Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Rural communities are particularly vulnerable to weather shocks and ecosystem decline. Traditionally, farmers have adapted to climate variability and extremes through various risk management strategies, either individually or cooperatively. However, climate change amplifies the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and exacerbates environmental degradation processes.
Market-based risk transfer instruments are now being developed as complements to these conventional risk management strategies to shield rural households from increasing climate risks. At present, risk transfer solutions play a central role in the global climate and development agenda. International- and regional-level initiatives such as the InsuResilience Global Partnership support vulnerable developing countries to increase their financial protection coverage through climate risk finance and insurance, including through innovative micro-level schemes such as weather index insurance.
Over the last decade, index-based weather insurance has been gaining attention in the climate resilience discourse. These schemes compensate insured individuals based on a pre-defined weather index instead of individual losses, as with traditional types of insurance. Therefore, this instrument has several advantages, including greater time- and cost-effectiveness and reduced moral hazard risk.
Although weather-index insurance holds great promise, there are several challenges in designing and promoting it in developing countries. First, on the demand side, there is a lack of accessibility to affordable insurance, especially for the poorest rural populations exposed to climate hazards. Second, on the supply side, insurance providers are facing an elevated risk of paying larger claims due to the increasing frequency and severity of weather extremes, while reinsurance services are often missing. Third, the ecological effects of implementing weather index microinsurance initiatives receive little attention in research and policy. Yet, protecting the environment and building ecological resilience are critical policy dimensions of climate risk management in rural regions, where the poor disproportionately depend on ecosystem goods and services for a living, as they often lack alternative livelihood strategies.
Looking into the key challenges to microinsurance initiatives and drawing upon findings of a review of literature on weather index insurance and field research, this Briefing Paper derives recommendations for development cooperation, governments and insurers for an enhanced action agenda on climate risk insurance. The discussion is focused on the specific case of weather index insurance for the rural poor at the micro level. We emphasise the importance of enhancing knowledge on the potential positive and negative ecological effects of weather insurance schemes, and the need to develop a diverse set of climate risk management strategies for the poor, including social protection mechanisms.

Rural communities are particularly vulnerable to weather shocks and ecosystem decline. Traditionally, farmers have adapted to climate variability and extremes through various risk management strategies, either individually or cooperatively. However, climate change amplifies the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and exacerbates environmental degradation processes.
Market-based risk transfer instruments are now being developed as complements to these conventional risk management strategies to shield rural households from increasing climate risks. At present, risk transfer solutions play a central role in the global climate and development agenda. International- and regional-level initiatives such as the InsuResilience Global Partnership support vulnerable developing countries to increase their financial protection coverage through climate risk finance and insurance, including through innovative micro-level schemes such as weather index insurance.
Over the last decade, index-based weather insurance has been gaining attention in the climate resilience discourse. These schemes compensate insured individuals based on a pre-defined weather index instead of individual losses, as with traditional types of insurance. Therefore, this instrument has several advantages, including greater time- and cost-effectiveness and reduced moral hazard risk.
Although weather-index insurance holds great promise, there are several challenges in designing and promoting it in developing countries. First, on the demand side, there is a lack of accessibility to affordable insurance, especially for the poorest rural populations exposed to climate hazards. Second, on the supply side, insurance providers are facing an elevated risk of paying larger claims due to the increasing frequency and severity of weather extremes, while reinsurance services are often missing. Third, the ecological effects of implementing weather index microinsurance initiatives receive little attention in research and policy. Yet, protecting the environment and building ecological resilience are critical policy dimensions of climate risk management in rural regions, where the poor disproportionately depend on ecosystem goods and services for a living, as they often lack alternative livelihood strategies.
Looking into the key challenges to microinsurance initiatives and drawing upon findings of a review of literature on weather index insurance and field research, this Briefing Paper derives recommendations for development cooperation, governments and insurers for an enhanced action agenda on climate risk insurance. The discussion is focused on the specific case of weather index insurance for the rural poor at the micro level. We emphasise the importance of enhancing knowledge on the potential positive and negative ecological effects of weather insurance schemes, and the need to develop a diverse set of climate risk management strategies for the poor, including social protection mechanisms.

