The Virtues of TOSSDing

About this paper

Satire: Writing as the fictitious Professor John Speedy, this contribution uses exaggerated praise and ten deliberately extravagant recommendations to question TOSSD's coverage and self-promotion. Its mock proposals and claims form part of the satire; they are not recommendations endorsed by ODA Reform or a factual biography of a real professor.

Editorial note: The original text follows in its historical context. References to rules, proposals, figures and future events reflect the source document, rather than an update to the present day.

Click twice on the link below to download the original pdf:

John Speedy - TOSSD.pdf

Download PDF • 248KB

Everyone Should Become a TOSSDer!

A modest proposal for improving the self-promotion of “Total Official Support for Sustainable Development”

By Professor John Speedy

I have written before about the noble efforts of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee to broaden its definition of “official development assistance” (ODA) so as to properly account for the full extent of its member countries’ largesse. As I showed, however, these efforts still fall short of the mark. Just scoring ODA for profitable loans, investments, and guarantee schemes and pumping up the figures with domestic spending on students, refugees and government propaganda provides donors with inadequate reward or encouragement. They should be credited with far more spending on international development than ODA could ever encompass. And the more credit they could get for money that never leaves the donor (but which, as you will see below, still brings huge benefits to developing countries), the more funding will be left for the serious research on international development issues that I and my colleagues pursue here at the Institute for Advanced Study in Punkydoodles, Ontario, and that is similarly pursued by tens of thousands of underpaid experts, professors, analysts and NGOs across all donor countries.

For these reasons, I was delighted to learn about the recently developed measure of Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD). Finally, I thought, someone has taken my words to heart and created a system that has the potential to properly measure donors’ generosity to the world.

The ambition of TOSSD is to measure “the full array of resources to promote sustainable development in developing countries”, and its website explains that:

“It is designed to monitor all official resources flowing into developing countries for their sustainable development, but also private sources mobilised through official means. It also measures contributions to International Public Goods.”

At first sight, TOSSD looked to be just what the doctor ordered, since it quite rightly dispenses with several of the outdated restrictions on reporting of ODA. As just one example, the DAC’s antiquated ODA rules still only allow donors to score spending on the temporary sustenance of refugees arriving in their countries, and if they are still there after twelve months, ODA eligibility ceases. In 2022, as reported by the London Guardian, this pettifogging restriction meant the UK could only claim as ODA “three times more aid on housing refugees than it sends to Africa”. TOSSD wisely sweeps away ODA’s twelve-month limit, drops the exclusion of spending on integrating refugees into the donor economy, and removes the necessity for beneficiaries of assistance to be refugees in the first place. This means that all spending on migrants arriving in developed countries qualifies as TOSSD up to five years after they land. Naturally, this is bound to satisfy not just to donor countries like the UK, who will finally receive full and just recognition for their sacrifice to the cause of sustainable development, but also to sending countries. Having spent years training up doctors for instance, poorer developing countries can glow with pride when these qualified people depart to fill labour shortages in rich countries’ health services. And it’s a win-win in another way: the UK, as just one example, remunerates its health workers so generously that doctors trained in an African country will easily be able to send handsome remittances back home to help ensure that the next generation of their countries’ best and brightest get their own opportunities to train up and move to greener pastures in rich countries that can properly reward their talent.

TOSSD also adds new sorts of projects that represent a valuable addition to transparency about the benefits that the Global South is enjoying thanks to the generosity of donor countries. In particular, it includes spending on “research and development” that contributes to “international public goods”. Several donors have had a good rummage around for relevant activities and reported to TOSSD subsidies on research projects of vital importance to the global poor, such as those on:

- forecasting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean

- urban development in Munich in the 19th century;

- a “Novel Evolutionary Model for the Early Stages of Stars”

- the testing of robots in international competitions;

- the impact of artificial intelligence on freedom of expression

- a hate speech monitoring platform

- “Contacts between Romano-Byzantine and barbarian worlds in the light of die-linked gold coins found in Europe and Central Asia”; and

- a "mental joystick…for multimodal human machine interaction”.

