Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The UN Security Council is expected to renew MONUSCO’s mandate on December 20, 2023. The upcoming negotiations will unfold against the backdrop of the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) request to the Security Council on September 1, 2023, for the mission’s accelerated withdrawal to commence at the end of 2023; the government and the mission’s signing in November of a disengagement plan to implement this accelerated withdrawal; and the general elections, slated for December 20, 2023. The past two months have also seen renewed fighting between the Armed Forces of the DRC (FARDC), the M23 rebel group, and other armed groups. The Nairobi and Luanda peace processes were disrupted by the resumption of hostilities and heightened tension between the DRC and Rwanda. The security and humanitarian conditions continue to worsen in the eastern provinces of the DRC, with persistent threats to human rights and the protection of civilians.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), Security Council Report, and the Stimson Center cohosted a roundtable discussion on November 21, 2023, to reflect on MONUSCO’s mandate renewal. This roundtable offered a platform for member states, UN officials, civil society stakeholders, and independent experts to share their assessments of the situation in the DRC in a frank and collaborative manner. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the prioritization and sequencing of MONUSCO’s mandate, as well as the mission’s strategic orientation and actions on the ground as it prepares for a drawdown.

Given the context of MONUSCO’s transition and withdrawal in the coming months, the mission will likely need to balance the following issues:

• Prioritizing the protection of civilians and safeguarding humanitarian access to prevent the widening of protection gaps during the mission’s drawdown;
• Enhancing engagement with local communities and civil society organizations to execute the withdrawal plan in line with specific needs in regions within and outside eastern DRC;
• Improving coordination between the UN and regional partners that are present in eastern DRC through regular communication, information sharing, and joint planning;
• Providing a clearer definition of and political guidance on security sector reform to ensure the appropriate and timely transition of security responsibilities to national actors;
• Reinforcing support to the Congolese government on the implementation of its Demobilization, Disarmament, Community Recovery and Stabilization Program (P-DDRCS); and
• Supporting the revitalization of the Luanda and Nairobi processes following the December 2023 presidential election.

Download

Ocean sustainability initiatives – in research, policy, management and development – will be more effective in delivering comprehensive benefits when they proactively engage with, invest in and use social knowledge. We synthesize five intervention areas for social engagement and collaboration with marine social scientists, and in doing so we appeal to all ocean science disciplines and non-academics working in ocean initiatives in industry, government, funding agencies and civil society. The five social intervention areas are: (1) Using ethics to guide decision-making, (2) Improving governance, (3) Aligning human behavior with goals and values, (4) Addressing impacts on people, and (5) Building transdisciplinary partnerships and co-producing sustainability transformation pathways. These focal areas can guide the four phases of most ocean sustainability initiatives (Intention, Design, Implementation, Evaluation) to improve social benefits and avoid harm. Early integration of social knowledge from the five areas during intention setting and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering benefits. Later stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency and reporting for future activities.

Ocean sustainability initiatives – in research, policy, management and development – will be more effective in delivering comprehensive benefits when they proactively engage with, invest in and use social knowledge. We synthesize five intervention areas for social engagement and collaboration with marine social scientists, and in doing so we appeal to all ocean science disciplines and non-academics working in ocean initiatives in industry, government, funding agencies and civil society. The five social intervention areas are: (1) Using ethics to guide decision-making, (2) Improving governance, (3) Aligning human behavior with goals and values, (4) Addressing impacts on people, and (5) Building transdisciplinary partnerships and co-producing sustainability transformation pathways. These focal areas can guide the four phases of most ocean sustainability initiatives (Intention, Design, Implementation, Evaluation) to improve social benefits and avoid harm. Early integration of social knowledge from the five areas during intention setting and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering benefits. Later stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency and reporting for future activities.

Ocean sustainability initiatives – in research, policy, management and development – will be more effective in delivering comprehensive benefits when they proactively engage with, invest in and use social knowledge. We synthesize five intervention areas for social engagement and collaboration with marine social scientists, and in doing so we appeal to all ocean science disciplines and non-academics working in ocean initiatives in industry, government, funding agencies and civil society. The five social intervention areas are: (1) Using ethics to guide decision-making, (2) Improving governance, (3) Aligning human behavior with goals and values, (4) Addressing impacts on people, and (5) Building transdisciplinary partnerships and co-producing sustainability transformation pathways. These focal areas can guide the four phases of most ocean sustainability initiatives (Intention, Design, Implementation, Evaluation) to improve social benefits and avoid harm. Early integration of social knowledge from the five areas during intention setting and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering benefits. Later stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency and reporting for future activities.

