ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

ENVIRONET-WPSTAT TASK TEAM

FIFTH EXPERTS’ MEETING OF THE JOINT ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM ON

OECD RIO MARKERS, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FINANCE STATISTICS

November 4-5 2015

OECD, PARIS, FRANCE

Main Points of Discussion

Final Draft

This document presents a summary of the main points of discussion of the Fifth Experts’ Meeting of the

Joint ENVIRONET-WP-STAT Task Team, held on November 4th -5

th 2015,Paris, France.

Contacts:

Stephanie Ockenden, DCD/GPP, Tel: +(33-1) 45 24 15 23 Email: Stephanie.OCKENDEN@oecd.org

Valérie Gaveau, DCD/SDF, Tel: +(33-1) 45 24 90 53, Email : Valerie.GAVEAU@oecd.org

Gisela Campillo, DCD/GPP, Tel: +(33-1) 45 24 18019, Email: Gisela.CAMPILLO@oecd.org

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Session 1: Update on proposals for fine-tuning the climate Rio markers definitions, eligibility criteria and

guidance. 3

Session 2: Update on Joint MDB Methodology on Biodiversity finance tracking 5

Session 3: Improving the transparency of members reporting on finance to the UNFCCC and CBD 6

Session 4: Communications at the UNFCCC COP21, including preparations for the OECD DAC

Statistics flyer on climate-related development finance up to 2014. 8

Session 5: Update on progress of members’ and international organisations’ reporting to OECD DAC

on climate and environment-related Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Other Official Flows

(OOF). 9

Session 6: Overview of Task Team work plan and progress to date, arrangements for future work after

the closure of the Task Team. 9

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

2

FIFTH EXPERTS’ MEETING OF THE JOINT ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM

ON OECD RIO MARKERS, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FINANCE STATISTICS

MAIN POINTS OF DISCUSSION

FINAL

Introduction

1. The Fifth Experts’ Meeting of the Joint ENVIRONET and WP-STAT Task Team on OECD Rio

markers, environment and development finance statistics built on the four Experts’ meetings held

in March, June, and September of 2014, and May of 2015.

2. The objectives of the Fifth Experts’ Meeting were:

To reflect on the outcomes of the WP-STAT meeting (2-3 November) on incorporating

revised definitions on the adaptation and mitigation Rio markers in the statistical

reporting directives, as well as considering any supplementary tools and guidance to

support the application of the Rio markers (beyond the directives).

To consider the extension of the improved definitions and guidance exercise to the

biodiversity and desertification Rio markers.

To discuss improving transparency of methodological approaches for reporting to the

UNFCCC and CBD, including in the context of the recent OECD report, in collaboration

with Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), on Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100

billion goal.

To review progress and improvements in members’ and international organisations’

reporting to the OECD DAC on environment-related Official Development Assistance

(ODA) and Other Official Flows (OOF).

To review the Task Team’s work plan and progress to date, to define future activities

after its closure, including the preparations for the UNFCCC COP21 and the

improvement of the Rio marker definitions for biodiversity and desertification.

3. Participation in the Fifth experts’ meeting was high with over 40 participants, including members

from WP-STAT and ENVIRONET representing the statistical and policy community

respectively, international organisations (UN Development Programme (UNDP), development

finance institutions (KfW Development Bank, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank (WB)), and

secretariats of the Rio conventions (the Global Mechanism of the UN Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD) and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

(Please find the full participants list in Annex I). The meeting was co-facilitated by Mr. Masayuki

Karasawa (WP-STAT Vice Chair, Japan), Ms. Shanti Bobin (WP-STAT Vice Chair, France), and

Mr. Matti Nummelin (ENVIRONET Chair, Finland).

4. Mr. Masayuki Karasawa, (co-facilitator) opened the meeting, noting that it would be the last of

the Task Team, mentioning the excellent work achieved in the two years of collaboration.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

3

Session 1: Update on proposals for fine-tuning the climate Rio markers definitions, eligibility

criteria and guidance.

5. This session provided an overview of the revised proposal for fine-tuning the climate Rio markers

definitions, eligibility criteria and guidance, and reflected on the outcomes of the WP-STAT 2nd

November meeting (agenda item 2b), where WP-STAT was invited to approve for the inclusion

in the Statistical Directives, the refined definitions and guidance tables for the Climate Adaptation

and Mitigation Rio markers [see WP-STAT Document: Refined proposals for fine-tuning the

climate Rio markers definitions, eligibility criteria and guidance (OLIS Ref:

DCD/DAC/STAT(2015)25)].

