This is a presentation on the treatment of multilateral flows in OECD DAC statistics, a status report, and a summary of the review of multilateral funds within OECD DAC Statistics.

1. Second Experts’ Meeting of the
ENVIRONET-WP-STAT Task Team
on OECD Rio Markers, Environment &
Development Finance Statistics

2. Treatment of multilateral flows in
DAC statistics (RD 6)

3. Outline
1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC Secretariat on
climate finance
2. Reconciling MDB data with CRS data
3. Calculating a coefficient for climate
4. Applying the resulting coefficient to
members’ multilateral contributions to the
MDBs

4. 1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC on climate finance
Status of MDB Reporting on climate flows to DAC
(May 2014)
AfDB Work in progress (preliminary data)
ADB Not started
EBRD Not started
EIB Not started
IADB Just reported (data received 27 May)
WB Reporting

5. 1. MDBs’ reporting to the DAC on climate finance
Proj ID Comm Amt CRS Code 1
% of CRS
Code 1
CRS Code 1
Adaptation
%
CRS Code 1
Mitigation %
P122319 200 21030 100 0 100
P125999 250 31140 100 100 0
P124174 200 23010 100 0 57
P129688 70 43040 100 79 0
P126542 30 31220 72 100 100

6. 2. Reconciling MDB data with CRS data
 Data can be uploaded in CRS format adjusted to
store percentages:
Proj ID
Commitment
USD amount
CRS
purpose
code
Adaptation
USD amount
Mitigation USD
amount
Overlap
USD amount
P122319 200 21030 200 x 0%=0 200 x 100%=200 0
P125999 250 31140 250 x 100%=250 250 x 0%=0 0
P124174 200 23010 200 x 0% =0 200 x 57%=120 0
P129688 70 43040 70 x 79%=56 70 x 0%=0 0
P126542 22 31220 22 x 100%=22 22 x 100%=22 22

7. 3. Calculating a coefficient for climate
 Three steps for calculating a coefficient for ODA:
1. Sum of climate flows = adaptation (USD) plus
mitigation (USD) minus overlap (USD)
= 3 020 + 3 192 – 1 215 = 4 997
2. Sum of total flows = 16 638
3. Share of climate flows in total outflows =
4 997 / 16 638 = 30%

8. 4. Applying the coefficient to members’ multilateral
contributions to the MDBs
« imputed multilateral contributions »
Australia 7.1 0.0 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.3 54.7
Austria 4.4 0.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 58.7
Belgium 7.0 6.4 11.6 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 76.5
Canada 17.5 0.0 0.0 132.6 200.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.1 357.7
Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.4
Denmark 5.5 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 27.9
EU Institutions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3
Finland 5.6 10.6 3.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 41.3
France 0.0 83.8 0.0 154.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.2 249.4
Germany 35.7 25.7 14.1 226.1 0.0 25.7 4.0 0.0 12.6 344.0
Greece 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.3
Iceland 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Ireland 0.0 0.0 1.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 11.8
Italy 2.1 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.4
Japan 48.5 0.0 0.0 409.0 377.3 87.1 2.4 0.0 21.3 945.5
Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 36.1
Luxembourg 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7
Netherlands 16.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0
New Zealand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
Norway 5.9 3.4 2.9 46.1 0.0 36.1 3.3 0.0 1.4 99.1
Poland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.2
Portugal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Slovak Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5
Slovenia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9
Spain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Sweden 0.0 17.0 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.7 102.9
Switzerland 9.7 1.1 1.3 63.5 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 1.9 82.5
United Kingdom 26.6 0.0 0.0 351.8 69.7 153.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 601.9
United States 38.3 0.0 0.0 397.5 229.6 74.9 9.8 0.0 31.5 781.6
Total 230.3 148.3 35.5 2199.0 876.8 382.3 25.0 14.8 103.1 4015.1
Imputed multilateral contributions
Members' contributions (disbursements) to international organisations multiplied by the share
of outflows targeting climate change, USD million
Adaptation
Fund
(100%)
Total imputed
multilateral
climate
change-
related aid
GEF
(32%)
IDA
(30%)
Montreal
Protocol
(100%)
GEF
LDC fund
(100%)
GEF special
climate
change fund
(100%)
UNFCCC
(100%)
Clean
Technology
Fund
(100%)
Strategic
Climate
Fund
(100%)

9. Consolidated Review of Funds -
Annex 2 (RD 6)

10. Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)
Identification of new “green” funds…
 114 (out of 174) ODA-eligible multilateral institutions from the
Annex 2 list identified as potentially climate adaptation-, mitigation-
, biodiversity-, desertification- and/or environment-related.
 Of this, 21 relate to institutions that have already been contacted by
the DAC for input (i.e. the World Bank Group, and regional
development banks).
 In addition members noted that six other funds should be
considered for inclusion on Annex 2 list: Green Climate Fund (GCF),
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Global Mechanism (of the UNCCD), Global Fund
for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF),
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
• Exercise revealed little information to estimate coefficients - highlighted
that coefficients best derived from information provided by institutions…

11. Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)
Task to be taken forward through collaboration & voluntary
input…
 Highest priority - continue collaborative efforts to improve the identification
and measurement of green MDB flows within DAC statistics.
 Top Priority funds – identified 10 funds that may be considered top priorities
– both in volume and high-significance (apart from MDBs). These are:
UNFCCC, UNCCD, GEF, GEF-LDCF, GEF-SCCF, CTF (CIFs), SCF (CIFs), IPCC,
Adaptation Fund and the Montreal Protocol.
 Priority Funds –37 funds identified that may be significant. To rank priorities
based on volume and availability of information.
 Secondary Funds –57 funds identified as potentially relevant, but considered
of lower importance. The Secretariat does not propose to review these
under the current work plan.
• Do members agree with the proposed priority-list approach?

12. Summary of Review of Annex 2 List (RD6)
Current imputed climate-related multilateral contributions
12
Australia 7.1 0.0 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.3 54.7
Austria 4.4 0.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 58.7
Belgium 7.0 6.4 11.6 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 76.5
Canada 17.5 0.0 0.0 132.6 200.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.1 357.7
Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.4
Denmark 5.5 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 27.9
EU Institutions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3
Finland 5.6 10.6 3.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 41.3
France 0.0 83.8 0.0 154.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.2 249.4
Germany 35.7 25.7 14.1 226.1 0.0 25.7 4.0 0.0 12.6 344.0
Greece 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.3
Iceland 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Ireland 0.0 0.0 1.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 11.8
Italy 2.1 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.4
Japan 48.5 0.0 0.0 409.0 377.3 87.1 2.4 0.0 21.3 945.5
Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 36.1
Luxembourg 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7
Netherlands 16.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0
New Zealand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
Norway 5.9 3.4 2.9 46.1 0.0 36.1 3.3 0.0 1.4 99.1
Poland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.2
Portugal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Slovak Republic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5
Slovenia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9
Spain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Sweden 0.0 17.0 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.7 102.9
Switzerland 9.7 1.1 1.3 63.5 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 1.9 82.5
United Kingdom 26.6 0.0 0.0 351.8 69.7 153.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 601.9
United States 38.3 0.0 0.0 397.5 229.6 74.9 9.8 0.0 31.5 781.6
Total 230.3 148.3 35.5 2199.0 876.8 382.3 25.0 14.8 103.1 4015.1
Imputed multilateral contributions
Members' contributions (disbursements) to international organisations multiplied by the share
of outflows targeting climate change, USD million
Adaptation
Fund
(100%)
Total imputed
multilateral
climate
change-
related aid
GEF
(32%)
IDA
(30%)
Montreal
Protocol
(100%)
GEF
LDC fund
(100%)
GEF special
climate
change fund
(100%)
UNFCCC
(100%)
Clean
Technology
Fund
(100%)
Strategic
Climate
Fund
(100%)
Fund
Climate-
related
Coefficient
ODA
Coeff
Global Environment
Facility (GEF)
32% 100%
Least Developed
Countries Fund (LDCF)
(GEF-Administered)
100% 100%
Special Climate Change
Fund (SCCF)
(GEF-Administered)
100% 100%
IDA 30% 100%
Clean Technology Fund
(CTF) (CIFs)
100% 100%
Strategic Climate Fund
(SCF) (CIFs includes FIP,
SREP, PPCR)
100% 100%
UNFCCC 100% 61 %
Montreal Protocol 100% 100%
Adaptation Fund 100% 100%
 Is there a need to distinguish
between climate adaptation and
mitigation? Is this feasible? Is there a
trade-off?
 The CIFs are treated as two separate
funds but is there a need to
distinguish between the four
windows to support consistency?

13. Proposed Methodology
 Need to estimate overall “green” multilateral finance flows &
provide data to facilitate members’ reporting to the Conventions.
 Proposal to estimate shares across the Conventions and also to
identify areas of overlap – reflecting where finance may target
multiple objectives.
 For the purpose of reporting to the Conventions, there may be a
need to net out the overlap from totals, to avoid double counting.
 Where information is available - look to distinguish between
climate adaptation and climate mitigation (as well as biodiversity
and desertification objectives).
 Proposal would be to consider all climate-, biodiversity-, and
desertification-related multilateral flows as environment-related
by default.

14. Proposed Next Steps
 The Secretariat will take forward the task of estimating “green”
coefficients for funds identified as priorities - in line with the priority list
and methodology proposed. Progress to be discussed in future Task Team
meetings.
 The Secretariat to develop a joint proposal on behalf of the Task Team to
submit to WP-STAT in September:
• for the inclusion of new funds on the Annex 2 list: Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), Global Mechanism (of the UNCCD), Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction
(GFDRR) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF);
• for the separate identification of the three windows for the SCF (FIP, SREP, PPCR)
through introduction of individual channel codes;
• for the assessment of the need to revise the ODA coefficient for UNFCCC (in 2015);
• for the introduction of individual channel codes to identify a number of bilateral funds;