1、 1 MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS FOR GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS GOOD PRACTICESSYNTHESIS REPORT JUNE 2023 Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 1 IMPRESSUM Published by:Oxford Economics Ltd.Berlin and Frankfurt,Germany 15 Marienstrae Frankfurt am Main,60329 Germany Description:Studies commissione

2、d by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit(giz)GmbH in the sector project Multilateral Development Banks for Global Public Goods Authors:Johanna Neuhoff,Hannah Zick,Helene Schle(Oxford Economics)Dr.Hanns-Peter Neuhoff(Consultant)Commissioned and edited by Deutsche Gesellschaft f

3、r Internationale Zusammenarbeit(GIZ)GmbH Sector Project Multilateral Development Banks for Global Public Goods Dr.Sebastian Wienges Funded by German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development(BMZ)Division 403:World Bank Group,IMF,debt relief Dr.Julia Lehmann Good Practices in the Prov

4、ision of GPGs by MDBs 2 ABOUT OXFORD ECONOMICS Oxford Economics was founded in 1981 as a commercial venture with Oxford Universitys business college to provide economic forecasting and modelling to UK companies and financial institutions expanding abroad.Since then,we have become one of the worlds f

5、oremost independent global advisory firms,providing reports,forecasts and analytical tools on more than 200 countries,100 industries,and 8,000 cities and regions.Our best-in-class global economic and industry models and analytical tools give us an unparalleled ability to forecast external market tre

6、nds and assess their economic,social and business impact.Headquartered in Oxford,England,with regional centres in New York,London,Frankfurt,and Singapore.Oxford Economics has offices across the globe in Berlin,Belfast,Boston,Cape Town,Chicago,Dubai,Dublin,Hong Kong,Los Angeles,Mexico City,Milan,Pari

7、s,Philadelphia,Stockholm,Sydney,Tokyo,and Toronto.We employ 450 staff,including more than 300 professional economists,industry experts,and business editorsone of the largest teams of macroeconomists and thought leadership specialists.Our global team is highly skilled in a full range of research tech

8、niques and thought leadership capabilities from econometric modelling,scenario framing,and economic impact analysis to market surveys,case studies,expert panels,and web analytics.Oxford Economics is a key adviser to corporate,financial and government decision-makers and thought leaders.Our worldwide

9、 client base now comprises over 2,000 international organisations,including leading multinational companies and financial institutions;key government bodies and trade associations;and top universities,consultancies,and think tanks.April 2023 All data shown in tables and charts are Oxford Economics o

10、wn data,except where otherwise stated and cited in footnotes,and are copyright Oxford Economics Ltd.This report is confidential to GIZ and may not be published or distributed without their prior written permission.The modelling and results presented here are based on information provided by third pa

11、rties,upon which Oxford Economics has relied in producing its report and forecasts in good faith.Any subsequent revision or update of those data will affect the assessments and projections shown.To discuss the report further please contact:Johanna Neuhoff: Oxford Economics 4 Millbank,London SW1P 3JA

12、,UK Tel:+44 203 910 8061 Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASA Advisory Services and Analytics CBA Cost-benefit analysis CBAM Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms CO2 Carbon dioxide FSAP Financial Sector Assessment Program GHG greenhouse gas GPG Global Public Goo

13、ds IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development km2 square kilometre LTS Long-Term Strategies MDB Multilateral Development Banks NDC Nationally Determined Contribution ODA Official development assistance US$United States Dollars WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organizatio

14、n Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Introduction.5 1.1 Motivation for this Study.5 1.2 Methodological Approach.7 2.Learnings from Good GPG Projects.12 2.1 Findings from the Longlist.12 2.2 Findings from 20 Case Studies.17 3.Recommendations to GPG Project Implement

15、ers.31 4.Bibliography.35 5.Appendix.36 5.1 Checklist for Designing GPG Projects.36 5.2 Long List of all Good Practice Projects.38 Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 5 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 MOTIVATION FOR THIS STUDY Cross-border externalities of Global Public Goods(GPGs)reduce incentives fo

16、r individual countries to contribute to the GPG beyond what is in their national interest,leading to an underprovision of a specific good.This illustrates the need for collective support of their provision.Against this background,we are looking for good examples of how the provision of GPGs can be(c

17、o-)funded through international funding.Examples can include all projects with significant and direct externalities(either positive effects or possible potential negative effects)beyond the country in which the project is implemented.In short,a GPG has three interrelated characteristics that can be

18、a reason for their structural underprovision:1 1.They produce significant cross-country externalities.2.They areto a very important degreenon-rivalrous and non-excludable.2 3.They generate opportunities for improving welfare through collective action.Although a variety of GPGs exists,five themes hav

19、e been selected in this study to illustrate the concept and explore good examples.The selection of GPG themes is mainly in line with the priority GPGs identified by the International Task Force on Global Public Goods(2006)which was initiated by France and Sweden to propose ways to improve their prov

20、ision.The first GPG considered is“climate and environment”with the two sub-themes“climate change mitigation”and“preservation of biodiversity”.Next,“global public health”is considered including two sub-themes:“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases”and“food systems”.The third GP

21、G is“peace and security”with“prevention of violent conflict”as the corresponding sub-theme.Moreover,“fair international trade systems”are identified as a GPG with“free,open,and fair trade”as the first sub-theme and“international tax cooperation”as the second one.Lastly,a“stable international 1 For a

22、 detailed discussion on the characteristics and properties of GPGs see Oxford Economics(2023):Multilateral Development Banks for Global Public Goods.2 Non-rivalrous means that one individual using the good does not restrict the possibility for another individual to use it.Non-excludable means that n

23、obody can be excluded from using the good.Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Preservation of biodiversityGlobal public health Preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases Food systemsPeace and security Prevention of violent conflictFair international trade systems Free

24、,open,and fair trade International tax cooperationStable international financial architecture Preventing global financial crisesSource:Oxford Economics Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 6 financial architecture”is examined as a GPG with the corresponding sub-theme of“preventing global

25、financial crises”.3 Although constituting various themes and sub-themes,the GPGs addressed are largely intertwined representing not only global but also multi-dimensional challenges.The prevention of violent conflict,for example,may be promoted by the other GPGs such as climate change mitigation or

26、the prevention of the emergence and spread of communicable diseases as well depending on the context and the conflict drivers.Thus,these topics cannot be separated from each other but should rather be understood as interdependent and requiring holistic,integrated solutions.The relevance of GPGs for

27、the sustainable development agenda has been thrust to the forefront of our minds by the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic,reiterating once again that global emergencies such as the climate crisis or the financial instability can only be solved by concerted global action calling for multilateral develo

28、pment banks(MDB)and other multilateral organisations to take on a more central role.However,this debate also includes concerns.Some scholars argue that the main instruments of MDBs are not appropriate for GPG provision(see e.g.,Kanbur 2016).Loans in particular are thought to be ill-suited to finance

29、 the provision of GPGs because the MDBs can hardly require a country to repay a loan if the benefits accrue to other countries(Kopiski&Wrblewski 2021).On the other hand,there are several reasons why MDBs are well-placed to support the GPG provision:their global mandate;their coordinating ability(Buc

30、hholz&Sandler 2021);the synergies between national and transnational development(Ferroni&Mody 2002);the possibility for private capital mobilisation(OECD 2018);and their potential allocation efficiency(Bagchi et.al 2016)speak to MDBs supporting the provision of GPGs.Against this background,there is

31、a need to identify and share promising practices and good examples of how the provision of GPGs can be supported through international funding,and in particular through MDBs.Examples can include all projects,interventions,policies,and actions with significant and direct externalities(either positive

32、 externalities or potential negative effects)beyond the country in which the intervention is implemented.These examples,showcasing successful ways of supporting the provision of GPGs,will be gathered in a publicly accessible database and can serve as a point of reference to bi-and multilateral devel

33、opment partners and receiving countries to promote their uptake.Furthermore,valuable lessons can be drawn on the institutional set-up,financing,quantification etc.on the support of GPGs by MDBs.The scope of this study is to take stock of existing good practices related to the provision of the five s

34、elected GPGs by MDBs.By providing an overview of existing GPG initiatives supported through MDBs,this report can incentivise the upscaling of GPG provision with examples.Furthermore,selected case studies can help answer important questions such as:3 The GPGs covered here and the sub-categories used

35、in the report“Multilateral Development Banks for Global Public Goods”by Oxford Economics(2023)differ.This is because the definition and specification of GPGs changed over time,when the selection of case studies has already taken place.The main GPG themes covered are still comparable.The main differe

36、nces are the following:(1)The GPG“climate and environment”is divided into its sub-categories in the other report.(2)The GPG“global public health”is reduced to pandemic preparedness only as it could be shown that the GPG logic is much clearer in this case.In the case studies,food systems as well as t

37、he spread of known communicable diseases is covered,too.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 7 Which instruments are used for supporting GPG provision in MDBs?Which are the main financing sources for GPG projects?Are there differences in interventions based on the types of GPGs?Are MDBs c

38、apable of mobilising additional funding for GPGs,for example from the private sector?Which additional outputs do projects produce that foster the provision of GPGs(e.g.,coordination among stakeholders,dissemination of standards,data provision,benchmarking,institution building)?Which challenges and s

39、olutions for the provision have been proposed in the case studies?Some of the findings have already informed the policy report“Multilateral Development Banks for Global Public Goods”by Oxford Economics(2023).Some more details on the concepts,and ideas used in this study can be found there.Please not

40、e that this report must be read in combination with the longlist of GPG projects by multilateral institutions as well as the 20 in-depth case studies.These can be accessed here.1.2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH We applied a mixed-method design combining qualitative and quantitative methods producing sever

41、al outputs,which serve as the basis to answer to answer the key questions of this report displayed above:A longlist of GPG projects supported by MDBs and multilateral institutions at the country level.Analysis of 20 in-depth case studies selected from the longlist.COMPILING A COMPREHENSIVE LONGLIST

