Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Event Video 

A collection of interfaith leaders convened by IPI MENA came together on April 27th to reaffirm their commitments to promoting peace, dialogue, and sustainable development.

During the interventions, French Ambassador Jerome Cauchard emphasized how good education is a prerequisite for the new generations, wherein empathy and the ability to mutually respect and understand each other can lead to peace.

In reference to the increasing number of violent and hate crimes in the United States, US Charge d’Affaires Margaret Nardi reminded the audience of the importance of the diplomatic corps in that, similar to religion, “embassies try to create relations on a personal level, meet them as a person and see their humanity,” which has become particularly important this year during the pandemic.

German Ambassador Kai Boeckmann drew attention to the German Task Force on Religions of Peace that was established in 2016. Ambassador Boeckmann noted the common objective between interfaith leaders and diplomats to “build trust, protect the weak, and strive for stability.”

Mounir Bouchenaki, Advisor to Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), advanced UNESCO’s message on the culture of peace; “through knowing cultural heritage, through education, appreciation of the other, and knowing the other that we can avoid the unfortunate situations of terrorism and massacres of people.”

IPI MENA Director Nejib Friji opened the webinar, “Interfaith Dialogue: Solidarity for Peace,” by paying homage to Stephanie M., a French police officer and the latest victim of violent extremism in the name of religion. Following a moment of prayer and meditation for all victims, Mr. Friji strongly condemned any acts of violent extremism in the name of religion committed by individuals, groups, or states and called for greater solidarity, partnership, and cooperation at all levels through a “message of tolerance, mutual respect, and peace.”

Addressing interfaith leaders of Baha’i, Jewish, Christian, Islam, and Hindu denominations, Reverend Hani Aziz, President of the White Flags Association, Pastor of the National Evangelical Church, and co-organizer of the webinar, reminded the audience that the “true enemy is ignorance and intolerance.”

Pujya Brahmavihari Swami, Religious Leader & International Spokesperson of BAPS Hindu Mandir addressed the audience from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. His message of peace highlighted the “beauty in diversity,” drawing on the links between faith, science, and sustainable peace.

In light of the numerous religious celebrations that coincide with the Spring season, Ms. Tahera Jaberi, Representative of the Baha’i Faith, noted the celebration of Nowruz, Baha’i New Year, is “a time for renewal and reawakening,” not just in the physical world, but the spiritual one, too. “Religion can be seen as a system of knowledge and practice that offers insights and values that can help societies advance.”

Pastor Job Nelson of Bethel Church of Nations in Bahrain, also shared how the celebration of Easter symbolized a season of hope and coexistence, serving as a time for endurance, resurrection, and restoration.

Dr. Abdulla Ahmed Al Maqabi, Law Courts Directorate, Ministry of Justice & Islamic Affairs, echoed the message that all religions carry the message of peace. “We are one about peace, we are one for peace, we are one for everything about peace,” he said.

Mr. Ebrahim Nonoo, Representative of the Jewish Community and President of the Association of Gulf Jewish Communities, followed suit by identifying the core message of all holy books as underlining the workings of all societies, “the glue of respect for each other and the acceptance of all religions.”

Chaplain Aaron Carlton, US Naval Forces Central Command, Fifth Fleet Chaplain, expressed his purpose and intent to promote peace, understanding, and dialogue while Pastor Blaine Newhouse, National Evangelical Church, shared his commitment to working toward justice, reconciliation, and peace through faith with those who are likeminded.

Following the interfaith interventions, the virtual floor was opened to a large audience comprising of diplomatic corps, private sector, and media.

Download the Remarks

On April 27th, IPI Chair Kevin Rudd briefed the UN Security Council Open Debate on the “Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population,” convened by Vietnam.

In his remarks, Mr. Rudd cites examples of attacks against vital human infrastructure and the natural environment—something that is prohibited by international law—and then lays out what more can be done to prevent such attacks.

Said Mr. Rudd: “The UN Security Council, and its members, must take the lead in respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law, including in upholding their obligation to protect objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. This is the bare minimum yet would yield the maximum results for the protection of essential infrastructure and for mitigating humanitarian and development impacts in the long run.”

