International Development Fund and Public Perception

International Development Fund and Public Perception

Public views of externally funded development Programs and Projects with titles containing fancy words like sustainability, resilience, growth, green, blue, orange, circular and modern economies are not publicly very well grasped. While these frameworks are presented as innovative strategies for sustainable development, many people, especially in communities directly impacted by them, remain skeptical. This skepticism stems from lived experience where these concepts often feel more like trendy buzzwords than genuine tools for inclusive growth. While the present article is based on direct observations of the author and un-registered community discussions in Aqaba Jordan, the issue is worthy of in depth studies globally by the development supporters themselves and by national stakeholders including universities and research institutes and NGOs. This is simply because the issue concerns both. The funding agencies benefit significantly if they understand the public opinion on the money they provided and redirect their support accordingly to achieve better geographical and institutional impacts, and the public may feel more confident and become more supportive if trusted studies show that the development money is invested in the right dimensions serving broader stakeholders benefits rather than a limited number of people constituting the direct beneficiaries like employees, consultants or awardees, who are quite often perceived to be selected within narrow circles. Such studies can be particularly important for new funds like GFCR because it is new and it differed from traditional funding by providing blended financing for direct coral reef positive investment based on significant community engagement. I find it relevant here to cite the Address of HE Slovenia President to the UN General Assembly 2025, which I heard after I submitted the Article at the GFCR REEF Portal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_KsGWbPY8c.

The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality

With repeated Programs and Projects that are not leaving tangible positive impact on people’s life, there is a growing perception that these buzzword rich titled developments are more about elite enrichment than inclusive development. This is rooted in several key observations that include:

v Uneven distribution of benefits: The primary beneficiaries of externally funded initiatives often appear to be organizations and individuals with ties to international funding, rather than the broader population. Local communities frequently see no tangible improvement in their livelihoods, services, or living conditions or even long term environmental benefits.

# Donor-driven agendas and poor correlation between plans and implementation: Programs and Projects are often designed to align with donor priorities and use fashionable terminology without ensuring a lasting, positive impact on the ground. Even when projects are designed with community input, at the implementation this often gets sidelined. The result is frustrating seeing participatory planning disregarded by the very institutions that advocate it.

# Implementation focus on process rather than outcome: Communities witness series of workshops, consultancies ending with reports that are mostly unshared and rarely followed up, and pilot programs, but rarely feel tangible benefits. The success of Programs and Projects is often measured by spending and in the best cases by technical indicators and deliverables like reports and workshops, rather than long-term impact and lived improvements such as better jobs, reduced poverty or living expenses, or improved accessibility to resources and services.

# Institutional inertia and focus on short-term optics: Large international organizations often prioritize their own internal benefits, procedures, branding, or their and the donor visibility over the locally relevant, community-driven plans.

# Top-down implementation and power asymmetry: Despite local input in the preparation, the execution is often driven by external consultants or intermediaries who lack a connection to or accountability within the community. Local stakeholders lack the leverage to enforce adherence to the Preparation Documents, especially when funding is controlled by centralized, powerful international organizations.

This disparity may erode public trust and fuel the belief that these frameworks serve as vehicles for the benefit of a select few rather than as a foundation for a more equitable economy. The consequences are unpleasant; eroded public trust seeing valuable resources wasted, and reinforce the myth that solutions coming from outside must dominate.

Reclaiming Integrity; Shifting from Fancy Wording to Action

To shift this narrative, there is a serious need to move beyond rhetoric and towards a more accountable and inclusive approach. The key is to transform these concepts from abstract into concrete, community-centered strategies. This might be achieved through:

# Linking funding to measurable local outcomes: Funding should be tied to tangible improvements that matter to people, such as increased employment or better use of resources or access to essential services leading to enhanced living standards and less poverty.

# Better control and ensuring mandatory adherence: Externally funded Programs and Projects must be implemented in strict accordance with the plans and priorities outlined in the original, participatory documents.

# Better Transparency and oversight: Public dashboards or community scorecards which are commonly stipulated in the Programs’ and Projects’ Documents must be enacted and used to track progress. Independent third-party monitors and grievance channels are crucial to flag deviations and inconsistencies in the use of funds.

# Building coalitions and leveraging influence: Local civil society organizations, artisanal occupational communities, and researchers must unite to advocate for ethical funding frameworks and hold implementing international organizations accountable for their own standards.

Conclusion and the Responsibility of National Authorities

Ultimately, this is a matter of restoring dignity and justice. Honoring the voices of those most affected is not just a technical detail; it is a moral imperative. By ensuring that development is a genuine partnership, it will be possible to move from buzzwords rhetoric to community-centered results. An important fact remains that these central international implementing organizations cannot get the external funding without the required Endorsement Letters from the Competent National Authorities. This simply implies that the Donor Agencies keep the power in the local hands, which puts full responsibility on the Endorsing Competent National Authorities. One more important factor the National Authorities should control to safeguard the interests of their communities is the implementation - execution modality. While the major Funding Agencies like GEF and GFCR support two-tier governance, separating the Implementing Organization in the case of GEF and the Conveying Organization in the case of GFCR from the National Partners, keeping the management of most of the fund in the hands of the National Partners, it is becoming increasingly noticeable in some countries that the Implementing or Conveying Organization is also taking the role of the Regional or the National entities and keeping control on the management of the entire fund rather than a small percentage not exceeding 10%. This is a risky practice that deepens the lack of confidence in International Development Fund. It might be subject of a future communication.