Behind the Partnership: How Co-Financing is Driving a Resilient Recovery in Mozambique
A candid discussion with Ingo Baum and Susana Gomes of the German development bank, KfW, and Xavier Chavana of the World Bank, on how co-financing works in practice — what it takes to deliver complex, coordinated development projects, and how co-financing can unlock more effective, long-term solutions.
When Cyclones Idai and Kenneth struck Mozambique in 2019, the damage was catastrophic. Hundreds of lives were lost, and critical infrastructure — from drainage systems to schools — was destroyed. The Cyclone Idai and Kenneth Emergency Recovery and Resilience Project was launched in response, aiming not only to rebuild but to strengthen climate resilience, particularly in Beira, a city severely affected.
This project, co-financed by World Bank and German cooperation through KfW, integrated green and grey infrastructure. It is being delivered through a shared implementation structure, reinforcing government leadership and reducing fragmentation. It also foreshadowed the deepened collaboration formalized in a 2024 co-financing framework agreement between the World Bank and KfW. That agreement provides a roadmap for joint projects with harmonized standards and coordinated approaches — laying the groundwork for more impactful co-financing efforts going forward.
In this conversation, Xavier Chavana, a Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist for the World Bank in Mozambique, and KfW colleagues Ingo Baum and Susana Gomes, both Portfolio Managers for Good Governance and Biodiversity, reflect on how co-financing worked in practice — what enabled it, where the pressure points were, and what lessons it offers for future joint operations.
Q: This project brought together two major institutions in the wake of a devastating national crisis. What conditions made it possible for this co-financing partnership to deliver effectively in such a demanding setting?
Xavier Chavana: We were operating in a very complex environment — post-cyclone recovery, institutional fragility, climate risks, and major infrastructure needs. But what helped us move forward was the trust and understanding already built between our teams. We’d worked together on a previous project in Beira, which gave us a solid foundation — a shared sense of purpose and familiarity with the city’s needs. That allowed us to focus on delivery rather than alignment.
Ingo Baum: I agree — what stood out was the level of continuity. Often with projects like these, the teams change and you lose momentum. Our team had worked on the first Beira project, and when we moved into the recovery phase, we were able to build on that. The relationships were already there — with each other, and with the government. And that meant we could focus on delivery rather than getting to know each other’s systems from scratch.
Susana Gomes: We weren’t locked into rigid roles. We were able to say: “What needs to happen now, and who is best placed to do it?” And that flexibility was essential. In a post-disaster context, you don’t have time to coordinate every detail from headquarters. You need to empower the teams on the ground.
Q: Navigating institutional differences — from timelines to procedures to risk frameworks — is often a major hurdle in joint operations. How did you work through those differences in this case?
Ingo Baum: Alignment wasn’t about eliminating differences, it was about managing them. The World Bank and KfW have different internal structures, different approval processes. But we didn’t try to harmonize everything. Instead, we figured out where we could complement each other. For example, the Bank moved quickly to advance parts of the feasibility study. That allowed KfW to proceed with its own internal steps more efficiently. It was about sequencing, not duplication.
Susana Gomes: Exactly. It helped that both institutions are outcome-oriented. We didn’t get stuck on whose procurement system would be used for which contract. We asked: what’s the most effective way to deliver this? Sometimes that meant KfW taking the lead on certain components, sometimes the Bank. What mattered was that we agreed upfront on the big picture — one project, one roadmap, and a shared long-term vision for what we are trying to achieve — and then found practical solutions to get there.
Xavier Chavana: And we invested time early on to define that shared vision. There were months of technical preparation and design work before implementation began. We set up a single implementation unit, agreed on reporting lines, and held weekly meetings with the government to track progress and solve issues as they emerged. That kind of coordination is intense, but it’s what makes co-financing more than just pooled money. It becomes a joint commitment.
Q: What were the advantages of co-financing this project? Did co-financing enable more ambitious, integrated solutions? How did that play out in the design and delivery of this project?
Xavier Chavana: In many cities, you see piecemeal solutions: one project addresses drainage, another focuses on green space or flood protection. In Beira, we had the opportunity to design a single, integrated approach. We combined conventional infrastructure like drainage canals and pumping stations with nature-based solutions — restoring mangroves, expanding retention basins, and rehabilitating the Chiveve River ecosystem. That dual approach not only reduced flood risk, it also created co-benefits for biodiversity and community use.
Susana Gomes: From KfW’s side, this integration was very intentional. On behalf of the German government, we’ve supported green infrastructure in many countries, but the key in Beira was embedding it within a broader system. That required detailed technical coordination. For example, retention basins had to be placed strategically in relation to the urban drainage works. And those decisions couldn’t be made in isolation — they depended on shared data, shared design timelines, and constant dialogue between our teams.
Ingo Baum: It also required a different mindset. You can’t design green-grey infrastructure in silos. You have to start with the question: what combination of interventions will reduce risk and support long-term resilience in this specific place? German cooperation through KfW helped the city set up systems for long-term management. For example, we supported a park management unit to maintain new green infrastructure. This wasn’t just about building; it was about making sure it could work — and last.
Q: A challenge we often hear about in development finance is fragmentation—too many uncoordinated efforts. How does co-financing help reduce that and support more coherent efforts, especially from the country’s point of view?
Xavier Chavana: That’s a real risk. If each partner runs its own process, the government ends up coordinating between institutions instead of focusing on delivery. From the outset, we made a conscious decision to avoid that. We agreed to work through a single implementation unit housed in the Ministry of Public Works, Housing and Water Resources, and to streamline our engagement with contractors and consultants. In some cases, we even had the same contractor delivering both Bank- and KfW-financed components. That’s rare — and it made the project more coherent and efficient.
Susana Gomes: Many of the government counterparts had worked on earlier phases of the Chiveve project, so we weren’t starting from scratch. That institutional memory really helped reduce friction. But more importantly, we were able to build on existing capacity rather than creating something new for the sake of it. That’s often the most sustainable way forward.
Ingo Baum: One of the strengths of co-financing is that it brings more technical expertise to the table — different institutions contribute different skills, and that can really elevate the quality of a project. But it also introduces more complexity in terms of financing and delivery. That complexity only works if the teams — across institutions — can collaborate effectively. The day-to-day decisions, the sequencing, the problem solving — all of that depends on people who trust each other and can work through differences. In the end, coordination isn't just an institutional issue — it's a deeply human one.
Xavier Chavana: That shared structure also gave local actors more clarity. When different institutions coordinate behind one process, it’s easier for implementing partners to engage, plan, and deliver. It reduces confusion and makes the whole project more manageable from the ground up.
Q: What do we need to get right to unlock more successful co-financing partnerships in the future?
Ingo Baum: You have to give people room to work. Institutions have their procedures, and that’s important — but when the country is facing real challenges, the question isn’t “Is this a KfW-approved process or a World Bank one?” It’s: “Can we deliver?” And to do that, you need people on the ground who are empowered, who know each other, and who are trusted to make decisions. That’s what made this work.
Susana Gomes: This experience showed what’s possible when co-financing goes beyond alignment on paper to real collaboration in practice. We weren’t just reacting to a crisis — we were helping lay foundations for long-term resilience. That meant thinking not only about what to build, but how to support local capacity to maintain and adapt those solutions in the future.
Xavier Chavana: Co-financing isn’t just about bigger budgets — it’s about better outcomes. When it works, it brings together complementary strengths and enables solutions that no one partner could deliver alone.
