Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

Die G7-Staaten brauchen neue Verbündete. Der Think7-Beratungsprozess für die G7, ein Zusammenschluss führender Think Tanks und Forschungsinstitute, mahnt kürzlich in einem Communiqué: Die entschiedene Eindämmung der sich rasant ausbreitenden Schuldenkrise in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern sei von zentraler Bedeutung in der Ausgestaltung vertrauensvoller Allianzen innerhalb der G20 und darüber hinaus.

Utilizing an original data set, this paper demonstrates how protectionist industrial policy during the period of hybrid liberalisation has shaped the organizational structure of clothing firms in Egypt. It investigates determinants of vertical integration of clothing firms into fabric production. High-end market segments are a critical determinant of integration. Limited access to finance restricts the possibilities for many firms to undertake the investment required to integrate, whilst volatile and uncertain market conditions make firms more likely to rely on the market for their inputs. But there are nuances related to market segment. Producers of higher quality garments rely on imported textiles, so these producers do not integrate even if search and switch costs are high. But the opposite is true of producers relying on domestic suppliers. Foreign institutions are better able to ensure contract enforcement with respect to quality and timely delivery so that suppliers opportunistic behaviour is deterred, reducing the necessity of clothing firms to integrate. This may not be the case with respect to domestic suppliers, when domestic institutions do not guarantee the same level of enforcement. The adoption of the hybrid liberalisation model meant that the transition to a market economy was not preceded by the creation of the necessary regulatory framework. This model resulted in inefficient upstream production and in an institutional setting conducive to agency problems. It also meant that business suffers excessive and inefficient bureaucracy. It is thus not possible for firms to achieve the first best outcome of arm’s length relations based on frictionless market transactions. Given these structural constraints firms opt for the second best solution of make rather than buy, i.e. vertical integration. But only some firms are able to use the arbitrary and discretionary decision making system to their favour, negotiating government obstacles to successful business. Those linked to power, prospered, whilst the businesses of others foundered against the wall of patronage, bureaucracy and red tape.

Global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the global debt crisis call for more cooperation among nations. Yet instead of well-coordinated, wise cooperation for the global common good, geopolitical tensions are rising and protectionism seems to have  become a “new normal”. As a consequence, the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 has been dramatically slow and the benefits of growth policies are imbalanced across high-, low-, and middle-income countries just as within them.

Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies.
One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.

Climate change poses threats to individuals, communities, and cities globally. Global conversations and scholarly debates have explored ways people adapt to the impacts of climate change including through migration and relocation. This study uses Lagos, Nigeria as a case study to examine the relationship between flooding events, migration intentions as a preferred adaptation, and the destination choices for affected residents. The study draws on a mixed-methods approach which involved a survey of 352 residents and semi-structured interviews with 21 residents. We use a capability approach to analyze mobility decisions following major or repetitive flood events. We found that the majority of affected residents are willing to migrate but the ability to do so is constrained by economic, social, and political factors leading to involuntary immobility. Furthermore, intra-city relocation is preferred to migration to other states in Nigeria or internationally. These findings challenge popular Global South-North migration narratives. Indeed, some residents welcome government-supported relocation plans but others remain skeptical due to lack of trust. Community-based relocation may therefore be preferred by some Lagosians. Overall, this study contributes a nuanced understanding of mobility intentions in response to climate-induced flooding in one of the world’s largest coastal cities.

Bonn, 22. Mai 2023. Alle Länder der Vereinten Nationen (VN) haben sich 2015 der Erreichung der 17 Ziele nachhaltiger Entwicklung (SDGs) der Agenda 2030 verschrieben. 2023, zur Halbzeit der Implementierungsphase, wird deutlich, welcher Weg noch zu gehen ist. Doch während die Staaten zwar versuchen, die Ziele auf nationaler Ebene zu erreichen, dürfen sie die Auswirkungen ihres Handelns auf andere Länder nicht aus dem Blick verlieren. Sonst riskieren sie, deren Bemühungen die Agenda 2030 umzusetzen, zu konterkarieren. Solche unerwünschten externen wirtschaftlichen, sozialen, ökologischen und sicherheitsrelevanten Auswirkungen werden als negative Spillover-Effekte bezeichnet.