South-South cooperation has become an increasingly visible part of international development processes. Together with the expansion of triangular cooperation – that is, cooperation among developing countries supported by a traditional donor or multilateral organisation – the growing clout of South-South schemes reflects shifts in power and wealth towards the former developing world. Against this backdrop, United Nations (UN) entities have repeatedly been asked to mainstream their support for South-South and triangular cooperation (SSTC), but there is hardly any systematic comparative evidence on whether and how they have done so. This paper addresses this gap in three steps. First, it traces the rise and evolution of South-South terminology at the UN, showing that the use of North-South frames had its origins in debates about international inequalities in the 1960s and has expanded in the context of globalisation processes since the 1970s, and also that it is developing countries themselves that have taken up and rallied behind notions of South-South. The paper provides an overview of three partly complementary and partly contradictory approaches that understand South-South cooperation to be a set of technical cooperation modalities; a general political narrative; or a shorthand for inter-state cooperation beyond North-South assistance, with the latter being the dominant de facto understanding among UN entities. Second, the analysis focuses on UN efforts over the last two decades aimed at mainstreaming support for SSTC. It centres around a scorecard of 15 UN entities that maps their level of institutional focus on SSTC, based on insights from strategies, annual reports, publications, monitoring frameworks, budgets and organisational structures. Based on the scorecard, UN entities are grouped under the tentative labels of “champions”, “waverers” and “stragglers” for mapping patterns of SSTC mainstreaming. Third, the paper identifies three key factors that, in addition to beliefs in the functional relevance and potential effectiveness of SSTC, have accompanied and conditioned UN mainstreaming efforts. SSTC support has been part of (a) strategic considerations for positioning UN entities in an evolving funding environment; (b) internal bureaucratic dynamics that centre around individuals and shape day-to-day engagement; and (c) geopolitical tensions connected to the increasingly visible fracture between the United States and China. Traditional donors, in particular, tend to approach South-South cooperation as an umbrella for the expansion of China’s clout across the UN development system, leading to an intensification of SSTC-related contestations. Overall, support for South-South and triangular cooperation has had a long, multi-faceted, expanding and increasingly controversial trajectory at the UN. With reference to areas of future research and policy recommendations, the paper suggests that UN entities – in coordination with member states – are well advised to expand their efforts for exploring how to best support cooperation that unfolds outside traditional North-South assistance schemes.

South-South cooperation has become an increasingly visible part of international development processes. Together with the expansion of triangular cooperation – that is, cooperation among developing countries supported by a traditional donor or multilateral organisation – the growing clout of South-South schemes reflects shifts in power and wealth towards the former developing world. Against this backdrop, United Nations (UN) entities have repeatedly been asked to mainstream their support for South-South and triangular cooperation (SSTC), but there is hardly any systematic comparative evidence on whether and how they have done so. This paper addresses this gap in three steps. First, it traces the rise and evolution of South-South terminology at the UN, showing that the use of North-South frames had its origins in debates about international inequalities in the 1960s and has expanded in the context of globalisation processes since the 1970s, and also that it is developing countries themselves that have taken up and rallied behind notions of South-South. The paper provides an overview of three partly complementary and partly contradictory approaches that understand South-South cooperation to be a set of technical cooperation modalities; a general political narrative; or a shorthand for inter-state cooperation beyond North-South assistance, with the latter being the dominant de facto understanding among UN entities. Second, the analysis focuses on UN efforts over the last two decades aimed at mainstreaming support for SSTC. It centres around a scorecard of 15 UN entities that maps their level of institutional focus on SSTC, based on insights from strategies, annual reports, publications, monitoring frameworks, budgets and organisational structures. Based on the scorecard, UN entities are grouped under the tentative labels of “champions”, “waverers” and “stragglers” for mapping patterns of SSTC mainstreaming. Third, the paper identifies three key factors that, in addition to beliefs in the functional relevance and potential effectiveness of SSTC, have accompanied and conditioned UN mainstreaming efforts. SSTC support has been part of (a) strategic considerations for positioning UN entities in an evolving funding environment; (b) internal bureaucratic dynamics that centre around individuals and shape day-to-day engagement; and (c) geopolitical tensions connected to the increasingly visible fracture between the United States and China. Traditional donors, in particular, tend to approach South-South cooperation as an umbrella for the expansion of China’s clout across the UN development system, leading to an intensification of SSTC-related contestations. Overall, support for South-South and triangular cooperation has had a long, multi-faceted, expanding and increasingly controversial trajectory at the UN. With reference to areas of future research and policy recommendations, the paper suggests that UN entities – in coordination with member states – are well advised to expand their efforts for exploring how to best support cooperation that unfolds outside traditional North-South assistance schemes.

