1. Overview of The IFC Earth Fund Platform
GEF Assembly, May 2010

2. The IFC Earth Fund Platform
Objective
“Leverage GEF and other funding for the creative and innovative use of risk mitigation instruments and technical assistance to transform markets through
(i) the testing, development and establishment of new technologies, financial products/structures and business models, and
(ii) the scale up of previously supported tested initiatives”
How?
Supporting Programmatic and Individual Market Transformation initiatives:
Removing barriers that impede wider private sector participation in a particular context, preventing faster, more widespread or more long-term sustainable adoption of technology, financial products, business models that address Climate Change and/or conserve Biodiversity.
Investments and Advisory Services
Governance
In order to address conflicts of interest and ensure donor funds are invested with the same care as if they were IFC’s:
IFC has a dedicated team that reviews project eligibility, structures and supervises Earth Fund projects
A separate Investment Review Committee approves the use of the Earth Fund funding; a representative of the GEF Secretariat participates in the meetings.
GEF Earth Fund
IFC
US$30M
US$10M
IFC Earth Fund Platform US$40M
Eligible Investment & Advisory Services Projects

3. Market Transformation: Testing and Scaling up
Innovative Financial Structures / Business Models
Tools to incentivize listed companies in emerging markets to disclose and improve their carbon efficiency (e.g. Carbon Efficiency Index)
Information tools for institutional investors invest in Climate Change PE Funds
Advisory Services to develop light rail PPP
Incentives for FIs to lend to EE & RE:
Performance bonus
Risk sharing facility / first loss
Extended tenors
Concessional pricing
Advisory Services to FIs, technical service providers and end users to promote EE investments
Technology Commercialization
- Cleantech venture capital Pilot
Subordinated & deferrable debt for RE (Solar)
Support to companies to undertake CP audits

4. IFC Earth Fund Projects Overview
# Projects Reviewed IS 22 AS 29
Total 49
# Projects approved 51 5 10
Amounts Approved(US$ M)
26.01
5.8
33.82
Approved Projects Leverage (US$ M)
202.2
Approved Projects Leverage Ratio - GEF
7.3x3
# Projects rejected by IRC 1
1 One US$2 million project as been dropped after approval. Another US$5 million project might also be dropped. It does not include one US$5 million investment project that obtained conditional approval and is currently on-hold.
2 US$28.5 from GEF and US$5.3 from IFC FMTAAS contribution to the IFC EF Platform
3 US$207.5 million (3rd parties co-financing + IFC FMTAAS)/ US$28.5 million of GEF financing

5. IFC Earth Fund Projects Overview (cont.)
Project – General Description
Instrument
US$ M
Country
Market Barriers Targeted
GEF
Leverage Ratio IS
EE Lending
Loan + Performance Bonus
1.0
Vietnam
FIs’ high perceived risks
Lack of access to long term liquidity by FIs
High upfront costs to set up new business
24.0x
Cleantech investment1
Equity
2.0
China
High technology costs
Lack of financing for small cleantech company
6.0x
SE Fund
Debt Fund
5.0
Sub-Saharan Africa
- Lack of financing due to investors’ high perceived risks to lend to SE projects in Africa
9.0x
Cleantech Pilot Fund
5.03
Global
- Lack of equity financing due investors’ high perceived risks to invest in venture cleantech
3.0x
Solar Plant
Subordinated Loan
13.0
Bulgaria
- Regulatory risk limits size of senior debt and sponsor’s return
7.4x AS
CP Facility
Grant
- Companies’ lack of capacity and information
- High upfront costs
- Lack of financing due to FIs’ lack of expertise
73x (1.2x)4
EE AS
0.2
Indonesia
FIs’, companies’ and service providers’ lack of capacity and information
4.2x
Carbon Index
0.3
- Lack of information about listed companies carbon emissions
3.6x
RECIPPE – Info tool for institutional investors
- Institutional investors’ lack of information about risk-return of climate change sectors
- High upfront costs to set up information tool
4.4x
Amman LRS
0.4
Jordan
Lack of government capacity to develop and execute light rail PPP
3.0x5
1 Project has been dropped after approved due to difficulties with other shareholders.
3US$15 million project request from EF. Initial commitment of US$5 million due to funding constraints. Next US$10 million to be committed in two subsequent tranches if funding available
4 1.2x is ratio of third parties co-financing (US$6 million) to Earth Fund funding (S$5 million). However GEF is funding US$0.15K and IFC FMTAAS is funding US$4.8 million; therefore the leverage ratio to GEF is 73x
5 100% funded by IFC FMTAAS. Ratio is IFC FMTAAS contribution to other co-financing

6. Project Example: Promoting EE lending in Vietnam
Market Barriers
No lending to EE projects due to
FIs’ high perceived risk as a result of track record and technical expertise
FIs’ limited access to long term funding
Earth Fund Intervention
US$1 million loan with performance bonus (PB) to leading FI, complementing a US$24 million IFC loan to be on-lent to EE projects
PB equivalent to 2% of the FI’s portfolio to encourage it to build a US$50 portfolio
The FI will only receive the PB if it builds a minimum portfolio of US$25M and 50% is with SMEs
The FI is also receiving AS from IFC
This is the first of 3-4 interventions in the country
To transform the market
Track record established for the viability of commercial EE financing to SMEs
Increased capacity of FIs to lend to EE projects
Demonstration effect to encourage replication by other local FIs
The Process:
Dec 09: IFC Approves US$24M loan
Feb 10: EF investment approved
May 10: Legal Agreement with client signed
Negotiation and structuring of the investment
Negotiation of legal documentation

7. Structuring of donor funds
Lessons Learned
Approval Process
Delegated authority significantly reduces approval time (less than 2 months between IFC’s and EF’s approval)
The independent Investment Review Committee has played a key role to guarantee the best use of donor funds, providing advise on project design and financial structures, and protecting the donor’s interests vis-à-vis other financiers, including IFC
Project origination
Need for a clear criteria for eligible activities in projects where IFC works with financial intermediaries
Generating a strong pipeline for investments took longer than for advisory services; however, in the last months we have experienced a big ramp-up in the demand from investment departments
Structuring of donor funds
Need to engage with IFC teams and clients early in the negotiations to ensure donor funds adequately help address market barriers and are properly structured
Subsidy should be defined on a project by project basis to address specific market barriers and ensure “minimum concessionality”