Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to OECD_Drawing on the Rio markers for reporting to the Rio Conventions_S. Ockenden
Similar to OECD_Drawing on the Rio markers for reporting to the Rio Conventions_S. Ockenden (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
OECD_Drawing on the Rio markers for reporting to the Rio Conventions_S. Ockenden
- 1. Emerging findings from existing approaches, evidence and exploratory analysis for drawing on Rio marker data for quantitative reporting to the Conventions (Option 19) Stephanie Ockenden Development Co-operation Directorate, OECD
- 2. 2 Using Rio markers for reporting quantitatively to Conventions Rio marker data (as reported to CRS) Select Coefficient Estimate Finance Flow for International Reporting Large number of members draw on Rio markers to provide the basis for their reporting to the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD on bilateral ODA. With awareness and recognition for the limitations of the Rio marker methodology - which allows for an approximate quantification of financial flows Many members adopting “innovations” for reporting to the international conventions – in particular applying coefficients to adjust the share of finance reported internationally
- 3. 3 Significant marker - no common standards for reporting quantitatively • Most report 100% principal • Different approaches and coefficients may relate to the nature of different member portfolios, and how the marker is applied. • Comparability and the need for harmonisation are pressing concerns Illustrative frequency in use of coefficients applied to the Significant Rio Markers for reporting to the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD across OECD DAC members 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% ≤ 10% ≤ 20% ≤ 30% ≤ 40% ≤ 50% ≤ 60% ≤ 70% ≤ 80% ≤ 90% ≤ 100% NumberofDACMembers Average Coefficient applied to Significant Rio marker data for reporting to Rio Conventions UNCCD UNCBD UNFCCC Source: Summary of members' responses to OECD DAC Survey, April 2014
- 4. What rationales and perspectives support further quantification of Rio marker data? To estimate the exact financial input related to the Rio conventions ? To draw on a share of finance as a proxy measure for the overall results related to the objectives of the Rio convention? Ensure no double counting across conventions? Do participants agree to prioritise work on quantification on a methodology to address activities Rio marked with a significant score? 4
- 5. Available Evidence Coefficient Approaches Belgium – extensive list of “weighting factors”, developed by sector specialists France – coefficients for biodiversity No additional input provided from call to Task Team Related evidence France – component & Rio marker based reporting MDBs - comparisons with MDB and Rio marker approach KfW - comparison with MDB and Rio marker approach 5
- 6. Portfolio Characteristics 6 Important factors that may influence methodologies for quantification • Sector • Type of activity – i.e. capacity-building vs infrastructure • Activity Size For greater quantification, could consider a project-specific component approach for very large sized activities
- 7. Proposed Next Steps 7 Further call for sharing of available and emerging approaches to inform greater quantification of Rio marker data. Secretariat to explore further development of the evidence base, through: • Exploring thresholds for component very large volume activities • Further consolidation of available and emerging evidence • Analysis of a representative sample of projects Secretariat to propose an approach to identify capacity building and technology transfer projects, with a view to develop a practical methodology
Editor's Notes
- Under the prioritisation and work plan of the Task Team - we all agreed to explore the basis and options for developing a harmonised methodology for how to use Rio marker data for reporting to the Conventions, recognising the quantitative nature of reporting requirements (option 19). The RD 8 made a first start at this – and outlined initial findings of exploratory work on existing approaches, available evidence and evidence gaps. It also proposes a way forward for developing a deeper and broader evidence base to inform the development of future options and recommendations.
- Recent quantified financial goals under the Rio conventions suggest new data needs and new reporting requirements. Whilst the Rio markers were originally established to track aid flows that support the implementation of the Conventions, the Rio markers are descriptive rather than quantitative, and the methodology allows for an approximate quantification of financial flows targeting the objectives of the Rio conventions. The Rio markers indicate donors’ policy objectives in relation to each aid activity. A ‘principal’ objective score is given when promoting the objectives of the Rio conventions is one of the principal reasons for undertaking the activity, a ‘significant’ score reflects where an activity targets other prime objectives, but has been formulated or adjusted to help meet concerns addressing the Rio conventions. There is no internationally agreed methodology for assessing the exact share of aid activity expenditure that contributes to the Rio conventions. The OECD DAC recommends marker data figures for principal and significant objectives to be shown separately and the sum referred to as the “estimate” or “upper bound” of aid. OECD DAC (2011), Handbook on the OECD-DAC Climate Markers.
- There are however less common standards across members on the share of finance to report for activities marked as significant. A finding which suggests that the issue of the Rio marker data being “qualitative” and less appropriate for reporting against financial commitments applies predominately to the use of the significant marker. The range of approaches: To the UNFCCC, almost half of members’ report 100%, but the other half note coefficients ranging from 1-50%, clustering around 30-50%. To the UNCBD, the most common is to report 40% (4 out of 12 members). However 3 of 12 members’ report 100% and the rest apply a range of coefficients from 2-80%. To the UNCCD, the number of members who noted they are reporting is significantly lower and the objective differs - it is not against specified financial targets. For reporting, 4 out of 9 members who draw on the Rio markers are counting 100% of significant spend. Important to recognise that different approaches and coefficients adopted by members may relate to the nature of their different portfolios, and how the marker is applied by members. This is both in respect to how members treat finance targeting more than one objective of the Rio conventions in their reporting (i.e. the treatment of the overlap – see section below), but may also relate to how members define what is an activity, their average activity size, and how they apply and distinguish between the principal and significant markers (for example, Belgium are conservative in their approach to applying the markers, undertaking cross-checks to ensure that a project cannot score principal against one Rio marker and significant against all other Rio markers). Comparability and the need for harmonisation are cited as concerns across a large share of members. Some members raise the need for a “harmonized official methodology” and a “uniform application of the Rio marker system between all parties to all three conventions”. Others note that in the absence of an internationally agreed methodology they do not draw on Rio marker data. Some members are undertaking on new research in this area, and future findings will inform discussion – i.e. Austria and EU.
- Useful to understand what’s driving the approach to apply adjustments, to then consider appropriate evidence base and development of methodology….. Could be a range of perspectives