Ergebnisbasierte Ansätze für die Landwirtschaft: Potential und Grenzen

Um bis 2030 den Hunger zu beenden und Ernährungssicherung zu erreichen, sind höhere und effektivere öffentliche und private Investitionen in die Landwirtschaft nötig. Ergebnisbasierte Ansätze (EBAs), d. h. innovative Finanzie¬rungs-modalitäten, die Zahlungen an vorab festgelegte Ergebnisse knüpfen, sind potenziell wirksame Instrumente, um zu Ernährungssicherung beizutragen. EBAs bieten gegenüber traditionellen Modalitäten der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ) eine Reihe von Vorteilen, wie z.B. eine höhere Ergebnisorientierung, bessere Rechenschaftsstrukturen und optimierte Anreize. Darüber hinaus können sie Innovationen beschleunigen und neue private Ressourcen für Maßnahmen in den Bereichen Landwirtschaft und Ernährungssicherung erschließen. Während EBAs im Gesundheits- und Bildungssektor weit verbreitet sind, gibt es in der Landwirtschaft bisher wenig Erfahrungen, und die Eignung des Sektors für das Instrument ist umstritten. Diese Analyse trägt wie folgt zu dieser Debatte bei: (1) die Herausforderungen bei der Umsetzung ergebnisbasierter Ansätze in der Landwirtschaft werden dargestellt; (2) das Modell der fünf ländlichen Welten (Five Rural Worlds, 5RW) (OECD, 2006) wird als Konzept für die Analyse von Zielgruppen in EBAs und der Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Zielgruppen eingeführt, und (3) erste Erfahrungen aus Pilot¬projekten werden zusammengefasst. Drei Typen ergebnisbasierter Ansätze werden vorgestellt: ergebnisbasierte EZ (Vertrag zwischen Regierungen) in Ruanda, ergebnisbasierte Finanzierung (Vertrag zwischen einem Geld¬geber/Partnerregierung und Dienstleister) in Sambia und Development Impact Bonds (DIBs, wirkungsorientierte Investitionen) (Vertrag zwischen Geldgeber, Dienstleister und privatem Investor) in Peru. Die Analyse der drei Pilotprojekte zeigt, dass ergebnisbasierte Ansätze Innovationen in der Landwirtschaft potenziell fördern und eine wichtige Rolle bei der Verbesserung der Ernährungssicherung in Entwicklungsländern spielen können. Ergebnisbasierte EZ kann zusätzliche Anreize für Regierungen schaffen, einen Schwerpunkt auf Innovationen in der Landwirtschaft zu legen und Hunger und Unterernährung langfristig zu verringern. Ergebnisbasierte Finanzierungsprogramme können mit wirtschaftlichen Anreizen für Dienstleister oder Unternehmen zur Bewältigung von Marktversagen beitragen und neue Technologien fördern. DIBs sind eine neue Möglichkeit, private Akteure in die Lösung von Entwicklungsproblemen einzubeziehen. Die Analyse zeigt auch, dass EBAs in der Landwirtschaft angesichts der Komplexität bei der Messung und Erreichung von Ergebnissen in diesem Sektor Probleme aufwerfen. Erstens schwanken die gewünschten Ergebnisse wie höhere Erträge oder Einkommen stark und unterliegen externen Faktoren (z. B. Wettereinflüssen oder Weltmarktpreisen). Zweitens ist die Landwirtschaft ein produktiver Sektor. Marktkräfte und private Akteure spielen in der Landwirtschaft eine wesentlich größere Rolle als im Gesundheits- oder Bildungswesen. Die Verbesserung von landwirtschaftlicher Produktivität und Ernährungssicherung hängt von den Entscheidungen von Millionen von Bauern und Betrieben ab. Die Konzipierung ergebnisbasierter Anreize und die Festlegung der Zielgruppe ist daher viel komplexer als in öffentlich gesteuerten Sektoren. Das 5RW-Modell unterscheidet fünf Arten von Akteuren in der Landwirtschaft von dauerhaft armen Haushalten bis zu großen gewerblichen Landwirtschaftsbetrieben und legt nahe, die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen den RWs in EBAs einzubeziehen

