Do the Strong Receive What They Can?

Explaining the Allocation of Environmental Aid

C H R I S M A R C O U X T H E C O L L E G E O F W I L L I A M A N D M A R Y C H R I S T I A N P E R AT S A K I S U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S

Augmenting Available Data

I.

Improving the breadth of coverage  Adding multilateral and bilateral donors not reporting to OECD DAC  Moving beyond ODA by including other types of aid flows  Adding additional years of data for existing donors (e.g. IDA) II.

Improving the depth of coverage  Adding more detail for existing project records  Documents  Descriptions  Co-financiers

Getting the Data

 OECD CRS  Donor Documents: Annual Reports, Project Factsheets  Historical Data  Often not digitized  Webscraping: Online donor data  Reliable; Quick; Automatically updated  New information captured readily  Direct from Donors: Phone; Email; Site Visits  Official; Primary source  Difficulties of winning donor cooperation

Total Development Flows in AidData by Year Millions (2000 USD) $200 000 $180 000 $160 000 $140 000 $120 000 $100 000 $80 000 $60 000 $40 000 $20 000 $0 1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 CRS CRS Augmented Non Dac 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

List of Fields

Blue = New in AidData AidData 1.0 has 67 variables:  Donor Project ID                         Donor Code/Name Beneficiary Location Recipient Code/Name Source Source Detail Source Type Contacts/Role of Contact Financing Agency Implementing Agency Other Organization Commitment Date (not available in online version of CRS) End Date Start Date Year Commitment Original Currency Disbursement Original Currency Total Cost Commitment Constant Commitment Current Flow Code Grace Period Grant Element Interest Rate                          Investment Marker Date of first/last repayment Number of repayments per year Type of repayment Status Tied Aid, Partially Tied Aid, Untied Aid Description (long) Description, original language Short description Title Title, original language Biodiversity Marker Climate Change Marker CRS Purpose Code/Name (partially new, we imputed values for the data we added) Environmental Impact Assessment Marker Freestanding Technical Cooperation Gender Equality Marker PDGG Marker Sector Name/Code Sector Programme Aid AidData Activity Codes/Descriptions AidData Dominant Sector Code/Name AidData Feasibility Study Marker AidData Technical Assistance Marker Notes

Aid From Recipient Perspectives

 When Small Donors Matter:  Small donors can still have a big impact in specific countries  Example: Mauritania in 2007  Existing sources of data misses 61% of the flows Mauritania received.

Total Aid given to Mauritania in 2007 (in USD 2000): Existing Data vs. PLAID Augmented Data

New AidData Data 61% Existing Data 39%

• 0%=All Aid from Traditional Donors • 100%=All Aid from Non-Traditional Donors

Composition of Flows to Africa

Explaining the Allocation of Environmental Aid

 Annual reports and websites of donor agencies emphasize the high levels of environmental degradation experienced by recipient countries.

 Recipient governments complain of donor-dominated environmental agendas that focus on regional and global threats and neglect development (as well as local environmental needs).

 Who is right?

Categorizing Environmental Assistance

 5-point ordinal scale  Environmental, Strictly Defined (ESD)  Environmental, Broadly Defined (EBD)  Neutral (N)  Dirty, Broadly Defined (DBD)  Dirty, Strictly Defined (DSD)

Categorizing Environmental Benefit

 All environmentally friendly projects (ESD or EBD) are further coded by scope:  Green Global or Regional Environmental Problems ex: climate, ozone depletion, biodiversity  Brown Local / National Environmental Problems ex: drinking water treatment, soil erosion

$160 000 000 000 $140 000 000 000 $120 000 000 000 $100 000 000 000 $80 000 000 000 $60 000 000 000 $40 000 000 000 $20 000 000 000 $0

Tracking Environmental Aid

Dirty Neutral Environmental

$200 000 000 000 $180 000 000 000 $160 000 000 000 $140 000 000 000 $120 000 000 000 $100 000 000 000 $80 000 000 000 $60 000 000 000 $40 000 000 000 $20 000 000 000 $0

Environmental Aid & Additionality

Environmental Neutral Dirty

$18 000 000 000 $16 000 000 000 $14 000 000 000 $12 000 000 000 $10 000 000 000 $8 000 000 000 $6 000 000 000 $4 000 000 000 $2 000 000 000 $0

Green|Brown Aid & Additionality

Green Brown

$18 000 000 000 $16 000 000 000 $14 000 000 000 $12 000 000 000 $10 000 000 000 $8 000 000 000 $6 000 000 000 $4 000 000 000 $2 000 000 000 $0

Green|Brown Aid & Additionality

Green Brown

Environmental Aid: Bilateral & Multilateral

$12 000 000 000 $10 000 000 000 $8 000 000 000 $6 000 000 000 $4 000 000 000 $2 000 000 000 $0 Bilateral Donors Multilateral Donors

$12 000 000 000 $10 000 000 000 $8 000 000 000 $6 000 000 000 $4 000 000 000 $2 000 000 000 $0

Environmental Aid Type: Bilateral Donors

Green Brown

Environmental Aid Type: Multilateral Donors

$8 000 000 000 $7 000 000 000 $6 000 000 000 $5 000 000 000 $4 000 000 000 $3 000 000 000 $2 000 000 000 $1 000 000 000 $0 Green Brown

Top Recipients of Environmental Aid

1980s ($5.08)

1. Brazil $134.97

2. Egypt $9.50

3. India $5.36

4. Philippines $1.21

5. Indonesia $1.50

6. Korea $195.36

7. Bangladesh $0.43

8. Turkey $142.34

9. Algeria n/a 10. Mexico $6158.76

1. China

1990s ($2.80)

$2.09

2. Brazil $5.40

3. India 4. Philippines 5. Mexico 6. Indonesia 7. Egypt 8. Argentina 9. Turkey 10. Thailand $2.57

$1.43

$10.17

$1.86

$5.89

$11.25

$10.85

$4.83

1. China

2000s ($2.26)

$2.78

2. India $2.92

3. Russia 4. Vietnam 5. Brazil 6. Morocco 7. Indonesia 8. Mexico 9. Iraq 10. Bangladesh $0.64

$2.75

$3.81

$4.83

$1.22

$4.88

$113.02

$2.01

$250 000 000 $200 000 000 $150 000 000 $100 000 000 $50 000 000 $0

Namibia Aid Portfolio

4 линейный фильтр (Dirty) 4 линейный фильтр (Neutral) 4 линейный фильтр (Enviro)

$30 000 000 $25 000 000 $20 000 000 $15 000 000 $10 000 000 $5 000 000 $0 1983

Namibia Aid Portfolio (cont’d)

4 линейный фильтр (Brown) 4 линейный фильтр (Green)

Next Steps

 Develop and test a model of environmental aid allocation that accounts for recipients’ interests and power.   Since these may vary by issue, I focus on environmental transfers related to biological diversity – one of the two major treaties negotiated at UNCED.  Examine how much aid is given under the umbrella of MEAs (financial transfers) and assess success of financial transfers in building capacity (completeness of nat’l reporting)

“Greening Aid” allocation model

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

Ecofunctionalism Aid correlates with environmental significance of recipients Donors will target recipients with poor environmental quality Institutionalism Donors will target recipients based on revealed preferences Donors will favor governments that provide credible/verifiable information about environmental performance Realpolitik “Loyal” recipients will receive more aid Donors will disproportionately favor large recipients Liberalism Donors will favor trading partners