metadata: authors: 0: author: Girishankar,Navin
count: World
docna: 0: docna: Innovating development finance - from
            financing sources to financial solutions
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases,Private Sector Economics,Health Care Services Industry,Public Sector Administrative & Civil
            Service Reform,Disease Control & Prevention,Public Health Promotion,Reproductive Health,Early Child and Children's Health,Immunizations,Democratic Government,Economics and Finance of Public
            Institution Development,Public Sector Administrative and Civil
            Service Reform,De Facto Governments
teratopic: Public Sector Development,Private Sector Development,Finance and Financial Sector Development
abstracts: cdata!: As early as 2000, development partners
            embarked on a decade-long search for "innovative"
            or alternative sources of Official Development Assistance to
            help finance achievement of the Millennium Development
            Goals. For their part, developing countries have sought not
            only more financial flows but better financial solutions,
            for example, through partnerships that mobilize private
            finance for public service delivery, risk mitigation efforts
            that promote private entry in the productive sectors, and
            support for carbon trading. This paper offers a framework to
            organize and understand this heterogeneous mix of
            innovations in fund-raising and financial solutions for
            development. It also provides, for the first time, a
            stocktaking of actual innovations that make up the
            international landscape and highlights the World Bank
            Groups role to date. The stocktaking shows that innovative
            finance mechanisms have played a more significant role in
            supporting financial solutions on the ground than in
            identifying and exploiting "alternative sources of
            ODA." Innovative fund-raising therefore should be
            viewed as a complement to - rather than a substitute for -
            traditional efforts to mobilize official flows, in
            particular concessional flows. Going forward, innovations
            need to be tested and evaluated to determine value-added.
repnme: repnme: Innovating development finance - from
            financing sources to financial solutions
display_title: Innovating development finance -
            from financing sources to financial solutions
listing_relative_url: /research/2009/11/11301039/innovating-development-finance-financing-sources-financial-solutions
topicv3: Public-Private Partnerships m1326334 2206,Public Service Delivery m1326771 728,Climate Change Mitigation m1327079 579,Immunizations m1327505 1459,Health m1504661 3480
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Public Sector Development,Private Sector Development,Finance and Financial Sector Development
no_of_pages: 111
author_keys: 0: author_key: 127034
model_extractions: WPS5111 Policy Research Working Paper 5111 Innovating Development Finance From Financing Sources to Financial Solutions _Navin Girishankar_ The World Bank November 2009
Policy Research Working Paper 5111

# **Abstract**

As early as 2000, development partners embarked on a decade-long search for “innovative” or alternative sources of Official Development Assistance to help finance achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. For their part, developing countries have sought not only more financial flows but better financial solutions, for example, through partnerships that mobilize private finance for public service delivery, risk mitigation efforts that promote private entry in the productive sectors, and support for carbon trading. This paper offers a framework to organize and understand this heterogeneous mix of innovations in fund-raising and financial solutions for development. It also provides, for the first time, a stocktaking of actual innovations that make up the international landscape and highlights the World Bank Group’s role to date. The stocktaking shows that innovative finance mechanisms have played a more significant role in supporting financial solutions on the ground than in identifying and exploiting “alternative sources of ODA.” Innovative fund-raising therefore should be viewed as a complement to—rather than a substitute for—traditional efforts to mobilize official flows, in particular concessional flows. Going forward, innovations need to be tested and evaluated to determine value-added.

This paper—a product of the World Bank Group-wide Working Group on Innovative Finance—is part of a larger effort to monitor and evaluate innovative fund-raising and financial solutions for development. The Working Group comprised several Vice Presidencies and units across the Bank Group including the Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships; Treasury, Operations and Country Services; the Human Development Network; the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management; and Sustainable Development Networks, including its Carbon, Agriculture and Rural Development; and the Finance, Economics, and Urban Units, as well as the International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Guarantee Agency, and the International Development Association-International Finance Corporation (IDA-IFC) Secretariat.. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at girishankar@ worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **INNOVATING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE** **_From Financing Sources to Financial Solutions_**

## **Navin Girishankar**

.
# **ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS**

|AAA|Analytical and Advisory Activities|
|---|---|
|ACP|Group of African, Caribbean, and Pacific Countries|
|ADA|Austrian Development Agency|
|AfDB|African Development Bank|
|ADB|Asian Development Bank|
|AF|Adaptation Fund|
|AFD|Agence Francaise de Developpement|
|AMC|Advance Market Commitment|
|ARD|Agriculture and Rural Development|
|BDM|Banking and Debt Management|
|BETF|Bank-Executed Trust Fund|
|BSF|Belgian Survival Fund|
|BTC|Belgian Technical Cooperation|
|CAS|Country Assistance Strategy|
|CAT DDO|Catastrophic Deferred Drawdown Option|
|CDM|Clean Development Mechanism|
|CER|Certified Emission Reductions|
|CFP|Concessional Finance and Global Partnership Vice Presidency|
|CIADR|IFC Infrastructure Advisory Department|
|CFPMI|Multilateral Trusteeship and Innovative Financing Department|
|CINUT|IFC Infrastructure Department, Water and Utilities Sector|
|CIS|Center for International Studies|
|CMD|Capital Markets Department|
|CMEA|Council for Mutual Economic Assistance|
|COSDR|IFC Operational Strategy Department Office of the Director|
|CRED|Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters|
|CSO|Civil Society Organization|
|CSPDR|Structured and Securitized Products Department|
|DAC|Development Assistance Committee|
|DDO|Deferred Drawdown Option|
|DEC|Development Economics Vice Presidency|
|DFID|Department for International Development|
|DGF|Development Grand Facility|
|DGIS|Netherlands Directorate General of Development Cooperation|
|DPO|Development Policy Operation|
|EAP|East Asia and Pacific Vice Presidency|
|EBRD|European Bank of Reconstruction and Development|
|EIB|European Investment Bank|
|EMEA|Europe, the Middle East, and Africa|
|ENV|Environment Department|
|EXT|External Affairs Vice Presidency|
|FDI|<br>Foreign Direct Investment|
|FEU|Finance, Economics, and Urban Development Department|
|FIFs|Financial Intermediary Fund|
|FINCF|<br>Corporate Finance and Risk|
|FMO|<br>Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij|
|FPDVP|Financial and Private Sector Development Vice Presidency|
|FRM|Financial Risk Management|
|GAAP|Generally Accepted Accounting Principals|
|GAVI|The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization|
|---|---|
|GDF|Global Development Finance|
|GDP|<br>Gross Domestic Product|
|GFDRR|Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery|
|GHG<br>|Greenhouse Gas<br>|
|GNI|Gross National Income|
|GPOBA<br>|Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid|
|GPPs|Global Programs and Partnerships|
|HDNHE|Human Development Network Health, Nutrition and Population Team|
|HFC|Hydroflourocarbon|
|HMO|Health Maintenance Organization|
|IAD|Internal Auditing Department|
|IBRD|International Bank for Reconstruction and Development|
|ICSID|International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes|
|IDA|International Development Association|
|IDB|Inter-American Development Bank|
|IEG|Independent Evaluation Group|
|IFC|International Finance Corporation|
|IFI|International Financial Institution|
|IFFIm|International Financing Facility for Immunization|
|IIC|Inter-American Investment Corporation|
|IIF|Institute of International Finance|
|IISEC|IDA-IFC Secretariat|
|IMF|International Monetary Fund|
|IRM|Integrated Risk Management|
|ISG|Information Solution Group|
|ISR|Implementation Status and Results Report|
|KfW|Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau|
|LAC|Latin American and Caribbean|
|LICs|Lower-Income Countries|
|MDBs|Multilateral Development Banks|
|MDGs|Millennium Development Goals|
|MICs|Middle-Income Countries|
|MIGA|Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency|
|MIGCO|Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Chief Financial Officer|
|NGO|Nongovernmental Organization|
|OBA|<br>Output-Based Aid|
|OCHAs|Office of the Coordination of Human Affairs|
|ODA|Official Development Assistance|
|OECD|Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development|
|OFDA|Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance|
|PBGI|Performance-Based Guarantee Initiative|
|PCG|Partial Credit Guarantee|
|PIDG|Private Infrastructure Development Group|
|PPI|<br>Private Participation in Infrastructure|
|PPIAF|<br>Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility|
|PPP|<br>Public-Private Partnership|
|PREM|<br>Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network|
|PRG|Partial Risk Guarantee|
|PRI|Political Risk Insurance|
|PRMVP|Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Vice Presidency|
|SDNVP|<br>Sustainable Development Network Vice Presidency|
SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SME Small and Medium Enterprise SSA Sub-Saharan Africa SWF Sovereign Wealth Funds TA Technical Assistance TF Trust Funds TFMF Trust Fund Management Framework TTL Task Team Leader UCF Umbrella Carbon Fund UN United Nations UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNITAID Joint Declaration on the International Drug Purchase Facility UNODC United Nations Office of Drug and Crime UPE Universal Primary Education WBG World Bank Group
# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

||**Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i–iii**|
|---|---|
|**I.**|**Why Innovative Development Finance and Why Now? .................................................... 1**|
||A. Taking Stock of Innovations in Practice .......................................................................... 1|
||B. Rethinking Innovative Development Finance .................................................................. 2|
||An Emerging Framework ............................................................................................. 2|
||Evaluating the Value Added of Innovation .................................................................. 4|
|**II.**|**The Innovative Development Finance Landscape ............................................................. 6**|
||A. How We Got Here—Development Finance in Transition ................................................. 6|
||Private Flows and Market-Based Innovations .............................................................. 6|
||Official Development Assistance and Innovative Finance ........................................... 7|
||B. The Evolving International Landscape ............................................................................ 8|
||Innovative Fund-Raising ............................................................................................... 8|
||Financial Solutions on the Ground ............................................................................... 9|
||World Bank Corporate Units and Business Processes ................................................ 10|
|**III.**|**Strengthening International Solidarity: New Sources, More Productive Uses ............. 13**|
||A. New Sources of Solidarity ............................................................................................. 13|
||Support from Emerging Donors for Country-Based Aid ............................................ 13|
||National Lotteries ....................................................................................................... 13|
||Recovery of Stolen Assets .......................................................................................... 14|
||Global Solidarity Levies for Global Priorities ............................................................ 14|
||B. Innovative Uses of Solidarity ......................................................................................... 15|
||<br>Managing Vulnerability: Counter-Cyclical Lending .................................................. 15|
||Debt Swaps and Debt Conversions for Results .......................................................... 15|
|**IV.**|**Promoting Public-Private Partnerships: Private Finance for Public Services ............. 16**|
||A. Innovative Fund-Raising through Partnerships .............................................................. 16|
||Pooling of Private and Public Resources to Support Country and Global Programs . 16|
||<br>Innovative Debt Offerings by Development Banks to Support Country Programs .... 17|
||<br>Frontloading of ODA for Urgent Global Priorities ..................................................... 19|
||B. Innovative Partnership Solutions at the Country Level ................................................. 20|
||Private Finance for Infrastructure and Social Service Delivery.................................. 20|
||Sovereign Catastrophe Risk Finance .......................................................................... 24|
|**V.**|**Catalyzing Private Entry and Market Development ....................................................... 27**|
||A. New Sources for Catalyzing Market Development ........................................................ 27|
||<br>Carbon Finance ........................................................................................................... 27|
||B. Catalytic Uses at the Country and Regional Level ........................................................ 29|
||Promoting Entry into the Financial and Productive Sectors through Guarantees ....... 29|
||Managing Currency Risks in the Financial and Productive Sectors ........................... 31|
||Developing Private Catastrophe Insurance Markets ................................................... 32|
|C. Correcting Global Market Failures ............................................................................... 34|
|---|
|Advance Market Commitment for Vaccines .............................................................. 35|
|Copayment Schemes ................................................................................................... 35|
|**VI.**<br>**Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 36**|
|A. Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 36|
|Innovative Finance as Potential Tool for Development Effectiveness ....................... 36|
|Need for Realism about Innovative Fund-Raising ...................................................... 36|
|Understanding What Works, What Doesn’t ............................................................... 36|
|B. Pointers on the Way Forward for Development Partners............................................... 36|
|**Annexes**|
|1. Data Sources and Methods ....................................................................................................... 38|
|2. International Innovative Finance Landscape, 2000–8 ............................................................. 40|
|2.1a: International Innovative Finance by Source, 2000–8 (US$ m) ....................................... 40|
|2.1b:.International Innovative Finance by Use, 2000–8 (US$ m) ........................................... 40|
|2.2a: World Bank Group Innovative Finance by Source, 2000–8 (US$ m) ............................ 41|
|2.2b: World Bank Group Innovative Finance by Use, 2000–8 (US$ m) ................................. 41|
|2.3a: International Innovative Finance Sources and World Bank Share, 2000–8 .................... 42|
|2.3b: International Innovative Finance Uses and World Bank Share, 2000–8 ........................ 42|
|2.4a: Innovative Finance with Local Currency Bonds as an Estimated Share of<br>Development Finance, 2000–8 (US$ m) .................................................................... 43|
|2.4b: Innovative Finance with Local Currency Bonds as an Estimated Share of<br>Development Finance, 2000–8 (US$ m) .................................................................... 43|
|<br>2.4c: Estimated ODA from Some Emerging Donors, 2002–6 (US$ m) .................................. 43|
|3. Composition of World Bank Group Innovative Development Finance Portfolio, 2000–8 ..... 44|
|3.1: WB Innovative Finance by Sector, 2000–8(US$ m) ........................................................ 44|
|3.2: WB Innovative Finance by Region, 2000–8 (US$ m) ...................................................... 44|
|<br>3.3: Estimated Leverage of Select Mechanisms and Instruments, 2000–7 (US$ m) ............... 44|
|3.4: WB Innovative Finance by Lending Category, 2000–8 (US$ m) ..................................... 45|
|3.5: WBG Innovative Finance by Corporate Entity and Business Line, FY 2000–8 .............. 45|
|3.6: Ave. Annual Flows under WBG Innovative Finance by Use and Objective, 2000–8 ...... 45|
|3.7: World Bank Guarantees by Region, Sector, and Country Type ....................................... 46|
|3.8a: Innovative Development Finance in World Bank Trust Funds, 2002–8 ......................... 47|
|3.8b: By Usage – Admin. Cost, 2002–8 .................................................................................. 47|
|3.8c: By Usage – Innovative Finance ...................................................................................... 47|
|3.8d: By Usage – TA ............................................................................................................... 47|
|3.8e: By Usage (US$ m) .......................................................................................................... 47|
|3.8f: TF Disbursements by Managing Unit of the Trustee Fund (US$ m) .............................. 48|
|3.8g: TF Disbursements by Managing Unit of the Grants (US$ m) ........................................ 48|
|<br>3.9: WBG Instruments and Services ........................................................................................ 49|
|4. Insurance/Guarantees Issued by Bilaterals/Multilaterals to Developing Countries, 2001–7 ... 50|
|<br>5. Private Participation in Infrastructure—Commitments and Multilateral Support, 2000–7 ..... 51|
|6. Active and Completed Catastrophe Risk Projects (US$ m)..................................................... 52|
|7. World Bank Carbon Funds: Amounts Raised, Sources, Participants, and ERPAs Signed ...... 53|
|8. Developing Country Perspectives on Innovative Development Finance ................................. 54|
|9. Glossary of Selected Innovative and Traditional Financial Instruments and Mechanisms ..... 57|
|10. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 90|
# **Figures**

|1.1|Innovative Mechanisms of Development Finance ..................................................................... 3|
|---|---|
|2.1|Innovative Fund-Raising and Financial Solutions as an Estimated Share of<br>Development Finance, 2000–7 ............................................................................................ 8|
|2.2|Average Annual Official Flows by Objective and Country Type, FY2000–7 ......................... 10|
|2.3a|-b Disbursements from World Bank–Administered Trust Funds Supporting Innovative<br>Finance Applications, 2002–8 ........................................................................................... 11|
|5.1|IFC Local Currency Lending By Sector and Region, FY1997–2009 ..................................... 32|
|**Tab**|**les**|
|1.1|A Snapshot of the International Innovative Finance Landscape ................................................ 4|
|3.1|Emerging Sovereign Donor Contributions through World Bank Group, FY2001–8 .............. 13|
|4.1|Contributions by Nonsovereign Donors through World Bank Group, FY2001–8 .................. 16|
|4.2|Funds Raised by Development Banks through Bonds Denominated in Developing Countries’<br>Currencies, 1995–2008 (US$ million) .............................................................................. 18|
|5.1|World Bank Share of ERPA Commitments and Payments, 2005–8 (US$ million) ................ 28|
|**Box**|**es**|
|1.1|The Role of Financial Engineering in Enhancing Value Added ................................................ 5|
|4.1|World Bank Targets Sustainable Investing with Climate-Related Themes ............................. 17|
|4.2|Local Currency Loans Using Derivatives: The Case of Hygeia Nigeria ................................. 23|
|4.3|World Bank Intermediation Services for Malawi Weather Indexed Insurance ....................... 26|
|5.1|Mongolia’s Livestock Insurance Indemnity Pool .................................................................... 33|
|6.1|A Country-Based Platform for Mainstreaming Innovative Finance ........................................ 37|
# **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

## **Why Innovative Development Finance and Why Now?**

1. As early as 2000, development partners embarked on a decade-long search for “innovative” or alternative sources of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to help finance achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In response, sovereign and private donors championed an array of initiatives: global solidarity levies proposed by France, frontloading future aid commitments by the United Kingdom, and results-based financing by various actors, including private foundations. Development banks also started issuing new types of bonds that link resource mobilization and development objectives, for example, debt offerings for sustainable investments with climate change-related themes. For their part, developing countries sought not only more financial flows but better financial solutions, for example, partnerships that mobilize private finance for public service delivery, risk mitigation efforts that promote private entry in the productive sectors, and support for carbon trading. This paper offers a framework to organize and understand this heterogeneous mix of innovations in fund-raising and financial solutions for development; seeks to provide, for the first time, a stocktaking of actual innovations that make up the international landscape; and highlights the World Bank Group’s role to date.

## **Rethinking Innovative Development Finance**

2. Broadly, four types of innovative mechanisms make up the international landscape: _Private mechanisms_ involve private-to-private flows in the market and in civil society. _Solidarity mechanisms_ support sovereign-to-sovereign transfers and form the backbone of multilateral and bilateral ODA and other official flows (OOF). _Public-private partnership_ (PPP) _mechanisms_ leverage or mobilize private finance in support of public service delivery and other public functions, such as sovereign risk management. _Catalytic mechanisms_ involve public support for creating and developing private markets ( _inter alia_ by reducing risks of private entry). Three of these mechanisms (solidarity, partnership, and catalytic) depend on official flows, which they either mobilize or deploy in support of country and global efforts through financial engineering efforts that employ an array of instruments (from grants and loans to contingent financing to risk mitigation). These are the focus of this paper.

3. Intrinsic financial novelty is not necessarily what makes these mechanisms and instruments innovative. Rather, innovations are those that depart from traditional approaches to mobilizing development finance—that is, through budget outlays from established sovereign donors or bonds issued by multilateral and national development banks exclusively to achieve funding objectives. They also are those that break from traditional approaches to delivering development finance— that is, through grants and loans. _Innovative development finance_ therefore involves nontraditional applications of solidarity, PPP, and catalytic mechanisms that (i) support fundraising by tapping new sources and engaging investors beyond the financial dimension of transactions, as partners and stakeholders in development; _or_ (ii) deliver financial solutions to development problems on the ground.

## **The Evolving International Landscape**

4. **Innovative fund-raising** generated an estimated US$57.1 billion in official flows or at least 4.5 percent of total gross ODA and IFI bond proceeds between 2000 and 2008. The bulk of these efforts involved new debt offerings by development banks (such as bonds issued in developing country currencies or those targeting sustainable investors). Alternative sources of concessional flows including solidarity levies and contributions from emerging donors totaled at least US$11.7 i
billion or 1.3 percent of gross ODA over 2000–8. Carbon finance and frontloading of ODA for global programs, while modest in volume terms, also grew. The World Bank Group accounted for more than a quarter of these innovative fund-raising efforts.

5. Efforts to support **innovative financial solutions on the ground** used an estimated US$52.7 billion in official flows or 5.7 percent of official flows to developing countries between 2000 and 2008. The lion’s share involved catalytic mechanisms to promote private investment in the financial, private insurance, and productive sectors at the country level (using partial credit guarantees, local currency lending using derivatives, and insurance pools) and Advance Market Commitment (AMC) and copayment schemes to strengthen the market for vaccines and essential drugs at the global level. A second major component involved PPPs that leveraged private flows to support infrastructure and social service delivery using risk management instruments (such as partial risk and political risk guarantees) and Output-Based Aid (OBA) schemes. These also included sovereign catastrophe risk management and debt swaps funded by private donors. Innovative solidarity efforts comprised debt buy-downs by bilateral donors, and counter-cyclical loans that adjust terms and conditions in response to shocks. Overall, the Bank Group was responsible for supporting nearly half of these innovative financial solutions on the ground.

# **Lessons Learned**

6. The experience to date offers some early lessons for developing countries and their partners.

7. **<u>Lesson 1: To date, innovative finance mechanisms have played a more significant role in</u> supporting financial solutions on the ground than in identifying and exploiting “alternative sources of ODA.”** Efforts to achieve development results therefore can be strengthened through the use of a broader menu of innovative _financial solutions_ :

- Aside from simply increasing official flows, financial solutions have helped governments and economic agents with risk management and risk reduction across sectors (for example, through use of insurance, derivative, and other risk management products). Given their limited knowledge of risk management instruments, developing countries could benefit from intermediation services offered by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to help transform and customize development finance flows to their specific needs. These arrangements can help build local capacity for financial innovation over time.

- Development partners can do more with less by proactively channeling official flows through catalytic and PPP mechanisms that leverage private flows at the country level. To do this, governments have started to employ a richer menu of cash and derivative instruments. These instruments will be increasingly relevant, given the lowered risk tolerances of investors as a result of the financial crisis. Some catalytic efforts at the global level (for example, AMC) employed ODA, which could also be channeled through country-based solidarity.

- Whereas they already were the dominant form of innovative finance in middle income countries, catalytic efforts can be expanded in lower income countries _inter alia_ through better packaging of risk mitigation with traditional loans and grants. Scaling up these efforts in the financial and productive sectors is essential to any robust response to the global crisis.

- Among the more innovative solutions in recent years were global market-making mechanisms, such as carbon trading and advance market commitments for vaccines. Success depends on robust regulatory regimes and clear agreement of roles and responsibilities respectively. International advocacy on these issues will likely be important.

ii
8. **<u>Lesson 2: Innovative fund-raising should be viewed as a complement to—rather than a</u> substitute for—traditional efforts to mobilize official flows, in particular concessional flows.** Donors should be realistic about the potential of innovative schemes to generate additional flows:

- Budget outlays from emerging sovereign donors were the only significant source of additional concessional flows or ODA. Initiatives supporting global programs (such as the International Financing Facility for Immunization [IFFIm]) that also rely on ODA should be managed keeping in mind substitution risks.

- PPP mechanisms that support _global programs_ (for example, through pooling sovereign and private donations or frontloading ODA) help broaden the base of support for development. They can also contribute to aid proliferation and associated transaction costs.

- New debt offerings by development banks (for example, those issued in local currencies or those targeting sustainable investors) have shown potential. But resources generated were relatively modest. Future prospects depend on varying regulations and market conditions.

9. **<u>Lesson 3: Innovations need to be tested and evaluated to determine value-added.</u>** While some innovations show promise, the jury is still out on others. For instance, the high start-up costs of certain schemes have been noted. Over time, more in-depth evaluation will be required to determine the value-added and _net_ benefits of fund-raising efforts and financial solutions.

# **Pointers for the Way Forward for Development Partners**

10. Developing countries, donors, and the private sector are eager to bring innovative finance into the mainstream of development practice. Leaders around the world are actively exploring the potential scalability of innovative schemes, for example, through the High Level Taskforce on Health System Strengthening or the Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Agencies like the Bank Group can help by using innovative finance more systematically and strategically to further funding and operational objectives. Building on existing efforts, they should:

- **Employ Innovative Fund-Raising More Selectively:** Innovative fund-raising for _countrybased efforts_ (for example, partnerships with investors and philanthropists) has mobilized modest resources to date, but can help broaden the base of support for development. Innovative fund-raising for _global priorities_ is more critical to ensuring actual funding for international efforts on health and climate change.

- **Mainstream the Use of Innovative Finance across Countries and Sectors:** As they prove effective, innovations should become a more integral part of the core operational toolkit of development agencies. This can be done using _country-based platforms_ to broaden the use of innovative finance to countries and sectors where they can add value (for example, mainstreaming OBA or finding new applications for AMCs). Doing so requires strengthening internal incentives for innovation by rationalizing financial and operational control processes, providing upstream advisory support on financial issues, and updating the financial skills of operational teams.

- **Monitor Trends and Results:** There is urgent need to monitor the impact of innovative fund-raising and financial solutions on development finance and to evaluate what works.

- **Expand Outreach to Partners:** Clients should also be better informed about what innovative finance can offer. Ongoing outreach to private investors and donors as well as DAC and emerging donors will also enhance prospects for mainstreaming innovating finance.

iii
# **I. WHY INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AND WHY NOW?**

1.1 **As early as 2000, development partners embarked on a decade-long search for “innovative” or alternative sources of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to help finance achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).** In response, sovereign and private donors championed an array of initiatives: global solidarity levies proposed by France; frontloading future aid commitments under the International Finance Facility by the United Kingdom, and results-based financing initiatives by private foundations. Development banks began to issue new bonds in part to mobilize official flows, especially for middle-income countries (MICs). In addition to more resources, developing countries sought a broader menu of financial solutions to enduring and emerging problems. Examples included _inter alia_ partnerships to leverage private finance for public service delivery, risk mitigation to promote private entry in the financial and productive sectors, and facilitation of carbon trading.

1.2 **Encouraged by early progress on a few high-profile innovative schemes, proponents of innovative development finance have developed a significant literature highlighting numerous potential applications of these tools.** With more than 50 new proposals in the literature, there is no paucity of ideas on innovative finance. The growing literature is replete with proposals for tapping new sources through innovative fund-raising (for example, private philanthropy or emerging donors) or developing new mechanisms to channel those resources (for example, public-private partnerships (PPPs) in service delivery). They also include a range of suggested uses for financial instruments to solve economic management and sector-specific problems at the country and global levels, for example counter-cyclical lending that allows adjustment in terms and maturities in response to exogenous shocks or results-based financing in the health sector.<sup>1</sup>

## **<u>A. Taking Stock of Innovations in Practice</u>**

1.3 **To some observers, these proposals point to an important shift in the way development partners do business. However, until now, it has not been clear how dramatically they have impacted the development finance landscape.**<sup>2</sup> Donors, international agencies, and representatives from developing countries have, in various fora, such as the Leading Group on Solidarity Levies to Fund Development, expressed strong interest in looking beyond the proposals to take stock of actual innovations in practice. In response, the World Bank Group launched an effort to assess the state of play in innovative development finance. This paper proposes an emerging framework to think about innovative fund-raising and innovative financial solutions on the ground; provides a snapshot of the actual innovations that make up the international landscape, including the World Bank’s role to date; and discusses lessons learned and implications going forward.

1.4 **The paper is organized into five remaining sections.** The remainder of this section offers a simple framework for categorizing innovative mechanisms and instruments. Section II provides an overview of innovative finance landscape as a component of development finance overall. Sections III, IV, and V describe innovations within each of the three main mechanisms of development finance that are the subject of this paper—solidarity, PPPs, and catalytic mechanisms. Section VI considers lessons learned from the international experience and implications for the World Bank Group.

> 1 De Ferranti et al., 2008; Labatt and White, 2007.

> 2 Doha Communique, 2008; Kaul, 2005.

1
# **<u>B. Rethinking Innovative Development Finance</u>**

1.5 **Since the term “innovative finance” made its way into the development lexicon in the early 2000s, it has come to mean many things to many people.** It has been used to describe a wide array of advancements in how economic development is supported by external actors— from financing technological and scientific advancements in a particular sector and improving the business processes of development agencies to actual financial innovations in the way development funds are raised and deployed. As the international community seeks more concrete financial solutions to operational challenges on the ground, there is a need to clearly bound the term “innovative finance.”

_An Emerging Framework_

1.6 **The primary interest for the international community is not financial innovation for its own sake, but the achievement of development objectives and results.** To understand the ways in which innovative finance can further development objectives, it is important to look at the uses and sources of development finance and also at how the resources mobilized can be transformed—through mechanisms employing financial engineering—to meet the needs of developing countries.

1.7 **<u>Uses: Development finance supports both public and private uses—that is, core</u> public functions of government as well as private initiatives in markets and civil society.**<sup>3</sup> The traditional economic rationale for government action is to _correct market failures_ through the provision of public goods (for example, basic social and infrastructure services) and regulation of markets. In carrying out these public functions, governments are also responsible for mitigating _governance failures_ or weaknesses in policymaking, resource allocation, program implementation, and enforcement of rules and regulations governing economic production and exchange. Private uses of development finance relate to private investment and related initiatives between economic agents. In pursuing private initiatives in the market and civil society, economic agents have to manage myriad risks and costs associated with information asymmetries, agency problems, and arbitrary state actions.

1.8 **<u>Sources: Over the past 60 years, the sources of development finance have continued</u> to expand in number and diversity.** _Public sources_ originate from the national tax bases of donor countries that contribute to development assistance through budget outlays. These countries include traditional sovereign donors whose contributions are monitored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) as well as emerging, non-DAC donors. In recent years, countries have identified global or regional taxes as a new source of public finance. Ultimately, domestic revenue in lower- and middleincome countries themselves should be the most stable, long-term source of development finance. Private sources include private firms that enter into development country markets, for example, to make investment decisions, after assessing profit-making opportunities. They also include private giving by individuals and organizations involved in philanthropy, as well as extended family and community networks that provide remittances.

> 3 World Bank, _World Development Reports_ 1997, 2004, and 2005.

2
1.9 **<u>Mechanisms</u>** <u>:</u> **Based on the sources they tap and the uses they support, four types of innovative mechanisms are identified** (Figure 1.1). _Private mechanisms_ involve private-toprivate flows in the market and in civil society. _Solidarity mechanisms_ support public-to-public or sovereign-to-sovereign transfers and form the backbone of multilateral and bilateral ODA and other official flows (OOF). _Public-private partnership mechanisms_ use public funds to leverage or mobilize private finance in support of public service delivery and other public functions, such as risk management. _Catalytic mechanisms_ involve public support for creating and developing private markets ( _inter alia_ by reducing risks of private entry). It is important to note that three of these mechanisms—solidarity, PPP, and catalytic— _depend on official flows (primarily ODA),_ which they either mobilize or deploy in support of country and global efforts using a wide range of financial instruments.

**<u>Figure 1.1: Innovative Mechanisms of Development Finance USES</u>**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Public Private<br>Public-Private Partnerships<br>Pure Private<br>Private finance for public<br>Private initiative in the market and<br>service delivery and<br>in civil society<br>other public functions<br>Solidarity<br>Catalytic<br>Public-to-public transfers<br>Public support for market creation<br>using concessional flows<br>and development or for promoting<br>(Official Development<br>private entry into existing markets<br>Assistance)<br>Source: Author.<br>Private<br>Leverage<br>SOURCES<br> Public<br>Mobilize<br><!-- End of picture text -->

1.10 **<u>Instruments: Innovations take place within each of these mechanisms through</u> “financial engineering” efforts that employ a range of financial instruments, products, and services.** The instrument array used by development financiers includes cash instruments (such as grants, loans, and securities), contingent financing, risk mitigation instruments (such as guarantees, swaps, hedging products, derivatives, and insurance pools), and advisory services.

1.11 **Intrinsic financial novelty is not necessarily what makes these mechanisms and instruments innovative.** Rather, innovative mechanisms and instruments are those that depart from traditional approaches to mobilizing development finance—that is, through budget outlays from established sovereign donors or bonds issued by multilateral and national development banks exclusively to achieve funding objectives. They are also those that break from traditional approaches to delivering development finance—that is, through grants and loans.<sup>4</sup>

# 1.12 **_Innovative development finance_ therefore involves nontraditional applications of solidarity, PPP, and catalytic mechanisms that (i) support fund-raising by tapping new sources and engaging investors beyond the financial dimension of transactions, as partners**

> 4 Innovations in development policy and practice—independent of financial design—are not the subject of this paper. These technical innovations may result from advances in science and technology, improvements in governance arrangements, or new knowledge about what works in a particular sector.

3
**and stakeholders in development;** **_or_ (ii) deliver financial solutions to development problems on the ground.** Accordingly, the paper identifies the following innovative mechanisms and instruments that are already in existence: (i) partnership and catalytic mechanisms (and supporting instruments), by virtue of their focus on leveraging of private flows; and (ii) new instruments and new applications of existing instruments (other than traditional lending and granting) under solidarity, partnership, and catalytic mechanisms. These initiatives involve varying degrees of financial engineering and complexity.

1.13 **Using the framework previously discussed, Table 1.1 identifies innovative mechanisms and instruments that made up the international landscape over the 2000–8 period.** These were organized as either innovative fund-raising efforts or financial solutions on the ground. For instance, examples of innovative fund-raising that generate additional concessional resources in support of global and country initiatives include contributions from emerging sovereign donors, the airline ticket tax, and contributions from national lotteries. They also include PPP mechanisms such as IFFIm, which borrows on the capital markets against longterm aid commitments. Examples of financial solutions on the ground include catalytic efforts to help create private catastrophe insurance markets for households and farmers, or solidarity efforts to improve performance through debt conversions conditioned on output performance.

