[HN Gopher] Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted...
___________________________________________________________________
Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam
finds
Author : wallbrownf
Score : 233 points
Date : 2024-10-27 18:41 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oxfam.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oxfam.org)
| hilux wrote:
| Maybe it's time for an update to the excellent _Lords of Poverty_
| (1994).
| haccount wrote:
| [flagged]
| motohagiography wrote:
| The world bank used to just pay off autocrats under the guise
| of indebting their countries for "infrastructure," and for
| policy concessions to foreign extractive industries. Activists
| complained until they had control, and have clearly cut out the
| middle men and are looting it for themselves. POSIWID.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What is the Global South going to spend $4 trillion on?
| wongarsu wrote:
| I imagine flood mitigation for population centers,
| hydroelectric dams, renewable energy, electricity grids, rail
| lines and public transportation, etc
| EA-3167 wrote:
| That's what's on the label, but clearly not what's in the
| tin.
| mmooss wrote:
| Healthcare, education, housing, food ...
| hilux wrote:
| To pay World Bank consultants, of course!
| mmooss wrote:
| Are you saying people in those countries will have a problem
| finding worthwhile investments?
|
| The US spent ~$6 trillion in one year, 2023 [0] on ~330 million
| people. Billions live in the Global South and are in much
| greater need of resources, due to lack of accumulated capital
| investments.
|
| [0] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59727
| fakedang wrote:
| That's an incorrect measure to look at though. Per capita
| social expenditure is highly dependent on the welfare
| structure of a country. There are developed countries
| (notably the Arab welfare states - for their citizens only!)
| which get away with a much lower expenditure even adjusted
| for PPP, simply because the government directly handles the
| provision of a lot of essential services such as education
| and healthcare. The US Medicare system is structured in a way
| to inflate its own costs.
| mmooss wrote:
| However you measure it, finding investments for $4 trillion
| will not be hard.
| nradov wrote:
| Since China is apparently part of the "Global South" (despite
| being in the Northern hemisphere) I suppose they'll spend it on
| various things like coal-fired power plants, petroleum imports
| from Iran, condos in Vancouver, shark fin soup for Communist
| Party banquets, ICBMs to point at us, bribes to foreign
| politicians, etc.
| nxm wrote:
| Most will be wasted through corruption I'm willing to bet
| mannyv wrote:
| When it comes to non-profits and NGOs, it's the thought that
| counts.
| animal_spirits wrote:
| Applies to government organizations too.
| jampekka wrote:
| And corporate accountability.
| dang wrote:
| Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
| solarpunk wrote:
| getting an invalid cert warning when heading to this domain
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yeah--it's expired. One of the pitfalls of the push to encrypt
| everything.
| starttoaster wrote:
| One of the pitfalls of not using commonly available
| certificate renewal and rotating services.
| beejiu wrote:
| It's still encrypted and you can still access it.
| starttoaster wrote:
| edit: Misinformation, the below user is mostly correct. It
| IS still less secure than a properly validated TLS
| connection though.
|
| The certificate is expired, your traffic to and from that
| site is not encrypted. If it were the case that your
| traffic could still be encrypted, what would even be the
| point of expiring the certificate?
|
| You're correct that you can still access it, over an
| unencrypted connection, however.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| An expired certificate still encrypts your traffic. You
| might have to change settings or click through a scary
| warning in your browser, but other than that a
| certificate doesn't magically quit working as soon as it
| expires. The expiration date is arbitrary.
| starttoaster wrote:
| You are correct, I had to do a bit of research. Because
| Chrome even explicitly states that traffic to a site with
| an expired certificate is unencrypted. But I guess that's
| mostly to scare you, because the truth is that it just
| opens you up to potential MitM attacks and other similar
| issues with regular ole HTTP, but traffic between you and
| an unverifiable identity is at least TLS encrypted.
| yarg wrote:
| > Because Chrome even explicitly states that traffic to a
| site with an expired certificate is unencrypted.