42、OF EXAMPLES OF GPG PROVISION IN MDBS First,we gathered a longlist of examples of the MDBs supporting GPG provision by conducting comprehensive desk research looking at scientific and grey literature and project databases.We also prepared an online survey and sent it out to more than 340 contacts fro

43、m MDBs,multilateral institutions,bilateral development partners,and platform initiatives.Additionally,we directly contacted several relevant actors in the realm of project development with a reference to global public goods.While the only survey did not yield feedback,the direct contact to involved

44、actors provided valuable insights and information on successful projects.In total,99 projects were researched and identified for the longlist containing the most relevant project information including project title,project description,project start and end,countries of implementation,involvement of

45、multilateral institutions,involvement of MDBs,the sector defined by the Official Development Assistance(ODA)database,GPG theme,supported outputs,and link to project information.An overview of the project can be found in the appendix.For a project to enter the longlist of GPGs,it had to affirm the fo

46、llowing screening questions(knockout criteria for not entering the longlist in the first place):Does the intervention not only benefit people inside the country of implementation but also,to a substantial degree,people outside of its main country location(significant and direct cross-country benefit

47、s/externalities)?Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 8 Is the provision of goods or services implemented at a regional or country-level(regional-or country-level)?Is information about the intervention publicly available,e.g.,via a website or an online report(publicly accessible informati

48、on)?SELECT AND SHOWCASE GOOD PRACTICES OF GPG PROVISIONS IN MDBS Next,good practices from the longlist of projects were selected.For this,we combined selection and rating criteria.First,only interventions with(potential)MDB involvement were selected as good practice examples,which already reduced th

49、e longlist.Second,all projects were evaluated along the following rating criteria:Ambition of cross-country externalities:to what degree does the intervention not only benefit people inside the country of implementation but also beyond the countrys borders?Transformative intervention:to what degree

50、does the intervention support the implementation of framework conditions that change the incentive structure for the provision of GPGs(e.g.,price mechanism,tax,incentives for agents of transformation)?Replicability and scalability:could the project be replicated in other countries?Is the project sca

51、lable?External recommendation:has the project been rated a good practice in reports or named a good practice by interview partners from MDBs?The ambition of the cross-country externalities rating criteria is imperative to ensure that the case studies reflected are good examples for GPG provision.Fur

52、thermore,transformative interventions are preferred as changing the framework conditions for supplying GPGs tackles the core problem of GPGs the structural incentive to underprovide them.Since the case studies serve as a practical idea generator or project pipeline for providing GPGs in the multilat

53、eral system,they also need to be replicable and scalable.Lastly,to know whether a GPG is a good practice depends on a subjective judgement best made by experts.Consequently,if a project has been named in an expert interview or in the literature as good practice,it was also favoured.As an additional

54、upside,we favoured projects that(i)supported the dissemination of standards set out by an international agreement,(ii)had interlinkages to other GPGs than the main GPG tackled in the project,or(iii)had a regional approach.In the last step,we chose the best-rated projects while optimising the represe

55、ntation of case studies according to the following aspects:o All five GPGs and corresponding sub-themes.o All major MDBs with a special focus on the World Bank.o Covering different regions,countries,and income levels among MDB client countries.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 9 This e

56、nsures that the case studies show the whole spectrum of GPG support available by MDBs in different country settings.ANALYSE SHORT-LISTED GOOD PRACTICES IN DEPTH Looking at the in-depth analysis of good practices,we combined desk research with semi-structured expert interviews with professional staff

57、 from MDBs and local institutions.Table 1 lists all projects selected for the short list/in-depth analysis.For the 20 projects selected,approximately 50 persons were contacted for an interview.Unfortunately,the response rate was comparatively low.Table 1 displays for which case studies we were able

58、to conduct an interview.If no interview was conducted,the case studies are based on a comprehensive literature review.TABLE 1:OVERVIEW OF 20 CASE STUDIES AND INTERVIEW PARTNERS No.Project Title Interview Type of Interview Partner 1 South African Partnership for Market Readiness Project 2 Rooftop Sol

59、ar Program for the Residential Sector x MDB 3 Energy Transition Mechanism x MDB 4 Eskom Just Energy Transition Project x MDB 5 Green Bond Transparency Platform x MDB 6 First Amazonas Fiscal and Environmental Sustainability Programmatic Development Policy Financing in Brazil 7 Humbo Assisted Natural

60、Regeneration Project 8 CDI Sustainable and Inclusive Growth DPF1 x MDB 9 Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Series of Projects 10 COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership Somalia x Country 11“Say No to Famine”Addressing Food and Nutrition Insecurity in North-East Nigeria 12 West Africa F

61、ood System Resilience Program x Country 13 DRC-Gender-based violence prevention and Response Project 14 Gulf of Guinea Northern Regions Social Cohesion project 15 Philippines conflict monitoring project 16 Western Balkans Trade and Transport Facilitation Project x Country 17 Trade Facilitation Progr

62、amme(TFP)18 Programmatic Shared Prosperity Development Policy Financing Project 19 Financial Sector Assessment Program(FSAP)in Mexico 20 First,Second,and Third Fiscal Consolidation,Sustainable Energy,and Competitiveness DPL to the Arab Republic of Egypt Source:Oxford Economics If we were able to con

63、duct an interview,the interview was structured based on the following questions:Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 10 INTRO SECTION If you had to convince somebody why your project should be scaled in other countries,how would you do that?DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT What is the goal of t

64、he intervention?How does the approach correspond to national development priorities?Can you tell us a little bit about the projects history?By whom was the good practice initiated?Who were the implementing partners?What is the overall context of the implementation?How did you come up with the overal

65、l financing for the project?Which financial instruments and financing conditions have been critical for you to pursue the project?What is the role of the GPG in the motivation of the project?Is it one of the main objectives or is it a desired co-benefit?Have you quantified the benefits of the projec

66、t?Did you differentiate between the countrys benefits and cross-country benefits?What is the institutional setup?Which funds are used and how are they are allocated?How is the GPG financed?Are you able to leverage private funds?Do you think that this initiative was able to gather additional funds fo

67、r the GPG provision?Can you describe the ideal and actual outcome and impact of the intervention/project?How did you quantify,measure,and monitor the success of the project?Has it been evaluated?Could you tell us one outstanding measure of success?CLIENT COUNTRIES PERSPECTIVE Why did the country inv

68、est in this project with high cross-border externalities it does not directly benefit from?How has MDB support enabled it to come about?What was the role of the client country in the project?To what extent did it support it(what were the opportunities/challenges for implementation)?REFLECTION In you

69、r view,why is the initiative a good practice(e.g.,the ambition of cross-country externalities)?Do you think the project is transformative,innovative,and/or sustainable?What were the success factors?What were the challenges of the intervention and how were they overcome?Can the GPG good practice be r

70、eplicated?What should others keep in mind while doing so?In your view,did it make development cooperation more effective?Depending on the project,the information available online,the interview partners background,and the course of the interview,the questions have been deepened,adjusted,or omitted.Th

71、us,the interviews Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 11 were kept structured and yet flexible to adjust to the interview partner and derive maximum benefit for the analysis from the dialogue.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 12 2.LEARNINGS FROM GOOD GPG PROJECTS 2.1 FINDIN

72、GS FROM THE LONGLIST In total,99 good examples of how the provision of GPGs can be(co-)funded through international funding at regional or country level have been identified through desk research.The list is neither exhaustive nor representative as it has been developed with the purpose of finding g

73、ood examples of GPG provision across all regions,countries,and GPG themes considered.This should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of the following analysis.GPG THEMES AND TYPES OF INTERVENTION Almost half of GPG projects(44 out of 99)that matched the selection criteriaand the criteria o

74、f having significant and direct cross-country benefits/externalitieswere projects in the GPG theme“climate and environment”.Furthermore,the subtheme“mitigation of climate change”seems to be more frequent than interventions aiming at the“preservation of biodiversity”(26 and 18 projects respectively).

75、As the basis for selecting projects in climate change mitigation was so large,we focussed on identifying the most transformative interventions for the longlist.Interventions aimed at preserving biodiversity have been mostly focussed on establishing protected land areas such as a national parkmostly

76、in combination with community cash-transfer programmes.In the more recent projects,there is a slight shift towards nature-based solutions that account for the close link between biodiversity and climate change adaptation.For the GPG theme“global public health”,we found 17 good examples.They consist

77、of two sub-themes in our specification.While six interventions were subsumed under the subtheme“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases”,11 aimed at promoting“food systems”.In the“prevention of communicable diseases”,the close collaboration of MDBs and the World Health Organizat

78、ion(WHO)is noteworthy.Moreover,albeit many good projects focus on health-related issues,the projects targeting pandemic preparedness are the ones with the highest cross-country externalities.In contrast,the interventions aiming at the resilience and functioning of food systems had mostly national po

79、sitive externalities.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 13 Additionally,16 projects have been identified for the GPG theme“peace and security”.Many examples focus on reducing the negative effects of war and violence rather than preventing conflictsalthough the line between prevention an

80、d mitigation might be blurry in conflict-affected areas.However,the mitigation is more of a result of a lacking GPG provision than a GPG on its own.Consequently,these projects produced mainly national andif at allregional rather than global externalities.In addition,regional approaches are the excep

81、tion.Next,16 projects fall under the GPG theme“fair international trade system”,of which 14 are projects under the subtheme“free,open,and fair trade”and only two of the subtheme“international tax cooperation”.For the latter subtheme,analytical work and diagnostics prevailed.Only a few projects tackl

82、ed the GPG itself and thereby produced any cross-country externalities.In the subtheme“free,open,and fair trade”,most of the projects aim at disseminating standards stipulated by the World Trade Organization(WTO).Furthermore,there is a vast number of regional integration and transport projects.Final