# **<u>Table 1.1: A Snapshot of the International Innovative Finance Landscape</u>**

||**Fund-Raising**|**Financial Solutions**|
|---|---|---|
|**Traditional**|<br>ODA financed by budget outlays<br>from developed countries<br><br>Some private flows|<br>Transfers (cash or contingent) to public entities|
|**Innovative**|_Solidarity mechanisms_<br><br>ODA financed by budget outlays<br>from emerging sovereign donors<br><br>Global solidarity levies (such as<br>airline ticket tax, Adaptation Fund)<br><br>National lotteries<br><br>Stolen Asset Recovery<br>_Public-private partnership mechanisms_<br><br>Joint financing with private donors<br><br>New bonds (those in local currencies<br>or those targeting sustainable<br>investors)<br><br>Sovereign catastrophe risk (incl.<br>derivatives, currency swaps)<br><br>Frontloading ODA<br>_Catalytic mechanisms_<br><br>Carbon funds|_Solidarity mechanisms_<br><br>Counter-cyclical lending<br><br>Debt swaps for results<br>_Public-private partnership_ _mechanisms_<br><br>Private participation in social sectors and<br>infrastructure (incl. through guarantees, OBA)<br><br>Sovereign catastrophe risk finance (through<br>derivative and hedging, deferred drawdown<br>options or DDOs)<br>_Catalytic mechanisms_<br><br>Leveraging private investment in the financial<br>and productive sectors (through local currency<br>lending, guarantees, risk-sharing facilities)<br><br>Creating private insurance markets (through<br>insurance pools and DDOs)<br><br>Advance market commitments<br><br>Copayment schemes|

_Evaluating the Value Added of Innovation_

1.14 **Innovations need to be tested and evaluated to determine their value-added and therefore** **_net_ benefits.** While some innovations show promise, the jury is still out on others. For instance, the high costs of complex financial engineering in support of fund-raising or financial solutions have been noted. While preliminary analysis of these costs is available, more in-depth evaluation of the value-added and therefore, the net benefits is needed (Box 1.1). Innovative

4
fund-raising mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of their ability to mobilize _adequate and predictable resources_ from a given source _at the minimum cost and risk_ . In particular, global solidarity levies and taxes should be evaluated in terms of the incentives they provide to achieve policy goals, their revenue potential, and their distributive impact. Financial solutions on the ground should be reviewed in terms of their ability to efficiently and effectively _deliver_ development results or maximize net development benefits. It is important to note that, unlike fund-raising efforts, solutions on the ground often take time to materialize.

# **<u>Box 1.1: The Role of Financial Engineering in Enhancing Value Added</u>**

Innovative finance can enhance the value added of development finance at various points, from the initial mobilization of concessional funds to their deployment. Typically, this involves new approaches that perform financial transformation of development flows—through “financial engineering”—and then disburse to implementing entities, such as development institutions, governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), or private sector actors. Financial engineering approaches can be used to:

- Transform the flow of ODA or investor funds to better correspond to the _timing_ of actual development needs (e.g., through frontloading long-term ODA grants for immediate use (IFFIm)) and to help countries address various types of _risks_ (e.g., through gross domestic product (GDP), commodity price or inflation-indexed bonds; MDG contracts providing countercyclical loan flows; indexed/parametric or catastrophic risk insurance; local currency bonds and currency swaps).

- Increase the concessionality of flows through approaches that facilitate funding—whether from private investors (e.g., impact investments), governments or foundations (e.g., blending arrangements transforming loans to grants)—at costs lower than market rates.

Recently approved by the World Bank’s Board, the pilot Advance Market Commitment (AMC) is an example of how financial engineering can help to transform development finance flows to meet country needs and strengthen results. The sources of funds for the AMC subsidy are ODA and foundation grants (totaling US$1.5 billion), provided under unusually long-term payment agreements. The pledge flows are enhanced by an IBRD “guarantee.” The AMC targets private sector engagement via a unilateral offer to industry designed to spur development of manufacturing capacity to make needed vaccines. The funds flow to The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) (which is itself portrayed as an innovative public-private partnership) and, with GAVI copayments, are used by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to procure vaccines. The AMC thus comprises financial transformation (long-term contributions, the World Bank’s backing), is “results-based” since it is used only for vaccines that meet the needs of developing countries, and is “country-owned” since funds are only used for vaccines demanded by developing countries. Financial engineering approaches can help make better use of ODA, while involving the private sector in supporting development. As such, they are likely to assume greater significance.

_Source:_ Multilateral Trusteeship and Innovative Financing Department, World Bank.

1.15 **In addition to the costs of financial engineering, the risk profile of fund-raising schemes and financial solutions should be considered.** Financial risks affecting _funding sources_ include currency, market, donor nonpayment, and commercial credit risks, and those affecting _uses_ can include currency, liquidity, and over-commitment risks, as well as sovereign and portfolio or project risks.<sup>5</sup> Managing these risks involves financial and administrative costs; they can also affect the likely impact of both fund-raising schemes and financial solutions on the ground. While this stocktaking does not cover the impact of innovations on development outcomes, these evaluative criteria should be considered going forward.

> 5 World Bank. _Trust Fund Financial Compendium,_ 2008.

5
# **II. THE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE LANDSCAPE**

## **<u>A. How We Got Here—Development Finance in Transition</u>**

2.1 **The evolution in external financing in development countries over the 2000s provided the context within which innovative development finance evolved.** The scale and composition of private and official flows to developing countries will continue to influence prospects for innovative approaches to mobilizing official flows and innovative financial solutions to development problems on the ground.

_Private Flows and Market-Based Innovations_ 2.2 **In the years preceding the current global financial crisis, external financing to developing countries grew rapidly, driven primarily by private flows.**<sup>**6**</sup> For middle income countries (MICs), external flows grew from US$264 billion in 2000 to US$757 billion in 2007, and in lower-income countries (LICs), from US$24 billion to US$68 billion over the same period. Much of the growth in external financing to developing countries was driven by private flows. For MICs, these private capital flows—in particular, foreign direct investment (FDI), and private equity and debt—recorded considerable growth and were critical to relieving financing constraints. While steadily increasing in MICs, remittance flows became the largest source of external funding for LICs in 2007. Even though private flows to LICs increased through 2007, these countries relied more heavily on ODA.

2.3 **Buoyed by higher risk tolerance and the promise of high returns, market actors developed innovative strategies and instruments to increase private flows.** Privately-provided export credit insurance and political risk insurance schemes supported investments in the financial sector and productive sectors. For instance, in 2007 alone, export credit insurance—a highly concentrated market and dominated by private sector players—insured just more than US$2 trillion of world trade, 11 percent of which went to developing countries. Similarly, in 2005, the smaller political risk insurance market had a total potential exposure of US$122–172 billion. Over the mid-2000s, developing countries looked to other market-based innovations, such as diaspora bonds, securitization of future remittances and other future receivables, and reductions in the cost of remittances. Precrisis estimates indicated that these innovations could generate up to US$30 billion in private flows to Africa.<sup>7</sup> 2.4 **Closely associated with these trends was the emergence of new sources of flows to market actors, such as sovereign wealth funds.** Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are technically and legally sovereign entities; however, they have been empowered with broader and more aggressive market-oriented investment mandates. Estimates by market participants suggest that assets under management of SWFs range from US$2 trillion to $3 trillion and account for about one-fourth to one-third of foreign assets held by sovereigns. Notwithstanding the likely impact of the crisis on SWFs, their potential as a source of investment in developing countries is worth noting.

2.5 **<u>Private giving</u> by civil society to lower- and middle-income countries also grew in volume and visibility.** In 2006 alone, roughly US$40 billion in private donations and nongovernmental program funding flowed from OECD countries to developing countries. This

> 6 _Developing countries_ are defined as those countries that received ODA from OECD countries in 2006. 7 Ketkar and Ratha, 2009.

6
compares to a total of US$80 billion in ODA for core development and emergency programs in the same year. Recent estimates of various segments of private giving suggest that the rapid growth in private giving for development activities was largely driven by foundations.<sup>8</sup> 2.6 **With the onset of the global economic crisis and the virtual seizure of capital markets in 2008, prospects for increasing private flows purely through market-based innovations have been severely dampened.** Private flows to developing countries were halved from US$929 billion in 2007 to US$466 billion in 2008, and fell further to US$200 billion in 2009. Middle income countries with large financing needs and highly levered financial systems have been hit most directly. Lower income countries also were impacted by sharp declines in private flows. The indirect impact is expected to be even more severe including reductions in export volumes, commodity prices, remittances, tourism, and possibly aid.<sup>9</sup> Given the prevailing financial environment, market-based innovations alone may not be able to counter reversals in capital flows to developing countries. Any robust response to the global crisis necessarily requires _increased official flows_ to developing countries and their better use. Described in subsequent sections, innovative uses of official flows can help developing countries respond to the crisis.

_Official Development Assistance and Innovative Finance_ 2.7 **Over the 2000s, official flows and in particular ODA underwent considerable evolution as well.** ODA, the other major component of external financing to developing countries (in particular, to lower-income countries), relies entirely on budgetary outlays from donor countries to mobilize concessional flows. Net ODA disbursements grew steadily between 1997 and 2005, reaching a peak of US$107 billion in 2005. Much of the increase in ODA over this period was due to debt relief and, to a lesser extent, to emergency assistance and administrative costs of donors. Even though official flows increased during this period, it was clear that achieving the MDGs required a significant acceleration in the growth of ODA. As they contended with this large and looming financing gap, developing countries also had to manage the transaction costs associated with the proliferation of aid channels and ODA fragmentation.

2.8 **In response to the MDG financing gap in 2000, development partners embarked on a decade-long search for “innovative” or alternative sources of ODA.** Soon after the declaration of the MDGs, noting likely shortfalls in achieving ODA levels of $50 billion per annum, the 2002 Zedillo report strongly advocated searching for innovative financing solutions. Over the 2000s, sovereign and private donors championed an array of _innovative fund-raising initiatives,_ from solidarity levies to frontloading of ODA commitments. Some of these have been implemented, including the airline ticket levy and the IFFIm pilot.

2.9 **Over this period, developing countries also started to demand not only increased financing but more effective** **_financial solutions_ to development problems.** The solutions sought to utilize a broader menu of financial instruments than traditional development loans and grants. For instance, new performance-based solutions, such as the credit buy-downs, aim to sharpen the results- and poverty-focus of traditional development lending in the health sector. Similarly, countries are seeking to reduce their fiscal exposure to weather-related and commodity price shocks and natural disasters through catastrophe risk finance.<sup>10</sup>

> 8 _Hudson Index of Global Philanthropy 2008._

> 9 World Bank. Global Monitoring Report 2009.

> 10 Cummins and Mahul, 2009.

7
<!-- Start of picture text --> B.S<br>636 eere<br>4%<br>296<br>ons<br>2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008<br>—+#— Innovative sources as a share of gross ODA mobilized + bonds<br>—S— Innovative concessional sources as a share of gross ODA mobilized<br>kr Innovative uses as a share of of official flows<br><!-- End of picture text -->
_Financial Solutions on the Ground_ 2.12 **International efforts to support innovative financial solutions on the ground employed at least an estimated US$52.7 billion in official flows or 5.7 percent of total official flows to developing countries between 2000 and 2008** (Figure 2.1). These innovations, which were more heavily focused in middle-income countries, grew an average of 10 percent annually in volume terms over this period. The World Bank Group was responsible for nearly half of these international efforts (or US$23.7 billion over the 2000–8 period). As such, the Bank Group’s catalytic efforts at the country and global levels as well as its PPP efforts to promote private finance for public service delivery both have influenced international trends, highlighted below:

- **Over the 2000–8 period, US$39.4 billion (or three-quarters of all innovative uses) supported** **_catalytic_ country-level efforts in the financial and productive sectors.** These efforts typically used risk-mitigation instruments, primarily partial credit guarantees and local currency lending using derivatives. Even though developing country efforts to catalyze private catastrophe insurance markets, for example, property catastrophe insurance for householders and crop insurance for farmers, totaled only US$181 million to date, it remains a cutting-edge area with initiatives in the pipeline. Also in the pipeline is the US$1.5 billion pilot AMC, which aims to correct market failures in the global market for vaccines.

- **_Public-private partnership mechanisms_ employed a range of available multilateral and bilateral risk management instruments, totaling US$8.6 billion in guarantee amounts, to leverage private finance for public services in infrastructure and the social sectors.** Of these, most were carried out using partial risk and political risk guarantees. OBA schemes accounted for US$3.7 billion or a third of international PPP efforts. Multilaterals, such as the Bank Group, have helped countries access global insurance markets to cover sovereign catastrophe risks. To date, US$451 million in support and intermediation services supported such efforts. Debt conversions, totaling US$87 million, were financed by private donors.

- **Innovative solutions using** **_solidarity mechanisms_ totaled only US$481 million.** These comprised debt buy-downs financed with bilateral aid, as well as counter-cyclical lending, which allow countries to adjust terms and conditions in response to shocks.

2.13 **PPPs, and to a lesser extent, catalytic mechanisms, leveraged additional resources on the ground** (Annex 3.3). While complete estimates of international efforts were not available, Bank Group-supported _PPP mechanisms_ registered leveraging ratios of 6.7 through Bank Group partial risk guarantees and insurance schemes, 7.5 through partial credit guarantees, and 5.6 on debt buy-downs using private donations. The leverage from OBA schemes was conservatively estimated to be 1.8. Similarly, leverage estimates for _catalytic mechanisms_ were 2.8 using Bank Group partial risk guarantees and 2.2 using partial credit guarantees.

2.14 **Middle-income countries tended to benefit in terms of official flows deployed through innovative mechanisms.** Annual per capita official flows supporting innovative financial solutions in IBRD countries averaged US$78 over the 2000–7 period.<sup>14</sup> IDA and blend countries together averaged US$54 per capita official flows (by definition, ODA).

> 14 As noted earlier, the data on IBRD-eligible middle-income countries may be underestimated. A significant portion of these funds flows were uncategorized in part because IFC local currency lending was not classified by country. Another US$1.5 billion of commitments went to the AMC global program.

9
<!-- Start of picture text --> Managing<br>fiscal exposure<br>uss 60 » —— IBRD<br>50 | —— IDA and Blend<br>40<br>SA |<br>20 |<br>10 }<br>— — Improving<br>Catalytic “ service<br>delivery<br><!-- End of picture text -->
**instance, lending/grant-making, risk management, and advisory and intermediation services.** In volume terms, IFC and MIGA each supported more than a third each of innovative finance solutions on the ground by the World Bank Group, followed by IBRD (17 percent), trust funds (8 percent), and finally IDA (7 percent) over the 2001–8 period. IBRD and IFC drove much of the growth in the Bank’s innovative finance efforts with average annual growth rates of 187 percent and 66 percent, respectively, over the same period.

2.19 **As far as concessional and grant resources were concerned, trust funds— particularly those relating to** **_global programs and partnerships_ (GPPs)—were a rapidly growing component of the Bank’s business.** As Figure 2.3a illustrates, 82 percent of the US$1.86 billion in innovative finance-related TF grant disbursements between 2002 and 2008 were channeled through 28 (out of a total of 193) global programs. Eighty-one percent of disbursements for innovative schemes under GPPs were focused on health and the environment, and were concentrated in the Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships, Sustainable Development, and Human Development Vice Presidencies.<sup>16</sup>

**<u>Figure 2.3a-b: Disbursements from World Bank-Administered Trust Funds</u> Supporting Innovative Finance Applications, 2002-8**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 2.3a: Volume of TF Disbursements 2.3b: Composition of TF Disbursements<br>to Global Versus Country Programs by Expenditure Categories<br>1000 100%<br>800 80%<br>600 60%<br>400 40%<br>200 20%<br>0 0%<br>2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008<br>Country Global Other Investment TA Admin Costs Other<br><!-- End of picture text --> 2.20 **Trust-funded innovative finance schemes also demand more intensive inputs in terms of specialized sectoral or financial expertise.** While the costs of managing complexity and risk are hard to quantify, a review of the components of _trust-funded_ innovative finance schemes highlights the cost and knowledge dimensions of innovative finance applications or uses (Figure 2.3b). Over the 2002–8 period, on average, investment flows accounted for 84 percent of grant disbursements, technical assistance (for example, supporting design and supervision) accounted for 11 percent, and administration costs accounted for 5 percent.<sup>17</sup> 2.21 **Trust-funded innovative finance schemes, in particular those supported by Financial Intermediary Trust Funds (FIFs), carry both generic as well as specialized risks.** Standard risks relate to weaknesses in financial management and accounting, upstream

> 16 Data reflect disbursements at the fund level. At the grant level, Africa accounts for the third-largest volume of disbursements under GPPs supported by innovative finance schemes.

> 17These costs are likely to be underestimated. There are difficulties in estimating the average administrative cost of innovative initiatives because the full administrative costs of implementing agencies are not available.

11
assessment and ongoing risk monitoring, cost-efficiency, data quality, results orientation, and donor relations. Specialized risks associated with FIFs include potential impact on the Bank’s strategy, its country-based model, start-up costs, and management of partnerships and conflicts of interest. According to the 2007 _Trust Fund Management Framework_ , core operational and trust fund controls should capture generic risks. Distinct financial review processes are being applied for trust-funded innovations involving financial engineering components. Innovative initiatives that support regional or global programs are subjected to an upstream Senior Management Review instituted since 2006.<sup>18</sup> Efforts are ongoing to rationalize these various controls.

> 18 World Bank. _Trust Fund Management Framework,_ 2007.

12
# **III. STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY: NEW SOURCES, MORE PRODUCTIVE USES**

3.1 **This section discusses innovative efforts to strengthen international solidarity** **_inter alia_ by increasing the scale and effectiveness of ODA.** An overarching priority for the development community is to augment aggregate official flows by expanding solidarity mechanisms and simultaneously improving their effectiveness.

## **<u>A. New Sources of Solidarity</u>**

_Support from Emerging Donors for Country-Based Aid_ 3.2 **Since the publication of the 2002 Zedillo report, the only substantial alternative** **<u>source of concessional finance</u> was aid from emerging** **_non-DAC sovereign donors_ . Estimates indicated that annual ODA commitments from these donors reached US$3 billion by 2006.** While data on emerging sovereign donors are not collected systematically by DAC, their role is becoming increasingly visible. Chinese ODA in particular has grown rapidly in recent years. Estimates for the current level of Chinese ODA vary from US$1.1 to $2.5 billion annually.

3.3 **The World Bank Group has helped broaden the base of support for country-based solidarity efforts. Cash and promissory note contributions from non-DAC sovereign donors through the Bank Group, to IDA and trust funds, totaled US$2.1 billion over the 2001–8 period** (Table 3.1) **.** The number of non-DAC donors has steadily grown since IDA12. Even though non-DAC donors have participated in a number of IDA replenishments, the support of several first-time non-DAC donors during the most recent IDA15 replenishment is particular noteworthy. These included China, Cyprus, Egypt, Estonia, Latvia, Singapore, and Slovenia. Contributions in cash and notes to IDA from all non-DAC donors totaled US$1.32 billion over the fiscal 2001–8 period. Non-DAC donors have also contributed a total of US$780 million over the 2001–8 period to Bank-administered trust funds to lower and middle income countries.<sup>19</sup>

**<u>Table 3.1: Emerging Sovereign Donor Contributions through World Bank Group, FY2001–8</u>**

|**_(US$ million)_**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**_Non-DAC Sovereign Donors_**|**186**|<br>**136**|**205**|**189**|**166**|**253**|**679**|<br>**283**|**2,097**|
|IDA|159|<br>104|119|124|113|189|377|<br>131|1,316|
|Trust Fund|27|31|86|65|53|64|302|<br>152|<br>780|

## _National Lotteries_

3.4 **In addition to bringing in new donors, international solidarity efforts have also benefitted by tapping** **_national lotteries_ . To date, Belgium and the United Kingdom have financed aid programs through their national lottery funds.** Since 1987, Belgium has mobilized nearly €330 million in ODA from its national lottery fund for the Belgian Survival Fund (BSF). BSF funds long-term projects carried out by Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC), NGOs, and international organizations to improve food security in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, for every £1 that the public spends on Lottery

> 19 This figure includes contributions to Financial Intermediary Funds (FIFs), which _inter alia_ support pass through arrangements for global funds. The World Bank often does not play an operational role in these funds.

13
tickets, 28 pence goes to the Lottery “good causes.” Lottery funders are the organizations that distribute the “good causes” money. The largest of the UK’s Lottery funders, the Big Lottery Fund, has contributed £213 million (US$310 million) for projects in developing countries since 1995, of which £15 million was contributed in 2007 alone.

# _Recovery of Stolen Assets_

3.5 **_Recovery of stolen public assets_ from developing countries is a first step in reclaiming considerable resources that could have supported poverty reduction. Luxembourg is channeling resources recovered from illicit activities to bilateral ODA.** The cross-border flow of the global proceeds from criminal activities, corruption, and tax evasion is estimated at US$1– 1.6 trillion per year. Since its establishment in 1993, Luxembourg’s Anti-Drug Trafficking Fund has approved projects worth more than €11 million in developing countries. The Stolen Assert Recovery (StAR) initiative, supported by the World Bank and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), also shows promise but is in its early days. While there are no formal estimates of resources channeled back as a result of the initiative, anecdotal evidence suggests up to US$134 million was returned to Mexico and Zambia in 2008.

# _Global Solidarity Levies for Global Priorities_

3.6 **In addition to new national revenues that support country-based aid, new global taxes have been instituted to support global priorities.** The levy on airline tickets and a share of proceeds on Certified Emission Reductions (CER) sales constitute noteworthy efforts to tap new revenue sources. In both cases, revenues are “ring-fenced” for specified global programs in health and the environment.

3.7 **Revenues from the** **_solidarity levy on airline tickets_ —which total US$600 million to date—are expanding access to drugs and diagnostics critical to treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.** France opted for a progressive mechanism based on destination and class and instituted the tax in July 2006. Ninety percent of the 2007 tax product of US$359 million was dedicated to UNITAID, which is responsible for implementing efforts to leverage quality drug- and diagnostic-price reductions and accelerating the pace at which these are made available. Prospects for broadening the base of support for programs funded by this tax are high. Several beneficiary countries, including Brazil, Chile, Mauritius, and Niger, have implemented the tax and raised modest sums for UNITAID.<sup>20</sup> 3.8 **_Proceeds of sales of a share of certified emission reductions_ will shortly begin to finance the Adaptation Fund (AF), which has been launched to support climate change adaptation projects and programs.** The AF’s primary funding comes from a 2 percent share of proceeds of certified emission reductions (CERs) issued by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM registry forwards 2 percent of CERs issued for each CDM project activity to the AF’s registry account. The AF’s financial base is thus a precedentsetting international “tax” with a global base arising from an international treaty.

3.9 **Considered a “developing country fund,” the AF is expected to generate approximately US$68 million in its first year based on 3.73 million CERs collected to date at mid-December 2008 market prices.** Its growth will depend on CER volumes through 2012. The World Bank serves as the Fund’s trustee and the GEF as its secretariat. Supporting the AF as trustee is consistent with the Bank’s current work on climate change.

> 20 Air ticket levy funds also support IFFIm.

14
# **<u>B. Innovative Uses of Solidarity</u>**

3.10 **Sovereign donors have developed innovative financial solutions that improve the uses of official flows through solidarity mechanisms.** An emerging crop of financial instruments aim to provide developing countries greater flexibility, for example, by adjusting the terms and conditions of sovereign lending in response to external shocks or by sequencing of grants and loans based on achievement of sectoral performance targets.

_Managing Vulnerability: Counter-Cyclical Lending_ 3.11 **Counter-cyclical loans allow adjustments in terms and maturities in response to export-related shocks.** In 2007, the Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) approved two such loans: one to Senegal for €30 million and another to Burkina Faso for €15 million. Prior to 2000, the European Commission had utilized similar instruments, such as the Stabex and Sysmin, which allowed flexibility in terms and maturities to smooth the fiscal impact of commodity shocks. Both were abolished in 2000 with the Cotonou Agreement. 21 The World Bank has offered flexibility to respond to shocks in IDA-eligible countries via the Deferred Drawdown Option (DDO) and grants.

_Debt Swaps and Debt Conversions for Results_ 3.12 **_Debt swaps_ have helped drive the results agenda by allocating a part of governmentsecured debt to achieve specific sectoral spending and performance targets.** For instance, the history of Poland’s EcoFund dates back to 1991, when the Paris Club decided to reduce Polish debt by 50 percent provided that the remainder was paid off by 2010. Poland proposed that an additional 10 percent of the debt be allocated to environmental protection. Over the 1992–2006 period, debt swaps under EcoFund funded more than 1,300 projects, totaling US$450 million, in air protection, nature conservation, water protection, and waste management.

3.13 **Similarly, debt conversion agreements, such as those funded by Germany under Debt2Health, are helping increase and prioritize health sector spending.** Under Debt2Health, the Global Fund identifies and negotiates debt conversion opportunities and then facilitates a three-party agreement among creditors and the beneficiary country. Creditors forgo repayment of a portion of their sovereign debts on the condition that the country invests an agreed-upon amount in health through a Global Fund–approved program. Germany has made the first offer to forgo repayment of 50 million Euro provided that Indonesia invests Euro 25 million in health.

3.14 **World Bank debt-conversion efforts involve credit buy-downs, which convert credits into grants. IDA credit buy-downs were first piloted to support polio eradication in Nigeria and Pakistan, and IBRD buy-downs in support of a tuberculosis project in China.** Prior to Board approval of a credit, a donor pays the estimated cost of the future credit buy-down into a trust fund. Following an independent performance audit, trust fund resources are paid to IDA and the credit is “bought-down.” To date, seven credit buy-downs have been approved totaling US$242 million, and two have completed the buy-down cycle. Similarly, IBRD buydowns rely on third-party funds to reduce the effective interest rate of the loan by an agreed level. In the first IBRD buy-down in China, Department for International Development (DFID) grants were used to reduce the cost of borrowing from IBRD to 2 percent. Two more buy-downs in China’s education and rural development sectors followed.

21 In 1998, an independent evaluation found that, even with large amounts of funds, Stabex did not significantly influence, or compensate for, the overall worldwide drop in producers’ earnings at the time.

15
# **IV. PROMOTING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: PRIVATE FINANCE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES**

4.1 **Public-private partnership mechanisms (PPPs) that leverage private sources to support public service delivery and other public functions play a critical role in development finance.** For decades, multilateral and national development banks have mobilized resources to global capital markets to support lending in middle income countries. Partnerships with private donors have also helped raise concessional flows for lower income countries, and for global programs. Fund-raising through partnerships helps broaden the base of support for development among private sector actors. On the ground, PPPs enable governments in developing countries to leverage private flows to fill funding gaps, transfer sovereign and service delivery risks, and improve the cost effectiveness of service delivery. They employ a range of financial instruments beyond loans and grants in leveraging private flows. By their very nature, PPPs break from traditional solidarity transfers and are therefore considered innovative.

# **<u>A. Innovative Fund-Raising through Partnerships</u>**

_Pooling of Private and Public Resources to Support Country and Global Programs_ 4.2 **Historically, multilateral agencies in the United Nations (UN) system have been leaders in leveraging private donations, and pooling these contributions with other aid resources in order to support development activities.** UNICEF receives approximately US$750 million in private donations—largely from individuals—net of fundraising expenses. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) received US$47 million in 2007 largely from private individuals and is ramping up efforts. The World Food Program received more than US$100 million in private donations, a significant portion of which comes from inkind donations, such as the logistics and supply chain services. In addition, the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria has engaged private corporations, high-net-worth individuals, and the mass market through its Product Red campaign.<sup>22</sup> Some multilateral agencies, such as the Islamic Development Bank, have benefited from unsolicited donations such as a US$130 million gift in 2008 from philanthropist Fael Khair for cyclone shelters in Bangladesh.<sup>23</sup> 4.3 **World Bank Group partnerships with private donors—primarily through trust funds, and to a much lesser extent IDA—have been modest** (Table 4.1) **.** Over the 2001–8 period, private contributions to Bank-administered trust funds totaled US$269 million. In volume terms, the bulk of these resources were provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. To date, two private corporations have made contributions totaling US$1 million to IDA.

|**Table 4.1**<br>**: Contribution**<br>**_(US$ million)_**|**s by No**<br>**2001**|**nsovere**<br>**2002**|**ign Do**<br>**2003**|**nors th**<br>**2004**|**rough**<br>**2005**|**World**<br>**2006**|**Bank G**<br>**2007**|**roup, F**<br>**2008**|**Y2001–8**<br>**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**_Nonsovereign Donors_**|**9**|**18**|**47**|**19**|**31**|**25**|**55**|**64**|**269**|
|IDA - Corporation|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|1|1|
|Trust Fund - Corporation|0|1|0|2|2|3|5|17|31|
|Foundation|8|15|45|15|29|21|40|27|200|
|CivilSociety/NGO|1|2|1|1|1|1|10|19|37|

> 22 Company Web sites.

> 23 Islamic Development Bank Web site.

16
_Innovative Debt Offerings by Development Banks to Support Country Programs_ 4.4 **Since their inception, multilateral and national development banks have leveraged private funds on the world’s financial markets to help finance country level development efforts.** Between 1995 and 2008, these development banks raised a total of US$1.35 trillion in proceeds on the capital markets, of which IBRD and IFC accounted for approximately US$235.4 billion.<sup>24</sup> World Bank bonds and debt products, issued by IBRD, provide investors with the reassurance of an AAA credit rating, a wide choice of products, and strong secondary market performance for liquid World Bank benchmark bonds. It customizes its debt offerings to meet investors’ specific asset and liability needs.

4.5 **Some donors, such as Germany and France, have raised funds on their domestic capital markets, through their national development banks, to fund bilateral aid programs.** Both countries make substantial use of loans as part of their ODA. For instance, Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (KfW) Entwicklungsbank sought to “expand the scope of development cooperation by combining federal budget and capital market funds.” In 2007 alone, contributions of KfW’s bonds and own funds reached 20 percent of Germany’s ODA commitments in 2007.

# **<u>Box 4.1: World Bank Targets Sustainable Investing with Climate-Related Themes</u>**

**<u>World Bank Eco notes</u>** (total USDeq 390 million, in three transactions: September and December 2007, and February 2008) are six-year euro-denominated notes with a coupon of 3 percent, plus a potential additional return linked to an ABN-Amro index of “green” equities. The notes raised funds for IBRD at attractive rates, while raising awareness for funding “green” activities, at the same time that the hedging activities of IBRD’s swap counterparties also supported capital available to companies in the index. ABNAmro and Fortis Bank distributed the notes in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium, primarily to retail investors. Proceeds were used in the general operations of IBRD.

**<u>World Bank Cool bonds</u>** (total USDeq 31.5 million to-date in two transactions, June and September 2008) are five-year, USD-denominated notes paying a coupon of 3 percent for an initial period, and a variable coupon amount for the remaining maturity of the note tied CERs generated by specified greenhouse gas (GHG)-reducing projects in China and Malaysia. Hedging exposure to CERs by IBRD counterparties contributes to expansion of this market as well. Daiwa Securities and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities distributed the notes to Japanese investors. Proceeds were used in the general operations of IBRD.

**<u>World Bank Green bonds</u>** (USDeq 350 million, October 2008) are 6-year, Swedish kronor notes paying investors a 3.5 percent annual interest rate and raising funds at a spread of 0.25 percent over comparablematurity Swedish government paper. They enabled IBRD to raise funds at an attractive cost despite the challenging market environment. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) underwrote the issue and distributed mainly to Scandinavian institutional investors, who were attracted to the investment because the proceeds would be credited to a special account at IBRD that supports World Bank loan disbursements on qualifying climate change mitigation and adaptation projects.

_Source:_ IBRD.

# 4.6 **Innovative debt offerings by MDBs target** **_sustainable investing_ (SI)** **_._**<sup>25</sup> **A leader in SI bonds, IBRD has raised a total of US$2.15 billion through bonds that tap new sources by**

> 24 Includes IFFIm.

> 25 “Sustainable investing” (SI) describes an investing approach that is becoming increasingly popular, especially among retail investors. It integrates social and environmental concerns into investment decisions.

17
**engaging investors beyond the financial dimension of the transactions, as partners and stakeholders in development.** While these new financing products can be purchased by investors that are not new to the Bank, their product “content” is radically different. Along with their safe investment return, World Bank bonds offered through La Poste, Westpac, and DekaBank, as well as those issued for the World Supporter Fund, provide investors an opportunity to help with broader development goals. Proceeds from these SI bonds, launched over the 2005–8 period, totaled US$1.3 billion.

4.7 **SI bonds with climate change-related themes have enabled investors to support a specific cause and raised a total of US$771.5 million through 2008 (Box 4.1).** The proceeds from the World Bank Eco notes and World Bank Cool Bonds support the general country-based operations of IBRD. Proceeds from World Bank Green Bonds aim to provide some degree of earmarking in order to demonstrate the linkage between resources mobilized and specific World Bank projects that support climate change mitigation and adaptation. World Bank Cool Bonds offer the additional benefit of paying a portion of its returns based on the fast-growing market for CERs in China and Malaysia.

4.8 **Several development banks—and in particular regional ones—have also sought to issue** **_local currency bonds_ to fund country operations. Between 1995 and 2008, development banks raised US$52 billion through local currency bond issues.** In addition to the financial rationale for issuing bonds in certain local currencies, these debt offerings fund local currency lending (discussed in Section V). An ancillary benefit of issuing bonds in developing countries’ currencies is that they open potential markets for these countries’ governments and corporations to raise funds in their own currencies on international markets (thereby reducing currency risks). This benefit may be pronounced for local currency bonds issued on local markets if they help develop local capital markets. Table 4.2 indicates that key issuers of local currency bonds were the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (26 percent of all such issues), IBRD (23 percent), followed by KfW (14 percent), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (8 percent each).<sup>26</sup>

|**Table 4.2**<br>**: Fund**<br>**Denominated in Devel**<br>**Organization**|**s Raised by D**<br>**oping Countri**<br>**First Issue**<br>**(Year)**|**evelopment Ban**<br>**es’ Currencies,**<br>**Amount**<br>**Raised**|**ks through Bonds**<br>**1995–2008 (US$ million)**<br>**Amount Raised**<br>**Local Market**|
|---|---|---|---|
|EIB|1996|13,701|2,335|
|IBRD|1996|11,853|1,773|
|KfW|2004|7,125||
|IDB|1996|4,280|2,159|
|ADB|1998|4,033|1,254|
|IFC|1996|3,904|861|
|EBRD|1995|3,346|325|
|AfDB|1997|1,279|264|
|IIC|2001|44||
|Others||2,812||
|**Total**<br>_Source:_Dealogic.||**52,377**|**8,973**|

> 26 Variations can be explained in part by the different mandates and policies of development banks.

18
4.9 **While the bulk of these consisted of Eurobond issues, US$8.97 billion or 17 percent of all such** **_local currency bonds were issued on local financial markets themselves_ .** In addition to IBRD, the regional banks—and in particular, the European Investment Bank (EIB), IDB, and ADB—were major issuers of local currency bonds on local markets. These are described below:

- **In Eastern Europe, the EBRD launched its first floating-rate bond in 2005, thereby setting a benchmark in Russian capital markets.** This 5 billion rouble (€140 million) bond issue in 2005 was followed by two more rouble bonds in 2006 totaling 12.5 billion roubles (€360 million). The proceeds of this bond supported local currency lending to municipalities, electricity utilities, and small businesses without exchange rate risks.

