Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

This paper investigates the impact of aid for trade (AfT) targeted at trade policies on the participation of recipient countries in global value chains (GVCs), and how this impact varies with their prevailing political regimes. In democratic countries, the need for the authorities to account for the interests of various stakeholders (e.g., lobbies, trade unions) can compromise the allocation, use, and effectiveness of AfT. In contrast, less democratic regimes are typically more insulated from political pressures, which may lead to more effective outcomes of aid. At the same time, integration into some complex GVCs requires efficient and democratic institutions, to which these products are sensitive. Employing a sample of 110 countries and data covering 2002-2018, we control for standard determinants of GVC participation, while examining the effect of AfT and the moderating role of the political regime in place. Our estimation addresses the endogeneity of aid through an appropriate instrumentation strategy. Our results suggest that the effect of AfT is mostly positive in autocratic regimes, indicating more effective trade policy reforms. When we account for regional disparities, we find evidence that AfT for trade policy is also impactful in some democratic regimes. This might suggest that the efficacy of AfT is not strictly regime-dependent, but hinges on the government’s commitment to carry out significant reforms leading to greater participation in the global economy.

Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

Bonn, 28. September 2026. Die Beyond 2030 Debatte steht noch am Anfang. Mit dem „Global Justice Report“ und der „Roadmap Beyond Growth“ liegen zwei wegweisende Impulse für die weitere Diskussion vor.

Die Debatte darüber, was auf die Agenda 2030 und ihre Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) folgen soll, steht noch am Anfang. Die formellen VN-Diskussionen hierzu beginnen auf dem SDG-Gipfel 2027. Dies geschieht in schwieriger Zeit: Die SDGs sind nicht erreicht, geopolitische Rivalitäten, Kriege und wirtschaftliche Instabilität schwächen die internationale Zusammenarbeit. Traditionelle Geberländer priorisieren zunehmend nationale Interessen, kürzen Entwicklungsetats und setzen auf kurzfristiges Wachstum zulasten globaler Solidarität und des Klimaschutzes.

Ist daher tatsächlich der richtige Zeitpunkt, um einen neuen globalen Rahmen für nachhaltige Entwicklung auszuhandeln? Ja! Richtig gestaltet, wird er eine Alternative zu den gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen bieten, internationale Zusammenarbeit, Gerechtigkeit und Wohlergehen stärken und zugleich die planetaren Grenzen wahren.

Zwei aktuelle Leitberichte leisten wichtige Impulse: der Global Justice Report des World Inequality Lab unter der Leitung von Thomas Piketty und Kolleg*innen sowie die Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth, die unter der Leitung des ehemaligen UN-Sonderberichterstatters für extreme Armut und Menschenrechte, Olivier De Schutter, in einem breit angelegten internationalen Beteiligungsprozess erarbeitet wurde. 

Beide Berichte teilen eine grundlegende Diagnose: Der derzeitige globale Entwicklungspfad schafft zu wenig Wohlergehen und verletzt die planetaren Grenzen. Sie plädieren für Wirtschaftsmodelle, die Wohlergehen, Armutsüberwindung und Gerechtigkeit – jenseits rein monetärer Maßstäbe – in den Mittelpunkt stellen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wahren. Beide hinterfragen Wirtschaftswachstum als zentralen Entwicklungsmaßstab.

Der Global Justice Report fordert drei globale Veränderungsprozesse: rasche Dekarbonisierung, stärkere Orientierung an einem maßvollen Ressourcenverbrauch – insbesondere durch weniger Arbeitszeit, einen geringeren materiellen Fußabdruck in wohlhabenderen Ländern und veränderte Konsummuster – und eine deutliche Verringerung von Ungleichheiten bei Einkommen, Vermögen und Macht, innerhalb sowie zwischen Ländern. Dafür entwickelt der Bericht einen quantitativen Bezugsrahmen.

Die Roadmap legt konkrete politische Maßnahmen vor, mit denen sich Armut und Ungleichheit ohne Wirtschaftswachstum bekämpfen lassen. Anstelle des bekannten Ansatzes „Wachstum, Besteuerung und Umverteilung“ rückt sie die Prädistribution (predistribution) in den Mittelpunkt: die grundlegende Veränderung der Regeln und Strukturen, die wirtschaftliche Macht und Zugang zu Chancen bestimmen.

Auch wenn die politische Umsetzbarkeit beider Berichte teils kontrovers diskutiert wird, stehen ihre Forderungen keineswegs isoliert. Sie knüpfen an bestehende Initiativen an, darunter die Bridgetown Initiative zur Reform des internationalen Währungssystems, das Sevilla Commitment zur Entwicklungsfinanzierung, der Prozess zur VN-Steuerkonvention sowie G20-Initiativen unter Führung Brasiliens und Südafrikas zur globalen Ungleichheit.

