Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

2021 is proving to be a key year for cooperation between Europe and its neighbours in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. As the European Union (EU) launches its new multiannual budget, the COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rethink of the political, economic and social priorities that the EU and its member states should pursue with MENA countries. Europe’s potential for positive influence on state–society relations in MENA countries has yet to be realised.
The latest European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) South Communication, published in February 2021, promises a “new agenda” for cooperation with MENA countries. It does not, however, address conflicts between its own objectives, especially between liberal–democratic political and economic reforms, accountable government and respect for human rights on the one hand, and restrictive trade practices, migration management and security cooperation on the other. Furthermore, there is little bilateral policy coordination among EU member states.
Focussing cooperation on social contracts would help overcome such conflicts, which are inherent in cooperation targeting short- to medium-term goals, such as migration management, resilience and private investment. In authoritarian contexts, these measures tend to strengthen the state at the expense of society, and thereby increase prospects for conflict, rather than the stability they promise.
The social contract perspective is long-term. Social contracts rely on the state’s delivery of the “3 Ps”: protection (of citizens), provision (of economic and social services) and participation (in decision-making).
The social contract provides an analytical tool and a set of organising principles for joint EU and member state priorities and activities. The social contract lens shows how the 3 Ps work together as a framework for social cohesion, peaceful relations and political stability. In practical terms, its use would help improve the effectiveness, coherence and coordination of EU and member state cooperation with MENA countries. Some EU member states prefer to focus on trade and economic cooperation, some on political reform and human rights, and others on migration management. If all take a more long-term perspective, they will realise that sustainable social contracts in MENA countries are good for all of their aims.
All European actions should support reforms in MENA countries that aim to make social contracts more acceptable to the contracting parties – governments and social groups. Ideally, such reforms result from negotiations of social contracts between parties on equal terms. In practice, how¬ever, the negotiation power of social groups is often limited – one reason why Europe should ensure that its programmes strengthen societies at least as much as governments.
This paper discusses four key cooperation areas which are potential drivers of change for social contracts:
• Conflict resolution, peacebuilding and reconstruction;
• Post-COVID-19 recovery: health and social protection;
• Participation at local, regional and national levels; and
• Mutually beneficial migration and mobility.
The EU and its member states, by working together on the 3 Ps in these four areas, can influence positive change in the MENA region.

Wir sehen die folgenden Handlungsfelder und konkreten Schritte, um Fischerei in Entwicklungspolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit den heutigen Herausforderungen besser zu positionieren:
1) Gezielter Abbau von Subventionen für die Industriefischerei. Die OECD beziffert den Anteil der Official Development Assistance (ODA), der 2013-2018 für eine Nachhaltigkeits-orientierte Weiterentwicklung der Blue Economy eingesetzt wurde, auf durchschnittlich 2,9 Mrd. Dollar pro Jahr (1,6 Prozent dergesamten ODA). Dies steht den 35,4 Mrd. Dollar gegenüber, die allein 2018 global für Fischereisubventionen bereitgestellt wurden (Skeritt & Sumaila 2021), mit dem zu erwartenden Versagen im Kampf gegen Überfischung.
2) Verbot jeglicher Fischereiaktivitäten in der Hohen See. Sie sollten in Zukunft auf Küstenmeere innerhalb der Ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszonen reduziert werden. Neben dem Schutz der Ökosysteme der Hohen See, würde es die Position der Kleinfischerei gegenüber der Industriefischerei im Kampf um die Fischbestände von Entwicklungsländern stärken (Sumaila et al. 2015).
3) Institutionelle Stärkung und Kapazitätsentwicklung von regionalem Fischereimanagement. Gezielte Förderung regionaler Kooperation und Verständigung zu nachhaltigem Fischereimanagement in Verbindung mit guter Regierungsführung und Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit mittels der Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.
4) Gezielte Förderung der Klein- und Küstenfischerei in Entwicklungs- und Mitteleinkommensländern mit Zugang zu traditionell reichen Fischereigründen und entlang der Small-scale Fisheries Guidelines der FAO (FAO 2015).
5) Gezielter Ausbau von lokalen fischverarbeitenden Industrien und (trans-)regionaler Vermarktung, inklusive gender-diverser Arbeitsplatzförderung, Sozial- und Umweltstandards, Kapazitätsentwicklung und Ausbildung.
6) Förderung von cross-sektoraler Kooperation und Koordination im weiteren Kontext ozeanbasierter Wirtschaftszweige. Sicherstellung von Nachhaltigkeitsstandards (ökologische, soziale, ökonomische, kulturelle) im weiteren Ausbau der ‚Blue Economy‘ mittels der gezielten Unterstützung integrierter Ansätze (wie z.B. die Integrated Maritime Strategy der Afrikanischen Union).