- **In East Asia, the ADB and KfW mobilized funds from local financial markets in China and Thailand in order to finance local currency lending.** In 2006, the ADB launched the first Yuan denominated bond for CNY1 billion (US$124.9 million) in order to boost local currency capital markets in the region and increase funds available to the private sector in China. In 2007, KfW issued its first bond in Thai baht for approximately €65 million.

- **The Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC) has issued several bonds with investors in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) to fund local currency operations.** It has raised US$118 million as of this writing through two bond issues in Colombia and Mexico and has registered a new bond issue in Peru equivalent to US$80 million at the thencurrent exchange rate.

4.10 **To date, the World Bank Group as a whole accounts for US$15.76 billion or 30 percent of total local currency bond issues by development banks over the 1995–2008 period. Of these, IFC accounted for US$3.90 billion or 24.7 percent. IFC** in particular undertakes local currency bond issues to support local currency lending, where there is no currency swap market, often with back-to-back borrowing and on-lending arrangements. Notably, the potential of IFC’s efforts in Africa to channel local currency bond proceeds back into operations is gaining attention. For instance, in fiscal 2007, IFC made its first local currency bond offering in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This five-year bond, equivalent to US$44.6 million, was sold to funds, banks, insurance companies, and pension funds in the eight countries that use the West African franc. All of the proceeds will be invested locally, where they are intended to help finance domestic companies that need long-term financing in local currency.

4.11 **The World Bank Group promotes the development of local currency bond markets through the innovative Global Emerging Markets Local Currency (Gemloc) bond program.** Gemloc was designed in response to numerous governments that wanted to strengthen their bond markets and better support economic growth with stability. Under the program, a leading private investment manager, is developing investment strategies for local bonds. Markit, a private sector index company, is collaborating with IFC to create a new, transparent bond index, and the World Bank is providing advisory services to strengthen local markets and improve their “investability.” _Frontloading of ODA for Urgent Global Priorities_ 4.12 **Global programs can also benefit from innovative fund-raising on capital markets. The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) experience with “frontloading” ODA represents a breakthrough for the international community.** The initiative originated in a 2003 U.K. proposal that sought to borrow from private investors against legally binding long-term ODA commitments, which would serve as assets to back bond 19
issuances.<sup>27</sup> The key feature of the proposal was its ability to “frontload” resources needed to support MDG-related programs. In 2006, the IFF proposal materialized with the launch of a pilot for immunization, which was supported by France, Italy, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Supporters have together pledged to contribute US$ 5.3 billion to IFFIm over 20 years. IFFIm aims to mobilize about $4 billion in the capital markets in the first 10 years.<sup>28</sup> Net proceeds are provided to the GAVI Alliance, which channels these resources to support immunization efforts.

4.13 **IFFIm mobilized US$1 billion and doubled GAVI’s annually available resources in its first year of existence.** IFFIm’s inaugural bonds, issued on November 14, 2006, raised US$1 billion. The bonds were bought by a broad range of investors, including several central banks, pension funds, fund managers, and insurance companies. The second issuance saw IFFIm’s debut in the Japanese market on March 18, 2008, with a principal amount of ZAR 1.7 billion (US$223 million). It constituted the largest South African rand-denominated bond seen to date in the market and was also the first initiative of this kind in Japan to use the capital markets to raise funds for a specific development purpose. This second issue sought retail rather than institutional investors. As of November 20, 2008, it had disbursed an almost equivalent amount.

4.14 **The World Bank serves as the treasury manager for IFFIm.** It manages donor contributions to IFFIm, manages IFFIm’s capital markets activities through bond issuances and also provides risk management, investment management, accounting, legal, and other administrative services. IFFIm funds are channeled as grants to developing countries’ immunization programs through GAVI. The Bank also administers the GAVI Fund Affiliate Account, which receives bond proceeds from IFFIm and makes disbursements for GAVI programs. The Bank does not play an operational role.

4.15 **Two caveats relating to the adequacy and allocation of resources should be noted.** First, IFFIm does not generate additional ODA flows from private sources, but rather intertemporally shifts funds available for immunization. The expected benefits of frontloading are therefore investment returns on high payoff projects through earlier investment (less the cost of capital for borrowing on the markets). Second, resources mobilized through IFFIm are allocated to GAVI. Vertical funds, such as IFFIm, may still have to contend with the transactions costs associated with earmarked ODA channels.

# **<u>B. Innovative Partnership Solutions at the Country Level</u>**

_Private Finance for Infrastructure and Social Service Delivery_ 4.16 **Over the past two decades, developing countries have recognized that private finance is critical to filling infrastructure deficits and improving service delivery.** A key motivation for developing countries is to leverage private finance to fill large service delivery financing gaps. Annual volumes of private investment in emerging markets infrastructure rose from US$20 billion per annum in 1990 to more than US$120 billion in 1997. The Asian crisis and other factors contributed to its subsequent decline, which was only partially reversed in the 2000s.

4.17 **These public-private partnerships in infrastructure have evolved since the 1990s and will continue to do so in response to the ongoing global economic crisis.** The 1990s

> 27 Atkinson, p. 110–111.

> 28 Current mobilization levels for IFFIm are less than US$3 billion.

20
approach to PPPs, with its heavy reliance on privatizations and concessions that did not always involve appropriate risk allocation between governments and the private sector, faced limitations. While infrastructure investment from external sources continue to follow the 1990s model in certain sectors (telecoms, ports, airports, freight railways, and natural gas pipelines), the approach is evolving and the capacity of developing country governments to develop, procure, negotiate, and oversee PPP contracts is strengthening. PPPs increasingly emphasize better risk- and costsharing between public and private sectors, and a more systematic poverty focus. The ongoing crisis is impacting PPPs in infrastructure and the social sectors. From August to November 2008, the level of investment in new projects registered a decline of about 40 percent compared with the level in the same period in 2007. Around 27 percent of surveyed projects by investment have been delayed, canceled, or are at risk of being canceled. Projects delayed and at risk of being delayed amount to US$82 billion. The financing and risk management requirements of sustaining PPPs could mean a greater role for governments and their partners.

4.18 **To date, multilateral and bilateral support to PPPs in infrastructure—in the form of lending, risk management, and technical assistance services—has been modest. But it remains critical to crowding in private investment.** While they account for only 3 percent of total investment commitments in volume terms, their involvement in a relatively large share in the number of projects reflects their ability to crowd in private investors. Loans to sovereigns, either direct or through syndication, provide support for launching and sustaining PPPs. Several multilateral players, such as the IDB, ADB, and EBRD, have directly financed a large percentage of projects that use PPPs. In so doing, they have crowded in private investment in the energy sectors in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Guarantees were also critical to leveraging private finance in infrastructure in middle- and lowerincome countries. For example, they accounted for 30 percent of multilateral support in transport over 2001–07 (Annexes 4 and 5).

4.19 **In lower income countries, in particular, ODA has been critical to leveraging private investment in infrastructure.** Three-quarters of infrastructure spending (and 90 percent in IDA countries) are financed entirely by the public sector through budgets or external borrowing. ODA accounted for about 15 percent while public funding accounted for almost 50 percent over the period of review. Donors have helped African organizations of various kinds set up their own infrastructure project preparation facilities, in part as a way of attracting private investors. One example is the Private Infrastructure Development Group, which is a multidonor, membermanaged organization that encourages private infrastructure investment in developing countries.

4.20 **Local public banks as well as multilateral, bilateral, and export credit agencies have been also been financiers of PPPs for infrastructure service delivery.** Companies from developing countries mobilized 51 percent of funding for infrastructure projects with private participation in 2005–6 in contrast to the 1990s when large international companies played a dominant role. Projects in Brazil and India, countries accounting for a large share of private activity, have sourced financing largely from public sector banks. Local banks can provide local currency denominated financing in part to management foreign exchange risks.

4.21 **<u>The World Bank Group</u> has played a critical role in assisting countries attract private capital for infrastructure through** lending (including in local currency debt financing),<sup>29</sup> guarantees and other risk management tools, OBA schemes, and advisory services. Over the fiscal 2004–7 period, World Bank Group lending to infrastructure increased 29 Under Mexico’s US$108 million Decentralized Infrastructure Loan, IBRD provides local currency financing by executing swap transactions with a financial intermediary before each disbursement.

21
significantly to US$41 billion—of which US$33 billion was IBRD and IDA lending. These commitments leveraged an additional US$70 billion in public and private financing. In supporting infrastructure investments, the World Bank Group also shifted its strategy from a focus to flexible PPPs to meet diverse developing countries needs.

4.22 **The role of various World Bank Group guarantees provided by IBRD, IDA,**<sup>30</sup> **MIGA, and IFC are critical to leveraging private finance for public service delivery.** Over the 2000–8 period, guarantees issued by multilateral and bilateral organizations to support investments in infrastructure and social sector investments in developing countries totaled approximately US$8.5 billion in guarantee amounts. Of this amount, US$4.5 billion, or 53 percent, were provided by the World Bank Group alone. In terms of guarantee amounts, the overwhelming majority or 87 percent were covered by political risk insurance provided by MIGA. Taken together, over the 2000–7 period, MIGA and IBRD/IDA’s partial risk guarantees were more heavily focused on leveraging private flows in support of service delivery investments, for example in energy and mining (40 percent), followed by transport (7 percent) and water and sanitation (4 percent). By contrast, and as would be expected, IFC’s partial credit guarantees were overwhelmingly focused on the financial and productive sectors (discussed in Section V). Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean received the lion’s share of Bank Group support in the form of partial risk guarantees (40 percent in terms of guarantee amounts), followed by Africa (25 percent) and Europe and Central Asia (21 percent).

4.23 **Some of these World Bank Group risk management instruments were embedded in lending products that support PPPs in infrastructure and social sectors. IFC’s portfolio of** **<u>local currency loans with derivatives</u> has grown steadily since 1999.**<sup>31</sup> Approximately 14 percent of the total $5.3 billion in IFC local currency lending using derivatives supported investments in infrastructure. Four percent supported investments in the health and other social sectors. Specific examples include support for hydroelectric generation in northern India, private hospital upgrading in the Philippines, the development of rural access and regional roads in Russia, and the health sector in Nigeria (Box 4.2).

4.24 **World Bank Group efforts to** **_package_ concessional lending, targeted subsidies, and risk-mitigation instruments in support of infrastructure have helped leverage IFC and private flows, particularly in IDA countries.** A number of joint financing models between IFC and IDA have supported a range of infrastructure projects. For instance, IDA, through a Partial Risk Guarantee (PRG), covered political and government-related risks faced by commercial lenders (for example, Bujagali) or by the project company (Kenya-Uganda railways), coupled with an IFC investment to the project, upstream IFC advisory work, and MIGA insurance on the equity stake of private operators. Similarly, IDA/IBRD has funded a line of credit facility to increase the availability of long-term financing for infrastructure PPP projects, together with IFC cofinancing for select subprojects. Furthermore, an IBRD enclave guarantee (for example, SASOL); and IBRD enclave loan support the government’s equity position (for example, Chad Cameroon Pipeline), together with an IFC investment.<sup>32</sup>

> 30 Partial Risk Guarantees (PRGs) available under the IDA guarantee pilot program cover commercial debt owed to private lenders or investors relating to private sector projects against debt service default, where such defaults are caused by a government’s failure to meet its contractual obligations related to the project. 31 Companies with revenues in local currency should generally borrow in their local currency rather than a foreign currency. For these firms, hedging against currency risk is a prudent financial strategy.

> 32 World Bank. _World Bank-IFC Collaboration in IDA Countries. Annual Progress Report, 2009._

22
# **<u>Box 4.2: Local Currency Loans Using Derivatives: The Case of Hygeia Nigeria</u>**

IFC offers local currency loans in any country where it is possible to hedge its resulting currency exposure from the local currency loan. It uses long-term derivatives or swaps to synthetically transform the cash flows from a local currency loan into dollar cash flows. In addition to the development impact of the projects they finance, local currency loans also help improve the client’s currency risk management and develop financial markets in other countries.

Hygeia Nigeria Limited, a private sector provider of hospitals and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) services in Nigeria, was founded in 1984 as a multispecialty hospital in Lagos. The company has evolved into an integrated health care services group with an HMO, three hospitals in Lagos, 25 worksite clinics, and a network of more than 200 clinics across the country. In 2006, Hygeia was interested in borrowing money to finance an expansion and renovation of its hospitals and to improve its HMO business. Historically, Hygeia has borrowed in dollars and was exposed to significant currency risk.

From 2000 to 2003, the Nigerian naira depreciated by more than 40 percent relative to the U.S. dollar. Then, from 2003 to 2008, the currency appreciated more than 15 percent relative to the U.S. dollar, only to depreciate again 15 percent. This extreme volatility in currency markets demonstrates the importance of linking a company’s revenues and liabilities to the same currency. Hygeia was seeking long-term local currency debt in a market where any kind of long term debt financing is limited.

Using derivatives, IFC provided Hygeia with a loan of 390 million Nigerian naira (US$3 million). The swap used to fund this loan was the longest maturity currency swap in the Nigerian naira market to date. It is expected to pave the way for more long-term naira/dollar swaps, leading to more local currency investment in Nigeria.

_Source:_ IFC 4.25 **<u>Output-Based Aid</u> (OBA)—a form of public-private partnerships—involves contracting arrangements with the private sector that tie the disbursement of public funding or “subsidies” to the achievement of specific service delivery results.** First introduced in 2000, OBA schemes compensate service providers (usually the private sector but in some cases also community or nongovernmental organizations or public sector utilities) with subsidies upon delivery of a specified output, such as water connections of a specified quality, to a targeted beneficiary. Subsidies, provided in the form of payments for the provision of services to targeted groups, cover the gap between the cost of provision and the user’s ability to pay.

4.26 **Of the total 159 OBA projects identified around the world, 123 are supported by the World Bank Group, totaling US$3.8 billion in investments** (US$2.6 billion Bank and US$1.1 billion government).<sup>33</sup> The plurality of these schemes was focused in the water and energy sectors, followed by health and other social services. However, in terms of funding volumes, the transportation sector represented about half of OBA-related flows. While a third of OBA projects were in Africa, in volume terms those in Latin America were largest. Of the 123 OBA projects, more than 60 percent (75 projects) are in IDA countries, 33 are in IBRD countries, and 15 are in IDA/IBRD blend countries. Increasingly, OBA schemes are being mainstreamed into the design of IBRD and IDA lending operations.

> 33 A handful of projects involve well-functioning public sector service providers and involve partnerships between public institutions.

23
4.27 **The Bank Group helps pilot OBA projects with grants provided through a multidonor trust fund financed by the DFID, the Netherlands, Australia, and IFC.** A similar initiative is IFC’s Performance-Based Guarantee Initiative (PBGI), which has dedicated US$250 million of funds to subsidies in infrastructure and small and medium enterprise (SME) projects. USAID and KfW are also supporting OBA projects in the health, water, and energy sectors. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) of Switzerland provided OBA funding for a joint IFC/IDA energy project in Tajikistan. AFD is involved in implementing OBA approaches in water and sanitation projects in Morocco, Kenya, and Cambodia.

4.28 **<u>Advisory services</u> constitute a significant component of the World Bank’s work in promoting PPPs for public service delivery.** Since 1999, the World Bank–managed _PublicPrivate Infrastructure Advisory Facility_ (PPIAF) has funded more than US$130 million in technical assistance (TA), facilitated more than 100 transactions, and strengthened more than 50 institutions **.34 IFC** has also allocated $100 million to _Infra-Ventures_ , which assists private sponsors with prefeasibility studies and risk capital in order to promote private investment in power, water, and municipal services, and transport. Finally, between 2000 and 2008, IFC advisory mandates on PPPs helped mobilize US$10 billion in investment, US$1.7 billion in concession fees and other fiscal benefits for governments.<sup>35</sup>

# _Sovereign Catastrophe Risk Finance_

4.29 **In recent years, there has been growing recognition that exogenous shocks are more frequent and costly in developing countries.**<sup>36</sup> According to the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, the estimated direct damage caused to developing countries alone by natural and human made disasters. Damages reached almost US$33 billion in 2007. As a result of underdeveloped local insurance markets, the estimated insured losses caused by natural disasters have remained stable at less than 5 percent in low-income countries over the past decade. Hydrometeorological events from droughts to floods cause 90 percent of the damage.

4.30 **Developing countries are recognizing, however, that they can no longer rely purely on** **_ex post_ relief and recovery measures.** Delays in provision of _ex post_ relief and recovery efforts compound the costs of crises. Also, following a disaster, funds in developing countries’ budgets are diverted from development objectives to immediate relief and then reconstruction. Donors covered an estimated 2 to 14 percent of economic losses from natural disasters, often with significant delays and disproportionate generosity for the most visible disasters.<sup>37</sup> 4.31 **Catastrophe risk finance is an important means of leveraging private finance to support** **_ex ante_ management of sovereign risks.** Specifically, risk management tools can help transfer a part of the government’s assessed financial risk or its contingent liability from catastrophe to the domestic and/or international insurance markets. Because domestic insurance markets are underdeveloped in most developing countries, development partners can help governments transfer sovereign risks to global capital markets.

4.32 **Even though catastrophe and sovereign risk financing is relatively new to development finance institutions, donors can help in coordinating and catalyzing the process, by supplying initial funding to cover startup costs, deploying capital, and providing**

> 34 PPIAF. _2008 Annual Report._

> 35 IFC. _2008 Annual Report._ 36 Guillermo Perry, 2009.

> 37 Cummins and Mahul, 2006.

24
**technical assistance.** Key instruments include contingent loans, regional catastrophe insurance pools, weather derivatives insurance, and technical assistance and advisory services. Described below, these applications allow countries to secure immediate liquidity and budget support following a major natural disaster or other exogenous shocks. Among development partners, the World Bank has supported a number of firsts in this area, including the following:

- IBRD’s first **_contingent loan_** of US$65 million, approved in September 2008, supports Cost Rica’s Disaster Risk Management Program through a development policy loan with a Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (CAT DDO). It is expected to be followed by similar operations under preparation in Albania, Colombia, Croatia, and Guatemala.

- IBRD assisted 16 countries in establishing a **_multicountry catastrophe insurance pool_** that offers parametric insurance against major hurricanes and earthquakes. Through the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), governments can purchase coverage—akin to business interruption insurance—that provides immediate liquidity in case of a major event. CCRIF’s financial capacity depends on its own reserves (initially provided by donors) and international reinsurance. It placed more than US$110 million on international reinsurance and capital markets in 2007 and 2008. In 2007, a 7.4-magnitude earthquake triggered indemnity payments to St. Lucia and Dominica totaling US$1 million. Hurricane Ike in 2008 triggered a US$6 million payout to the Turks and Caicos Islands.

- As part of the reinsurance placement of the Caribbean Facility (noted above), IBRD also arranged to transfer a portion of the risk to capital markets through a US$20 million **_cat swap_ .** This derivative transaction between IBRD and CCRIF was the first to enable developing countries to access capital markets to insure against natural disasters.

- IBRD provided technical assistance and intermediation services to the Government of Mexico in issuing a **_cat bond_** , which was designed to make its self-insurance fund less dependent on government for the allocation of post-disaster funds. Mexico purchased US$450 million in catastrophe coverage, of which US$160 million was issued as a cat bond to cover earthquakes. Institutional investors in the United States and Europe paid into a single-purpose reinsurer created for the Government of Mexico. If an earthquake of a specified magnitude were to occur in designated areas of the country within three years, the Government can draw on these funds. If none occurs during this period, the money will be returned to the investors.

- IBRD intermediated its first **_weather risk management contract_** to help Malawi protect itself against the risk of severe drought. It marks the first time that a member of IDA is able to access World Bank market-based risk management tools. On behalf of the Government of Malawi, the DFID financed the premium payment for the contract (Box 4.3).

4.33 **<u>Other Sovereign Risks. Currency risk arises when the currencies borrowers owe are</u> different from what they receive from their net earnings or revenue streams.** Such risk can have a more significant impact on debt service requirements than interest rate risk primarily because it affects both principal and interest. Access to local currency financing to protect public resources against exchange rate volatility is limited for most borrowers. Developing countries can therefore use local currency swaps to better manage these risks. Such swaps allow borrowers to convert the currency of disbursed loan amounts into their local currency.

25
# **<u>Box 4.3: World Bank Intermediation Services for Malawi Weather Indexed Insurance</u>**

Weather derivatives are designed to provide compensation for financial loss related to adverse weather events. Contracts can be based on measureable weather events, such as excessive or insufficient rainfall, temperatures (extreme heat/cold), and tropical storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons. Contracts are based on an underlying weather index and payments are triggered by adverse weather events according to prespecified conditions. Weather risk management transactions can be customized according to each country’s specific needs: the type of weather hazard, level of protection, and estimated financial loss associated with a severe and catastrophic event. These can be applied to agriculture and energy production, as well as hedging tourism revenues.

Even though these instruments became available in the late 1990s, some countries, such as Malawi, have reduced access to market-based risk-management tools because of market inefficiencies and limited capacity. Almost 90 percent of Malawi’s population lives in rural areas and engages mainly in smallholder, rain-fed subsistence farming. Agriculture contributes 38 percent of the country’s GDP, and the weak and erratic performance of the agricultural sector, mostly a result of the impact of drought, has constrained growth in the country. Maize production, in particular, is a crucial element of food security and recurrent drought leads to chronic and widespread malnutrition.

In response to the Government’s request, the World Bank helped identify when weather risk management instruments can be appropriately used as part of a comprehensive agricultural risk management framework. Based on this analysis, the Bank structured a market-based tool for commodity price risk reduction. The contract was designed as an option on a rainfall index. The index links rainfall and maize production so that, if precipitation falls below a certain level, the index will reflect the projected loss in maize production. Under the contract, if the maize production in the country, as estimated by the rainfall index, falls 10 percent below the historical average, Malawi will receive a payout of up to a maximum of US$5 million. DfID paid the premium for the contract on behalf of the Government and the World Bank. The Bank’s Treasury Department then transacted the contract with a market counterparty. The payout could be used as part of a broader framework to finance commodity price risk management strategies.

_Source:_ IBRD.

# 4.34 **Multilateral development banks, such as IBRD, are increasingly involved in**

**providing technical assistance and intermediation services for currency swaps** , for example, by embedding them in IBRD Flexible and Fixed Spread Loans or as stand-alone products for other IBRD loans and non-IBRD creditors’ debt. The Bank’s intermediation of swaps allows borrowers to benefit from IBRD’s superior credit rating to achieve better terms at a lower cost. For instance, an IBRD swap for Mexico transferred foreign currency risk from the borrower to the market. Swap intermediation for Bulgaria helped reduce the vulnerability of its debt portfolio to external shocks by reducing its exposure to U.S. dollars. Swaps can also help change the currency composition of developing country debt portfolios. In 2004, IBRD contracted with financial intermediaries in the market to swap U.S. dollars for euros, and a variable interest rate for a fixed rate for the maturity of the loan. This reduced Morocco’s U.S. dollar liabilities and the interest rate risk of its external debt portfolio.

4.35 **In countries where swap markets are illiquid or nonexistent, back-to-back financing allows IBRD to extend a loan in local currency to sovereign borrowers.** To undertake this transaction, IBRD issues a local currency-denominated bond in the domestic market and uses the proceeds to extend a loan with similar terms. Depending on country conditions, this type of transaction can help mitigate currency risks while enabling domestic market development. For instance, in one application of this approach, IBRD issued a Uruguayan peso-denominated bond at levels lower than the Government of Uruguay’s own cost of funding.

26
# **V. CATALYZING PRIVATE ENTRY AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT**

5.1 **A major component of innovative finance solutions on the ground involves the use of official flows to catalyze market creation and development,** including by reducing the risks and costs of private entry into existing markets **.** These catalytic mechanisms can also be used to tap new sources of official and private flows. Like other mechanisms discussed in this paper, these deploy an array of financial instruments.

# **<u>A. New Sources for Catalyzing Market Development</u>**

_Carbon Finance_ 5.2 **Carbon finance represents an emerging source of development finance.**<sup>38</sup> **By establishing a framework for trading “reduction(s) in greenhouse gases by the equivalent of one metric ton of CO2,” signatories to the Kyoto Protocol have essentially created a new globally traded commodity.** This commodity, which has a market value, is traded across borders both in markets within developed countries (through emission trading systems), between developed countries and developing countries (through the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM), and between developed countries and economies in transition (through Joint Implementation, or JI). With the Kyoto Protocol coming into force in February 2005, the market for emission reductions has expanded with the sale of emissions reductions from developing countries. While there were private purchasers in the market early on, most generally traded in small quantities in pilot projects.

5.3 **The global market for greenhouse gas emission reductions through project-based transactions has been growing steeply, doubling in value between 2006 and 2007, reaching US$13.6 billion in commitments,**<sup>**39**</sup> **of which US$5.5 billion were traded on the secondary CDM market. However, only a few—mostly middle income—countries have benefitted to date.** At the end of March 2008, there were 3,188 projects in the CDM pipeline,<sup>40</sup> of which roughly one-third are registered or in the process of registration, while roughly two-thirds are at validation stage. It can take between one and two years for a project to go from validation to registration. European buyers account for 90 percent of the CDM market. For the third consecutive year, China was the world leader in CDM supply with a 73 percent market share in terms of 2007 transacted volume (compared to 54 percent market share in 2006). Brazil and India, at 6 percent market share each, transacted the highest volumes after China, although this represented a drop for each from 2006 levels. Africa followed with 5 percent.<sup>41</sup> 5.4 **As an experienced developer of CDM projects, the World Bank Group has played an important role in helping to deepen carbon markets.** To date, the Bank has sought to support developing countries in fully exploiting the capital transfers available from carbon finance by assisting in the identification and preparation of projects that reduce carbon emissions; moving to a programmatic approach (through the Carbon Partnership Facility); and promoting carbon projects in countries, sectors, and activities yet to benefit from carbon finance (including through the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, which aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation). It also raises additional carbon finance, and supports

> 38 Carbon finance here refers to purchases of greenhouse gas emission reductions in developing countries and economies in transition to offset emissions by governments and firms in industrialized countries. 39 The global carbon market was US$64 billion in 2007. Of this, EU ETS accounted for US$50.4 billion.

> 40 By the end of December 2008, the number of projects in the CDM pipeline had grown to about 4,200.

> 41 World Bank. _State and Trends of the Carbon Market._ 2008.

27
investments by partnering with industrialized governments and private corporations seeking to buy carbon credits in developing markets. Overall, the Bank tries to ensure that all carbon projects that it promotes have sustainable development benefits.<sup>42</sup> 5.5 **Although it accounts for a small portion of the overall transaction volume, the World Bank has played an important intermediary role in supporting project-based transactions** (Table 5.1).<sup>43</sup> Since 2004, the Bank supported 160 projects in 26 countries (including 3 IDA and 2 Blend countries). The total volume of transactions reached nearly $280 million as of fiscal 2008 end. As of fiscal 2008 end, donors had contributed more than $850 million in 11 World Bank carbon funds. On average, the annual volume of transactions increased two-fold every year since 2004. Through its carbon trust funds, the World Bank has mobilized more than US$2 billion of equity, 57.4 percent of which was from private sources. These funds have been committed to Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreements (ERPAs) worth US$638 million, most of which were in Asia.<sup>44</sup>

|**Table 5.1**<br> **World Bank Share of E**<br>**(US$ million)**|**RPA Commi**<br>**2005**|**tments and**<br>**2006**|**Payments**<br>**2007**|**,* 2005–**<br>**2008**|**8**<br>**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Carbon Finance or ERPA Commit**|**ments**|||||
|Primary Market CDM|2,417|5,804|7,426|--|--|
|ERPAs under WB Carbon Funds|339|242|186|218||
|Share (%)|14|4|3|--|--|
|**Carbon Finance Flows or ERPA P**|**ayments**|||||
|Africa/Middle and Near East|0.3|2.8|14.1|4.6|21.8|
|Asia|74.9|107.3|529.4|538.1|1,249.7|
|Latin America and Caribbean|33.6|38.8|113.1|90.0|275.6|
|Others|--|---|--|--|--|
|**Total**|**108.9**|**149.0**|**656.7**|**632.7**|**1,547.1**|
|_World Bank Carbon Fund (ERPA Pa_|_yments)_|||||
|Amount|3.0|4.8|24.8|35.6|69.6|
|Share(%)<br>_* From the two hydroflourocarbon (HFC)_<br>_acquired by the participants in its existing_<br>_Source:_World Bank Carbon Unit.|2.8<br>_deals signed by t_<br>_funds were consi_|3.2<br>_he Bank in Chi_<br>_dered in the co_|3.8<br>_na in 2006, o_<br>_mmitment an_|5.6<br>_nly the emi_<br>_d payment_|4.5<br>_ssion reductions_<br>_calculations._|

5.6 **The** **_actual financial flows_ generated by the primary market for Carbon Emission Reduction certificates (CERs) totaled only US$1.55 billion over the 2005–8 period.**<sup>45</sup> **Of these, only 4.5 percent, or US$69.6 million, were supported through World Bank carbon funds** .<sup>46</sup> Globally, the lion’s share of carbon finance flows went to China (58 percent), India (22 percent), and Brazil (13 percent). Bank carbon funds contribute only a small portion of these

> 42 _The Role of the World Bank in Carbon Finance: An Approach for Further Engagement, 2006._

> 43 The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit does not lend or grant resources to projects, but rather purchases project-based emission reductions in developing countries and economies in transition, using resources provided by governments and private participants in industrialized countries.

> 44 An ERPA is the agreement that governs the purchase and sale of emission reductions.

> 45 This includes retroactive purchases from 2002 and 2004.

> 46 The Umbrella Carbon Fund (UCF)was created to offload excess CERs generated by the two HFC deals (and not absorbed by the participants in the existing funds). Only 28.1 percent of annual HFC disbursements are attributed to UCF payments. The Bank’s participation increases if the CERs in the UCF were included.

28
flows in part because they aim to catalyze rather than crowd out other market players. It will be important to monitor the Bank’s success in helping to identify projects in lower income countries.

5.7 **The emerging carbon market is at a critical juncture. While demand for emission reductions is conservatively estimated at 3.5 billion tons by 2012, the challenge of identifying viable projects remains.** Although the Kyoto Protocol continues until 2012, viable projects that can generate large volumes of emissions to meet demand have not been developed at the scale needed. At the same time, geographic and technological diversity of GHG emission reduction projects is important for those that seek to buy and sell CERs. So far projects have been concentrated in a few sectors and have not reached many countries, in particular some of the poorer developing countries. Further deepening of the carbon market requires more proactive efforts to identify viable projects in lower income countries.

5.8 **Various risk management tools can also help strengthen the credibility of the carbon market as well as the predictability of the long-term price of carbon.** For instance, carbon delivery guarantees, such as those provided by IFC, include efforts to maximize the price of credits to project developers through credit enhancements that guarantee the delivery obligation of primary market projects to secondary market buyers (e.g., the premium in pricing obtained by the buyers in the secondary markets is passed on to the projects net of guarantee fees). Other promising examples include insurance to protect investors against factors, such as advance payments, pricing fluctuation, delivery risks, and projects/credits eligibility under regulatory schemes. While still early, there is a growing market for derivatives, options, and swaps that provide hedging alternatives for investors who feel overexposed to a specific carbon asset.<sup>47</sup> Finally, monetization of future carbon receivables and carbon-linked bond transactions can generate capital to be channeled for investment in new low-carbon projects.

5.9 **The long-term market for carbon depends on ensuring a robust and enforceable post-Kyoto regulatory framework along with the supporting institutional structures.** In anticipation of the importance of the CER market over time, the World Bank Group and other multilateral agencies, such as the EIB and ADB, have launched post-2012 carbon funds.

# **<u>B. Catalytic Uses at the Country and Regional Level</u>**

_Promoting Entry into the Financial and Productive Sectors through Guarantees_ 5.10 **In addition to funding constraints, investors in the financial and productive sectors in developing countries routinely face sovereign, currency, and project risks that hinder entry into markets** .<sup>48</sup> As recognition of these risk factors has grown, so has the market for private providers of political and commercial risk guarantees and other risk management tools. For several years, private investors have utilized risk mitigation measures, such as guarantees and insurance schemes to reduce the risks and costs of market entry in the financial and productive sectors in developing countries.<sup>49</sup> Political risk guarantees cover specific risk events related to noncommercial factors (such as currency convertibility, transferability of currencies outside the host country, and government nonperformance). Partial credit guarantees cover payment risks for

> 47 Kossoy, 2008.

> 48 Bestani, et al. 2005.

> 49 “The terms guarantee and insurance are used interchangeably by providers. A guarantee differs from an insurance policy because it envisages timely unconditional payment for nonperformance, while an insurance involves claim investigation and, depending on terms and conditions, other intermediate steps.” IEG Review, 2008.

29
debt obligations or trade finance transactions. Between one-sixth and one-third of all foreign direct investments and one-fifth of all exports are insured.

5.11 **Over the 2000s, the major issuers of insurance or guarantees included members of the Berne Union and multinational agencies. Together, they offered a diversity of risk mitigation products available to private investors in the financial and productive sectors** (Annex 4). Export credit agencies are also major issuers. However, comprehensive data on their activities are not available.<sup>50</sup> It is important to note that guarantees are often embedded in portfolios comprising direct or syndicated loans, equity, and grants for technical cooperation.

5.12 **Excluding export credit to developing countries, the largest shares of guarantees were focused on the banking and financial (34 percent) and productive (18 percent) sectors over the period 2001–7.** Since a large portion of guarantees in the banking sector involved local currency and interbank loan guarantees that benefitted companies in industry, agriculture, and mining, the share of direct and indirect guarantees supporting investment in the productive sector was probably more significant. Geographically, East Asia alone accounted for almost two-thirds of all guarantees and insurance (including export credit) over the period. Excluding export credit, Latin America and the Caribbean received about one-third of guarantees, Eastern Europe<sup>51</sup> 30 percent, and Asia 22 percent. In both cases, Africa’s role was marginal.

5.13 **The following salient features of the guarantees and insurance markets** are critical to investors involved in the financial and productive sectors in developing countries:

- Even though the export credit insurance market is highly concentrated and dominated by private sector players, **state-owned export credit agencies** accounted for more than a fifth of total credit insurance for exports to developing countries.<sup>52</sup>

- While private insurers account for more than 50 percent of the political risk insurance market, multilateral and bilateral agencies have played a catalytic role through issuance of **partial political or credit guarantees** in support of financial market development and trade finance.