|
| If that's the case, then Google's condescension is doing
| a disservice to its users.
| yarg wrote:
| It's insane the way that browsers shit the bed if there's
| any issue with the certificate.
|
| Just throw in a big red exclamation point on top of the
| little padlock icon next to the URL bar - it's literally
| only there to inform the user about any potential security
| issues. Use it and (unless the site is known to be or
| obviously malicious) load the bloody page.
|
| Honestly, it's absolutely insane that the browser
| misrepresent out of chain HTTPS as more of a threat than
| HTTP.
| fwip wrote:
| You'd think they could give a less-scary warning for
| like, the first week after expiration. It's not really
| any less secure 2 days past expiry than it was 2 days
| before, and a grace period would give the host a bit more
| time to address these issues.
| fragmede wrote:
| I don't know why my bank's website's got this red button,
| but I really need to transfer my funds right now, so
| lemme just mash whatever button I need to mash to get to
| the website. Ugh, why are computers so dumb!
|
| Seems fine.
| edm0nd wrote:
| >Expires On Friday, October 25, 2024 at 11:20:58 PM
|
| yup. I'm sure the one dude responsible for it will get to it on
| Monday.
| dang wrote:
| We've since changed the URL (see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965323).
| riazrizvi wrote:
| Some context, Oxfam isn't a perfect organization. They struggle
| with fraud and graft. This is a part of their ongoing effort to
| reduce it, and sometimes yes that does mean pointing the finger
| past themselves too.
| c0brac0bra wrote:
| Remind me what happens to a US citizen if our personal finances
| "struggle with fraud" and unaccountability to the tune of 40%
| when it comes to the IRS?
| iudqnolq wrote:
| The money is not actually missing*.
|
| Oxfam attempted to add up all the numbers in various PDFs
| linked on the World Bank's website and got a total that's
| less than the headline figure in the World Bank's press
| releases. (See the actual report at https://oxfamilibrary.ope
| nrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...)
|
| Some of that is probably missing data and some of it reflects
| that headlines like "USA donates 1 billion" don't actually
| always result in the US making a bank transfer for a billion
| dollars. For example sometimes it's a simplification of a
| complicated loan.
|
| Your comment reflects a common misconception about audits.
| When the books don't add up that doesn't show that money is
| actually missing.
|
| I don't love analogies to personal finance but a better one
| would be to suppose you asked a random US citizen what they
| spent money on last month and then compared it to their bank
| account. They'd probably be wrong, and you probably wouldn't
| have enough information to know exactly how wrong they were
| because they didn't save all their receipts and so on.
|
| *edit: this report provides no evidence money is missing. to
| be fair it doesn't disprove missing money either
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Great comment. On one hand I like what Oxfam has done,
| which is to show that the World Bank has poor financial
| controls and should do a much better job tracking where
| funds are actually spent. On the other hand I don't like
| how this is reported/interpreted (and Oxfam I think
| deserves some blame for how their investigation is
| characterized) as "there is a ton of fraud at the World
| Bank". That's simply not accurate, and your edit sums up
| the situation very well
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| While I'm continually frustrated by the complexity and
| opaqueness of the US tax code, your analogy doesn't make any
| sense to me. If your personal finances "struggle with fraud",
| it means _you committed fraud_. So yeah, of course you should
| be held directly responsible. That 's very different from a
| large organization doling out money for tons of various
| complex projects, and those 3rd parties (or 3rd parties down
| the chain) commit fraud.
|
| Heck, if you give money to someone and they commit fraud and
| abscond with your money, you get to take a tax write-off for
| the stolen funds.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > you get to take a tax write-off for the stolen funds.
|
| At least for US federal taxes, that changed with a very
| partisan ~2017 law, where Republicans stripped it down to
| only cover federally declared unique disaster situations.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Thanks, I was unaware of that change. Note that limit
| largely just applies to personal property: "For tax years
| 2018 through 2025, individual taxpayers with theft losses
| are allowed a deduction if the loss is due to theft
| related to a transaction entered into for profit.", https
| ://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515#:~:text=For%20tax%20year..