83、ly,six projects counted as the GPG theme“stable international financial architecture”aiming at preventing a global financial crisis.Disseminating the FSAP standards are at the heart of this GPG.Furthermore,fiscal consolidation projects are increasingly used to integrate components with positive GPG

84、co-benefits(e.g.,climate&biodiversity).Thus,financial sector support becomes a means to deliver other GPGs which is possible due to its cross-cutting nature.GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE The 99 good practices in GPG provision are implemented in various countries around the globe.Thirteen of the 99 projects

85、have more than one country of implementation.Most of the identified projects are implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa,followed by East Asia&Pacific,Latin America and the Caribbean,and South Asia.Two projects span multiple regions.The GPG theme“climate and environment”is implemented in all regions and i

86、s most relevant to the projects in East Asia&Pacific as well as Europe&Central Asia.In Latin America and the Caribbean,projects aiming at biodiversity are important.In Africa,projects in the GPGs“food systems”,“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases”,and“prevention and limitati

87、on of violent conflicts”are comparatively more important.Regarding the income categories of these countries,there is a clear concentration on middle-income countries(77 of 99).While 40 projects are located in lower-middle-income countries,37 are located in upper-middle-income countries.High-income c

88、ountries are the exceptiononly two projects are implemented here,namely a wind farm project in Poland and a project for tax cooperation in Panama.The remaining 20 projects were implemented in low-income countries.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 14 SUPPORTED OUTPUTS IN GOOD PRACTICE C

89、ASES Besides the specific project objectives,all good practices in the longlist supported other pre-defined GPG-related outputs as well.The major findings per supported output were:o Almost all projects supported developing strategies and plans for GPG or incentivising crucial stakeholders into cont

90、ributing to GPG provision.o Almost two-thirds of the projects contributed to the implementation of an international agreement or standard for GPG provision/protection.In projects related to“food systems”and the“prevention and limitation of violent conflicts”,the rate was much lowerpossibly due to mi

91、ssing international agreement/standard for these two GPGs.o Contributing to reviewing and enhancing the ambition of GPG provision or protection was a supported output in 73 projects.All projects in“international tax cooperation”,“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases”,and the“

92、prevention of global financial crises”supported an enhanced GPG ambition.o Reform of national law or a policy for GPG provision was a supported output in half of the GPG projects identified.No project in the GPG sub-theme“food system”supported this output,and in the“prevention and limitation of viol

93、ent conflicts”,it was also almost irrelevant.o Supporting the analysis and data collection on/for GPG provision was highest among projects in the GPG sub-theme“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable 18 0 9 899 aluation andpricing of GPGsSupporting the necessary transformationto adhere t

94、o an international standardAnalysis and data collection on forGPG provision or protectionNational law or policy reformfor GPG provision or protectionImplementation of an International agreement standard for GPG provision or protection eviewing and enhancing the ambitionof GPG provision or protection

95、Nudging and incentivising crucial stakeholders intocontributing to GPG provision or protectionDeveloping strategies and plans forGPG provision or protection020 0 080100Source:Oxford EconomicsNumber of projectssupporting outcome(multiple answers possible)Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDB

96、s 15 diseases”,“free,open,and fair trade”,and to a lesser degree in the GPG“climate change mitigation”.o Supporting the necessary transformation to adhere to an international standard was supported in 36 of 99 projects.More than half of projects in the GPG sub-themes“prevention and limitation of vio

97、lent conflicts”,“international tax cooperation”,and the“preservation of biodiversity”respectively supported a“just transition”.o The valuation and pricing of GPGs were only supported in 18 of the 99 projects.This was mostly the case in projects contributing to the GPG sub-theme“climate change mitiga

98、tion”and the“preservation of biodiversity”.In addition to the low representation of GPG valuation and pricing as supported outputs,only a few projects report on a cost-benefit analysis(CBA)conducted and even fewer projects considered national and cross-country externalities.In some more projects,ext

99、ernalities to other countries were considered implicitly(e.g.,qualitatively)in the description of the project.AMBITION,INNOVATIVENESS,TRANSFORMABILITY,SCALABILITY,&REPLICABILITY The good practices were rated along different criteria.Average ratings along these criteria per GPG subtheme are depicted

100、in the figure below.The first criteria assessed how ambitious the cross-country externalities produced by the project have beenfrom 1(low)to 3(high).As many projects lack a comparable outcome measure,this rating had to be subjective to a certain degree.Nonetheless,some interesting findings can be dr

101、awn from the analysis.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 16 The most ambitious cross-country externalities have been produced by climate change mitigation projects.Above average rating also received projects“preventing communicable diseases”,“preserving biodiversity”and projects in“inte

102、rnational tax cooperation”.The ambition or relevance of cross-country externalities has been rather low in projects targeting“food systems”,“violent conflicts”,and“financial resilience”.In these project types,the national benefits prevailed.Notably,this might also be a result of the type of GPG itse

103、lf rather than the ambition of the project.For example,projects“preventing financial crises”often have large national benefits compared to cross-country externalities.The innovativeness criteria rated the novelty of supported output in the project.Notably,the field of“international tax cooperation”h

104、as been rated the most novel(although only based on two observations).Most projects are based on an intervention logic known to MDBs but adjusted to the GPG context,resulting in an overall medium innovativeness ranking of 1.7 for the innovativeness of GPG projects.Although this might point to some n

105、eed for catching up in GPG-related project design,this result can be interpreted positively,as this means that GPG projects can be implemented in a known way into the MDBs country engagement.2,91,2,12,2,2,81,91,82,1,91,1,2,1,81,1,1,1,2,1,2,12,2,2,22,02,2,02,2,82,2,02,02,8 limate change mitigationFoo

106、d systemsFree,open,and fair tradeInternational tax cooperationPreservation of biodiversityPreventing the emergence and spread ofcommunicable diseasesPrevention and limitation of violentconflictsPrevention and management of globalfinancial crisesOverall012 elevance ambition of cross country spillover

107、sInnovative of supported outputTranformative Intervention eplicability&ScalabilitySource:Oxford EconomicsAverage scoreGood Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 17 In terms of replicability and scalability,the overall rating is much higher at 2.8.No GPG category ranks very differently from the

108、other GPG categories.However,all projects in“climate change mitigation”,“preventing communicable diseases”,and“preventing financial crises”have been rated as highly reproducible.The last rating criterion was the transformability of a project and the question of whether it sustainably changes the fra

109、mework condition for the GPG project in the implementing country.The overall rating of 2.3 is quite high.Again,“climate change mitigation”projects rank high in their transformability,followed by projects for“international tax cooperation”and the“prevention of a financial crisis”.Projects in the GPGs

110、“food systems”and“violent conflicts”are rated less transformativemostly because they are focussed on mitigating the negative consequences of a GPG underprovision rather than changing the provision of the GPG itself.2.2 FINDINGS FROM 20 CASE STUDIES 2.2.1 Overview of Case Studies In total,20 case stu

111、dies have been analysed in detail.The following findings are based on a synthesis of these findings.Table 2 gives an overview of some key characteristics of the case studies.TABLE 2:OVERVIEW OF THE THEMES AND COUNTRIES OF THE 20 CASE STUDIES Title Subthemes Country 1 South African Partnership for Ma

112、rket Readiness Project Climate change mitigation South Africa 2 Rooftop Solar Program for the Residential Sector Climate change mitigation India 3 Energy Transition Mechanism(ETM)Climate change mitigation Indonesia,Philippines,and Vietnam 4 Eskom Just Energy Transition Project Climate change mitigat

113、ion South Africa 5 Green Bond Transparency Platform(GBTP)Climate change mitigation Panama,Peru,Barbados,Brazil,Argentina,Chile,Mexico,Costa Rica,Dominican Republic,Colombia,Chile,Uruguay,Ecuador,Honduras,El Salvador,Nicaragua,Paraguay 6 Amazonas First Amazonas Fiscal and Environmental Sustainability

114、 Programmatic Development Policy Financing in Brazil Preservation of biodiversity Brazil 7 Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project Preservation of biodiversity Ethiopia Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 18 Title Subthemes Country 8 CDI Sustainable and Inclusive Growth DPF1 Preserva

115、tion of biodiversity Cote dIvoire 9 Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Series of Projects(REDISSE)Preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases Guinea,Senegal,and Sierra Leone plus others 10 COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership Preventing the emergence and spread of co

116、mmunicable diseases Somalia 11“Say No to Famine”Addressing Food and Nutrition Insecurity in North-East Nigeria Food Systems Nigeria 12 West Africa Food System Resilience Program Food Systems Burkina Faso,Mali,Niger,Togo,Chad,Ghana,Sierra Leone 13 DRC Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response Pro

117、gramme Prevention and limitation of violent conflicts DRC Congo 14 Gulf of Guinea Northern Regions Social Cohesion project Prevention and limitation of violent conflicts Togo,Ghana,te dIvoire,Benin 15 Philippines conflict monitoring project Prevention and limitation of violent conflicts Philippines

118、16 Western Balkans Trade and Transport Facilitation Project Free,open,and fair trade Albania,North Macedonia,Kosovo,and Serbia 17 Trade Facilitation Programme Free,open,and fair trade Ukraine 18 Programmatic Shared Prosperity Development Policy Financing Project International Tax Cooperation Panama

119、19 Financial Sector Assessment Program(FSAP)in Mexico Prevention of global financial crises Mexico 20 First,Second,and Third Fiscal Consolidation,Sustainable Energy,and Competitiveness Development Policy Loans to the Arab Republic of Egypt Prevention of global financial crises Egypt Source:Oxford Ec

120、onomics We chose at least one case study per GPG subtheme and at least two case studies per GPG.Given its frequency,projects in climate change mitigation,as well as preservation of biodiversity,are represented by more case studies.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 19 Case studies in Su

121、b-Saharan Africa are most frequent.All case studies for“food systems”,“preventing the emergence and spread of communicable diseases”,and two of three case studies for the“prevention and limitation of violent conflicts”are located in this region.Notably,all trade-related case studies are in Europe an

