Search

Begin New Search Topic Transparency Publishing Institution German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)

1. Learning from KfW’s Ex-Post Evaluations? How Conflicting Objectives Can Limit their Usefulness

Author:
Nicola M. Dörrbecker
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The effectiveness of development cooperation (DC) is a topic of extensive debate in this policy field. Yet despite numerous review and evaluation formats designed to promote learning processes and hence enhance effectiveness, it is often impossible to document these improvements. Against this backdrop, the present paper aims to analyse the usefulness of ex-post evaluations (EPEs) by KfW Development Bank – both within KfW Development Bank and at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), from which it receives its commissions. Research indicates that EPEs are conducted with great care. Moreover, EPEs can contribute to the legitimacy of (financial) DC, as project results are considered and presented in a structured manner. Nevertheless, the people interviewed for this study regard EPEs as (highly) subjective assessments and believe that these evaluations may under certain circumstances not be comparable with one another. Yet EPEs need to be comparable, because their overall ratings are used to calculate the success rate, which is currently around 81%. This in turn affects KfW’s reporting on its performance to BMZ and to the public. The data from the interviews shows that trade-offs during the production and use of EPEs appear to limit the usefulness of this format. EPEs are designed to deliver accountability to the public and to BMZ and to promote learning within KfW. These are conflicting objectives, however, as they would each require a different approach. According to those interviewed at KfW and BMZ, EPEs are seldom read or used. Interviewees explain that EPEs are rarely relevant to people working in operational areas, as the evaluations are not published until several years after the project concerned has been completed and only occasionally contain information that is relevant to current projects. The evaluations cannot be conducted sooner, however, as otherwise they would not be able to assess the sustainability and development impact of a project. Moreover, interviews and evidence from other studies indicate that EPEs are of limited relevance to political steering at BMZ, even in aggregated form. Nonetheless, the author believes that it would not be an option to no longer conduct EPEs, as they are the only way to review the development impact and sustainability of a representative number of projects in an affordable way, thus forming the basis for delivering accountability. Reconciling the conflicting goals of learning and accountability is challenging. For the learning component, it would appear to be a good idea to make greater use of cross-sectional analyses and to establish a central support structure for all implementing organisations and BMZ with a view to compiling all the key information from the evaluations and forwarding it to both BMZ and KfW and to the partner countries in a form tailored to meet their needs. For the accountability component, transparency also needs to be enhanced by making completed evaluation reports available to the public promptly and in full. In addition to an evaluation of international research literature, this paper particularly draws on empirical interview data. A total of 13 specifically selected experts from the German DC system were interviewed. This interview data thus forms an illustrative but not representative sample.
Topic:
Development, Public Policy, Transparency, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

2. The Future of Climate and Development Finance: Balancing Separate Accounting with Integrated Policy Responses

Author:
Svea Koch and Mariya Aleksandrova
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
With the first Global Stocktake to be presented at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, the question of inadequate levels of climate finance for developing countries will again take centre stage. Ongoing efforts to reform climate finance include the negotiation of a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) by the end of 2024; the structural reform of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to provide more climate finance and to lower the cost of capital; and the setting-up and integration of the new funding stream for loss and damage. Yet, there are other longstanding issues in international climate finance that likewise need to be addressed as part of these ongoing efforts, which are mainly related to the disentanglement of the development and climate finance regimes. Official Development Assistance (ODA), per definition, aims to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries, and at the same time plays an increasing role in the global climate finance landscape. However, sourcing climate finance from ODA is already leading to a “crowding out” of limited ODA resources for its original purposes. Moreover, the current system of reporting on and accounting for climate finance provided through ODA has significant pitfalls and weaknesses. This paper discusses some of the key challenges caused by the blurring of the development assistance and climate finance regimes and argues that the NCQG process and the integration of loss and damage into the climate finance system must go hand in hand with a separation of climate and development finance accounting mechanisms whilst ensuring integrated policy responses. We address these issues in two parts: first we focus on the current system of reporting and accounting for international climate finance (as ODA); and second on the role of ODA to finance mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. We argue that there is a political necessity for distinguishing between ODA and climate finance (for transparency and credibility), which contrasts with the operational reality where co-benefits of projects and development finance must be achieved by integrating climate and non-climate objectives. In this regard, the paper analyses the implications of on-going negotiations under the UNFCCC around the NCQG and loss and damage for a necessary ODA reform. In particular, we make the following recommendations: (1) Align the accounting and reporting system of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) with the NCQG: one should separate climate and development finance; reduce over-reporting; and establish triangulation of climate finance data reported by donors. (2) Introduce qualitative frameworks for monitoring and assessment of the impact of climate-related interventions; and define “fit-for-purpose” instru-ments and channels for the provision of climate finance. Looking ahead, we expect discussions on a potential enlargement of the contributor base of climate finance to give new impetus to climate finance reform.
Topic:
Reform, Climate Finance, Transparency, Development Policy, and Development Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The Case for Greater Project-Level Transparency of the UN’s Development Work

