Balancing Global Public Goods and Development Needs of Developing countries

1. Balancing Global Public Goods and Development Needs of Developing countries Uma Lele, Former Senior Advisor, Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank, Stockholm, August 21, 08

2. This Presentation Draws on Evidence From • Evaluations of World Bank’s • Implementation of the 1991 Forest Strategy—largest IEG Sector Evaluation in 2000 • Global Partnership Portfolio Review in 2003 of 200 Partnerships of which 70 Global Programs leading to Phase 1 Report • Meta Evaluation of the CGIAR • The Bank’s Approach to Global Programs-Phase 2 Report including • Global Health Programs of Communicable Diseases-GFATM, GAVI, Stop TB, UNAIDS • Environmental Programs—GEF, MLF, PCF • Financial Sector Stability--FSAP • Integrated Trade Facility • Others including –Cities Alliance • Climate Change Initiatives of Reduced Deforestation and the Bank’s 2002 Forest Strategy Implementation in 2009 • Regional Public Goods Dimension of Program on TB Control in Africa • FAO Evaluation—Panel Member Responsible for all of FAO’s Technical work • Recent Global Program Reviews Carried out by WB IEG

3. Questions Addressed • What are public goods? • Why have global and regional programs become important? • What ingredients are needed to produce GPGs and RPGs? • What Implications for Donors—bilateral and multilateral organizations?

4. Public Goods—National, Regional and Increasingly Global • Their non-rivalry and non-excludability spill across national boundaries • Non-rivalry --many can consume, use, or enjoy a public good at the same time: one’s consumption does not reduce benefits others can derive from consuming the same good at the same time. • Non-excludability--it is difficult to exclude from consumption those who do not pay for, or otherwise contribute to, the cost of supplying the good • Importance of Synergetic Relationship Among • National Public Goods- • Regional Public Goods-focus covering one region • Global Public Goods--Covering several regions

5. Reasons for Growth of Global Programs • Growing Global Agenda in Absence of a Global Government leading to changing “flavor of the month”—from MDGs to Climate Change • Acting Alone is not a solution • Economies of Scale in Delivering Technologies– CGIAR, Vaccine Research • Increased donor expectation that IOs should promote compliance of international norms and standards, capture and share global experience and good practice with developing country member countries. • IOs should deliver global public goods • Growing skepticism about IO’s performance in delivering on economic development at the national level • Declining In-House Capacity of Bilateral Donors • Growing Role of Civil Society • World Bank and IMF in search of new missions as their traditional lending role declines together with confidence in the ability of UN agencies to deliver????

6. Global Programs As Vehicles to Deliver Global Public Goods • Agreed objectives • Partners contribute resources (financial, technical, staff, reputational, etc.) • Program Activities at global, regional, or multi-country (not single country) levels • New organization with a governance structure and management unit to conduct activities and deliver on objectives • Global Programs either in Existing Organizations or in Newly established organizations—Global Fund for ATM, Gates Program for Green Revoluation in Africa

7. Rapidly Expanding Global Programs to Deliver Global Publc Goods? • World Bank Participation in Global Programs increased from 70 in 2004 to 106 in 2008 • World Bank Participation in 55 Regional programs in 2008 • Together Global Programs spent $5.0 billion in FY 2007 • 4 percent from the World Bank – $175 million from the Development Grant Facility (DGF) and $25 million from the Bank’s administrative budget • Additional 50 percent – $2.5 billion – from Bank-administered trust funds • Global programs add $100 million (???) a year to the Bank’s administrative budget according to IEG • The Bank’s Sustainable Development Network manages more trust funds than it manages the World Bank’s administrative budget • Bank’s Indonesia office manages larger trust funds than the Bank’s administrative budget for Indonesia

8. World Bank Role in Delivering GPGs Through Country Assistance Is Also Increasing • GPGs also received growing support through Bank-managed/implemented trust funds (about $100 million committed in FY02, reaching $350 million in FY07)

9. Types of Global Public Goods-1 • World Bank’s focus on Four GPGs: • Communicable Diseases (Malaria, Tb, HIV/AIDS, etc.) – But there are more than 100 initiatives in global initiatives in health • Environmental Commons (Climate Change, Ecosystems, Shared Nat. Res.)—carbon funds are proliferating • International Financial Architecture • International Trade

10. Crucial Role of International Agreements In Global Public Goods-2 • UNFCCC’s Central Role in Climate Change Agreement beyond 2012 • UN Agencies as depository of hundreds of formal and informal agreements. Of global importance e.g., Fishing on the high seas, Codex Alimentarius plant genetic resources (ITPGR), plant protection (IPPC), • Trade Rules • Environmental Standards and Rules, Food safety standards, safe uses of pesticides • Information and Knowledge as GPG– international statistics • Policy As Good Practice and Policy Assistance as GPG—Financial and Trade Issues • Standards For Treatment of Communicable diseases with cross border spill overs—HIV AIDs, TB, Avian Flu • Other crucial agreements which make the world tick-e.g. international air, oceanic navigational/ traffic and postal rules • Regional Agreements on water, fisheries

11. Informal Agreements Gaining Greater Legitimacy- Global Public Goods-3 • Increasing Role of informal international standards being turned into de facto binding standards—e.g., various forest certification standards, various food safety standards, trade rules, e.g, with regard to trade in engendered species of plants and animals

12. Bilateral Donors Provide Funds and Participate in Governance • of >than 15 World Bank Supported Programs

13. International Organizations Contribute Legitimacy and Expertise to Global Programs-those participating in > 6 WB supported global programs

14. Growing Role of Private Philanthropy Foundations participating in more than 3 programs

15. (in USD 1,000 at 1994 prices) Regular $1,400,000 Program $1,200,000 Extra- Budget. $1,000,000 Non-Em. Extra- Budget. $800,000 Emergency Available Funds Extra- $600,000 Budget. Total $400,000 TOTAL $200,000 $0 98 - 99 94 - 95 96 - 97 00 - 01 02 - 03 04 - 05 Biennium Declining Budget of UN Agencies: And Competition for ResourcesFAO’s Budget As of 2005 (in USD 1,000 at 1994 prices )

16. Figure 3 Average Resources Available by Source 1994 - 2005 Extra Budgetary Emergency (Emergency) 18% Regular Program Funds Extra-Budgetary 57% (Non-emergency) 25% Growing Role of Extra Budgetary Resources At FAO and Other UN Organizations

17. Challenges in Generation Of Global Public Goods • Divergence In Global and Local Priorities • Divergence in Global and Local costs and benefits • Generation of Most Global Public Goods requires strong collaboration with developing countries • And GPGs Need A COMBINATION OF INPUTS

18. GPGs Need: Advocacy, Knowledge Management, Investment, Capacity Building • Dissemination of information and knowledge • A Neutral platform for international dialogue and agreements • Advocacy to generate political commitment on issues at various levels. • Investible resources • Technical expertise • Institutional and human Capacity Building

19. IEG Findings • Most finance networking, advocacy or TA • Only few finance investments: • GFATM: About US$1.5 billion • GEF: About US$500 million • CGIAR: About US$500 million • GAVI: About US$400 milllion • EFA – Fast Track Initiative: About $150 million • MLF: About US$100 million

20. IEG Findings: Examples of GPGs With Demonstrated Results • CGIAR’s Plant Breeding Research • TDR • Stop TB • Gates Funded GAVI • International Agreement on Fishing on the High seas • Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources • A multi stakeholder approach to handling of hazardous pesticides • Avian Flu Initiative • Development of soil maps • But Wide Range In Complexity of Global Programs A Huge Challenge to Achieve Results • —e.g., ranging from research in laboratories and delivery of services vs. complex resource management on the ground—e.g. on climate change, biodiversity or water or behavioral Changes in HIV AIDS

21. IEG Findings: Well Intentioned but Ill Conceived Partnerships Pose significant Risks of Non-Delivery of Results • “Letting a thousand flowers bloom” Approach • Weak Selectivity and oversight • Most are donor-driven • Weak Global-country linkages • Weak incentives to foster global-country linkages • Weak Voice of Developing Countries • Variable Quality of Governance • Unclear and Diffused Accountability of Global Programs for Results • Weak Monitoring and Evaluation • Difficulties in measuring impacts of advocacy and TA • IEG’s Efforts to Develop M and E standards

22. Consequences • Rapidly Expanding Global and Regional Agenda • Most International Organizations pulled in opposite directions: GPGs and “demand driven” country needs

23. Collective Action Challenge At International Level-- Identifying Specific Comparative Advantages of Individual IOs in GPG Provision • Intergovernmental nature and mandate, • Convening Power • Neutrality-Perception and Reality • In-house disciplinary expertise and global/member country knowledge • Leadership in established global networks • Generation and Assembly of Global Data Sets • Unique advantages: the multi-sectoral nature of the World Bank, WTO’s expertise on trade related matters FAO’s in agriculture and and natural resource management, WHO’s in Health and UNEP’s in Environment. • Secretariats promotion or facilitation of international agreements

24. Collective Action Challenges For Donors and Recipients • Divergent interests and priorities among member countries with regard to specific GPGS. • Different capacities among developing country member countries • to participate and exercise voice in defining agreements • To implement agreements • Divergent views among government ministries within countries • Free-riding, under-funding, lack of voice in the design, and implementation of agreements

25. Challenges in Developing and Implementing International Agreements • Too many international entities leading to turf problems and lack of coordination, e.g., the Convention on Bio-Diversity (CBD), UNEP, UNCCD and other UN agencies and programs. • Overlapping mandates. E.g., WTO on TRIPS, SPS, and WIPO on intellectual property. • GPGs, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and poverty reduction issues • Stakeholder perception of limited weight in the international development framework. • International Organizations Insufficient links in member countries with influential stakeholders

26. Overarching Conclusions International Organizations Do not. But Need: to • Play up to their knowledge base and legitimacy • Establish clear priorities • between and among global agendas and local agendas • Move Upstream away from a large number of small non-strategic demand driven activities • Aim for larger impacts and adopt results based frameworks • Generate Systematic evidence of impacts—e.g. of the high profile international agreements, norms and standards and good practice manuals are being implemented, or • Improve coherence between headquarter and country linkages within International Organizations • Improve partnerships with external actors on a selective basis