for Lebanon in terms of accessing finance and restructuring the already existing financial

infrastructure to distribute funds efficiently.

8) The main objective: I want to know what is available, where it is available, how to get it and what are the priority

areas of each fund to better customize my institution’s proposals.

9) -

10) Hoping that this seminar will provide us with new knowledge on climate funds, how Lebanon can access these funds,

and climate finance instruments that are best suited for a country like Lebanon.

11) To have a general overview of the different mechanisms , how and when they are applied and what are the options in

Lebanon.

12) Expectations include answers on some of the points I raised in the above two questions. I also expect to come out with

concrete considerations for the Ministry of Finance side including on market-based mechanisms and accessing climate funds

with examples of how other countries do so most successfully with what institutional arrangements.

13) To understand the concept of climate finance and related topics and the role of the Ministry of Finance with this regard

14) To learn about the mechanism, standards, and success stories as well as the available opportunities to benefit from a

similar scheme.

15) All the best of luck.

16) General introduction about climate finance; Lebanon’s position vis-à-vis climate finance ; Implementing

rules/regulations/conditions that are climate sensitive and considerate – multiparty approach; National strategy, roadmap,

next steps

17) Understand all the above and see they can be implemented by BLOM BANK


Annex 3: Evaluation of the Seminar

Seminar Evaluation Form – Day 1 - Summary

Project title: National Action Programme to Mainstream Climate Change into Lebanon’s Development Agenda (Training on Climate Finance,

Ministry of Environment with the support of UNDP Lebanon, Climate Change Coordination Unit)


Explanation: The climate finance seminar has the overall objective to inform national stakeholders about climate change finance and

climate finance readiness. In order to assess whether the seminar has responded to your demand and expectations, we kindly ask you to

address the following questions.

Please tick (x) accordingly Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Trainer

Knowledge of subject matter 7 12 4

Listening skills 9 11 3

Presentation skills 1 8 10 3 1

Overall instructor rating 2 13 6 1 1

Course content

Did the course achieve its objectives? 3 8 8 3

Did you improve your knowledge about climate finance in general?

3 11 5 2 2

Did you improve your knowledge about Climate finance for Lebanon?

2 11 7 3

Did the exercises support to learn about climate finance? 3 11 7 2

Structure of information/workshop 3 12 7 1

Use of session time 4 11 7 1

Content of the workshop 1 12 9 1

Overall quality of presentations and exercises 1 11 8 3

Potential value as future reference material for your work 1 9 9 2 1

Others

The meeting room and facilities were adequate and

comfortable

8 12 1 2

The length and timing of the seminar were adequate 5 12 5 1

The mix of presentation and exercises were adequate => yes: 6 / very good: 6 / Good:1 / Fair: 2

- Financing instruments, MRV finance

- additional exercises would be welcomed

Would you like to be further trained on climate finance in

order to better develop this issue in your work and in

Lebanon? E.g. MRV, tracking climate finance

=> yes: 18 / no: 1 / MRV: 2

- Learn about current projects and initiatives

- Financing instruments

- Interactive, group brainstorming

What did you like about this seminar? => Introduction: 2 / The topic, new info: 5 /Discussion, interaction: 5

- disunity(?) of audience - well prepared with a good communication

- knowledge sharing, point of view and experiences of participants

- different stakeholders discussing the issue on the same table

What aspects of the seminar could be improved? More case studies: 4; More discussion/interaction with audience: 3

More liveliness: 2; More speakers: 2; More structure: 2

Shorter sessions: 1; More Lebanese context: 1

More technical: 1; Info about process to applying to funds: 1

Would you like to share additional comments that may help

the Government of Lebanon to shape the national climate

finance framework and associated instruments?

- need for a national discussion on role of different entities (MoE, CDR, MoF)

Seminar Evaluation Form – Day 2 - Summary

Project title: National Action Programme to Mainstream Climate Change into Lebanon’s Development Agenda (Training on Climate Finance,

Ministry of Environment with the support of UNDP Lebanon, Climate Change Coordination Unit)



Explanation: The climate finance seminar has the overall objective to inform national stakeholders about climate change finance and

climate finance readiness. In order to assess whether the seminar has responded to your demand and expectations, we kindly ask you to

address the following questions.

Please tick (x) accordingly Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Trainer

Knowledge of subject matter 5 10 7

Listening skills 7 11 4 1

Presentation skills 1 7 12 3

Overall instructor rating 3 11 8

Course content

Did the course achieve its objectives? 2 11 7 3

Did you improve your knowledge about climate finance in general?

3 11 8 1

Did you improve your knowledge about Climate finance for Lebanon?

2 11 7 3

Did the exercises support to learn about climate finance? 4 11 5 2

Structure of information/workshop 4 7 10 3

Use of session time 4 6 10 2 1

Content of the workshop 2 8 12

Overall quality of presentations and exercises 1 10 10 2

Potential value as future reference material for your work 3 9 8 2

Others

The meeting room and facilities were adequate and

comfortable

4 11 6 1

The length and timing of the seminar were adequate 1 11 10

The mix of presentation and exercises were adequate Yes: 23, Appropriate: 1

Would you like to be further trained on climate finance in

order to better develop this issue in your work and in

Lebanon? E.g. MRV, tracking climate finance, financing

instruments

Yes: 19, No:1, MRV: 1

What did you like about this seminar? Discussions and presented material, interactive, interesting information, practical examples, terms

of lending and funding, new ideas and knowledge, everything, knowledge and exercise, topics

covered and varied input

What aspects of the seminar could be improved? Examples from other countries, put more stress on banks – to be more involved, involving

participants, more structure, all slides as hand-outs, time was too long, more focus on Lebanon

Would you like to share additional comments that may help

the Government of Lebanon to shape the national climate

finance framework and associated instruments?

Risk mitigation measures


Annex 4: Exercise - Support Programs in Lebanon

climate finance seminar moe - undp initiative 07th...

Documents