Rural communities are particularly vulnerable to weather shocks and ecosystem decline. Traditionally, farmers have adapted to climate variability and extremes through various risk management strategies, either individually or cooperatively. However, climate change amplifies the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and exacerbates environmental degradation processes.
Market-based risk transfer instruments are now being developed as complements to these conventional risk management strategies to shield rural households from increasing climate risks. At present, risk transfer solutions play a central role in the global climate and development agenda. International- and regional-level initiatives such as the InsuResilience Global Partnership support vulnerable developing countries to increase their financial protection coverage through climate risk finance and insurance, including through innovative micro-level schemes such as weather index insurance.
Over the last decade, index-based weather insurance has been gaining attention in the climate resilience discourse. These schemes compensate insured individuals based on a pre-defined weather index instead of individual losses, as with traditional types of insurance. Therefore, this instrument has several advantages, including greater time- and cost-effectiveness and reduced moral hazard risk.
Although weather-index insurance holds great promise, there are several challenges in designing and promoting it in developing countries. First, on the demand side, there is a lack of accessibility to affordable insurance, especially for the poorest rural populations exposed to climate hazards. Second, on the supply side, insurance providers are facing an elevated risk of paying larger claims due to the increasing frequency and severity of weather extremes, while reinsurance services are often missing. Third, the ecological effects of implementing weather index microinsurance initiatives receive little attention in research and policy. Yet, protecting the environment and building ecological resilience are critical policy dimensions of climate risk management in rural regions, where the poor disproportionately depend on ecosystem goods and services for a living, as they often lack alternative livelihood strategies.
Looking into the key challenges to microinsurance initiatives and drawing upon findings of a review of literature on weather index insurance and field research, this Briefing Paper derives recommendations for development cooperation, governments and insurers for an enhanced action agenda on climate risk insurance. The discussion is focused on the specific case of weather index insurance for the rural poor at the micro level. We emphasise the importance of enhancing knowledge on the potential positive and negative ecological effects of weather insurance schemes, and the need to develop a diverse set of climate risk management strategies for the poor, including social protection mechanisms.

Gonzalo Escribano. Elcano Policy Paper 2/2021 - 23/6/2021

Este Policy Paper ofrece un análisis preliminar de los impulsores -drivers- y barreras geopolíticos y geoeconómicos para el desarrollo de un mercado de hidrógeno que integre los recursos energéticos renovables de los países vecinos de Europa y el Mediterráneo.

Carlos Malamud y Rogelio Núñez. ARI 61/2021 - 23/6/2021

La segunda vuelta de las elecciones peruanas, las legislativas de México y la segunda vuelta de las locales chilenas han cerrado el inicio del nuevo ciclo electoral de América Latina (2021-2024), cuando todos los países de la región, salvo Cuba y Bolivia renovarán/ratificarán sus gobiernos y legislativos. Este primer semestre anticipa gran parte de las tendencias que marcarán la coyuntura político-institucional y electoral del trienio.

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-uvgzpm").fadeOut(500, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-uvgzpm").fadeIn(500);});}); Download the Report

On Tuesday, June 22nd, IPI together with Women’s Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) cohosted a virtual policy forum entitled “At the Nexus of Participation and Protection: Risks and Barriers to Women’s Participation in Northern Ireland.”

This public discussion launched new research on women’s experiences of risks, harms, and barriers as a result of participation in public life. Focused on Northern Ireland, the research and public discussion highlight the security challenges and threats that women leaders in the community sector, justice and security sectors, and elected politics have encountered as a result of their participation in peacebuilding before, during, and after the Good Friday Agreement.

