Oxfam finds that for World Bank projects, many things can change during implementation. On average, actual expenditures on the Bank’s projects differ from budgeted amounts by 26–43% above or below the claimed climate finance. Across the entire climate finance portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this difference amounts to US$24.28–US$41.32 billion. No information is available about what new climate actions were supported and which planned actions were cut. Now that the Bank has touted its focus on understanding and reporting on the impacts of its climate finance, it is critical to stress that without a full understanding of how much of what the Bank claims as climate finance at the project approval stage becomes actual expenditure, it is impossible to track and measure the impacts of the Bank's climate co-benefits in practice. The Bank should improve its reporting practices, undertake a climate finance assessment on closed projects, standardize how it reports on climate finance in projects and create a public climate finance database. A webinar was hosted on October 17, 2024 to launch this report and you can access the recording here. This page was updated on November 2, 2024 to address an error in the accompanying data. This change has no impact on the findings of the report.

Presentation This Policy Brief aims to propose specific modalities that can strengthen the review processes of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It advocates for a purpose-oriented, multi-evidence, and multi-stakeholder approach that not only tracks progress but also fosters constructive dialogue, identifies solutions, and enables transformative actions to meet the 2050 goals to achieve a stepping up of efforts if needed (‘ratcheting effect’) towards and beyond 2030. These recommendations are critical for ensuring that the GBF’s ambitious goals are effectively implemented, particularly through inclusive and transparent global reviews. Supplementary material: Building blocks of the biodiversity global review's multidimensional approach and their challenges Key Messages The multidimensional approach proposed by COP15 represents a significant step forward in closing the “implementation gap” by enhancing the coherence between international ambitions and national efforts. Review mechanisms allow the international community to track progress and adjust strategies before the 2030 deadline, thereby reinforcing accountability and enhancing global biodiversity governance. A purpose-oriented global review aims not only at tracking progress but also identifying solutions, barriers, and transformative pathways for the effective implementation of the GBF. It should enhance learning and enable course corrections to achieve a ‘ratcheting effect’ while staying within the non-punitive approach adopted in the GBF. Integrating diverse knowledge systems (scientific, technical, and stakeholder inputs) into the review process will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the progress, challenges, and opportunities in implementing the GBF. A review process that includes the perspectives of civil society, indigenous groups, private sector actors, and local communities is crucial for building an inclusive, participatory approach to biodiversity governance. Dedicated dialogues between stakeholders and Parties should be institutionalized within the review process. To ensure a robust global review, it is essential to anticipate potential gaps and challenges in the implementation of the GBF’s review mechanisms. Proactive efforts must be made to identify and fill these gaps, whether in data collection, national reporting, or stakeholder engagement. By promoting a culture of continuous improvement and transparency, Parties and stakeholders can strengthen the overall effectiveness of the review process and enhance global biodiversity governance.

Policies promoting price transparency may be an important approach to control medicine prices and achieve better access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies promoting price transparency are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies promoting price transparency against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32011 records were retrieved, two of which were eligible for inclusion. Although based on evidence from a single study, public disclosure of medicine prices may be effective in reducing prices of medicines short-term, with benefits possibly sustained long-term. Evidence on the impact of a cost-feedback approach to prescribers was inconclusive. No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research.

Background and Objectives: To review the efforts and progress in promoting quality and transparency of health research in China and to discuss how to improve.Methods: We focused on three different types of health research: clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, and summarized China's progress from their registration, implementation, and reporting stages.Results: In the last 3 decades, China's major works include the following: 1) For registration, the trials and CPGs registries have been set up, and released policies to mandate registration and submission of protocols for trials. 2) For implementation, multiple clinical research and EBM centers have been established. The ResMan platform for data management has been created and required researchers to share results data. 3) For reporting, the Chinese EQUATOR Center has been set up. Translations and extensions of the CONSORT, PRISMA, and RIGHT have been published. 4) For traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), specific guidelines for the registration and reporting of TCM research have been developed.Conclusion: China has made progress in promoting research quality and transparency, especially in research registration and reporting. Nevertheless, more can be done in data management and sharing for research implementation, and good publication practices in TCM.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction: The urgent need to acquire medical supplies amidst the COVID-19 pandemic has led to bypassing of controls that govern the global pharmaceutical supply chain, increasing the risk of corruption. Hence, promoting anti-corruption, transparency, and accountability (ACTA) in supply chain and procurement has never been more important. The adoption of digital tools, if designed and implemented appropriately, can reduce the risks of corruption. Areas covered: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted an interdisciplinary systematic review of health/medicine, humanities/social sciences, engineering, and computer science literature, with the aims of identifying technologies used for pharmaceutical supply chain and procurement optimization and reviewing whether they address ACTA mechanisms to strengthen pharmaceutical governance. Our review identified four distinct categories of digital solutions: e-procurement and open contracting; track-and-trace technology; anti-counterfeiting technology; and blockchain technology. Expert opinion: Findings demonstrate an increase in research of technologies to improve pharmaceutical supply chain and procurement functions; however, most technologies are not being leveraged to directly address ACTA or global health outcomes. Some blockchain and RFID technologies incorporated ACTA mechanisms and mentioned specific policy/governance frameworks, but more purposeful linkage is needed. Findings point to the need for targeted policy development and governance to activate these innovative technologies to improve global health .

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.