Eine nachhaltige und gerechte Weltwirtschaft braucht internationale Zusammenarbeit und politischen Willen. Die Berichte liefern empirische Evidenz und politische Handlungsoptionen und stellen etablierte Vorstellungen von Wachstum und Macht infrage. Die Beyond-2030 Debatte sollte diese Impulse aufgreifen und Raum für gesellschaftliche und politische Diskussion schaffen, um gemeinsame Perspektiven zu entwickeln und Unterstützung für notwendige Transformation zu gewinnen. 

Wachstumsdogma überwinden, ohne Entwicklungschancen zu beschneiden. Für viele Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen (LMICs) bleibt Wachstum für Armutsbekämpfung, Beschäftigung und fiskalischen Handlungsspielraum wichtig. Entscheidend ist daher, welche Art von Wachstum das Wohlergehen verbessert und zugleich planetare Grenzen wahrt. Alle Länder, insbesondere LMICs, brauchen Handlungsspielraum, um eigene Entwicklungspfade entsprechend ihrer Bedürfnisse und Prioritäten zu definieren.

Neue Partnerschaften, um globale Ungleichheit stärker ins Zentrum zu rücken. Wem kommt Wachstum zugute, wer trägt die ökologischen Kosten, wie sind Ressourcen verteilt? Diese Fragen müssen stärker ins Zentrum internationaler Zusammenarbeit rücken. Die gegenwärtige geopolitische Lage erfordert neue Koalitionen, um Themen wie eine faire Finanz- und Schuldenarchitektur oder Technologiezugang gemeinsam auf die globale Agenda zu setzen. Die neu gegründete Süd-Nord-Kommission sollte Ungleichheit zentral in ihrem Mandat verankern. Das vorgeschlagene International Panel on Inequality (IPI) soll ein ständiges Gremium ähnlich dem IPCC schaffen, das globale Ungleichheiten untersucht und Handlungsoptionen aufzeigt.

Die sozial-ökologische Dimension von Entwicklung stärken. Klimawandel, Biodiversitätsverlust und Ressourcenknappheit prägen zunehmend die Entwicklungsperspektiven. Klimaschutz, soziale Sicherung, Armutsbekämpfung und wirtschaftliche Transformation müssen daher stärker zusammengedacht werden. Klimafinanzierung und internationale Transfers können dieses unterstützen; dafür braucht es ausreichende Finanzmittel und geeignete institutionelle Rahmenbedingungen. Die Verhandlungen im Rahmen der Triple COPs in diesem Jahr sind hier von besonderer Bedeutung.

Bis 2030 bleibt keine Zeit zu verlieren. Wir müssen jetzt auf bestehenden Initiativen und Koalitionen sowie wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen aufbauen. Die zentrale Herausforderung besteht darin, über ein wachstumszentriertes Entwicklungsparadigma hinauszugehen und zugleich breite Koalitionen für eine ambitionierte sozial-ökologische Transformation zu schaffen.

Jana Kuhnt ist Entwicklungsökonomin und wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin in der Abteilung Transformation politischer (Un-)Ordnung und ko-leitet das Projekt zu Migration und Vertreibung am IDOS.

Daniele Malerba ist Ökonom und wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in der Forschungsabteilung "Transformation der Wirtschafts- und Sozialsysteme" des IDOS.

Benjamin Rosenthal ist Politikreferent für Entwicklungsfinanzierung bei Misereor. Er arbeitet vor allem zu den Themen global gerechte Wirtschaft, nachhaltiges Finanzsystem und Entwicklungsfinanzierung.

Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt ist Voraussetzung für die Bewältigung der Umwelt-, Sicherheits- und  transformationsherausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts. Der WBGU empfiehlt daher, gesellschaftliche, wirtschaftliche und politische Teilhabe strukturell zu stärken, Bildungsfinanzierung als Zukunftsinvestition auszugestalten, Kommunen handlungsfähiger zu machen und politische Kommunikation auf Zusammenhalt statt Polarisierung auszurichten. So kann demokratische Handlungsfähigkeit gestärkt und Sicherheit umfassender gedacht werden.

Leitautor:innen: Jörg E. Drewes, Anna-Katharina Hornidge, Aletta Bonn, Kai Maaz, Karen Pittel,Hans-Otto Pörtner, Sabine Schlacke, Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann, Joscha Wullweber
Mitautor:innen: Julia Behrens, Mareike Blum, Kerstin Burghaus, Catharina Caspari, Astrid Dähn, Verena Engelhardt, Tallulah Gundelach, Paula Haufe, Magdalena Knabl, Katharina Michael, Alexander Mitranescu, Katharina Molitor, Jürgen Orasche, Marion Schulte zu Berge, Astrid Schulz, Jan Siegmeier, Nikola Tietze