122、d Central Asia.Fifteen of the 20 case studies are implemented in middle-income countrieseight in lower-middle-income countries and seven in upper-middle-income countries.Three projects take place in low-income countries and two case studies are located in high-income countries.4 Sixteen of the 20 ca

123、se studies are implemented by the World Bank.This is due to the study design aiming at promoting a more targeted GPG approach in the World Bank particularly but also to the World Banks excellent project information that is publicly available.For the Asian Development Bank,the African Development Ban

124、k,the Inter-American Development Bank,and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,one case study was included each.2.2.2 Synthesis Findings OVERALL FINDINGS An ambitious GPG project that produces significant cross-country externalities for other countries requires a clearly defined GPG

125、as a pre-requisite.For interventions where the benefits are mostly national or regional(which is,for example,prevalent in“food systems”),the GPG lens does not bring about any new insights to the project.Projects do not produce cross-country externalities for the GPG targeted but rather for other GPG

126、s linked to the intervention.The project“Say No to Famine”in Nigeria,for example,is dedicated to strengthening the food security in conflict-prone regions of North-East Nigeria.The main cross-country externalities are not linked to the GPG“food system”but to positive externalities regarding the GPG”

127、peace and security”in neighbouring countries due to increased economic and political stability in the North-East of Nigeria as well as positive externalities for biodiversity by supporting natural resource management.Consequently,they are real co-benefits but do not negatively affect the countrys we

128、ighing of the projects costs and benefits.In contrast to that,where the share of cross-country externalities is high,such as projects concerning climate change mitigation,a GPG-specific project logic helps to identify challenges to a project that arise because of its GPG characteristics.4 In project

129、s with more than one country of implementation,the country with the highest income category counted for this analysis.1012 21Sub Saharan AfricaSouth AsiaEast Asia&Pacific atin America&aribbeanEurope&entral AsiaMiddle East&North Africa Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 20 The relationsh

130、ip between national and cross-country benefits determines the ambition but also the sustainability of a GPG project.If the project produces direct national benefits and is closely intertwined with the national development agenda,projects tend to be more attractive to the implementing countries and a

131、re more likely to be continued after the immediate intervention through an MDB has been completed.The national benefits found in the case studies are,for example,energy security,job creation or employment effects,new exporting opportunities,climate change adaption and reduced local air pollution,hig

132、her revenues for the public sector,or infrastructure development that increases the national capital stock.The reliable and affordable provision of energy is one of the main“carrots”in climate change mitigation projects,especially for middle-income economies.Although national development goals and G

133、PGs do not contradict each other per se,policymakers in developing countries face budget constraints.They often have to decide where to spend the marginal dollar.Financial incentives accounting for cross-country externalities when delivering on international GPG regimes are especially needed in the

134、global South,where the political and moral pressure of the international agreements meet with a lack of financial leeway against the backdrop of immediately pressing problems in the country(e.g.,job creation,energy security,poverty reduction).Balancing both becomes more difficult the more cross-coun

135、try externalities a project produces.Moreover,national benefits of GPG provision often realise in the future(e.g.,climate change mitigation or pandemic preparedness)or are very uncertain(e.g.,the effectiveness of measures for preventing violent conflicts)and therefore are undervalued compared to dir

136、ect benefits in terms of national key metrics(e.g.,job creation,GDP growth).Calculating and valuing national and cross-country benefits from GPG projects and making an explicit CBA can support borrowing countries in making this decision.Focussing on countries relevance to global GPG provision helps

137、leverage larger cross-country externalitiesespecially if the GPG follows a weaker link logic such that countries where the GPG is least provided have a disproportionally higher contribution to overall provision(e.g.,financial stability).Depending on the specific GPG,not all countries are equally imp

138、ortant to the global provision of GPGs.This largely depends on the countrys centrality or relative relevance for the global provision of the concerned GPG.If the unique Amazon rainforest is preserved,it might produce more cross-country externalities to the global biodiversity provision than preservi

139、ng a more frequently available type of habitat or biome as a key biological sight.Moreover,although any greenhouse gas(GHG)emission saved is equally good from a global perspective,changing the grid emissions factor5 in a large GHG emitter is more beneficial than in other countries.FINANCIAL ASPECTS

140、The projects main financing sources are the MDBs financial resources in all analysed projects.In 14 of the 20 case studies,the MDBs used their own accounts to finance the project.In six of the 20 case studies,MDB-managed external resources such as Trust Funds were the primary financing source.If MDB

141、s own resources were used,the financing conditions were based on the borrowing countrys categorisation.An MDB credit has been provided only once to a lower-middle-income economy(i.e.,Cte dIvoire).MDB loans have been issued in seven case studies all to either middle-or high-income 5 A grid emission f

142、actor refers to a CO2 emission factor(tCO2/MWh)which will be associated with each unit of electricity provided by an electricity system.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 21 economies.Six cases further used MDB grant money.Four of these six were multi-country projects,one was in a low-i

143、ncome economy,and one was technical assistance only(i.e.,the Financial Sector Assessment Project in Mexico).In seven cases,the financing sources were mixed,and additional sources were added.These included MDB-managed external resources such as Trust Funds providing grants in four of the seven cases

144、and bilateral co-financing in the remaining three cases.The blending of financial sources was almost exclusively used to supplement MDBs own accounts and“sweeten the deal”to provide a GPG.Furthermore,MDBs were capable of mobilising additional funding from the private sector for GPGs.In Egypt,for exa

145、mple,in the project“First,Second,and Third Fiscal Consolidation,Sustainable Energy,and Competitiveness Development Policy Loans”,the private sector was successfully involved to ensure sustainable energy supply by enhancing the concerned business environment.Overall,the project unlocked US$2 billion

146、of private sector investments in renewable energies compared to a total project volume of US$3.1 billion.In India,the project“Rooftop Solar Program for Residential Sector”aimed at promoting renewable energy and grid-connected rooftop solar photovoltaic in the residential sector in particular.The gov

147、ernment,therefore,decided to create an investment-friendly environment with collateral-free credits,low-interest rates,and information dissemination.It is expected that the increased demand lowers grid-connected rooftop solar photovoltaic and interest costs in the long run,transforming the Indian ro

148、oftop solar market so private investments become economically profitable without further governmental intervention.Although investments in GPG provision are globally desirable,a developing countrys cost-benefit analysis might often disclose negative national profits.This is the case when the nationa

149、l benefits of a project are lower than its costs.Projects that are economically not viable from the national country perspective would not be pursuedeven if desirable from a global perspective.As a result,ambitious projects with high cross-country externalities tend to have a grant element accountin

150、g for the cross-country externalities.The less desirable a project is from a national perspective,the more relevant becomes concessionality to make the project beneficial for client countries.In climate mitigation projects for example,where the GPG units mainly accrue as a cross-country externality,

151、the externalities need to be either financed directly or incentivised through other project components such as just transition components or energy security that increase the countrys national benefits of a project.This logic can best be explained by the CBA analysis conducted for the Eskom project

152、in South Africa(see Box 1 for details).While the project is economically unviable from a national perspective,the project is highly desirable from a global perspective.Without the countervailing benefit of the World Banks triple A rating as well as the grants from Trust Funds,South Africa would not

153、have pursued the project.Thus,from a global perspective,making GPG projects economically profitable for the client country via Trust Funds or other means of concessionality can make sense to increase its willingness to provide it.BOX 1:ILLUSTRATION OF THE CBA FROM A GLOBAL AND A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

154、:THE WBS ESKOM JUST ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT IN SOUTH AFRICA Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 22 In the project appraisal of the World Bank Project“South AfricaEskom Just Energy Transition Project”(WB 2022b),a detailed CBA is conducted.Using the metrics from this report,we try to ill

155、ustrate some of our arguments using a real-world example.The project aims at the following objectives,which also translate into the projects components:(A)decommission the Komati coal-fired power plant,(B)repurpose the project area with renewables,and(C)create opportunities for workers and communiti

156、es during the transition process.The project is transformative as it sustainably transforms the grid emissions factor of South Africa by shutting down a coal unit and developing renewables on the site.This also results in Just Transition costs for helping affected workers through the transition proc

157、ess.The project costs sum up to US$497 million.The national profit is calculated at minus US$191 million if the externalities of GHG emissions are not valued at all,assuming that all benefits from net GHG emissions savings are cross-country externalities.This means that the national benefits of the

158、project,which are valued at US$306 million,are less than the investment costs,making the project economically unviable from a national perspective.From a global perspective,this is completely different.Depending on the value assumed for the cross-country externalities,the global profit reaches up to

159、 US$1,497 million,if the unit value for benefits of US$307 per ton of CO2 emissions is used Kikstra et al.(2021).Hence,while highly desirable from a global perspective,the project is unattractive from a national viewpoint.In theory,financial incentives accounting for all cross-country externalities

160、would still be a reasonable option from a global perspective,i.e.,US$1,688 million the monetary value of the cross-country externalities.Then again,only the national profit needs to become zero to make the project economically viable to South Africa.These US$191 million are the“financing gap”if only

161、 monetary national benefits are accounted for.Thus,the financial incentive needs to be much less than the value of the externalities produced.Why does South Africa proceed with the project anyway?First,there is already a financial incentive included in the International Bank for Reconstruction and D

162、evelopment(IBRD)credit via the triple-A rating of the World Bank as well as a grant from Trust Funds.Taking the net present value of the difference between the interest payments at market interest rates for South Africa to those paid to the IBRD,the first amounts to US$78 million.The grants by Trust

163、 Funds sum up to US$57.50 million.Still,there remains a monetary“financing gap”of US$.million for South Africa to pursue the project.The reason could be that some national benefits might not be captured by the CBA,such as facilitating access to lower-cost capital from international sources,enabling

164、sales of carbon credits to international buyers,or even mitigating potential negative impacts on exports to countries with Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms(CBAM).This additional non-monetary National Benefit of at least US$55.5 million increases the actual National Profit and National Payoff and