So TOSSD clearly has the potential to, as it claims, “break the mould of the traditional aid narrative” by including vital contributions to the sustainable development of poor countries that ODA has heartlessly excluded. Unfortunately, however, most donors are only scratching the surface of “the full array of resources to promote sustainable development in developing countries” eligible under TOSSD. The only country that seems to have made a serious effort to record its generosity is France. The key to its success has been reporting its domestic expenditure on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which is “in principle” eligible as TOSSD. Thus it has scored:

- $6.4 billion for renewable energy in France

- $5.3 billion more for renewable energy in France

- $3.4 billion for solar panels in France

- $2.4 billion more for solar panels in France

- $2.2 billion for wind turbines in France

- $1.4 billion more for wind turbines in France

- $1 billion for renovating the insulation of public buildings in France

- $870 million for electric car and bicycle subsidies in France

- $278 million for European hydrogen research projects

- $123 million for insulation of private houses in France.

This clearly demonstrates TOSSD’s potential to put on show the full range of donors’ contributions to international development. Tragically, however, most donors are still not taking advantage of it to report all their altruistic spending to help developing countries. The UK, my country of birth, again seems to be a laggard in demonstrating its largesse. I have long noticed that there is a good deal of public expenditure on maintaining all those wonderful parks in London, which certainly should count as TOSSD given the benefits of green places for taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Similarly, after the recent General Election, I watched with horror the race riots taking place across the country but, again, realised that the police action to quell the trouble, including putting out fires that were polluting the atmosphere, should count as TOSSD.

And I now see that the new UK Labour Government seems to be planning a massive house-building programme, including on the green belt. I am sure those houses will be built to minimise carbon dioxide emissions, benefiting from the latest UK research, and that many of them will house migrants. So they clearly qualify as TOSSD – in fact, three times over.

A cynic might ask why the negative impacts caused by depleting oxygen-emitting vegetation through building are not being deducted, or why other actions taken by donor countries that detract from the benefits of TOSSD-eligible global public goods are not deducted. However, just as Mary Todd Lincoln wrote a fair review of the play “Our American Cousin” in the days following the performance that she and her husband attended at Ford’s Theater in April 1865, we need not dwell on petty downsides. In the same way as “negative” financial flows (from developing countries into the coffers of donor Treasuries) are now rightly ignored by the OECD/DAC in its ODA accounting, only positive contributions to TOSSD are recorded, with all headline figures being reported gross. This recognises the underlying truth that nothing rich countries do in the way of extracting interest, profits and dividends damages the development of poorer countries around the world.

Now is the time for not only the UK, but for ALL donors, to take the late Prince Philip’s advice and make a serious effort to score ALL their TOSSD. The world’s biggest donor, the United States, is another black sheep in this regard. I am aware of a number of US projects that clearly should have featured in its TOSSD reporting, and can even confirm their eligibility for my rebellious southern neighbours by indicating the specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to which they most clearly contribute:

- The $500k the National Institute of Health sent to a college to create a casino for pigeons as part of a “self-contained miniature economy”, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) plus SDGs 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure), 11 (Sustainable Cities & Communities) & 12 (Responsible Consumption & Production).

- The $75k the National Science Foundation spent on capturing lizards to test their “resilience” in the face of hurricane force winds, SDG 13 (Climate Action – especially adaptation) plus SDG 15 (Life on Land).

- The cost ($477k) of attempts funded by the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases to turn male rhesus macaques into trans monkeys, SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) plus SDGs 3 (Good Health & Well-Being) & 15 (Life on Land);

- The $556k spent by the National Science Foundation studying animal faeces “to test a mathematical model of defecation”, SDG 3 (Good Health & Well-Being) plus SDGs 12 (Responsible Consumption & Production) & 15 (Life on Land).

Clearly, all these projects bring global benefits in support of the SDGs, and there are thousands more where they came from that should all be (ahem) “TOSSD” into the mix.