Fossil fuel subsidies are widespread, regressive, and environmentally costly, yet abrupt removal can raise poverty. To identify a practical reform pathway, we evaluate the effectiveness of compensatory policies grounded in existing national social protection systems. We develop a high-resolution global social accounting matrix to quantify how reallocating subsidies through actual social assistance impacts poverty, inequality, and CO2 emissions. Without compensation, reform lowers emissions but increases poverty, especially for low-income households in emerging economies. Redirecting funds via social assistance disproportionately benefits the bottom half and reduces national poverty, particularly under targeted cash transfers or expanded programs where savings are large. However, full revenue recycling is not always desirable: Once vulnerable households are adequately protected, additional recycling can weaken both fiscal and climate gains. We therefore treat full recycling through social assistance as an analytical benchmark rather than a policy prescription and show that partial, targeted recycling, as illustrated by retaining roughly 20% of savings while channeling the remainder through social protection, can still reduce poverty while preserving emissions cuts. Overall, fossil fuel subsidy reform is most effective when social assistance is used to compensate low-income households, not to absorb all fiscal savings, leaving residual revenues available for other public priorities.

Looking back, 2015 was a true “window of opportunity”: Both the 2030 Agenda with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Paris Climate Agreement were adopted. The current situation, however, is the opposite of such a moment. The 2026 communiqué from the G7 development ministers makes no mention of the 2030 Agenda, the SDG, or climate change. The U.S. administration under President Trump has succeeded in making even non binding international guiding principles politically taboo.

This paper draws on the 2020/21 Egyptian Industrial Firm Behaviour Survey of 2,383 manufacturing firms to provide the first systematic, firm-level evidence on how Egypt’s industrial policy institutions are experienced by manufacturing firms. Using firms’ own perceptions of institutional obstacles, the analysis distinguishes between ministries (“institutions”) and subordinate ministerial and corporatist bodies (“entities”), and classifies these entities into capability-building bodies, regulatory gatekeepers, and quasi-public corporatist bodies. This framework allows the identification of systematic differences in firms’ perceptions across types of institutions and entities, as well as across firm types. It also enables the mapping of mandate overlaps among the entities most frequently identified as problematic. Three results emerge. First, firms report entities as substantially more problematic than ministries. Second, reported institutional burdens are unevenly distributed. In particular, regulatory gatekeepers that control licensing, standards, inspections and continued market access are associated with disproportionately higher reported burdens on structurally more vulnerable firms. Reported frictions are systematically higher for domestically oriented non-exporters, small and medium enterprises, firms located outside industrial zones, privately owned firms and especially informal firms. Third, these patterns are consistent with coordination failures arising from overlapping mandates and weak accountability within specialised agencies. The findings suggest several reform priorities centred on predictable and published requirements, a single coordinated front end for firms, end-to-end case handling, outcome-based monitoring and disclosure, and scaling only those programmes with rigorously demonstrated impact.

In a world undergoing tumultuous transition, sustainable futures are at stake. Disruptive policy-making is on the rise, taking the form of new waves of authoritarian nationalism and the systematic erosion of rules-based politics. Yet, reform initiatives are simultaneously taking shape. Rather than proclaiming the collapse of the multilateral order or focusing on disruptive trends, this volume highlights the institutions, actors and coalitions that are advancing and shaping reform to sustain and rebuild cooperation in a multipolar world. It builds on the premise that,
in this era of concurrent disruption and reform, Germany and Europe need to invest in politics of cooperation and perseverance. Drawing on research and policy engagement by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) and its partner networks, the publication identifies practical and political pathways for reform. These include opportunities for middle-power coalitions; new forms of plurilateral cooperation and institutional adaptation; reconfigured partnership and financing architectures; and new cultures of cooperation and political leadership. These pathways are explored across four thematic sections: geopolitics, partnerships and a new global order; multilateralism in a multipolar world; sustainable transformation architectures; and (social) innovation and transformative capabilities. The volume does not seek to resolve the tension between disruption and reform, but to equip its readers to understand where reform is already taking shape and the actors who may need to be persuaded or supported to take the lead. It thereby aims to offer the expertise and inspiration needed to turn disruptive change into reform dynamics that enable the pursuit of sustainable futures.

Table of Contents: 

Introduction: Sustainable Futures at Stake? The Case for Politics of Cooperation and Perseverance (Hornidge, Anna-Katharina / Axel Berger)

1) Geopolitics, Partnerships, and a New Global Order

From Crisis to Change: The Future of Global Peace and Security (Fiedler, Charlotte / Jasmin Lorch / Karina Mross)

Reforming the WTO in an Age of Power-Based Trade (Brandi, Clara)

Europe’s International Cooperation as a Key Component of a Stable World Order (Keijzer, Niels / Mark Furness)

2) Multilateralism in a Multipolar World

A bold post-UN80 reform agenda for the next UN Secretary-General (Novoselova Anna / Ronny Patz)

The Geopolitics of a Global Sustainability Framework Beyond 2030 (Leininger, Julia)

Environmental Multilateralism in 2026: more robust than disruption narratives suggest (Bauer, Steffen / Niklas Wagner / Ines Dombrowsky)

3) Sustainable Transformation Architectures

Development Finance: Proposals to Make Blended Finance (Finally) Deliver (Berensmann, Kathrin / Bao-We-Wal Bambe)

