Annex C. Methodological note
The quantitative analysis on the state of blended finance in LDCs was conducted using different data sources, namely OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) statistics on private finance mobilised by official development interventions (OECD DAC, 2020[13]); Convergence database of historical blended finance transactions (Convergence, 2020[14]); as well as results from the 2018 OECD Survey on Blended Finance Funds and Facilities (Basile, Bellesi and Singh, 2020[15]); (Basile and Dutra, 2019[16]).
The OECD DAC methodology for measuring the amounts mobilised from the private sector was developed under a high-level mandate from DAC members. Reporting on amounts mobilised by official development finance from the private sector has been part of the regular OECD DAC data collections since 2017. Official development finance includes: (i) bilateral official development assistance (ODA), (ii) other official flows (OOF) for development purposes (including refinancing loans) that do not meet the criteria set by the ODA definition, and (iii) the concessional and non-concessional operations of multilateral financial institutions.
In the case a few providers, data are collected through complementary ad hoc surveys (e.g. the Dutch entrepreneurial development bank, FMO). The methodology progressively included guidance for reporting on the amounts mobilised for seven major leveraging mechanisms: guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in collective investment vehicles (CIVs), direct investment in companies and special purpose vehicles, credit lines, project finance schemes and simple co-financing arrangements. The OECD DAC dataset on mobilisation includes information for all seven leveraging mechanisms that goes back to 2012. The private finance mobilised dataset is dynamic and continually being updated. This report presents the latest available data.
Activity-level data on the amounts mobilised are, however, in many cases subject to confidentiality constraints. Concerning some multilateral development banks (MDBs), data-sharing agreements needed to be developed to facilitate the data provision to the OECD. Furthermore, the use of such data is often restricted to a specific number of analytical outputs. A joint MDB–OECD DAC working group on measuring mobilisation was set up in 2019 to address these concerns and discussions are ongoing. The private finance mobilised dataset is continually being updated due to staggered reporting by development finance providers. This report presents the latest available data.
The official providers who report to the OECD private finance mobilised are: African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Caribbean Development Bank, Council of Europe Development Bank, Credit Guarantee and Investment Facility, Czech Republic, Denmark, Development Bank of Latin America, European Union institutions, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Finland, France, Germany, Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund, IDB Invest, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Inter-American Development Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Development Association, International Finance Corporation, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, Netherlands, Nordic Development Fund, Norway, Portugal, Private Infrastructure Development Group, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
The report also benefits from analysis of the results of the 2018 OECD survey on blended finance funds and facilities. There were 180 complete survey responses collected, more than double the amount from the inaugural OECD survey held in 2017. The responding vehicles represent a total of USD 60.2 billion in assets under management. Further details on the methodology used for the survey, as well as on the results are available in (Basile and Dutra, 2019[16]) and (Basile, Bellesi and Singh, 2020[15]). The OECD is currently running the 2020 edition of the survey.
The report also presents quantitative analysis contributed by Convergence, providing an additional perspective on blended finance in LDCs. The analysis by Convergence draws from its database of historical blended finance transactions. Whereas the OECD information draws from the annual reporting exercise undertaken as part of the OECD DAC statistics, Convergence collects information from other credible public sources (e.g. press releases, case studies, news articles), as well as through data-sharing agreements and validation exercises with its members. To be included in Convergence’s database, the transaction must use concessional capital (public or philanthropic), whereas the OECD’s scope extends to all development finance, independent of the terms of its deployment. For example, Convergence will not capture a fund that is purely concessionally funded, which aims to mobilise co-financing from the private sector for blending at the underlying investee level. This also helps to avoid double counting (e.g. counting a concessional facility and its underlying projects that have attracted private financing). As a result of these differences, Convergence and the OECD will often capture different levels of blending, which makes the two databases complementary. Another important difference is that Convergence captures the total deal size (including the development finance deployed), while the OECD accounts only for the amount of private finance mobilised in each operation.
Given the current state of information sharing, it is not possible for either of the data sources to be fully comprehensive. While some transactions may be captured in multiple sources, the information collected is complementary. The data sets are distinct from each other as they each capture a different segment of the blended finance market – see Table C.1 below for an overview of the main structural differences between the three data sources.
Finally, the report also presents analysis on the financing for sustainable development landscape in LDCs, with data from the OECD Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021 (OECD, 2020[8]). The methodology used for the data analysis is provided in the report.
References
[15] Basile, I., V. Bellesi and V. Singh (2020), “Blended Finance Funds and Facilities - 2018 Survey Results Part II: Development Performance”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/7c194ce5-en.
[16] Basile, I. and J. Dutra (2019), “Blended Finance Funds and Facilities: 2018 Survey Results”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 59, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/806991a2-en.
[14] Convergence (2020), Convergence - Blending global finance, https://www.convergence.finance/.
[5] ITU (2019), Measuring digital development. Facts and figures 2019, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf.
[8] OECD (2020), Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021: A New Way to Invest for People and Planet, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e3c30a9a-en.
[13] OECD DAC (2020), Amounts mobilised from the private sector for development, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/mobilisation.htm (accessed on 19 June 2020).
[12] UN (2020), Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2020, Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development, https://developmentfinance.un.org/sites/developmentfinance.un.org/files/FSDR_2020.pdf.
[3] UN (2020), “Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011–2020 - Report of the Secretary-General”, http://unohrlls.org/custom-content/uploads/2020/04/English_SG-report.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2020).
[2] UN (2018), Committee for Development Policy Report on the twentieth session (12–16 March 2018), United Nations (UN), https://undocs.org/en/E/2018/33.
[1] UN (2018), List of Least Developed Countries (as of December 2018), https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf.
[11] UN/DESA (2020), COVID-19 and sovereign debt, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-72-covid-19-and-sovereign-debt/ (accessed on 25 June 2020).
[9] UNCTAD (2020), World Investment Report 2020, https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2020_en.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2020).
[7] UNCTAD (2018), Statistical Tables on the Least Developed Countries - 2018, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldcr2018stats_en.pdf.
[6] UNDP (2018), Human Development Data (1990-2018), http://hdr.undp.org/en/data.
[4] World Bank (2019), World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
[10] World Bank and IMF (2020), Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA), https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/debt-toolkit/dsa (accessed on 25 June 2020).