South-South cooperation has become an increasingly visible part of international development processes. Together with the expansion of triangular cooperation – that is, cooperation among developing countries supported by a traditional donor or multilateral organisation – the growing clout of South-South schemes reflects shifts in power and wealth towards the former developing world. Against this backdrop, United Nations (UN) entities have repeatedly been asked to mainstream their support for South-South and triangular cooperation (SSTC), but there is hardly any systematic comparative evidence on whether and how they have done so. This paper addresses this gap in three steps. First, it traces the rise and evolution of South-South terminology at the UN, showing that the use of North-South frames had its origins in debates about international inequalities in the 1960s and has expanded in the context of globalisation processes since the 1970s, and also that it is developing countries themselves that have taken up and rallied behind notions of South-South. The paper provides an overview of three partly complementary and partly contradictory approaches that understand South-South cooperation to be a set of technical cooperation modalities; a general political narrative; or a shorthand for inter-state cooperation beyond North-South assistance, with the latter being the dominant de facto understanding among UN entities. Second, the analysis focuses on UN efforts over the last two decades aimed at mainstreaming support for SSTC. It centres around a scorecard of 15 UN entities that maps their level of institutional focus on SSTC, based on insights from strategies, annual reports, publications, monitoring frameworks, budgets and organisational structures. Based on the scorecard, UN entities are grouped under the tentative labels of “champions”, “waverers” and “stragglers” for mapping patterns of SSTC mainstreaming. Third, the paper identifies three key factors that, in addition to beliefs in the functional relevance and potential effectiveness of SSTC, have accompanied and conditioned UN mainstreaming efforts. SSTC support has been part of (a) strategic considerations for positioning UN entities in an evolving funding environment; (b) internal bureaucratic dynamics that centre around individuals and shape day-to-day engagement; and (c) geopolitical tensions connected to the increasingly visible fracture between the United States and China. Traditional donors, in particular, tend to approach South-South cooperation as an umbrella for the expansion of China’s clout across the UN development system, leading to an intensification of SSTC-related contestations. Overall, support for South-South and triangular cooperation has had a long, multi-faceted, expanding and increasingly controversial trajectory at the UN. With reference to areas of future research and policy recommendations, the paper suggests that UN entities – in coordination with member states – are well advised to expand their efforts for exploring how to best support cooperation that unfolds outside traditional North-South assistance schemes.

DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher kommentiert die Entscheidungen des Bund-Länder-Treffens zur Impfstrategie wie folgt:

-->Geimpfte sollten zwar wieder viele ihrer Freiheiten erhalten, alle Restriktionen für Geimpfte aufzuheben wäre jedoch ein Fehler gewesen. Nicht nur das Corona-Virus, sondern auch Impfungen bringen Ungerechtigkeiten mit sich: Menschen mit Vorerkrankungen und im höheren Alter, deren Impfungen priorisiert wurden, können früher wieder ihre Grundrechte genießen. Gleichzeitig zeigen Studien, dass Glück und Lebenszufriedenheit der jüngeren Menschen durch die Einschränkungen deutlich stärker gelitten haben als die der älteren. Dies haben jüngere hingenommen, um sich selbst, vor allem aber auch um Risikogruppen zu schützen. Viele von ihnen würden mit Ablehnung reagieren, wenn sie sehen, wie nun Geimpfte in Cafés sitzen, reisen und alle ihre Freiheiten wieder genießen können, während sie selbst unter Androhung von Sanktionen keine diese Freiheiten haben, weil sie noch kein Impfangebot erhalten haben. Diese wenn auch zum Teil unvermeidbare Ungerechtigkeit kann und darf der Staat nicht ignorieren, denn Solidarität und Zusammenhalt ist für eine Gesellschaft genauso essenziell wie der Schutz von Grundrechten. Daher wird die Politik sehr vorsichtig abwägen müssen, welche Freiheiten sie geimpften Menschen wieder ermöglicht, und welche erst dann, wenn alle sie genießen können.

Eine Lockerung der Restriktionen für geimpfte Menschen sollte nur dann in Angriff genommen werden, wenn auch Erleichterungen für alle anderen Menschen in Aussicht gestellt werden können. Ansonsten könnte die Glaubwürdigkeit der Politik und die Akzeptanz der Maßnahmen weiter Schaden nehmen, und damit die Strategie einer schnellen und nachhaltigen Begrenzung der dritten Welle scheitern.

Die Umsetzung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes ist gut, da vereinheitlichte Maßnahmen leichter nachvollziehbar sind und damit zu einer höheren Legitimität der Strategie führen. Es wird nun darauf ankommen, dass die Politik diesen Kurs auch hält und nicht ständig Änderungen vornimmt. Das gleiche gilt für die Impfstrategie. Die festgelegte Impfreihenfolge zu früh aufzuheben wäre gefährlich gewesen und hätten gesellschaftliche Konflikte hervorgerufen. Bereits jetzt nimmt der Eindruck zu, einige Menschen verschaffen sich bei den Impfungen Vorteile. Die Politik läuft Gefahr, immer stärker Akzeptanz für ihre Maßnahmen zu verlieren. Damit würde die Effektivität der Corona-Strategie abnehmen, ein Scheitern wahrscheinlicher werden und dadurch letztlich den Neustart für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft verzögern.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance on digital technologies, it has highlighted the growing digital divide between and within societies. Universal access to the digital world has become more urgent than ever, and failure to achieve it could undermine progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. While closing the digital divide and increasing connectivity are among the UN secretary-general’s priorities for 2021, this goal remains elusive and faces many obstacles.