165、reduces the actual Financing Gap.Consequently,CBAs should identify the dimension of cross-border benefits of an intervention.Furthermore,it needs a metric for measuring GPG externalities by introducing a GPG unit value in the CBA.Unfortunately,CBAs are rarely conductedespecially for policy intervent

166、ionsand a unit value Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 23 is currently missing for non-climate projects.Thus,allocating concessional GPG finance is dependent on the revitalisation and expansion of a CBA reasoning in GPG operations.As many GPGs are,by definition,not only a global but al

167、so a national public good,their provision might need some ongoing supply of governmental funds.This is especially the case in health projects and biodiversity projects.While the latter try to circumvent this problem by generating income e.g.,through national park entry fees,in public health the sust

168、ainability of a project largely depends on the governments financial capacities to finance the recurring costs after the initial costs for infrastructure investments have been made.In the case study“Covid-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership Somalia“,it became clear that besides vaccine supply,operationa

169、l costs are a great challenge to the Somalian government if it wants to sustain an achieved vaccination success.Only if countries manage to include health-related expenditures as recurring costs in the governmental budget,projects will be sustained after the project ends.Aside from economic viabilit

170、y,financial sustainability is often crucial for borrowing countries.The CBA is,in principle,an evaluation of the project from a country perspective.It figures out only the economic viability of projects and programmes but does not analyse the financial implications of implementing the project for th

171、e implementing agencys balance sheet and/or the state budget.Then again,the financial flows of a project are often essential for its sustainability.Thus,the CBA is often complemented by a separate financial analysis that looks at the project from the perspective of the implementing agency.It identif

172、ies the projects net money flows to the implementing entity and assesses the entitys ability to meet its financial obligations,finance future investments,and maintain a sound balance sheet.Economic and financial costs are always closely intertwined,but they rarely coincide.Even projects with high be

173、nefits undergo lean periods when external funds must sustain them.The cash flow profile is therefore as important as the overall benefits.This has been highlighted in the Eskom project,where a detailed financial analysis had to ensure that the state-owned company Eskom could bear the project costs.T

174、he Just Transition component of projects tends to be quite costly;the existence of such a component,on the other hand,indicates transformational projects with high ambition.For example,decommissioning a coal fire plant has negative impacts on the employees in the region.As for Eskom,only one unit wa

175、s decommissioned early.The earlier a plant gets decommissioned compared to its lifecycle,the more GPG benefits are produced,i.e.,GHG emissions saved,but the higher the decommissioning and Just Transition costs will be.Moreover,they tend to be an important“selling point”to the country.In middle-incom

176、e countries,IBRD credits are not necessarily competitive with credit markets.With the implicit concessionality of IBRD loans based on the low refinancing cost of the World Bank,IBRD loans are more favourable than market loans for a majority of middle-income countries.Then again,high transaction cost

177、s of MDB-specific reporting requirements may reduce the attractiveness and call for additional concessionality to compensate for externalities and“sweeten the deal”in middle-income countries.Mostly these grants are worth much less than the valued global benefits they produce.The economic benefit ana

178、lysis of the“Rooftop Solar Program for the Residential Sector”in India showed,for example,that the global benefits associated with the avoided GHG emissions amounted to US$269.4 million if a conservative shadow price per ton of CO2 emission was used,which Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by M

179、DBs 24 is substantially more than the US$15 million of the grant by the GPG fund plus the implicit triple-A discount in the World Banks IBRD credit line.OPERATIONAL ASPECTS The most common instrument for providing financing to the client countries was investment financing(10 of 20 case studies).Poli

180、cy-based financing was the instrument in four cases,a Programme-for-Results Instrument in another case,and in one case a guarantee was given to a partner bank.In the remaining four case studies,solely technical assistance and policy support were provided.Investment financing provides financing to go

181、vernments for activities that create the physical/social infrastructure necessary to reduce poverty and create sustainable development.The instrument was not solely used in one GPG.Investment financing projects typically include physical/social infrastructure investments and measurable returns which

182、 makes them more“bankable”.A problem is that they can be subject to“cherry-picking”so that only highly profitable investments are being implementedpossibly leading to an underfunding of projects with high cross-country externalities that are not accounted for.However,this is more a problem of adequa

183、te project selection and strategic allocation of concessionality rather than a problem of the instrument itself.Additionally,investment financing tends to be used for project-related interventions rather than policies.Then again,most investments have a policy component or policies can be linked to a

184、n investment project(e.g.,creating a new national park,implementing a monitoring system,etc.for preserving biodiversity).In the case of“Partnership for Market Readiness”in South Africa,for instance,investment project financing was used to prepare the implementation of the desired policies.The aim wa

185、s to strengthen the readiness of the government for the design,preparation,and implementation of a carbon tax by strengthening the capacity of the government to enhance data management and MRV systems for GHG reporting,among other things.The tax came into effect during the project implementation per

186、iod in June 2019.Overall,investment financing and policies can be combined and possibly yield the highest developmental effects.This can be done either by combining the two instruments or by agreeing on micro-policies as a pre-requisite to implementing an investment project.Policy financing was not

187、an instrument specific to one GPG.The four projects using policy loans have twice been for the GPG theme“climate&environment”,once for the GPG themes“fair international trade systems”,and once for“stable international financial architecture”.In the case of the GPG themes“fair trade”and“stable financ

188、ial architecture”,the policy instruments had strong interlinkages with other GPGs such as“climate”in the First,Second,and Third Fiscal onsolidation,Sustainable Energy,and Competitiveness Development Policy Loans”to the Arab Republic of Egypt.It becomes apparent that these rather intermediate GPGs ar

189、e increasingly used as a means to other goals and are taking up increasing room in these projects.Policy financing provides budget support to governments and is a highly relevant instrument for GPG finance in that it helps to encourage policy reforms necessary to create a framework conducive to publ

190、ic and private investments.Yet,policy financing as an instrument does not necessarily ensure good policy outcomes.In contrast to investment projects,MDBs pay out the money following a pre-defined trigger.If the policy is actually implemented,it is often out of the MDBs hands.A possible Good Practice

191、s in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 25 option to tackle this problem would be to determine the use of the budget support ex-ante or to define more outcome-oriented triggers.Furthermore,combining various policy elements has its challenges.Take the example of the“First Amazonas Fiscal and Environmental

192、 Sustainability Programmatic Development Policy Financing”.The project combined policy financing of two different fields aiming to strengthen fiscal sustainability on the one hand and integrate forest conservation and development on the other.Yet,considering the projects results indicators,all aspec

193、ts concerning fiscal sustainability were achieved more satisfactory than the targets concerning environmental sustainability.6 Thus,especially those parts of the projects that performed better exhibit larger national benefits relatively.It gets clear that it might be difficult to reconcile policy go

194、als in different fields with each other.However,as the“Programmatic Development Policy Financing”consists of two parts,out of which only the first one has been implemented as of today,the verdict on its overall success is still out.This raises the question of how to define the scope of a project.Thi

195、s is not only a technicality but has important results.If the benefits and costs of each component are independent of each other,then the components are separable and can be treated as independent projectsas in the case of the Amazonas project where the components were eventually separated from each

196、 other,although the intention was to putting a package of components together where“carrots”compensated the burden of structural changes.In the case of the“Programmatic Shared Prosperity Development Policy Financing Project”,a series of various development policy loans was designed.Originally,four l

197、oans were planned.However,the fourth loan was never implemented due to changing political circumstances.The ability to adjust the project according to changing conditions creates flexibility and increases the likelihood of success for the project parts that are actually being implemented.However,it

198、might lead to less ambitious projects or an early end in which rather easy reforms take place but more difficult ones are avoided or postponed.Another issue with development financing is whether it induces more ambitious or new policies or rather ensures that already planned reforms are passed by th

199、e parliamentmaybe earlier than intended.onsidering the project“Fiscal onsolidation,Sustainable Energy,and ompetitiveness Development Policy oans”in Egypt,the poor performance of the economy and the prospect of further decline led the Government of Egypt to initiate a reform programme in 2014even bef

200、ore the World Bank initiated the project.Although proven to be very effective for target attainment,the fact that the Egyptian government had envisioned the reforms of energy subsidies and public wages even before the World Bank programme started could question the additionality of the DPF series.On

201、 the other hand,without the programme,the Egyptian government might not have been financially capable of bringing the reform forward.A similar situation was the case for the“Programmatic Shared Prosperity Development Policy Financing Project”in Panama.After the leak of the so-called Panama Papers,th

202、e country was in need for policy reforms regarding tax transparency and international tax cooperation 6 The only target overachieved and rated“highly satisfactory”concerning the environmental sustainability part of the project was the extension of families enrolled in the Bolsa Floresta programme pr

203、oviding payments for environmental services to families that actively protect the forest in targeted areas.The other targets rated mostly“moderately satisfactory”or“unsatisfactory”.One major reason for the“unsatisfactory”rating was the changing political context of the project.Another reason might h

204、ave been the issue raised in the argument made above.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 26 anyway.The DPL by the World Bank served as additional support rather than initiator of new reforms.However,the technical assistance and financial resources clearly contribute to overall improvemen

205、ts in this regard.All cases have clearly shown that the implementation of policy reforms is only ensured if there is sufficient country ownership.As the countrys ownership is guaranteed only in projects where the national benefits are considered higher than the costs,there is a need for calibrating

206、concessionality in addition to the MDBs“normal”financing terms if the ambition of GPG outcomes,i.e.,the number of cross-country externalities,is raised.By adding grants for Advisory Services and Analytics(ASA),capacity development,and other non-refundable activities related to the policies supported

207、 by the DPF,financed by Trust Funds or bilateral co-financing,the overall financing package can be rendered more favourable.This combination must be based,however,on a country platform where contributions from various sources can be combined in a mission-oriented way.The project“CDI Sustainable and