- **Local currency loan guarantees** are mainly aimed at facilitating credit to SMEs. Since 2003, IIC has provided credit guarantees in several countries, thereby allowing firms to obtain local currency loans. The African and Asian Development Banks, as well as AFD have similar facilities that offer credit guarantees to SMEs.

- **Bond guarantees** have also been used for infrastructure and financial sector projects **.** IDB has guaranteed bonds issued by firms operating toll roads, including in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. IIC has also issued guarantees for bond issues of cable operators in Mexico and mortgage backed securities issues in Colombia.

- **Interbank loan guarantee** s **are mainly used for trade finance facilitation.** Trade finance facilitation has become one of the most common uses of guarantees. These programs involve revolving partial credit guarantees designed to play a counter-cyclical role by providing

> 50 These do not include all guarantees because most export credit agencies publish only a fraction (sometimes only 50 percent) by country destinations, while others treat data as “commercial in confidence” and do not disclose them. Some guarantees were “policy renewals” and did not back additional flows.

> 51 Europe’s share may be overestimated since it is difficult to separate it from Russia’s share.

> 52 USAID’s Credit Development Authority alone issued 114 guarantees totaling $335mm, mobilizing US$856mm in private investment in 36 countries.

30
liquidity to the international trade finance system, particularly during times of economic difficulties. Key players include the EBRD, IDB, ADB, and the World Bank Group.

5.14 **Over the 2000–8 period, the World Bank Group issued guarantees totaling US$7.7 billion in guarantee amounts to support investments in finance and the productive sectors. This comprised more than a third of all guarantees issued by multilateral and bilateral organizations in these sectors.** IBRD and IDA’s Partial Risk Guarantees (PRGs) as well as MIGA’s<sup>53</sup> guarantees worth US$4.66 billion leveraged total project costs of US$13 billion in support of financial sector and other productive sector investments. This amounts to a leverage ratio of 2.8. Over the period of review, IFC’s Partial Credit Guarantees (PCGs) totaling US$3.03 billion in guarantee amounts, leveraged total investment costs of US$6.74 billion—a mobilization rate of 2.2.

5.15 **IFC, in particular, has spearheaded World Bank Group efforts to support countrylevel catalytic efforts through risk-management instruments.** As noted above, PCGs have been offered on both single- and multiborrower portfolios of loans in 2000. These included _nontrade-related_ loan obligations, totaling US$683 million, mostly on local currency instruments. **IFC** has also issued _bond guarantees_ totaling US$323 million in support of local currency bond issuance of US$861 million, assisting in local capital market development. Guarantee products also assisted in _the placement of securitizations_ in both local and cross-border capital markets. Over the past six years, IFC has credit-enhanced several emerging-market securitizations, typically through the assumption of mezzanine-level risk. Accordingly, since 2000, it has assisted in the issuance of US$5.7 billion in securitization transactions through investing in, or guaranteeing, US$596 million in securitization-related exposures. Finally, an important component of IFC’s catalytic efforts relates to trade finance. Since late 2005, IFC’s Global Trade Finance Program issued 884 guarantees in support of transactions worth more than US$1.5 billion.

_Managing Currency Risks in the Financial and Productive Sectors_ 5.16 **As noted earlier in Section IV, access to local currency financing can help mitigate the risks of currency mismatches. Managing such risks is particularly important in the case of private investors in the financial and other productive sectors.** Since the mid-2000s in particular, MDBs and other development finance institutions have begun to expand local currency financing to private firms in these sectors. Example include ADB’s approval of 13 local currency loans to private firms in Central and East Asia, totaling US$779.5 million; EBRD’s provision of long-term Russian rouble finance, including its single large rouble syndicated loan to Volkswagen Rus to set up a car plant in 2007; IDB’s approval of 10 new operations to private firms under its new Local Currency Facility (LCF); and the launch of a global partnership between FMO, a Dutch development finance institution, and Citigroup, which supports a US$540 million risk-sharing facility. Through this facility and other efforts, FMO has increased local currency financing to 17 percent of its portfolio and aims to reach 20 percent by 2010.

5.17 **Currency swaps can also help mitigate currency risks for firms. Because these swaps are only possible for a few developing countries’ currencies, development partners have launched efforts to develop markets for long-term finance in local currency.** TCX—a special purpose fund created by donors, development banks, and international banks—provides currency and exchange rate risk-management products to investors active in emerging markets,

> 53 This allows senior obligations in these securitizations to achieve higher credit ratings than would be possible without the credit enhancement.

31
such as basic currency and interest rate derivatives. It focuses on currencies and maturities that are not covered by regular market providers. As of November 2008, TCX has approved 49 benchmarks in 60 countries. TCX’s current paid-in and committed Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital is equal to US$585 million.

5.18 **Leading the World Bank Group’s efforts in this area, IFC committed more than US$5.3 billion equivalent of local currency loans using derivatives in 26 different currencies, the bulk of which focused on the financial and productive sectors.** IFC works actively with swap market counterparties to increase the number of hedging currencies that are available. In 2007 and 2008, it committed loans using derivatives for the first time in Ghanaian cedi, Kenyan shillings, Nigerian naira, Romanian leu, Vietnamese dong, and Zambian kwacha. As Figure 5.1 illustrates, 63 percent of IFC local currency lending went to the financial sector, followed by 11 percent in industry and trade sectors. More than a third of these flows went to Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by East Asia and the Pacific, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

**<u>Figure 5.1: IFC Local Currency Lending By Sector and Region, FY1997–2009</u>**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 9 % 0 % 2 % 1 %2 % 3%<br>2 1 % 1 4%<br>1 6 %<br>4 %<br>1 7 % 11 %<br>6 3%<br>3 7 %<br>E a s t A s i a a n d P a c i fi c Agr icu ltu re, Fis h in g an d Fo res tryFi na nce<br>E u r o p e a n d C e n tr a l A s i a I nd us try a nd Trad e<br>La ti n A m e r i c a a n d th e C a r i b b e a n Hea lth a n d Other So cia l Ser vices<br>S o u t h A s i a I nfra s tru cture<br>I nfor ma ti o n a nd Co mm u ni catio n s<br>S u b ‐ S a h a r a n Af r i c a P ub li c Ad mi n is tra ti on , La w, an d Jus ti ce<br>O t h e r s Ener gy a n d Mi n in g<br>Source: IFC Treasury.<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Developing Private Catastrophe Insurance Markets_ 5.19 **Domestic catastrophe insurance markets (for example, for households, farmers, and herders) are under-developed in middle- and lower-income countries. Demand and supplyside constraints hinder the emergence of markets for property catastrophe insurance and agriculture insurance.** While more than 40 percent of the direct losses from natural disasters are insured in developed countries, less than 10 percent of these losses are covered by insurance in middle-income countries and less than 5 percent in low-income countries.<sup>54</sup> On the demand side, development of efficient markets is undermined by low nonlife insurance penetration, inadequate awareness of catastrophic risk exposure, and limited ability to pay insurance premiums due to low incomes. On the supply side, these countries have limited technical capacity, undercapitalization of local insurers, and regulatory impediments.

> 54 Cummins and Mahul, 2008.

32
5.20 **Given these constraints and the high exposure of economic agents in developing countries, there is a rationale for public support to catalyze catastrophe insurance markets.** A number of developing countries are already actively fostering meso- and micro-level insurance markets by encouraging private insurers and reinsurers to offer competitive products to homeowners, SMEs, and farmers and herders. These markets would allow for the transfer to private insurers of catastrophe risks, which would otherwise be retained by economic agents.

5.21 **The World Bank has helped countries developing markets for private property** **<u>catastrophe insurance</u> through national insurance pools and regional reinsurance pools.** A precedent involved the _Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool (TCIP)_ **_,_** established in the aftermath of the 1999 Marmara earthquake. The pool ensures that all property-tax-paying domestic dwellings can purchase affordable and cost-effective earthquake insurance coverage; relieves pressure on government to provide housing subsidies _ex post_ ; and transfers catastrophe risk to international reinsurance markets. TCIP was initially capitalized with a World Bank–committed contingent loan facility of US$100 million, extended to US$180 million, in 2004. Full-risk capital requirements are met through commercial reinsurance and build-up of surplus. In 2007, 2.8 million policies were issued at market-based premium rates, compared to 600,000 at initiation.

5.22 **Turkey’s success also brought worldwide recognition. To date, more than a dozen other mostly middle-income countries—including China, Colombia, Greece, India, Iran, and Philippines—are preparing their own property catastrophe insurance programs.** Also supported by the Bank, the _South Eastern Europe Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility_ will facilitate the development of a catastrophe insurance market in Eastern European countries and thereby provide homeowners and SMEs access to affordably priced (but not subsidized) catastrophe insurance across the region. The soon-to-be launched Romania Catastrophe Insurance Pool provides homeowners with coverage against earthquake and flood risks.

5.23 **The World Bank has also helped countries develop private insurance markets to protect farmers and herders against weather-related shocks using** **_insurance pools._** A noteworthy example of _insurance pools_ in the agriculture sector involves Mongolia’s Livestock Insurance Indemnity Pool, which combines self-insurance by herders, market-based insurance, and social insurance to protect herders against excessive livestock mortality caused by harsh winters and summer drought (Box 5.1).

# **<u>Box 5.1: Mongolia’s Livestock Insurance Indemnity Pool</u>**

Combining self-insurance by herders, market-based insurance, and social insurance, Mongolia’s Livestock Insurance Indemnity Pool (LIIP) is a syndicate pooling arrangement, which allows participating insurance companies to build collective reserves. Excess-of-loss reinsurance is provided by the Government, backed by a US$5 million World Bank contingent credit facility. Accordingly, herders retain small losses, larger losses are transferred to the private insurance industry, and extreme or catastrophic losses are transferred to the Government using a public safety net program. The insurance pays out to individual herders whenever the mortality rate in a local region exceeds a specific threshold. Individual herders receive an insurance payout based on local mortality, irrespective of their individual losses. They therefore have a strong incentive to manage their herds in a manner that minimizes the impact of major livestock mortality events. Pilots in selected areas over the 2005–8 period should provide the basis for expanding the program nationwide. In the third sales season, about 600,000 animals were insured, representing 14 percent insurance penetration, for a total premium volume of US$120,000. The 2008 season saw a major loss of US$230,000 which triggered the contingent credit.

_Source:_ World Bank.

33
5.24 **Interest in using** **_index-based insurance_ has grown as countries seek to tackle the systemic component of agricultural production losses** . Notwithstanding basis risks, parametric index insurance offers advantages over traditional insurance relying on individual losses, including lower monitoring costs and a more transparent indemnity structure. They rely on the measurement of an objective and independent parameter that is highly correlated with the actual loss incurred by a farmer (for example, rainfall or temperature as a proxy for yield loss). Payouts are based solely on the measurement of a particular parameter (for example, of rainfall at a named meteorological station) according to an agreed-upon payout scale (established in the insurance policy).

5.25 **To date, about 20 index-based insurance programs—many supported by the World Bank—have been implemented in middle- and lower-income countries.** In India, for instance, the Bank is assisting the government with two index-based insurance schemes, the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) and the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). MNAIS offers coverage to farmers against crop yield losses, using an areayield index in the indemnity payment schedule. To date, about 20 million farmers are insured under this program, for a total liability of US$7 billion, making this the largest crop insurance program in the world in terms of insured farmers. WBCIS protects famers against specific adverse natural events (e.g., rainfall deficiency, excess rainfall) through weather-based insurance. More than 600,000 farmers purchased weather-based crop insurance in 2007 in India. Building on India’s example, other countries are piloting national and regional weather-based crop insurance schemes, including Guatemala, Honduras, Malawi, Nicaragua, and Thailand (through a Central American, regional weather risk-management program).<sup>55</sup> 5.26 **As demand for these efforts grows, key challenges include the availability of affordable reinsurance for country schemes and the development of in-country expertise in the private sector.** The World Bank and other development partners are utilizing the Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF), a multidonor trust fund linked with a specialized index-based reinsurance company that promotes index-based insurance in developing markets. Technical assistance provided under the GIIF would support local insurance companies and other private institutions. Donor funding, including €25 million from the European Commission, has been secured to support the development of index-based insurance in the Group of African, Caribbean, and Pacific Countries (ACP) countries. In addition, the Bank and the UN are supporting the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), which is providing technical assistance to a number of agriculture insurance schemes in Ethiopia, Malawi, India, and Nepal, as well as property catastrophe insurance schemes in Albania, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Guatemala, and Mexico, as well as in South Eastern Europe and the South Pacific Islands.

# **<u>C. Correcting Global Market Failures</u>**

5.27 **An emerging class of innovations using ODA involves efforts to correct global market failures through advance market commitments and copayment schemes.** Sovereign donors, private industry actors, and developing countries are making progress in using catalytic mechanisms to create and deepen markets for essential vaccines and drugs.

> 55 Weather-based crop insurance for farmers is different from the weather indexed derivative (Box 4.3), which was designed to help manage _sovereign_ catastrophe risk.

34
# _Advance Market Commitment for Vaccines_

5.28 **The Advance Market Commitment (AMC) pilot for vaccines aims to accelerate the creation of a viable market for pneumococcal vaccines for developing countries** , by providing a financial commitment to subsidize the future purchase (up to a predetermined price) for a vaccine needed in developing countries, when and if it is developed and demanded. It is focused on pneumococcal vaccines, for which the key technological issues have been resolved and there is substantial demand in poor developing countries. Pneumonial infections are the largest killer of children in Africa and worldwide, and the largest cause of pneumonia deaths. Therefore, the pilot is expected to yield high benefits, saving an estimated 7.7 million lives by 2030 with a low estimated cost per DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Year).

5.29 **Approved by the World Bank’s Board in 2009 and pending approval by donors, the AMC is financed by ODA and foundation grants. These resources are provided under unusually long-term payment agreements, which are placed directly on IBRD’s balance sheet to provide a “guarantee.”** Donors include Italy (US$635 million); United Kingdom (US$485 million); Canada (US$200 million); Russia (US$80 million); Norway (US$50 million); and the Gates Foundation (US$50 million). The GAVI Fund and the World Bank are leadimplementing agencies for the pilot. The Bank’s role is to administer the pilot and advance funds to GAVI according to agreed-upon plans. As such, it provides AMC’s financial platform and related financial management, legal, accounting, IT systems, and reporting functions.

# _Copayment Schemes_

5.30 **Also dependent on ODA, the Affordable Medicines Facility–malaria (AMFm) is a financing system designed to make a new generation of antimalarial treatments more affordable and accessible.** The AMFm involves negotiating a reduced price for artemisininbased combination therapies or ACTs, and making a copayment to further lower their sales price to end users in malaria-endemic countries. These drugs are then be distributed by public, private, and not-for-profit providers. By reducing their cost, the facility aims to help countries expand access to ACTs and curtail emerging resistance to artemisinin-based single-drug treatments.

5.31 **In 2007, the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria decided to host and manage the AMFm.** Even though no resources have been disbursed thus far, AMFm will negotiate with manufacturers to reduce the minimum suggested price to US$1 for all buyers and make a US$0.95 copayment. Phase I will cover 11 African countries and will cost about US$312–$337 million, including US$212 million for copayments, and US$100–$125 million for supporting interventions. The Government of the United Kingdom has pledged £40 million, and UNITAID has provisionally committed up to US$130 million for 2009–10.

35
# **VI. CONCLUSIONS**

## **<u>A. Lessons Learned</u>**

_Innovative Finance as Potential Tool for Development Effectiveness_ 6.1 **To date, innovative finance mechanisms have played a more significant role in supporting financial solutions on the ground than in identifying and exploiting “alternative sources of ODA.”** Efforts to achieve development results can be strengthened by expanding the use of these innovative financial solutions. For instance, developing countries are increasingly interested in solutions that support r _isk management and risk reduction_ across sectors (for example, through use of insurance, derivative, and other risk management products). Through their intermediation services, MDBs can help customize these tools in response to their specific needs and help build indigenous capacity to undertake similar transactions in the future. Similarly, development partners can do more with less by more systematically channeling official flows through catalytic and PPP mechanisms that leverage private flows at the country level. Catalytic efforts in particular should be expanded in middle and lower income countries as part of the response to the global crisis. Global market-making efforts, for example, in carbon trading and advance market commitments for vaccines also have demonstrated their potential but depend on robust regulatory frameworks and clear agreements on roles and responsibilities.

_Need for Realism about Innovative Fund-Raising_ 6.2 **Innovative fund-raising should be viewed as a complement—rather than a substitute—to traditional efforts to mobilize official flows, in particular concessional flows.** Donors should be realistic about the potential of innovative schemes to generate additional flows. Budget outlays from emerging sovereign donors were the only significant source of additional concessional flows or ODA. PPP mechanisms that support _global programs_ (for example, through pooling sovereign and private donations or frontloading ODA) can help broaden the base of support for development, but can also contribute to aid proliferation. New debt offerings by multilateral and national development banks, such as those issued in local currencies and those targeting sustainable investors, have shown potential. But they were modest in comparison to traditional efforts and are subject to market conditions.

_Understanding What Works, What Doesn’t_ 6.3 **Innovations need to be tested and evaluated to determine their value-added.** For instance, the high start-up costs of certain schemes have been noted. Over time, more in-depth evaluation will be required to determine the value-added and _net_ benefits of fund-raising efforts and financial solutions. It is important to note that, unlike fund-raising, solutions on the ground can take time to materialize.

## **<u>B. Pointers on the Way Forward for Development Partners</u>**

6.4 **Innovative finance is a small but emerging component of the development business.** Developing countries, donors, and the private sector are eager to bring innovative finance into the mainstream of development practice. Leaders around the world are actively exploring the potential scalability of innovative schemes, for example, through the High Level Taskforce on Health System Strengthening or the Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Agencies like the World Bank Group can help by using innovative finance more systematically and strategically to further funding and operational goals. Building on existing efforts, they should: 36
- **Employ Innovative Fund-Raising More Selectively:** While innovative fund-raising for _country-based efforts_ (for example, partnerships with private donors and investors) has mobilized modest resources to date, it can help broaden the base of support for development among private actors. Innovative fund-raising for _global priorities_ is more critical to ensuring actual funding for international efforts on health and climate change.

- **Mainstream the Use of Innovative Finance across Countries and Sectors:** As they prove their effectiveness, innovations should become a more integral part of the core operational toolkit of development agencies. This can be done _inter alia_ by using _country-based platforms_ to broaden the use of innovative finance to countries and sectors where it can add value, for example, mainstreaming OBA, or finding new applications for Advance Market Commitments (Box 6.1). Doing so requires strengthening internal incentives for innovation by rationalizing financial and operational control processes; providing upstream advisory support on financial issues; and updating the financial skills of operational teams (for example, using a handbook that builds on the glossary in Annex 9).

# **<u>Box 6.1: A Country-Based Platform for Mainstreaming Innovative Finance</u>**

Critical to effective official assistance is the country-based approach. During the IDA15 replenishment, donors noted several core strengths of the country-based approach, including a knowledge base that cuts across sectors, the ability to integrate finance ad knowledge across programs and projects, the ability to promote strategic coherence through harmonization and alignment across sectors, and the ability to sustain results over time. They also noted various “derivative” strengths of this approach, including _flexibility_ to adapt to country circumstances; preparedness to act as a _“first mover”_ when appropriate; and the _ability to leverage_ other funding and scale up poverty reduction interventions by other partners.

These strengths of the country-based platform can also facilitate the development and mainstreaming of innovative fund-raising and financial solutions in both middle- and lower-income countries. For instance, the platform can enable:

- efficient pooling of multilateral, bilateral, and nonsovereign resources and leveraging of private and philanthropic donations to support credit buy-downs;

- integrated delivery of financial and advisory support for PPPs and catalytic efforts in priority sectors (such as IDA/IBRD policy dialogue and lending, identification of carbon projects, IFC lending and guarantees, and MIGA guarantees);

- supporting South-South learning on key innovations, such as catastrophe risk finance;

- strengthening linkages between global programs supported by innovative finance and country priorities and systems; and

- scaling-up of intermediation services that customize solutions to problems of sovereign and private risk management, _in the context_ of a sound macroeconomic and fiscal framework.

_Source:_ “The Role of IDA in the Global Aid Architecture.” IDA15 Paper. World Bank, June 2007.

- **Monitor Trends and Results:** There is urgent need to monitor the impact of innovative finance on the international aid and development finance architecture and to evaluate “what works” in innovative fund-raising and financial solutions.

- **Engaging Partners:** Clients should also be better informed about emerging good practice. Ongoing outreach and dialogue to private investors and donors as well as DAC and emerging donors will also enhance prospects for mainstreaming innovating finance.

37
# **<u>ANNEX 1. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS</u>**

## **General Issues**

1. To ensure consistency across the World Bank and other data sources, the paper uses the OECD DAC definition of “developing country.” As such, certain IBRD countries are not reflected in the data (for example, on guarantees). According to the DAC, the term “developing country” employed without qualification has generally been taken to mean a country eligible for ODA. Other organizations have their own definitions. The World Bank usually uses the term to refer to low- and middle-income countries, assessed by reference to per capita GNI. The new DAC List of ODA Recipients is consistent with World Bank practice, except that it excludes countries that are members of the G8, or the EU, or that have a date of admission to the EU. This means that as of 2005, it excludes the following middle-income countries: _Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, and  Slovenia._

2. All data are in current prices, US$.

3. While the bulk of the data was presented in calendar years, World Bank Group data on financial solutions (for example, those involving guarantees) were presented in fiscal years. Over the period reviewed, differences between calendar and fiscal years were found to be marginal.

4. Given the diversity of instruments presented in this paper (for example, cash and derivative instruments), data on innovative applications or uses does not differentiate between disbursements and commitments.

## **Specific Issues**

5. <u>Philanthropy and Private Donors: All data are from OECD DAC Table 1, grants by</u> private voluntary agencies. These were verified with data from McKinsey’s report to Bank.

6. <u>Guarantees and Insurance: All data on guarantees were derived from financial statements</u> of export credit agencies and MDBs, except for the World Bank Group where information was gathered internally. No effort was made to harmonize financial and calendar years. Data on export credit agencies might include a few nondeveloping countries as amounts were provided by region. Data expressed in currencies different from US$ were converted into US$ by using end of the year exchange rates. Data used in the analysis reflects guarantee amounts.

7. <u>Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI): All data on PPI were derived from the online</u> PPIAF’s PPI database. Guarantees were excluded to avoid double counting. Data refer only to the share of PPI that was supported by donors.

8. <u>Carbon Trade: The value of CERs paid in each year was calculated using the UNFCCC</u> database for the number of CERs issued during each year. The amount was then multiplied by the prevailing primary market price two years before the CERs were issued. This time lag is an approximation to account for the fact that CERs are mostly sold through ERPAs, which lock in the price.

9. <u>IFFIm: Data from IFFIm financial statements were also verified by World Bank Trust</u> Fund data on encashments. Disbursement data were received from relevant implementing agencies.

38
10. <u>Catastrophe Risk Insurance: Data from the Bank’s Treasury Department and the GFDRR</u> Unit were collected and verified against data presented in the recent Management report to the Board.

11. <u>IDA and IBRD Buy-downs: Data were provided by various teams including FRM,</u> HDNHE, and PTO. These were verified.

12. <u>Output-Based Aid: Data were drawn from the latest update by the GPOBA team.</u> 13. <u>Emerging Donors: Data on emerging donors were gathered from the following sources:</u> _Turkey and Korea_ – OECD DAC; _China_ – D. Brautigam, private communication; G.D. Rawnsley, A Survey of China’s Public Diplomacy;<sup>56</sup> _Brazil_ – Catrina Schlager, FES Briefing Paper 3, March 2007; _India_ – Matthias Jobelius, FES Briefing Paper 5, March 2007; _Russia_ – Alexander Alimov, Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Russia’s Participation In Global Development Cooperation; _Thailand_ – OECD DAC and Thailand Development Cooperation Agency, Thailand as an Emerging Donor.

14. <u>IDA non-DAC donors: These included Barbados, Brazil, China, Czech Republic,</u> Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Turkey.

15. <u>Emerging donors to World Bank-Administered Trust Funds: These included Afghanistan,</u> Andorra, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Philippines, Poland, Monaco, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Samoa, Zimbabwe.

16. <u>Local Currency and Countercyclical Loans: Data were based on analyses of financial</u> statements of key multilateral and bilateral development banks.

17. <u>Local Currency Bonds: All data were gathered through Dealogic’s Bondware with the</u> help of the World Bank Treasury Department.<sup>57</sup> An item-by-item analysis was carried out to determine which bonds were issued on developing countries’ markets to fund activities in developing countries through MDBs. When calculating the overall share of local currencies bonds issued by MDBs on developing countries markets, EIB and KfW were not included since neither is an MDB.

18. <u>New Taxes: The only taxes that are operational are the Airplane Ticket Tax, for which</u> data are available in UNITAID’s financial statement and the Adaptation Fund’s tax on CERs, which was calculated using data available at Bank and current CER prices.

19. <u>National Lottery: Data were gathered from Web sites of Belgian and UK lotteries.</u>

> 56 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/070502_a_survey_of_chinas_public_diplomacy/. 57 Dealogic is a leading provider of global investment banking analysis and systems, and one of the few sources of information on trade finance developments.

39
# **<u>ANNEX 2: INTERNATIONAL INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE LANDSCAPE, 2000–8</u>**

**<u>Annex 2.1a: International Innovative Development Finance by Source, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**|**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|<br>**2005**|<br>**2006**|<br>**2007**|<br>**2008**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**<br>||**186**|**1,200**|**1,353**|**1,697**|**2,644**|**3,045**|**1,104**|**485**|**11,713**|
|Emerging donors<sup>1/</sup>||186|1,200|1,331|1,667|2,615|2,784|[679]|[283]|10,744|
|_Global Taxes_<sup>2/</sup>|||||||||||
|Adaptation Fund|||||||||68|68|
|Airline Ticket Tax|||||||221|359||580|
|National Lottery||||21|29|29|40|66||187|
|StAR Global Program|||||||||[134]|134|
|**Catalytic**||||||**112**|**154**|**681**|**668**|**1,615**|
|Carbon Finance<sup>2/</sup>||||||112|154|681|668|1,615|
|**PPP**|**2,910**|**1,133**|**866**|**556**|**2,139**|**6,786**|**7,034**|**10,977**|**11,352**|**43,754**|
|Frontloading of ODA (e.g., IFFIm)<sup>2/</sup>|||||||1,000||223|1,223|
|_Innovative Debt Offerings by MDBs_|||||||||||
|Local Currency Bonds|2,910|1,124|848|509|2,120|6,700|5,961|9,925|10,020|40,116|
|Sustainable Investments (climate)||||||||350|419|769|
|Sustainable Investments (general)||||||56|48|347|76|527|
|World Supporter Fund||||||||300|550|850|
|Poolingwith Private Donors<sup>5/</sup>||9|18|47|19|31|25|55|64|268|
|**Total**|**2,910**|**1,319**|**2,067 **|**1,908**|**3,836**|**9,542**|**10,233**|**12,763**|**12,505**|**57,082 **|

**<u>Annex 2.1b: International Innovative Development Finance by Use, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**<br>**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|<br>**2003**|<br>**2004**|<br>**2005**|<br>**2006**|<br>**2007**|**2008**|**Unspec**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**||**38**||**36**|||**66**|||**140**|
|Buy-down (with sovereign support)<sup>3/</sup>||38||36||||||74|
|Counter-cyclical loans|||||||66|||66|
|**Catalytic**<br>**1,832**|**4,110**|**4,201**|**4,996**|**3,821**|**4,642**|**5,734**|**7,138**|**1,192**|**1,688**|**39,355**|
|Advanced Market Commitment (AMC)<sup>2/</sup>|||||||||1,500|1,500|
|Affordable Medicines Facility for Malaria (AMFm)<sup>2/</sup>|||||||||188|188|
|Investment Insurance|1,464|1,727|1,944|682|627|465|378|||7,287|
|Local currency loans (others)<br>5|161|401|350|745|1,439|2,100|2,939|1,192||9,331|
|_Risk Mitigation for Finance, Industry and Trade_|||||||||||
|Partial Credit Guarantees (PCG)<br>823|1,407|1,273|1,316|1,508|1,713|2,552|3,341|..||13,933|
|Partial Risk Guarantees (PRG)<br>306|182|529|489|350|395|213|88|..||2,553|
|Political Risk Insurance (PRI)<sup>4/</sup><br>548|895|271|868|536|468|404|326|..||4,316|
|Guarantee, Unspecified|||||||65|..||65|
|_Private Catastrophe Insurance_|||||||||||
|Agricultural Insurance|||30||0||1|||31|
|PropertyCatastrophe Insurance<br>150||||||||||150|
|**PPP**<br>**2,014**|**1,216**|**1,099**|**961**|**1,727**|**728**|**761**|**1,067**|**464**|**3,190**|**13,227**|
|Buy-down (with nonsovereign support)|||25||42|21||||87|
|Local currency loans (sovereign)||||258|9|66||8||341|
|Output-Based Aid (OBA)||28|10|96|5|8|24|386|3,190|3,748<sup>5/</sup>|
|_Risk Mitigation for Infrastructure and Social Services_|||||||||||
|Partial Credit Guarantees (PCG)<br>196|132|155|103|33|23|63|28|..||734|
|Partial Risk Guarantees (PRG)<br>936|509|110|502|1,115|213|136|498|..||4,019|
|Political Risk Insurance (PRI)<sup>4/</sup><br>882|575|806|321|226|285|305|447|..||3,848|
|Sovereign Catastrophe Risk Insurance|||||150|161|70|70||451|
|**Total **<br>**3,846**<br>**_Note_**<br>_: Data on uses do not differentiate between commitments_|**5,327**<br>_and disb_|**5,339**<br>_ursement_|**5,958**<br>_s._<sup>_1/_</sup>_Com_|**5,584 **<br>_prehensi_|**5,369**<br>_ve data o_|**6,495**<br>_n ODA fr_|**8,271**<br>_om emer_|**1,656**<br>_ging don_|**4,879**<br>_ors are not_|**52,723**<br>|

**_<u>Note</u>_** _<u>: Data on uses do not differentiate between commitments and disbursements.</u>_<sup>_<u>1/</u>_</sup> _Comprehensive data on ODA from emerging donors are not available for 2007–8._<sup>_2/_</sup> _Linked to global programs._<sup>_3/_</sup> _Breakdown for debt swaps under Poland’s EcoFund is not available._<sup>_4/_</sup> _Political risk insurance and partial risk guarantees are similar. For the WBG, Partial Risk Guarantees require a formal “indemnity” agreement from the government. Political risk guarantees are supported by similar, but informal arrangements._<sup>_5/_</sup> _Data on other donors are not available._

40
**<u>Annex 2.2a: World Bank Group Innovative Development Finance by Source, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**|**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|<br>**2006**|<br>**2007**|<br>**2008**|<br>**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**||**186**|**136**|**205**|**189**|**166**|**253**|**679**|**485**|**2,299**|
|Adaptation Fund<sup>1/</sup>|||||||||68|68|
|Emerging donors||186|136|205|189|166|253|679|283|2,097|
|StAR Initiative|||||||||134|134|
|**Catalytic**||||||**3**|**5**|**25**|**36**|**68**|
|Carbon Finance<sup>1/</sup>||||||3|5|25|36|68|
|**PPP**|**1,431**|**117**|**376**|**180**|**397**|**1,060**|**1,631**|**3,458**|**4,562**|**13,212**|
|Frontloading of ODA (e.g., IFFIm)<sup>1/</sup>|||||||1,000||223|1,223|
|_Innovative Debt Offerings by MDBs_|||||||||||
|Local Currency Bonds|1,431|108|358|133|378|973|558|2,405|3,230|9,574|
|Sustainable Investments (climate)||||||||350|419|769|
|Sustainable Investments (general)||||||56|48|347|76|527|
|World Supporter Fund||||||||300|550|850|
|Poolingwith Private Donors||9|18|47|19|31|25|55|64|268|
|**Total**|**1,431 **|**303**|**511**|**385**|**586**|**1,229**|**1,890**|**4,162 **|**5,082 **|**15,579**|

**<u>Annex 2.2b: World Bank Group Innovative Development Finance by Use, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**|**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|<br>**2005**|<br>**2006**|<br>**2007**|<br>**2008**|**Unspec**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**|||**38**||**36**||||||**74**|
|Buy-down(with sovereign support)|||38||36||||||74|
|**Catalytic**<br>|**1,205**|**1,477**|**631**|**1,350**|**1,298**|**1,619**|**2,028**|**2,081**|**1,192**|**1,500**|**14,381**|
|Advanced Market Commitment (AMC)<sup>1/</sup>||||||||||1,500|1,500|
|Local currency loans (others)|5|161|134|88|466|787|807|1,368|1,192||5,007|
|_Risk Mitigation for Finance, Industry and Trade_||||||||||||
|Partial Credit Guarantees (PCG)|503|420|226|364|197|113|818|386|..||3,027|
|Partial Risk Guarantees (PRG)|||||100|250|||..||350|
|Political Risk Insurance (PRI)<sup>_2/_</sup>|548|895|271|868|536|468|404|326|..||4,316|
|_Private Catastrophe Insurance_||||||||||||
|Agricultural Insurance||||30||0||1|||31|
|PropertyCatastrophe Insurance|150||||||||||150|
|**PPP**|**964**|**707**|**840**|**459**|**610**|**601**|**685**|**729**|**464**|**3,190**|**9,250**|
|Buy-down (with nonsovereign support)||||25||42|21||||87|
|Local currency loans (sovereign)|||||258|9|66||8||341|
|Output-Based Aid (OBA)|||28|10|96|5|8|24|386|3,190|3,748|
|_Risk Mitigation for Infrastructure and Social Servi_|_ces_<sup>_3/_</sup>|||||||||||
|Partial Credit Guarantees (PCG)|21|132|5|28|31|23|63|28|..||332|
|Partial Risk Guarantees (PRG)|61|||75||87|60|160|..||443|
|Political Risk Insurance (PRI)<sup>_2/_</sup>|882|575|806|321|226|285|305|447|..||3,848|
|Sovereign Catastrophe Risk Insurance||||||150|161|70|70||451|
|**Total **<br>**_Note_**<br>**_:_**_Data on uses do not differentiate between comm_|**2,169**<br>_itments a_|**2,184 **<br>_nd disbu_|**1,509**<br>_rsements_|**1,809**<br>_._<sup>_1/_</sup>_These_|**1,944**<br>_are link_|**2,220**<br>_ed to glo_|**2,713**<br>_bal prog_|**2,810**<br>_rams._<sup>_2/_</sup>_P_|**1,656**<br>_olitical r_|**4,690**<br>_isk_|**23,704 **|

