With a view to better analysing concrete challenges to address SDG financing in developing economies, this Study coordinated by IDDRI and prepared in cooperation with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) focuses on the global picture and examines the state of play, recent initiatives, and prospects for financing the SDGs in Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico, and Senegal. It seeks to answer the following question: how and under what conditions can partner countries further align their development plans and policies with the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs to better finance their objectives? Key Messages: Alignment and effective SDG financing are possible when four main conditions are met:
- Avoiding SDG-incompatible finance. For many countries–notably OECD and BRICS countries– achieving the 2030 Agenda is just as much about financing more as it is about financing less and in a more sustainable way. Examples include less financing for approaches that compromise specific SDGs (e.g., fossil fuel subsidies) and making difficult policy decisions that require short-term costs to achieve long-term sustainability gains.
- Combining long-term financing with longterm planning. Development financing strategies provide public and private investors with clarity and predictability, and make it possible for those key actors to better grasp the sequence of investments across relief, recovery, and long-term structural transformation. Planning efforts should also seek to avoid lock-in situations and path dependencies where short-term recovery expenditure could hamper long-term goals of reducing inequalities or advancing environmental protection, and even increase vulnerabilities.
- Better understanding the cost and benefits of SDG financing at country level. A clear understanding of allocation and spending on public services and public investments that contribute to the SDGs can help identify funding shortfalls. Double-counting investment needs in particular should be avoided while synergies between different types of investment should be prioritized.
- Aligning SDG financing instruments with countries’ needs and priorities. SDG budgeting tools can be the cornerstone of strengthening financing for the SDGs in countries and establish more coherent links between the SDGs and development strategies, as well as their implementation. However, as case studies in Africa, Asia and Central America, these tools only prove relevant if they do not add complexity to the administration but are well integrated into and supportive of existing national or local processes and strategies. And international partners should fully align with such national strategies.
With a view to better analysing concrete challenges to address SDG financing in developing economies, this Study coordinated by IDDRI and prepared in cooperation with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) focuses on the global picture and examines the state of play, recent initiatives, and prospects for financing the SDGs in Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico, and Senegal. It seeks to answer the following question: how and under what conditions can partner countries further align their development plans and policies with the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs to better finance their objectives? Key Messages: Alignment and effective SDG financing are possible when four main conditions are met:
- Avoiding SDG-incompatible finance. For many countries–notably OECD and BRICS countries– achieving the 2030 Agenda is just as much about financing more as it is about financing less and in a more sustainable way. Examples include less financing for approaches that compromise specific SDGs (e.g., fossil fuel subsidies) and making difficult policy decisions that require short-term costs to achieve long-term sustainability gains.
- Combining long-term financing with longterm planning. Development financing strategies provide public and private investors with clarity and predictability, and make it possible for those key actors to better grasp the sequence of investments across relief, recovery, and long-term structural transformation. Planning efforts should also seek to avoid lock-in situations and path dependencies where short-term recovery expenditure could hamper long-term goals of reducing inequalities or advancing environmental protection, and even increase vulnerabilities.
- Better understanding the cost and benefits of SDG financing at country level. A clear understanding of allocation and spending on public services and public investments that contribute to the SDGs can help identify funding shortfalls. Double-counting investment needs in particular should be avoided while synergies between different types of investment should be prioritized.
- Aligning SDG financing instruments with countries’ needs and priorities. SDG budgeting tools can be the cornerstone of strengthening financing for the SDGs in countries and establish more coherent links between the SDGs and development strategies, as well as their implementation. However, as case studies in Africa, Asia and Central America, these tools only prove relevant if they do not add complexity to the administration but are well integrated into and supportive of existing national or local processes and strategies. And international partners should fully align with such national strategies.