This paper, based on a series of three roundtables convened by IPI, together with Microsoft, in March and April 2021, identifies some of these obstacles to universal connectivity and considers how they can be overcome. It looks in particular at the human rights risks of rushing to close the digital divide. Ultimately, it concludes that achieving meaningful and sustainable progress toward digital inclusion requires all actors to commit to working through a multi-stakeholder platform.

In a spirit of collaboration and to stimulate further dialogue, the paper puts forward the following recommendations:

• Expand the definition of universal connectivity;
• Tie digital inclusion to the 2030 Agenda;
• Ensure that the roll-out of universal connectivity is benevolent;
• Support context-specific national and local strategies;
• Develop new financing models such as sovereign guarantees or digital bonds;
• Build a common understanding of connectivity and digital inclusion;
• Build confidence among different actors; and
• Give the UN a leadership role.

Download

Die Corona-Pandemie ist eine weltweite Gesundheitskrise, die eng mit der globalen Biodiversitätskrise verwoben ist. Sie entstand durch einen zoonotischen Erreger, der von Wildtieren auf den Menschen übersprang. Viren können sich in gestörten Ökosystemen leicht ausbreiten, und mit zunehmendem Kontakt zwischen Menschen und Wildtieren wächst das Risiko einer Übertragung. Der Naturschutz kann entscheidend dazu beitragen, das Risiko weiterer Pandemien zu verringern; gleichzeitig wirkt sich die aktuelle Pandemie in vielerlei Hinsicht auf den Naturschutz aus. In dieser Analyse und Stellungnahme schlagen wir Strategien zur Minderung der negativen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf den Naturschutz im Globalen Süden vor. Viele Zoonosen haben dort ihren Ursprung, und die Lebensgrundlagen sind stark von natürlichen Ressourcen abhängig. Das Paper erläutert die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Naturschutzgebiete sowie die spezifischen Folgen für den Tourismus und den Wildtier-handel – zwei Sektoren, die eng mit solchen Schutzgebieten verbunden sind.
Mit dem pandemiebedingten wirtschaftlichen Abschwung geraten die natürlichen Ressourcen in vielen Ländern unter Druck: Für den Naturschutz vorgesehene Mittel werden in den Gesundheitssektor umgeleitet, Länder senken ihre Naturschutzstandards, um die Wirtschaft anzukurbeln, und die arme Bevölkerung in ländlichen Regionen greift zum Überleben auf geschützte natürliche Ressourcen zurück. Diese Trends beschleunigen den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt und der Ökosystemleistungen, schaffen günstige Bedingungen für das Auftreten von Zoonosen und bedrohen die Lebensgrundlagen der Menschen.
Vor der Corona-Pandemie war der naturnahe Tourismus eine Multi-Milliarden-Dollar-Industrie. Der vorübergehende Einbruch des Tourismus hat positive wie auch negative Auswirkungen auf die nachhaltige Entwicklung. Nachteile erleiden einerseits viele Angestellte im Tourismussektor, die ihren Arbeitsplatz und ihre Lebensgrundlage verloren haben. Außerdem ist eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle für das Management von Schutzgebieten weggefallen. Andererseits hat der vorübergehend rückläufige Tourismus der Natur Zeit gegeben, sich zu erholen, während der Rückgang des internationalen Flugverkehrs die globalen Kohlenstoffemissionen dieses Sektors gesenkt hat.
Der Wildtierhandel – ein wichtiger Faktor in der Verbreitung von Zoonose-Erregern – wurde infolge der Pandemie in einigen Ländern verboten. Doch soziale Schutzmaßnahmen für lokale Gemeinschaften, die von Proteinen aus Wildtieren abhängig sind, fehlen noch weitgehend.
Um diese Herausforderungen zu bewältigen, empfehlen wir, den Naturschutz weiterhin ganz oben auf die internationale Agenda zu setzen, insbesondere inmitten der aktuellen globalen Gesundheitskrise, die sich mit der fortschreitenden Zerstörung von Ökosystemen schnell wiederholen könnte. Umweltgesetze müssen aufrechterhalten und Finanzmittel zur nachhaltigen Sicherung von Lebensgrundlagen zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Die Wiederbelebung des naturnahen Tourismus sollte unterstützt werden, da er nicht nur finanzielle Mittel für den Naturschutz, sondern auch Einkommen für lokale Gemeinden generieren kann. Gleichzeitig sollte die Tourismusindustrie ihren ökologischen Fußabdruck weiter reduzieren. Die Eindämmung des Wildtierhandels muss so gestaltet sein, dass der Proteinbedarf von Gemeinschaften gedeckt bleibt.