6. The proposal had been developed by the ENVIRONET/WP-STAT Task Team over the past two

years (for background see Task Team Room Documents 5, 10, 15 and 15/REV1).

7. Ms. Valérie Gaveau and Ms. Gisela Campillo (OECD DAC Secretariat) highlighted the main

proposed changes to the definitions, which included:

Definition for adaptation adjusted to better align to IPCC latest definitions.

Features of the methodology slightly adjusted to:

Place emphasis is on the objective pursued by the activity (instead of on the

provider’s reasons).

Double principal scoring kept as a possibility but only upon explicit

justification in particular cases: opinion against double scoring by some

members and observers.

Changes and improvements to the indicative table developed to guide the

application of the Rio markers.

Sectors and sub-sectors adapted to match CRS purpose codes (list for flows as

of 2016).

Examples improved, reflecting comments from members, guidance from the MDB

methodology and examples from the current CRS database. Reflect ongoing discussion

on the marking of programmatic aid.

8. Ms. Gaveau provided a summary of the discussion during the 2nd November WP-STAT meeting

on the proposal. While the WP-STAT agreed on the principles of the proposal, there were two

main concerns raised that needed to be addressed: i) the MDBs’ concern in relation to the

inclusion of the concept of climate variability in the definition, and ii) the need to better highlight

that the guidance table is to facilitate the application of the Rio markers and scoring and is by no

means prescriptive. The WP-STAT agreed to bring this work to closure before the end of the year.

9. The discussion during the Task Team meaning focused on the two concerns raised during WP-

STAT:

10. Indicative table: during the discussion members generally remarked that the guidance table to

design the application of the Rio markers was a useful development, and that an online table

format of the table would be welcome, as it would further improve the use and accessibility of the

guidance on the climate markers. Mr. Philipps (UK) highlighted that the guidance on scores in

the table could be perceived as prescriptive, increasing the risk of marking activities automatically

without proper assessment, and that it should be more clearly caveated that this was not the case.

Participants from KfW and EIB noted that they had some smaller comments on the detail in the

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

4

guidance table, which the Secretariat noted and committed to take on board for the revised

proposal.

11. Definition of adaptation: The MDBs present (EIB, EBRD, IFC, WB) had strong views against

including “climate variability” in the definition of climate change adaptation, and proposed an

alternative of “the current and expected impacts of climate”. They explained their rationale by

making the following points:

Mr. Stenek (IFC) voiced the concern that there was a shift in the proposal away from

climate change towards climate variability, which may result in over-reporting and

inflating figures on adaptation. This was echoed by Ms. Saich (EIB) who stressed that the

definition should focus on climate change, rather than just climate; otherwise any aspect

of climate variability could be counted.

Mr. Cronenberg (EBRD) noted that the climate was inherently variable. Under climate

change, one needed to think of the future increased variability. For project designers, the

distinction between current and future variability made a huge difference. When one

looked at variability, they only considered previous trends, while in case of the climate

change; they should focus on the future.

12. However, several members argued for maintaining a reference to climate variability in the revised

definition:

Mr. Haider (KfW) argued that the proposed definition of adaptation followed IPCC

definition which included present climate variability. Mr Haider noted that for KfW, this

definition implied that adaptation should be defined as adaption to climate variability and

change, since present climate variability already involved climate change, with the two

being inseparable. He also highlighted that for a desk officer it may be difficult to decide

on whether a certain case relates to present variability or climate change. For this reason,

Mr Haider suggested including both aspects into the definition.

M. Tomodori (Japan) also noted that one could not always be certain if a climate

phenomenon was a consequence of climate change, whilst it clearly related to climate

variability. Japan supported the proposed new definition.

13. Other members were of the view that although there was a scientific difference between

variability and change, in practice, the difference was much smaller (Mr. Fugl (EC)). Ms.

Gabriela Blatter (Switzerland) highlighted that the revised definition added robustness and limited

the interpretation, but that the MDB proposal was more pragmatic if the aim was to align the Rio

markers completely with the MDB definition. Ms. O'Reilly from Ireland expressed an opinion

that the two standpoints were not far apart, and that it was important to include both.

14. Mr. Matti Nummelin (Finland) suggested as a middle ground to include a reference to “increased

variability” instead of only “variability”. On that basis, revised text was drafted and presented to

the meeting. It was felt that this new text was more in line with the Joint MDB/IDFC common

principles for climate adaptation finance.