Wir sehen die folgenden Handlungsfelder und konkreten Schritte, um Fischerei in Entwicklungspolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit den heutigen Herausforderungen besser zu positionieren:
1) Gezielter Abbau von Subventionen für die Industriefischerei. Die OECD beziffert den Anteil der Official Development Assistance (ODA), der 2013-2018 für eine Nachhaltigkeits-orientierte Weiterentwicklung der Blue Economy eingesetzt wurde, auf durchschnittlich 2,9 Mrd. Dollar pro Jahr (1,6 Prozent dergesamten ODA). Dies steht den 35,4 Mrd. Dollar gegenüber, die allein 2018 global für Fischereisubventionen bereitgestellt wurden (Skeritt & Sumaila 2021), mit dem zu erwartenden Versagen im Kampf gegen Überfischung.
2) Verbot jeglicher Fischereiaktivitäten in der Hohen See. Sie sollten in Zukunft auf Küstenmeere innerhalb der Ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszonen reduziert werden. Neben dem Schutz der Ökosysteme der Hohen See, würde es die Position der Kleinfischerei gegenüber der Industriefischerei im Kampf um die Fischbestände von Entwicklungsländern stärken (Sumaila et al. 2015).
3) Institutionelle Stärkung und Kapazitätsentwicklung von regionalem Fischereimanagement. Gezielte Förderung regionaler Kooperation und Verständigung zu nachhaltigem Fischereimanagement in Verbindung mit guter Regierungsführung und Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit mittels der Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.
4) Gezielte Förderung der Klein- und Küstenfischerei in Entwicklungs- und Mitteleinkommensländern mit Zugang zu traditionell reichen Fischereigründen und entlang der Small-scale Fisheries Guidelines der FAO (FAO 2015).
5) Gezielter Ausbau von lokalen fischverarbeitenden Industrien und (trans-)regionaler Vermarktung, inklusive gender-diverser Arbeitsplatzförderung, Sozial- und Umweltstandards, Kapazitätsentwicklung und Ausbildung.
6) Förderung von cross-sektoraler Kooperation und Koordination im weiteren Kontext ozeanbasierter Wirtschaftszweige. Sicherstellung von Nachhaltigkeitsstandards (ökologische, soziale, ökonomische, kulturelle) im weiteren Ausbau der ‚Blue Economy‘ mittels der gezielten Unterstützung integrierter Ansätze (wie z.B. die Integrated Maritime Strategy der Afrikanischen Union).

Wir sehen die folgenden Handlungsfelder und konkreten Schritte, um Fischerei in Entwicklungspolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit den heutigen Herausforderungen besser zu positionieren:
1) Gezielter Abbau von Subventionen für die Industriefischerei. Die OECD beziffert den Anteil der Official Development Assistance (ODA), der 2013-2018 für eine Nachhaltigkeits-orientierte Weiterentwicklung der Blue Economy eingesetzt wurde, auf durchschnittlich 2,9 Mrd. Dollar pro Jahr (1,6 Prozent dergesamten ODA). Dies steht den 35,4 Mrd. Dollar gegenüber, die allein 2018 global für Fischereisubventionen bereitgestellt wurden (Skeritt & Sumaila 2021), mit dem zu erwartenden Versagen im Kampf gegen Überfischung.
2) Verbot jeglicher Fischereiaktivitäten in der Hohen See. Sie sollten in Zukunft auf Küstenmeere innerhalb der Ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszonen reduziert werden. Neben dem Schutz der Ökosysteme der Hohen See, würde es die Position der Kleinfischerei gegenüber der Industriefischerei im Kampf um die Fischbestände von Entwicklungsländern stärken (Sumaila et al. 2015).
3) Institutionelle Stärkung und Kapazitätsentwicklung von regionalem Fischereimanagement. Gezielte Förderung regionaler Kooperation und Verständigung zu nachhaltigem Fischereimanagement in Verbindung mit guter Regierungsführung und Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit mittels der Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.
4) Gezielte Förderung der Klein- und Küstenfischerei in Entwicklungs- und Mitteleinkommensländern mit Zugang zu traditionell reichen Fischereigründen und entlang der Small-scale Fisheries Guidelines der FAO (FAO 2015).
5) Gezielter Ausbau von lokalen fischverarbeitenden Industrien und (trans-)regionaler Vermarktung, inklusive gender-diverser Arbeitsplatzförderung, Sozial- und Umweltstandards, Kapazitätsentwicklung und Ausbildung.
6) Förderung von cross-sektoraler Kooperation und Koordination im weiteren Kontext ozeanbasierter Wirtschaftszweige. Sicherstellung von Nachhaltigkeitsstandards (ökologische, soziale, ökonomische, kulturelle) im weiteren Ausbau der ‚Blue Economy‘ mittels der gezielten Unterstützung integrierter Ansätze (wie z.B. die Integrated Maritime Strategy der Afrikanischen Union).