Da der SDG-Index, der die Fortschritte bei der SDG-Erreichung der Länder misst, diese Effekte nicht adäquat berücksichtigt, wurde ein Spillover-Index entwickelt. Beide Rankings werden jährlich im Sustainable Development Report veröffentlicht. Während Länder mit hohen Einkommen an der Spitze des SDG-Rankings stehen (Deutschland auf Platz 6 von 163 in 2022), schneiden viele Länder des "Globalen Südens" in diesem Ranking eher schlecht ab. Die Reihenfolge kehrt sich im Spillover-Ranking um. Hier schneiden High-Income-Countries u.a. aufgrund von nicht-nachhaltigen Verhaltensweisen in Produktion und Konsum schlecht ab (Deutschland auf Platz 149 von 163 in 2022), während Länder des "Globalen Südens" das Ranking anführen. 

Deutschlands Ziel muss sein, negative Spillover-Effekte zu vermeiden, um andere Länder nicht in der Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 zu behindern, sondern gemeinsam an der globalen Implementierung dieser zu arbeiten. Eine klare Adressierung negativer Spillover-Effekte und das Schaffen verbindlicher Strukturen in der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie (DNS), als nationale Strategie für die Implementierung der Agenda 2030, ist daher notwendig. Bislang hat das Thema allerdings keinen Eingang in diese gefunden. Der letzte von Deutschland vorgelegte Voluntary National Review (VNR) erwähnt negative Spillover-Effekte, die Herausforderungen in ihrer Erfassung sowie ihre notwendige Reduzierung durch Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung allerdings und verdeutlicht damit die Relevanz der Problematik.

Spillover-Effekte betreffen oftmals verschiedene Bereiche und wirken damit auf zahlreiche SDGs gleichzeitig. Für eine Verankerung von Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung negativer Spillover-Effekte in der bestehenden Struktur der DNS ist daher ein integrierter und querschnittsübergreifender Ansatz notwendig. Dies kann anhand von unbeabsichtigten sozialen und ökologischen Auswirkungen aufgezeigt werden, die entlang von globalen Lieferketten auftreten. Beispielsweise verursacht der Bedarf an fossilen Rohstoffen und Mineralien im deutschen Transport- und Mobilitätssektor negative Effekte in Abbau- und Verarbeitungsregionen, die sich insbesondere in Ländern des Globalen Südens befinden. Schädliche ökologische Belastungen (SDG 15), wie Biodiversitätsverluste oder abnehmende Bodenqualität, Treibhausgasemissionen (SDG 13) oder die Verschmutzung von Wasser (SDG 14) sind Folgen.

Durch das Tolerieren schlechter Arbeitsbedingungen (SDG 8) entlang von Lieferketten sind ebenfalls negative soziale Auswirkungen zu vermerken, wie Zwangsarbeit, Arbeitsunfälle oder Gesundheitsschäden durch das ungeschützte Arbeiten in Minen. Die Nachfrage und der Import dieser Ressourcen durch Deutschland behindert andere Länder bei der Erreichung zahlreicher SDGs. Für die Verankerung in der DNS eignen sich die in ihr berücksichtigten sechs Transformationsbereiche – die großen Wenden, die es für die Erreichung der Agenda 2030 braucht. Diese Transformationsbereiche sind Menschliches Wohlbefinden und Fähigkeiten, und soziale Gerechtigkeit; Energiewende und Klimaschutz; Kreislaufwirtschaft; Nachhaltiges Bauen und Verkehrswende; Nachhaltige Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme sowie Schadstofffreie Umwelt. Die Transformationsbereiche betonen die bestehenden Wechselwirkungen zwischen verschiedenen SDGs und schaffen ressortübergreifende Arbeitsstrukturen.