15. There was a general consensus across meeting participants that there would remain need for

increased coordination and harmonisation across organisations working on climate change

definitions. Ms. Blatter (Switzerland) made a request and emphasised that organisations and

groups such as the Joint MDBs, IDFC, and OECD should invite each other to their meetings, to

facilitate greater harmonisation going forward.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

5

16. Answering a remark by Japan, Ms. Blatter (Switzerland) reported to the meeting on the intention

to present the support to high-efficiency coal facilities separately from, and additionally to, the

aggregate total estimates of climate finance. She clarified that this was not to exclude support to

high-efficiency coal plants, but to be transparent in this regard.

Next steps:

17. Task Team members were invited to send last comments on the proposal by 13th November; the

proposal would then be submitted on the week of November 23d to the WP-STAT for approval

under the written procedure (as part of the overall revision of the Statistical Reporting Directives

undertaken by WP-STAT). Endorsement by the DAC is expected before the end of the year.

Session 2: Update on Joint MDB Methodology on Biodiversity finance tracking

18. Ms. Nancy Saich (EIB), provided an update on the progress achieved among the MDBs to

develop a joint methodology to track biodiversity-related finance. She stated that, although

progress has not yet been huge, important steps had been made, including the appointment of

consultants to tackle the task. MDBs have had a number of discussions for example to identify

what parts of a project relate to biodiversity.

19. Ms. Mariana Mirabile (OECD DAC Secretariat) reported on an MDB workshop on tracking

biodiversity finance (week of October 26th) where biodiversity definitions and tracking were

discussed. Next step was to hire a consultant to look into MDB portfolios. MDBs expect to have

data available by 2017, with no certainty that it would be available for the CBD COP. Ms

Mirabile noted that avoiding double counting across climate and biodiversity-related development

finance would be a future consideration. With the Rio markers, activities can be identified as

targeting multiple objectives and these are tracked with the DAC statistical system, ensuring

double counting is avoided when aggregating data for total environmental finance. It is not clear

if this will be possible in future for MDB data for climate and biodiversity, within the DAC

statistical system.

20. Ms. Gaveau (OECD Secretariat) added that the Secretariat would collect data on biodiversity

components from MDBs when they become available, and that the Secretariat would need to

think carefully how to integrate them into the DAC statistical system, to avoid double counting

with climate components.

21. The discussion included the following comments:

Mr. Cronenberg (EBRD) stated that they did not only track overall numbers, but also

overlap figures, noting that it is a reporting issue on how to deal with this matter.

Biodiversity is already a component in EBRD projects and considered within

Environmental Impact Assessments.

Ms. Blatter (Switzerland) highlighted that there should be transparency on what amount

of biodiversity finance is also counted as climate-related finance. For instance, if a REDD

project has a biodiversity aspect, although many of them do not, one should make it clear

that there is a co-benefit. Ms. Blatter noted that indicative MDB biodiversity finance

figures for the CBD COP13 taking place in Mexico in December2016 would be useful.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

6

22. A related discussion also followed on the reporting by Parties to the Rio conventions on finance

that targets both biodiversity and climate objectives. Ms. O'Reilly (Ireland) highlighted that there

is a difference between the presentation of ODA statistics and reporting to the Rio conventions

against specific quantified goals, adding that Ireland makes a distinction between climate-related

ODA and climate finance which is reported to the convention. Mr. Nummelin (Finland) stated

when the process is transparent, there can be no complaints about hidden double counting, noting

that in Finland’s statistical systems, they make sure that the sum of the individual percentages

never exceeds 100 per cent. All the shares should be explicitly mentioned, agreed by both donors

and a recipient. Mr. Fugl (EU) remarked however that the Finnish approach is unique, and very

few do this type of exclusion in terms of coefficient reporting. There should be a system to have

both figures available, i.e. reporting to the biodiversity convention, while keeping visible what

might be relevant for other conventions. Mr. Hjøllund (Denmark) suggested that there is an easy

solution to double counting risks, if a user uses the details of the data and not the aggregated data.

23. Ms Blatter also raised the issue that at CBD there is a completely different perception from the

climate change community regarding what is double counting vs co-benefits. The main objective

for the forthcoming CBD COP is to mainstream biodiversity. In this respect, it is not perceived as

double counting, but as a co-benefit which is essential. There is thus a difference between

reporting to a single Rio convention and reporting across Rio conventions. However, in either

case transparency is most important.

24. There was limited discussion on considerations for the review and potential fine-tuning of the

biodiversity Rio marker. Ms O'Reilly added that it would be helpful to follow what has already

been achieved in climate change revision, and develop a similar guidance table for biodiversity.

25. Ms. Ruhweza (UNDP) shared that in BIOFIN, they are working in 29 countries, tracking

biodiversity finance at the national level using a newly developed bottom-up methodology.