**_<u>Note:</u>_** _Data on uses do not differentiate between commitments and disbursements._<sup>_1/_</sup> _These are linked to global programs._<sup>_2/_</sup> _Political risk insurance and Partial Risk Guarantees are similar. Only Partial Risk Guarantees issued by IBRD and IDA require a counter-guarantee. Political risk guarantees are supported by similar, but informal arrangements._<sup>_3/_</sup> _Data for guarantees in 2008 are not available._

41
**<u>Annex 2.3: International Innovative Development Finance Landscape at a Glance by Source and Use, FY2000–8</u>**

# **<u>2.3a: International Innovative Finance Sources and World Bank Share (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**|**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**||186|1,200|1,353|1,697|2,644|3,045|1,104|485|11,713|
|_of which World Bank_||_186_|_136_|_205_|_189_|_166_|_253_|_679_|_485_|_2,299_|
|**Catalytic**||||||112|154|681|668|1,615|
|_of which World Bank_||||||_3_|_5_|_25_|_36_|_68_|
|**PPP**|2,910|1,133|866|556|2,139|6,786|7,034|10,977|11,352|43,754|
|_of which World Bank_|_1,431_|_117_|_376_|_180_|_397_|_1,060_|_1,631_|_3,458_|_4,562_|_13,212_|
|**Total**|**2,910**|**1,319**|**2,067**|**1,908**|**3,836**|**9,542**|**10,233**|**12,763**|**12,505**|**57,082**|
|**_of which World Bank_**|**_1,431_**|**_303_**|**_511_**|**_385_**|**_586_**|**_1,229_**|**_1,890_**|**_4,162_**|**_5,082_**|**_15,579_**|

# **<u>2.3b: International Innovative Finance Uses and World Bank Share (US$ million)</u>**

|**Mechanism & Instrument**|**2000**|**2001 **|**2002 **|**2003**|**2004 **|**2005**|**2006**|**2007 **|**2008**|**Unspec**|**Total **|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Solidarity**|||**38**||**36**|||**66**|||**140**|
|_of which World Bank_|||_38_||_36_||||||_74_|
|**Catalytic**|**1,832**|**4,110**|**4,201**|**4,996**|**3,821**|**4,642**|**5,734**|**7,138**|**1,192**|**1,688**|**39,355**|
|_of whichWorld Bank_|_1,205_|_1,477_|_631_|_1,350_|_1,298 _|_1,619_|_2,028_|_2,081_|_1,192 _|_1,500_|_14,381_|
|**PPP**|**2,014**|**1,216**|**1,099**|**961**|**1,727**|**728**|**761**|**1,067**|**464**|**3,190**|**13,227**|
|_of which World Bank_|_964_|_707_|_840_|_459_|_610_|_601_|_685_|_729_|_464_|_3,190_|_9,250_|
|**Total**|**3,846**|**5,327**|**5,339**|**5,958**|**5,584**|**5,369**|**6,495**|**8,271**|**1,656**|**4,879**|**52,723**|
|**_of which World Bank_**|**_2,169_**|**_2,184_**|**_1,509_**|**_1,809_**|**_1,944_**|**_2,220_**|**_2,713_**|**_2,810_**|**_1,656_**|**_4,690_**|**_23,704_**|

42
**<u>Annex 2.4a: Innovative Finance with Local Currency Bonds as an Estimated Share of Development</u> –** **<u>Finance, 2000 8 (US$ million)</u>**

||**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Source**||||||||||
|Total gross ODA and IFI Bonds|103,231|116,258|116,948|117,556|127,939|159,772|157,601|172,539|183,566|
|Sources|2,910|1,319|2,067|1,908|3,836|9,542|10,233|12,763|12,505|
|Global||||||112|1,375|1,040|1,093|
|Country|2,910|1,319|2,067|1,908|3,836|9,430|8,858|11,722|11,412|
|**_Sources over ODA+ bonds (%)_**|**_2.8%_**|**_1.1%_**|**_1.8%_**|**_1.6%_**|**_3.0%_**|**_6.0%_**|**_6.5%_**|**_7.4%_**|**_6.8%_**|
|_of sources (Global)_|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.1%|0.9%|0.6%|0.6%|
|_of sources (Country)_|2.8%|1.1%|1.8%|1.6%|3.0%|5.9%|5.6%|6.8%|6.2%|
|**Use**||||||||||
|Total ODA and Emerging donors|65,476|65,493|72,975|89,221|104,929|134,257|135,707|134,994|134,183|
|Innovative ODA (all uses)|3,846|5,327|5,339|5,958|5,584|5,369|6,495|8,271|[1,656]|
|**_Innovative ODA share of uses_**|**_5.9%_**|**_8.1%_**|**_7.3%_**|**_6.7%_**|**_5.3%_**|**_4.0%_**|**_4.8%_**|**_6.1%_**|**_[1.2%]_**|
|_of uses (Global)_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_0.0%_|_[0.0%]_|
|_of uses(Country)_|_5.9%_|_8.1%_|_7.3%_|_6.7%_|_5.3%_|_4.0%_|_4.8%_|_6.1%_|_[1.2%]_|

**<u>Annex 2.4b: Innovative Finance without Local Currency Bonds as an Estimated Share of Development</u> –** **<u>Finance, 2000 8 (US$ million)</u>**

||**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Source**||||||||||
|Total gross ODA|65,476|65,493|72,975|89,221|104,929|134,257|135,707|134,994|134,183|
|Sources|-|195|1,218|1,400|1,716|2,787|4,224|1,840|1,440|
|Global||||||112|1,375|1,040|1,093|
|Country|-|195|1,218|1,400|1,716|2,675|2,849|800|347|
|**_Sources over ODA (%)_**|**_0.0%_**|**_0.3%_**|**_1.7%_**|**_1.6%_**|**_1.6%_**|**_2.1%_**|**_3.1%_**|**_1.4%_**|**_1.1%_**|
|_of sources (Global)_|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.0%|0.1%|0.9%|0.6%|0.6%|
|_of sources (Country)_|0.0%|0.2%|1.0%|1.2%|1.3%|1.7%|1.8%|0.5%|0.2%|
|**Use**||||||||||
|Total ODA and Emerging donors|65,476|65,493|72,975|89,221|104,929|134,257|135,707|134,994|134,183|
|Innovative ODA (all uses)|3,846|5,327|5,339|5,958|5,584|5,369|6,495|8,271|[1,656]|
|**_Innovative ODA share of uses_**|**_5.9%_**|**_8.1%_**|**_7.3%_**|**_6.7%_**|**_5.3%_**|**_4.0%_**|**_4.8%_**|**_6.1%_**|**_[1.2%]_**|

**<u>Annex 2.4c: Estimated ODA from Some Emerging Donors, 2002–6 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Country**|<br>**2002 **|<br>**2003**|<br>**2004 **|<br>**2005**|<br>**2006**|<br>**Notes**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Brazil|24|24|24|24|24|Excl. debt relief|
|China|650|678|788|970|1,100|Excl. debt relief|
|India|||||300||
|Korea|358|435|471|752|425||
|Russia||||97|100|Excl. debt relief, target for 2008: US$500 million|
|Thailand||||95|74|DAC for 2006, Thailand for 2005|
|Turkey|117|86|305|601|675||
|Others|51|108|79|76|86||
|**Total**|**1,200**|**1,331**|**1,667**|**2,615**|**2,784**||

**_Sources:_** Data on emerging donors were gathered from the following sources: _Turkey and Korea_ – OECD DAC; _China_ – D. Brautigam, private communication; G.D. Rawnsley, A Survey of China’s Public Diplomacy;<sup>58</sup> _Brazil_ – Catrina Schlager, FES Briefing Paper 3, March 2007; _India_ - Matthias Jobelius, FES Briefing Paper 5, March 2007; _Russia_ – Alexander Alimov, Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Russia’s Participation In Global Development Cooperation; _Thailand_ – OECD DAC and Thailand Development Cooperation Agency, Thailand as an Emerging Donor.

> 58 http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/070502_a_survey_of_chinas_public_diplomacy/.

43
# **<u>ANNEX 3: COMPOSITION OF WORLD BANK GROUP INNOVATIVE</u> DEVELOPMENT FINANCE PORTFOLIO, 2000–8**

**<u>Annex 3.1: WB Innovative Finance by Sector, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Sector **|**2000**|<br>**2001 **|<br>**2002 **|<br>**2003**|<br>**2004 **|<br>**2005**|**2006**|**2007 **|**2008**|**Unspec**|**Total **|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry|150|||30||150|161|71|70||632|
|Education||8||7|36|19|29|28|8|239|374|
|Energy and Mining|1,019|427|363|567|245|409|206|465|10|150|3,862|
|Finance|632|787|413|807|471|392|1,069|323|||4,894|
|Health and Other Social Services|||38|25|5|45|21||11|2,751|2,895|
|Industry and Trade|231|433|84|156|202|101|63|389|||1,660|
|Information and Communications|132|248|355|41|98|99|82|140||52|1,246|
|Public Administration, Law, and Justice|||||30||||||30|
|Transportation||102|73|66|124|200|186||330|1,415|2,497|
|Water, Sanitation, and Flood Protection||18|48|21|268|17|89|26|36|84|607|
|Unspecified|5|161|134|88|466|787|807|1,368|1,192||5,007|
|**Total **|**2,169**|**2,184 **|**1,509**|**1,809**|**1,944**|**2,220**|**2,713**|**2,810**|**1,656**|**4,690**|**23,704 **|

**<u>Annex 3.2: WB Innovative Finance by Region, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Region **|**2000**|**2001 **|<br>**2002 **|<br>**2003**|<br>**2004 **|<br>**2005**|**2006**|**2007 **|**2008**|**Unspec**|**Grand**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**East Asia and Pacific**|**24**|**328**|**78**|**436**|**202**|**164**|**86**|**118**|**16**|**66**|**1,517**|
|Catalytic|24|152|40|227|53|31|46|75|||648|
|PPP||176||208|113|133|40|42|16|66|795|
|Solidarity|||38||36||||||74|
|**Europe and Central Asia**|**437**|**105**|**366**|**328**|**532**|**300**|**100**|**3**||**14**|**2,184**|
|Catalytic|381|44|231|328|532|300|97|3|||1,916|
|PPP|56|61|135||||3|||14|268|
|**Latin America and the Caribbean**|**950**|**1,260**|**422**|**355**|**343**|**444**|**630**|**720**|**70**|**2,346**|**7,542**|
|Catalytic|313|843|123|191|17|264|237|462|||2,450|
|PPP|638|417|299|164|327|181|392|258|70|2,346|5,092|
|**Middle East and North Africa**|**40**|**73**|**26**|**88**|**75**|**8**|**269**|**112**|**6**|**12**|**710**|
|Catalytic|40|73|26|88||6|228|60|||521|
|PPP|||||75|2|41|52|6|12|188|
|**South Asia**|**191**|**105**|**112**|**79**|**37**|**58**|**129**|**93**|**5**|**289**|**1,098**|
|Catalytic|109|52|21|70|37|41|30|13|||373|
|PPP|82|53|91|9||18|99|80|5|289|725|
|**Sub-Saharan Africa**|**522**|**151**|**370**|**435**|**229**|**459**|**693**|**397**|**366**|**464**|**4,087**|
|Catalytic|334|151|56|358|133|190|584|100|||1,905|
|PPP|189||315|78|96|269|109|297|366|464|2,181|
|**Unspecified**|**5**|**161**|**134**|**88**|**526**|**787**|**807**|**1,368**|**1,192**|**1,500**|**6,567**|
|Catalytic|5|161|134|88|526|787|807|1,368|1,192|1,500|6,567|
|**Total **|**2,169**|**2,184 **|**1,509**|**1,809**|**1,944**|**2,220**|**2,713**|**2,810**|**1,656**|**4,690**|**23,704 **|

## **<u>Annex 3.3: Estimated Leverage of Select Mechanisms and Instruments, 2000–7 (US$ million)</u>**

|**_(US$ million)_**|**Buy-dow**<br>|**ns**|**OBA**|**PC**<br>|**G**<br>|**PRGs/**<br>|**PRIs**<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Solidarity|PPP|PPP|Catalytic|PPP|Catalytic|PPP|
|Bank Commitments|74|87|3,362|3,027|332|4,666|4,291|
|Total Project Costs|390|484|6,203|6,743|2,502|13,035|28,720|
|**Estimated Leverage **|**5.3**|**5.6**|**1.8**|**2.2**|**7.5**|**2.8**|**6.7**|

44
**<u>Annex 3.4: WB Innovative Finance by Country Lending Category, 2000–8 (US$ million)</u>**

|**Lending Category**|**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Unspec**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Blend|175|125|124|218|110|136|56|15|5|97|1,062|
|IBRD|1,213|1,662|718|591|1,088|705|1,021|857|78|2,252|10,185|
|IDA|662|236|423|652|121|592|760|474|381|841|5,141|
|Other|119|161|243|348|626|787|876|1,465|1,192|1,500|7,317|
|**Total**|**2,169**|**2,184**|**1,509**|**1,809**|**1,944**|**2,220**|**2,713**|**2,810**|**1,656**|**4,690**|**23,704**|

**<u>Annex 3.5: WB Innovative Finance by Corporate</u>**

**Entity and Business Line, FY 2000–8**

|**Business Line**|**Amount (US$ million)**|**Percentage**|
|---|---|---|
|MIGA|8,163<sup>1/</sup>|34.4%<sup>1/</sup>|
|IFC|7,957|33.6%|
|IBRD|3,949|16.7%|
|TF|1,895|8.0%|
|IDA|1,710|7.2%|
|GOVT<sup>2/</sup>|30|0.1%|
|**Total **|**23,704**|**100%**|

**_Note_** _:_<sup>_<u>1/</u>_</sup> _MIGA’s PRI data are not available for FY2008. The percentage has been underestimated. For FY2000–7, MIGA’s innovative finance share is 37.0%._<sup>_2/_</sup> _The GOVT US$30 million (0.1%) belongs to two OBA projects that were funded by “Local Govt.,” as labeled by the OBA team._

**<u>Annex 3.6: Average Annual Flows under WBG Innovative Finance by Use and Objective, 2000–8</u>**

|**Objective and Country Type**|**Avg. US$ per capita**<br>**per annum**|
|---|---|
|**IBRD**|**78**|
|Managingfiscalexposure|1|
|Improving service delivery|23|
|Catalytic|54|
|**IDA and Blend**|**54**|
|Managingfiscalexposure|0|
|Improving service delivery|32|
|Catalyzingmarketdevelopment|23|

45
<!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Risk Guarantees/ Political Risk Insurance by Region,<br>FY2000-07 (US$ million)<br>Sub-Saharan Africa 2,267<br>South Asia 326<br>Middle East and North Africa 325<br>Latin America and the Caribbean 3,484<br>Europe and Central Asia 1,922<br>East Asia and Pacific 633<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Credit Guarantees by Region, FY2000-07 (US$ million)<br>Unspecified 60<br>Sub-Saharan Africa 859<br>South Asia 399<br>Middle East and North Africa 320<br>Latin America and the Caribbean 932<br>Europe and Central Asia 96<br>FastiAsia and Pacific 694<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Credit Guarantees by Lending Category, FY2000-07<br>(US$ million)<br>1,000<br>300<br>eo<br>400<br>200<br>2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Risk Guarantees/Political Risk Insurance by Lending Category,<br>FY2000-07 (US$million)<br>1,600<br>1,400<br>7200 m IDA<br>— m IBRD<br>800<br>600 = Blend<br>400<br>200<br>2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Credit Guarantees by Sector, FY2000-07<br>3%<br>0% | 2% 296<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> Partial Risk Guarantees/Political Risk Insurance by Sector, FY2000-07<br>.<br>@ Education<br>2% (0%<br>@ Energy and Mining<br>@ Finance<br>@ Industry and Trade<br>@ Information and<br>Communications<br>@ Transportation<br>= Water, Sanitation, and Flood<br>Protection<br><!-- End of picture text -->
**<u>Annex 3.8a: Innovative Development Finance in World Bank Trust Funds, 2002–8</u>**

|**Overall Total**<br>**(Innov. Finance + TA + AdminCost)**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Global Program|17|37|40|48|69|825|471|1,506|
|Country Program/Others|9|10|35|50|49|95|81|329|
|Others||1|1|3|4|5|7|21|
|**Total**|**25**|**49**|**76**|**101**|**122**|**925**|**559**|**1,856**|

# **<u>Annex 3.8b: By Usage—Admin. Cost, 2002–8</u>**

|**By Usage – Admin.**<br>**Cost**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**<br>**20**|**05**<br>**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total Av**|**g. Cost**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Global Program|0|5|6|10<br>20|18|25|84|12.02|
|Country Program/Others|0|0|0|0<br>0|0|2|2|0.34|
|**Total **|**0**|**5**|**6**|**10**<br>**20**|**18**|**26**|**87**|**12.36**|
|**Annex3.8c**<br>**: By Usage**<br>**Investment**|**—Innov.**<br>**2002**|**Finan**<br>**2003**|**ce**<br> <br>**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|Global Program|7|20|<br>16|20|27|782|420|1,292|
|Country Program/Others|9|10|<br>30|45|34|77|52|256|
|**Total**|**16**|**29**|<br>**46**|**66**|**61**|**859**|**472**|**1,548**|
|**Annex**<br>**3.8d: By Usage **<br>**Fiscal Year**|**—TA**<br>**2002**|**2003**|<br>**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|Global Program|9|13|<br>17|18|22|25|26|130|
|Country Program/Others|0|1|<br>5|4|15|18|27|70|
|**Total**|**9**|**14**|<br>**22**|**22**|**37**|**43**|**53**|**200**|

**<u>Annex 3.8e: By Usage (in US$ million)</u>**

|**Fiscal Year**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**2008**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Innovative Finance|16|29|46|66|61|859|472|1,548|
|TA|9|14|22|22|37|43|53|200|
|Administration Cost|0|5|6|10|20|18|26|87|
|Others|-|1|1|3|4|5|7|21|
|**Total **|**25**|**48**|**76**|**101**|**122**|**925**|**558**|**1,856**|

47
**<u>Annex 3.8f: TF Disbursements by Managing Unit of the Trustee Fund (US$ million)</u>**

|**VPU of Main TF**|**FY02**|**FY03**|**FY04**|<br>**FY05**|<br>**FY06**|<br>**FY07**|<br>**FY08**|<br>**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|CFPVP|-|-|0|0|0|735|236|**972**|
|SDNVP|10|19|26|31|51|63|206|**406**|
|HDNVP|1|1|28|25|7|33|13|**108**|
|AFRVP|12|19|14|16|7|16|15|**100**|
|IFC|-|-|1|7|18|26|43|**95**|
|EAPVP|-|3|1|11|12|22|8|**58**|
|FPDVP|2|3|3|5|10|10|14|**47**|
|SARVP|-|-|-|-|-|10|1|**11**|
|LCRVP|-|-|-|-|-|-|9|**9**|
|ECAVP|-|-|-|-|9|0|0|**9**|
|WBIVP|0|0|0|0|2|2|3|**8**|
|DECVP|0|1|1|1|2|1|2|**7**|
|CSRND|-|-|0|0|0|0|1|**2**|
|OPCVP|0|1|0|0|0|0|-|**1**|
|PRMVP|-|-|-|-|-|0|0|**1**|
|MNAVP|0|0|0|0|0|(0)|-|**1**|
|MIGEX-VPU|0|-|0|0|0|-|-|**0**|
|LEGVP|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|**-**|
|**Total**|**25**|**48**|**75**|**98**|**118**|**920**|**552**|**1,835**|

**<u>Annex 3.8g: TF Disbursements by Managing Unit of the Grants (US$ million)</u>**

|<br><br>**VPU of Grant**|**FY02**|**FY03**|**FY04**|**FY05**|<br>**FY06**|<br>**FY07**|<br>**FY08**|<br>**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|CFPVP|-|-|-|-|-|735|236|**971**|
|SDNVP|10|19|26|31|51|63|206|**406**|
|AFRVP|12|19|14|17|8|16|17|**103**|
|IFC|-|-|1|7|18|26|43|**95**|
|HDNVP|1|1|28|23|5|21|7|**85**|
|EAPVP|-|3|1|12|12|22|9|**59**|
|FPDVP|2|3|3|5|10|10|14|**47**|
|SARVP|-|0|-|0|0|19|2|**21**|
|ECAVP|-|-|0|0|10|1|1|**12**|
|LCRVP|-|-|0|0|0|0|10|**11**|
|WBIVP|0|0|0|0|2|2|3|**8**|
|DECVP|0|1|1|1|2|1|2|**7**|
|MNAVP|0|0|0|1|1|1|1|**4**|
|CSRND|-|-|0|0|0|0|1|**2**|
|OPCVP|0|1|0|0|0|0|-|**1**|
|PRMVP|-|-|-|-|0|0|0|**1**|
|MIGEX-VPU|0|-|0|0|0|-|-|**0**|
|LEGVP|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|**-**|
|**Grand Total**|**25**|**48**|**75**|**98**|**118**|**920**|**552**|**1,835**|

48
# **<u>ANNEX 3.9: WORLD BANK GROUP INSTRUMENTS AND SERVICES</u>**

||||<br>|**WBG Instr**<br> <br>|**uments and**<br> <br>|**Services**<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Mechanisms & Programs**||**Loans**|<br>**Grants**<br>|<br>**Guarante**|**es**<br>**Swaps**<br>**O**|**, Insurance,**<br>**ptions**|**CAT-**<br>**DDO**<br>**TA**|
|Public-private partnerships||√|√||||√|
|Output-Based Aid|||√||||√|
|Carbon Finance|||||||√|
|Mitigation of sovereign and|project risk|s||√|||√|
|Mitigation of currency, com<br>thltd ik|modity, and|||||√|√<br>√|
|weaer-reae rss|||||**FY1996**|||
|**Mechanisms & Programs**|**FY64–80**|**FY81–85**|**FY86–90**|**FY91–95**|**–**<br>**2000**|**FY2001–5**|**FY2006–9**|
|Public-private partnerships|√|||||||
|Output-Based Aid||||||√||
|Carbon Finance|||||||√|
|Mitigation of sovereign and<br>project risks||IFC PCG||MIGA PRG;<br>IBRD PRG &<br>PCG|IBRD<br>“enclave”<br>PRG;<br>IDA PRG|||
|Mitigation of currency,<br>commodity, and weather-<br>related risks|||||||Malawi weather<br>hedge, CAT<br>DDO & all<br>other cat<br>insurance<br>products|

49
# **<u>ANNEX 4: INSURANCE AND GUARANTEES ISSUED BY BILATERALS AND</u> MULTILATERALS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 2001–7**

||**2000**|**2001**|**2002**|**2003**|**2004**|**2005**|**2006**|**2007**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Investment Insurance**||**1,464**|**1,727**|**1,944**|**682**|**627**|**465**|**378**|**7,287**|
|CESCE||||118|6|217|167|147|655|
|Export Credits Guarantee Department||1,464|1,451|1,255|676|410|298|230|5,785|
|SACE|||276|571|||||847|
|**Partial Credit Guarantees (PCG)**|**1,019**|**1,539**|**1,429**|**1,419**|**1,541**|**1,735**|**2,616**|**3,370**|**14,668**|
|ADB|120|90|500|170||18|110|376|1,384|
|AfDB||||||10|13||23|
|Agence Francaise de Développement||||11|21|29|116||178|
|DEG||-|17|4|60|314|62|49|505|
|EBRD|198|366|387|586|682|650|933|1,144|4,945|
|IADB|175|531|155|85|370|298|396|1,127|3,137|
|IBRD|250|159|||||||409|
|IFC|274|393|231|393|227|136|881|415|2,950|
|Inter-American Investment Corp (IIC)||||20|10|91||9|130|
|Nordic Investment Bank|3||||||||3|
|Proparco|||36|77|14|12|61|85|285|
|Netherlands Development Finance Company|||103|74|157|177|44|166|720|
|**Partial Risk Guarantees (PRG)**|**1,242**|**691**|**639**|**991**|**1,465**|**609**|**350**|**586**|**6,572**|
|ADB|251||382|70|10|50|15||778|
|IBRD|||||30|200||45|275|
|IDA|61|||75|70|137|60|115|518|
|OPIC|930|691|257|846|1,355|221|275|426|5,001|
|TF||||||-|||-|
|**Political Risk Insurance (PRI)**|**1,430**|**1,470**|**1,078**|**1,189**|**762**|**754**|**709**|**773**|**8,163**|
|MIGA|1,430|1,470|1,078|1,189|762|754|709|773|8,163|
|**Guarantee, Unspecified**||||||||**65**|**65**|
|Agence Francaise de Développement||||||||29|29|
|CESCE||||||||36|36|
|**Total**|**3,691**|**5,165**|**4,872**|**5,543**|**4,449**|**3,725**|**4,139**|**5,171**|**36,755**|

50
# **<u>ANNEX 5: PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE:</u>**

|**COMMITMENTS**<br>**Indicator **<br>**2000**|**AND**<br>**2001 **|**MULT**<br>**2002 **|**ILATE**<br>**2003**|**RAL S**<br>**2004 **|**UPPO**<br>**2005**|**RT, 200**<br>**2006**|**0–7**<br>**2007 **|**Total **|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|<br><br>**Total Investment Commitments for PPI in**|<br>**Develop**|<br>**ing Count**|**ries (US$**|<br>**million,**|**current p**|**rices)**|||
|Energy<br>34,602|18,924|22,724|23,951|13,146|24,656|33,778|58,224|230,004|
|Transport<br>15,792|11,291|7,764|9,658|13,460|37,104|49,742|51,331|196,141|
|Telecom<br>18,600|13,798|11,446|9,189|16,344|24,421|26,971|30,418|151,187|
|<br>Water and sewerage<br>8,101<br> <br>|<br>3,409<br>|<br>1,706<br>|<br>1,767<br>|<br>5,329<br>|<br>2,173<br>|<br>3,374<br>|<br>4,551<br>|<br> <br>30,412<br>|
|**All Sectors**<br>**77,095**|**47,422**|**43,641**|**44,565**|**48,280**|**88,353**|**113,865**|**144,524**|**607,744**|
|**Share of PPI Projects with multilateral sup**|**port (%**|**of commi**|**tments)**||||||
|Energy<br>5%|9%|2%|5%|7%|9%|3%|3%|5%|
|Water and sewerage<br>1%|7%|4%|8%|5%|6%|2%|4%|4%|
|Transport<br>5%|2%|4%|3%|2%|3%|1%|3%|3%|
|Telecom<br>1%|1%|2%|4%|2%|0%|1%|1%|1%|
|**AllSectors**<br>**3%**|**5%**|**3%**|**4%**|**4%**|**4%**|**2%**|**2%**|**3%**|
|**Share of PPI Projects with multilateral sup**|**port (%**|**of numbe**|**r)**||||||
|Energy<br>24%|17%|11%|20%|17%|40%|18%|16%|21%|
|Water and sewerage<br>5%|21%|4%|14%|11%|10%|6%|7%|10%|
|Transport<br>10%|15%|11%|9%|8%|6%|10%|8%|9%|
|Telecom<br>11%|6%|17%|10%|6%|2%|6%|1%|6%|
|**AllSectors**<br>**15%**|**14%**|**12%**|**13%**|**10%**|**15%**|**10%**|**8%**|**12%**|
|**Share of PPI Projects with multilateral sup**|**port (%**|**of numbe**|**r)**||||||
|Latin America and the Caribbean<br>13%|24%|13%|24%|8%|16%|23%|13%|16%|
|Europe and Central Asia<br>23%|12%|18%|15%|15%|24%|10%|9%|15%|
|Sub-Saharan Africa<br>13%|18%|23%|15%|16%|18%|11%|9%|15%|
|South Asia<br>29%|0%|0%|0%|11%|12%|8%|4%|7%|
|Middle East and North Africa<br>20%|8%|6%|6%|6%|0%|3%|11%|7%|
|East Asia and Pacific<br>6%|5%|9%|7%|6%|10%|3%|2%|6%|
|**All Regions**<br>**15%**|**14%**|**12%**|**13%**|**10%**|**15%**|**10%**|**8%**|**12%**|
|**Type of Multilateral Support (% of total s**|**upport)**||||||||
|Loan<br>40%|42%|38%|39%|78%|56%|57%|51%|51%|
|Guarantee<br>11%|13%|58%|34%|15%|29%|22%|25%|24%|
|Syndication<br>46%|43%|1%|10%|5%|12%|5%|20%|20%|
|Equity<br>2%|0%|1%|4%|1%|3%|6%|2%|2%|
|<br>Insurance<br>0%|0%|0%|0%|0%|0%|10%|3%|2%|
|Risk management<br>0%|0%|0%|10%|0%|0%|0%|0%|1%|
|Quasi-equity<br>0%|1%|2%|3%|0%|0%|0%|0%|1%|
|**Total Investment Commitments for PPI by**|**Agency**|**(US$ mill**|**ion, curr**|**ent prices**|**)**||||
|IFC<br>538|561|263|410|452|418|535|973|<br>4,150|
|IADB<br>930|963||304||392|180|595|<br>3,363|
|MIGA<br>130|298|371|668|177|595|329|362|<br>2,930|
|EBRD<br>91|79|57|236|174|481|104|432|<br>1,652|
|EIB<br>349|63||13|268|722||130|<br>1,544|
|ADB<br>403||75|112|110|157|55|197|<br>1,109|
|IDA|58|34|27|168|310|125|148|<br>870|
|<br>CAF|||||<br>23|<br>810||<br> <br>833|
|IBRD<br>150|186|75||256|||45|<br>712|
|IDB|14|180|20||87|-|100|<br>401|
|BCIE<br>4|||2|50|||337|<br>393|
|Other|10|40|||219|102||371|
|<br>AFDB<br>13||||191||<br>75||<br>279|
|<br> <br>BOAD<br>4|20|2||||||<br>27|
|IAIC|||||||4|<br>4|
|**All Agencies**<br>**2,611**|**2,252 **|**1,098**|**1,792 **|**1,846**|**3,404 **|**2,315**|**3,322**|<br>**18,638**|

51
# **<u>ANNEX 6: ACTIVE AND COMPLETED CATASTROPHE RISK PROJECTS (US$ million)</u>**

|<br>**Type of Cat Financing**|<br>**Country/Region**|<br>**Donor/IFI**|<br>**Year**|<br>**Actual or**<br>**Estimated**<br>**Amount of**<br>**Coverage**|<br>**Amount of**<br>**premiums**|<br>**Type and Amount of**<br>**Donor support**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Catastrophe Insurance**|**Pooling**||||||
|||||||Contingent loan: 180|
|Turkish Catastrophe<br>Insurance Pool|Turkey|World Bank<br>|2000|3,000|150|TA, funding of<br>premiums|
|||World Bank,||||L/t 47|
|Caribbean Catastrophic<br>Risk Insurance Facility|Caribbean|DFID, Japan<br>(PHRD), Canada,<br>France|2007|500|20|oangrans:<br>TA + payment of<br>insurance premiums|
|**Index-Based (Parametri**|**c) Risk Insurance**||||||
|Livestock Insurance|Mongolia|World Bank +<br>Japan (PHRD)|2005|2.2|0.11|Contingent loan: 5|
|Weather-Based Crop<br>Insurance|India|World Bank|2003|600|30|TA|
|Weather Insurance|Malawi|World Bank|2005|0.3||TA|
|Weather Insurance|Central America|IADB, CABEI,<br>World Bank|2008|5 (unclear)||TA|
|Weather Insurance|Thailand|World Bank|2007|0.04|0.003|TA|
|Weather Insurance|Ethiopia|World Bank|2007|unclear||Loan: 1|
|Weather Derivative|Ethiopia|World Bank,<br>WFP, USAID|2006|18.6|0.93|Grant: 0.93 (premiums)<br>TA|
|**Ex-Ante Sovereign Fina**|**ncing**||||||
|Catastrophe Bond|Mexico|World Bank|2006|160||TA|
|Contingent Credit<br>Facility|Colombia|World Bank<br>World Bank|2005|150||Loan: 150 + TA|
|Catastrophe Swap|Caribbean|(paid advisory<br>role)|2007|20||Advice paid by CCRIF|
|Catastrophe Deferred<br>Drawdown Option|Costa Rica|World Bank|2008|65||Loan: 65 (committed)|
|**Total**||||**4,521**||**More than 449**|

**_Note:_** Coverage was assumed to be 20 times premiums, unless actual coverage was provided.

52
# **<u>ANNEX 7: WORLD BANK CARBON FUNDS: AMOUNTS RAISED, SOURCES,</u>**

# **PARTICIPANTS, AND ERPAs SIGNED**

|**Fund**|**Inception**|**Fund**<br>**capital**<br>**(US$**<br>**mil.)**|**Private**<br>**capital**<br>**raised**<br>**(US$**<br>**mil.)**|**%**<br>**private**|**Leverage**<br>**of donor**<br>**support**<br>**(private:**<br>**donor)**|**Participants**|**MtCO2e**<br>**under**<br>**contract**<br>**(ERPA**<br>**signed)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Prototype Carbon Fund|2000|180|115|63.9|1.8|23|31|
|Community Development<br>Carbon Fund|2003|128.6|58|45.1|0.8|25|7.1|
|BioCarbon Fund Tranche 1|2004|53.8|30|55.8|1.3|14|4.7|
|Danish Carbon Fund|2005|75.4|49.5|65.7|1.9|6|3.6|
|Spanish Carbon Fund|2005|308|69.9<sup>1/</sup>|22.7|0.3|13|15|
|Umbrella Carbon Facility<br>Tranche 1|2006|998.8|749.1|75|3|16|129.3|
|Netherlands CDM Facility|2002|..|..|..|..|1|..|
|Netherlands European Carbon<br>Facility|2004|..|..|..|..|1|..|
|Italian Carbon Fund|2004|155.6|47|30.2|0.4|7|15.4|
|BioCarbon Fund Tranche 2|2007|36.1|18.1|50|1|6|..|
|Carbon Fund for Europe|2007|70|14.0<sup>1/</sup>|20|0.3|5|..|
|**Total**||**2,006.30**|**1,150.60**|**57.4**|**1.3**|**117**|**206.1**|

_1/ Converted from € to US$ at the exchange rate of 1€=1.4US$._ 53
# **<u>ANNEX 8: DEVELOPING COUNTRY PERSPECTIVES</u> ON INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE**

1. On numerous occasions, developing countries have voiced their support for innovative and predictable financing of country and global efforts.<sup>59</sup> These have also included strong support for the International Finance Facility and its proposal for frontload ODA to provide urgently needed financing for development. Notwithstanding these expressions of support, there is need to better understand developing country demand for innovative finance. Summarized below are highlights of issues and opinions voiced by developing countries in key fora.