Die Corona-Pandemie ist eine weltweite Gesundheitskrise, die eng mit der globalen Biodiversitätskrise verwoben ist. Sie entstand durch einen zoonotischen Erreger, der von Wildtieren auf den Menschen übersprang. Viren können sich in gestörten Ökosystemen leicht ausbreiten, und mit zunehmendem Kontakt zwischen Menschen und Wildtieren wächst das Risiko einer Übertragung. Der Naturschutz kann entscheidend dazu beitragen, das Risiko weiterer Pandemien zu verringern; gleichzeitig wirkt sich die aktuelle Pandemie in vielerlei Hinsicht auf den Naturschutz aus. In dieser Analyse und Stellungnahme schlagen wir Strategien zur Minderung der negativen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf den Naturschutz im Globalen Süden vor. Viele Zoonosen haben dort ihren Ursprung, und die Lebensgrundlagen sind stark von natürlichen Ressourcen abhängig. Das Paper erläutert die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Naturschutzgebiete sowie die spezifischen Folgen für den Tourismus und den Wildtier-handel – zwei Sektoren, die eng mit solchen Schutzgebieten verbunden sind.
Mit dem pandemiebedingten wirtschaftlichen Abschwung geraten die natürlichen Ressourcen in vielen Ländern unter Druck: Für den Naturschutz vorgesehene Mittel werden in den Gesundheitssektor umgeleitet, Länder senken ihre Naturschutzstandards, um die Wirtschaft anzukurbeln, und die arme Bevölkerung in ländlichen Regionen greift zum Überleben auf geschützte natürliche Ressourcen zurück. Diese Trends beschleunigen den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt und der Ökosystemleistungen, schaffen günstige Bedingungen für das Auftreten von Zoonosen und bedrohen die Lebensgrundlagen der Menschen.
Vor der Corona-Pandemie war der naturnahe Tourismus eine Multi-Milliarden-Dollar-Industrie. Der vorübergehende Einbruch des Tourismus hat positive wie auch negative Auswirkungen auf die nachhaltige Entwicklung. Nachteile erleiden einerseits viele Angestellte im Tourismussektor, die ihren Arbeitsplatz und ihre Lebensgrundlage verloren haben. Außerdem ist eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle für das Management von Schutzgebieten weggefallen. Andererseits hat der vorübergehend rückläufige Tourismus der Natur Zeit gegeben, sich zu erholen, während der Rückgang des internationalen Flugverkehrs die globalen Kohlenstoffemissionen dieses Sektors gesenkt hat.
Der Wildtierhandel – ein wichtiger Faktor in der Verbreitung von Zoonose-Erregern – wurde infolge der Pandemie in einigen Ländern verboten. Doch soziale Schutzmaßnahmen für lokale Gemeinschaften, die von Proteinen aus Wildtieren abhängig sind, fehlen noch weitgehend.
Um diese Herausforderungen zu bewältigen, empfehlen wir, den Naturschutz weiterhin ganz oben auf die internationale Agenda zu setzen, insbesondere inmitten der aktuellen globalen Gesundheitskrise, die sich mit der fortschreitenden Zerstörung von Ökosystemen schnell wiederholen könnte. Umweltgesetze müssen aufrechterhalten und Finanzmittel zur nachhaltigen Sicherung von Lebensgrundlagen zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Die Wiederbelebung des naturnahen Tourismus sollte unterstützt werden, da er nicht nur finanzielle Mittel für den Naturschutz, sondern auch Einkommen für lokale Gemeinden generieren kann. Gleichzeitig sollte die Tourismusindustrie ihren ökologischen Fußabdruck weiter reduzieren. Die Eindämmung des Wildtierhandels muss so gestaltet sein, dass der Proteinbedarf von Gemeinschaften gedeckt bleibt.