Session 3: Improving the transparency of members reporting on finance to the UNFCCC and

CBD

26. Ms. Shanti Bobin, (co-facilitator) introduced the third session by congratulating the OECD team

of the very successful and challenging report.

27. Ms. Ockenden (OECD Secretariat) outlined that the OECD, in the context of improving

transparency was requested by the incoming and current UNFCCC COP presidencies, France and

Peru, to provide an estimate of climate finance supporting climate action in developing countries,

as an indication of the progress made towards meeting the USD 100 billion commitment. The

report on “Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100 billion goal” was produced in

collaboration with the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), and was a horizontal project across the

OECD’s Environment Directorate, and the Development Co-operation Directorate. Ms Ockenden

thanked countries and international financial institutions for accelerating their reporting, which

made it possible for the report to present comprehensive, albeit preliminary, figures for public

climate finance in both 2013 and 2014.

28. Ms. Ockenden presented the headline results: the aggregate volume of public and private climate

finance mobilised reached USD 61.8 billion in 2014, up from USD 52.2 billion in 2013, with an

average for the two years of USD 57.0 billion per year in 2013-14. Public finance contributed

71% of the total in 2013-14, with the private finance constituting 26%. Ms Ockenden concluded

by highlighting some key lessons learned, in particular that methodologies for measuring and

reporting climate finance are improving, but that further progress is needed on methodologies and

to improve transparency.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

7

29. Ms. Calder (OECD Secretariat, Environment Directorate) presented details on member

approaches for reporting on climate finance to the UNFCCC, in the context of information shared

for the recent climate finance report (see Room Document 18). This information was gathered

following the template developed by the Task Team to improve the transparency of reporting

approaches to the Rio conventions, and provided an example of how the work of the Task Team

has improved transparency. To date, nine members have completed the templates for reporting to

the UNFCCC, and four members have completed the templates for reporting to the CBD. Based

on this information response, Ms. Calder illustrated the variety of reporting practices across

countries but also some areas of convergence. Examples of differences include the points of

measurement (disbursement vs commitment), calendar vs fiscal year, currencies and metrics used,

as well as the share of finance that is reported (the coefficient, or use of components). The main

area of convergence is climate finance definition – nearly 90% of members use Rio markers.

30. Ms Calder stressed that the process of standardising data so that it could be aggregated and

analysed took a lot of effort, and that differences in reporting approaches made the exercise more

challenging. As another lesson learned, she noted further scope for greater transparency in

reporting, including by members providing the detail on the methodology used in upcoming

Biennial Reports under the UNFCCC and reporting to CBD.

31. Members expressed their general appreciation for the work conducted by the OECD on this

report. Ms. Blatter noted that the report has added a lot to clarity, as it is the first time there is

comparable data available, although only to a certain extent, as indeed the report highlighted that

some sources were only partially comparable, or that in some cases methodologies were unclear.

The EU highlighted that the ultimate objective would be to agree on a definition of climate

finance, and that the report served for transparency purposes, especially on practise and use of

coefficients to adjust the share of Rio marker data reported to the Rio conventions. Ireland

echoed this and noted that the report had provided significant clarity on what is reported as

climate finance under the UNFCCC negotiations. The UK noted that it would be useful to have

more details on the approach for the attribution of multilateral finance, and welcomed the

Secretariat’s proposal to provide details in forthcoming technical annexes.

32. Regarding the template developed by the Task Team to improve transparency of reporting

approaches, Ms. Blatter noted that it covers all the core elements, and raised a question on

whether the members are planning to incorporate the template into their reporting to the

conventions. Switzerland is still considering it. The EU noted that they will draw on the detail in

the template to develop the narrative to accompany their reporting.

33. Members also agreed that whilst the report and the templates are a good first step forward towards

greater transparency, further work is needed on to improve the comparability, developed common

understandings and potentially consider harmonisation of reporting approaches in some areas.

Suggestions during discussion included:

“quick wins” – i.e. reporting in consistent currencies (i.e. USD), and common exchange

rates.

improving transparency at activity level on which activities are reported as

climate/biodiversity finance to UNFCCC/CBD, and providing detail on the reporting

approach, specifically the quantifiable amount of finance report, i.e. through providing

detail on the coefficient or component. It was suggested that a new field could be

introduced in the DAC CRS to enable members to provide this information, by activity,

for transparency.

scope for developing a common understanding on the practice of applying coefficients,

given the range of approaches but recognising also that approaches may necessarily vary

reflecting the heterogeneity of members portfolios (e.g. by activity type);

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

8

greater transparency on reporting across conventions on finance targeting multiple

objectives, i.e. on climate finance and on biodiversity finance;

considerations for reporting on commitment and disbursements, whether reporting under

the conventions could allow both points on measurement to be reported (this would

require a form of data system to avoid double counting when aggregating flows).

harmonising reporting approaches for multilateral flows, i.e. the reporting of inflows

based on imputed shares provided by the DAC (reflecting on difference between country-

level reporting on inflows, vs collective reporting efforts focused on attributing

multilateral outflows).