Domestic Revenue Mobilisation, the Financing Gap and why Tax Expenditures Matter (Sen, Kunal / Christian von Haldenwang

Global Health Beyond 2030: Protecting Ambition in a Fragmented World (von Haaren, Paula)

4) (Social) Innovation and Transformative Capabilities

AI’s Potential to Facilitate More Agile Development Cooperation (Sinanoglu, Semuhi / Michael Roll)

Resilience in Knowledge Infrastructures: Science at a Juncture (Effert, Sarah-Lea / Anna-Katharina Hornidge)

Training Competencies to Navigate Tectonic Shifts and Shape Change (Domingues, Joãao Vitor / Sven Grimm / Zahrina Tamimi)

Futuring Politics of Cooperation and Perseverance: A Possible World in 2040 (Effert, Sarah-Lea / Sven Grimm / Christopher Wingens)

How do local elections affect societal peace after civil war? Existing research focuses on national elections or secession risks. This article examines municipal elections in post-war Mozambique and their impact on social cohesion (positive horizontal and vertical societal relations). Based on 33 semi-structured interviews conducted in Maputo and Nampula in 2019, the analysis finds limited but positive effects, mainly through improved state-society relations, more inclusive representation, and a greater sense of belonging. However, these gains are constrained by an autocratic context and centralised party structures. Against theoretical expectations, local elections neither enhanced inter-party cooperation nor intensified social divisions.

Bonn, 21. September 2026. Indiens Entscheidung aus dem Jahr 2025, den Indus-Wasservertrag auszusetzen, beeinträchtigt Pakistans Wassersicherheit und die Sicherheitsbeziehungen zwischen Indien und Pakistan und könnte zudem zur Aushöhlung des Völkerrechts beitragen.

Im April 2025 setzte Indien den Indus-Wasservertrag (Indus Waters Treaty, IWT) nach einem tödlichen militanten Anschlag in Pahalgam im indisch verwalteten Kaschmir „außer Kraft“. Am 31. August 2026 entschied der Ständige Schiedshof in Den Haag einstimmig, dass Indiens Aussetzung oder Kündigung gemäß dem Vertrag und dem Völkerrecht unzulässig sei. Indien wies das Urteil jedoch umgehend zurück, bestritt die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts für seine hoheitlichen Entscheidungen und erklärte, dass es die Außerkraftsetzung des IWT aufrechterhalten werde. Dies könnte nicht nur schwerwiegende Folgen für die Wassersicherheit Pakistans und die Sicherheitsbeziehungen zwischen Indien und Pakistan haben, sondern auch zu einer umfassenderen Aushöhlung des Völkerrechts beitragen.

Das Indus-Flussgebiet versorgt über 200 Millionen Menschen in Pakistan (über 80 Prozent der Bevölkerung) und etwa 100 Millionen Menschen im Nordwesten Indiens. Der 1960 unter Vermittlung der Weltbank ausgehandelte IWT weist Indien die ausschließliche Nutzung der drei östlichen Flüsse (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) und Pakistan die der drei westlichen Flüsse (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) zu, vorbehaltlich bestimmter Nutzungen, die Indien im stromaufwärts gelegenen Kaschmir gestattet sind, darunter Laufwasserkraftwerke innerhalb bestimmter Grenzen. Der Vertrag schreibt den Datenaustausch über alle Flüsse vor, die nach Pakistan fließen. Er sieht einen dreistufigen Streitbeilegungsmechanismus vor, und zwar durch i) die Ständige Indus-Kommission, ii) einen neutralen Sachverständigen und iii) ein Schiedsverfahren vor einem Ad-hoc-Schiedsgericht. Die Entscheidung, den IWT auszusetzen, ist beispiellos für einen Vertrag, der oft als ein seltener Erfolg in der grenzüberschreitenden Wasserkooperation bezeichnet wird und mehr als sechs Jahrzehnte an Feindseligkeiten zwischen den Vertragsstaaten überstanden hat, darunter die Kriege von 1965, 1971 und 1999.

Indiens Vorgehen birgt hydrologische Risiken für Pakistan, da es die etablierten Vereinbarungen zur Weitergabe hydrologischer und technischer Informationen unterbricht, die für die Hochwasservorhersage und Katastrophenvorsorge flussabwärts von entscheidender Bedeutung sind. Die Überschwemmungen von 2025 verdeutlichten die Risiken einer geschwächten institutionellen Kommunikation, als Warnungen Berichten zufolge über diplomatische Kanäle statt über die Ständige Indus-Kommission übermittelt wurden. Seit der Aussetzung des IWT hat Indien den Ausbau der Wasserkraft und andere Maßnahmen zur Wasserbewirtschaftung an den westlichen Flüssen beschleunigt, was nach pakistanischer Befürchtung Indiens Fähigkeit stärken könnte, die derzeit nach Pakistan fließenden Wassermengen zu regulieren und abzuleiten.