Die Corona-Pandemie ist eine weltweite Gesundheitskrise, die eng mit der globalen Biodiversitätskrise verwoben ist. Sie entstand durch einen zoonotischen Erreger, der von Wildtieren auf den Menschen übersprang. Viren können sich in gestörten Ökosystemen leicht ausbreiten, und mit zunehmendem Kontakt zwischen Menschen und Wildtieren wächst das Risiko einer Übertragung. Der Naturschutz kann entscheidend dazu beitragen, das Risiko weiterer Pandemien zu verringern; gleichzeitig wirkt sich die aktuelle Pandemie in vielerlei Hinsicht auf den Naturschutz aus. In dieser Analyse und Stellungnahme schlagen wir Strategien zur Minderung der negativen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf den Naturschutz im Globalen Süden vor. Viele Zoonosen haben dort ihren Ursprung, und die Lebensgrundlagen sind stark von natürlichen Ressourcen abhängig. Das Paper erläutert die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Naturschutzgebiete sowie die spezifischen Folgen für den Tourismus und den Wildtier-handel – zwei Sektoren, die eng mit solchen Schutzgebieten verbunden sind.
Mit dem pandemiebedingten wirtschaftlichen Abschwung geraten die natürlichen Ressourcen in vielen Ländern unter Druck: Für den Naturschutz vorgesehene Mittel werden in den Gesundheitssektor umgeleitet, Länder senken ihre Naturschutzstandards, um die Wirtschaft anzukurbeln, und die arme Bevölkerung in ländlichen Regionen greift zum Überleben auf geschützte natürliche Ressourcen zurück. Diese Trends beschleunigen den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt und der Ökosystemleistungen, schaffen günstige Bedingungen für das Auftreten von Zoonosen und bedrohen die Lebensgrundlagen der Menschen.
Vor der Corona-Pandemie war der naturnahe Tourismus eine Multi-Milliarden-Dollar-Industrie. Der vorübergehende Einbruch des Tourismus hat positive wie auch negative Auswirkungen auf die nachhaltige Entwicklung. Nachteile erleiden einerseits viele Angestellte im Tourismussektor, die ihren Arbeitsplatz und ihre Lebensgrundlage verloren haben. Außerdem ist eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle für das Management von Schutzgebieten weggefallen. Andererseits hat der vorübergehend rückläufige Tourismus der Natur Zeit gegeben, sich zu erholen, während der Rückgang des internationalen Flugverkehrs die globalen Kohlenstoffemissionen dieses Sektors gesenkt hat.
Der Wildtierhandel – ein wichtiger Faktor in der Verbreitung von Zoonose-Erregern – wurde infolge der Pandemie in einigen Ländern verboten. Doch soziale Schutzmaßnahmen für lokale Gemeinschaften, die von Proteinen aus Wildtieren abhängig sind, fehlen noch weitgehend.
Um diese Herausforderungen zu bewältigen, empfehlen wir, den Naturschutz weiterhin ganz oben auf die internationale Agenda zu setzen, insbesondere inmitten der aktuellen globalen Gesundheitskrise, die sich mit der fortschreitenden Zerstörung von Ökosystemen schnell wiederholen könnte. Umweltgesetze müssen aufrechterhalten und Finanzmittel zur nachhaltigen Sicherung von Lebensgrundlagen zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Die Wiederbelebung des naturnahen Tourismus sollte unterstützt werden, da er nicht nur finanzielle Mittel für den Naturschutz, sondern auch Einkommen für lokale Gemeinden generieren kann. Gleichzeitig sollte die Tourismusindustrie ihren ökologischen Fußabdruck weiter reduzieren. Die Eindämmung des Wildtierhandels muss so gestaltet sein, dass der Proteinbedarf von Gemeinschaften gedeckt bleibt.

Zusammenfassung:

Sechs Jahre nach der Einführung des Mindestlohns in Deutschland stehen vor allem die Höhe des Mindestlohns und seine europaweite Einführung im Fokus der politischen Debatte. Dabei wird zu wenig auf weitere strukturelle Schwachstellen eingegangen, die im Rahmen der Mindestlohneinführung zutage traten. So lassen sich Stundenlohnerhöhungen nicht eins zu eins in Erhöhungen der Monatseinkommen übersetzen. Auch wird die Einhaltung des Mindestlohns nach wie vor zu wenig und zu ineffektiv kontrolliert sowie betroffene Beschäftigte arbeitsrechtlich zu wenig geschützt. Diese drei Schwachstellen zu beheben wäre eine wichtige Aufgabe für die nächste Bundesregierung, um bessere Löhne im Niedriglohnsektor zu ermöglichen und faire Wettbewerbsbedingungen zwischen Firmen zu schaffen. Die Mindestlohndebatte sollte daher breiter geführt werden und Aspekte wie innovative, kostengünstige und effiziente Kontrollmechanismen, stärkere Anreize für gesetzeskonformes Handeln und Strategien zur Realisierung eines besseren Arbeitsschutzes berücksichtigen.

Key messages

• Green transitions have the potential to support Africa–Europe cooperation by combining
the climate agenda with an innovative socio-economic project for jobs creation and
sustainable growth. Green transitions can be a fruitful area for cooperation because
common interests and interdependencies between both continents are high.
• Green transitions are key topics in the African Union (AU) and the European Union
(EU). Both are committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Paris Climate Agreement within which green transitions are key
elements. The EU has initiated the European Green Deal with an ambitious agenda to
transform Europe into a carbon-neutral continent by 2050. On both continents, green
transitions play a prominent role in debates about socio-economic COVID-19 recovery
programmes.
• Notwithstanding these communalities, the EU and the AU approach green transitions
from very different angles. Whereas the EU has a major historic responsibility and
continues to have very high per capita emissions, African countries have contributed
little to climate change but will be severely affected by its consequences. The AU’s
Agenda 2063 gives strong priority to poverty reduction and climate adaptation, whereas
the social dimension of the European Green Deal is limited. Acknowledging these
differences will need to be the starting point for identifying priorities for AU–EU
cooperation on developing green transitions.
• In order to make cooperation on the Green Deal and green transitions fruitful for AU–EU
relations, the EU institutions and member states will need to understand African
countries’ strategic objectives and interests. They will need to learn from past
experiences and reflect an eye-level partnership in their communications on, and
approaches to, cooperation in order to gain the trust of, and jointly identify common
interests with, African partners. The AU and member states, in turn, will need to invest
more in defining their strategic objectives, in promoting socially inclusive green
transitions across the continent, and in cooperating with the EU on green transitions.
• Neither Europe nor Africa has a blueprint for what carbon-neutral societies and
economies will look like. Cooperation on green transitions therefore provides
opportunities for joint learning and joint knowledge production by European and African
actors and for some of the underlying structural asymmetries to be addressed.
• This paper explores six particularly relevant fields of action for AU–EU cooperation on
green transitions and the Green Deal – energy transitions, the circular economy, trade,
climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector, climate diplomacy and financial
instruments. For each of these fields of action, reform initiatives on both continents are
discussed and specific recommendations developed.