Introducing results-based approaches in agriculture: challenges and lessons learnt

Increased and more effective public and private investments in the agricultural sector are needed to achieve the goals of ending hunger and reaching food security by 2030. Results-based approaches, which are innovative financing modalities that link payments to pre-defined results, are potentially powerful tools for overcoming the food security challenge. Results-based approaches promise several advantages over traditional aid modalities, to include a greater focus on results, better accountability systems and improved incentives. They can also be an important tool for accelerating innovation and leveraging additional resources from private investors for agricultural and food security interventions. While widely applied in the health and education sectors, only few experiences with results-based approaches in agriculture exist, and the suitability of the sector for the instrument is debated. Our briefing paper contributes to this debate by: laying out the challenges to implementing results-based approaches in the agricultural sector; introducing the Five Rural Worlds model (5RW) (OECD, 2006) as a framework for analysis of targeting and interdependencies; and summarising first experiences from pilot programmes. We briefly review three pilot interventions representing different types of results-based approaches: results-based aid (a contract between governments) in Rwanda, results-based finance (a contract between a funder/host-country government and a service provider) in Zambia, and development impact bonds (DIBs) (a contract between a funder, a service provider, and a private investor) in Peru. The analysis of the three pilot programmes shows that results-based approaches have the potential to foster innovation in agriculture and to play an important role in improving food security in developing countries. Results-based aid programmes can provide additional incentives for partner country governments to focus on agricultural innovation and on reducing hunger and malnutrition in the long run. Results-based finance programmes, by offering economic incentives to service providers or private companies, can help to overcome market failures and foster the adoption of new technologies. DIBs are a novel way to engage private actors in addressing development challenges. However, our analysis also shows that implementing results-based approaches in agriculture is challenging because of the complexity of measuring and achieving results in the sector. First, desired outcomes such as increased yields or incomes are highly variable and influenced by external conditions (e.g. weather and world market prices). Second, agriculture is a productive sector. Market forces and private actors play a much more important role in agriculture than in health or education. Improving agricultural productivity and food security relies on the decisions of millions of farmers and enterprises. Hence, designing results-based incentives and deciding whom to target is much more complex than in sectors dominated by the government. Using the 5RW model, which distinguishes between five types of rural actors, ranging from chronically poor households to large commercial agricultural enterprises, we find that results-based approaches should take into account interrelations between the RWs

Thematische Allokation von Entwicklungszusammenarbeit: wo liegen die Vor- und die Nachteile?