With a view to better analysing concrete challenges to address SDG financing in developing economies, this Study coordinated by IDDRI and prepared in cooperation with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) focuses on the global picture and examines the state of play, recent initiatives, and prospects for financing the SDGs in Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico, and Senegal. It seeks to answer the following question: how and under what conditions can partner countries further align their development plans and policies with the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs to better finance their objectives? Key Messages: Alignment and effective SDG financing are possible when four main conditions are met:
- Avoiding SDG-incompatible finance. For many countries–notably OECD and BRICS countries– achieving the 2030 Agenda is just as much about financing more as it is about financing less and in a more sustainable way. Examples include less financing for approaches that compromise specific SDGs (e.g., fossil fuel subsidies) and making difficult policy decisions that require short-term costs to achieve long-term sustainability gains.
- Combining long-term financing with longterm planning. Development financing strategies provide public and private investors with clarity and predictability, and make it possible for those key actors to better grasp the sequence of investments across relief, recovery, and long-term structural transformation. Planning efforts should also seek to avoid lock-in situations and path dependencies where short-term recovery expenditure could hamper long-term goals of reducing inequalities or advancing environmental protection, and even increase vulnerabilities.
- Better understanding the cost and benefits of SDG financing at country level. A clear understanding of allocation and spending on public services and public investments that contribute to the SDGs can help identify funding shortfalls. Double-counting investment needs in particular should be avoided while synergies between different types of investment should be prioritized.
- Aligning SDG financing instruments with countries’ needs and priorities. SDG budgeting tools can be the cornerstone of strengthening financing for the SDGs in countries and establish more coherent links between the SDGs and development strategies, as well as their implementation. However, as case studies in Africa, Asia and Central America, these tools only prove relevant if they do not add complexity to the administration but are well integrated into and supportive of existing national or local processes and strategies. And international partners should fully align with such national strategies.
In 2015, the world embarked on an ambitious climate and development agenda with the adoption of the Paris Agreement (PA) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Now, eight years later, both processes are at important milestones assessing the progress achieved so far. In December 2023, the UN climate conference in Dubai will conclude the first Global Stocktake (GST), a process for assessing collective progress towards the PA objectives. In September, the midterm review of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will take place at the SDG Summit in New York. Still, no pleasant surprises are to be expected. It is already clear that progress to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement is way off track, as countries’ NDCs are far too weak to achieve the objectives of the Agreement. Similarly, at the mid-point to achieve the Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030, no country is on track. Progress on the 17 SDGs has stalled over the past three years. On some Goals, the world has been backsliding, raising questions both about political will and about suitable options for changing course. Despite this disturbing state of affairs, calls for urgency have not resonated with policy makers. In the climate realm, the messages from the IPCC have become ever more alarming, UN Secretary-General Guterres has been exhorting countries to act, and the previous climate conferences in Glasgow and Sharm el-Sheik called on countries to enhance their NDCs – but very few actually did so. But how can we still make progress if all calls for urgency are in vain? It has long been argued that integration of the climate and sustainable development agendas is necessary to achieve both objectives. We argue that it is, in fact, indispensable and our only hope to close the ambition and implementation gaps.
In 2015, the world embarked on an ambitious climate and development agenda with the adoption of the Paris Agreement (PA) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Now, eight years later, both processes are at important milestones assessing the progress achieved so far. In December 2023, the UN climate conference in Dubai will conclude the first Global Stocktake (GST), a process for assessing collective progress towards the PA objectives. In September, the midterm review of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will take place at the SDG Summit in New York. Still, no pleasant surprises are to be expected. It is already clear that progress to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement is way off track, as countries’ NDCs are far too weak to achieve the objectives of the Agreement. Similarly, at the mid-point to achieve the Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030, no country is on track. Progress on the 17 SDGs has stalled over the past three years. On some Goals, the world has been backsliding, raising questions both about political will and about suitable options for changing course. Despite this disturbing state of affairs, calls for urgency have not resonated with policy makers. In the climate realm, the messages from the IPCC have become ever more alarming, UN Secretary-General Guterres has been exhorting countries to act, and the previous climate conferences in Glasgow and Sharm el-Sheik called on countries to enhance their NDCs – but very few actually did so. But how can we still make progress if all calls for urgency are in vain? It has long been argued that integration of the climate and sustainable development agendas is necessary to achieve both objectives. We argue that it is, in fact, indispensable and our only hope to close the ambition and implementation gaps.
In 2015, the world embarked on an ambitious climate and development agenda with the adoption of the Paris Agreement (PA) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Now, eight years later, both processes are at important milestones assessing the progress achieved so far. In December 2023, the UN climate conference in Dubai will conclude the first Global Stocktake (GST), a process for assessing collective progress towards the PA objectives. In September, the midterm review of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will take place at the SDG Summit in New York. Still, no pleasant surprises are to be expected. It is already clear that progress to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement is way off track, as countries’ NDCs are far too weak to achieve the objectives of the Agreement. Similarly, at the mid-point to achieve the Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030, no country is on track. Progress on the 17 SDGs has stalled over the past three years. On some Goals, the world has been backsliding, raising questions both about political will and about suitable options for changing course. Despite this disturbing state of affairs, calls for urgency have not resonated with policy makers. In the climate realm, the messages from the IPCC have become ever more alarming, UN Secretary-General Guterres has been exhorting countries to act, and the previous climate conferences in Glasgow and Sharm el-Sheik called on countries to enhance their NDCs – but very few actually did so. But how can we still make progress if all calls for urgency are in vain? It has long been argued that integration of the climate and sustainable development agendas is necessary to achieve both objectives. We argue that it is, in fact, indispensable and our only hope to close the ambition and implementation gaps.
Der Rat der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) hat heute beschlossen, den Leitzins um weitere 0,25 Prozentpunkte zu erhöhen. Dazu ein Statement von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):
Die EZB geht mit ihrer erneuten Zinserhöhung ein erhebliches Risiko ein. Damit könnte sie dazu beitragen, dass die Wirtschaft der Eurozone in die Rezession rutscht, ohne dass sie die Inflation noch schneller senkt. Die Wirtschaft der Eurozone hat sich in den vergangenen Monaten weiter abgeschwächt. Die Risiken einer Rezession sind gestiegen. Die Inflation dagegen ist zwar nach wie vor zu hoch, aber auf einem stabilen Pfad, so dass die EZB ihr Mandat der Preisstabilität in der mittleren Frist wieder erreichen sollte – auch ohne weitere Zinserhöhungen. Der Rat der EZB will mit dieser Entscheidung Härte zeigen und die eigene Glaubwürdigkeit stärken. Dies ist verständlich, aber auch riskant.Die gemeinsame Abschlusserklärung ist angesichts der geopolitischen Spannungen ein bleibender Erfolg der indischen G20-Präsidentschaft. Damit hatten im Vorfeld nur wenige Beobachter gerechnet. Alle vorangegangenen G20-Ministertreffen in diesem Jahr waren trotz inhaltlicher Gemeinsamkeiten ohne Abschlusserklärung geblieben, da sich die Teilnehmer nie auf eine Formulierung zum Ukrainekrieg verständigen konnte. In anderer Hinsicht war die selbsterklärte »Brückenmacht« Indien sogar noch erfolgreicher: Die Aufnahme der Afrikanischen Union (AU) in die dann G21 ist ein wichtiger Schritt der Annäherung der mächtigen G20-Nationen an den Globalen Süden.
Nationale und internationale Interessen IndiensIndiens G20-Präsidentschaft verfolgte ein doppeltes Ziel. Auf der internationalen Bühne wollte Premierminister Narendra Modi die Anliegen des Globalen Südens in der G20 stärker thematisieren. Damit wollte er zugleich Indiens Anspruch als Führungsmacht in dieser Staatengruppe unterstreichen – auch und gerade in der Konkurrenz zu China. Im nationalen Rahmen sollte die Präsidentschaft Modi als führenden Staatsmann präsentieren, der auf Augenhöhe mit den mächtigen Staats- und Regierungschefs dieser Welt agiert.
Der erste Aspekt prägte die wichtigsten Sachthemen der diesjährigen G20-Agenda. Indien forcierte Anliegen des Globalen Südens wie Schuldenerlass, eine Stärkung multilateraler Entwicklungsbanken und eine wirksamere Regulierung von Kryptowährungen. Weitere Schwerpunkte waren inklusives Wachstum, die beschleunigte Umsetzung der Ziele nachhaltiger Entwicklung (SDGs) im Vorfeld des anstehenden SDG-Gipfels der Vereinten Nationen, technologische Transformation und digitale öffentliche Infrastruktur sowie ein stärkerer Fokus auf Frauen im Entwicklungsprozess.
Angesichts der gewachsenen globalen Bedeutung Indiens und der damit verbundenen Anerkennung Modis als führender Staatsmann war die Präsidentschaft innenpolitisch eine willkommene Unterstützung für die Parlamentswahlen im nächsten Jahr. So fanden mehr als 200 Veranstaltungen zu G20 in 60 indischen Städten statt, die das neue Renommee im Land verbreiteten. Die G20-Präsidentschaft hat sicherlich auch dazu beigetragen, dass 70 Prozent der Befragten einer Pew-Umfrage in Indien der Meinung sind, ihr Land sei in letzter Zeit international einflussreicher geworden. Diese Einschätzung teilen außerhalb Indiens allerdings nur 28 Prozent der Befragten. Bei den G20-Sitzungen in Neu-Delhi bezeichnete sich Indien selbst als »Bharat« und verwies damit auf die hindu-nationalistische Vision des Landes, wie sie von der regierenden Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) propagiert wird. Demgegenüber repräsentiert »Indien« die säkulare Vision, den sich zugleich die größten Oppositionsparteien als Namen ihres Bündnisses I.N.D.I.A. (India National Development Inclusive Alliance) gegeben haben. Diese gegensätzlichen Vorstellungen über die künftige Ausrichtung des Landes werden im Wahlkampf des kommenden Jahres eine zentrale Rolle spielen.
Treffen im Schatten globaler KonflikteAlles bestens also mit der indischen Präsidentschaft? Diese Wertung wäre verfrüht. Denn es zeigten sich auch Gegensätze zwischen Nord und Süd. Die Forderung einiger Industriestaaten nach einer vorzeitigen Reduktion der CO2-Emissionen um 60 Prozent von 2019 bis 2035 fand wenig Gegenliebe bei Indien und anderen Staaten des Globalen Südens. Die Frage der finanziellen Unterstützung der Klimatransformation im Globalen Süden scheiterte am Widerstand der Industriestaaten. Differenzen gab es auch bei der Frage der finanziellen Unterstützung durch die Industriestaaten und bei der Frage des Ausstiegs aus der Nutzung fossiler Energie. Dennoch gelang Indien mit der Gründung einer neuen Allianz für Biokraftstoffe im Energiebereich ein Erfolg.
Noch gravierender: Die Gräben zwischen dem Aggressor Russland und China einerseits und dem »politischen Westen« in der G20 (G7-Staaten, Australien, Südkorea und EU) andererseits haben sich seit dem vergangenen G20-Gipfel in Indonesien deutlich vertieft.
Deutlich wurde in Neu-Delhi indes auch, wie sehr inzwischen die Dynamiken innerhalb eines Konfliktdreiecks die internationale Politik prägen. Eine Spitze dieses Dreiecks bildet die systemische Konkurrenz zwischen den USA und China. Die Rivalität zwischen der etablierten Führungsmacht einerseits und dem aufstrebenden Konkurrenten andererseits wird von vielen Beobachterinnen und Beobachtern als die prägende Konfliktlinie des 21. Jahrhunderts gedeutet.
Als zweite Spitze des Dreiecks hat sich die Konfrontation über den russischen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine herauskristallisiert. Hier steht der politische Westen Russland und China gegenüber, beide Lager werben um die Unterstützung der sogenannten Middle Ground Powers.
Hinzu kommt als dritte Konfliktdimension die Rivalität zwischen China und Indien um die Führungsrolle im Globalen Süden. Ob Indien sich mit den Erfolgen als Führungsmacht des Globalen Südens etablieren kann, bleibt angesichts der Konkurrenz durch China offen. Dass der chinesische Präsident Xi Jinping erstmals seit seinem Amtsantritt nicht an einem G20-Gipfel teilnahm, war ein diplomatischer Affront gegenüber Indien. Nach dem erfolglosen Treffen zwischen Modi und Xi am Rande des BRICS-Gipfels in Johannesburg ist dies ein weiterer Rückschlag in den bilateralen Beziehungen. Die massive militärische Aufrüstung entlang der ungeklärten Grenze im Himalaya seit 2020 bleibt damit einer der zentralen Hotspots im Indo-Pazifik.
Wie sehr Indien mittlerweile als Partner vom Westen als Gegengewicht zu China umworben wird, verdeutlicht zudem die im Rahmen des Gipfels vorgestellte neue Konnektivitätsinitiative IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor). Sie wird von den Initiatoren USA, Indien, EU, Saudi-Arabien, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate, Italien, Deutschland und Frankreich als Alternative zur chinesischen Seidenstraßeninitiative verstanden. Sofern dieses neue Projekt die engere Vernetzung Indiens mit dem Mittleren Osten und Europa vorantreibt, könnte sich daraus langfristig ein größerer geopolitischer Einfluss für Neu-Delhi ergeben. Für Indien wäre dies ein nachhaltiger Erfolg der G20-Präsidentschaft.
One of the main features of today’s global trade system is the proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs). The proliferation of RTAs in recent years has been coupled with broader and deeper coverage under these agreements. Broader coverage increasingly includes more policy areas that may be trade-related (tariffs and nontariff measures) or non trade-related (behind-the-border policies, intellectual property rights, movement of capital and people, competition policy, and others). In this regard, the scope of RTAs has been expanded by WTO members and signatories of RTAs from just 8 policy areas in the 1950s to 17 policy areas today. Deeper agreements include an increasing number of commitments within each policy area. They are also increasingly accompanied by legal requirements, such as stronger transparency and enforcement mechanisms. This chapter assesses the role of RTAs in boosting agricultural trade in Africa. Our analysis extends beyond estimating the overall impact of agreements on African trade to assess the relative importance of the detailed agreements’ provisions, including both broader and deeper coverage, in boosting agricultural trade.
One of the main features of today’s global trade system is the proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs). The proliferation of RTAs in recent years has been coupled with broader and deeper coverage under these agreements. Broader coverage increasingly includes more policy areas that may be trade-related (tariffs and nontariff measures) or non trade-related (behind-the-border policies, intellectual property rights, movement of capital and people, competition policy, and others). In this regard, the scope of RTAs has been expanded by WTO members and signatories of RTAs from just 8 policy areas in the 1950s to 17 policy areas today. Deeper agreements include an increasing number of commitments within each policy area. They are also increasingly accompanied by legal requirements, such as stronger transparency and enforcement mechanisms. This chapter assesses the role of RTAs in boosting agricultural trade in Africa. Our analysis extends beyond estimating the overall impact of agreements on African trade to assess the relative importance of the detailed agreements’ provisions, including both broader and deeper coverage, in boosting agricultural trade.
One of the main features of today’s global trade system is the proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs). The proliferation of RTAs in recent years has been coupled with broader and deeper coverage under these agreements. Broader coverage increasingly includes more policy areas that may be trade-related (tariffs and nontariff measures) or non trade-related (behind-the-border policies, intellectual property rights, movement of capital and people, competition policy, and others). In this regard, the scope of RTAs has been expanded by WTO members and signatories of RTAs from just 8 policy areas in the 1950s to 17 policy areas today. Deeper agreements include an increasing number of commitments within each policy area. They are also increasingly accompanied by legal requirements, such as stronger transparency and enforcement mechanisms. This chapter assesses the role of RTAs in boosting agricultural trade in Africa. Our analysis extends beyond estimating the overall impact of agreements on African trade to assess the relative importance of the detailed agreements’ provisions, including both broader and deeper coverage, in boosting agricultural trade.
jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-bjxgyj").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-bjxgyj").fadeIn(300);});});
Panelists for a high-level policy forum cohosted by IPI and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) on September 12th assessed the current health of the multilateral system and outlined strategies to strengthen multilateralism as a whole in a timely conversation ahead of the 78th Session of the General Assembly. In a bid for hope, they highlighted opportunities to bolster collective efforts and collaboration within the international community in the face of the converging and increasingly complex challenges of our time. The discussion was anchored in the principle of inclusion as speakers offered their recommendations for meaningful reform, gender equity, empowering states of all sizes, and building innovative alliances across nations, civil society, and the private sector.
IPI has been involved in the central debates of the multilateral system for many years, and this event provided the latest intervention on the evolving state of multilateralism with an updated question: Is the multilateral system on the verge of collapse? To shed light on both pressure points and areas for growth alike, the policy forum was framed by empirical data in the findings of the Multilateralism Index, produced in 2022 by IPI and the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), and drew on the results of a new global poll by OSF conducted in May and July of this year. The poll, “Open Society Barometer: Can Democracy Deliver?” surveyed more than 36,000 respondents from 30 countries representing the views of more than 5.5. billion people on global solidarity, democracy, human rights, financing for climate change and debt, and international governance.
President of the 78th Session of the General Assembly, H.E. Dennis Francis, set the tone for what will be required of all global decision makers for a cohesive multilateral system built for the advancement of all people. He delivered a call to lead by example and a pledge of transparency from the very top of the UN-based system. He highlighted three key strategies: restore trust by “vehemently denouncing behavior that violates the cherished tenets of the UN Charter;” reassess meaningful and complementary engagement in the international system; and insist on inclusion through the empowerment and involvement of all populations.
Addressing the speed and complexity of modern challenges will require agile solutions that recognize our interdependence and are willing to think imaginatively about future partnerships and alliances that break from the existing international architecture. For this task, Former President of Liberia and Nobel Peace Laureate H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf emphasized the need to “prioritize the most vulnerable, marginalized populations,” in the decision-making processes that most affect them as those “who bear the brunt of interconnected challenges.” She noted the particular significance of women’s participation as key for development and sustainable peace and an essential piece of the multilateral puzzle.
As a representative of states facing existential challenges, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the UN Maritza Chan, reminded the audience of the pivotal role that small states can play if we provide them with the necessary resources and expertise on emergent technologies and dare to unlock their potential to address global problems in areas where they may already be leading the charge, such as AI advancement. Meghna Abraham, Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights, provided a voice for the civil society sector on the panel. She advocated for civil society as the model to follow in going beyond proscriptive silos and fostering innovative responses. Abraham firmly asserted the presence of numerous opportunities for reform but noted the contingency of those opportunities for change on “a shift in power and a shift in resources.” Underpinning panelists’ talking points, was the sentiment that in order to change the system so that it will actually work for people, enable them to survive, and have ownership in the multilateral process, we will need mobilization across disciplines and attention to the many contradictions of the very system designed to protect them.
Opening Remarks:
H.E. Dennis Francis, President of the 78th Session of the General Assembly
Speakers:
Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, President, Open Society Foundations
H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Former President of Liberia, Nobel Peace Laureate, Former Chair of ECOWAS, Founder of the Ellen Johnson Presidential Center for Women and Development, Former Co-Chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, and Co-Chair of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism (HLAB)
H.E. Maritza Chan, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations
Meghna Abraham, Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights
Moderator:
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, President and CEO, International Peace Institute
Am 18./19. September 2023 wird zum Auftakt der UN-Generalversammlung das Gipfeltreffen zu den Zielen nachhaltiger Entwicklung (SDGs) stattfinden. Die Staats- und Regierungschefs werden dabei zur Halbzeitbilanz der SDGs sprechen. Bislang dienten die 2030-Agenda und die dort aufgestellten Ziele als eine Art Kitt, der die Vereinten Nationen trotz geopolitischer Verwerfungen zusammenhielt. Ob das jetzt – wenn Taten auf Worte folgen müssen – weiter so bleiben wird, ist noch offen. Wie Analysen offenbaren, mangelt es auf nationaler wie globaler Ebene am politischen Willen. Für einen erfolgreichen Gipfel muss das Zusammenspiel zwischen nationalen Verpflichtungen samt Rechenschaftslegung einerseits und internationaler Unterstützung und Anreizen andererseits stimmig ausgestaltet werden.