The ways that women’s full, equal, and meaningful participation is impacted by threats and violence directly and indirectly related to conflict have not yet been fully considered, yet they are a vital part of the women, peace, and security (WPS) agenda. With an overarching goal of advancing gender equality in peace and security, the discussion will highlight the need for the WPS agenda to address “protection” in the context of women’s participation in conflict-affected contexts. Of its four pillars, participation and protection have arguably received the most attention, yet the need to address the inter-relationship between the two pillars remains a gap.

This brought together stakeholders from governments, representatives from Northern Ireland’s women’s sector, the UN, and civil society organizations.

Opening Remarks:
Dr. Phoebe Donnelly, IPI Research Fellow and Head of Women, Peace and Security Program
Ms. Rachel Powell, Women’s Sector Lobbyist, Women’s Resources and Development Agency

Speakers:
Dr. Catherine Turner, Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Durham Global Security Institute, Durham University
Ms. Sarah Douglas, Deputy Chief of Peace and Security, UN Women
Dr. Aisling Swaine, Professor of Gender Studies, University College Dublin
Dr. Sarah Taylor, Policy Specialist, Women, Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action, UN Women
Ms. Elaine Crory, Good Relations Coordinator, Women’s Resource and Development Agency

Moderator:
Ms. Gretchen Baldwin, IPI Senior Policy Analyst

.content .main .entry-header.w-thumbnail .cartouche {background: none; bottom: 0px;} h1.entry-title {font-size: 1.8em;}

The European Green Deal conveys the EU’s ambition to adjust and “green” its economic growth trajectory and become climate-neutral by 2050, as part of its contribution to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. While being ambitiously pursued within the Union’s own borders, the Green Deal also has strong external ramifications, as the EU leaves a tremendous ecological footprint in other parts of the world. The EU has referred to this “external dimension” of the Green Deal without further defining it, and appears to primarily understand it as a reflection of the internal strategies and as a call for the EU’s partner countries to follow a sustainable recovery trajectory similar to its own.
A number of proposed EU domestic strategies (e.g. biodiversity, blue economy or farm-to-fork) contain chapters on global aspects, yet the EU seems to follow a predominantly sectoral logic to implementing the external dimension of the Green Deal. This approach has certain shortcomings. For one, it creates uncertainty for partner countries on how to adapt to the EU’s new rules, regulations and standards, and the extent of EU support for adjusting to this. It also creates a vacuum for member state engagement by means of their economy, finance, climate and foreign policies. Last but not least, it lacks clear governance mechanisms to address potentially conflicting policy objectives and to strive for greater coherence of domestic and external EU policies.
Ultimately, the EU needs to define the different external dimensions of the Green Deal and promote an integrated approach. Whereas this applies universally to all partner countries of the EU, we focus in particular on developing countries in this paper. We consider these dimensions to be (1) promoting the Green Deal in bilateral and regional cooperation, (2) ensuring coherence and addressing negative spillovers, both in trade and domestic policies and (3) the EU’s global leadership in multilateral fora. Combining those three dimensions and governing them across EU institutions and member states allows for the external response to become an integral part of the EU Green Deal.
Such an integrated approach allows the EU to claim leadership vis-à-vis other global powers, make credible commitments in multilateral fora for successful “green diplomacy”, and use its market and regulatory power to transform itself and others. In its bilateral relationships, the EU needs to strike a “deal” in the true sense of the word: together formulating and “owning” cooperation agendas that are clear in terms of what is in it for the EU’s partners and how the EU will cushion the potential negative adjustment costs of partners. Overall, the EU needs to avoid a “projectisation” of the external dimension of the Green Deal and clarify how the different Commission services and member states aim to work together to deliver the Green Deal, including through its various external policy areas, of which development is just one.