208、Inclusive Growth DPF1”in te dIvoire showed that the ambition of the prior actions increased with the additional financing by the German bilateral development cooperation.Being able to increase the loan volume helped to negotiate more ambitious result indicators and helped to reduce the Ivorian gover

209、nments concerns about financial sustainability.In the case of Programme-for-Results-Financing,concessionality can be based on the achievement of specific programme results.In the one case study in India7,the disbursement of World Bank funds was directly linked to the delivery of defined results,help

210、ing countries improve the design and implementation of their own development programmes and achieve lasting results by strengthening institutions,enhancing systems,and building capacity.This ensures the desired outputs(if measurable)and enables countries to channel concessional financing to sub-nati

211、onal entities.The India case study shows the considerable potential of Programme-for-Results-Financing for mobilising finance from various sources.Yet,Programme-for-Results-Financing requires high institutional capacities by the borrowing country/institution as well as financial capacities for pre-f

212、inancing as the disbursement is not paid ex-ante but ex-post.Moreover,Programme-for-Results-Financing is a great tool to channel finance to other regional levels/smaller-scale stakeholders such as residential homeowners in the“Rooftop Solar Program for Residential Sector”in India.Projects only encom

213、passing technical assistance and advisory services have been for“climate change mitigation”,“food systems”,“free,open,and fair trade”and the“prevention of global financial crises”.These either include the promotion of transparency work as in the Green Bond Transparency Platform(GBTP)or require cross

214、-country coordination in trade standards such as in the“Western Balkans Trade and Transport Facilitation Project”.Overall,all projects show that the need for technical assistance and analytical support is high.Technical assistance was part of almost all projects and the relevance of the analytical w

215、ork has been highlighted as an important success factor and source of lessons learned.The type of analytical support varies from implementation support,over project optimisation to conducting a sophisticated CBA to convince the finance ministers of the borrowing countriesas can be seen in the Eskom

216、case study.7 The Indian market for residential rooftop solar falls short of its expansion targets,not least because of too few private investments.To mobilise private capital and to facilitate investments for residential consumers,the project simplifies the access to collateral-free credit with comp

217、aratively low interest rates for residential consumers willing to invest in rooftop solar panels.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 27 Outputs include analytical reports,policy notes,hands-on advice,and knowledge-sharing workshops or training programmes.Furthermore,the technical assista

218、nce was mostly financed by grants from Trust Funds.The nature of a GPG determines to a certain degree whether it is mostly implemented as an investment project or as a policy loan.MDBs typically prefer investment projects as they are bankable,and the money is spent after a specific outcome is genera

219、ted.Climate change mitigation tends to be more investive in its nature and thus has a clearer business caseespecially regarding renewables.In other GPGs,while simply not harming the environment might be the most effective policy intervention,MDBs are more and more searching for investment projects s

220、uch as national parks for preserving biodiversity.Then again,national parks generate the recurrent financial inflow necessary to compensate for not harming the environment.To ensure outcome-orientation,it makes sense to define appropriate result indicators to evaluate the success and efficiency of i

221、nterventions by an MDB.As the presented good practice projects do not only target the GPG provision but also create national benefits in other fields,the corresponding result indicators evaluated in the projects refer to various subjects.With respect to GPG-specific results indicators used in the ca

222、se studies,the indicators vary substantially.For some GPGs,quantitative and easily comparable indicators are used.For others,more nuanced and context-specific ones are more appropriate.For the GPGs addressed in the case studies,the following findings can be drawn:o For climate change mitigation,the

223、amount of reduced or saved GHG emissions serves as a good indicator for the success of a project.Among others,for example the renewable energy capacity or the grid emission factor can be used as proxy for savings in GHG emissions(for example used in the CDI Sustainable and Inclusive Growth project i

224、n ote dIvoire as well as in the Rooftop Solar Program for Residential Sector in India).o For the preservation of biodiversity,the protection of biodiverse areas and habitats is an important indicator.This can for example be measured by assessing whether the reforested area increases(as in the Humbo

225、project)or conversely the deforested area decreases(as in the Amazonas project).o To mitigate the spread of communicable diseases,one can target the concerned population or monitor potential measures to directly protect them.This can for example be done by looking at the number of distributed vaccin

226、es or other hygiene measures.To prevent the spread of communicable diseases,the scope of laboratory capacity and monitoring technologies that serve as early warning systems can increase pandemic preparedness.o For food systems,the GPG result indicator is more abstract.The strongest externalities in

227、the realm of food systems stem from capacity building and knowledge spillovers,for example through the development of climate-resilient seeds and smart agricultural technologies.o For peace and security,it does not make sense to define a one-size-fits-all result indicator that assesses the success o

228、f an intervention targeted at preventing a violent conflict.This is because these conflicts are highly context-specific and depend on different result chains,which vary between different countries.There are,however,some similarities.As most of these conflicts have their origins in social unrests,it

229、might make sense to assess the status quo on societal questions within the country.For example,in the case of a project to prevent violent conflict in Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 28 the Democratic Republic of Congo,a decrease in the accepting attitude towards gender-based violent

230、 serves as result indicator.o For free,open,and fair trade,time and costs needed for trading goods can be used as result indicators for improved trade environments(as is done in the Western Balkans Trade and Transport Facilitation project).Reducing the transaction costs,for example through infrastru

231、ctural improvements or harmonisations in workflows and regulations,mitigates frictions in the cross-border trade and eventually creates more opportunities for trade.o For international tax cooperation and preventing global financial crises,the result indicators resemble one another in their characte

232、r.For both sub-themes,the compliance to international agreements in place is an important indicator to assess countries contribution to these GPGs.INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS There have been relatively few projects that followed a regional implementation logic,i.e.,where the project implementation is not

233、separable between countries.However,some projects do have more than one implementing country.Examples are the“Western Balkans Trade and Transport Facilitation Project”,the“Gulf of Guinea Northern Regions Social Cohesion Project”,the“Green Bond Transparency Platform”in Latin America or the“Regional D

234、isease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Series of Projects”(REDISSE)in Sub-Saharan Africa.These try to follow a regional implementation logic through leveraging regional coordination and cooperation.This is because the actual implementation needs to account for varying requirements,which can be bett

235、er done at the national or even a lower level.Projects that have a just transition component tend to be more transformative.The more the framework conditions and the stakeholders incentives are changed by the project,the more likely there are some losers to this transformation.The practical implemen

236、tation of this concept is challenging.It requires identifying who is sufficiently affected and should be compensated.Who should be compensated in the case of a coal mine closure as in the Eskom case study?Should only coal miners be considered or are indirectly-affected workers covered as well,such a

237、s local shops and restaurants losing customers or companies in energy-intensive sectors potentially exposed to higher energy prices?As a result,Just Transition components are highly context-specific and a result of a stakeholder process aiming at condensing a shared understanding of the scope of the

238、 Just Transition necessary to implement a project.Following the discussion on national development goals versus GPGs,it has to be noted that MDBs are the ones responsible to bring the“GPG lens”into project designas in the South African Eskom project.Many interview partners in the case studies stress

239、ed the notion that the GPG aspect was never a core objective to the client country but rather a nice-to-have co-benefit.Consequently,MDBs need to convene to incorporate GPG aspects into a project.National benefits,financial incentives,and technical assistance free of charge are important selling arg

240、uments for MDBs in this endeavour.Who initiated the projectthe client country or the MDBis an indicator of how profitable a project is from the client countrys perspective.If a client country initiated the projectas in Egyptthe national profits seem to be high.If the MDB had to convince the stakehol

241、der to pursue a projectas in the South African Eskom projectthe national profits tend to be unfavourable.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 29 In convincing a client country to borrow for GPGs,the finance ministers seem to be key stakeholders.In the ote dIvoire“CDI Sustainable and Inclu

242、sive Growth DPF1”,it had to be shownespecially to the Ministry of Financethat climate change was important and costly if no actions were taken but investments in these global goals could be highly profitable.This was achieved through an extensive policy dialogue leveraging as much analytics as possi

243、ble to generate common ground.In South Africa,the detailed economic and financial analysis of the project eventually convinced the Ministry of Finance to proceed with the project.This notion is especially important as many GPGs are not institutionally allocated to the finance ministry but rather to

244、otherarguably less-recognised ministriessuch as the ministry for environment or health.Many GPGs require cross-sectoral and multi-level approachesthe case studies showed this impressively.Across all GPG themes,we can see that GPG good practices are characterised by the involvement of several ministr

245、ies.Bringing the relevant actors to the table and agreeing on a joint path forward is of utmost importance to GPG provision in countries.The national plans of international agreements such as Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs),Long-Term Strategies(LTSs),Financial Sector Assessment Programs(FS

246、APs)etc.,form the basis for this coordinated approach and are mentioned as the relevant starting point in conceptualising most GPG projects reviewed.Moreover,comparing the“Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project”in Ethiopia and the“First Amazonas Fiscal and Environmental Sustainability Programma

247、tic Development Policy Financing”in Brazil shows that the project design needs to be owned by the key stakeholders.The Ethiopian project was designed bottom-up where local communities held legal ownership over the land and empowered farmers to conduct managed natural regeneration methods like planti

248、ng of trees and the construction of natural fences.The generated surplus grass could be sold by the farmers and serve as a source of revenue.As a result,almost 30,000 tons of CO2 emissions are estimated to be stored each year.In contrast to that,the Amazonas project was designed rather top-down,fail

249、ing the goal of decreasing deforestation from 1,434 km2 in 2019 to 1,200 km2 in 2022.Instead,an increase to 2,607 km2 was registered at the end of the project.Yet,one aspect of the project was highly successful:increasing the number of families enrolled in the Bolsa Floresta programme and being paid

250、 for environmental services.This illustrates the importance of including the local most affected population in the project design and implementation.In this vein,an MDBs GPG strategy must encompass sticks and carrots in an intelligent balanced way,to be successful.While carrots mainly entail(explici

251、t or implicit)concessional financing,sticks have to be carefully used.Good examples are highlighting the costs of not anticipating global regulations such as the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism(CBAM)that can serve as a trigger or additional incentive to adapt to higher climate standards.