While social protection has become an important policy field in many low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), 55 per cent of the world’s population are still not even covered by one social protection benefit, with 87 per cent of people uncovered in Sub-Saharan Africa and 61 per cent in Asia and the Pacific (ILO 2017). Next to undercoverage, there are other factors that lower the efficiency, effectiveness and social justice of social protection in many countries, such as the lack of a joint vision and policy strategy, fragmented social protection programmes, duplication of administrative systems and efforts and irrational prioritisation in spending. These all call for a stronger systems approach to social protection. This handbook is therefore dedicated to social protection systems, highlighting the relevance but also the challenges that are related to a harmonised and coordinated approach across different social protection instruments, institutions, actors and delivery mechanisms. It takes the reader through all possible aspects of social protection systems.

While social protection has become an important policy field in many low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), 55 per cent of the world’s population are still not even covered by one social protection benefit, with 87 per cent of people uncovered in Sub-Saharan Africa and 61 per cent in Asia and the Pacific (ILO 2017). Next to undercoverage, there are other factors that lower the efficiency, effectiveness and social justice of social protection in many countries, such as the lack of a joint vision and policy strategy, fragmented social protection programmes, duplication of administrative systems and efforts and irrational prioritisation in spending. These all call for a stronger systems approach to social protection. This handbook is therefore dedicated to social protection systems, highlighting the relevance but also the challenges that are related to a harmonised and coordinated approach across different social protection instruments, institutions, actors and delivery mechanisms. It takes the reader through all possible aspects of social protection systems.

While social protection has become an important policy field in many low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), 55 per cent of the world’s population are still not even covered by one social protection benefit, with 87 per cent of people uncovered in Sub-Saharan Africa and 61 per cent in Asia and the Pacific (ILO 2017). Next to undercoverage, there are other factors that lower the efficiency, effectiveness and social justice of social protection in many countries, such as the lack of a joint vision and policy strategy, fragmented social protection programmes, duplication of administrative systems and efforts and irrational prioritisation in spending. These all call for a stronger systems approach to social protection. This handbook is therefore dedicated to social protection systems, highlighting the relevance but also the challenges that are related to a harmonised and coordinated approach across different social protection instruments, institutions, actors and delivery mechanisms. It takes the reader through all possible aspects of social protection systems.

The negotiations and implementation of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union (EU) and the 79 countries forming the Organisation of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) – a group of developing countries largely sharing a colonial past with EU members – were conflict-ridden from the beginning. Transforming a decades-long system of unilateral tariff preferences into quasi-reciprocal trade agreements, at the heart of controversies are the potentially adverse effects of the EPAs inflicted on African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. In our recently published article we explore this allegation by providing an early ex-post assessment of the EPAs’ effects on two-way trade flows between the European Union and the ACP countries. An empirical assessment is key to inform the heated discussions on EPAs and EU-ACP trade relations and to also shed new light on the debate on the European Union as a potentially normative trade power which uses its economic strength to advance non-trade objectives such as sustainable development.