Indiens Entscheidung vom April 2025 entstand nicht in einem politischen Vakuum. Nach einem tödlichen militanten Anschlag in Uri im indisch verwalteten Kaschmir im September 2016 erklärte der indische Premierminister Narendra Modi, dass „Blut und Wasser nicht zusammen fließen können“, womit er die Bewirtschaftung des Indus ausdrücklich mit Indiens Sicherheitsbeziehungen zu Pakistan verknüpfte. Nach der Aussetzung des Abkommens im Jahr 2025 wurde diese Sprache noch deutlicher. Indiens Wasserminister C.R. Patil erklärte im Juni 2026, die Regierung arbeite daran, sicherzustellen, dass in den kommenden Jahren „kein einziger Tropfen“ Wasser nach Pakistan fließen werde.

Eine solche Rhetorik löste Gegenreaktionen aus, die die Spannungen weiter verschärften. Nach der Aussetzung warnte Pakistans Nationaler Sicherheitsausschuss, dass jeder Versuch, das Pakistan im Rahmen des IWT zugeteilte Wasser abzuleiten oder zu stoppen, einen „Kriegsakt“ darstellen würde. Der ehemalige Außenminister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari warnte sogar vor einem möglichen „nuklearen Armageddon-Szenario“. Dies zeigt einen sich verschärfenden Prozess der Versicherheitlichung um das Thema Wasser zwischen zwei atomar bewaffneten Nachbarn.

Der Ständige Schiedshof hat vier Urteile gefällt, seit Indien den Vertrag im April 2025 außer Kraft gesetzt hat. Diese gingen auf Verfahren zurück, die Pakistan 2016 wegen der Wasserkraftprojekte Kishanganga und Ratle im indisch verwalteten Kaschmir eingeleitet hatte. Pakistan berief sich auf ein Schiedsverfahren gemäß Artikel IX und Anhang G des IWT und argumentierte, dass der Streit weiterreichende Fragen der Vertragsauslegung betreffe, während Indien später gemäß Artikel IX und Anhang F einen neutralen Sachverständigen beantragte und argumentierte, dass es sich bei den Fragen primär um technische Aspekte handele. Die Weltbank setzte beide Verfahren im Jahr 2016 aus und forderte Indien und Pakistan auf, den Streit bilateral beizulegen, nahm sie jedoch im Jahr 2022 wieder auf, nachdem sie zu dem Schluss gekommen war, dass die Pattsituation selbst ein Risiko für den Vertrag darstellte. Am 31. August 2026 ordnete der Ständige Schiedshof Einschränkungen beim Bau des Ratle-Wasserkraftwerks bis 90 Tage nach der Entscheidung des neutralen Sachverständigen an, die für Juli 2027 erwartet wird. Vorerst sollte die Entscheidung des neutralen Sachverständigen abgewartet werden, bevor am Standort Ratle weitere Tatsachen geschaffen werden. Eine anhaltende Aussetzung des Vertrags könnte jedoch das Vertrauen in das internationale Wasserrecht schwächen und zu einer allgemeinen Aushöhlung des Völkerrechts beitragen.

Die Einhaltung der Regeln des Indus-Wasservertrags ist für die Wassersicherheit Pakistans und zur Vermeidung einer militärischen Eskalation zwischen Indien und Pakistan von großer Bedeutung. Damit würde Indien zudem ein starkes Signal für seine Achtung des Völkerrechts setzen.

Gender mainstreaming in the water sector has gained increasing attention in international and national governance frameworks, yet its translation into meaningful change for women and in gender relations more broadly, in a context where both institutional arrangements and accelerating climate change are intensifying challenges around water access, control, use, and governance, remains a persistent challenge. This report examines this gap in the Moroccan context, focusing on two complementary entry points: an overview of gender mainstreaming efforts and institutional advances in the water and irrigation sectors; and the everyday realities of women farmers and cooperative members in the oasis regions of Boudnib and the Drâa Valley. Combining document analysis and institutional interviews with in-depth fieldwork, the study asks whether and how national gender mainstreaming commitments translate into tangible shifts in women’s water access, livelihoods, and decision-making power on the ground.
The findings point to a more nuanced picture. Morocco has made genuine institutional progress: gender is now formally embedded in constitutional principles, water law, sectoral strategies, and national planning instruments, and donor-financed irrigation projects have demonstrated that integrated gender approaches can yield concrete results. Yet these gains remain fragile, often conditional on external support or on the commitment of individual champions within institutions, a dependence that poses significant risks to their sustainability. Outside donor-supported projects, gender analysis is often absent from programme design, and formal inclusion, such as in land programmes, cooperatives, or training schemes, does not automatically translate into effective control over water, labour, or decisions. Many adaptive initiatives are shaped as much by women’s own agency as by the institutional programmes formally available to support them, whose reach remains uneven and frequently contingent on literacy, mobility, and institutional connections. Deeper structural constraints, including historical exclusion from water governance bodies, the growing individualisation of groundwater access, and socio-cultural norms that limit women’s recognition as farmers and irrigators, remain insufficiently taken into account by current approaches. The report concludes with five recommendations calling for stronger institutional anchoring, cross-sectoral coordination, reformed empowerment indicators, and a gradual reduction of dependence on donor financing.