Eine Adressierung negativer Spillover-Effekte in den Transformationsbereichen bietet nicht nur die Chance, diese im Status-Quo anzugehen, sondern Auswirkungen auf internationaler Ebene bereits bei der Gestaltung neuer Prozesse mitzudenken. Beispielsweise ist die dringend notwendige Elektrifizierung des Verkehrs mit einer erhöhten Nachfrage an Rohstoffen, wie Lithium und Kobalt, verbunden. Für eine nachhaltige Gestaltung der Verkehrswende müssen daher verbindliche Strukturen entwickelt werden, um negative Effekte entlang der globalen Ressourcenströme zu verhindern. Gemeinschaftlich müssen Lösungen, die die Perspektiven der betroffenen Länder berücksichtigen, erarbeitet sowie Politikkohärenz hergestellt werden. Dafür scheint, neben der Adressierung in den Transformationsbereichen, auch der Hebel Internationale Verantwortung und Zusammenarbeit greifbare Weichen zu stellen. Durch die Nutzung dieses Hebels können Rahmenbedingungen geschaffen werden, die eine Transformation erleichtern und begleiten können.

Für die sechs Transformationsbereiche und den oben genannten Hebel wurden sieben sogenannte Transformations-Teams eingerichtet, die konkrete Maßnahmenpakete für die Wenden ausarbeiten sollen. Negative Spillover-Effekte sollten Eingang in die Arbeit aller Transformations-Teams finden, nicht lediglich in die des Transformations-Teams Internationale Verantwortung und Zusammenarbeit.

Deutlich wird, dass für eine beschleunigte Transformation und das fristgerechte Erreichen der SDGs in der zweiten Halbzeit der Implementierungsphase eine konsequente Beachtung von negativen Spillover-Effekten in allen Bereichen des Handelns erforderlich ist und Deutschland sich international für das Verhindern dieser einsetzen muss. Eine Verankerung in der DNS und das Schaffen rechtlich verbindlicher Strukturen sind dafür notwendig.

This Policy Brief examines the geopoliticisation of development cooperation within the Indo-Pacific region. First, we discuss the emergence of Indo-Pacific strategies and how these intersect with geopolitics and development cooperation amongst traditional develop-ment actors such as the United States and the Euro-pean Union. Second, we examine how these narratives have shaped the development cooperation approaches of China and India, both significant geopolitical actors. Third, we look at how these dynamics have played out in key regions of the Indo-Pacific, especially Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific Islands. We argue that while geopolitical competition brings opportunity to these regions, this opportunity needs to be strategically managed to deliver positive development outcomes. Geopolitics has always been a factor in development debates and development cooperation historically, and we should not expect this to change (Power, 2019; Liao & Lee, 2022). In the last decade, this competition has heightened with China’s global rise – economically, strategically, and geopolitically. As China became perceived as a potential competitor to traditional global and regional powers such as the United States, the European Union, Japan, or Australia, we saw a rise in strategies to manage, balance, or counter this rise. Consequently, emerging Indo-Pacific frameworks and strategies are shaping and dominating the discourse on global geopolitics, including development cooperation. As a result of sharp geopolitical competition, develop-ment cooperation has become a contested space. China’s powerful rise and the subsequent proliferation of Indo-Pacific strategies to counter this rise are key drivers of this dynamic. While this competition can breed division, between and within countries and regions, it can also give rise to increased multipolarity, partner country agency, and positive competition towards development outcomes. Competition and the numerous new strategies, resources, and initiatives that come with it, can offer opportunity for partner countries to secure resources and commitment toward their own development agenda. Rather than being “forced” to choose sides, countries and regions can and are using geostrategic competition to their advantage. Competition provides choice, a seat at the table, and opportunities for decision-making. However, taking ownership and direction over these strategies and resources can challenge partner countries and regions. Hedging is one option but carries risks, especially when politics get in the way, and development gains may be subsequently compromised. While there is a plethora of Indo-Pacific strategies that articulate visions for the region and ways powers should strengthen economic, diplomatic, security, and development ties with the Indo-Pacific countries, Indo-Pacific countries themselves should also have their own strategies, which outline their vision and objectives for engagement with great powers and other actors who seek and vie for their partnership.

Vom 15.-16. November 2022 fand unter dem Leitthema Recover Together, Recover Stronger das Gipfeltreffen der G20 unter indonesischer Präsidentschaft auf Bali, Indonesien, statt. Die Gruppe der 20, 1999 ursprünglich auf Ebene der Finanzminister gegründet, bringt seit 2008 auch die Staats- und Regierungschefs großer Industrie- und Schwellenländer zusammen. Anders als die G7 handelt es sich bei der G20 jedoch nicht um eine Gruppe gleichgesinnter Staaten. Vielmehr bringen die jährlich stattfindenden Gipfeltreffen unter rotierender Präsidentschaft eine Vielzahl von Staaten unterschiedlicher politischer Systeme zusammen.