## _Demand for Market-Based Solutions_

2. As early 1999 the Group of 77 and China asked for an examination of various solutions:

- exploration market-driven approaches to financing small size infrastructure projects;

- partnership between the public and private sectors through leveraging private capital with public funds through risk guarantees, insurance, and/or project cost-sharing;

- privatization of publicly owned assets and companies;

- increased efforts to develop local capacity, such as microcredit lending and developing local bond markets;

- joint ventures, development bonds with options to be converted to equity;

- nonmonetary contributions from the private sector;

- mobilizing private resources;

- build-operate-transfer under public-private partnership;

- public-private-NGO collaborations;

- creation of public-private funds as an equity investment by governments in new ventures;

- making government equity a key tool in capital creation;

- review of mechanisms for development financing for government projects.<sup>60</sup>

3. They also noted that the “multilateral financial institutions, in particular World Bank, could play an intermediary role in providing technical assistance to developing countries to facilitate their access to international capital markets through guarantees and insurance of projects as well as facilitating the exchange of information on securities and bond offering of developing countries in the international financial and capital markets.”<sup>61</sup> The need for guarantees and other instruments that support for private sector engagement and PPPs was reiterated in 2007.<sup>62</sup> 4. A summary of the views expressed by representatives from developing countries during consultations for the UN Financing for Development Process are provided below:

> 59 Declaration at Thirty-First Annual Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Group of 77 United Nations Headquarters, New York, 27 September 2007; Consultations for the UN Financing for Development Process in 1998, Document A/52/840; Statement by Mr. Mohammad Ali Zarie Zare, New York, 7 May 2001.

> 60 Statement by H.E. Ambassador June Persaud of Guyana on behalf of the G77 and China on theme 6: Innovative sources of financing before the ad hoc open-ended working group on financing for development, New York, April 6, 1999.

> 61 Statement by H.E. Ambassador June Persaud of Guyana on behalf of the G77 and China on theme 6: Innovative sources of financing before the ad hoc open-ended working group on financing for development, New York, April 6, 1999.

62 Statement on behalf of the G77 and China by H.E. Hamid Yar Hiraj, Minister of State of Commerce of Pakistan during the thematic discussion at 2007 substantive session of the ECOSOC, Geneva, 3 July 2007.

54
- <u>Asia and the Pacific: The consultations concluded that “the relevance of innovative sources</u> lies primarily in their ability to leverage additional private sources of finance for development purposes.”<sup>63</sup> The consultations also highlighted the importance of “increasing the access of the poor to financial services,” including microfinance; as well as “new private/public partnerships to raise funds”;

- <u>Latin America and the Caribbean: Multilateral, regional, and subregional banks were asked to</u> develop “systems of guarantees or cofinancing mechanisms” in order to provide countries that had not benefited from private credit flows with greater market access;<sup>64</sup>

- <u>Europe:</u> Four priority areas were identified for expanding the set of financing solutions, including the “savings-investment nexus and inadequate financial intermediation, finance for SMEs, and public-private partnerships.”<sup>65</sup>

# _Interest in New Sources of Finance_

5. In 2005, the G77 and China noted the importance of finding new sources of financing for development through “taxation and charges,” such as “cross-border payments taxes; carbon taxes; conservation tax and patent rights to protect biodiversity; uniform nationally applied global taxes on foreign exchange transactions to regulate capital flow; tax on financial transactions; tax on capital flows; brain-drain tax; tax on all international transactions....”<sup>66</sup> More recently, these calls were reinforced by developing countries represented on the Leading Group for Solidarity Levies, which supports a number of financing mechanisms that increase financial flows, such as the solidarity levy on air tickets that finances UNITAID. Other fundraising mechanisms identified by the Leading Group was the 1 percent Solidarity levy to finance the Digital Solidarity Fund, auctioning of carbon permits taxes on financial transactions and foreign exchange operations, and voluntary contributions, such as Voluntary Solidarity Levies and Product Red.<sup>67</sup> 6. Recent consultations in Africa revealed growing civil society interested in innovative financing.<sup>68</sup> Civil society representatives focused on additional funds that could be generated from the currency transaction tax, carbon tax, airline levies, and the digital solidarity fund. However, developing countries warned not to neglect the importance of traditional sources and claimed that “innovative sources of finance should be an addition to ODA and not a substitute.”<sup>69</sup>

# _Predictability of Financing_

7. Predictability of financing is another issue developing countries consider important. The G77 have asked for financial solutions that are able to cope with volatility. In 2001, the G77 complained that “existing mechanisms are not able to ensure the continuity of provision of resources for operational activities.” It noted “a strong need to increase ODA to match short- and

> 63 Document A/AC.257/13.

> 64 Document A/AC.257/17.

> 65 Document A/AC.257/15.

> 66 Statement by H.E. Ambassador June Persaud of Guyana on behalf of the G77 and China, New York, April 6, 1999; Statement by Ambassador Stafford Neil, permanent representative of Jamaica to the UN, chairman of the G77, New York, 25 April 2005.

> 67 Conakry Declaration. Contribution to the follow-up conference on financing for development in Doha November 29–December 2, 2008.

> 68 Seth Lartey, John Foster, and Cheikh Tidiane Touré. 2008. “Breaking the Taboo: Perspectives of African Civil Society on Innovative Sources of Financing Development.” London: Commonwealth Foundation. 69 Document A/AC.257/13.

55
long-terms needs of developing countries. Studying a system where contributions to aid efforts are obligatory and the annual flows are predictable should be considered.”<sup>70</sup> _Ownership of Innovative Financing_ 8. Ownership of the financing process has high priority among developing countries. The Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol is one such example: a financing solution that strengthens country ownership through its source of financing.<sup>71</sup> The Adaptation Fund’s primary financing comes not from traditional development assistance, but from a 2 percent share of proceeds on project-based emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Because the Adaptation Fund is financed by payers of the levy, it represents a departure from the traditional donor-recipient relationship of development finance. Developing countries have successfully argued that the source of the 2 percent share justifies a prominent voice for recipients of funds in the Adaptation Fund’s governance structure.<sup>72</sup> Accordingly, the Adaptation Fund Board comprises a 75 percent majority of developing countries, including the most affected countries (small island developing states and least-developed countries).

9. Some developing countries have themselves contributed to new financing solutions. For example, South Africa committed to pay US$20 million to IFFIm over the next 20 years, and the Russian Federation has pledged US$80 million to the pilot Advance Market Commitment for vaccines. Several beneficiary countries have implemented the Solidarity Levy on air tickets and raised money for UNITAID. Between November 2006 and December 2007, Brazil raised more than US$16 million, Chile more than US$5 million, Mauritius US$324,000, and Niger US$32,000 from the levy.<sup>73</sup> Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea, and Madagascar have also implemented it. Similarly, Senegal was the first to adopt the so-called “1 percent digital solidarity principle” in its procurement.<sup>74</sup> Under this principle, public institutions and private companies can obligate themselves to pay 1 percent of the contract value of procurement of ICTs (equipment, software, services, and so on) to the Digital Solidarity Foundation.

> 70 Statement by Mr. Mohammad Ali Zarie Zare, on behalf of the Group of 77, at the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee For the International Conference on Financing for Development: Increasing international financial cooperation for development through _inter alia_ Official Development Assistance (ODA), New York, 7 May 2001.

> 71 Statement by Ambassador Munir Akram, permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN at the joint high-level segment of the 13th session of the COP and the 3rd session of the MOP, Bali, Indonesia, 12 December 2007.

> 72 Submission from Egypt, Philippines, AOSIS, and Indonesia for the UNFCCC workshop on the Adaptation Fund, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 3–5 May 2006, Document FCCC/SBI/2006/MISC.7.

> 73 Annual Report UNITAID 2007. http://www.unitaid.eu/images/governance/annualreport2007.pdf.

> 74 http://www.dsf-fsn.org/cms/content/view/318/1/lang,en/.

56
# **<u>ANNEX 9: GLOSSARY OF SELECTED INNOVATIVE AND TRADITIONAL</u> FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISMS**

_This glossary summarizes existing and proposed innovative and traditional financial mechanisms and instruments for development._

**_The range of instruments and mechanisms exceeds the scope of the main paper, which concentrates on implemented mechanisms and instruments with proven fund flows._**

_The purpose of this annex is to provide a further overview of the currently discussed instruments and mechanisms as well as a reference to the main old and new expressions used in development finance._ _The glossary is updated on an ongoing basis by the Multilateral Trusteeship and Innovative Financing Department of the Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships (CFPMI) Vice Presidency._

# **AccessRH**

AccessRH, formerly Minimum Volume Guarantee (MVG) “is a global procurement mechanism that helps countries and other buyers get the lowest possible price for supplies by allowing them to buy through a master framework agreement with suppliers.”<sup>75</sup> The master framework agreement “contracts with manufacturers for specific products, guaranteeing a minimum volume, the magnitude of which will depend on the mechanism’s appetite for risk and the forecasts provided by the buyers. In exchange for this guaranteed minimum volume, the manufacturer would extend favorable terms to buyers making purchases through the master contract.”<sup>76</sup> Increasing the number of potential buyers, aggregating demand, and providing manufacturers with up-front commitments can yield lower unit prices which the operator of the master agreement can then pass along to its customers.” AccessRH focuses particularly on smaller-scale buyers, which are more likely to face high prices and poor terms. It also targets circumstances where low production volumes squeeze manufacturer profit margins so that sales are no longer commercially viable.” The underlying financing mechanism is PG4Health.

Further information: <u>http://www.rhsupplies.org/</u> Reading: Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition and Dalberg Global Development Advisors 2008 See also: PG4Health

# **Adaptation Fund**

Under the UNFCCC process, the Adaptation Fund is intended as a principal source of adaptation support for developing countries and a centerpiece of the international agenda on climate change. The Adaptation Fund is designed to finance concrete climate change adaptation projects and programs that are country driven and based on needs, views, and priorities of eligible developing country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Adaptation Fund’s primary financing comes not from traditional development assistance, but from a 2 percent share of proceeds of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) issued by the Clean

> 75 http://www.rhsupplies.org/. 76 Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition and Dalberg Global Development Advisors 2008.

57
Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. The Adaptation Fund’s financial base is thus precedent-setting: an international base arising from an international treaty. Using a share of the proceeds from CER sales to assist developing countries was envisioned when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997; the Adaptation Fund was allocated a 2 percent share as early as 2001.

The governance of the Adaptation Fund reflects its innovative source of financing. It assigns ownership to developing countries. Accordingly, the Adaptation Fund Board comprises a 75 percent majority of developing countries, including the most-affected countries (small island developing states and least-developed countries), and it provides that they can submit proposals directly to the Adaptation Fund Board.

Further information: <u>http://adaptation-fund.org/ http://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/Issuance/SOPByProjectsTable.html</u> See also: Global Taxes

# **Advanced Market Commitment (AMC)**

An AMC tackles a longstanding development problem—persistent private sector failures to develop and produce products needed in developing countries due to perceptions of insufficient demand or market uncertainty. A pilot is being launched in 2009. It focuses on the vaccine market, where research, development, and production of vaccines specific to the needs of the poorest developing countries are limited by the small number of manufacturers, high cost of product development and capacity scale-up, and demand uncertainty. The pilot AMC’s sources of funds of US$1.5 billion are ODA and foundation grants—provided under unusually long-term payment agreements. The pledge flows are enhanced by an IBRD “guarantee.” The AMC targets private sector engagement via a unilateral offer to industry designed to spur development of manufacturing capacity to supply needed vaccines. The funds flow to GAVI (which is itself portrayed as an innovative public-private partnership) and are used by UNICEF to procure vaccines.

Further information: <u>http://www.vaccineamc.org http://www.worldbank.org/amc</u> Reading: Batson, et al. 2006, Kremer 2000, Kremer and Glennerster 2004, Kremer and Zwane 2005, Ridker 2006, Tremonti and Finanze 2005a, 2005b, World Bank and GAVI 2006

# **Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm)**

The Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) is a financing mechanism to make artemisinin-combination therapies (ACTs) more available and affordable. ACTs delay emergence of resistance to the artemisinin. Without the AMFm, effective treatment may be too expensive or simply unavailable to the majority of patients.

The AMFm will negotiate with ACT manufacturers to reduce the price to the current price available to the public sector. The AMFm will provide a copayment to buyers to lower the price to a level comparable with less-effective antimalaria alternatives. A core function of the AMFm, which serves both the public and private sectors, is the copayment toward purchases of eligible antimalarials by first-line buyers. Through the copayment, the AMFm will reduce the prices that buyers pay for ACTs, but it will not subsidize manufacturers.

58
The AMFm has been approved by the Board of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RMP). The Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria approved a decision to host and manage the AMFm in November 2007. It is projected to be operational in 2009.

Further information: <u>http://rbm.who.int</u> Reading: AMFm Task Force of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership 2007

# **Arms Trade Tax**

The Arms Trade Tax is a proposal for a global tax to reduce trade in arms and raise money for development, disarmament, or compensation of victims. A number of objections have been raised against such a tax, including difficulties in achieving compliance; tax evasion; creating an incentive for increased illicit trade in arms; and the likelihood that developing countries, as the purchasers of armaments, would have to pay a substantial part of the tax.<sup>77</sup> Reading: Brzoska 2004 See also: Global taxes

# **Auctioning/Sales of Emission Permits**

One source of funds from cap and trade mechanisms is the auctioning or sales of emission permits. For example, EU Allowances (EUA) under the European Unions European Trading System may be auctioned or otherwise sold rather than being distributed to emitters. The proceeds could be directed to financing international development.

An EU Directive recommends that at least half the revenue should be used to fight and adapt to climate change and lists a number of purposes, mainly within the EU, but also in developing countries.<sup>78</sup> Between January 1, 2008, and November 14, 2008, Germany sold a total of 40 million EU allowances with an overall value of €933.3 million.<sup>79</sup> Germany decided a “share of the income, Euros 120 million in 2008, will be invested in international climate protection measures in developing countries. This share will be and must be increased in subsequent years.”<sup>80</sup> Also, the United Kingdom and Austria have auctioned emission permits.<sup>81</sup> In general, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, for the first years the majority of the emissions permits are supposed to be allocated for free. However, the latest EU Commission proposal suggests that from 2013 full auctioning is to be the rule for the power sector and allocating for free is to be phased out for industry over the 2013–20 period.<sup>82</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.bmz.de/en/approaches/bilateral_development_cooperation/</u> - <u>approaches/joint financing/innovative_funding_instruments/index.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/auctioning_en.htm</u> See also: Cap and Trade

> 77 Brzoska 2004.

> 78 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/auctioning_en.htm.

> 79 http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/jahresbericht_kwf_08_en.pdf.

> 80 http://www.bmz.de/en/approaches/bilateral_development_cooperation/approaches/jointfinancing/innovative_funding_instruments/index.html.

> 81 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/auctioning_en.htm.

> http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/eu/operators/auctioning.htm.

> 82 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/auctioning_en.htm.

59
# **Aviation Taxes**

There have been several proposals for indirect taxes, or equivalent charges, on international aviation, from regional and global taxes to coordinated taxes whose proceeds are earmarked toward development—as implemented with the Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets. Several arguments favor an aviation tax: it would earn a double dividend, raising funds and also internalizing the costs of emissions. “The indirect tax burden on international aviation is very low, yet aviation contributes significantly to border-crossing environmental damage, is just as proper an object of taxation as any other commodity, and incipient tax competition is likely to result in these taxes being set at inefficiently low levels.”<sup>83</sup> A variety of tax bases have been proposed, including taxing aviation fuel, ticket values, and departure/arrival taxes.

Reading: Keen and Strand 2007, Müller and Hepburn 2006 See also: Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets Global Taxes

# **Beneficiary Pays Instrument**

See: Payments for Services

# **Blending Loans and Grants**

Blending loans and grants, also called blending arrangements, potentially increases the volume and impact of development finance. Blending loans and grants means adapting the level of concessionality of funding to the recipient’s needs, thereby using funds in the most careful and economical way. Reasons for blending include: global or regional externalities that justify additional support to a country, debt distress, and targeting key sectors as part of the push to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.<sup>84</sup> IBRD and IDA buy-downs are blending arrangements.

Reading: Development Committee 2005 See also: Buy-Downs

# **Blended Value**

Blended value refers to blending individual, profit-maximizing, or commercial objectives with philanthropic objectives.

See also: Blended Value Products Blended Value Investing

# **Blended Value Investing**

Blended value investments blend profit and philanthropic objectives for investments by aiming for financial returns and, at the same time, supporting noncommercial. Social responsible investments, impact investments, and program related investments can be considered examples of blended value investments.

> 83 Keen and Strand 2007.

> 84 Development Committee 2004.

60
Further information: <u>http://www.blendedvalue.org</u> Reading: Brainard 2006, Global Foundation Leaders Advisory Group 2005, World Economic Forum 2006 See also: Socially Responsible Investments Impact Investments Program Related Investments

# **Blended Value Products**

Blended value products stimulate voluntary contributions from individuals by combining consumption with charity. Consumers make small contributions proportionate to their purchases. Examples are (PRODUCT)RED and the Visa GreenCard. Blended value products are similar to voluntary solidarity contributions. The difference is that the contribution of blended value products is included in the price of the product while voluntary solidarity contributions offer consumers with the option to make a voluntary contribution while purchasing.

Further information: <u>http://www.joinred.com http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/partners/private/red/ https://www.visagreencard.nl/</u> See also (PRODUCT)RED Voluntary Solidarity Contributions

# **Buy-Downs**

Buy-downs (also called “credit buy-downs” or “loan buy-downs) are a combination of a loan to a developing country and a donor commits to buy down the loan, effectively transforming it to a grant. In some cases a buy-down is a blending arrangement that increases the level of concessionality of loans. Examples are IBRD buy-downs. In other cases, the instrument, such as IDA buy-downs, is linked to results. The commitment to buy-down the loan is triggered by predefined results that have to be achieved. The developing country receives funds up front and has the insurance that, with successful implementation, a donor will cancel the debt.

An IBRD-buy-down for a TB project in China piloted this tool in 2003. The objective was to increase loan concessionality in response to China’s graduation from IDA and its refusal to borrow on IBRD terms for the health sector. DFID grant funds were combined with IBRD into a single stream, which reduced the cost of borrowing to roughly 2 percent. This was followed by two additional buy-down arrangements in China, one for education and one for rural development.

Results-based IDA buy-downs were initially piloted in Pakistan and Nigeria in projects supporting polio eradication, spurred by the global public good character of this initiative. A total of eight credits, including supplemental credits, are expected to include buy-downs with funding from the Gates Foundation, the United Nations Foundation, Rotary International, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control **.** Seven of these have been approved (for a total of approximately US$240 million).

Reading: Development Committee 2004, Hecht and Shah 2006 61
See also: Results-Based Financing Blending between loans and grants

# **Cap and Trade**

Cap and trade (also called emissions trading) is a mechanism that sets a cap on emissions and allows emitters to trade their contingencies. Contingencies are set by a central authority, such as a government or international body and can be either auctioned, sold, or allocated for free to emitters. A cap and trade mechanism sets a price on a negative externality, and thereby internalizes it.

Funds from cap and trade mechanisms for developing countries may result from two sources. First, countries can charge the private sector for carbon emissions and auction or sell emissions permits and then may transfer the proceeds to developing countries as development assistance (see Auctioning/Sales of Emissions Permits.). Second, cap and trade mechanisms may allow for trading carbon emissions certificates internationally. Emitters can support emissions reductions projects in developing countries to offset their emissions (see Carbon Funds). Furthermore, cap and trade mechanisms produce double dividends by raising funds and internalizing a negative externality.

Further information: <u>http://unfccc.int</u> Reading Capoor and Ambrosi 2008, Olsen 2007, Sandmo 2005 See also: Auctioning/sales of Emission Permits Carbon Funds

# **Carbon Funds**

Typically, carbon funds work as intermediaries that purchase project-based GHG emission reductions on behalf of governments and private sector companies in developed countries from low-carbon projects in developing countries. Emission reductions are distributed to the Carbon Fund’s participants according to their contribution. The World Bank acts as trustee of its carbon funds, which purchase project-based emission reductions generated under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms (i.e., the Clean Development Mechanism and the Joint Implementation).

Further information: <u>http://carbonfinance.org</u> Reading: Capoor and Ambrosi 2008 See also: Cap and Trade

# **Carbon-Linked Bonds**

The performance of carbon-linked bonds (also called carbon-indexed bonds) depends on the development of the carbon markets. In 2008, the World Bank issued a carbon-linked bond. “By purchasing this bond, investors can indirectly participate in the market for GHG emission reductions. Investors will also be supporting demand for CERs generated from a specific 62
UNFCCC-registered clean energy project. The market for CERs contributes to a reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a low carbon growth economy.”<sup>85</sup> See also: Indexed Bonds

# **Carbon Tax**

The carbon tax is a tax that could be imposed by an international organization, a country, or a subnational governance body on GHG emissions in an area. If imposed by an international organization, a carbon tax would be a global tax. A global carbon tax addresses negative externalities from greenhouse gas emissions, a global public bad. A carbon tax could serve as an alternative implementation of the Kyoto Protocol’s Cap and Trade system.

Reading: Hoel 1992, Pearce 1991, Sandmo 2005 See also: Cap and Trade Global Taxes

# **Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF)**

The CCRIF is a parametric insurance facility, owned, operated, and registered in the Caribbean for Caribbean governments. It insures government risk and is designed to limit the financial impact of catastrophic hurricanes and earthquakes to Caribbean countries by quickly providing short-term liquidity when a policy is triggered. It is the world’s first regional insurance fund, giving Caribbean governments the unique opportunity to purchase earthquake and hurricane catastrophe coverage not available elsewhere and with lowest-possible pricing. The CCRIF represents a paradigm shift in the way governments treat risk, with Caribbean governments leading the way in predisaster planning.

In June 2007, at the start of the Atlantic Hurricane Season, the CCRIF was launched. By pooling their risk, the governments saved approximately 40 percent on what each would have paid had they negotiated individually through commercial insurance markets.”<sup>86</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.ccrif.org/</u>

# **Cash on Delivery**

Cash on Delivery (or payments for progress) are a proposal for a results-based financing instrument by the Washington-based Center for Development. Donors would commit to pay a specific amount for evidence of progress toward agreed development goals. “For example, donors could promise to pay governments $20 for every child that is vaccinated, or $100 for every child that completes primary school beyond the number that completed school in 2000, or $200 for every primary school graduate who passes a competency test. In contrast to output-based aid, payments would be made against ‘progress’ toward a goal, not against a prespecified ‘result’ or ‘goal’ _per se_ .”<sup>87</sup> Developing country governments would report their progress and donors would pay the agreed amount accordingly. Performance-based aid links financing to results and can be viewed as a form of results-based financing.

> 85 http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Capital%2bMarkets/News+for+Investors/CO2LBond.html.

> 86 http://www.ccrif.org/main.php?main=9.

> 87 Barder and Birdsall 2006.

63
Reading: Barder and Birdsall 2006 See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Catastrophe (Cat) Bonds**

Catastrophe or cat bonds are risk-linked securities that transfer a specified set of risks to investors. Cat bonds require the bondholders to forgive or defer some or all payments of principal or interest if actual catastrophe losses exceed a specified amount, or trigger. Catastrophe bonds have traditionally covered natural disasters.

Reading: Cummins and Mahul 2008, Doherty 1997, Hofman and Brukoff 2006

# **Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (CAT DDO)**

A CAT DDO is a committed credit line for catastrophe risk by the World Bank. It acts as a source of bridge financing that may be disbursed partially or in full if the country declares a state of emergency as a result of a natural disaster. This will allow the country to maintain its development programs while mobilizing other sources of funding to address the emergency.

Further information: <u>http://treasury.worldbank.org</u> Reading: Cummins and Mahul 2008 See also: Deferred Drawdown Option

# **Catastrophe Swap**

A catastrophe swap exchanges a fixed payment for a part of the difference between insurance premiums and the losses caused by insurance claims.

Reading: Cummins and Mahul 2008, Torre-Enciso, et al. 2003

# **Challenge Grant**

A challenge grant conditions eligibility to receive a grant on predefined conditions. The Millennium Challenge Account is an implementation of the concept by the U.S. Government.

See also: Millennium Challenge Corporation

# **Commodity-Indexed Bond**

A commodity indexed bond is a bond whose repayments are linked to the price of a commodity. Commodity linked bonds allow the issuer to mitigate the risk of changing commodity prices. For example, a bond linked to changes in oil prices allow oil producers (or oil producing countries) to hedge their risk of not being able to repay a loan as a result of falling oil prices.

Reading: Atta-Mensah 2004 See also: Indexed Bonds 64
# **Concessional Loan**

A concessional loan is a loan with a grant element. Conceptually, the measure of concessionality, or grant element, involves calculating the difference between the face value of a loan and the present value (or economic value) of debt service repayments, expressed as a percentage of the face value of a loan. For the purposes of classifying ODA, loans have been categorized as concessional by the OECD if their grant element exceeds 25 percent, using a fixed 10 percent discount rate in the present value calculation.

See also: Grant Loan Blending loans and grants

# **Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs)**

Conditional cash transfers provide money to individuals or families contingent on certain behavior, such as sending children to school or bringing them to health centers. CCTs strengthen the demand side of social services and complement health, education services, and other services.

Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/BWUC1CMXM0</u> Reading: De Janvry, et al. 2006; De Janvry and Sadoulet 2006; Fiszbein, et al. 2009, Heinrich 2007; Rawlings and Rubio 2005; Skoufias, et al. 2006 See also: Results-Based Financing Results-Based Instruments

# **Contingent Loan**

A contingent loan (or contingent credit) is a financing instrument through which funding for a specific previously defined event is provided after such event occurs. Deferred Drawdown Options on World Bank loans are an application of contingent loans. Also, the International Monetary Fund Exogenous Shocks Facility provides financing continent to exogenous macroeconomic shocks.

Reading Cummins and Mahul 2008 See also: Deferred Drawdown Options Cat Deferred Drawdown Options IMF Exogenous Shocks Facility

# **Cool bonds**

Cool bonds are five-year, USD-denominated notes paying a coupon of 3 percent for an initial period, and a variable coupon amount for the remaining maturity of the note tied to Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) generated by specified greenhouse gas–reducing projects in China and Malaysia. IBRD counterparties hedging exposure to CERs contributes to expansion of carbon markets. Daiwa Securities and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities distributed the notes to Japanese investors.

Further information: <u>http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Capital+Markets/News+for+Inv estors/CO2LBond.html</u> 65
# **Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)**

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an umbrella term that means taking corporate responsibility for the impact of the company’s activities on all stakeholders: customers, employers, suppliers, shareholders, community, and environment. It includes sponsoring and philanthropy, ethical products, and pro bono activities.

# **Counter-Cyclical Loan (CCL)**

A counter-cyclical loan is a proposed concessional loan that adapts sovereign debt-service obligations to their ability to meet these obligations, as measured by their export earnings. The proposed loan would have the grace period reduced period from 10 years to 5 years. The remaining grace period would be used as an asset the country can draw upon when a bad shock occurs.

Reading: Cohen, et al. 2008 See also: GDP-indexed Bond

# **Currency Tax**

The currency tax (also known as currency transaction tax or Tobin Tax) is a levy on international foreign exchange transactions. There have been several concrete proposals for a currency tax. The first proposals addressed market instability; later proposals were seen as a source to finance the Millennium Development Goals and global public goods.

<u>Tobin Tax: Originally, a currency tax was proposed by the economist James Tobin not primarily</u> for its potential revenues but for its ability to stabilize currency markets. It would do so by imposing a tax high enough to limit speculation on currency fluctuations.

<u>Regional proposals: Some proposals suggested starting to implement regional solutions in order</u> to show the feasibility of the concept. The currency transaction tax would be implemented only for one country or within one region and only for one currency. A euro and a sterling tax have been proposed.<sup>88</sup> <u>Currency Transaction Tax: At the financing for development conference in Doha in November</u> 2008 a currency transfer tax has been proposed.<sup>89</sup> The tax would generate significant revenues of about US$30 to US$60 billion per year but the proposed tax rate of 0.005 percent would be too small to distort or even influence the market for currency transactions. Implementation is considered to be feasible because the market is fully electronic and tax collection would be computerized.

<u>Currency Transaction Levy: Recently, a Currency Transaction Tax that would be voluntarily</u> adopted by some countries, has been called a “Currency Transaction Levy.” Reading: Development Committee 2004, Hillman, et al. 2006, Nissanke 2005, Schmidt 1999, 2007, Spahn 2002, Spratt 2006a, 2006b, Tobin 1996 See also: Global Taxes

> 88 Spratt 2006a, 2006b.

89 http://www.internationalhealthpartnership.net/pdf/IHP%20Update%2013/. Taskforce/Stamp%20Out%20Poverty%20presentation%20-%20Doha%20Side%20Event.pdf.

66
# **De-Tax**

_De-Tax_ is a proposal combining two elements: (i) participating governments would waive the value-added tax (VAT) by 1 percent on the overall price of any good or service sold by sellers associated with the initiative; (ii) sellers would—on a voluntary basis—waive a share of their profit on designated transactions. A special fund would benefit from the 1 percent of VAT from governments as well as related seller contributions.

See also: Global Taxes

# **Debt Reduction Facility (DRF) for IDA-Only Countries**

The World Bank’s Debt Reduction Facility (DRF) for IDA-Only Countries was established in July 1989. It provides grants to eligible countries to buy back at a deep discount their public and publicly guaranteed commercial external debt. To date, the DRF has supported 24 operations in 21 IDA-only countries, extinguishing about US$4.8 billion of external commercial debt principal and an estimated US$4.2 billion of associated interest arrears and penalties. The DRF has become one of the key instruments to facilitate the participation of commercial creditors in the delivery of HIPC Initiative debt relief.

Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/2CRHS4N500</u> See also: Debt Relief

# **Debt Relief**

“Debt relief is any form of debt reorganization which relieves the overall burden of debt.”<sup>90</sup> Since World War II, industrialized countries have entered into debt rescheduling agreements. Later, through the Paris Club, they also agreed to provide concessional treatment (i.e., a treatment that implies a reduction in the Net Present Value of the consolidated debts) to debt owed by highly indebted countries. In recent years, two major debt relief initiatives have been launched namely, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). These two initiatives are the first ones to include multilateral debt relief. Debt relief instruments include debt swaps and debt buy-backs.

Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/KNZR2IIQG0</u> See also: Debt Reduction Facility Debt Swaps Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)

# **Debt for Nature Swaps**

In debt-for-nature swaps, a portion of a country’s foreign debt is forgiven in exchange for local investments in conservation measures. Usually, an international NGO purchases debt titles on the secondary market. The NGO transfers the debt title to the debtor country. In exchange the country agrees to either carry out environmental policies or endow a government bond with the aim of funding conservation programs.

> 90 http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=558.

67
Reading: Deacon and Murphy 1997, Hansen 1989 See also: Debt Swap

# **Diaspora Bonds**

A diaspora bond is a sovereign debt instrument to raise financing from a country’s overseas diaspora. Israel and India have raised US$35–$40 billion with diaspora bonds. Diaspora bonds can have two objectives: they can keep the diaspora affiliated with their original home country and they can offer countries possibilities to raise funds that are partially concessional because a diaspora member is likely to accept under-market interest rates for patriotic reasons.

Reading: Chander 2001, Ketkar and Ratha 2007

# **Debt2Health**

Debt2Health is a debt conversion scheme piloted by Germany, Indonesia, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. In the first Debt2Health operation, Germany cancelled Indonesian debts of €50 million, Indonesia paid €25 million to the Global Fund, and the Global Fund in turn agreed to spend this contribution on projects in Indonesia. The novel aspect of this mechanism is that a multilateral organization can more ensure appropriate usage of funds received from debt conversion. Another Debt2Health Swap with Pakistan, Germany, and the Global Fund has been implemented. Debt2Health initiatives with Kenya and Peru and the Global Fund and Germany are planned.

Further information: <u>http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/funds_raised/ innovative_financing/initiatives/debt2health/</u> Reading: Cassimon, et al. 2008 See also: Debt Swap Debt Relief

# **Debt Swap**

A debt swap (also called debt-for-development swaps) provides development financing “through the exchange of a foreign-currency-denominated debt for local currency, typically at a substantial discount. The process normally involves a foreign NGO that purchases the debt from the original creditor at a substantial discount using its own foreign currency resources, and then resells it to the debtor country government for the local currency equivalent (resulting in a further discount). The NGO in turn spends the money on a development project, previously agreed upon with the debtor country government.”<sup>91</sup> Reading: Edwards 1992, Kaiser, et al. 1996 See also: Debt2Health Debt Relief

> 91 OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/eds/Eng/Guide/index.htm.

68
# **Deferred Drawdown Option (DDO)**

A Deferred Drawdown Option is an option to a contingent IBRD loan that gives middle income countries flexibility and options to deal with adverse events such as natural catastrophes, downturns in economic growth, or adverse changes in commodity prices or terms of trade. The product gives the borrower the option of deferring disbursements of a loan for up to three years, provided that overall program implementation and the macroeconomic framework remain adequate. Exercising the DDO would give borrowers access to long-term IBRD resources if market borrowing becomes difficult and a financing need materializes.<sup>92</sup> Further information: <u>http://treasury.worldbank.org</u> See also: Cat Deferred Drawdown Option Contingent Loan

# **Digital Solidarity Levy**

The digital solidarity levy is a proposal for a semi-obligatory levy on public entities’ information and communication technology (equipment, software, services, etc.). Public institutions including national and subnational governments and private companies obligate themselves to pay 1 percent of the contract value of procurement of information and communication technology to the Digital Solidarity Foundation. Senegal is the first national government that applies this so-called “1% digital solidarity principle” to its procurements.

Further information <u>http://www.digital-solidarity.org</u> Reading: Weber and Menoud 2008

# **Eco notes**

Eco notes are six-year Euro-denominated notes issued by IBRD with a coupon of 3 percent plus a potential additional return linked to an ABN-Amro index of “green” equities. The notes raised funds for IBRD at attractive rates, while raising awareness for funding “green” activities. At the same time, hedging activities of IBRD’s swap counterparties supported capital to “green” companies in the index. Eco notes are a form of socially responsible investing.

