1. November 13, 2013, Taryn Fransen Mobilising Climate Finance Lessons from fast start finance

2. FSF contributions* Identified at project or programme level

3. Overview of FSF Source Country Financial Instrument Objectives Regions Recipient Institution

4. Diverse sources were counted GermanyJapanNorwayUKUSA Existing government revenues Yes Innovative sources YesNo Export-credit and bilateral non- concessional development finance NoYesNo Yes Leveraged private finance Not “counted”Counted towards $15B pledge, not towards $30B Not “counted” Reported but not “counted”

5. Most finance was channelled bilaterally

6. 77% of finance supported mitigation

7. 48% of finance was provided as loans

8. Adaptation received more grants

9. Geographic distribution of FSF

10. Distribution to LDCs and SIDS

11. Distribution of FSF & ODA

12. Adaptation FSF vs vulnerability

13. Mitigation FSF vs GHG emissions

14. Climate finance has increased

15. New & additional? CriteriaGermanyJapanNorwayUKUSA Increase in climate finance overall Yes Increase for existing climate projects In some cases “Recycling”?Partially Met 0.7% GNI as ODA? No YesNoNo* New sources?YesNo, but dedicated budget contributions

16. Lessons from Fast Start Finance Make continued commitment to scaling up climate finance Strengthen enabling environments in recipient countries Better understand how to target country needs and vulnerabilities Reduce public investment in climate- incompatible development Continued reporting improvements will help