The European Green Deal conveys the EU’s ambition to adjust and “green” its economic growth trajectory and become climate-neutral by 2050, as part of its contribution to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. While being ambitiously pursued within the Union’s own borders, the Green Deal also has strong external ramifications, as the EU leaves a tremendous ecological footprint in other parts of the world. The EU has referred to this “external dimension” of the Green Deal without further defining it, and appears to primarily understand it as a reflection of the internal strategies and as a call for the EU’s partner countries to follow a sustainable recovery trajectory similar to its own.
A number of proposed EU domestic strategies (e.g. biodiversity, blue economy or farm-to-fork) contain chapters on global aspects, yet the EU seems to follow a predominantly sectoral logic to implementing the external dimension of the Green Deal. This approach has certain shortcomings. For one, it creates uncertainty for partner countries on how to adapt to the EU’s new rules, regulations and standards, and the extent of EU support for adjusting to this. It also creates a vacuum for member state engagement by means of their economy, finance, climate and foreign policies. Last but not least, it lacks clear governance mechanisms to address potentially conflicting policy objectives and to strive for greater coherence of domestic and external EU policies.
Ultimately, the EU needs to define the different external dimensions of the Green Deal and promote an integrated approach. Whereas this applies universally to all partner countries of the EU, we focus in particular on developing countries in this paper. We consider these dimensions to be (1) promoting the Green Deal in bilateral and regional cooperation, (2) ensuring coherence and addressing negative spillovers, both in trade and domestic policies and (3) the EU’s global leadership in multilateral fora. Combining those three dimensions and governing them across EU institutions and member states allows for the external response to become an integral part of the EU Green Deal.
Such an integrated approach allows the EU to claim leadership vis-à-vis other global powers, make credible commitments in multilateral fora for successful “green diplomacy”, and use its market and regulatory power to transform itself and others. In its bilateral relationships, the EU needs to strike a “deal” in the true sense of the word: together formulating and “owning” cooperation agendas that are clear in terms of what is in it for the EU’s partners and how the EU will cushion the potential negative adjustment costs of partners. Overall, the EU needs to avoid a “projectisation” of the external dimension of the Green Deal and clarify how the different Commission services and member states aim to work together to deliver the Green Deal, including through its various external policy areas, of which development is just one.

The European Green Deal conveys the EU’s ambition to adjust and “green” its economic growth trajectory and become climate-neutral by 2050, as part of its contribution to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. While being ambitiously pursued within the Union’s own borders, the Green Deal also has strong external ramifications, as the EU leaves a tremendous ecological footprint in other parts of the world. The EU has referred to this “external dimension” of the Green Deal without further defining it, and appears to primarily understand it as a reflection of the internal strategies and as a call for the EU’s partner countries to follow a sustainable recovery trajectory similar to its own.
A number of proposed EU domestic strategies (e.g. biodiversity, blue economy or farm-to-fork) contain chapters on global aspects, yet the EU seems to follow a predominantly sectoral logic to implementing the external dimension of the Green Deal. This approach has certain shortcomings. For one, it creates uncertainty for partner countries on how to adapt to the EU’s new rules, regulations and standards, and the extent of EU support for adjusting to this. It also creates a vacuum for member state engagement by means of their economy, finance, climate and foreign policies. Last but not least, it lacks clear governance mechanisms to address potentially conflicting policy objectives and to strive for greater coherence of domestic and external EU policies.
Ultimately, the EU needs to define the different external dimensions of the Green Deal and promote an integrated approach. Whereas this applies universally to all partner countries of the EU, we focus in particular on developing countries in this paper. We consider these dimensions to be (1) promoting the Green Deal in bilateral and regional cooperation, (2) ensuring coherence and addressing negative spillovers, both in trade and domestic policies and (3) the EU’s global leadership in multilateral fora. Combining those three dimensions and governing them across EU institutions and member states allows for the external response to become an integral part of the EU Green Deal.
Such an integrated approach allows the EU to claim leadership vis-à-vis other global powers, make credible commitments in multilateral fora for successful “green diplomacy”, and use its market and regulatory power to transform itself and others. In its bilateral relationships, the EU needs to strike a “deal” in the true sense of the word: together formulating and “owning” cooperation agendas that are clear in terms of what is in it for the EU’s partners and how the EU will cushion the potential negative adjustment costs of partners. Overall, the EU needs to avoid a “projectisation” of the external dimension of the Green Deal and clarify how the different Commission services and member states aim to work together to deliver the Green Deal, including through its various external policy areas, of which development is just one.