| ..
|
| E.g. for financial fraud crimes, you much more than
| likely would still be able to take the loss.
| situationista wrote:
| I don't read this as a problem of fraud within Oxfam. They
| audited the World Bank and found there was fraud in the bank.
| Or am I missing something?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| They didn't find that there was fraud. They just found that
| the World Bank has poor financial controls and a lack of
| transparency in determining where funds are spent.
|
| Of course, a lack of financial controls makes it easier for
| people to actually commit fraud, but the Oxfam report didn't
| go to that next level and look for specific evidence of
| fraud.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| > They just found that the World Bank has poor financial
| controls and a lack of transparency in determining where
| funds are spent.
|
| You mean like a certain crypto exchange CEO that recently
| went to jail for it?
| pyrale wrote:
| Pretty sure that CEO was not just bad at accounting. In
| fact, he was pretty good at it, since all the "mistakes"
| were designed to benefit him.
| orwin wrote:
| I have an uncle who actually audited a large org and found
| evidence of fraud. Each time something weird was found, he
| investigated, and alsmot each time fraud of some sort was
| involved. Pressure increased as the time passed, from all
| side (especially below, as he was near the top of that
| bank, but from the side too).
|
| He and his team were physically threatened and had to have
| bodyguards (actually, it was cops, but they acted as
| bodyguards). In the early 2000s he decided to call it quit,
| after 8 years. He told us that the weirdest fraud of all
| was money laundering, as it was at the same time the
| easiest and the hardest to prove, depending on who did it.
|
| All that to say actually finding fraud is hard, proving it
| is even harder, and can be dangerous even for lower orgs,
| so i won't criticize Oxfam for letting it rest where it is.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Seems like they are based in Kenya and fraud/corruption is
| rampant in some of these African nations. Really sad but its
| seemingly been like this for so long which is why many of the
| countries there are in constant civil wars, coups, and their
| populations poor/starving.
|
| If hundreds of billions of dollars in aide over 2 decades isn't
| fixing these nations, what will?
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Is there overlap between what you think needs to be fixed vs
| what the folks in those African countries think needs to be
| fixed?
| dosinga wrote:
| Kenya is not a rich country, but hardly suffers from "civil
| wars, coups, and a starving population". Not all African
| countries do.
| ianeigorndua wrote:
| If you really believe that, you should take a look at the
| Wikipedia page of Kenya, especially the history section.
| normie3000 wrote:
| Which part of it?!
| Fuzzwah wrote:
| Probably the 1982 coup and 1988 elections.
| fakedang wrote:
| I see someone hasn't worked in Kenya.
|
| There's a lot of change happening now in Kenya, especially
| in terms of stable and democratic governance, but in no way
| is it not corrupt. It ranks at near the top consistently
| amongst African nations for corruption and bribery at all
| levels of the government.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Oxfam is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya because it's
| considered a relatively stable/safe country with relatively
| good facilities and infrastructure. Nairobi provides a good
| central location to reach other parts of Africa where much of
| their work is based, and Kenya also provides a favourable
| regulatory environment for these international organisations
| to operate. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is also based
| there.
|
| Both of these organisations certainly have their issues with
| corruption, fraud, and grift, but that would likely be the
| case no matter where they are based. If anything, being
| physically closer to where much of the money is being spent
| should help them keep a closer eye on the work that they're
| funding.
| elmomle wrote:
| One idea I've read in the works of Ivan Illich (among others)
| is that the best thing we could do for developing countries
| that struggle with corruption is to leave them the hell alone
| when it comes to financial matters (aside, perhaps, from
| canceling their World Bank debts, which often come from loans
| made to past corrupt governments and for which the people are
| unjustly held accountable) and let them sort their problems
| out. Injecting money, even with the best of intentions, tends
| to make things worse when there are already structural
| problems.