Of course, statistical experts will no doubt bleat that TOSSD’s ambition to capture the whole universe of contributions to “international public goods” and “development enablers and global challenges” will inevitably lead to meaningless data that cannot be considered statistics. This is nonsense. The truth is that with appropriate application and clear thinking, almost any spending can (and should) be shoe-horned into these definitions, in order to show that donors’ contributions to sustainable development are far larger than anyone ever imagined, and, what’s more, growing every year as donors find more and more to report. Excluding them based on an outdated accounting puritanism would mean the public would never learn of the sort of valuable sustainable development contributions enumerated above.

For all these reasons, TOSSD categories are perfectly valid, and the nit-picking gripes of so-called professionally independent statisticians should be rigorously ignored.

What TOSSD does need to fix is the current massive under-reporting of its highly innovative new coverage. The reasons for this need to be explored and fully understood.

First and foremost, it is clear that not enough attention is being paid to proselytising and enforcing this new global standard. Now I must admit that TOSSD has at least been pretending to put a bit of effort into marketing. Its charter makes a show of obliging each TOSSD member to “Promote the International Forum and the TOSSD standard” and “Commit to using TOSSD data to the greatest extent possible in official work and public communications”. The first task of the TOSSD Co-chairs is also to “Promote the vision of the Forum”, and they must in addition “Promote the use of the TOSSD standard”. Then too, its annual General Assembly has to “Make recommendations on and support the implementation of the communications and outreach strategy for TOSSD”, and its Steering Group has to “Advocate for and disseminate International Forum activities...Support outreach and engagement around the International Forum [and...] Promote TOSSD data as evidence for policy dialogue on support for sustainable development.” Finally, the mission statement of the whole TOSSD governance structure is that it “promotes and supports the effective global implementation of Total Official Support for Sustainable Development.”

Of course, the outdated and pedantic statisticians I just mentioned would look askance at these provisions. They would maintain that a good statistical measure sells itself by providing correct numbers about real things that people actually want or need to know about. What sentimental rubbish! What matters in statistics is political acceptability and, as the OECD has shown with its prior work on ODA, this demands accounting rules that incentivise politically desirable outcomes and make those who produce or fund the statistics look good. It is these characteristics that enable a statistical standard to become powerful, to push others aside and to dominate its field. TOSSD can only reach these goals if it turns its many pious commitments to self-promotion into decisive action.

So far, its efforts in this regard have been woefully inadequate. The UN should have been a prime target for aggressive outreach, yet TOSSD principals have only organised about twenty promotional events in New York, and the rest of the world has been even more seriously deprived of the good news, with a mere handful of other marketing presentations being given in Nairobi, Brussels, Dubai, Brasilia, Beijing, Ottawa, Pretoria, Stockholm, Geneva, Washington, Santiago, Vienna, Lisbon, London and Dakar. Now admittedly this puny travel roster has been augmented by full-scale “country pilot studies” conducted in Senegal, the Philippines, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Burkina Faso and Chile, as well as by the odd promotional video, various online workshops and “capacity-building” seminars, and a dozen “data stories”, but when you consider that these efforts have been spread out over nearly a decade, it’s clear that the necessary “oomph” has been sadly lacking.

Given TOSSD’s seeming indifference to the need for self-promotion, it is no wonder that the major statistical publications of international organisations have made so little use of TOSSD figures. Indeed, it is shocking that neither TOSSD data, nor even any mention of TOSSD, is included in any of the last three World Development Reports of the World Bank, even though the topics were “Data for Better Lives”, “Finance for an Equitable Recovery” and “Migrants, Refugees and Societies”. Nor does so much as a word about TOSSD appear anywhere in the last three UNDP Human Development Reports. The OECD-DAC's major publication of development finance data, Geographical Distribution of Financial Flows, contains no TOSSD data, even though the OECD funded the TOSSD project until 2023 and still hosts its Secretariat. Nor are any TOSSD figures available on the World Bank's Open Data Portal. The last two United Nations Financing for Sustainable Development Reports do contain brief paragraphs acknowledging the existence of TOSSD, but they fail to use a single TOSSD datum in their scores of tables and graphs – when, of all people, the authors of those reports should realise that TOSSD is bound to become the pre-eminent measure of resources supporting the sustainable development of developing countries.[1]

It is almost as if major international organisations don’t believe in TOSSD and don’t recognise it as a credible statistical measure. That is not just unfathomable, it is unacceptable. And while I note that TOSSD has now set specific objectives to “Increase references to TOSSD in major reports and by specific target groups in their documentation and meetings” and “Increase TOSSD presence on social media”, a lousy half a million dollars a year allocated to promotional activities will barely make a dent in achieving these aims.