252、This has been shown in the case study of te dIvoire.Regulations such as the supply chain acts in Germany and the European Union require importing companies to prove that the products are deforestation-and child-labour-free.Not complying with these standards,therefore,is a high risk to cocoa producer

253、s in te dIvoire.Implementing sustainability standards in cocoa production,hence,ensures the long-term competitiveness of the Ivorian key commodity in international markets.Furthermore,the dissemination of procurement standards and safeguards can also help to support compliance with international min

254、imum standards.The“Programmatic Shared Prosperity Development Policy Financing Project”,for Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 30 example,disseminated the minimum standards for international tax cooperation to Panama.Lastly,standardisation as in the“Green Bond Transparency Platform”can

255、increase the speed of demand-driven adjustments beneficial to GPGs.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 31 3.RECOMMENDATIONS TO GPG PROJECT IMPLEMENTERS Acknowledge that client countries already implement many successful GPG projects with financing from MDBs.In spite of the concerns raise

256、d on the suitability of the MDBs country work for supporting GPG provision,there exist many successful examples of GPG support by MDBs at the country levelas our analysis has shown.Even if the objective of supporting GPGs is not explicitly mentioned,many projects incorporate the GPG perspective to e

257、nhance their projects effectiveness.Furthermore,most GPG projects are based on well-known concepts and thus are highly replicable.They can be implemented in countries of all income categories although most projects with a GPG focus are found in middle-income countries.It should also be recognised th

258、at MDBs are more and more concerned about GPGs,in particular climate and biodiversity,and are increasingly ready,in principle,to adapt their procedures and systems accordingly.Focus on GPG projects with high cross-country externalities for GPG specific financing.GPGs differ in the extent of cross-co

259、untry externalities produced as well as in the relation between national and cross-country benefits.From a country perspective,the ones with high national benefits and low cross-country benefits are preferred.From a global perspective,it is the other way around.Thus,MDBs GPG work(as compared to its

260、regular development work)should concentrate on GPGs with high cross-country externalities.Our analysis shows that projects in the GPGs“preventing violent conflict”and“food system”produce relatively few cross-country externalities and therefore have a lower ambition in terms of GPG externalities.In t

261、he GPGs“trade”and“stable financial architecture”national profits are mostly higheven if cross-country externalities exist.Consequently,they would not need GPG-specific support to be implemented.Then again,they provide a vehicle to include less favourable GPGs from the countrys perspective such as“pr

262、eserving biodiversity”.Linking trade and finance projects with other GPGs can therefore be a cheap and effective instrument to induce GPG provision in client countriesespecially in middle-income countries.In general,one could think of the GPGs“trade”and“stable financial architecture”as intermediary

263、goods,that are no end in themselves in terms of GPGs but which can contribute to the achievement of other GPGs through their steering function as well as through disseminating sustainability standards along value chains and trade relations and providing sufficient financing for sustainable developme

264、nt.Focus on countries with a high GPG relevance helps in identifying ambitious GPG projects.GPG provision in developing countries often needs additional financial support.As financial sources are low compared to the challenges ahead in GPG provision,it makes sense to channel financing to projects wi

265、th high GPG ambition,i.e.,high cross-country externalities.As many MDBs follow a country engagement model,identifying a countrys relevance for the global GPG provision can help to identify projects with ambitious externalities in these countries.For example,changing the grid emissions factor in a co

266、untry with a large share of global GHG emissions will have higher effects on the GPG“climate change mitigation”than an improved grid emissions factor in an already low-carbon country.MDBs should more systematically convene for GPG projects.The case studies clearly showed that GPG effects are mostly

267、nice-to-have for client countries.The decision to borrow for a specific project,Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 32 however,is based on the national benefits-to-cost ratio.GPG effects are mostly co-benefits that are not eventually the most relevant decision factor to client countries.

268、Consequently,MDBs are essentially the stakeholders that need to take up the role of GPG convener representing the global perspective.In convening well-designed and communicated knowledge products but also external“sticks”,such as showcasing the negative effects on exporting countries to the European

269、 Union because of the CBAM,can be useful.Base concessional GPG finance on a countrys cost-benefit ratio.At the heart of GPGs is the central provision problem which stems from the fact that the costs for providing a GPG have to be paid for by one country while the benefits accrue to other countries a

270、s well.While some projects still produce enough national benefits to make a project viable to the providing country,explicit or implicit concessionality is needed if the countrys costs exceed the benefits for the country.For example,only four case studies were financed by an MDB loan,while four were

271、 financed by MDBs own accounts with grants or guarantees or have been supplemented by additional grant money from Trust Funds.Thus,in ambitious projects and in countries where the opportunity costs of borrowing an MDB credit are high(mostly middle-income countries)compared to costs additional conces

272、sionality is needed to“sweeten the deal”.Hence,realistically,GPG finance in MDBs needs to be a mix of loans credits and grants with the degree of concessionality rising with GPG benefits and the need for mitigating incremental costs,e.g.,for investments in a Just Transition.Encourage a CBA(or at lea

273、st cost-benefit reasoning)for GPG projects.Besides the fact that concessionality should be based on a countrys cost-benefit ratio,there are several other reasons why a CBA is central to GPG projects.Even in policy projects these calculationshowever rough they might be are possible and add informatio

274、n as we have shown in several case studies(e.g.,Egypt,Cte dIvoire).First,a CBA can showcase how a GPG project can benefit a countryeven if the benefits occur in the future as is the case in climate change mitigation.Hence,a CBA can help policymakers in developing countries to make a better-informed

275、decision on where to spend the marginal dollar.Finance ministers are key stakeholders for the MDBs country engagement and will also be best convinced by sound economic reasoning.Second,the CBA can assist MDB country directors and project managers to convene for GPG aspects in project conceptualisati

276、on.Making GPG benefits more explicit will help MDBs to pivot client countries for GPG projects.Third,projects with a sound CBA tend to have better concepts as they structure a project around its costs and benefits.Especially the valuation and discounting of national benefits can be imperative to pro

277、ject success.If direct,short-term national benefits(e.g.,energy security,creation of jobs,food security,public sector revenues etc.)are high compared to project costs and are directly linked to the intervention,projects tend to be more successful and sustainableeven after the project implementation

278、phase.Fourth,a cost-benefit analysis can also help to identify interlinkages between project components.If for example,the components beneficial to a country are not linked to the component with high cross-country externalities,the project will result in unsatisfactory results.Balance and combine po

279、licy-based projects and investment projects.MDBs tend to focus on investment projects as they are the bread-and-butter projects for MDBs.Investment projects tend to be bankable;their success is visible and can be measured.In contrast to that,the effect of policies might be less easy to showcase,thei

280、r benefits are harder to calculate,and they are less bankable.The case studies show,however,that both project types and a combination of both are essential to ensure a Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 33 better GPG provision in the MDBs client countries.Policies are essential to chang

281、ing framework conditions for GPG provisione.g.,by measures to“get the prices right”for GPGs for which,by definition,no market prices exist.The latter helps,for example,to ensure private sector participation which is essential given the high investment needs for GPGs.Then again,policies are necessary

282、 but often not sufficient for GPG provision.Case studies on policy financing have shown that they mostly are a pre-condition for GPG support but lack implementation and monitoring.Summing up,each instrument has its pros and cons,and none is specifically designed for GPGs.Hence,it is important to und

283、erstand the GPG project at hand especially the distribution of costs,as well as national and cross-country benefits.A project manager can then decide which instrument best fits the context and try to mitigate its pitfalls.Overall,GPG provision requires an instrument mix that can be operationalised i

284、n one project(e.g.,investment project with pre-required policy triggers)or subsequent operations(e.g.,policy reform at first and investment project for implementation).Finance technical assistance including for a CBA in GPG projects.The need for technical assistance in GPG projects is high as the ca

285、se studies have shown.Consequently,technical assistance should be primarily financed by grants.Given the complexity of measuring and valuing cross-country externalities,we highly recommend that more ASA and at least the preparation of CBA reasoning in GPG projects should be covered by grants.Knowled

286、ge products can also facilitate the provision of data,analytics,technical assistance,capacity building,policy advice,and convening support to individual countries that assist them in advancing global priorities.Ramp up transformative projects by considering(and financing)Just Transition.The case stu

287、dies have shown that projects entailing a Just Transition component tend to be more transformative.This is quite straightforward:if a project transforms the framework conditions so much that some stakeholders might be worse off,it is transformative.Take the“Energy Transition Mechanism”as an example.