The negotiations and implementation of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union (EU) and the 79 countries forming the Organisation of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) – a group of developing countries largely sharing a colonial past with EU members – were conflict-ridden from the beginning. Transforming a decades-long system of unilateral tariff preferences into quasi-reciprocal trade agreements, at the heart of controversies are the potentially adverse effects of the EPAs inflicted on African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. In our recently published article we explore this allegation by providing an early ex-post assessment of the EPAs’ effects on two-way trade flows between the European Union and the ACP countries. An empirical assessment is key to inform the heated discussions on EPAs and EU-ACP trade relations and to also shed new light on the debate on the European Union as a potentially normative trade power which uses its economic strength to advance non-trade objectives such as sustainable development.

The negotiations and implementation of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union (EU) and the 79 countries forming the Organisation of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) – a group of developing countries largely sharing a colonial past with EU members – were conflict-ridden from the beginning. Transforming a decades-long system of unilateral tariff preferences into quasi-reciprocal trade agreements, at the heart of controversies are the potentially adverse effects of the EPAs inflicted on African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. In our recently published article we explore this allegation by providing an early ex-post assessment of the EPAs’ effects on two-way trade flows between the European Union and the ACP countries. An empirical assessment is key to inform the heated discussions on EPAs and EU-ACP trade relations and to also shed new light on the debate on the European Union as a potentially normative trade power which uses its economic strength to advance non-trade objectives such as sustainable development.

This part of the Handbook discusses the importance of harmonizing similar social protection instruments and coordinating different social protection instruments as well as linking up social protection with other sectors. The analysis of links between sets of social protection programmes is crucial given the proliferation of social protection programmes in low- and middle-income countries in the last two decades. This is also represented by the call for integrated social protection systems. In parallel, the need for enhanced coordination between social protection and other sectoral policies is given by the multidimensional nature of poverty and vulnerability. This means that the goals and activities of many social protection programmes are linked with other sectors. For example, to successfully enhance human capital accumulation, social protection programmes (such as conditional cash transfer programmes) need to be linked with educational and health sectors. Similarly, it is argued that social protection should be better linked with agricultural policies.

This part of the Handbook discusses the importance of harmonizing similar social protection instruments and coordinating different social protection instruments as well as linking up social protection with other sectors. The analysis of links between sets of social protection programmes is crucial given the proliferation of social protection programmes in low- and middle-income countries in the last two decades. This is also represented by the call for integrated social protection systems. In parallel, the need for enhanced coordination between social protection and other sectoral policies is given by the multidimensional nature of poverty and vulnerability. This means that the goals and activities of many social protection programmes are linked with other sectors. For example, to successfully enhance human capital accumulation, social protection programmes (such as conditional cash transfer programmes) need to be linked with educational and health sectors. Similarly, it is argued that social protection should be better linked with agricultural policies.

This part of the Handbook discusses the importance of harmonizing similar social protection instruments and coordinating different social protection instruments as well as linking up social protection with other sectors. The analysis of links between sets of social protection programmes is crucial given the proliferation of social protection programmes in low- and middle-income countries in the last two decades. This is also represented by the call for integrated social protection systems. In parallel, the need for enhanced coordination between social protection and other sectoral policies is given by the multidimensional nature of poverty and vulnerability. This means that the goals and activities of many social protection programmes are linked with other sectors. For example, to successfully enhance human capital accumulation, social protection programmes (such as conditional cash transfer programmes) need to be linked with educational and health sectors. Similarly, it is argued that social protection should be better linked with agricultural policies.

This  part  of  the  handbook  deals  with  some  of  the  questions  that  have  to  be  answered  when social  protection  programmes  are  designed,  and  which  have  been  mentioned  in  the  general introduction to this handbook already: why social protection should be provided, who should benefit, who should provide it and how it can be financed. Of course, the list that follows is far from exhaustive.

This  part  of  the  handbook  deals  with  some  of  the  questions  that  have  to  be  answered  when social  protection  programmes  are  designed,  and  which  have  been  mentioned  in  the  general introduction to this handbook already: why social protection should be provided, who should benefit, who should provide it and how it can be financed. Of course, the list that follows is far from exhaustive.