Die Ampelkoalition sollte die Hilfen für andere Staaten nicht deckeln. Sie sollte Ziele definieren. Der Gastbeitrag.

Despite the large demand for gender-disaggregated poverty statistics, so far it has been impossible to assess gender differentials in poverty for several countries. This is mostly because the available indices of income and multidimensional poverty are computed at the household level. The chapter contributes to fill this research gap by adopting two new indices of multidimensional poverty. These indices have two major strengths: they are individual-based and they incorporate key dimensions for women, primarily education and work. Using recent data, this chapter assesses gender disparities in poverty for 76 low- and middle-income countries. The results show that almost everywhere poverty has predominantly a female face: on average, female poverty is about 80 percent higher than male poverty. The largest gender disparities are found in two regions: the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia. Finally, it is mostly in the area of employment that women face higher deprivations than men.

The EU’s response to the European ‘refugee crisis’ has involved parallel efforts to strengthen the EU’s capacity for external migration management in the domains of Common Security and Defence Policy(CSDP) and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). To provide a swift response to the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015, EU member states decided to utilise existing operational CSDP capabilities as a short-term foreign policy tool. Simultaneously, we have seen an impressive strengthening of the mandate and capabilities of ASFJ actors in external migration governance. Although institutional links between civilian CSDP and AFSJ have existed for over two decades, the parallel task expansion has created new demands for inter-institutional coordination between the two policy areas. Combining neofunctionalist theory with insights from research on inter-institutional overlap, this article argues that responses to neofunctionalist spillover pressures may trigger inter-institutional dynamics, which can involve both cooperation as well as conflict. Empirically, we find that these inter-institutional interactions have had important implications for integration in both policy areas, which cannot be fully understood by studying these policy domains in isolation.

Bonn, 15. Mai 2023. Wer die Kaffeeregale von US-amerikanischen Supermärkten wie Walmart oder Safeway sichtet, stößt auf Röstkaffee mit einem Label, das ihn als „Bird-Friendly Coffee“ ausweist. Das Label wird vom Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center vergeben. Die Smithsonian Institution ist eine der großen naturwissenschaftlichen Forschungs- und Bildungseinrichtungen der USA. Wieso interessiert sich die Forschung zu Zugvögeln für die Art und Weise, wie Kaffee angebaut wird?

Die Wissenschaft hat in den 1990ern einen dramatischen Rückgang der Zugvogelpopulationen in den USA und Kanada festgestellt: Seit den 1970ern eine Verringerung um etwa 30% und ein absoluter Verlust von rund 3 Milliarden Vögeln. Die weitere Forschung stellte einen direkten Zusammenhang mit massiven ökologischen Veränderungen in den Überwinterungshabitaten fest, speziell in Lateinamerika. Dort sind es vor allem die Höhenlagen, wo Zugvögel ihr Überwinterungsquartier suchen und hier wiederum ist der Kaffee die mit Abstand wichtigste Agrarkultur. Ist also Kaffee dem Erhalt der Biodiversität abträglich?

Keinesfalls! Traditionell wird Kaffee in Schattenkultur angebaut. Kaffee ist dabei nur eine von vielen Pflanzen, die auf der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Fläche stehen. In Kombination mit anderen Nutzpflanzen oder Schattenbäumen bietet er den Landwirt*innen ein meist verträgliches Auskommen und einer Vielzahl von Insekten und Säugetieren einen Lebensraum, auch den Zugvögeln in ihrem Winterquartier.

Was also hat sich verändert? Warum kehren viele Zugvögel aus Lateinamerika nicht nach Nordamerika zurück? Die Smithsonian Institution sieht einen wesentlichen Faktor in dem Übergang beim Kaffeeanbau von Schattenkaffee zu Monokulturen. Kaffeeanbau ohne Schatten erlaubt deutlich höhere Hektarerträge, bietet aber keinen Platz für nicht unmittelbar produktive Pflanzen. In Kolumbien etwa stehen bei einer intensiv bewirtschafteten Farm bis zu 10.000 Kaffeepflanzen auf jedem Hektar, eine pro Quadratmeter. Es ist plausibel, dass in so genutzten Regionen Zugvögel kein auskömmliches Habitat finden.