Achieving the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda requires strong and accountable institutions. However, the focus on sustainability outcomes set forth in the Agenda’s 17 SDGs has side-lined the debate on accountability mechanisms to ensure effective policy implementation. Six years into the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, it is time to assess progress made in this regard. Drawing on theories of public interest and rational choice, this paper argues that horizontal accountability between different state organs will be key to the emergence of national SDG accountability regimes. We provide evidence on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for SDG progress based on an original database (AccountSDG) built through a document analysis of 136 Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) submitted between 2016 and 2019. Our analysis provides the first systematic cross-national empirical analysis of the role assigned to parliaments, Supreme Auditing Agencies (SAI), and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) in national processes of SDG implementation. We conclude that horizontal accountability, especially the role of SAI and NHRI, remains under-institutionalized in most countries. We conclude by discussing best practices and addressing the most important lacunae, as well as by pointing out limitations of our study and avenues for future research.

Achieving the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda requires strong and accountable institutions. However, the focus on sustainability outcomes set forth in the Agenda’s 17 SDGs has side-lined the debate on accountability mechanisms to ensure effective policy implementation. Six years into the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, it is time to assess progress made in this regard. Drawing on theories of public interest and rational choice, this paper argues that horizontal accountability between different state organs will be key to the emergence of national SDG accountability regimes. We provide evidence on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for SDG progress based on an original database (AccountSDG) built through a document analysis of 136 Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) submitted between 2016 and 2019. Our analysis provides the first systematic cross-national empirical analysis of the role assigned to parliaments, Supreme Auditing Agencies (SAI), and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) in national processes of SDG implementation. We conclude that horizontal accountability, especially the role of SAI and NHRI, remains under-institutionalized in most countries. We conclude by discussing best practices and addressing the most important lacunae, as well as by pointing out limitations of our study and avenues for future research.

Achieving the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda requires strong and accountable institutions. However, the focus on sustainability outcomes set forth in the Agenda’s 17 SDGs has side-lined the debate on accountability mechanisms to ensure effective policy implementation. Six years into the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, it is time to assess progress made in this regard. Drawing on theories of public interest and rational choice, this paper argues that horizontal accountability between different state organs will be key to the emergence of national SDG accountability regimes. We provide evidence on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for SDG progress based on an original database (AccountSDG) built through a document analysis of 136 Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) submitted between 2016 and 2019. Our analysis provides the first systematic cross-national empirical analysis of the role assigned to parliaments, Supreme Auditing Agencies (SAI), and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) in national processes of SDG implementation. We conclude that horizontal accountability, especially the role of SAI and NHRI, remains under-institutionalized in most countries. We conclude by discussing best practices and addressing the most important lacunae, as well as by pointing out limitations of our study and avenues for future research.

European Union leaders are getting ready to discuss Turkey once again. The timing of the 24–25 June European Council is auspicious, after a week of G7, NATO and EU-US summits. Following four years of discontent between Brussels and Washington, this has been an exercise in reassurance, looking to reinvent multilateralism for the twenty-first century. The allies discussed rules for various policy areas, including economy, trade, climate, security and defence, while seeking a common stance against autocracies, particularly Russia and China. If Joe Biden and his European allies are serious about standing up to undemocratic regimes, the place to start is Turkey – which the European Council should do right away.

Turkey’s relations with its Western allies have been deteriorating for years. European decision-makers blame this on Ankara’s democratic backsliding and its unilateral foreign policy – which increasingly often runs counter to European interests. Developments in Syria, Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean and Nagorno-Karabakh, however, have shifted almost the entire focus to foreign policy. The EU’s desire to reduce tensions in its neighbourhood has eclipsed questions of democracy and rule of law. That is what is behind its proposal for a »positive agenda« with Turkey that is »progressive, proportionate and reversible«. It is thus conditional on Turkey’s external actions – good neighbourly relations in line with international law – but not clearly linked to the state of democracy. While the European Parliament flagged this in its recent report, a firm stance by the European Council is missing.