| nradov wrote:
| How exactly could we even "leave them the hell alone"?
| Developing countries are integrated into the world economy
| and financial system. Other countries trade with them. If
| they want to issue sovereign debt then someone will buy it,
| if not the World Bank then the Chinese government or random
| private investors. The World Bank isn't perfect but they're
| at least somewhat helpful with improving governance
| standards and avoiding the most egregious forms of
| corruption.
| detourdog wrote:
| This problem inspired this program at Williams college. The
| locals get the opportunity to interact with the students by
| attending or hosting functions.
|
| One of the functions is each student presenting their country
| and their interests.
|
| Always got the sense the program is to train public officials
| on proper methods of government.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| > In October [2021], David Beasley, head of the U.N. food agency,
| tweeted a cheeky congratulations to Musk for reportedly earning
| $36 billion in a single day. "1/6 of your one-day increase would
| save 42 million lives that are knocking on famine's door," he
| wrote.
|
| > A few days later, Musk tweeted: "If WFP can describe on this
| Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will
| sell Tesla stock right now and do it."
|
| Last I heard he owed $11B to the US Gov in taxes in 2021, I hope
| it was put to good use.
| darepublic wrote:
| The work on the Esplanade. No show jobs, no work jobs
| javajosh wrote:
| I wish this was a link to the original Oxfam audit. It's strange
| to me that an audit would say that there's somewhere between $23
| and $41 billion missing. If the audit really knew what it was
| doing, wouldn't it have a more precise number What is unaccounted
| for?
|
| That said, it's high-time for organizations like the World Bank
| to have fully transparent finances. Like, I should be able to go
| to a website and see where every single dollar is being spent. I
| say this as someone who's a citizen of a country who contributes
| heavily to the org And therefore, I think I have a right to know
| where my money's going.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Here's the page on the Oxfam website:
| https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/41-billion-world-ban...
|
| It links to a report which seems to be the main publication,
| but frankly is very light on details of their audit. Also a lot
| of the claims are very strangely phrased which makes it
| difficult to figure out if the criticisms are legitimate or
| overblown.
| wslh wrote:
| I don't think at this point they could publish a complete
| report since some information should remain confidential for
| further investigation.
| zdragnar wrote:
| > It's strange to me that an audit would say that there's
| somewhere between $23 and $41 billion missing.
|
| Audits have degrees of certainty; an opinion may be
| unqualified, meaning the records are spotless, qualified,
| meaning there are issues but the records are trustworthy, and
| adversarial, meaning the records are inaccurate and do not
| represent the actual financial status.
|
| If the records are questionable, it will usually take much more
| investigation than a standard audit to track down every money
| unit and produce a clean accounting of the money. Hence, it is
| possible to identify that records are wrong, but knowing
| exactly whether the money is still present but unaccounted for
| versus the money is actually gone from the organizations
| control without a record of the transaction isn't yet
| determined.
|
| The DOD itself hasn't passed an audit ever. Money comes and
| goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does
| not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that
| the DOD and World Bank are unable to demonstrate that it _hasn
| 't_ been.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| > Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial
| standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has
| been embezzled, only that the DOD and World Bank are unable
| to demonstrate that it hasn't been.
|
| Can you think of a better place to embezzle? Its risk-free
| without any accounting standards. 100% that embezzling is
| taking place and at a large scale.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Given that the DOD is the largest employer in the USA at
| nearly a million people, there's almost certainly some
| small amount going on at a minimum.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How do you know it's risk-free?
|
| I've heard the budget battles between the Navy and Air
| Force can get particularly severe.
| SideQuark wrote:
| You don't have a right to peer into finances of other orgs, no
| matter what you dream, any more than you can see into your
| neighbors house when they get tax benefits.
|
| I'd guess you're American based on your entitlement.
| yfw wrote:
| You should if they expect you to fund them
| bozhark wrote:
| Nonprofits do why no for profits too?