34. A number of members noted that they draw on their OECD DAC CRS Rio marker data as a basis

for their reporting to the Rio conventions, but that significant work is involved in taking this data,

applying adjustments and formatting this for the purposes of reporting to the UNFCCC and CBD.

Finland highlighted that they had now automated their reporting, enabling data from their CRS

reports to be automatically extracted and converted for the purposes of reporting to the UNFCCC

and CBD, and Ireland noted that they also have a similar level of automatic for both reporting to

the Rio conventions and to the EU. There was significant interest in the group for the Task Team

to consider whether a general tool could be developed.

35. Broader discussions touched on the value of the approach and lessons of the OECD climate

finance report feeding into the ongoing DAC discussion around the development of the measure

for Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD), in particular given the

elements of the report covered, i.e. both public and mobilised private finance.

Next steps:

36. Members are invited to comment on the templates developed and consolidated (Room Document

18), providing any revisions on further inputs by 25th November.

Session 4: Communications at the UNFCCC COP21, including preparations for the OECD

DAC Statistics flyer on climate-related development finance up to 2014.

37. Ms. Mariana Mirabile (OECD DAC Secretariat) presented an outline for the forthcoming DAC

Statistics flyer climate-related developed finance that is being prepared for release ahead of the

UNFCCC COP21. Ms. Mirabile highlighted that the flyer this year is intended to be more visual,

and place emphasis on the details available from the project-level data in DAC Statistics. The

members were invited to provide comments and suggestions.

38. Overall, the flyer and particularly the accompanying online data sets were deemed a welcome

initiative, facilitating the access to data for analysts wishing to conduct their own analysis.

39. Concerns were voiced regarding confidentiality of data published. The Secretariat clarified that all

the data included in the flyer is public and follows the statistical standards; the same approach as

last year was taken. For instance, the publication of non-concessional financing constitutes semi-

aggregate data. Another question raised related to the presentation of bilateral Rio-marked data

and multilateral climate components. It was agreed, as suggested by Switzerland, that there should

be two different tabs in the data sheet, in order to avoid potential confusion.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

9

Session 5: Update on progress of members’ and international organisations’ reporting to OECD

DAC on climate and environment-related Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Other

Official Flows (OOF).

40. Mr. Matti Numelin, (co-facilitator), welcomed the participants to the second day of the meeting.

41. This session provided an update on the progress made by members and international organisations

in reporting to the OECD DAC on the Rio and environment markers, and “green” multilateral

flows, including reviewing the status of 2014 flows reporting against the official summer

deadlines and in the context of the special reporting exercise on 2014 climate-related development

finance data.

42. Ms. Mirabile (OECD Secretariat) presented the status in DAC statistics of multilateral climate

finance data, explaining that data had now been received from a large share of multilateral

organisations: the 6 main MDBs (AfDB, AsDB, EBRD, EIB, IADB, WBG), Adaptation Fund,

Climate Investment Funds, Global Environment Facility, Nordic Development Fund and

International Fund for Agricultural Development. Based on this data, the Secretariat has

estimated the climate-related shares for each multilateral organisations portfolios that can be used

by members to estimated their imputed multilateral contributions. Following discussion, it was

noted that whilst the exercise last year focused on imputed shares for the concessional windows of

the MDBs, non-concessional windows are also occasionally supported by members, and shares

for these will be provided by the Secretariat going forward.

43. On the status of bilateral reporting, in particular related to the Rio marking of Other Official

Flows (OOF) and disbursement data, a number of members informed the Task Team of

progresses they are making. For example, Sweden stated that they plan to report on OOF on the

Rio markers, and clarified that they already report on disbursements. Ms. Julia Benn (OECD

Secretariat) provided an update on the ongoing work of the DAC Secretariat to modernise the

statistical system and the measure of ODA, and elaborate a new statistical measure named Total

Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) where efforts are currently concentrated

on improving the coverage of data captured within the system, including amounts of private

finance mobilised.

Session 6: Overview of Task Team work plan and progress to date, arrangements for future

work after the closure of the Task Team.