Öffentliche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (Official Development Assistance - ODA) wird überwiegend länderbezogen verteilt. Geber entscheiden unter Abwägung der Bedürfnisse von Entwicklungsländern sowie eigener Interessen, welches Land wie viel Unterstützung erhält. Anschließend wird über die Themenbereiche der Zusammenarbeit entschieden. Allerdings gewinnt zunehmend ein alternativer Ansatz an Bedeutung: die thematische Allokation. Damit ist die Zuweisung von Mitteln für bestimmte Themen vor der Auswahl der Partnerländer gemeint. Die Sonderinitiativen des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (BMZ) sowie die präsidentiellen US-Initiativen für Gesundheit und Ernährung sind hierfür prominente Beispiele. ODA-Allokation stellt wichtige Weichen für den Einsatz knapper, öffentlicher Gelder. Globale Veränderungen werfen die Frage auf, ob Mittel weiterhin primär länderbezogen oder eher thematisch verteilt werden sollten. Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist historisch auf die Unterstützung ärmerer Länder ausgerichtet. Diese Länder sind mittlerweile jedoch sehr unterschiedlich (fragile Staaten, graduierte Länder, etc.). Die Nord-Süd-Logik hinter dem Begriff „Entwicklungsland“ verliert im Kontext der universellen 2030 Agenda an Bedeutung. Die globalen Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) sind thematisch gegliedert. Viele Herausforderungen erfordern länderübergreifende Lösungen (z.B. Klima, Gesundheit, Migration). Thematische Allokation richtet Entwicklungszusammenarbeit an internationalen Herausforderungen aus. Bisherige Erfahrungen zeigen damit verbundene Chancen und Risiken. Thematische Allokation kann Mittel für wichtige Anliegen mobilisieren, Ressourcen bündeln und die Sichtbarkeit der Zusammenarbeit erhöhen. Sie ermöglicht länderübergreifende Zusammenarbeit, bietet Raum für Innovationen und ist flexibler. Jedoch umgehen einige Initiativen lokale Kapazitäten und die Institutionen der Partnerländer häufiger als bei länderbezogener Allokation. In anderen Fällen entstehen unkoordinierte Parallelstrukturen, die laufende Aktivitäten nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen. Um die Ziele der 2030 Agenda zu erreichen, wird thematische Allokation in Zukunft weiter an Bedeutung gewinnen. Geber sollten daher systematisch prüfen, wie stark sie sich künftig thematisch ausrichten wollen. Darin liegt eine Chance, Vorteile besser zu nutzen und Risiken zu minimieren. Die Herausforderung besteht insbesondere darin, den flexibleren Kooperationsrahmen thematischer Allokation wirksam zu nutzen. Dazu sollten Geber ihr Profil schärfen und Themen entsprechend ihrer komparativen Vorteile auswählen. Geber benötigen zudem Strukturen, um die Zusammenarbeit aller relevanten Akteure zu einem Thema intern (z.B. durch Whole-of-Government-Ansätze) und extern kohärent zu steuern. Schließlich sollten Geber Vorkehrungen treffen, um die Eigenverantwortung der Partnerländer bei einem Perspektivwechsel von Ländern zu Themen zusätzlich zu stärken

Thematic aid allocation: what are the benefits and risks?

Aid allocation is typically country-based, i.e. focusing first on how to distribute Official Development Assistance (ODA) across countries. Donors consider the needs of developing countries as well as their own interests before deciding which country should receive how much assistance. Subsequently, donor and partner governments choose the thematic areas or sectors of cooperation, such as health, education, the environment, or food security. As an alternative approach, thematic allocation has gained increasing relevance. This form of allocation earmarks funds for specific issues prior to the selection of partner countries. The special initiatives of Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the United States (US) presidential initiatives for health and food security are prominent examples. The process of aid allocation is crucial for the effective use of scarce public funds. Global changes raise the question to what extent funds should continue to be allocated in a primarily country-based manner or whether a thematic approach is more useful. Historically, development cooperation has evolved as a policy to support poor countries. However, these countries now vary greatly in their development (fragile states, graduated countries, etc.). The North-South logic underlying the term “develop¬ing country” is inconsistent with the universal 2030 Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are organised thematically. Many challenges require cross-border solutions (e.g. climate, health, migration). Thematic allocation aligns development cooperation with international challenges. Experience thus far shows both benefits and risks. Thematic allocation can mobilise funding for key issues, bundle resources and raise the visibility of aid. It enables cross-border cooperation, offers room for innovations and is more flexible. Yet, a number of initiatives bypass local capacities and the institutions of partner countries more frequently than country-based allocation does. In other cases, uncoordinated parallel structures arise, which do not take sufficient account of ongoing activities. Thematic allocation is likely to become more important as part of the global effort to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Donors should therefore systematically examine to what extent they want to use thematic allocation in the future. A rigorous assessment can help to better utilise benefits and minimise risks. The key challenge is to make effective use of the more flexible cooperation framework offered by thematic allo¬cation. To this end, donors should sharpen their thematic profiles and select issues according to their comparative advantages. Donors also require adequate organisational structures to be able to coordinate all relevant actors in a given issue area, both internally (e.g. through whole-of-government approaches) and externally working together with a broad range of partners. Ultimately, donors should further strengthen the role of partner countries in thematic programmes and initiatives to ensure that a shift of perspective from countries to themes does not come at the expense of country ownership