| ww520 wrote:
| You don't have a right to the money then.
| fmajid wrote:
| The World Bank is an international organization, accountable
| to its shareholder governments, themselves accountable to
| their respective people, as all but China, Russia and Saudi
| Arabia are democracies.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > I'd guess you're American based on your entitlement.
|
| Probably. Only Americans demand accountability from
| governments and publicly funded international organizations.
| The rest of us have learned to shut up and keep our heads
| down, and continue to worship our masters.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the readers here are being "chumped" IMHO .. lots of comments
| fall hook, line and sinker for an obvious rage-bait. Does not the
| article say that these are "declared allocated" but not yet
| dispersed? Is this related to the multi-hundred billions pledged
| through the Paris Accords system that have not actually been
| applied to anything yet?
|
| Intelligent people here are quick to jump on a 2-dimensional
| puppet headline to provoke the predictable canned outrage.
|
| Yes, outrage is certainly appropriate .. daily oil profits?
| wasteful and unrelenting energy practices across civilization?
| stonethrowaway wrote:
| You don't actually expect us to do something about this, do
| you?
|
| Outrage posturing is the name of the game. Say a lot. Sound
| serious. Threaten action. Do nothing.
| calibas wrote:
| > Does not the article say that these are "declared allocated"
| but not yet dispersed?
|
| Not sure where you're seeing that in the article, it doesn't
| use that language at all. It actually directly contradicts what
| you're saying in the first sentence:
|
| "Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance --nearly 40
| percent of all climate funds disbursed by the Bank over the
| past seven years-- is unaccounted for due to poor record-
| keeping practices"
| motohagiography wrote:
| Original source: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-
| releases/41-billion-world-ban...
| dang wrote:
| Changed now (see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965323). Thanks!
| setgree wrote:
| That's a big number, but I'm not shocked by the error/graft, nor
| its source (poor accounting).
|
| A well-regarded development organization I used to work for went
| through a quiet reorganization in 2016 when a few million dollars
| came up missing. It turned out that just getting materials to
| rural places in Sub-Saharan Africa was really, really hard to do
| without graft along the way.
|
| I don't know how things ultimately resolved, but it's not obvious
| to me that effective countermeasures would have been cheaper than
| letting some of the money leak out in the delivery chain. It's an
| inherently hard problem to disburse development aid to the right
| parties in the right amounts.
| lbriner wrote:
| Deciding where to spend it is most certainly hard but
| accounting for it is very easy. Even if the money was $100K to
| Jimmy to get the stuff into Algeria, there would be some
| tracking and accountability.
|
| It's weird that with the sort of numbers that could lift some
| countries out of poverty, we can't even write something down in
| a spreadsheet.
| fwip wrote:
| I think the top-level spreadsheets are accurate - it's the
| spreadsheets five layers down that might have errors
| (intentional and otherwise).
| ethbr1 wrote:
| At the end of the day it's people time. And people time costs
| money.
|
| So how many dollars et al. do you want you want to spend
| documenting how you spent your dollars?
|
| Presumably < 100% and > 0%?
|
| But what's the right number? If we spend $1 in accounting for
| every $1 spent on mission, and that produces a perfect audit
| trail, is that too much or little?
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > It's weird that with the sort of numbers that could lift
| some countries out of poverty
|
| This is not how you end poverty. This is how you pad the
| pockets of whatever entity is best positioned to receive that
| amount. It will promptly be flown with those people to the
| Dubai gold market where an all-gold suit will be purchased
| and the rest of the country never sees a dime.
|
| Ultimately self sufficiency needs to be obtained in a stable
| and scalable way and then the proceeds can distribute across
| the economy better.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > getting materials to rural places in Sub-Saharan Africa was
| really, really hard to do without graft along the way
|
| "Graft" shouldn't need to be an unknown monetary amount missing
| from a bank account, especially for something like transporting
| things:
|
| * Can they wear hidden cameras/microphones to get the amounts
| documented?
