 Hi, my name is Aaron Atterich. I'm a research fellow with the Stockholm Environment Institute, which is an international independent think tank on environment and development. And in this short presentation, what I'm going to do is give you an overview of recent analysis that we have done on climate finance and how it has been flowing in the Pacific Islands. Under the UNFCCC, you'll know there are commitments to provide developing and vulnerable countries with funds for supporting low carbon development, dealing with emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, and also adaptation to the impacts of climate change. So it's interesting, of course, then to explore how that's been working, and there are a number of key questions that we see as important. The first one is how much finance is flowing and where it's going, what it's being used for. And that's what we set out to answer in this study. And then that, of course, enables a much broader, deeper discussion about whether good decisions are being made with it, is it being used effectively, and if not, why not, so that we can learn over time. It turns out that understanding how much finance is flowing is quite difficult, and that's partly because of this picture, which is the complex architecture through which finance is flowing. It comes from many different donors. It flows through many different intermediary institutions and agents. And then within countries, it ends up in a very wide range of different entities rather than just a single central planning ministry or the finance ministry. So from the government's perspective, this obviously makes it even difficult to know what money is coming in and what it's being used for. So before I get to the numbers, a little bit about how we did this study. Bilateral donors and some climate funds, they report official development assistance to the OECD Development Assessment Assistance Committee. So we use their data to look at, in this study, the period from 2010 to 2014, and you can see the total ODA to the Pacific in that period was around 13.6 billion US dollars. And there's a portion of that that has been tagged by the donors as climate relevant, which consists of two things. One is finance that primarily targets climate change, where the main objective was to address some climate objectives. And that amount in the Pacific for that five-year period totals 748 million US dollars. And that's the amount that we're interested in in this study. There's also a secondary amount related to projects that were not specifically about climate change, but had a significant relationship to climate change. But we concentrate on the principal objective. So in terms of where it's coming from, you can see on this slide that around nearly three-quarters of it comes from bilateral channels, which is interesting because there's quite a lot of focus in the Pacific on tapping the multilateral funds. But to date bilateral channels have been a much larger source of climate finance. And this complicated figure, which is in more detail in the report itself, shows where the money is coming from, where it's going to. So on the left-hand side, you have a range of different sources, and the largest here are Australia, followed by the Global Environment Facility, and then bilateral donors like Japan, European Union, and New Zealand. And in the middle you can see that around 60% of the funding at a regional level has been for adaptation. On the right are the recipients, but you can see them here more clearly. In terms of size, after Timor-Lest, the largest recipients across the Pacific were Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu. And the smallest were FSM, Nauru, Palau, Niwe. And the balance between adaptation and mitigation is different in each country. You can see some analysis on the sectoral distribution of funding. The overwhelming majority of it, or the largest chunk of it, certainly is going towards what we call the enabling environment. And this is in our data a mix of different policy support measures for forestry, water, environment, things like that. Renewable energy is obviously a large chunk because there's high capital costs. And as you go down the list, you can see disaster prevention and preparedness. And much further down towards the bottom, some contributions towards water supply and sanitation, small amounts for biodiversity irrigation. Another interesting thing to understand is how this funding is being delivered. Around 86%, so almost all of it at the regional level, is as project-based funding. There's very little direct budget support or sectoral budget support. A small amount of technical assistance. But the overwhelming majority of this is coming as project-based funding. And not only that, it's coming in very small chunks. So in this example for Fiji, which received 43 separately funded projects or activities for this five-year period, you can see that 27 of the 43 were actually less than 0.1 million US dollars, which is very small. And half of the rest was less than 1 million US dollars. So if you think of these together, the project-based funding plus the small size, you start to ask questions about how countries can effectively use that towards their long-term programmatic priorities. It's very difficult to fund large-scale transformation with this kind of financial support. A couple of other interesting findings. One was looking at per capita climate finance. And you can see on the right-hand side, the Polynesian countries were significantly, noticeably more successful at attracting funding than Micronesian countries, which are similar in terms of population size. The Melanesian countries, you would expect them to have lower per capita because they have a larger population. But the success of the Polynesian countries is something worth investigating a bit more if in case there are some interesting lessons to be learned here. Another finding is not only were bilateral sources larger, but they also programmed funding through a wider range of sectors. So here you can see in the orange, a much wider range of sectors that are connecting with bilateral sources. And down the middle of this Sanky diagram, you can see the intermediary agencies that they used for bilateral is also a much wider range of different institutions involved in programming the funding compared to multilaterals. We did a separate analysis just on the climate funds and took that up to almost the end of 2016 because of course they are interesting to understand. And you'll see there the Green Climate Fund, the orange box, has started to come online with some very big allocations. And also the Lease Developed Countries Fund and the PPCR have been significant to date and these we would expect to see increase over time. The report itself you can see a number of other things like how the volume of climate finance has changed over time. Here roughly doubled between 2010 and 2014. You can also see the difference between how much was committed, which are the amounts that we have been focusing on, versus how much has actually been dispersed. So in many cases there's quite a significant gap. So I think overall the data itself is not perfect but it does provide some answers to this question of where finance is coming and where it's going in the Pacific and allows us to then identify more questions that we should explore together. Things like why have some countries not tapped into the multilateral funds, why have the Polynesian countries been more successful than others, why are there some sectors also critical for long-term resilience that don't appear to be tapping in. In the paper you will find a separate analysis for each country so you can dig down into more fine-grained analysis there if you're interested. And the full report itself can be downloaded from SCI's web page along with all of the supporting material. If you have any further questions about any of this, please feel free to get in touch and we'd be happy to discuss it with you. Thank you.