44. This final session took stock of the Task Team’s progress against the work plan agreed at the First

Task Team meeting in March 2014, and discussed arrangements and modalities for future work. It

was noted that whilst this was the last meeting of the Task Team, many elements of the Task

Team’s work will continue through other modalities, for example i) as part of members and

international organisations regular reporting to the OECD DAC and ii) under the existing

Secretariat plans and work under the WP-STAT and ENVIRONET. There may however be need

and interest to continue specific joint work areas and convene specific joint workshops of the

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT in future. This session explored members’ priorities for future joint

work and suggested modalities.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

10

45. Ms. Stephanie Ockenden and Ms. Valérie Gaveau, (OECD DAC Secretariat) presented the

progress against the work plan of the Task Team and next steps future work after closure of the

Task team. Ms. Ockenden reflected on the fact that in recent years there has been significant

scrutiny of members’ approaches for reporting on finance to the Rio conventions, in particular on

climate finance, and the Task team was born of the need to improve it. Progress against the Task

Team work plan was reported in its four areas of work:

Quality: this included the application of Rio markers and improvements in methodology

and definitions. Each Task Team meeting has taken stock of the status of reporting by

members of the DAC and international organisations, and special reporting exercises to

improve the timeliness of reporting were conducted for climate-related development

finance in 2013 and 2014.The focus on the work to date has been on the climate

adaptation and mitigation Rio markers, where proposals have been developed for fine-

tuning their definitions (RD5,10,15,15-REV, WP-STAT proposal). A guidance table was

created and will be put online to support improved application and scoring of the markers.

Depending on the existing resources, next steps could focus on biodiversity and

desertification, as well as potential quality reviews.

Coverage: In collaboration with MDBs and other international organisations, the DAC

Statistics now present an integrated picture of bilateral and multilateral data for the 2013

and 2014 climate-related development finance flows. On Biodiversity, initial data has

been received from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and the Secretariat is

following developments by the MDBs in reporting on these flows. The Green Climate

Fund was added to the DAC list of ODA eligible international organisations (Annex 2 of

reporting Directives), and the Task Team proposed additional environmental fund that are

either being reviewed for inclusion on Annex 2 (CBD, GM) or are part of a pilot on

channel code1 to improve reporting on these flows, and possibly collect their outflows.

Use: The Team Task undertook stocktake of reporting practices (RD1) and explored the

different approaches followed by members for reporting on finance to the Rio

conventions and underlying evidence (RD8, PPT17). Most recently, the work of the Task

Team in this area has focused on improving transparency of reporting approaches, and the

Task Team has developed a template to enable reporting information to be consistently

shared and compared across members (RD18). In addition, the recent report by OECD, in

collaboration with CPI, further enhanced transparency in reporting on climate finance.

The Task Team is continuously engaging and co-operating with the UNFCCC, CBD, and

UNCCD, and future work could include considerations for CRS field to collect

information on reporting to Rio conventions.

Communication: Ms. Ockenden described the work undergone which has ranged from

improvement and restructuring of the Rio markers website, the publication of statistical flyers,

online data visualisation portals and videos and improved access to the CRS data. The

Secretariat has also presented detail on DAC statistics and the Rio makers in numerous

different workshops and meetings to gather perspectives from partner countries and improve

the understanding of the markers. Additionally, two webinars in Spanish have been developed

with the help from regional Latin American Knowledge Platforms.

1 These include: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) and Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR).

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

11

46. Ms. O’Reilly (Irish Aid) provided with a short presentation on the country reports as a tool for

outreach and in reach. The reports will be online on November 20th. The reports were useful for

external communications: civil society, external partners and were deemed very useful to train

embassy staff but also partners. They include basic information on the country context such as

indicators, public data and public research. IPCC, World Bank info, UNDP studies, as well as info

on the projects.

47. Ms. Corfee-Morlot (OECD Secretariat) presented the future outreach work and communication

opportunities. This included a continued policy dialogue on tracking international climate-related

development finance at the country level. Ms. Corfee-Morlot expressed the need to raise funds in

order to maintain a good pace of work around the Rio markers. She encouraged members to

provide voluntary contributions ideally tied to Rio Markers work. She envisages two main areas

or types of work and expressed the need to prioritise:

Technical – extension of work of the Task Team – i.e. Biodiversity and Desertification

marker updates; engaging with MDBs to harmonise / improve comparability / integrate

multi- and bilateral data; and

Outreach: focused on looking outward, listening and gather feedback from users and

feeding suggestions back into system.