Key messages

• Green transitions have the potential to support Africa–Europe cooperation by combining
the climate agenda with an innovative socio-economic project for jobs creation and
sustainable growth. Green transitions can be a fruitful area for cooperation because
common interests and interdependencies between both continents are high.
• Green transitions are key topics in the African Union (AU) and the European Union
(EU). Both are committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Paris Climate Agreement within which green transitions are key
elements. The EU has initiated the European Green Deal with an ambitious agenda to
transform Europe into a carbon-neutral continent by 2050. On both continents, green
transitions play a prominent role in debates about socio-economic COVID-19 recovery
programmes.
• Notwithstanding these communalities, the EU and the AU approach green transitions
from very different angles. Whereas the EU has a major historic responsibility and
continues to have very high per capita emissions, African countries have contributed
little to climate change but will be severely affected by its consequences. The AU’s
Agenda 2063 gives strong priority to poverty reduction and climate adaptation, whereas
the social dimension of the European Green Deal is limited. Acknowledging these
differences will need to be the starting point for identifying priorities for AU–EU
cooperation on developing green transitions.
• In order to make cooperation on the Green Deal and green transitions fruitful for AU–EU
relations, the EU institutions and member states will need to understand African
countries’ strategic objectives and interests. They will need to learn from past
experiences and reflect an eye-level partnership in their communications on, and
approaches to, cooperation in order to gain the trust of, and jointly identify common
interests with, African partners. The AU and member states, in turn, will need to invest
more in defining their strategic objectives, in promoting socially inclusive green
transitions across the continent, and in cooperating with the EU on green transitions.
• Neither Europe nor Africa has a blueprint for what carbon-neutral societies and
economies will look like. Cooperation on green transitions therefore provides
opportunities for joint learning and joint knowledge production by European and African
actors and for some of the underlying structural asymmetries to be addressed.
• This paper explores six particularly relevant fields of action for AU–EU cooperation on
green transitions and the Green Deal – energy transitions, the circular economy, trade,
climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector, climate diplomacy and financial
instruments. For each of these fields of action, reform initiatives on both continents are
discussed and specific recommendations developed.

Key messages

• Green transitions have the potential to support Africa–Europe cooperation by combining
the climate agenda with an innovative socio-economic project for jobs creation and
sustainable growth. Green transitions can be a fruitful area for cooperation because
common interests and interdependencies between both continents are high.
• Green transitions are key topics in the African Union (AU) and the European Union
(EU). Both are committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Paris Climate Agreement within which green transitions are key
elements. The EU has initiated the European Green Deal with an ambitious agenda to
transform Europe into a carbon-neutral continent by 2050. On both continents, green
transitions play a prominent role in debates about socio-economic COVID-19 recovery
programmes.
• Notwithstanding these communalities, the EU and the AU approach green transitions
from very different angles. Whereas the EU has a major historic responsibility and
continues to have very high per capita emissions, African countries have contributed
little to climate change but will be severely affected by its consequences. The AU’s
Agenda 2063 gives strong priority to poverty reduction and climate adaptation, whereas
the social dimension of the European Green Deal is limited. Acknowledging these
differences will need to be the starting point for identifying priorities for AU–EU
cooperation on developing green transitions.
• In order to make cooperation on the Green Deal and green transitions fruitful for AU–EU
relations, the EU institutions and member states will need to understand African
countries’ strategic objectives and interests. They will need to learn from past
experiences and reflect an eye-level partnership in their communications on, and
approaches to, cooperation in order to gain the trust of, and jointly identify common
interests with, African partners. The AU and member states, in turn, will need to invest
more in defining their strategic objectives, in promoting socially inclusive green
transitions across the continent, and in cooperating with the EU on green transitions.
• Neither Europe nor Africa has a blueprint for what carbon-neutral societies and
economies will look like. Cooperation on green transitions therefore provides
opportunities for joint learning and joint knowledge production by European and African
actors and for some of the underlying structural asymmetries to be addressed.
• This paper explores six particularly relevant fields of action for AU–EU cooperation on
green transitions and the Green Deal – energy transitions, the circular economy, trade,
climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector, climate diplomacy and financial
instruments. For each of these fields of action, reform initiatives on both continents are
discussed and specific recommendations developed.