This  part  of  the  handbook  deals  with  some  of  the  questions  that  have  to  be  answered  when social  protection  programmes  are  designed,  and  which  have  been  mentioned  in  the  general introduction to this handbook already: why social protection should be provided, who should benefit, who should provide it and how it can be financed. Of course, the list that follows is far from exhaustive.

Almost  two  decades  ago,  the  notion  of  micro-insurance  raised  a  new  wave  of  attention among  practitioners  and  researchers  in  many  world  regions  but  the  concept  is  much  older. In fact, a large part of today’s insurance companies in Europe and North America started as mutual  insurance  unions  in  the  nineteenth  century  with  low  contribution  rates,  i.e.  informal micro-insurance  arrangements.  Since  about  the  year  2000,  the  concept  was  sparked  in  the international  development  debate  by  the  fact  that  an  increasing  number  of  academics  and practitioners  had  understood  that  more  conventional  social  protection  strategies  (social insurance and assistance) had obviously failed at covering larger shares of people in low- and middle-income countries. A majority of the world population remained vulnerable to manifold risks such as bad health, work disability and unemployment. Of course, the failure was at least partly due to the fact that many governments had tried only half-heartedly to extend the outreach of their social insurance and assistance schemes but there was little reason to hope that governments would change in the short term. New avenues had to be sought in order to extend the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.

Almost  two  decades  ago,  the  notion  of  micro-insurance  raised  a  new  wave  of  attention among  practitioners  and  researchers  in  many  world  regions  but  the  concept  is  much  older. In fact, a large part of today’s insurance companies in Europe and North America started as mutual  insurance  unions  in  the  nineteenth  century  with  low  contribution  rates,  i.e.  informal micro-insurance  arrangements.  Since  about  the  year  2000,  the  concept  was  sparked  in  the international  development  debate  by  the  fact  that  an  increasing  number  of  academics  and practitioners  had  understood  that  more  conventional  social  protection  strategies  (social insurance and assistance) had obviously failed at covering larger shares of people in low- and middle-income countries. A majority of the world population remained vulnerable to manifold risks such as bad health, work disability and unemployment. Of course, the failure was at least partly due to the fact that many governments had tried only half-heartedly to extend the outreach of their social insurance and assistance schemes but there was little reason to hope that governments would change in the short term. New avenues had to be sought in order to extend the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.

Almost  two  decades  ago,  the  notion  of  micro-insurance  raised  a  new  wave  of  attention among  practitioners  and  researchers  in  many  world  regions  but  the  concept  is  much  older. In fact, a large part of today’s insurance companies in Europe and North America started as mutual  insurance  unions  in  the  nineteenth  century  with  low  contribution  rates,  i.e.  informal micro-insurance  arrangements.  Since  about  the  year  2000,  the  concept  was  sparked  in  the international  development  debate  by  the  fact  that  an  increasing  number  of  academics  and practitioners  had  understood  that  more  conventional  social  protection  strategies  (social insurance and assistance) had obviously failed at covering larger shares of people in low- and middle-income countries. A majority of the world population remained vulnerable to manifold risks such as bad health, work disability and unemployment. Of course, the failure was at least partly due to the fact that many governments had tried only half-heartedly to extend the outreach of their social insurance and assistance schemes but there was little reason to hope that governments would change in the short term. New avenues had to be sought in order to extend the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.the overall coverage of social protection systems at a faster pace.

Ethiopia is the second largest refugee-hosting country in Africa; it accommodates around 700,000 refugees, mostly from neighbouring countries. Humanitarian and development actors are increasingly highlighting the local integration of refugees as a durable solution to protracted refugee situations. Hosting states are called upon to include refugees in their national public services, rather than to sustain a parallel (humanitarian) system, and to empower refugees to secure their own livelihoods as part of the local community. The international community has endorsed this idea by adopting the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and vowing financial support. Ethiopia is one of the pilot countries implementing this framework. However, the execution of the ambitious approach faces many challenges. This paper focusses on the role of local governments within the CRRF implementation process; they have not yet been the focus of attention even though sustainable solutions largely depend on them. Results show that the CRRF implementation process has slowed down considerably in the past years, mostly remaining on a project base. Shifting political priorities, a lack of leadership and coordination at the national level as well as the unclear role and low capacities of local governments are major barriers to the local integration of refugees.