288、The project supports a strategic re-design of the whole energy sector,which directly impacts the population.Thus,a Just Transition is an integral part of the mechanism ensuring that quality of life is maintained.At the same time,the worse-off stakeholders need compensatory measures and largely imped

289、e a countrys decision to implement a transformative GPG project.Consequently,considering(and financing)Just Transition in projects is essential to generate sustainable GPG effects andat the same timea major selling point to client countries.Moreover,the costs to mitigate the negative effects of a pr

290、oject should never be a separable component.Otherwise,the Just Transition component would fall apart because the separate cost-benefit ratio tends to be negative.Find income sources for GPGs that need recurring financing.While some GPG projects are mostly financially sustainable by themselves,such a

291、s renewable energy investments,other GPGs require constant money inflows.This is the case for projects that do not only contribute to GPG provision but are themselves(national)public goods.Take the“COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership”in Somalia for example,where machining vaccines affordable and a

292、vailable as part of universal health coverage is essentially a national public good.Therefore,it requires a dedicated governmental health budget.The same is true for biodiversity:compensating people to not harm the Amazon,for example,requires recurrent compensation.Given the limited financial capaci

293、ty of developing countries,the sustainability of some projects depends on their capability of generating an income stream.In some cases,the income sources can even be generated by the projects themselves.MDBs have recognised this need and therefore are increasingly trying to design projects in an in

294、come-generating accounting for recurring Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 34 costs,e.g.,by selling carbon credits.Notwithstanding,as those cases will be relatively rare,other innovative solutions must be found.Support cross-ministerial,cross-sectoral,and inclusive coordination of in-c

295、ountry GPG provision.One major lesson learned in GPG projects is that their effective implementation rests on the coordination of the key stakeholders involved.These include the responsible ministries but also the ministry of finance responsible to borrow from MDBs.Furthermore,Just Transition also r

296、ests on iteratively negotiating the scope and reach of Just Transition measures.Finally,designing a project in a way that the affected population is an important success factor.Hence,coordination is key in the cross-cutting and systemic support of GPG provision.One possibility to ensure this is coun

297、try platforms.These are supposed to align MDBs and possibly other donor programmes global multilaterally agreed-upon goals with a recipient countrys development strategy.From the client countrys side,not only the legislative but also the executive representatives and the local level should be includ

298、ed.The inclusion of civil society organisations is also recommended.National goals of international agreements such as the NDCs can form the basis for discussion.As they are the articulated goals of client countries,they are the natural starting point for discussing how to best reach them.Encourage

299、regional coordination and learning.Only a few case studies follow a coordinated regional implementation approach,in the sense that one common project intervention was designed that was implemented within several participating countries.Yet,this may not be seen as a problem.Eventually,national states

300、 are the ones responsible to deliver GPGs in the global GPG context.Moreover,they can ensure that the country context is accounted for.Nonetheless,many projects benefit from regional coordination and learning.For example,in the project for implementing sustainability standards in cocoa production,th

301、e standards are coordinated between Cte dIvoire and Ghana as they both are major cocoa exporters.Another example is the“Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement(REDISSE)Series of Projects”in Sub-Saharan Africa.Here,among other things,a regional networking platform is established to improve

302、collaboration for laboratory investigation.In the“GBTP”project,gathering country-specific information and aggregating it at the regional level has positive effects.Hence,project managers should try to consider regional replicability,as well as synergies in regional coordination and cooperation when

303、designing a GPG project.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 35 4.BIBLIOGRAPHY Bagchi,C.,Castro,P.,Michaelowa,K.(2016).Donor Accountability Reconsidered:Aid Allocation in the Age of Global Public Goods.CIS Working Paper No.87.Center for Comparative and International Studies(CIS)University

304、 of Zurich.Buchholz,W.,Sandler,T.(2021).Global Public Goods:A Survey.Journal of Economic Literature,59(2):488-545.Ferroni,M.,Mody,A.(2002).International Public Goods:Incentives,Measurement,and Financing.Washington,DC:World Bank and Kluwer.International Task Force on Global Public Goods.(2006).Meetin

305、g Global Challenges:International Cooperation in the National Interest.Stockholm:International Task Force on Global Public Goods.Kanbur,R.(2016).What is the World Bank good for?Global public goods and global institutions.Revue dconomie du dveloppement 201 (ol.2),p.9-24.Kopiski,D,Wrblewski,M.(2021).R

306、eimagining the World Bank:Global Public Goods in an Age of Crisis.World Affairs.2021;184(2):151-175.Kikstra,J.S.,Waidelich,P.,Rising,J.,Yumashev,D.,Hope,C.,&Brierley,C.M.(2021).Environmental Research Letters.Retrieved 05 25,2022,from The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks

307、and temperature variability:https:/iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1d0b/meta OECD(2018).Multilateral Development Finance.Towards a New Pact on Multilateralism to Achieve the 2030 Agenda Together.Paris:OECD Publishing.Oxford Economics(2023).Multilateral Development Banks for Global Pub

308、lic Goods.Berlin:Oxford Economics Ltd.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 36 5.APPENDIX 5.1 CHECKLIST FOR DESIGNING GPG PROJECTS8 When designing a project with dedicated GPG focus,considering these aspects can help to improve the projects success.Overall o Clearly defining the targeted G

309、PG is a pre-requisite to implement an ambitious GPG project with significant cross-country externalities.o Calculating and valuing national and cross-country benefits preferably by conducting a CBA helps assessing the relationship between national and cross-country benefit,which in turn determines t

310、he ambition but also the sustainability of a GPG project.o Focussing on countries relevance to global GPG provision when deciding on which GPG provision to concentrate on helps to leverage larger cross-country externalities.Financial o Concessional GPG finance should be based on a countrys cost-bene

311、fit ratio.Blending of financial sources can be used to supplement MDBs own accounts and“sweeten the deal”to provide a GPG.Thus,to account for cross-country externalities in ambitious projects,it helps to have a grant element.o A CBA reasoning might be necessary to allocate concessional GPG finance.T

312、hus,encourage a CBA(or at least cost-benefit reasoning)for GPG projects.o“Sweetening the deal”might also be necessary if high MDB-specific transaction costs might reduce the attractiveness,especially in middle-income countries.o It makes sense to(try to)mobilise additional funding from the private s

313、ector for GPGs.o Find independent income sources for GPGs that need recurring financing such as one health approaches.o Including a Just Transition component into a project might lead to additional costs.However,the existence of such a component indicates transformational projects with high ambition

314、.Operational o Clearly defining the scope of a project is necessary to comprehensively monitor its success.o For any project,technical assistance and analytical support is important.We recommend funding the technical assistance including a CBA in GPG projects.o Balance and combine policy-based proje

315、cts and investment projects to support transformation.Each instrument has its pros and cons,and none is specifically designed for GPGs.To a certain degree,the nature of a GPG already determines whether it makes sense to implement it as an investment project or as a policy loan.However,GPG provision

316、requires an instrument mix that can be operationalised in one project(e.g.,investment project with pre-required policy triggers)8 More in-depth elaborations on these aspects can be found in the chapters 2.2.2 and 3 of this report.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 37 or subsequent opera

317、tions(e.g.,policy reform at first and investment project for implementation).o To ensure outcome-orientation and to evaluate a projects success and efficiency,appropriate result indicators should be defined.These can be,for example:-Climate change mitigation:reduced or saved GHG emissions-Preservati

318、on of biodiversity:protection of biodiverse areas and habitats-Preventing the emergence and spread of Mitigate the spread of communicable diseases:measures to protect the concerned population or monitor the infectious situation(e.g.,distributed vaccines,hygiene measures,scope of laboratory capacity,

319、early warning systems)-Food systems:climate-resilient seeds and smart agricultural technologies-Free,open,and fair trade:time and costs needed for trading goods-International tax cooperation:compliance to international agreements-Preventing global financial crises:compliance to international agreeme

320、nts-For peace and security,no one-size-fits all indicator is recommended.This is because FCV is highly context-specific and depending on the country and circumstances,different indicators serve as early-warning systems.Institutional o The“GPG lens”needs to be brought about in the project design by M

321、DBs.As MDB,systematically convene for GPG projects.o In convincing a client country to pursue a project related to GPGs,the finance ministers seem to be key stakeholders.o Support cross-ministerial,cross-sectoral,and inclusive coordination of in-country GPG provision.Many GPGs require cross-sectoral

322、 and multi-level approaches.o An MDBs GPG strategy must encompass sticks and carrots in an intelligent balanced way,to be successful.o Encourage regional coordination and learning.Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 38 5.2 LONG LIST OF ALL GOOD PRACTICE PROJECTS Project Title GPG Theme G

323、PG Sub-Theme Country of Implementation Indonesia Geothermal Resource Risk Mitigation Project(GREM)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Indonesia Sindh Solar Energy Project Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Pakistan China Renewable Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Pro

324、ject Climate and environment Climate change mitigation China Vietnam Emissions Reduction Challenge Project Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Vietnam Scaling-up Distributed Solar PVs in Turkey,Program for Results(PforR)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Turkey Le Pomera

325、nia Wind Farm Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Poland Market Readiness Programme Brazil Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Brazil Ukraine MRV system Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Ukraine Market Readiness Programme Vietnam Climate and environment Cl

326、imate change mitigation Vietnam Market Readiness Programme Colombia Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Colombia Market Readiness Programme India Climate and environment Climate change mitigation India Green Bond Transparency Platform(GBTP)Climate and environment Climate change mitigat

327、ion Latin America and Caribbean(LAC)NDC support for Colombia Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Colombia Enabling Long Term Decarbonisation Pathways through Power-to-X(PtX Pathways)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Argentina ExploRE-Strategic exploration of economic mi

328、tigation potentials through renewables Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Indonesia Programme for energy efficiency in buildings(PEEB)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Tunisia Global Climate Partnership Fund:Supporting small and medium scale solar PV projects in Vietna

329、m Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Vietnam Scale up climate finance through the financial sector “0 by 0 Zero”Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Egypt,Mexico,Philippines,South Africa Market Readiness Programme China Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Ch

330、ina Good Practices in the Provision of GPGs by MDBs 39 Project Title GPG Theme GPG Sub-Theme Country of Implementation Global Carbon Market-Uganda Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Uganda Global Energy Transfer Feed-in Tariff(GET-FiT)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation

331、Uganda Rooftop Solar Program for Residential Sector Climate and environment Climate change mitigation India Douala Urban Mobility Project Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Cameroon Implementing a Carbon Tax in South Africa Climate and environment Climate change mitigation South Afric

332、a Energy Transition Mechanism(ETM)Climate and environment Climate change mitigation Indonesia,Philippines,and Vietnam Eskom Just Energy Transition Project Climate and environment Climate change mitigation South Africa Forest Conservation and Sustainability in the Heart of the Colombian Amazon Climat

333、e and environment Preservation of biodiversity Colombia Securing the future of Protected Areas in Peru Climate and environment Preservation of biodiversity Peru Ethiopia Climate Action Through Landscape Management Program for Results Climate and environment Preservation of biodiversity Ethiopia Climate Change and Green Growth in Vietnam Climate and environment Preservation of biodiversity Vietnam