See also: Sustainable Investing

# **Emissions Trading**

See: Cap and Trade

# **Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative**

In 1996, the World Bank and IMF launched the HIPC Initiative to create a framework in which all creditors, including multilateral creditors, can provide debt relief to the world’s poorest and most heavily indebted countries, and thereby reduce the constraints on economic growth and poverty reduction imposed by the debt-service burdens in these countries. The Initiative was modified in 1999 to provide three key enhancements: Deeper and broader relief, faster relief, and stronger link between debt relief and poverty reduction. To date, 35 HIPC countries have reached their decision points, of which 24 have reached the completion point.

> 92 http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Financial+Products/FAQs/Deferred+Drawdown+Option.html.

69
Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/YJUSTQSGG1</u> Reading: International Development Association and International Monetary Fund 2008, World Bank Independent Evaluation Group 2006 See also: Debt relief Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiative (MDRI)

# **European Union MDG Contract**

The European Union MDG Contract is a form of budget support launched in 2008 with three key features: (i) It is more predictable and provides longer term (six years) support; (ii) it provides flexibility as it is fixed for the first three years, but may be adjusted in the second half of the term following a mid-contract review of performance with respect to MDG-related indicators; and (iii) it is performance based, because “in case of unsatisfactory trends in the eligibility areas for budget support, macroeconomic stability, public financial management and implementation of poverty reduction strategy, the temporary withholding of a limited share of the annual allocation until the re-establishment of a satisfactory trend would be possible if considered necessary to support the dialogue process.”<sup>93</sup> Further information: <u>http://ec.europa.eu/development/how/aid/mdg-contract_en.cfm</u>

# **GDP-indexed Bond**

A GDP-indexed bond is a sovereign bond whose interest rate and/or repayments vary with a country’s rate of economic growth. If economic growth is low, interest and/or principal payments are low; if it is high, interest payments are high. Therefore, countries with poor economic performance which are less likely to be able to serve their debt face a lower burden from serving GDP-indexed bonds. The instrument allows to hedge debt payments against economic recessions. The first GDP-indexed bond was issued by Bulgaria in 1994, followed by other countries.

Reading Borensztein and Mauro 2004, Borensztein and Mauro 2002, GriffithJones and Sharma 2006, Shiller 2003b, 2005 See also: Indexed Bonds

# **Global Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Program (Gemloc)**

Gemloc is a US$ 5 billion local currency bond for investment in up to 40 emerging bond markets,<sup>94</sup> launched in October 2007 by the World Bank Group together with private partners. Gemloc supports the development of local currency bond markets in developing countries. The objective is that more institutional investment from local and global investors can flow into local currency bond markets.

Further information: <u>http://www.gemloc.org</u> See also: Local Currency Lending

> 93 http://ec.europa.eu/development/how/aid/mdg-contract_en.cfm. 94 Grant 2007.

70
# **Global Development Bond**

A Global Development Bond would mobilize private capital investment to developing countries. Certain risks of the bond would be mitigated through guarantees or insurance by governments or agencies. The bond would “not work like foreign aid or other public sector funding (trade, investment, risk mitigation) programs, but will complement them, leverage their funds and further their goals.”<sup>95</sup> Reading: Eckhart 2004

# **Global Lottery**

National lotteries are a source of income for national charities. A global lottery would direct the proceeds from a lottery towards international development. Two forms of a global lottery have been proposed: (i) an international agency would organize a new and genuinely international lottery; or (ii) or an international agency would receive a share of proceeds from national lotteries.

Reading: Addison and Chowdhury 2005, Morgan 2000 See also: Global Premium Bond

# **Global Premium Bond**

A premium bond (or lottery bond is a proposal for a debt instrument whereby people buy savings bonds that do not disburse the interest proceeds but interest proceeds are paid into a lottery. The winners of that lottery would receive payments. Two proposals for a Global Premium Bond exist: (i) A single global bond or coordinated national bonds would direct a share of the proceeds of the lottery toward development. The bond would not lend to developing countries. (ii) A single global bond or coordinated national bonds would lend directly to developing countries. These would receive financing for more favorable term because premium bonds usually pay lower interest to investors than comparable conventional bonds. Investors would have to bear the developing country credit risk.

Reading: Addison and Chowdhury 2005

# **Global Taxes**

A number of global taxes have been proposed, including carbon and other environmental taxes; aviation taxes on the ticket price, flight distance, or jet fuel; a currency tax (the original currency tax proposal was the Tobin Tax); a tax on arms trade; a tax on international shipping; a trade tax on internationally traded goods; a surtax on profits of multinational corporations; a tax on financial transactions of bonds, stocks, and derivatives; a surcharge on domestic taxation; charges on use of outer space, such as a satellite tax; charges on information exchange: mail, telecommunication, or the Internet (bit tax); royalties on minerals mined in international waters; charges for exploration in or exploitation of Antarctica; charges for fishing in international waters; charges for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The proposed global taxes vary in their ambition of including a great number of countries and of being a true tax with obligatory long-term payments. Usually, a tax is considered an obligatory

> 95 Eckhart 2004.

71
mechanism imposed on the payer of the tax. Some of the global tax proposals are regional, such as a proposed tax on currency transactions within the Euro area. Others are solidarity contributions of countries that voluntarily are implementing the tax, such as the Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets. Recently, globally coordinated and nationally on a voluntary basis implemented taxes have been called “levies” or “solidarity levies” The 2 percent levy on carbon finance for the Adaptation Fund currently is an obligatory tax on the issuance of Certified Emissions Reduction under the Kyoto Protocol.

Global taxes deliver stable and predictable long-term funding to finance international development. Most global tax proposals are designed to raise additional financing and, at the same time, produce a “double dividend” by offsetting a global public bad.

Reading: Boadway 2005, Development Committee 2004, 2005, Frankman 1996, Mendez 1992, Technical Group on Innovative Financing Mechanisms 2004, Wachtel 2000, Zedillo and High-level Panel on Financing for Development 2001, Zee 2006 See also: Adaptation Fund Arms Trade Tax Aviation Tax Cap and Trade Carbon Tax Currency Tax Digital Solidarity Levy Solidarity Levy on Airline Taxes Solidarity Levies

# **Grant**

In development finance a grant is defined as a transfer made in cash, goods, or services for which no repayment is required.<sup>96</sup>

# **Green bonds**

Green bonds are six-year, Swedish kronor notes paying investors a 3.5 percent annual interest rate and raising funds at a spread of 0.25 percent over comparable-maturity Swedish government paper issued by IBRD. They enabled IBRD to raise funds at an attractive cost despite the challenging market environment. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) underwrote the issue and distributed mainly to Scandinavian institutional investors, who were attracted to the investment because the proceeds would be credited to a special account at IBRD that supports World Bank loan disbursements on qualifying climate change mitigation and adaptation projects. Green bonds are a form of socially responsible investing.

Further information: <u>http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Capital+Markets/News+for+Inv estors/GreenBond.html</u> See also: Sustainable Investing

> 96 OECD: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1143.

72
# **Guarantees**

A guarantee is an agreement by a guarantor to assume the responsibility for the performance of an action or obligation of another person or legal entity by agreeing to compensate the beneficiary in the event of nonperformance. In development finance it is mostly an instrument that mitigates political, regulatory, and foreign exchange risks of investors including the risk of expropriation and nationalization without compensation, war, and restrictions on the conversion of currencies. Both, equity and debt investments can be guaranteed.<sup>97</sup> The terms of a guarantee can cover the whole or only a partial risk in the event of nonperformance.

The World Bank offers three kinds of guarantees:

- <u>Partial Risk Guarantees</u> (PRGs) cover private lenders against the risk of a public entity failing to perform its obligations with respect to a private project. PRGs ensure payment in the case of default resulting from the nonperformance of contractual obligations undertaken by governments or their agencies in private sector projects.

- <u>Partial Credit Guarantees</u> (PCGs) cover private lenders against all risks during a specific period of the financing term of debt for a public investment. PCGs are specially designed to extend maturity and improve market terms.

- <u>Policy-Based Guarantees</u> (PBGs) help to improve governments’ access to capital markets in support of social, institutional, and structural policies and reforms. PBGs are offered to countries with a strong track record of performance with a satisfactory social, structural, and macroeconomic policy framework and a coherent strategy for gaining (or regaining) access to international financial markets.

Further information: <u>www.worldbank.org/guarantees/ www.miga.org</u> Reading: Winpenny, et al. 2005

# **HIPC**

See: Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative

# **IMF Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF)**

“The Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) provides policy support and financial assistance to lowincome countries facing exogenous shocks.” After some modifications in September 2008, the ESF has two components: (i) “A rapid-access component under which a country can access fairly quickly, up to 25 percent of its quota for each exogenous shock;” and (ii) “a high-access component...with access up to 75 percent of quota for each arrangement in normal circumstances.” Access will be determined on a case-by-case basis and the conditionality is tailored to IMF members’ needs and circumstances.<sup>98</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/esf.htm</u> Reading: Bulir and Hamann 2006 See: Contingent loans

> 97 World Bank guarantees only cover debt, although a “deemed loan” special scheme can cover equity. 98 http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/esf.htm.

73
# **Impact Investments**

Impact investments generate both social value and financial returns. “Impact investment is private equity, debt and/or real estate investment that generates measurable financial as well as social or environmental returns beyond comparable industry standard investments. Impact investors and their investees explicitly seek to generate both financial and these extra-financial returns.”<sup>99</sup> The difference to social responsible investing is that investors search for investment opportunities that actively seek impact. A recent report estimates that impact investing could grow to 1 percent of total professionally managed assets within the next five to ten years with a market of about US$500 billion.<sup>100</sup> Examples include microfinance bonds, which securitize micro credits and sell them on the international capital markets or direct investments in microfinance institutions; the Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF), which invests in media institutions in emerging markets; and a US$500 million equity investment fund to invest in companies in the health sector, which IFC plans to set up. New communication technology also enables person-to-person socially responsible investments. Kiva.org (without interest payments) and MyC4.com (partially concessional with lower than market rate interest payments) allow investors to give micro loans directly to entrepreneurs in developing countries on a personal basis.

Further information: <u>http://www.mdlf.org http://www.kiva.org http://www.myC4.com http://www.rockfound.org/efforts/impact_investing/impact_investing.sht ml</u> Reading: Monitor Institute 2009 See also: Blended Value Investments Person-to-Person Giving

# **Index-based Insurance**

See: Parametric insurance

# **Indexed Bonds**

Indexed bonds tie the performance (schedule or amount of payment of interest and/or of repayment of principal) to the performance of an index. The instrument allows debtors to hedge against risks deriving from fluctuations of the index. Common indices are inflation and GDP but also a carbon-indexed bond has been piloted by the World Bank in cooperation with a private sector partner.

Reading: Fischer 1975, Shiller 2003b, 2005 See also: Carbon-indexed Bonds Commodity-indexed Bonds GDP-indexed Bonds Inflation-indexed Bonds

> 99 http://www.rockfound.org/efforts/impact_investing/RIIC_recommendations_final.pdf. 100 Monitor Institute 2009.

74
# **Inflation-Indexed Bonds**

An inflation-indexed bond’s performance is tied to the inflation rate. An inflationindexed bond would allow investors to make investments that are independent from inflation.

Reading: Shiller 2003a, Wrase 1997 See also: Indexed Bonds

# **Insurance**

Risk-transfer mechanism that fully or partially compensates for the loss or damage caused by the insured event. In general insurance, compensation is normally proportionate to the loss incurred.

See also: Parametric insurance

# **International Finance Facility (IFF)**

The International Finance Facility (IFF) is a proposal for a frontloading instrument of future development aid by the United Kingdom. The IFF relies on long-term ODA commitments as assets that underpin the issuance of bonds in the international capital markets and leverage immediate resources for development assistance. The result of an IFF is the frontloading of future development assistance. It was first proposed in 2003 as an instrument to help fill the financing gap for the Millennium Development Goals and at the same time respond to near-term fiscal constraints facing donors.

A first IFF has been piloted with the IFF for Immunisation (IFFIm). Other proposals have included an IFF for adaptation to climate change<sup>101</sup> and an IFF for mitigation adaptation and clean technology.<sup>102</sup>

# Further information: <u>http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_21_03.htm</u>

Reading Conceição, et al. 2005; Development Committee 2004; HM Treasury 2004; Mavrotas 2005; Tang and Yeoh 2007; World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Economic Forum 2007 See also: International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)

# **International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)**

The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) is an IFF supported by long-term, legally binding grants from sovereign donors (France, Italy, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). IFFIm was established as a new supranational in 2006, with some US$5 billion in assets paid over 20 years. IFFIm’s first triple-A rated US$1 billion bond issuance funded immunization programs of the GAVI Alliance. The World Bank is IFFIm’s Treasury Manager.

Further information: <u>http://www.iff-immunisation.org/</u>

> 101 Tang and Yeoh 2007.

> 102 World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Economic Forum 2007.

75
Reading: Barder and Yeh 2006, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) 2004, Lob-Levyt and Affolder See also: International Finance Facility

# **Line of Sovereign Credit**

A line of sovereign credit would provide automatic access to a line of credit at a predetermined interest rate. Whenever a country experiences liquidity problems it could draw from its line of credit. A line of credit would provide a country with flexible access to volatile and unpredictable demand for financing. Other than contingent loans, the access to funding through a line of sovereign credit would not be linked to exogenous shocks and triggers.

Reading: Cordella and Levy Yeyati 2006, Plaut and Melnik 2003 See also: Contingent loans

# **Loan**

In development finance a loan (also credit) is defined as a transfer made in cash, goods, or services for which repayment is required.<sup>103</sup>

# **Local Currency Lending**

Local currency lending refers to loans that are denominated in recipient countries currencies. (Traditionally, development assistance is denominated in donors’ currencies). Local currency lending avoids currency risks of borrowers. Local currency bond markets for sovereign and private debt have developed quickly over the last years but are still not available for some of the least developed countries.

Further information: Burger and Warnock 2006, 2007 See Also: Global Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Program (GEMLOC)

# **Macro Markets (Macro Derivatives)**

In macro markets, claims on aggregate national incomes, fractions of the GDP, real estate, or income of various groups of a country are traded. Macro markets allow individuals to hedge against risks that derive from the macroeconomic environment (for example, personal income is correlated to GDP and expenses to housing prices).

Reading: Gürkaynak and Wolfers 2005, Jakab 2006, Shiller 1993, 2003b, 2005

# **Microfinance**

Microfinance offers poor people access to basic financial services, such as loans, savings, money transfer services, and microinsurance. The roots of modern microfinance are in the 1970s when first programs in Bangladesh, Brazil, and a few other countries began to provide small loans to groups of poor women, using the group’s savings as collateral. Different types of microfinance providers have emerged including nongovernment organizations; cooperatives; community-based development; commercial and state banks; insurance and credit card companies;

> 103 OECD: http://www.oecd.org/glossary/0,2586,en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_1,00.html#1965544.

76
telecommunications and wire services; and post offices. Today, multiple loan products are available: providing working capital for small businesses, larger loans for durable goods, loans for children’s education, and loans to cover emergencies. Also, many microfinance providers have started to collect deposits.

Further Information: <u>http://www.cgap.org/</u> Reading: Armendariz de Aghion and Morduch 2005, Hardy, et al. 2002, Pretes 2002, Roodman and Qureshi 2006, World Bank 2009 See also: Microinsurance

# **Microinsurance**

Microinsurance provides protection of low-income people against specific risks, such as natural disaster and illness or death in exchange for regular premium payments, proportionate to the likelihood and cost of the risk involved. Often, microinsurance is an extension of existing microfinance provision or is coordinated with health care service delivery. Typical products are life insurance, health insurance, agricultural insurance, and livestock insurance.

Reading: Churchill, et al. 2006; Matthäus-Maier and Von Pischke 2008; Pui Lee, et al. 2000; Sabri 2003

# **Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)**

The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a United States financing facility that offers poor countries challenge grants. Grants are provided only on measurable success in or progress toward achieving predefined objectives and targets having to do with good governance, economic freedom, and investments in people. Before a country can become eligible to receive assistance, MCC looks at their performance on independent and transparent policy indicators. MCC selects eligible countries for Compact Assistance. Countries that have demonstrated significant improvement in policy indicators but do not yet qualify for a Compact grant may be eligible for <u>Threshold Program</u> assistance.

Further information: <u>http://www.mcc.gov</u> Reading: Brainard 2003, Radelet 2003

# **Minimum Volume Guarantee (MVG)**

See: AccessRH

# **Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiative (MDRI)**

At the July 2005 G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders pledged to cancel the debt of the world’s most-indebted countries, the majority of which are located in Africa. The aim of this Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) was to reduce further the debt of HIPCs and provide additional resource to help them reach the Millennium Development Goals.

The MDRI is separate from the HIPC Initiative but linked to it operationally. Under the MDRI, three multilateral institutions—the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the African Development Fund (AfDF)—provide 77
100 percent debt relief on eligible debts to countries having reached the HIPC completion point. In 2007, the Inter-American Development Bank joined IDA, IMF, and the AfDF. Unlike the HIPC Initiative, the MDRI does not involve participation of official bilateral or commercial creditors, or of multilateral institutions other than the above-mentioned.

Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/QR2YE1KBV0</u> Reading: International Development Association and International Monetary Fund 2008 See also: Debt relief Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative

# **NetGuarantee**

NetGuarantee is a proposal by Malaria NO MORE for a financing mechanism that would accelerate access to malaria prevention tools. It would allow procuring goods and services right after development aid has been committed, omitting the time lag of signing grant agreements. The procurement process for malaria tools usually starts 10 or more months after the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria has approved a project because of the grant signature process.<sup>104</sup> NetGuarantee would provide guarantees on behalf of countries to issue procurement tenders before the grant has been signed. NetGuarantee would make development assistance available much faster.

Further information: <u>http://www.malarianomore.org/ http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/partnership/board/meetings/ppt/15pbm/ s4_1.pdf</u>

# **Official Development Assistance (ODA)**

ODA consists of “grants or loans to...developing countries which are: (a) undertaken by the official sector; (b) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; (c) at concessional financial terms [if a loan, having a grant element (q.v.) of at least 25 per cent].”<sup>105</sup> See also: Concessional Loan Grant Loan

# **Output-Based Aid**

“Output-Based Aid (OBA) is a strategy for using explicit performance-based subsidies to support the delivery of basic services where policy concerns would justify public funding to complement or replace user-fees. Affordability concerns for particular groups of users, positive externalities, or the infeasibility of imposing direct user-fees represent examples of the types of policy concerns that have motivated governments to use public funds to support the delivery of basic services. OBA involves delegating service delivery to a third-party, typically private firms, but also public utilities, NGOs, and community-based organizations, under contracts that tie disbursement of the

> 104 http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/partnership/board/meetings/ppt/15pbm/s4_1.pdf.

> 105 http://www.oecd.org/glossary/0,2586,en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_1,00.html#1965586.

78
public funding to the services or outputs actually delivered.”<sup>106</sup> Like results-based financing, output-based aid links financing to projects results.

Further information: <u>http://www.gpoba.org</u> See also: Results Based Financing (RBF)

# **Parametric insurance**

Parametric insurance (also called index-based insurance) does not indemnify the individual loss by the policyholder, but consists of an _ex ante_ agreement to make a payment upon a parametric index that is assumed to proxy the actual loss. An example is weather insurance based on specific parameters, such as rainfall.

Reading: Cummins and Mahul 2008, Skees, et al. 2005 See also: Insurance

# **Partial Risk Guarantees (PRGs)**

See: Guarantees

# **Partial Credit Guarantees (PCGs)**

See: Guarantees

# **Patent Buy-Outs**

In a patent buy-out a government offers a private holder of a patent a monetary compensation for transferring the property right to the public domain. Advanced commitments to patent buy-outs can spur investments and research and development into new technologies.

Reading: Hopenhayn, et al. 2006; Kremer 1998; Outterson 2006 See also: Prize Advanced Market Commitment Patent pool

# **Patent Pools**

In a patent pool several companies cross-license their patents. Patent pools can help increase the access to research and development intense technologies, such as for affordable drugs and vaccines. Recently, UNITAID decided to establish a patent pool for medicines with an initial focus in the area of pediatric antiretrovirals (ARVs) and new combinations.<sup>107</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.unitaid.eu/</u>

> 106 http://www.gpoba.org/oba/index.asp.

> 107 http://www.unitaid.eu/index.php/en/NEWS/UNITAID-moves-towards-a-patent-pool-formedicines.html.

79
See also: Patent Buy-Out Prizes Advanced Market Commitment

# **Payments for Environmental Services (PES)**

Payments for Environmental Services (PES) is a financing instrument that internalizes externalities in the environmental sector on a local basis. The underlying principle is that those who provide environmental services get paid for doing so (“provider gets”) and those who benefit from environmental services pay for their provision (“user pays”).

Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/51KUO12O50</u> Reading: Alix-Garcia, et al. 2008; Antle and Stoorvogel 2008; Bulte, et al. 2008a; Bulte, et al. 2008b; Graff-Zivin and Lipper 2008; Horan, et al. 2008; Pagiola, et al. 2005; Pagiola, et al. 2008; Wunder 2008; Zilberman, et al. 2008

# **Payments for Progress**

See: Cash on delivery

# **Payments for Services**

Payments for services also known as “beneficiary pays” instruments are direct payments for goods or services, by those who profit from their provision. Payments for services can be blended with other sources of financing, which subsidize them. Payments for services are an option when service benefits can be attributed to a person or organization and when those beneficiaries are financially strong enough to pay for the services.

See also: Payments for Environmental Services (PES)

# **Performance-Based Aid**

Performance-based aid ties disbursement of funds to project or program performance. Major aid agencies with performance-based aid allocations include the International Development Association (IDA), the Global Fund to Fight Aids Malaria and Tuberculosis, and the GAVI Alliance. Performance-based aid links financing to results and can be viewed as a form of resultsbased financing.

See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Performance-Based Grants (GAVI Alliance)**

GAVI Immunisation Services Support (GAVI ISS) provides funding to countries on the basis of children the country has immunized. After an upfront investment phase, “countries are eligible to receive US$20 for each additional child they reach with three doses of diphtheria-tetanuspertussis (DTP3) vaccine, as compared to the previous year’s target. Thereafter, GAVI ensures transparency and accountability through an intensive proposal and performance review process, and an independent audit of each country’s data collection and reporting system.”<sup>108</sup> The example of GAVI ISS highlights one of the problems with performance-based aid, results-based financing,

> 108 http://www.gavialliance.org/resources/ISS_evaluation.pdf.

80
and output-based aid: Financial flows are linked to the measurement of outputs. Recently, the GAVI ISS has been accused of being exploited through systematic overreporting.<sup>109</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.gavialliance.org/resources/ISS_evaluation.pdf</u> Reading: Lim, et al. See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Performance-Based Funding (Global Fund)**

“The Global Fund was created around the concept of ‘performance-based funding.’ Essentially this means that only those grant recipients who can demonstrate measurable and effective results will be able to receive additional funding. In other words, initial funding is awarded solely on the basis of the technical quality of applications, but continued and renewed funding is dependent on proven results and targets achieved. In order to measure performance, the Global Fund has put in place a rigorous system of measurement and evaluation. This begins at the time a grant agreement is signed, when targets and indicators are agreed upon between recipients and the Global Fund. Results are tracked at every point in the process, from disbursement requests to performance updates and on through requests for continued funding at the two-year point of the grant. Since targets are set according to the resource levels and ambitions of each country, the Global Fund’s performance-based funding system provides a platform for grant recipients to demonstrate—and prove—their achievements.”<sup>110</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/about/replenishment/berlin/ Global_Fund_Backgrounder.pdf</u> See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Performance-Based Funding (International Development Association)**

“The main factor that determines the allocation of IDA resources among eligible countries is each country’s performance in implementing policies that promote economic growth and poverty reduction. This is assessed by the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which for the purposes of resource allocation is referred to as the IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI). The IRAI and portfolio performance together constitute the IDA Country Performance Rating (CPR). In addition to the CPR, population and per capita income also determine IDA allocations.”<sup>111</sup> Further information: <u>http://www.worldbank.org/IDA</u> See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Person-to-person (P2P) giving**

Person-to-person (P2P) giving means that individual donors give directly to individual recipients. The internet expanded the use of P2P giving into new directions. For example, two online platforms that allow for direct microfinance investments to entrepreneurs in developing countries

> 109 Lim, et al.

> 110 http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/about/replenishment/berlin/Global_Fund_Backgrounder.pdf.

> 111 http://go.worldbank.org/F5531ZQHT0.

81
are Kiva.org (without interest payments) and MyC4.com (with partially concessional, lower than market rate interest payments).

Further information: <u>http://www.kiva.org http://www.myC4.com;</u> See also: Private Giving

# **PG4Health**

PG4Health (formerly pledge guarantee) “is a global financing mechanism that will allow recipients of international donor assistance to obtain short-term commercial credit by essentially using their pending donor “pledges” as collateral...When disbursements do finally come through, the loan amount and associated costs are then simply deducted at the source, with the donor, in effect, paying off the loan. This innovative aspect of the Pledge Guarantee reduces risk, eliminates the need to tie up money in costly revolving funds, and makes possible more reliable and predictable funding flows.”<sup>112</sup> PG4Health is a proposed financing mechanism for AccessRH.

Further information: <u>http://www.rhsupplies.org/</u> Reading: Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition and Dalberg Global Development Advisors 2008 See also: AccessRH

# **Pledge Guarantee**

See: PG4Health

# **Private Giving**

Private giving or philanthropy means donating monetary funds, goods, services, time, and/or effort to support a socially or environmentally beneficial cause. By definition, there is no financial or material reward to the donor. Private giving generates substantial sources for development, estimated to be several billion of dollars annually. Estimates range from US$17 billion from DAC donors in 2001 to US$34 billion by the United States only (including faithbased organizations and education at universities within the United States) in 2007.

Reading: Brainard and Chollet 2008, Conceição and Merlen 2005, Development Assistance Committee 2003, Hudson’s Center for Global Prosperity 2008, Koch 2008, Micklewright and Wright 2005, NCVO and CAF 2007, Scott 2003

# **Policy Based Guarantees (PBGs)**

See: Guarantees

> 112 http://www.rhsupplies.org/working_groups/systems_strengthening/global_financing_and_procurement.html.

82
# **Prizes**

Prizes are an incentive to stimulate investment in research and development to meet a specified scientific or technological challenge. Prizes are awarded to an individual or organization that makes a predefined scientific discovery or develop a new technology.

In the area of development financing and financing global public good initiatives, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s “Grand Challenges in Global Health” and the European Union’s “Renewable Energy Partnerships” promise prizes of technological achievements.

Further information: <u>http://www.gcgh.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/renewable_energy_partnerships/index_en. htm</u> Reading: Harford 2008; Hopenhayn, et al. 2006; Leonardt 2007; Stiglitz 2006 See also: Patent Buy-Out Patent Pools Advanced Market Commitment

# **Pro Bono Activities**

Often, the private sector can be more effective providing goods and services rather than financial aid, using their capacity for the greater good by linking their activity to the cause they support and using pro bono activities to motivate their employees. A good example is Google, which gave 1 percent of its shares and is giving 1 percent of its profits to its foundation Google.org and encourages its employees to spent 1 percent of their time on charitable projects.

Further information: <u>http://www.google.org</u>

# **(PRODUCT)RED**

(PRODUCT)RED is a successful example of Blended Value Products. It was launched in 2006 and raises funds for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Partner corporations including American Express, Apple, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, GAP, Hallmark, and Microsoft design and sell RED products and make corresponding contributions. By the end of 2008, contributions from corporate partners totaled more than $120 million.

Further information: <u>http://www.joinred.com http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/partners/private/red/</u> See also: Blended Value Products

# **Program-Related Investments (PRIs)**

“Program-related investments (PRIs) are investments made by foundations to support charitable activities that involve the potential return of capital within an established time frame. PRIs include financing methods commonly associated with banks or other private investors, such as loans, loan guarantees, linked deposits, and even equity investments in charitable organizations or 83
in commercial ventures for charitable purposes.”<sup>113</sup> Foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Google.org, are leveraging their grants with PRI.

Further information: <u>http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/pri.html</u> See also: Blended Value Investments

# **Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP)**

A Public-Private Partnership (PPP) involves the private sector in aspects of the provision of infrastructure and services that have traditionally been provided by the government.<sup>114</sup> Private companies finance projects and provide expertise to ease fiscal constraints and increase efficiency. By engaging the private sector and giving it defined responsibilities, governments broaden their options for delivering better services.

The range of options for Public-Private Partnerships has expanded enormously over the past 30 years. Agreements between public and private entities take many shapes and sizes for both new and existing services. At one end of the spectrum is a management or service contract, where a private company is paid a fee for a service. At the other end is full privatization or divestiture (outright sale), where a government sells assets to a private company. Outsourcing has become another popular option; here a private company might handle an aspect of service, such as billing, metering, transport, or even cleaning.

Hybrid models of Public-Private Partnership have seen explosive growth in recent years, especially with the development of a more diversified pool of emerging market investors and operators with local expertise. These models often rely on simpler contractual arrangements and blend public and private money to diversify risks.

In development finance, vertical funds with a governance structure that includes national governments and the private sector sometimes are called PPPs. Examples are the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the GAVI Alliance.

Further Information: <u>http://www.ppiaf.org</u> Reading: Engel, et al. 2007; Osborne 2000; Yescombe 2002, 2007

# **Remittances**

Remittances from migrants to citizens in their home countries are considered as one of the main pillars of transfer of funds to developing countries. In 2007, documented remittances to developing countries were estimated to be about US$240 billion, with unreported remittances making that figure even larger. In some countries (Tajikistan, Moldova, Tonga) remittances make up one-third of the country’s GDP.

Reading: Chami, et al. 2005; Maimbo and Ratha 2005; Ratha and Xu 2008; Solimano 2005

> 113 http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/pri.html.

> 114 http://www.ppiaf.org/content/view/118/153/.

84
# **Results-Based Financing (RBF)**

Results-Based Financing (RBF) refers to a range of mechanisms designed to enhance the performance of aid through incentive-based payments. RBF has been used most extensively in the area of health systems. RBF is an umbrella term that includes Output-Based Aid, provider payment incentives, performance-based inter-fiscal transfers, and incentives to households for adopt health-promoting behaviors. What these mechanisms have in common is that a principal entity provides a financial or in-kind reward, conditional on the recipient undertaking a set of predetermined actions or achieving a predetermined performance goal.<sup>115</sup> A specific application of RBF can be seen in the World Bank managed Norwegian Health Results Innovation Grant. “The Norwegian Health Results Innovation Grant to the World Bank is designed to support governments to achieve the goals outlined in their national health plan through an increased focus on results. By shifting the emphasis of governments from distribution and use of resources and inputs to organizing the system in a different way to achieve results, RBF creates incentives and promotes greater accountability of service providers, improved management, improved efficiency and equity of service delivery, and strengthened health information systems. It can also facilitate greater involvement of the NGO and private sectors in service delivery.” Further information: <u>http://go.worldbank.org/04UNXY1MS0</u> Reading: Barder and Birdsall 2006, Oxman and Fretheim 2008 See also: Results-Based Instruments

# **Results-Based Instruments**

A number of instruments are results- and performance based: See also: Results-Based Financing Performance-Based Aid Conditional Cash Transfers Buy-Downs Output-Based Aid Cash for Delivery Millennium Challenge Account Performance-Based Grants (GAVI Alliance) Performance-Based Funding (Global Fund) Performance-Based Funding (International Development Association)

# **Securitization of Future Flow Receivables**

Securitization of future flow receivables is the pooling of future flow receivables, such as hard currency receivables from commodity trade, airline tickets and credit card receivables, to back the issuance of securities on the capital markets. Securitization reduces investors’ risks and therefore potentially opens developing countries’ access to lending on the capital markets and brings down cost of capital.

Reading: Ketkar and Ratha 2004, Ketkar, et al. 2001

> 115 http://go.worldbank.org/04UNXY1MS0.

85
# **Social Funds**

“Social funds are multisectoral programs that provide financing (usually grants) for small-scale public investments targeted at meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable communities, and at contributing to social capital and development at the local level. They serve as innovators and demonstrators of new methods of decentralized participatory decision-making, management, and accountability that may be adopted for broader application by public sector organizations ...”<sup>116</sup> Further information: <u>www.worldbank.org/socialfunds</u> Reading: Garnier and Imschoot 2003; Rawlings, et al. 2004; Tendler 2000

# **Sustainable Investing (SI)**

Sustainable investing (or ethical or socially responsible investing) blends for-profit investing with social or environmental criteria for investing. Typically, investment decisions are based on social responsibility ratings or on benchmarks that exclude corporate securities from investments. Sometimes, the term SRI includes investments that actively seek having a social impact (see impact investing). In the USA, assets in socially screened portfolios are estimated to have equaled $2.71 trillion in 2007, an increase over the $2.16 trillion counted in 2003.<sup>117</sup> The World Bank’s and other multilateral development bank’s bond issuances offer sustainable and socially responsible investments. World Bank debt issues are the funding source for development loans and have provided financing for more than 4,000 development projects in more than 130 countries through more than US$400 billion in lending.<sup>118</sup> The World Bank’s bond offerings that are geared towards sustainable investors include COOL bonds, Eco notes, and Green bonds. By the end of 2008, the World Bank has sold bonds that are based on the developmental purpose of the use of funds of US$ 2.146,47 million[[accuracy of number]].

Further information: <u>http://www.socialinvest.org http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Capital+Markets/About+Debt+Se curities/SRI.html</u> Reading: Cumming and Johan 2007; Hill, et al. 2007; Sparkes and Cowton 2004; Zakri Y. Bello 2005 See also: Blended Value Investments Impact Investing Cool bonds Eco notes Green bonds

# **Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets**

The solidarity tax on airline tickets is an example of a financing instrument that has many elements of a global tax, but has been established as a nationally implemented, globally coordinated tax. The solidarity tax on airline tickets has been in effect in France in since mid2006, and implemented since then in Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea,

> 116 www.worldbank.org/socialfunds.

> 117 Social Investment Forum 2008.

> 118 http://treasury.worldbank.org/Services/Capital+Markets/About+Debt+Securities/SRI.html.

86
Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, and Norway. Another 15 countries are in the process of implementing the tax. Although the levy has many elements of a global tax, it is based on voluntary participation and voluntary contributions by member countries.

The funds are used to finance UNITAID, an international purchase facility for drugs and treatments for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The contributions to UNITAID’s budget for 2008, financed primarily through air ticket taxes, are expected to be [[US]]$364 million.

