I think the important thing here is, first off, to align the financing terms we're providing with a likely horizon for financial returns from any project. As I mentioned, issuing debt right now at very long tenors would allow us to provide financing in a way that is consistent with the likely return profile on the projects we're looking at.
Secondly, in aligning impact, the most important thing, I believe, is setting at the outset clear metrics and clear processes for measuring performance on those metrics that are just as rigorous as the fiduciary or financial metrics we might set beside them. In economics there is a tradition of thought and modelling known as principal-agent theory, which essentially means that the incentives you provide yield the activities you want in accordance with your initial targets and measurements. If we measure or target the wrong things, we will get the wrong things back.
Unfortunately, one of the salient critiques of most existing DFIs is that they do a good job of setting financial targets on their projects but not such a good job of setting development-impact targets, which they often fail to establish and measure. Reaching development-impact targets requires incentives equal to those required for reaching financial targets. They need to be baked right into the DNA of the institution when it comes to how the board sets its goals, how the staff at the project level designs the expectations for financing opportunities, and how that staff's performance is evaluated.