Today’s disruptions and reforms are paving the way for a wide range of possible futures. A key endeavour of IDOS is to contribute to sustainable futures in an increasingly multipolar order, which we are convinced requires cooperative approaches. While people and societies around the world are
facing disruptions and uncertainties collectively – albeit unevenly – our intention at IDOS is to co-shape concrete action that enables us to respond to and navigate these challenges productively. Our aspiration with this final, more exploratory, contribution to the publication is to provide a coherent scenario for a desirable (preferred) future based on the sector-specific recommendations made by the authors in this volume. In this futuring exercise, we describe the state of the world in the year 2040 – understood as an important intermediate point at which our joint vision of sustainable futures is reachable. We aim to showcase an accessible, optimistic narrative depicting a world in which our proposed reform options have been adopted and are part of a broader global push towards cooperation and sustainable development. Envisioning this scenario can provide strategic orientation for the reform pathways we have to choose today. It can be used to highlight the long-term implications of policy shifts and the potential of agency to overcome existing path dependencies. Its value lies in broadening the sense of what is possible and highlighting our agency. […]

When we speak of tectonic shifts, we usually refer either to geology or to the international order. In geology, tectonic plates shift and build up tension until it is released. Likewise, since the end of the Cold War, the international order has experienced mounting pressure, and seemingly entrenched
global structures have begun to shift. At the same time, societies and cooperation systems are under internal pressure from the growing impacts of environmental and climatic change, younger generations’ demands for new opportunities, and technological advances, not least in artificial intelligence. In reaction to both external and internal pressures, reforming complex systems is challenging and requires skilled, dedicated people and well-connected institutions (Reiber & Reiners, 2019). Transnational knowledge cooperation has thus gained substantial relevance (see Lynders, 2024).

Academic freedom and independent scientific knowledge production are fragile achievements – first secured during the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries – that now face substantial headwinds. In the United States in 2026, the Trump administration has advanced further proposals to reduce science spending (Grimm & Hornidge, 2025). Most notably, the White House foresees a 55 per cent cut in funding for the National Science Foundation in 2027 compared with 2026 levels (Garisto & Nature Magazine, 2026). However, the threats to science systems in the United States and beyond cannot be reduced to – drastic – budget cuts alone. Political interference in scientific quality assurance and decisions about which research receives funding is also reported to have increased substantially, particularly in the United States (e.g. Finucane, 2026). Although the Trump administration’s actions are notably blatant, attacks on science systems, academic freedom and knowledge cooperation, whether overt or subtle, can be observed in countries across income levels and continents. In Germany, the German Research Foundation recently published a position paper on threats to academic freedom and the German science system, explicitly referencing the positioning and influence of the right-wing political party AfD, as set out in its “government programme” for the state election in Saxony-Anhalt (Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe, 2026). At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development announced in 2026 that China’s research spending had reached parity with that of the United States (OECD, 2026). This is also the year in which the African Union Commission and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) launched the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2034 Implementation Plan. According to the AUDA-NEPAD, this marks “Africa’s determination to move beyond overreliance on imported technologies and towards the sovereign production of globally competitive knowledge, stronger industrial capabilities, and socioeconomic value creation” (AUDA-NEPAD, 2026). Moreover, in 2026 the European Commission adopted a recommendation on the first-ever European Union (EU) framework for science diplomacy. Finally, on the multilateral level, 2026 marks two years since the launch of the UNESCO International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, with UNESCO holding a large international conference with the ambition to “spotlight how transdisciplinary research, open science and strengthened science-policy-society interfaces can drive more inclusive and equitable futures for all” (UNESCO, 2026). With these developments shaping science systems in 2026, how is Germany positioning itself through national science policy to further develop its science and innovation systems and invest in transregional science cooperation as an engine for mutual learning, innovation and change? In early 2026, the German Science Council addressed the rise of anti-pluralist and anti-academic forces in a paper envisioning Germany’s science system in 2040 (Wissenschaftsrat, 2026). In it, the Council identifies four possible scenarios. Two scenarios assume substantial investment in science and in the science system as a whole: Scenario one outlines a well-funded German science and innovation system in a geopolitically turbulent world marked by high levels of societal polarisation, security risks and non-alignment with EU partners; scenario four envisages a global research area in which science cooperation is closely coordinated by a supranational organisation, creating cross-regional innovation spaces but also less localisation, and a decoupling of research and education as well as of research and society and policy. The two remaining scenarios give science far lower priority. Scenario two envisions a system in which science is predominantly instrumentalised for economic gain, while scenario three depicts science as marginalised, struggling for funding and political attention, and barely able to realise its potential. In the following, we explore selected developments in science policy in 2026, differentiate between different types of innovation policy and argue for the role of knowledge cooperation in creating shared innovation spaces. Finally, we bring this analysis together with the German Science Council’s scenario perspective and propose an additional, more visionary scenario that policy- and science-system-related decision-makers should strive to realise.