Big Results Now? Emerging Lessons from Results-Based Aid in Tanzania

Ongoing experiments with results-based aid (RBA), a development cooperation modality that disburses grants or loans in response to the achievement of pre-defined results, constitute an important and influential trend in international development cooperation. This discussion paper seeks to contribute to the emerging literature that assesses the wide-ranging RBA experiments by different donors. The paper analyses design features and initial implementation experiences of three ongoing RBA programmes in Tanzania that support government reforms in the water, education and decentralisation sectors. In addition to their design elements, these three programmes share a common context in the Big Results Now! (BRN) programme, which the government launched in 2013 to improve the provision of public services. Based on its analysis, with particular attention to the specific capacity development support related to the RBA programmes, this paper concludes that the overarching BRN set-up as well as the nature of capacity development support clearly prioritises short-term gains over longer-term sustainability. More importantly though – and given the overall context and interests of all involved – the paper suggests that these tendencies are not intrinsic to RBA as a modality but rather a more common feature of development cooperation as such

Improving Education Outcomes by Linking Payments to Results - An Assessment of Disbursement-Linked Indicators in Five Results-Based Approaches

In results-based approaches, funding is linked to pre-agreed results that are defined in the form of indicators. Disbursements only take place once progress in the indicators has been verified. This places high requirements on the quality of indicators used. Different development actors have started implementing results-based approaches, yet little attention has been paid to potential advantages and disadvantages of the specific indicators that are used. The paper addresses this gap by first conceptualising a typology of indicators and devising criteria for assessing the quality of indicators. The typology and criteria are then applied to five results-based pilot programmes in the education sector in developing countries (Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Tanzania). A comparison of the indicators used across these programmes provides insights into how indicators for results-based approaches can be selected in a more informed manner in the future. Key words: results-based approaches, results-based aid, development cooperation, disbursement-linked indicators, educatio

Results-Based Approaches in Agriculture: What is the Potential?

Increased and more effective public and private investments in the agricultural sector are needed to address the challenge of ending hunger and achieving food security by 2030. This paper analyses the potential of results-based approaches – an innovative financing instrument that links payments to predefined results – to contribute to this challenge. Results-based approaches promise several potential advantages over traditional aid modalities, such as a greater focus on results, better accountability systems and improved incentives that increase aid effectiveness. They are also discussed as an important tool to accelerate innovation and to leverage additional resources from private investors for agricultural and food security interventions. Although widely applied in the health and education sectors, there are only a few experiences with results-based approaches in the agricultural sector, and the suitability of the sector for the instrument is debated. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate by reviewing three pilot interventions representing different types of results-based approaches: results-based aid (contract between governments), results-based finance (contract between a funder/host-country government and a service provider/company) and development impact bonds (contract between a funder, service provider and private investor). The analysis draws on existing literature on results-based approaches, expert interviews as well as on programme and guidance documents by various development agencies. The three interventions are compared based on three dimensions that have been shown in the literature to be important building blocks of results-based approaches. These are (1) selecting measurable results (2) setting up payment and verification mechanisms and (3) providing support to the incentivised actor. In addition, the potential and limitations of each pilot are assessed towards dealing with external factors influencing results, such as climate variability, addressing the complexities of different rural worlds – ranging from large-scale agro-economic companies to the landless poor – and the prospects for scaling-up. The analysis shows that results-based approaches have the potential to foster innovation in agriculture and can play an important role to increase food security in developing countries. Results-based aid programmes can provide additional incentives for partner country governments to focus on reducing hunger and malnutrition in the long run. Results-based finance programmes – by offering economic incentives to service providers or private companies – can help to overcome market failure and foster the adoption of new technologies. Development impact bonds are an innovative way to engage private actors in addressing development challenges. However, we also find that the agricultural sector poses additional challenges for implementing results-based approaches. For example, paying for results is more difficult in agriculture than in many other sectors. Desired outcomes such as increased yields or incomes are highly variable and influenced by external conditions (e.g. weather and world market prices). Intermediate outcome or output indicators, such as increased areas under irrigation or hectares under new technologies, are easier to measure and more attributable to a programme, but leave less room for innovation and experimentation. In addressing the complexities of different rural worlds, results-based programmes already show their benefits in targeting specific groups. However, a more systematic assessment of the inter-linkages between the rural worlds can yield additional benefits for the implementation of results-based approaches

Post 2015: Why is the Water-Energy-Land Nexus Important for the Future Development Agenda?