|
| * Are they using local transport companies and staff or are
| they valiantly parading their bright white Hiluxes and Range
| Rovers as UN type orgs are prone to do, which attracts an undue
| amount of attention?
|
| At some point the transport cost becomes a fixed cost of
| whatever that can at least be reported back to donors. Nobody
| donating to this type of cause expects transport to be a small
| number.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| https://archive.is/TJR4l
|
| Site certificiate expired October 25, two days ago.
|
| Site is not authoritative/original link:
|
| https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/41-billion-world-ban...
|
| https://archive.is/5Zhg0
|
| The report itself:
|
| > Download Oxfam's new report "Climate Finance Unchecked."
|
| > https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
| bubblesnort wrote:
| [flagged]
| oseityphelysiol wrote:
| Please elaborate.
| Veen wrote:
| Probably this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43112200
| dang wrote:
| Please don't do this here.
| starttoaster wrote:
| Why not link to the horse's mouth instead of some random site
| with expiring TLS certs? https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-
| releases/41-billion-world-ban...
| 1024core wrote:
| @dang: maybe change the submitted link? Thanks!
| 93po wrote:
| you have to email the mod team, hn@ycombinator.com. i think?
| perihelions wrote:
| Yeah, this domain is weird spam.
|
| - _" As published on: africa.cgtn.com, Friday 18 October,
| 2024."_
|
| I can confirm the OP text is indeed identical to the text on
| that CGTN article (Chinese state-owned media). This is simple
| plagiarism--among other things.
|
| edit: On that tangent, CGTN Africa itself plagiarized Oxfam's
| press release--it's obviously the same text, run through an LLM
| for rephrasing. It's SEO spam all the way down!
| dang wrote:
| Changed from https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2024/october/green-
| finance-ox... above. Thanks!
| cle wrote:
| > Activists are calling for the Global North to provide at least
| 5 trillion U.S. dollars annually in public finance to the Global
| South as a down payment on their climate debt to those least
| responsible for climate change but most affected by it.
|
| Huh? I'm pretty sure the Global South produces significantly more
| carbon emissions than the Global North. Like double. (Someone
| please correct me if I'm wrong?)
|
| From a quick Jupyter CSV excursion: Region
| North 13307.26 South 24518.75 Name:
| Emissions, dtype: float64
|
| (based on
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...)
|
| (edit: updated, miscategorized Australia)
| Retric wrote:
| Edit: NM, putting Australia but not China in the global north
| is an odd use of north and south.
| cle wrote:
| Aren't China and India in the Global South?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
| Retric wrote:
| Personally I don't think China is a developing economy at
| this point. ~25k per capita GDP (PPP) and sub 5% economy
| growth per year. India by contrast is just 11k per capita
| GDP (PPP).
| cle wrote:
| I'd maybe agree, not sure. I'm mostly interested in
| figuring out what the "activist demands" are,
| specifically. On the surface using these common
| definitions, they seem a bit extreme.
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| The South emits a lot producing products consumed in the North
| geysersam wrote:
| Okay but what are the numbers per population? If you include
| 80% of the world population in south it's quite unsurprising
| that they constitute a large part of the emissions.
|
| Besides, the debt is something accumulated over time. Even if
| the emissions of India are large today they were much lower 40
| years ago, while European emissions were probably larger at
| that time.
| immibis wrote:
| We export our pollution to them...
| carlosjobim wrote:
| I sense that no matter what the situation would be, people
| will always find a way to blame "the North" for everything
| and anything in the world, and absolve "the South" from
| everything and anything that they do. It's religion at this
| point.
| triceratops wrote:
| "Global South" doesn't mean literally countries in the Southern
| hemisphere.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Sometimes I feel like a mug, because I am one of the chumps who
| is not stealing from the government.
|
| Pesky conscience and personal ethics
| DevX101 wrote:
| How much of that is your ethics vs you not having the
| opportunity to?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-27 23:00 UTC)