Two features of AI stand out among technological innovations: It is exceptionally powerful, and its (computing) power is increasing faster than any previous technology in human history. AI is not a tool that can simply be added to the existing arsenal just for the sake of task automation and increased efficiency (Sinanoglu, 2025a). Its consequences are so profound that using it to advance broader development objectives requires changes to some of the ways development cooperation works. In this chapter, we go beyond more general assessments (OECD, 2025) of the use of AI by governments (OECD, 2026) and of the global development risks posed by AI (United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, 2026). We argue that successful development cooperation for sustainable futures depends on collaboration with others in iterative and adaptive ways to exploit opportunities for positive change more effectively in challenging contexts. To this end, current development-cooperation structures and processes should be reformed to facilitate and encourage organisational learning (Brandi & Büge, 2026) and adopt a more iterative approach to cooperation. To what extent does development cooperation currently deploy AI tools for such organisational learning? By “AI”, we mean generative and agentic artificial intelligence. We also distinguish between “AI in development” and “AI for development”. Whereas the former refers to how AI is used in middle- and low-income countries, the latter refers to how the development sector can use AI. We catalogued how the supply side of development cooperation (donors, ministries, agencies, development banks, United Nations (UN) entities, humanitarian implementers and funders) uses AI in its own operations, programming, advisory work and evaluations. The database comprises 172 AI deployments and, while not exhaustive, provides a comprehensive primary-source snapshot that lets us answer three questions empirically: Who is deploying AI? What for? And how far has it matured? (See Figure 9) Our data suggest that almost 60 per cent of recorded uses fall into just two functions: getting services to people in the field (programme delivery) and speeding up the back office at headquarters (internal operations). Together, the functions most closely tied to organisational learning – monitoring, evaluation, planning and coordination – account for only roughly 19 per cent of deployments. In short, the sector is now using AI to do its existing work faster, but not yet to change how it works and learns. 

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed in 2015 in a political environment in which broad multilateral agreement still appeared possible. They reflected the belief that universal goals, shared language and collective implementation could organise international cooperation, even if
they were never free from contestation (Biermann, Kanie, & Kim, 2017; Chaturvedi et al., 2020). For global health, this mattered. The 2030 Agenda broadened the health agenda beyond selected infectious diseases and maternal and child health. It included universal health coverage, non-communicable diseases, mental health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the wider social, economic and environmental determinants of health (Murray, 2015; WHO, 2015). With only a few years left until 2030, progress remains uneven and many health-related targets are off track. At the same time, the political context for a future global development framework has changed substantially. Global health cooper-
ation is increasingly shaped by donor retrenchment, weaker multilateralism, geopolitical competition and ideological polarisation (Held, Kickbusch, McNally, Piselli, & Told, 2019; Kickbusch & Liu, 2022). Issues such as gender equality, vaccination, climate action and migration have become more contested. These tensions now affect financing, normsetting, institutional stability and the conditions under which cooperation remains possible. Three shifts are particularly important. First, financing has become more uncertain. Aid cuts and donor retrenchment weaken multilateral health institutions and create incentives for selective, interest-driven cooperation (Poddar & Rao, 2025; Witter et al., 2025). Second, ideological polarisation makes established health commitments more contested, especially around sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination, and climate and health (Greene, 2026; Khosla & Allotey, 2025). Third, the global health order is becoming more multipolar. Regional organisations, middle powers,
South-South cooperation and issue-based coalitions are gaining influence (Bull & Banik, 2025; Franz et al., 2024; Lal, 2026). Together, these shifts affect who leads, which priorities are defended and how ambition is defined. At stake is not only whether new commitments can be agreed, but whether the core principles of global health cooperation can be preserved. These include rights-based commitments, universality and equity, national ownership in implementation and international solidarity through coordinated collective action. These principles are grounded in the normative framework of the World Health Organization (WHO) and reflected, although unevenly, in the 2030 Agenda and subsequent declarations on universal health coverage (UN, 2015, 2019, 2023; WHO, 1948). The risk is not only stagnation. A more serious risk is selective rollback. Commitments that seemed relatively stable during the SDG period may become vulnerable in post-2030 negotiations. This applies particularly to sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination and climate-related health commitments (Haeuser et al., 2025; Khosla & Allotey, 2025; Romanello et al., 2024). If consensus becomes harder to reach, the price of agreement may be dilution. A future framework may preserve the language of multilateralism while narrowing the substance of global health ambition (see also Berger & Leininger in this volume).