One bright spot is that the repeated encouragement from TOSSD staff for countries to at least mention TOSSD in their Voluntary National Reviews of SDG progress has finally borne fruit. Five countries have now done it (six if you count the EU). A remarkable achievement, but where are the other 188 UN member states? Pressure on them to align with their peers must be stepped up at once!

Overall, it is clear that the major global benefits offered by reporting TOSSD are simply not being seized. The world is still unaware of the sacrifices that the rich donor countries are making in diverting HUGE quantities of taxpayers’ money to the cause of helping developing countries to achieve the SDGs via the most diverse and unsuspected pathways. If only TOSSD could be fully and diligently reported, it would be obvious that, far from there being a funding gap for achieving the SDGs, a massive surplus of funds is already being deployed and the SDGs can be met comfortably, even ahead of the 2030 deadline, with money to spare for other high-priority global tasks, such as funding my own Institute – which, I can assert objectively, ought to be a TOSSD priority. The Global South is still sadly unaware of the massive oversupply of development finance it is already benefiting from, partly because the bulk of clearly eligible TOSSD expenditures is not being reported, but also because of the bashful reticence of TOSSD principals to make any serious effort to explain TOSSD’s manifest virtues.

TOSSD can put this right…but only by stepping up promotion substantially. This should include more effective incentives for countries to join TOSSD, and participate joyfully. Sure, the TOSSD Co-Chairs are already required to “Work to expand the number of TOSSD data Reporters and users of TOSSD data” and “Encourage attendance, as well as the full and equal participation, of all participants in the meetings of the Forum’s bodies”. And all TOSSD Members must “Commit to actively participating in the International Forum”. But anyone can make promises. Real progress will require introducing more efficient carrots and sticks.

These must include reinforced sanctions to prevent backsliding. It’s true that sovereign governments are already not allowed to leave TOSSD without a period to “reflect”[2] and that there is some modest pressure to suck in Observers, who can only remain in that status for two years “after which the Observer is expected to become an IFT Member or give up its Observer status in the Forum for three years”. The Secretariat is also tasked to lobby countries and organisations “to start reporting, improve their reporting and avoid reporters dropping out.” But again, TOSSD principals and their hosting body, the OECD, need to introduce some real discipline into this, or risk seeing the movement lose momentum.

Recommendations

Given the urgent need to establish TOSSD’s pre-eminence once and for all, the currently proposed augmentations to its outreach strategy do not go nearly far enough. I therefore offer the following humble recommendations to inject some much-needed energy into its advocacy efforts and tighten discipline at all levels of the TOSSD movement:

1. As part of scaled-up grassroots efforts to build global enthusiasm for TOSSD, international poetry and song-writing competitions should be held, where the winners would be those entries that truly excite audiences about this wonderful new reporting standard.

2. In the same vein, students across the globe could compete in an essay-writing competition about new and additional types of spending that TOSSD could cover. The global community needs to be challenged to “think outside the box”, and not hamstring TOSSD’s coverage by quibbling about whether activities have provable development impacts or whining about statistical quality standards.

3. Another “cultural” contribution could be the writing of an international anthem, celebrating through song the spiritual and material benefits and global harmony that TOSSD is bestowing. This should reflect TOSSD’s manifest destiny to “build trust”, “unlock the future”, “thrive for transparency” and of course “break the mould of the traditional aid narrative”. It should be sung at all major international political and sporting events.