Further information: <u>http://www.unitaid.eu/</u> See also: Global Taxes Solidarity Levies

# **Solidarity Levies**

Globally coordinated and nationally on a voluntary basis implemented taxes that direct their proceeds to development are often called “Solidarity Levies.” See also: Global Taxes Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets Currency Tax

# **Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)**

Sovereign Wealth Funds are country-owned investment funds allowing domestic and international investments in a wide range of financial products such as government and corporate bonds, stock, commodities, real estate, as well as financial derivatives. An SWF is a backloading instrument saving funds for the future and providing independence from external financing.

Reading: Butt, et al. 2008; Reisen 2008; Truman 2007

# **Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)**

“The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries. SDRs are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas...Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies.”<sup>119</sup> The innovative financing discussion has led to two types of proposals for leveraging SDRs for development purposes. First, more SDRs should be allocated to developing countries allowing them to fall back on them in case of immediate liquidity needs<sup>120</sup> ; second, developed countries should transfer part of their SDRs to developing countries as additional concessional support.

Reading: Aryeetey 2005, Pollak and Clark 2005

# **Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative**

Recovery of stolen public assets from developing countries could reclaim resources that have supported poverty reduction. StAR was launched jointly by the World Bank and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on September 17, 2007 in New York City at an event chaired by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. StAR’s objective is to reduce barriers to

> 119 http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm.

> 120 The IMF’s reallocation of SDR and voting power, discussed in Mach 2008, would respond to this proposal.

87
asset recovery and thereby encourage and facilitate more systematic and timely return of stolen assets. Luxembourg has started directing recovered funds from illicit activities to bilateral ODA.

Further information: <u>http://www.worldbank.org/star</u> Reading: World Bank 2007

# **Supplemental Reserve Facility (SRF)**

The supplemental reserve facility is a nonconcessional lending facility to respond to very shortterm financing on a large scale due to macroeconomic shocks. It was introduced in 1997 by the IMF in response to the Asian financial crisis.

Further information: <u>http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/howlend.htm</u>

# **Swaps**

A swap is a derivative in which two parties agree to exchange one stream of cash flows today against another stream in the future. Swaps can be used to hedge risks including interest rate, currency, and commodity price risks. In development financing, for example, the World Bank offers currency, interest rate, and commodity price swaps.

Further information: <u>http://treasury.worldbank.org/</u>

# **UNITAID**

“UNITAID is an international drug purchase facility, established to provide long-term, sustainable and predictable funding to increase access and reduce prices of quality drugs and diagnostics for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in developing countries.” “Long term commitment and the purchasing of high volume of drugs and diagnostics allows UNITAID to get lower prices as manufacturers are encouraged to increase their production which results in economies of scale.”<sup>121</sup> UNITAID receives funding predominantly from the Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets.

Further information: <u>http://www.unitaid.eu/</u> See also: Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets

# **Voluntary Solidarity Contribution (VSC)**

A voluntary solidarity contribution is a voluntary copayment by consumers when purchasing goods or services. The contribution is collected with the sales process. Examples are a VSC on airline tickets and on mobile phones. VSCs are similar to blended value products but the consumer has the choice to contribute.

See also: Blended Value Products Voluntary Solidarity Contribution (VSC) on Airline Tickets

> 121 http://www.unitaid.eu/.

88
# **Voluntary Solidarity Contribution (VSC) on Airline Tickets**

A proposal to raise funds by introducing a VSC providing individuals and corporations who purchase airline tickets with the opportunity to voluntarily donate a small sum for every ticket purchased; the levy would not be mandatory for consumers.

Further information: <u>www.who.int/phi/UNITAID_Jan09.ppt</u> See also: Voluntary Solidarity Contribution (VSC)

# **Vouchers**

A voucher is a certificate, usually issued by a government by which users can pay for a specific service at a service provider of their choice, rather than assigning the user to a service provider. Vouchers are typically used in the education or health sector. Voucher programs are explicitly aimed at improving service quality by increasing users’ choices therefore increasing competition.

Proponents of vouchers argue that vouchers promote free market competition among service providers. Opponents criticize vouchers for the potentially ambiguous effect on the poor: Voucher schemes tend to increase sorting—for example with richer students concentrating in the private schools.<sup>122</sup> Reading: Elson-Rogers and European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training 2000, World Bank 2005

# **Weather derivatives**

Weather derivatives are linked to an index that measures weather related risks such as low rainfall or drought. Unlike insurance, weather derivatives do not cover the loss from weather related events but the value of the derivative changes depending on movements of the underlying index. Weather derivatives may avoid moral hazard problems that come with insurance products because the value of the derivative solely depends on exogenous variables, for example rainfall Reading: Cao and Wei 2004; Hess, et al. 2002; Turvey 2001

> 122 World Bank 2004.

89
# **<u>ANNEX 10: BIBLIOGRAPHY</u>**

Addison, Tony, and Abdur R. Chowdhury. 2005. “A Global Lottery and a Global Premium Bond.” In _New Sources of Development Finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson, 156–76. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

- Alix-Garcia, Jennifer, Alain De Janvry, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 2008. “The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 375–94.

- AMFm Task Force of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. 2007. “Affordable Medicines Facilitymalaria (AMFm): Technical Design.” Geneva: WHO.

http://www.rbm.who.int/partnership/tf/globalsubsidy/AMFmTechProposal.pdf.

- Antle, John M., and Jetse J. Stoorvogel. 2008. “Agricultural carbon sequestration, poverty, and sustainability.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 327–52.

- Armendariz de Aghion, Beatriz, and Jonathan Morduch. 2005. _The economics of microfinance_ . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

- Arrow, Kenneth Joseph, Claire Panosian, Hellen Gelband, and Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Committee on the Economics of Antimalarial Drugs. 2004. _Saving lives, buying time: economics of malaria drugs in an age of resistance_ . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

- Aryeetey, Ernest. 2005. “A Development-Focused Allocation of the Special Drawing Rights.” In _New Sources of Development Finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson, 90–119. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

- Atkinson, A. B. 2006. “Global Public Finance and Funding the Millennium Development Goals.” _De Economist_ 154:3: 325–39.

- Atkinson, A. B., ed. 2005. _New Sources of Development Finance_ . United Nations

- University/World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER) Studies in Development Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Atta-Mensah, Joseph. 2004. “Commodity-Linked Bonds: A Potential Means for Less-Developed Countries to Raise Foreign Capital.” _Bank of Canada Working Paper_ 2004/20.

- Barder, Owen, and Nancy Birdsall. 2006. “Payments for Progress: A Hands-Off Approach to Foreign Aid.” _Center for Global Development Working Paper_ .

- Barder, Owen, and Ethan Yeh. 2006. “The Costs and Benefits of Front-Loading and

- Predictability of Immunization.” _Center for Global Development Working Paper_ .

- Batson, Amie, Filip Meheus, and Steve Brooke. 2006. “Chapter 26: Innovative financing mechanisms to accelerate the introduction of HPV vaccines in developing countries.” 24:Supplement 3: S219–S25.

- Bernanke, 2007. “Financial Innovation and Regulation.” Speech to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s 2007 Financial Markets Conference, Sea Island, Georgia, May 15, 2007.

- Bestani, Robert M. 2005. “The Multilateral Development Banks and the Capital Markets.” Speech at the World Economic Forum Financing for Development Workshop. March 2005. Hong Kong.

- Boadway, Robin. 2005. “National Taxation, Fiscal Federalism and Global Taxation.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson and World Institute for Development Economics Research., 210–37. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

- Borensztein, Eduardo , and Paolo Mauro. 2004. “The Case for GDP-indexed Bonds.” _Economic Policy_ 19:38: 165–216.

- Borensztein, Eduardo, and Paolo Mauro. 2002. “Reviving the Case for GDP-Indexed Bonds.” _IMF Policy Discussion Papers_ .

90
Brahmbhatt, Milan, et al., 2009. “Developing Countries and the Crisis: Vulnerabilities and Fiscal Policy Options.” World Bank Background Paper for the IMF/OECD/World Bank Seminar on the Response to the Crisis and Exit Strategies. Feb [[incomplete cite]]

- Brainard, Lael. 2003. _The Other War: Global Poverty and the Millennium Challenge Account_ . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

- ———. 2006. _Transforming the Development Landscape: the Role of the Private Sector_ . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

- Brainard, Lael, and Derek Chollet, eds. 2008. _Global Development 2.0: Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty History?_ Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

- Brzoska, Michael. 2004. “Taxation of the Global Arms Trade? An Overview of the Issues.” _Kyklos_ 57:2: 149–71.

- Bulir, Aleš, and A. Javier Hamann. 2006. “Volatility of Development Aid: From the Frying Pan into the Fire?” _IMF Working Paper_ .

- Bulte, Erwin H., Randall B. Boone, Randy Stringer, and Philip K. Thornton. 2008a. “Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 395–414.

- Bulte, Erwin H., Leslie Lipper, Randy Stringer, and David Zilberman. 2008b. “Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 245–54.

- Burger, John D., and Francis E. Warnock. 2006. “Local Currency Bond Markets.” _IMF Staff Papers_ 53:Special Issue: 133–46.

- ———. 2007. “Foreign participation in local currency bond markets.” _Review of Financial Economics_ 16:3: 291–304.

- Butt, Shams, Anil Shivdasani, Carsten Stendevad, and Ann Wyman. 2008. “Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Growing Global Force in Corporate Finance.” _Journal of Applied Corporate Finance_ 20:1: 73–83.

- Cao, Melanie, and Jason Wei. 2004. “Weather derivatives valuation and market price of weather risk.” _Journal of Futures Markets_ 24:11: 1065–89.

- Capoor, Karan, and Philippe Ambrosi. 2008. “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008.” Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Cassimon, Danny, Robrecht Renard, and Karel Verbeke. 2008. “Assessing debt-to-health swaps: a case study on the Global Fund Debt2Health Conversion Scheme.” _Tropical Medicine & International Health_ 13:9: 1188–95.

- Chami, Ralph, Connel Fullenkamp, and Samir Jahjah. 2005. “Are Immigrant Remittance Flows a Source of Capital for Development?” 52. Washington, DC: IMF.

- Center for the Study of African Economies. “STABEX Scheme for ACP Countries.” Evaluation Report. November 1997.

- Chander, Anupam. 2001. “Diaspora Bonds.” _New York University Law Review_ 76.

- Churchill, Craig Farren, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft., Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest. Working Group on Microinsurance., and International Labour Office. 2006. _Protecting the poor: a Micro-insurance Compendium._ Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.

- Cohen, Daniel, Hélène Djoufelkit-Cottenet, Pierre Jacquet, and Cécile Valadier. 2008. “Lending to the Poorest Countries: A New Counter-cyclical Debt Instrument.” _OECD Development Centre Working Papers_ 269.

- Conceição, Pedro, and Sylvain Merlen. 2005. “Estimating the Number of Foundations and Investment Funds Supporting the Financing of Global Public Policy Concerns.” UNDP.

- Conceição, Pedro, Hari Rajan, and Rajiv Shah, eds. 2005. _Making the Right Money Available at the Right Time for International Cooperation: New Financing Techniologies_ . Edited by

91
Inge Kaul and Pedro Conceição, _The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

Cordella, Tito, and Eduardo Levy Yeyati. 2006. “A (New) Country Insurance Facility.” _International Finance_ 9:1: 1–36.

Cumming, Douglas, and Sofia Johan. 2007. “Socially Responsible Institutional Investment in Private Equity.” _Journal of Business Ethics_ 75:4: 395–416.

Cummins, J. David, and Olivier Mahul. 2008. _Catastrophe Risk Financing in Developing_ _Countries: Principles for Public Intervention_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

De Ferranti, David, Owen Barder, Jürgen Zattler, Pierre Jacque, Ruud Treffers, Carlo Manticelli, Caroline Kayonga, and Tornorlah Varpilah. 2007. “Donor Perspective on Innovative Financing for Global Health.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

De Ferranti, David, Charles Griffin, Maria-Luisa Escobar, Amanda Glassman, and Gina Lagomarsino. 2008. _Innovative Financing for Global Health: Tools for Analyzing the Options._

- De Janvry, Alain, Frederico Finan, Elisabeth Sadoulet, and Renos Nicos Vakis. 2006. “Can conditional cash transfer programs serve as safety nets in keeping children at school and from working when exposed to shocks?” _Journal of Development Economics_ 79:2, Special Issue: 349–73.

- De Janvry, Alain, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 2006. “Making conditional cash transfer programs more efficient: designing for maximum effect of the conditionality.” _World Bank Economic Review_ 20:1: 1–29.

- Deacon, R.T., and P. Murphy. 1997. “The structure of an environmental transaction: the debt-fornature swap.” _Land economics_ 73:1: 1–24.

- Deutsche Bank. 2008. _Assessing the Impact of Global Deleveraging on Emerging Markets._ Oct. 9, 2008.

- Development Assistance Committee. 2003. “Philanthropic Foundations and Development Cooperation.” _DAC Journal_ 4:3.

- Development Committee. 2004. “Aid Effectiveness and Financing Modalities: Background Paper.” DC2004-0012/Add.1. Washington, DC: World Bank and IMF.

- ———. 2005. “Moving Forward. Financing Modalities toward the MDGs: Background Paper.” DC2005-0008/Add.1. Washington, DC: World Bank and IMF.

- Doherty, Neil A. 1997. “Innovations in Managing Catastrophe Risk.” _The Journal of Risk and Insurance_ 64:4: 713–18.

- Eckhart, Michael. 2004. “Global Development Bonds.”

- http://www.unausa.org/atf/cf/%7B49C555AC-20C8-4B43-8483A2D4C1808E4E%7D/GDB_Paper--Michael_Eckhart.pdf.

- Edwards, Sebastian. 1992. “Capital Flows, Foreign Direct Investment, and Debt-Equity Swaps in Developing Countries.” _NBER Working Paper_ W3497.

- Elson-Rogers, Sarah, and European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. 2000.

- _Demand-side financing: a focus on vouchers in post-secondary education and training: discussion paper and case studies_ . Thessaloniki, Pylea: Cedefop.

- Engel, Eduardo, Ronald Fischer, and Alexander Galetovic. 2007. “The Basic Public Finance of Public-Private Partnerships.” _NBER Working Paper_ 13284.

- Fischer, Stanley. 1975. “The Demand for Index Bonds.” _Journal of Political Economy_ 83:3: 509.

- Frankman, Myron J. 1996. “International taxation: The trajectory of an idea from Lorimer to Brandt.” _World Development_ 24:5: 807–20.

- Garnier, Philippe, and Marc van Imschoot. 2003. _Social Funds: Lessons for a New Future_ . Geneva: ILO.

- Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). 2004. “A proposal for an International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm).” Geneva

92
Global Foundation Leaders Advisory Group. 2005. “Private Investment for Social Goals: Building the Blended Value Capital Market.” Geneva: World Economic Forum Graff-Zivin, Joshua, and Leslie Lipper. 2008. “Poverty, risk, and the supply of soil carbon sequestration.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 353-73.

- Grant, Jeremy. 2007. “World Bank boosts ‘local’ bonds.” _Financial Times_ , October 4, 2007. Griffith-Jones, Stephany, and Krishnan Sharma. 2006. “GDP-Indexed Bonds: Making It Happen.” _DESA Working Paper_ 21:ST/ESA/2006/DWP/21.

- Gürkaynak, Refet S., and Justin Wolfers. 2005. “Macroeconomic Derivatives: An Initial Analysis of Market-Based Macro Forecasts, Uncertainty, and Risk.” 2005–26. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank

- Hansen, Stein. 1989. “Debt for nature swaps—Overview and discussion of key issues.” _Ecological Economics_ 1:1: 77–93.

- Hardy, Daniel C. L., Paul Holden, Vassili Prokopenko, and International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Exchange Affairs Dept. 2002. _Microfinance institutions and public policy_ , _IMF working paper WP/02/159_ . [Washington, DC]: International Monetary Fund Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department.

- Harford, Tim. 2008. “Cash for Answers.” _FT Magazine_ , January 25, 2008.

- Harmer, Abele, and Lin Cotterrell. 2005. “Diversity in Donorship: The Changing Landscape of Official Humanitarian Aid”. Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute. United Kingdom.

- Hecht, Robert, and Raj Shah. 2006. “Recent Trends and Innovations in Development Assistance for Health.” In _Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (2nd Edition)_ , edited by Dean T. Jamison, 243–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2007. “Demand and supply-side determinants of conditional cash transfer program effectiveness.” _World Development_ 35:1: 121–43.

- Hess, Ulrich, Kaspar Richter, and Andrea Stoppa. 2002. “Weather Risk Management for Agriculture and Agri-Business in Developing Countries.” In _Climate Risk and the Weather Market: Financial Risk Management with Weather Hedges_ , edited by Robert Dischel. London: Risk Books.

- Hill, Ronald, Thomas Ainscough, Todd Shank, and Daryl Manullang. 2007. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing: A Global Perspective.” _Journal of Business Ethics_ 70:2: 165–74.

- Hillman, David, Sony Kapoor, and Stephen Spratt. 2006. “Taking the Next Step—Implementing a Currency Transaction Development Levy.” 4054.

- HM Treasury. 2004. “The International Finance Facility.” _Journal of International Development_ 16:6: 865–78.

- Hoel, Michael. 1992. “Carbon taxes: An international tax or harmonized domestic taxes?” _European Economic Review_ 36:2-3: 400–6.

- Hofman, David, and Patricia Brukoff. 2006. “Insuring Public Finances Against Natural Disasters—A Survey of Options and Recent Initiatives.” _IMF Working Paper_ 06/199.

- Hopenhayn, Hugo, Gerard Llobet, and Matthew Mitchell. 2006. “Rewarding Sequential

- Innovators: Prizes, Patents, and Buyouts.” _Journal of Political Economy_ 114:6: 1041–68.

- Horan, Richard D., Jason F. Shogren, and Benjamin M. Gramig. 2008. “Wildlife conservation payments to address habitat fragmentation and disease risks.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 415–39.

- Hudson’s Center for Global Prosperity. 2008. “The Index of Global Philanthropy 2008.” Washington: Hudson Institute.

- IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2008. _Annual Report 2008._ Washington, DC.

- IIF (Institute of International Finance). 2008. _Capital Flows to Emerging Market Economies,_ October 12, 2008, p. 3.

93
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2003. “Assessing Public Sector Borrowing Collateralized on Future Flow Receivables.” Washington, DC: IMF

- Jakab, Spencer. 2006. “Macro Markets Move From Textbook To Reality.” _Dow Jones News Wire_ , December 4, 2006.

- Jayachandran, Seema, and Michael Kremer. 2006. “Odious Debt.” In _Sovereign Debt at the Crossroads: Challenges and Proposals for Resolving the Third World Debt Crisis_ , edited by Chris Jochnick and Fraser A. Preston, 215–26. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Kaiser, Jèurgen, Alain Lambert, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources., SCDO (Organization), and EURODAD (Organization). 1996. _Debt swaps for sustainable development: a practical guide for NGOs_ . [London]: [IUCN Publication Services Unit].

- Keen, Michael, and Jon Strand. 2007. “Indirect Taxes on International Aviation.” _Fiscal Studies_ 28:1: 1–41.

- Kaul, Inge. 2003. _Providing global public goods: managing globalization_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Kaul, Inge, and Pedro Conceição. 2006. _The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Ketkar, Suhas, and Dilip Ratha. 2001. “Development financing during a crisis: securitization of future receivables.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 2582. Washington, DC.

- ———. 2004. “Recent Advances in Future-Flow Securitization.” _The Financier_ 11/12.

- ———. 2007. “Development Finance via Diaspora Bonds: Track Record and Potential.” Paper presented at the Migration and Development Conference.

- ———. ed. 2008. “Innovative Financing for Development: Overview.” In _Innovative Financing for Development_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Koch, Dirk-Jan. 2008. “A Paris Declaration for NGOs? The Need for Harmonisation, Coordination, Mutual Accountability and Alignment among International NGOs.” In _Financing Development 2008: Whose Ownership?_ edited by Development Centre Studies. Paris: OECD.

- Kossoy, Alexandre. 2008. “The Ongoing Process Towards the Consolidation of the Carbon Marketplace,” World Bank Carbon Unit. Processed. May 2008.

- ———. 2007. “The Role of Carbon Finance in Project Development,” World Bank Carbon Unit. Processed.

- Kremer, Michael. 1998. “Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation.” _The Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 113:4: 1137–67.

- ———. 2000. “Creating Markets for New Vaccines.” _Working Paper_ .

- Kremer, Michael, and Rachel Glennerster. 2004. _Strong Medicine: Creating Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research on Neglected Diseases_ . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

- Kremer, Michael, and Alix Petersone Zwane, eds. 2005. _Creating Incentives for Private Sector Involvement in Povery Reduction: Purchase Commitments for Agricultural Innovation_ . Edited by Inge Kaul and Pedro Conceição, _The new public finance: responding to global challenges_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Labatt, Sonia and Rodney R. White. 2005. _Carbon Finance: The Financial Implications of Climate Change_ . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

- Leonardt, David. 2007. “You want Innovation? Offer a Prize.” _New York Times_ , January 31, 2007.

- Lim, Stephen S, David B Stein, Alexandra Charrow, and Christopher JL Murray. “Tracking progress towards universal childhood immunisation and the impact of global initiatives: a systematic analysis of three-dose diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis immunisation coverage.” _The Lancet_ 372:9655: 2031–46.

94
Lob-Levyt, Julian, and Rebecca Affolder. “Innovative financing for human development.” _The Lancet_ 367:9514: 885–87.

- Maimbo, Samuel Munzele, and Dilip Ratha. 2005. _Remittances: Development Impact and Future Prospects_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Matthäus-Maier, Ingrid, and J. D. Von Pischke. 2008. _New partnerships for innovation in microfinance_ . Berlin; London: Springer.

- Mavrotas, George. 2005. “The International Finance Facility Proposal.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson and World Institute for Development Economics Research., 110–31. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

- Mendez, Ruben P. 1992. _International Public Finance: A New Perspective on Global Relations_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Micklewright, John, and Anna Wright. 2005. “Private Donations for International Development.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson, 132–55. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

- Monitor Institute. 2009. “Investing for Social & Environmental Impact: A Design for Catalizing an Emerging Industry.” http://www.monitorinstitute.com/impactinvesting/.

- Morgan, J. 2000. “Financing Public Goods by Means of Lotteries.” _Review of Economic Studies_ 67.

- Müller, Benito, and Cameron Hepburn. 2006. “IATAL—an outline proposal for an International Air Travel Adaptation Levy.” EV 36: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

- NCVO and CAF. 2007. “UK Giving 2007: Results of the 2006/07 Individual Giving Survey on charitable giving with special reports on gender and causes.” National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Charities Aid Foundation.

- Nehru, V., and M. Thomas (2008). 2008. “The Concept of Odious Debt: Some Considerations.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. www.worldbank.org/debt.

- Nissanke, Machiko. 2005. “Revenue Potential of the Tobin Tax for Development Finance: A

- Critical Appraisal.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson, 58–89. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. “Aid Targets Slipping Out of Reach?” http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/41724314.pdf.

- OECD. 2006. “Development Cooperation Report _.” OECD Journal on Development._

- Olsen, Karen Holm. 2007. “The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature.” _Climatic Change_ :84: 59–73.

- Osborne, Stephen P. 2000. _Public-private partnerships: Theory and practice in international perspective_ . Edited by Routledge. New York: Routledge.

- Outterson, Kevin. 2006. “Patent Buy-Outs for Global Disease Innovations for Low- and MiddleIncome Countries.” _American Journal of Law and Medicine_ 32.

- Oxman, Andy D., and Atle Fretheim. 2008. _An overview of research on the effects of results-_

- _based financing_ . Vol. 455. Oslo: NasjNorwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Systems.

- Pagiola, Stefano, Agustin Arcenas, and Gunars Platais. 2005. “Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America.” _World Development_ 33:2: 237–53.

- Pagiola, Stefano, Ana R. Rios, and Agustin Arcenas. 2008. “Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 299–325.

- Pearce, David. 1991. “The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming.” _The Economic Journal_ 101:407: 938–48.

- Perry, Guillermo. 2009. “The Age of Turbulence and Poor Countries: The Case for MDG Help with Risk Management.” Center for Global Development. Washington, DC.

- Plaut, Steven E., and Arie L. Melnik. 2003. “International institutional lending arrangements to sovereign borrowers.” _Journal of International Money and Finance_ 22:4: 459–81.

95
- Pollak, Jacques J., and Peter B. Clark, eds. 2005. _Reducing the Costs of Holding Reserves: A new Perspective on Special Drawing Rights_ . Edited by Inge Kaul and Pedro Conceição, _The new public finance: responding to global challenges_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Poole, William. 2008. “Financial Innovation: Engine of Growth or Source of Instability?” Speech, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, March 6, 2008.

- PPIAF (Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility). _2008 Annual Report._ Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Pretes, Michael. 2002. “Microequity and microfinance.” _World Development_ 30:8: 1341–53.

- Pui Lee, Shook, International Labour Office. Social Security Dept., and ILO Strategies and Tools against Social Exclusion and Poverty Programme. 2000. _Health micro-insurance: a compendium_ . Geneva: Ilo.

- Radelet, Steve. 2003. “Will the Millennium Challenge Account Be Different?” _Washington Quarterly_ 26:2: 171–87.

- Ratha, Dilip, and Zhimei Xu. 2008. _Migration and Remittances Factbook 2008_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Rawlings, Laura, and Gloria Rubio. 2005. “Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs.” _World Bank Research Observer_ 20:1: 29–55.

- Rawlings, Laura, Lynne Darling Sherburne-Benz, and Julie VanDomelen. 2004. _Evaluating social funds: a cross-country analysis of community investments_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- Reisen, Helmut. 2008. “How to Spend It: Sovereign Wealth Funds and the Wealth of Nations.” _OECD Working Papers, OECD Development Centre Policy Insights_ 59:02.

- Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, and Dalberg Global Development Advisors. 2008. “Designing a Global Financing and Procurement Mechanism for Reproductive Health Supplies.” http://www.rhsupplies.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Final_Report__June_2008.pdf.

- Ridker, Ronald G. 2006. “Ensuring Markets for New Drugs and Vaccines for Poor Countries: Institutional Requirements and Possibilities.” In _Infectious Disease_ , edited by Secretariat of the International Task Force on Global Public Goods, 47–67. Stockholm.

- Roodman, David. 2008. “History Says Financial Crisis Will Suppress Aid.” Center for Global Development. Washington, DC.

- Roodman, David, and Uzma Qureshi. 2006. “Microfinance as business.” _Center for Global Development. Working Paper_ No. 101: 1–57.

- Sabri, Belgacem. 2003. “Healthcare financing in the African countries of the eastern Mediterranean.” _International Social Security Review_ 56:3/4: 73-85.

- Sandmo, Agnar. 2005. “Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson, 33–57. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

- Schmidt, Rodney. 1999. “A Feasible Foreign Exchange Transactions Tax.” North South Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

- ———. 2007. “The Currency Transaction Tax: Rate and Revenue Estimates.” _The North South Institute_ .

- Scott, Simon. 2003. “Philanthropic Foundations and Development Co-operation.” _DAC Journal_ 4:3.

- Shiller, Robert J. 1993. _Macro markets: Creating Institutions for Managing Society’s Largest Economic Risks_ . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- ———. 2003a. “The Invention of Inflation-Indexed Bonds in Early America.” _NBER Working Paper_ W10183.

- ———. 2003b. _The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century_ . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

96
———, ed. 2005. _Managing Risks to National Economies: The Role of Macro Markets_ . Edited by Inge Kaul and Pedro Conceição, _The new public finance: responding to global challenges_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

- Skees, Jerry, Panos Varangis, Donald F. Larson, and Paul Siegel. 2005. “Can Financial Markets be Tapped to Help Poor People Cope with Weather Risks?” In _Insurance Against Poverty_ , edited by Stefan Dercon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Skoufias, Emmanuel, Vincenzo Di Maro, and World Bank. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office. Poverty Sector Unit. 2006. _Conditional cash transfers, adult work incentives, and poverty_ , _Impact evaluation series no. 5_ . Washington, DC: World Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Region Poverty Sector Unit.

- Social Investment Forum. 2008. “2007 Report on Social Responsible Investing Trends in the United States.” Washington, DC: Social Investment Forum.

- http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/pubs/documents/FINALExecSummary_2007_SIF_ Trends_wlinks.pdf.

- Solimano, Andrés. 2005. “Remittances by Emigrants: Issues and Evidence.” In _New sources of development finance_ , edited by A. B. Atkinson and World Institute for Development Economics Research., 177–99. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

- Spahn, Paul Bernd. 2002. “On the Feasibility of a Tax on Foreign Exchange Transactions.” Bonn: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

- Sparkes, Russell, and Christopher Cowton. 2004. “The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility.” _Journal of Business Ethics_ 52:1: 45–57.

- Spratt, Stephen. 2006a. “A Euro Solution: Implementing a stamp duty on euro to finance international development.” Stamp Out Poverty [[incomplete cite]]

- ———. 2006b. “A Sterling Solution: Implementing a stamp duty on sterling to finance international development.” Stamp Out Poverty

- Stiglitz, Joseph. 2006. “Give Prizes not Patents.” _NewScientist_ , September 16, 2006, 21.

- Tang, Kenny, and Ruth Yeoh. 2007. “A fixed-income solution to global warming.” _Financial Times_ , January 22, 2007.

- Technical Group on Innovative Financing Mechanisms. 2004. “Report of the Technical Group on Innovative Financing Mechanisms.”

- http://www.mre.gov.br/ingles/politica_externa/temas_agenda/acfp/Reportfinal%20version.pdf.

- Tendler, Judith. 2000. “Why are social funds so popular?” In _Local dynamics in an era of globalization: 21st century catalysts for development_ , edited by Shahid Yusuf, Weiping Wu and Simon J. Evenett, 114–29. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.

- Teslik, Lee Hudson. 2008. “Sovereign Wealth Funds.” Backgrounder. Council on Foreign Relations. January 18, 2008.

- Tobin, James. 1996. “A Currency Transactions Tax, Why and How?” _Open Economies Review_ 1:Supplement 1: 493–99.

- Torre-Enciso, Isabel Martinez, and John E. Laye. 2003. “Financing catastrophe risk in the capital markets.” _International Journal of Emergency Management_ 1:1: 61–69.

- Tremonti, Giulio, and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze. 2005a. “Advanced Market Commitments for vaccines A new tool in the fight against disease and poverty.” London

- ———. 2005b. “Background papers to Advanced Market Commitments for vaccines: A new tool in the fight against disease and poverty.” London.

- Truman, Edwin M. 2007. “Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Need for Greater Transparency and Accountability.” _Perterson Institute Policy Brief_ PB07-6.

- Turvey, Calum G. 2001. “Weather Derivatives for Specific Event Risks in Agriculture.” _Review of Agricultural Economics_ 23:2: 333–51.

97
Tufano, Peter. 2003. “Financial Innovation,” in _Handbook of the Economics of Finance_ ( _Volume 1a: Corporate Finance)_ , George Constantinides, Milton Harris and Rene Stulz, eds. Elsevier: 307–336.

- United Nations. 2008. Doha Declaration on Financing for Development.

- Wachtel, H. M. 2000. “Tobin and other global taxes.” _Review of International Political Economy_ 7:2: 335–52.

- Weber, Rolf H., and Valerie Menoud. 2008. _The Information Society and the Digital Divide: Legal Strategies to Finance Global Access_ . Zurich: Schulthess.

- Winpenny, J. T., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Development Centre, and SourceOECD (Online service). 2005. _Guaranteeing development?: the impact of financial guarantees_ , _Development Centre studies_ . Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

- Wolfe, Martin. 2008. _Fixing Global Finance_ . Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press.

- World Bank. 2001. _Annual Review of Development Effectiveness: Making Choices._ World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Washington, DC.

- ———. 2004. _World Development Report_ . New York: World Bank and Oxford University Press.

- ———. 2005a. _World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone_ . Washington, DC.

- ———. 2005b. _A Guide to Competitive Vouchers in Health_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- ———. 2005c. _Review of World Bank Conditionality._ Washington, DC: World Bank.

- ———. 2006a. “The Role of the World Bank in Carbon Finance: An Approach for Further Engagement.” Washington, DC.

- http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/Role_of_the_WorkBank.pdf.

- ———. 2006b. “Development Policy Operations: A Framework to Assess Country Readiness for Making Productive Use of Development Policy Operations.” OPCS Paper for IDA14 Mid-Term Review. Washington, DC: World Bank.

- ———. 2008a. _Trust Fund Financial Compendium._ CFP Finance and Risk Unit. Washington, DC.

- ———. 2008b. _Global Economic Prospects 2009: Commodities at the Crossroads._ Washington, DC: World Bank.

- ———. 2008c. _Migration and Development Brief 8_ . Development Prospects Group. Washington, DC.

- ———. 2008d. “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008.” Washington, DC.

- ———. 2008e. “Accelerating Commercialization of Clean Energy Technologies for Developing Countries: A Proposal to Catalyze Development of Appropriate Clean Energy Technologies.” Washington, DC: World Bank.

- ———. 2009. _Banking the poor: measuring banking access in 54 economies_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

- World Bank and GAVI. 2006. “Framework Document: Pilot AMC for Pneumococcal Vaccines.” World Bank and GAVI.

- World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and World Economic Forum. 2007.

- “Catalyzing Private Investment through the Clean Energy Investment Framework. Draft private sector recommendations prepared in cooperation with the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and African Development Bank.” Berlin.

- http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/gleneagles_wbcsdwef.pdf.

- World Economic Forum. 2006. “Blended Value Investing: Capital Opportunities for Social and Environmental Impact.” Geneva: World Economic Forum.

- Wrase, Jeffrey M. 1997. “Inflation-Indexed Bonds: How Do They Work?” _Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia:_ July/August.

98
- Wunder, Sven. 2008. “Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence.” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 279–97.

- Yescombe, Edward R. 2002. _Principles of project finance_ . Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press.

- ———. 2007. _Public-private partnerships: Principles of policy and finance_ . 1st ed, _Elsevier finance_ . Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier.

- Zakri Y. Bello. 2005. “Socially Responsible Investing and Portfolio Diversification.” _The Journal of Financial Research_ 28:1: 41–57.

- Zedillo, Ernesto, and High-level Panel on Financing for Development. 2001. “Report of the Highlevel Panel on Financing for Development.” A/55/1000: United Nations. http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/Zedillo_Report.pdf.

- Zee, Howell H. 2006. “A note on global taxes and aid for development.” _Journal of Economic Studies_ 33:1: 5–11.

- Zilberman, David, Leslie Lipper, and Nancy McCarthy. 2008. “When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?” _Environment and Development Economics_ 13:03: 255–78.

99