Author:
Max Otto Baumann
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information. Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Transparency, and World Food Program (WFP)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Strengthening Coordination in River Basin Governance in Southern Spain – Cooperation, Incentives and Persuasion

Author:
Nora Schütze, Andreas Thiel, Pilar Paneque, Jesús Vargas, and Rodrigo Vidaurre
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The Guadalquivir basin in Spain struggles with reducing agricultural water consumption to comply with water quantity provisions of the European Water Framework Directive. Improved cross-sectoral exchange, transparency, monitoring and revision of water rights are needed to address this challenge.
Topic:
Agriculture, Natural Resources, Water, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

5. Forums, Fees and Data Flows: Coordinating Mining and Water Policy in Mongolia

Author:
Mirja Schoderer and Ines Dombrowsky
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Mineral and metal extraction threatens water quantity and quality in Mongolia. While good legal provisions for coordination exist, a lack of stakeholder involvement, data availability, human and financial capacity, and general transparency and accountability hinder their implementation.
Topic:
Natural Resources, Water, Accountability, Mining, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Mongolia and Asia

6. Revenue Collection and Social Policies: Their Underestimated Contribution to Social Cohesion

Author:
Francesco Burchi, Christoph Strupat, and Armin von Schiller
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Social cohesion is an important precondition for peaceful and economically successful societies. The question of how societies hold together and which policies enhance social cohesion has become a relevant topic on both national and international agendas. This Briefing Paper stresses the contribution of revenue collection and social policies, and in particular the interlinkages between the two. It is evident that revenue mobilisation and social policies are intrinsically intertwined. It is impossible to think carefully about either independently of the other. In particular, revenue is needed to finance more ambitious social policies and allow countries to reach goals, such as those included in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Similarly, better social policies can increase the acceptance of higher taxes and fees. Furthermore, and often underestimated, a better understanding of the interlinkages between revenue generation and social policies can provide a significant contribution to strengthening social cohesion – in particular, concerning state–citizen relationships. In order to shed light on these interlinkages, it is useful to have a closer look at the concept of the “fiscal contract”, which is based on the core idea that governments exchange public services for revenue. Fiscal contracts can be characterised along two dimensions: (i) level of endorsement, that is, the number of actors and groups that at least accept, and ideally proactively support, the fiscal contract, and (ii) level of involvement, that is, the share of the population that is involved as taxpayer, as beneficiary of social policies or both. In many developing countries, either because of incapacity or biased state action towards elite groups, the level of involvement is rather low. Given the common perception that policies are unjust and inefficient, in many developing countries the level of endorsement is also low. It is precisely in these contexts that interventions on either side of the public budget are crucial and can have a significant societal effect beyond the fiscal realm. We argue that development programmes need to be especially aware of the potential impacts (negative and positive) that work on revenue collection and social policies can have on the fiscal contract and beyond, and we call on donors and policy-makers alike to recognise these areas as relevant for social cohesion. We specifically identify three key mechanisms connecting social policies and revenue collection through which policy-makers could strengthen the fiscal contract and, thereby, enhance social cohesion: 1. Increasing the effectiveness and/or coverage of public social policies. These interventions could improve the perceptions that people – and not only the direct beneficiaries – have of the state, raising their willingness to pay taxes and, with that, improving revenues. 2. Broadening the tax base. This is likely to generate new revenue that can finance new policies, but more importantly it will increase the level of involvement, which will have other effects, such as increasing government responsiveness and accountability in the use of public resources. 3. Enhancing transparency. This can stimulate public debate and affect people’s perceptions of the fiscal system. In order to obtain this result, government campaigns aimed at diffusing information about the main features of policies realised are particularly useful, as are interventions to improve the monitoring and evaluation system.
Topic:
Development, Finance, Economic Growth, Tax Systems, Transparency, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus