Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Bundeswirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck will zwei der drei verbleibenden Atomkraftwerke bis April in Reserve halten. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Claudia Kemfert, Energieökonomin und Leiterin der Abteilung Energie, Verkehr, Umwelt im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Die Stresstests zeigen, dass die Energieversorgung in Deutschland gesichert werden kann und Atomkraft dazu nicht benötigt wird. Die Energieversorgung in Deutschland ist gesichert, auch ohne Atomkraft. Mögliche Versorgungsengpässe werden nicht durch deutsche, sondern vor allem durch marode französische Atomkraftwerke verursacht. Atomkraftwerke sind für die Netzreserve ungeeignet, da sie nicht mal eben an- und ausgeschaltet werden können. Sie müssen sicherheitstechnisch überprüft und es müssen Personal und Brennelemente vorgehalten werden. Dies ist aufwendig und teuer. Aufwand und Ertrag stehen also in keinem Verhältnis.

Nur knapp ein Prozent des in Deutschland verbrauchten Erdgases kann durch Atomkraft eingespart werden. Atomkraftwerke produzieren – anders als Kohlekraftwerke – nur Strom und keine Wärme. Die Hälfte der Gaskraftwerke hingegen produziert neben Strom auch Wärme. Zur Sicherung der Versorgung werden daher neben mehr erneuerbaren Energien auch Kohlekraftwerke aus der Netzreserve benötigt. Zur Sicherung der Versorgung sind der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien – auch und gerade im Süden Deutschlands –, ein effektives Energie- und Lastmanagement, der Ausbau von Speicheroptionen und vor allem eine Ausweitung der Kapazitäten in Frankreich und anderen europäischen Ländern elementar.

After nearly a decade of military intervention, France has withdrawn its soldiers from Mali. The departure not only symbolises a failure of French intervention policy, argue Benedikt Erforth (IDOS) and Denis Tull (SWP) in this Megatrends Afrika Spotlight, but also reflects Europe’s foreign policy weakness. Yet, a more muted French footprint could also be an opportunity to build a more balanced and credible approach towards the Sahel.

After nearly a decade of military intervention, France has withdrawn its soldiers from Mali. The departure not only symbolises a failure of French intervention policy, argue Benedikt Erforth (IDOS) and Denis Tull (SWP) in this Megatrends Afrika Spotlight, but also reflects Europe’s foreign policy weakness. Yet, a more muted French footprint could also be an opportunity to build a more balanced and credible approach towards the Sahel.

After nearly a decade of military intervention, France has withdrawn its soldiers from Mali. The departure not only symbolises a failure of French intervention policy, argue Benedikt Erforth (IDOS) and Denis Tull (SWP) in this Megatrends Afrika Spotlight, but also reflects Europe’s foreign policy weakness. Yet, a more muted French footprint could also be an opportunity to build a more balanced and credible approach towards the Sahel.

Die Abteilung Makroökonomie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine studentische Hilfskraft (m/w/div) für 10 Wochenstunden.

Das Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine*n Vorstandsreferent*in (div/w/m) (Vollzeit mit 39 Stunden pro Woche, Teilzeit ist möglich).

The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 prominently stresses that “the SDGs are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (UN [United Nations], 2015, p. 3). Behind this statement lies a reality of complex interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets, the implementation of which may produce synergies but also trade-offs. Another innovative trait of the 2030 Agenda is its strong commitment to the “quality of governance”. While the debate about the necessary elements of governance continues, most definitions today include inclusive and participatory decision-making, accountability, and transparency as its key institutional characteristics. These characteristics have been enshrined as targets under SDG 16 on “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” that are not only considered desirable outcomes but also as enablers of all other SDGs. Yet another central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda is to Leave No One Behind (LNOB), which requires the participation of all segments of society to contribute to its implementation. There is broad consensus in contemporary academic and policy debates that innovative governance approaches will be essential to achieve an integrated implementation of the interlinked SDGs and to fulfil the LNOB commitment. A more recent debate, which has gained traction since the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021, focuses on the just transition towards climate-just, equitable and inclusive societies. At the centre of this debate lies the understanding that governments will be unable to gain public support for the prioritisation of climate actions if they do not succeed in drastically reducing poverty and inequality. It will be necessary that just climate transition be based on the principles of procedural, distributional and recognitional justice.
So far, these two debates have run in parallel without cross-fertilising each other. This Policy Brief makes the case that the debate on just transition has much to gain from the academic findings generated by research on the role of governance in managing SDG interlinkages. It is based on a recent study by IDOS and the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (UNDP OGC) that collates empirical evidence on the effects of governance qualities (SDG 16) on the reduction of poverty (SDG 1) and inequalities (SDG 10) (DIE* & UNDP OGC, 2022). The study finds that:
• Improved levels of participation and inclusion are positively associated with poverty reduction;
• Higher levels of access to information, transparency and accountability help to improve access to basic services and targeting of social protection policies.
These findings provide policymakers with an empirical basis to argue that investments in the achievement of the governance targets of SDG 16 can act as catalysts for interventions seeking to reduce poverty and inequalities.
Against this backdrop, this Policy Brief argues that the governance targets of SDG 16 are not only institutional preconditions for the reduction of poverty and inequalities but also contribute towards just transitions. More specifically: they are institutions that contribute towards the justice principles that constitute the basis of just transition and exhibit the governance qualities postulated by SDG 16. It is important to note that debates on the quality of governance and just transition do not take place in a political vacuum. In view of global trends towards auto-cratisation (V-Dem 2022), the empirical findings regarding the enabling governance effects on poverty and inequality reduction carry the important policy implication that action to support just transition will in all likelihood be more successful if accompanied by proactive measures to protect and support democratic institutions and processes.

The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 prominently stresses that “the SDGs are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (UN [United Nations], 2015, p. 3). Behind this statement lies a reality of complex interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets, the implementation of which may produce synergies but also trade-offs. Another innovative trait of the 2030 Agenda is its strong commitment to the “quality of governance”. While the debate about the necessary elements of governance continues, most definitions today include inclusive and participatory decision-making, accountability, and transparency as its key institutional characteristics. These characteristics have been enshrined as targets under SDG 16 on “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” that are not only considered desirable outcomes but also as enablers of all other SDGs. Yet another central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda is to Leave No One Behind (LNOB), which requires the participation of all segments of society to contribute to its implementation. There is broad consensus in contemporary academic and policy debates that innovative governance approaches will be essential to achieve an integrated implementation of the interlinked SDGs and to fulfil the LNOB commitment. A more recent debate, which has gained traction since the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021, focuses on the just transition towards climate-just, equitable and inclusive societies. At the centre of this debate lies the understanding that governments will be unable to gain public support for the prioritisation of climate actions if they do not succeed in drastically reducing poverty and inequality. It will be necessary that just climate transition be based on the principles of procedural, distributional and recognitional justice.
So far, these two debates have run in parallel without cross-fertilising each other. This Policy Brief makes the case that the debate on just transition has much to gain from the academic findings generated by research on the role of governance in managing SDG interlinkages. It is based on a recent study by IDOS and the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (UNDP OGC) that collates empirical evidence on the effects of governance qualities (SDG 16) on the reduction of poverty (SDG 1) and inequalities (SDG 10) (DIE* & UNDP OGC, 2022). The study finds that:
• Improved levels of participation and inclusion are positively associated with poverty reduction;
• Higher levels of access to information, transparency and accountability help to improve access to basic services and targeting of social protection policies.
These findings provide policymakers with an empirical basis to argue that investments in the achievement of the governance targets of SDG 16 can act as catalysts for interventions seeking to reduce poverty and inequalities.
Against this backdrop, this Policy Brief argues that the governance targets of SDG 16 are not only institutional preconditions for the reduction of poverty and inequalities but also contribute towards just transitions. More specifically: they are institutions that contribute towards the justice principles that constitute the basis of just transition and exhibit the governance qualities postulated by SDG 16. It is important to note that debates on the quality of governance and just transition do not take place in a political vacuum. In view of global trends towards auto-cratisation (V-Dem 2022), the empirical findings regarding the enabling governance effects on poverty and inequality reduction carry the important policy implication that action to support just transition will in all likelihood be more successful if accompanied by proactive measures to protect and support democratic institutions and processes.

The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 prominently stresses that “the SDGs are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (UN [United Nations], 2015, p. 3). Behind this statement lies a reality of complex interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets, the implementation of which may produce synergies but also trade-offs. Another innovative trait of the 2030 Agenda is its strong commitment to the “quality of governance”. While the debate about the necessary elements of governance continues, most definitions today include inclusive and participatory decision-making, accountability, and transparency as its key institutional characteristics. These characteristics have been enshrined as targets under SDG 16 on “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” that are not only considered desirable outcomes but also as enablers of all other SDGs. Yet another central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda is to Leave No One Behind (LNOB), which requires the participation of all segments of society to contribute to its implementation. There is broad consensus in contemporary academic and policy debates that innovative governance approaches will be essential to achieve an integrated implementation of the interlinked SDGs and to fulfil the LNOB commitment. A more recent debate, which has gained traction since the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021, focuses on the just transition towards climate-just, equitable and inclusive societies. At the centre of this debate lies the understanding that governments will be unable to gain public support for the prioritisation of climate actions if they do not succeed in drastically reducing poverty and inequality. It will be necessary that just climate transition be based on the principles of procedural, distributional and recognitional justice.
So far, these two debates have run in parallel without cross-fertilising each other. This Policy Brief makes the case that the debate on just transition has much to gain from the academic findings generated by research on the role of governance in managing SDG interlinkages. It is based on a recent study by IDOS and the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (UNDP OGC) that collates empirical evidence on the effects of governance qualities (SDG 16) on the reduction of poverty (SDG 1) and inequalities (SDG 10) (DIE* & UNDP OGC, 2022). The study finds that:
• Improved levels of participation and inclusion are positively associated with poverty reduction;
• Higher levels of access to information, transparency and accountability help to improve access to basic services and targeting of social protection policies.
These findings provide policymakers with an empirical basis to argue that investments in the achievement of the governance targets of SDG 16 can act as catalysts for interventions seeking to reduce poverty and inequalities.
Against this backdrop, this Policy Brief argues that the governance targets of SDG 16 are not only institutional preconditions for the reduction of poverty and inequalities but also contribute towards just transitions. More specifically: they are institutions that contribute towards the justice principles that constitute the basis of just transition and exhibit the governance qualities postulated by SDG 16. It is important to note that debates on the quality of governance and just transition do not take place in a political vacuum. In view of global trends towards auto-cratisation (V-Dem 2022), the empirical findings regarding the enabling governance effects on poverty and inequality reduction carry the important policy implication that action to support just transition will in all likelihood be more successful if accompanied by proactive measures to protect and support democratic institutions and processes.

Como primer actor mundial de la cooperación al desarrollo, la UE debe ser capaz de entender las necesidades de sus socios y equilibrarlas con sus propios intereses y valores no negociables.

Como primer actor mundial de la cooperación al desarrollo, la UE debe ser capaz de entender las necesidades de sus socios y equilibrarlas con sus propios intereses y valores no negociables.

Como primer actor mundial de la cooperación al desarrollo, la UE debe ser capaz de entender las necesidades de sus socios y equilibrarlas con sus propios intereses y valores no negociables.

Lack of global consensus on data governance is emerging as a major issue in, amongst other things, trade regimes, use of data for development, and regulation of data flows. Convergence or divergence in norms in these areas will determine whether or not any emerging regime complex will be global or fragmented, whether it will enable the potentials of cross-border flow of data to materialize or will suffer from a lack of interoperability. This Policy Brief suggests that the G20 simultaneously underscores the importance of harmonization and strives for consensus on core principles in governing data protection and data flow, and that it also uses competition policy principles to safeguard public interest. While the challenge before the G20 is enormous, it is also an opportunity to provide leadership and shape a global consensus on data governance.

Lack of global consensus on data governance is emerging as a major issue in, amongst other things, trade regimes, use of data for development, and regulation of data flows. Convergence or divergence in norms in these areas will determine whether or not any emerging regime complex will be global or fragmented, whether it will enable the potentials of cross-border flow of data to materialize or will suffer from a lack of interoperability. This Policy Brief suggests that the G20 simultaneously underscores the importance of harmonization and strives for consensus on core principles in governing data protection and data flow, and that it also uses competition policy principles to safeguard public interest. While the challenge before the G20 is enormous, it is also an opportunity to provide leadership and shape a global consensus on data governance.

Lack of global consensus on data governance is emerging as a major issue in, amongst other things, trade regimes, use of data for development, and regulation of data flows. Convergence or divergence in norms in these areas will determine whether or not any emerging regime complex will be global or fragmented, whether it will enable the potentials of cross-border flow of data to materialize or will suffer from a lack of interoperability. This Policy Brief suggests that the G20 simultaneously underscores the importance of harmonization and strives for consensus on core principles in governing data protection and data flow, and that it also uses competition policy principles to safeguard public interest. While the challenge before the G20 is enormous, it is also an opportunity to provide leadership and shape a global consensus on data governance.

Die Ampelkoalition hat sich auf ein drittes Entlastungspaket verständigt, das Hilfen im Gesamtumfang von 65 Milliarden Euro vorsieht. Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) kommentiert die einzelnen Maßnahmen wie folgt:

Das dritte Entlastungspaket der Bundesregierung enthält gute Elemente, ist aber bei wichtigen Fragen unausgegoren, verteilt Gelder zu sehr per Gießkannenprinzip und ignoriert den Klimaschutz. Die Stärke des Entlastungspakets liegt in der Erhöhung der Leistungen für die verletzlichsten Menschen. Die Wohngeldreform, die Anpassungen beim Bürgergeld, die Erhöhung des Kindergeldes und die Ausweitung der Midijob-Grenze sind gute, zielgenaue Elemente - auch wenn das Paket dabei nicht immer innovativ ist, sondern eh schon geplante Maßnahmen vorzieht. Eine zweite Stärke ist die Unterstützung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen - durch Kredithilfen, die Fortsetzung des Kurzarbeitergelds, die Einbeziehung der Unternehmen bei der Strompreisbremse und die Verlängerung der Umsatzsteuersenkung für die Gastronomie. 

Die Bundesregierung bleibt bei der wichtigsten Herausforderung, der Begrenzung von Strom- und Gaspreisen, aber eine Lösung schuldig. Es fehlt ein Plan bei der Strompreisbremse, die völlig unausgereift ist und dem Prinzip Hoffnung folgt. Wenn überhaupt, wird sie erst in vielen Monaten umgesetzt werden können. Und sie lässt viele Fragen offen, etwa wie ein Basisverbrauch definiert werden soll. Die Bundesregierung koppelt die Strompreisbremse an die Abschöpfung der Übergewinne, ohne einen Plan vorzulegen, wie dies geschehen soll. Das Aussetzen der Anpassung des CO2-Preises ist ein katastrophales Signal für den Klimaschutz. Die Bundesregierung muss bei einem Entlastungspaket die langfristige Transformation mitdenken. Dies fehlt völlig im Entlastungspaket. 

Die versprochenen 65 Milliarden Euro sind ein angemessener Umfang. Sie werden jedoch zu sehr per Gießkannenprinzip verteilt und nicht zielgenau genug Menschen in der Mittelschicht und mit geringeren Einkommen zugutekommen. Besserverdiener werden den größten Teil der Euro 65 Milliarden erhalten. Alleine 70 Prozent der zehn Milliarden Euro der Entlastung der kalten Progression kommen den oberen 30 Prozent zugute. Es gibt zu viele Vergessene im Entlastungspaket. Einmalzahlungen für RentnerInnen und Studierende werden für lediglich zwei Monate, aber nicht länger ausreichen. Dauerhafte Hilfen für diese Menschen, mindestens für die kommenden beiden Winter, wären dringend notwendig gewesen. Als Vergleich: Ein Paar mit 130.000 Euro Jahreseinkommen wird alleine bei der kalten Progression jährlich mit 958 Euro entlastet, RentnerIinnen und Studierende lediglich mit 300 Euro beziehungsweise 200 Euro. Die Bundesregierung wird, entgegen aller Versprechen, die Schuldenbremse 2023 nicht einhalten können. Ich erwarte, dass die Bundesregierung noch vor Ende des Jahres die Schuldenbremse für 2023 kippen und Farbe bekennen muss.

To strengthen global sustainability governance, academics and policymakers have called for a better integration of private governance with public policy instruments. Surprisingly, however, systematic research on the state of such public-private complementarities in the field of sustainable development is lacking. With a focus on voluntary sustainability standards and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, this article addresses this research gap. It uses a novel dataset of 232 voluntary standards to examine how their policies and organizational processes interact with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their targets. We identify significant public-private complementarities, but also areas of institutional disconnect. We further explore how the creation of institutional linkages in this issue area is driven by instrumental, managerial, and normative concerns and develop an agenda for future research. This includes research on whether and how intensifying public-private interactions at the transnational level translate into tangible impacts for sustainable development on the ground.

To strengthen global sustainability governance, academics and policymakers have called for a better integration of private governance with public policy instruments. Surprisingly, however, systematic research on the state of such public-private complementarities in the field of sustainable development is lacking. With a focus on voluntary sustainability standards and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, this article addresses this research gap. It uses a novel dataset of 232 voluntary standards to examine how their policies and organizational processes interact with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their targets. We identify significant public-private complementarities, but also areas of institutional disconnect. We further explore how the creation of institutional linkages in this issue area is driven by instrumental, managerial, and normative concerns and develop an agenda for future research. This includes research on whether and how intensifying public-private interactions at the transnational level translate into tangible impacts for sustainable development on the ground.

To strengthen global sustainability governance, academics and policymakers have called for a better integration of private governance with public policy instruments. Surprisingly, however, systematic research on the state of such public-private complementarities in the field of sustainable development is lacking. With a focus on voluntary sustainability standards and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, this article addresses this research gap. It uses a novel dataset of 232 voluntary standards to examine how their policies and organizational processes interact with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their targets. We identify significant public-private complementarities, but also areas of institutional disconnect. We further explore how the creation of institutional linkages in this issue area is driven by instrumental, managerial, and normative concerns and develop an agenda for future research. This includes research on whether and how intensifying public-private interactions at the transnational level translate into tangible impacts for sustainable development on the ground.

Die deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ) strebt seit Jahren eine höhere Ergebnisorientierung an. Mit der Einführung von 43 Standardindikatoren ist 2022 ein wichtiger Schritt in diese Richtung gegangen worden. Es ist das Ziel, Entwicklungsergebnisse themen- und länderübergreifend zu aggregieren, um sie der Öffentlichkeit zu präsentieren. Das Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) erhofft sich davon einerseits eine wirksamere Kommunikation gegenüber dem Bundestag und der Bevölkerung. Andererseits soll auch eine kohärentere Berichterstattung der Durchführungsorganisationen Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) und der Entwicklungsbank der Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) erreicht werden. Deutschland hat hinsichtlich der Ergebnisorientierung Aufholbedarf. Andere internationale Geber, insbesondere Großbritannien, die USA und multilaterale Entwicklungsbanken haben Anfang der 2010er Jahre umfangreiche Berichtssysteme eingeführt. Diese Organisationen nutzen zwischen 20 und 50 Standardindikatoren, um darzustellen, wie die von ihnen geförderten Aktivitäten kurzfristige Wirkungen erzielen. Sie kommunizieren auf dieser Basis fundierter mit der Öffentlichkeit. Das BMZ will eine ähnliche Kommunikationsbasis schaffen. In einem partizipativen Prozess hat das BMZ deshalb gemeinsam mit GIZ und KfW Entwicklungsbank Indikatoren formuliert, die den politischen Aktionsfeldern sowie den Bedürfnissen der Durchführungsorganisationen gleichermaßen gerecht werden. Der administrative Aufwand, um die Standardindikatoren zu erheben, wird dadurch begrenzt, dass bereits bestehende Daten verwendet werden. Zudem hat das BMZ methodische Standards definiert, deren verpflichtende Nutzung die Qualität der erhobenen Daten erhöhen soll. Generell birgt es auch Risiken, Standardindikatoren einzuführen: Sie können unbeabsichtigte Anreize setzen, wenn verstärkt zu kurzfristigen Ergebnissen berichtet wird. Das kann dazu führen, dass langfristige und deshalb schwerer messbare Wirkungen vernachlässigt werden. Wie zudem die Wissenschaft zeigt, können Indikatoren ihren ursprünglichen Zweck einer neutralen Darstellung von Veränderungen nicht mehr erfüllen, wenn sie dazu verwendet werden, politische Kontrolle auszuüben. Hinzu kommen Herausforderungen wie beispielsweise die Vermeidung von Doppelzählungen und die Verwendung unterschiedlicher Bezugsgrößen sowie die Sorge vor nicht einlösbaren Erwartungen. Insgesamt bewerten wir die Entwicklung und Einführung der Standardindikatoren in die deutsche EZ positiv. Einige Weichenstellungen stehen allerdings noch aus. Die Entscheidung, in welcher Detailtiefe die Daten innerhalb der deutschen EZ und gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit berichtet werden, ist noch nicht gefallen. Damit ist die Frage verbunden, welche Effekte sich durch eine Berichterstattung auf Basis der Indikatoren erzielen lassen. Angesichts der dezentralen Organisationsstruktur der Durchführungsorganisationen und aufgrund der Fragmentierung der deutschen EZ erhoffen wir uns eine Harmonisierung der Berichtssystme von GIZ und KfW Entwicklungsbank. Standardindikatoren können zudem für eine höhere Transparenz in der deutschen EZ sorgen. Wir empfehlen daher, alle erhobenen Daten einer breiten Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen. Darüber hinaus sollte das integrative Potenzial der Standardindikatoren für die deutsche EZ genutzt werden. Und zwar, indem die Arbeitsteilung zwischen Ministerium und Durchführungsorganisationen lernorientiert gestaltet wird – sowohl im Erhebungsprozess der Daten als auch bei ihrer Auswertung.