The concept of sustainable development and the idea of an integrated approach that satisfies the complex linkages between water, energy and land should be part of a post-2015 development agenda. Water, energy and land are essential for many lifesupporting functions and key for satisfying basic human needs and development. Access to these resources and their sustainable management are the basis for sustainable development. Sector policies regarding water, energy and land are intertwined, particularly in their trade-offs. Policies for one sector often entail consequences – externalities – for the other two sectors, be they on a local, national, regional or global scale. These interconnections add to current pressures on water and land as well as on resources that fuel our energy system, and will thus exacerbate existing scarcity problems, as the demand for food, water and energy is expected to rise by 30–40 per cent by 2030. In the outcome document of Rio+20, water, energy and land feature as priority areas for the formulation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As regards water, SDGs should build on existing concepts like Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and the human right to water. The UN Secretary General’s Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative illustrates what SDGs could look like for the energy sector. SDGs related to land and biodiversity could build on the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) initiative, which aims at reducing the rate of land degradation, and on the new biodiversity targets that were negotiated in 2010 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In order to take account of the nexus between water, energy and land, any proposed list of goals for a post-2015 agenda needs to meet three requirements: Balancing the social, economic and environmental dimension: the goals should integrate and balance social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability to promote synergies and avoid tradeoffs among them. Achieving coherence across goals: the goals should be coherent with other (sustainable) development goals of the post-2015 agenda and take into account an integrated perspective with a view to the waterenergy- land nexus. Agreeing on universal goals: the goals should apply to all countries universally rather than only to developing countries. In general, new goals should take into account secondorder conditions related to other dimensions (e.g. in the context of sustainable development or the water-energyland nexus), different levels (global, regional, national etc.) and be adapted to countries’ diverse states of development (high-income, middle-income, low-income)

The Fragile Road Towards Peace and Democracy: Insights on the Effectiveness of International Support to Post-Conflict Burundi

How can international engagement support fragile states on their path towards peace and democracy? In light of perpetuating and recurring armed conflict all over the world, this question is of utmost importance to many policymakers. In order to better understand factors influencing the effectiveness of this support, this present paper analyses international support for peace and democratisation in the so far relatively successful case of Burundi. After one decade of civil war, a seriously weakened Burundi state faced the double challenge of overcoming not only its violent past but also the legacy of socio-political exclusion and ethnic antagonism. Since then, the international community has engaged strongly in supporting Burundi on its road towards peace and democracy. The country has made remarkable achievements in this regard – such as adopting a new constitution in 2005 and dissolving its rebel armies through integration and demobilisation. Recently, however, progress has stalled. The 2010 elections were overshadowed by the opposition’s boycott, further narrowing the already limited political space. Each of these three processes was shaped by political power struggles and had a decisive impact on Burundi’s future development. By analysing each of them in detail, this research generates valuable insights into internal dynamics of post-conflict peace and democratization as well as international support thereto. The research was guided by three explanatory factors (hypotheses) drawn from academic literature, which suppose that 1) prioritising stability over democracy , 2) choosing coopera­tive over coercive forms of cooperation , and 3) high levels of coordination enhance the effectiveness of international support for peace and democracy. However, only the last presumption was confirmed: coordination of donor activities did indeed have a positive impact on its effectiveness. Yet, contrary to expectations from the literature, prioritising stabilisation has hampered democratisation and actually reduced the effectiveness of democracy support. Similarly, the Burundi case calls for qualifications regarding the second explanatory factor: depending on the circumstances, either cooperative or coercive measures rendered external support more effective