The MGG Programme is an innovative and ambitious initiative implemented by the German Development Institute (DIE) with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Although the scope and objectives have changed since it was launched in 2007, there is a clear vision that summarises its overarching goals: to construct a network that functions as an effective, high-quality, knowledge-based cooperation system for promoting global governance and sustainable development in the long run. In this respect, managing and crafting symbols, perceptions and collective identities within the MGG will remain crucial as a glue that enables collective efforts and maximises the network’s overall impact.
Under what conditions does cooperation among diverse groups become sustainable? How does the MGG look when analysed as part of the longer-term life trajectory of its participants? How do individual identities intersect with a collective sense of belonging to the programme and to the network? What is the role of the collective identity and the collective narrative that underpins MGG efforts? The main goal of this discussion paper is to apply oral history methodologies to answer some of these questions. The assumption is that the long-term impact of the MGG Programme depends on how well individual motivations, which are shaped by complex life trajectories, intersect with national interests and broader global cooperation narratives.
By confronting theory with empirical evidence, this paper also draws some lessons and raises some interesting questions that may be useful for MGG staff to consider when planning future activities.

The MGG Programme is an innovative and ambitious initiative implemented by the German Development Institute (DIE) with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Although the scope and objectives have changed since it was launched in 2007, there is a clear vision that summarises its overarching goals: to construct a network that functions as an effective, high-quality, knowledge-based cooperation system for promoting global governance and sustainable development in the long run. In this respect, managing and crafting symbols, perceptions and collective identities within the MGG will remain crucial as a glue that enables collective efforts and maximises the network’s overall impact.
Under what conditions does cooperation among diverse groups become sustainable? How does the MGG look when analysed as part of the longer-term life trajectory of its participants? How do individual identities intersect with a collective sense of belonging to the programme and to the network? What is the role of the collective identity and the collective narrative that underpins MGG efforts? The main goal of this discussion paper is to apply oral history methodologies to answer some of these questions. The assumption is that the long-term impact of the MGG Programme depends on how well individual motivations, which are shaped by complex life trajectories, intersect with national interests and broader global cooperation narratives.
By confronting theory with empirical evidence, this paper also draws some lessons and raises some interesting questions that may be useful for MGG staff to consider when planning future activities.

The MGG Programme is an innovative and ambitious initiative implemented by the German Development Institute (DIE) with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Although the scope and objectives have changed since it was launched in 2007, there is a clear vision that summarises its overarching goals: to construct a network that functions as an effective, high-quality, knowledge-based cooperation system for promoting global governance and sustainable development in the long run. In this respect, managing and crafting symbols, perceptions and collective identities within the MGG will remain crucial as a glue that enables collective efforts and maximises the network’s overall impact.
Under what conditions does cooperation among diverse groups become sustainable? How does the MGG look when analysed as part of the longer-term life trajectory of its participants? How do individual identities intersect with a collective sense of belonging to the programme and to the network? What is the role of the collective identity and the collective narrative that underpins MGG efforts? The main goal of this discussion paper is to apply oral history methodologies to answer some of these questions. The assumption is that the long-term impact of the MGG Programme depends on how well individual motivations, which are shaped by complex life trajectories, intersect with national interests and broader global cooperation narratives.
By confronting theory with empirical evidence, this paper also draws some lessons and raises some interesting questions that may be useful for MGG staff to consider when planning future activities.

A growing scientific evidence reaffirms that slow onset climate events such as desertification, sea level rise and loss of biodiversity will place an increasing number of people at risk of poverty and social marginalization. Establishing national social protection systems aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement could be a key policy approach to address increasing risks from long-term changes to the climate system. Through a review of conceptual and empirical literature, this study explores the potential for social protection to address slow onset events by looking into the multiple dimensions of vulnerability and resilience. The paper further derives recommendations on how this potential can be translated into strategic policy agendas and discusses options for financing such interventions in developing countries.

A growing scientific evidence reaffirms that slow onset climate events such as desertification, sea level rise and loss of biodiversity will place an increasing number of people at risk of poverty and social marginalization. Establishing national social protection systems aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement could be a key policy approach to address increasing risks from long-term changes to the climate system. Through a review of conceptual and empirical literature, this study explores the potential for social protection to address slow onset events by looking into the multiple dimensions of vulnerability and resilience. The paper further derives recommendations on how this potential can be translated into strategic policy agendas and discusses options for financing such interventions in developing countries.