Politikberatung gehört zu den Kernaufgaben des DIW Berlin. Um seine Forschungsergebnisse und Empfehlungen in die wirtschafts- und sozialpolitische Debatte einzubringen, betreibt das Institut eine intensive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Die Abteilung Kommunikation bereitet Themen und Inhalte für unterschiedliche Zielgruppen in verschiedenen Formaten auf. Dazu gehören insbesondere Pressearbeit, Print- und Onlinepublikationen, Website- und Social-Media-Kommunikation sowie Veranstaltungen.

Zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt suchen wir eine*n PR-Volontär*in mit dem Schwerpunkt Presse (w/m/div) (Vollzeit).

Africa is urbanising at an unprecedented pace and scale. Despite all the challenges, urbanisation represents a unique opportunity for the structural transformation and development of the continent – if the right measures are taken and supported in time, writes Michael Roll (IDOS).

Africa is urbanising at an unprecedented pace and scale. Despite all the challenges, urbanisation represents a unique opportunity for the structural transformation and development of the continent – if the right measures are taken and supported in time, writes Michael Roll (IDOS).

Africa is urbanising at an unprecedented pace and scale. Despite all the challenges, urbanisation represents a unique opportunity for the structural transformation and development of the continent – if the right measures are taken and supported in time, writes Michael Roll (IDOS).

Poverty and gender equality are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda and are key strategic areas for Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). It has been often argued that poverty is gendered: at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women, 70 per cent of the world’s poor was said to be female. However, that figure is not backed by sound scientific evidence. There are several challenges to examining the relationship between gender and poverty. The main one is that monetary poverty is calculated at the household level: it is not possible to distinguish the poverty status of different household members. Theoretically, it is possible to analyse poverty by gender by focusing on non-monetary dimensions, as several feminist scholars advocate. However, the most well-known indices of multidimensional poverty have the same problems as those for income poverty: they are computed at the household level. Therefore, we do not really know if – or to what extent – poverty is gendered. Recent studies conducted by IDOS researchers help fill this gap by analysing gender disparities in multidimensional poverty in more than 80 low- and middle-income countries and using individual-level indices, which encompass three dimensions: education, health and employment. This policy brief summarises the main findings of the IDOS studies and presents key policy recommendations. The research reveals the female face of poverty. In recent years, female multidimensional poverty has been higher than male multidimensional poverty almost everywhere: on average, the former is about 70 per cent higher than the latter. Depending on the specific poverty index used, women make up between 54 and 63 per cent of the impoverished population. Gender disparities vary substantially across the world: the largest disparities are visible in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and South Asia. The research also shows that from the late 1990s/early 2000s most countries experienced increased gender disparities in poverty, a process often referred to as the “feminisation of poverty”. This largely occurred in Europe and Central Asia, as well as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The very large gender disparities in MENA and South Asia have persisted for decades. The studies also find that the increase in gender disparities occurred especially in rural areas and was mostly driven by an increase in disparities in access to paid employment. To tackle the gendered nature of poverty, we recommend:
• Incentivising women’s employment and pro-moting the care economy. Care policies can partly free women from their care duties and/or recognise the economic value of care work, thereby increasing employment opportunities for women. Expanding the (professional) care sector – and more generally, the service sector – also creates job opportunities for women.
• Adopting gender-responsive social protection. Cash transfers can benefit women in particular but should include clear gender-equality goals and be designed to challenge existing gender norms (rather than reinforce them).
• Tackling gender norms. Eliminating discriminatory laws and regulations can help in the short term; education and awareness campaigns are critical in the long run.
• Advocating for and realising the (gender) data revolution. It is necessary to invest in ad-hoc data collection focused on individual and female experiences of poverty.