48. Ms. Benn (OECD) Secretariat intervened to introduce current and future work under the TOSSD

work plan, which includes a pilot with Kenya, a back to back TOSSD workshop with the annual

ENVIRONET Meeting 1-3 March, where other aspects of environmental data and green finance

are discussed. The aim is to finalise the definition and agree on the use of the new measure to be

applied to 2018 flows (coinciding with the year when the grant equivalent system of ODA

becomes the standard), which implies that the Secretariat would need to be ready by mid-2017.

The discussion around the monitoring of the Sustainable development Goals, endorsed in

September 2015, has included the proposal to review the purpose codes and the policy marker

system, and the possibility to assign several purpose codes for the same activity.

49. The discussion around the table focused on the decision to close down the Task team, reflecting

that whilst it has been very successful in setting direction, building momentum, and achieving a

number of its objectives, running the Task Team has resulted in a heavy administrative burden.

Therefore, when going forward there is now a need to consider the priorities for the remaining

work and the modalities for how best to continue. The proposal remains to continue specific work

using regular channels and in close coordination, for example using the meetings of the WP-

STAT, DAC Meetings and the meetings of ENVIRONET.

50. Participants repeatedly thanked the Secretariat for the good work and excellent outcomes after the

two years. Ms. Blatter proposed to prioritise the technical work, rather than outreach (although the

suggestion of webinars did have appeal, reflecting the low cost). Mr. Patrick Rabe (EU) supported

the idea to continue the work on fine tuning the biodiversity and desertification Rio markers. He

also communicated that the outreach work should rather be performed by members. He supports

back to back meetings with ENVIRONET/TOSSD.

51. Ms. Henche (Spain) congratulated the team on the progress but expressed that they would have

welcomed more guidance on the coefficients and more information on the potential for

harmonisation of reporting approaches to the Rio conventions, as they believe this to be a core

issue. Mr. Philipps (UK) and Mr. Hjøllund (Denmark) also agreed that more work can be done

to improve for transparency and coherence, and that the coefficients need to be publicly available

and visible, although the responsibility lies within each country.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

12

52. The UNCCD explained that they have collaborated closely with the Task Team in the analysis of

financial flows and that CRS datasets have been used for financial analysis and been presented to

their constituencies. They stated that sharing the data has been very useful as 195 countries are

reporting using the Rio markers. The recent UNCCD COP in Turkey finished with the decision

that calls for ways to compare financial flows with results on the ground. The UNFCCC

Secretariat also welcomed continued co-operation with the OECD Secretariat, noting that a lot of

work under the Task Team has also been core to the work under the UNFCCC Standing

Committee on Finance (SCF), encouraging all actors to collaborate and share information.

Next steps:

53. The Secretariat will organise a telephone conference call to define and agree next steps in the

second half of January. The Secretariat will issue a call for funds before the end of the year. The

main contact for the fundraising is Jan Corfee-Morlot (Jan.CORFEE-MORLOT@oecd.org).

Further information:

The presentations from the Fifth Experts’ Meeting of the Task Team are available online here.

The OECD community space site for the Task Team allows members to access view and download all meeting documents, background documents, and members’ comments. Please see here for further information.

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

13

ANNEX I:

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Co-Facilitators/Co-modérateurs

Mr. Masayuki KARASAWA, WP-STAT Vice Chai

Japan

Ms. Shanti BOBIN WP-STAT Vice Chair

France

Mr. Matti NUMMELIN DAC ENVIRONET Chair,

Finland

Australia/Australie

Ms. Laura ALLISON Policy Officer

Permanent Delegation of Australia to the OECD

Belgium/Belgique

Ms. Els VAN DE VELDE Advisor International Policy

Flemish Ministry of Environment, Nature and Energy

Canada

Mr. Darren ROGERS Counsellor (Development)

Permanent Delegation of Canada to the OECD

Denmark/Danemark

Mr. Ole Jacob HJØLLUND IT-Architect

Quality Assurance of Development Assistance (KVA)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Sabrina MEINECKE Head of section

Department for Quality Assurance of Development

Assistance

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

EU/UE

Mr. Jens FUGL Policy Officer

DG DEVCO

Mr. Patrick RABE Development Advisor

EU delegate to the OECD DAC

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

14

Finland/Finlande

Mr. Matti NUMMELIN Senior Environmental Adviser

Department for Development Policy

Ministry for Foreign Affairs

France

Ms. Shanti BOBIN Chef de Bureau Multifin5 - APD

Direction Générale du Trésor

Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics - Ministère

de l’Economie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

Ms. Claire DEVINEAU Adjointe au chef de bureau

Direction générale du Trésor

Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics - Ministère

de l’Economie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

Germany/Allemagne

Mr. Sascha OPPOWA Section Climate Change and Climate Policy

German Agency for International Co-Operation

Ireland/Irlande

Ms. Gemma O'REILLY Consultant

Climate Finance

Irish Aid

Japan/Japon

Mr. Masayuki KARASAWA Executive Advisor to the Director General

Operations Strategy Department

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

Dr. Tomonori SUDO Associate Professor

College of Asia Pacific Studies

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Mr. Akihiko SUNAMI Director

Development Assistance Policy Planning Division

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Korea/Corée

Ms. Yoon Jeong KOO Senior Representative - KEXIM Bank

The Permanent Delegation of Korea to the OECD

Ms. Eunoh CHANG Expert

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

15

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms. Hanseul CHO Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)