4. The most commonly used image in TOSSD presentations, the man with the outsized bullhorn:

…should become the official TOSSD symbol and be incorporated into a flag that can be flown on occasions of sufficient global importance, such as UN and G7 Summits, Stanley Cup finals, and even future Olympic Games where, even if there is resistance to this symbol replacing the “Five Rings”, it could certainly emblazon the shirts of the athletes from the Refugee Team.

5. Global thought leaders and social influencers should be enlisted. For example, the great champion of progressive values and sustainability, Elon Musk, could be prevailed upon to support TOSSD through his social media platform (incidentally, any subsidies or tax breaks enjoyed by Space X, or TESLA, should certainly be counted as TOSSD – USA please take note!).

6. Countries which do not immediately appreciate the ineffable wonders of TOSSD reporting should face appropriate sanctions. The UN should consider withdrawing voting rights from recalcitrant non-TOSSD members, and the OECD and other international organisations should make full and active TOSSD participation a criterion of membership.

7. Every TOSSD member should be required to report to the annual TOSSD General Assembly on its activities to promote TOSSD. The whole TOSSD body would then rate these performances. The most accomplished TOSSDers would receive a golden palm, while those with the lowest scores would get compulsory retraining to elevate their performances.

8. Reporting and use of TOSSD data should no longer be merely encouraged; it should be mandated. All TOSSD members must undertake to do this themselves and to use their voting power on the governing boards of refractory international organisations such as the UN, World Bank and OECD to block their budgets until they reconfigure their data portals to give priority to TOSSD, and guarantee that TOSSD data will appear in their publications in preference to all other measures of international financing of sustainable development.

9. Funding of TOSSD work must be assured in perpetuity. Demanding up to a measly €200,000 a year as an ongoing membership fee is totally inadequate to guarantee the sort of funding required for TOSSD to reach its full potential. TOSSD members should be considering million-dollar “helicopter drops” of financial commitment, such as France and the EU have already made. Innovative financing mechanisms such Tobin taxes or airline surcharges should be directed to TOSSD rather than being frittered away on subsistence farmers, early years education, or curing tropical diseases.

10. Finally, dissent should be dealt with far more severely. Just rapping sceptics over the knuckles is not good enough. A fully-fledged TOSSD Apostasy Tribunal should be set up and invested with inquisitorial and penal powers. And in the case of more serious heretics who, wilfully and selfishly, criticise TOSSD, I believe their crimes should be added to the list of offences covered by the International Criminal Court.

To facilitate international debate on this package of necessary reforms, I will from now on refer to them as the “Campaign for Unswerving Loyalty to TOSSD” or CULT. I would expect my CULT approach to rapidly expand the current limited TOSSD membership, so that in a few short years the whole world might become just one great happy band of TOSSDers.

Notes

1 TOSSD’s claims to pre-eminence may raise suspicions that it is a donor plot to replace ODA and destroy the ODA target, since TOSSD “comes with no commitments, no responsibility and no expectations attached”. I am aware of this often-voiced critique, and also of charges that TOSSD is so conceptually incoherent that it fails to qualify as a unitary statistical quantity, and that its reporting is catastrophically incomplete. Now, I admit that there is a grain of truth in these criticisms. But the cavillers do not realise that the very things they complain about merely reflect TOSSD’s tremendous untapped potential. As soon as reporting is stepped up to an even vaguely credible level, TOSSD will indeed be able to meet its core aim to “break the mould of the traditional aid narrative”. For years now, the call has been to “turn billions into trillions” of development finance, but even half-complete TOSSD reporting will show that the trillions are already there, that commitments and targets are no longer needed, and that there is already more than enough finance to meet all developing countries’ legitimate needs, but also to make a quantum leap in the understanding of global issues by funding the pathbreaking research of prestigious institutions such as my own. All that is required is a more serious effort to persuade the whole global system to align with TOSSD data standards, as I explain further below.

2 Withdrawal will not be considered immediate: "The withdrawal will be effective twelve (12) months after reception of the letter by the co-Chairs."

Additional references from the original PDFs

Eurodad statement to the OECD DAC High Level Meeting

Original post image