Poverty and gender equality are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda and are key strategic areas for Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). It has been often argued that poverty is gendered: at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women, 70 per cent of the world’s poor was said to be female. However, that figure is not backed by sound scientific evidence. There are several challenges to examining the relationship between gender and poverty. The main one is that monetary poverty is calculated at the household level: it is not possible to distinguish the poverty status of different household members. Theoretically, it is possible to analyse poverty by gender by focusing on non-monetary dimensions, as several feminist scholars advocate. However, the most well-known indices of multidimensional poverty have the same problems as those for income poverty: they are computed at the household level. Therefore, we do not really know if – or to what extent – poverty is gendered. Recent studies conducted by IDOS researchers help fill this gap by analysing gender disparities in multidimensional poverty in more than 80 low- and middle-income countries and using individual-level indices, which encompass three dimensions: education, health and employment. This policy brief summarises the main findings of the IDOS studies and presents key policy recommendations. The research reveals the female face of poverty. In recent years, female multidimensional poverty has been higher than male multidimensional poverty almost everywhere: on average, the former is about 70 per cent higher than the latter. Depending on the specific poverty index used, women make up between 54 and 63 per cent of the impoverished population. Gender disparities vary substantially across the world: the largest disparities are visible in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and South Asia. The research also shows that from the late 1990s/early 2000s most countries experienced increased gender disparities in poverty, a process often referred to as the “feminisation of poverty”. This largely occurred in Europe and Central Asia, as well as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The very large gender disparities in MENA and South Asia have persisted for decades. The studies also find that the increase in gender disparities occurred especially in rural areas and was mostly driven by an increase in disparities in access to paid employment. To tackle the gendered nature of poverty, we recommend:
• Incentivising women’s employment and pro-moting the care economy. Care policies can partly free women from their care duties and/or recognise the economic value of care work, thereby increasing employment opportunities for women. Expanding the (professional) care sector – and more generally, the service sector – also creates job opportunities for women.
• Adopting gender-responsive social protection. Cash transfers can benefit women in particular but should include clear gender-equality goals and be designed to challenge existing gender norms (rather than reinforce them).
• Tackling gender norms. Eliminating discriminatory laws and regulations can help in the short term; education and awareness campaigns are critical in the long run.
• Advocating for and realising the (gender) data revolution. It is necessary to invest in ad-hoc data collection focused on individual and female experiences of poverty.

Poverty and gender equality are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda and are key strategic areas for Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). It has been often argued that poverty is gendered: at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women, 70 per cent of the world’s poor was said to be female. However, that figure is not backed by sound scientific evidence. There are several challenges to examining the relationship between gender and poverty. The main one is that monetary poverty is calculated at the household level: it is not possible to distinguish the poverty status of different household members. Theoretically, it is possible to analyse poverty by gender by focusing on non-monetary dimensions, as several feminist scholars advocate. However, the most well-known indices of multidimensional poverty have the same problems as those for income poverty: they are computed at the household level. Therefore, we do not really know if – or to what extent – poverty is gendered. Recent studies conducted by IDOS researchers help fill this gap by analysing gender disparities in multidimensional poverty in more than 80 low- and middle-income countries and using individual-level indices, which encompass three dimensions: education, health and employment. This policy brief summarises the main findings of the IDOS studies and presents key policy recommendations. The research reveals the female face of poverty. In recent years, female multidimensional poverty has been higher than male multidimensional poverty almost everywhere: on average, the former is about 70 per cent higher than the latter. Depending on the specific poverty index used, women make up between 54 and 63 per cent of the impoverished population. Gender disparities vary substantially across the world: the largest disparities are visible in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and South Asia. The research also shows that from the late 1990s/early 2000s most countries experienced increased gender disparities in poverty, a process often referred to as the “feminisation of poverty”. This largely occurred in Europe and Central Asia, as well as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The very large gender disparities in MENA and South Asia have persisted for decades. The studies also find that the increase in gender disparities occurred especially in rural areas and was mostly driven by an increase in disparities in access to paid employment. To tackle the gendered nature of poverty, we recommend:
• Incentivising women’s employment and pro-moting the care economy. Care policies can partly free women from their care duties and/or recognise the economic value of care work, thereby increasing employment opportunities for women. Expanding the (professional) care sector – and more generally, the service sector – also creates job opportunities for women.
• Adopting gender-responsive social protection. Cash transfers can benefit women in particular but should include clear gender-equality goals and be designed to challenge existing gender norms (rather than reinforce them).
• Tackling gender norms. Eliminating discriminatory laws and regulations can help in the short term; education and awareness campaigns are critical in the long run.
• Advocating for and realising the (gender) data revolution. It is necessary to invest in ad-hoc data collection focused on individual and female experiences of poverty.

The EU’s Global Gateway infrastructure investment programme is a new paradigm for cooperation with Africa. Mark Furness & Annabelle Houdret argue that European and German policymakers need to address the practical and moral dilemmas of investing in infrastructure with authoritarian governments, especially in North Africa.

The EU’s Global Gateway infrastructure investment programme is a new paradigm for cooperation with Africa. Mark Furness & Annabelle Houdret argue that European and German policymakers need to address the practical and moral dilemmas of investing in infrastructure with authoritarian governments, especially in North Africa.