Commitment to democracy, everywhere

Turkey raised concerns in the EU when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has withdrawn the country from the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on preventing violence against women. This was clearly the continuation of a long-term trend limiting basic rights and freedoms. The new presidential system has eliminated most of the checks and balances. Civil society is under immense pressure. Democratically elected representatives have been removed and prosecuted. Last but not least the state prosecutor has applied to the constitutional court to ban the opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). According to Freedom House, Turkey is »not free«, just like Russia and China.

This situation threatens the credibility of the transatlantic allies’ commitment to democracy, rule of law, and basic rights and freedoms. According to the summit communiqué, the G7 is committed to upholding a rules-based international system and defending values. That is also the promise of the NATO and transatlantic allies. Selective application would undermine that commitment. The rules apply to a rising China challenging Western economies – but not if you can get a bargain with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. Those who prioritise geopolitics over principles might argue that Turkey gets less criticism as a NATO ally and strategically important accession candidate on the EU’s doorstep. Yet even if the European Union dropped the entire democratic conditionality framework, it would still risk being affected negatively by democratic backsliding and erosion of rule of law. Recent examples include unlawful detention of EU and US citizens and arbitrary decisions to move refugees to its borders with Greece back in 2020. Not to speak of the future risks to European investments.

European leaders may think that criticizing domestic repression in Turkey would put positive foreign policy developments at risk. There are no guarantees, however, that advances in the Eastern Mediterranean or relations with Greece, Cyprus or other member states will not be suddenly reversed, for example to rally nationalists behind the current government. The EU leaders must know that there can be no guarantees for the EU as long as instability prevails in Turkey – an instability exacerbated by deficits in democracy and rule of law. If the EU leaders choose to settle for a fragile status quo rather than promoting core values, they may still end up at odds with Turkey – while undermining the values they keep vowing to defend.

Serious about democracy? Time to speak-up

European leaders will try to buy time again, as they did at the European Council meetings in October and December 2020 and March 2021. But there is a window of opportunity. Ankara is on a charm offensive with its Western allies, needing an economic boost and trying to avoid European and US sanctions. While the government is determined to stay in charge, power struggles are emerging within the state apparatus. This is definitely the right time to set the tone – a tone that cares about democracy.

Action on Turkey is also needed to show the broader world that the G7, European Union and NATO mean what they said at last week’s summits. Democracy will be an important component of external action. If the EU cannot apply this principle to such a close neighbour, ally and EU accession candidate what does that say about the democracy agenda?

This text was also published at fairobserver.com.

Mario Esteban (coord.). Elcano Policy Paper 3/2021 - 22/6/2021

Este policy paper tiene una clara vocación práctica y orientado a la toma de decisiones, que aspira a dinamizar el debate entre el sector público y la sociedad españoles sobre la enorme transcendencia que tiene para el futuro de nuestro país el devenir de la rivalidad entre EEUU y China, que aún no ha recibido la atención debida.

Wichtige Forschungserkenntnisse lassen Bedrohungsszenarien eher unrealistisch erscheinen, die davon ausgehen, dass die Erderwärmung schon bald viele Millionen von »Klimaflüchtlingen« nach Europa treibt. Nach Ansicht des Autors muss die Wissenschaft noch stärker dazu beitragen, alarmistische Szenarien zu überwinden und politische Lösungen für Betroffene des Klimawandels voranzubringen.

Wichtige Forschungserkenntnisse lassen Bedrohungsszenarien eher unrealistisch erscheinen, die davon ausgehen, dass die Erderwärmung schon bald viele Millionen von »Klimaflüchtlingen« nach Europa treibt. Nach Ansicht des Autors muss die Wissenschaft noch stärker dazu beitragen, alarmistische Szenarien zu überwinden und politische Lösungen für Betroffene des Klimawandels voranzubringen.