Mr. Jindong JANG The Export-Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM)

Ms. Chanyou KIM Specialist in Statistics

KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency)

Ms. Min Jung PAK Loan Officer

EDCF Planning & Coordination Department

Export-Import Bank of Korea (EXIM)

Portugal

Ms. Maria do Carmo FERNANDES Climate Change Focal Point

Camões - Institute for Cooperation and Language (CICL)

Spain/Espagne

Ms. Carolina MAYEUR DANEL Head of Food Security and Environment Area in

Development Policy Unit

SGCID - Office of Development Planning and Policy

Evaluation

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation

Ms. Ana HENCHE Head of Statistics Unit

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation

Sweden/Suède

Mr. Mirza TOPIC Statistician, Analysis and Coordination Unit

Department for Corporate Management

Sida -Swedish international development and cooperation

agency

Switzerland/Suisse

Ms. Gabriela BLATTER Senior Policy Adviser

Département fédéral de l'environnement, des transports,

de l'énergie et de la communication - DETEC

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)

Mr. Marco LUSTENBERGER Policy Advisor

Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)

United Arab Emirates/Émirats arabes unis

Mr. Zaki YOUSIF Head of Information and Reporting Section

Aid Coordination Department

Ministry of international Cooperation and Development

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

16

United States/États-Unis

Ms. Kimberly SMITH Program Analyst

Program, Policy & Learning/Donor Engagement

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)/

Banque européenne de reconstruction et de développement (BERD)

Mr. Carel CRONENBERG Principal MRV Manager

Energy Efficiency & Climate Change Team

Mr. Craig DAVIES Senior Manager

Climate Change Adaptation

European Investment Bank (EIB)/

Banque européenne d'investissement (BEI)

Ms. Nancy SAICH Adviser in Climate and Environment

Environment, Climate and Social Office

International Finance Corporation (IFC)/

Société financière internationale

Mr. Vladimir STENEK Sr. Climate Change Specialist

KfW Development Bank

Dr. Josef HAIDER Senior Sector Economist Climate Change & Environment

Competence Centre for Environment & Climate

UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)/

Convention des Nations Unies sur la Lutte Contre la Désertification (UNCCD)

Mr. Simone QUATRINI Coordinator, Policy and Investment Analysis

Global Mechanism of the UNCCD

Global Mechanism of the UNCCD

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)/

Programme de Développement des Nations Unies (PDNU)

Ms. Alice RUHWEZA Regional Team Leader

Africa & Regional Technical Advisor

Ecosystems and Biodiversity

ENVIRONET-WP-STAT TASK TEAM: M(2015)2-FINAL

17

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)/

Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques (CCNUCC)

Mr. Marenglen GJONAJ Programme Officer, Finance, Technology and Capacity-

Building Programme

Long Term Finance Unit

World Resource Institute (WRI)/Institut des ressources mondiales

Mr. Dennis TIRPAK Senior Fellow

WRI-UNFCCC Consultant

OECD/OCDE

Ms. Galina ALOVA Policy Research and Advice

DCD/GPP

Mrs. Julia BENN Senior Policy Analyst

DCD/SDF

Mr. Gonzalo BUSTOS-TURU ENV/CBW

Ms. Jennifer CALDER Research Assistant

ENV/CBW

Ms. Gisela CAMPILLO Junior Policy Analyst

DCD/GPP

Mrs. Jan CORFEE-MORLOT Senior Policy Analyst - Team Leader

DCD/GPP

Ms. Naeeda CRISHNA MORGADO Policy Analyst

DCD/GPP

Ms. Valérie GAVEAU Statistical Analyst

DCD/SDF

Miss Susan HODGSON Assistant

DCD/SDF

Miss Mariana MIRABILE Statistician, Development Finance

DCD/SDF

Miss Stephanie OCKENDEN Policy Analyst

DCD/GPP

Ms. Kristin SAZAMA Personal Assistant

DCD/REED

Ms. Lisa SMADJA Assistant

DCD/GPP