As governments increasingly prioritise national interests, security concerns and geopolitical competition over collective global responsibilities, traditional development finance mechanisms are being weakened, repurposed or redirected towards advancing narrow strategic objectives. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development projects a 23 per cent decline in official development assistance (ODA) between 2024 and 2025 (OECD, 2026). This reduction not only has immediate consequences for the lives and livelihood of millions of people in low-income countries (LICs) who depend on external assistance, but also creates uncertainty for partner countries, disrupts long-term development planning, and undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of development cooperation. At the same time, development finance needs have risen sharply and continue to rise due to the climate crisis, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions and rising food and energy prices. Together, these pressures have contributed to a projected USD 6.4 trillion financing gap for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 (OECD, 2025a). Against this backdrop, mobilising greater volumes of private capital aligned with the SDGs has become increasingly important (on the need for the European Union to become more adept at facilitating private investment, see the contribution by Keijzer & Furness in this volume). In particular, blended finance has frequently been promoted as one key instrument to achieve this objective (on domestic revenue mobilisation as another key approach, see the contribution by Sen & von Haldenwang in this volume). However, despite growing attention from policy-makers and development institutions, the scale of blended finance has remained well below expectations and so far made only a limited contribution to closing the SDG financing gap. Although transaction volumes increased from USD 11.5 billion in 2020 to USD 18.3 billion in 2024, they remain small relative to the estimated USD 4 trillion annual SDG financing gap (Convergence, 2025; OECD, 2025a). As such, the Sevilla Commitment (UNCTAD, 2025) calls for scaling up private capital mobilisation through blended finance and a broader use of risk-sharing instruments. This chapter discusses the benefits and limits of blended finance as well as reforms that are needed at different levels to scale up blended finance and enhance its development impact.

As governments increasingly prioritise national interests, security concerns and geopolitical competition over collective global responsibilities, traditional development finance mechanisms are being weakened, repurposed or redirected towards advancing narrow strategic objectives. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development projects a 23 per cent decline in official development assistance (ODA) between 2024 and 2025 (OECD, 2026). This reduction not only has immediate consequences for the lives and livelihood of millions of people in low-income countries (LICs) who depend
on external assistance, but also creates uncertainty for partner countries, disrupts long-term development planning, and undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of development cooperation. At the same time, development finance needs have risen sharply and continue to rise due to the climate cri-
sis, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions and rising food and energy prices. Together, these pressures have contributed to a projected USD 6.4 trillion financing gap for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 (OECD, 2025a). Against this backdrop, mobilising greater volumes of private capital aligned with the SDGs has become increasingly important (on the need for the European Union to become
more adept at facilitating private investment, see the contribution by Keijzer & Furness in this volume). In particular, blended finance has frequently been promoted as one key instrument to achieve this objective (on domestic revenue mobilisation as another key approach, see the contribution by Sen & von Haldenwang in this volume). However, despite growing attention from policy-makers and development institutions, the scale of blended finance has remained well below expectations and so far made only a limited contribution to closing the SDG financing gap. Although transaction volumes increased from USD 11.5 billion in 2020 to USD 18.3 billion in 2024, they remain small relative to the estimated USD 4 trillion annual SDG financing gap (Convergence, 2025; OECD, 2025a). As such, the Sevilla Commitment (UNCTAD, 2025) calls for scaling up private capital mobilisation through blended finance and a broader use of risk-sharing instruments. This chapter discusses the benefits and limits of blended finance as well as reforms that are needed at different levels to scale up blended finance and enhance its development impact.

Current disruptions to the rules-based international order, widely perceived as a resurgence of geopolitics, have placed multilateral governance under pressure. Environmental multilateralism is no exception, even as an interconnected ecological crisis comprising climate change, biodiversity and
ecosystem loss, and the degradation and pollution of vital land and water resources calls for far-reaching governance responses and structural transformations to safeguard the possibility of sustainable futures. If the yardstick for delivering the necessary transformations is the ability to avert and minimise global heating, mass extinction and plastic pollution (among other ecological risks), the record of multilateral environmental governance is mixed at best, even during less geopolitically charged times. While it has enabled a large and highly heterogeneous group of sovereign states to converge normatively around common environmental objectives, which is no mean feat, it has fallen significantly short of solving the world’s ecological problems. This implementation gap is widely recognised and supported by scientific evidence from intergovernmental scientific bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It is therefore evident that multilateral environmental institutions warrant reform if they are to address global ecological challenges effectively. This was the case before the recent geopolitical disruption. However, that disruption – combined with environmentally harmful geoeconomic competition,  territorial conflicts over strategic land, water and mineral resources, and nationalist pushback against scientific evidence and environmental “restrictions” – makes progressive reform even more pressing (Bauer, 2026). We argue that the disruptive dynamics of current geopol-
itics constitute not only an imperative for reform, but also an opportunity to pursue it. This chance should be seized to enhance international cooperation through multilateral environmental institutions and to narrow evident implementation gaps by making those institutions more efficient
and effective. Aligning agendas and policy priorities across levels of governance and across the full range of pertinent multilateral environmental institutions will be an essential first step. Enhancing coordination between the three “Rio Conventions” – the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) – would provide an obvious starting point.