Die Grundidee des Bird-Friendly Coffee besteht darin, durch ein spezielles Label den Kaffeekonsum hin zu Produkten zu lenken, die unter Beibehaltung des Schattenanbaus erzeugt werden. Damit kann die Position von Erzeuger*innen des Biodiversitäts-freundlichen Kaffees auf den Märkten gesteigert werden. Unter Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten hat dies mehrere positive Effekte:

Schattenkaffee benötigt einen deutlich geringeren Einsatz von externen Agrarchemikalien: So sind viele Schattenbäume Leguminosen, deren Wurzeln Stickstoff aus der Luft binden und dem Boden zuführen. Dies verringert den Bedarf an Stickstoff, der z.B. über Mineraldünger zugeführt werden muss.

Außerdem bringt Schattenkaffee mehr Menschen in produktive Beschäftigung als Kaffee in Monokultur. Beispielsweise müssen Schattenbäume angepflanzt und beschnitten werden. Wenn auf mineralischen Dünger ganz verzichtet wird, müssen große Mengen an organischem Dünger erzeugt und auf den Flächen aufgebracht werden.

Auch wird die Resilienz von lokalen Agrarsystemen erhöht. In den Produktionssystemen wird der Kaffee oft nicht nur von Leguminosen begleitet, sondern auch von Nutzpflanzen, die für die Ernährung der Landwirt*innen und/oder für lokale Märkte von Bedeutung sind, wie Mangos, Papaya oder Avocados.

Schließlich stärkt Kaffeeanbau in traditionellem Schattenanbau die kleinbäuerliche Produktion gegenüber agrarkapitalistischen Unternehmen, die durch eine maximal intensive Produktion und den Einsatz von Maschinen und Agrarchemie die Kosten minimieren wollen.

Die Smithsonian Institution zertifiziert ihren Bird-Friendly Coffee seit Ende der 1990er Jahre. Leider hat dies den Übergang zur Monokultur nicht stoppen können. In einer Studie von 2014 wurde festgestellt, dass seit 1996 die Produktionsmengen an Schattenkaffee zwar gestiegen sind, allerdings sein Anteil an den Flächen für die Kaffeeproduktion weltweit von 43% auf 24% gesunken ist.

Was können Verbraucher*innen in Deutschland tun? Auf dem Markt in Deutschland gibt es keinen „Bird-Friendly Coffee“ zu kaufen. Wir sollten durch unsere Kaufentscheidungen aber ein Zeichen setzen, dass wir nur Kaffee konsumieren wollen, der nicht dem Übergang zu sozial und ökologisch nicht wünschenswerten Monokulturen dient. Wenn ich die Wahl habe, greife ich zunächst zu Kaffee mit dem Fairtrade Label. Dieses wurde ursprünglich entwickelt, um kleinbäuerliche Erzeuger*innen gegenüber den teilweise massiven Schwankungen der Weltmarktpreise abzusichern. Heute profitieren fast 800.000 Kaffee-Kleinlandwirt*innen von diesem System. Die Weiterentwicklung des Fairtrade-Kaffeestandards hat agrarökologische Aspekte zunehmend in den Blick genommen. Aber nur, wenn sich Kleinlandwirt*innen sicher sein können, dass die Verdienste aus dem Kaffeeverkauf ihrer Familie ein gutes Auskommen ermöglichen, können sie die Gelassenheit entwickeln, um sich für Ziele wie die Biodiversität auf ihren Farmen und den Zugvogelschutz aktiv einzusetzen.

Zur spanischen Version dieser aktuellen Kolumne (PDF)

Halfway into the 2030 Agenda, with progress on several Sustainable Development Goals stalling, is a good moment to ask about the effectiveness of the UN’s development support. From UN country programme evaluations emerges a critical picture of the UN's performance towards sustainable change. The most common and arguably worrisome deficit is that UN development work lacks an orientation towards sustainability and effects at national level – the kind of change that moves the needle on SDG progress. This and other deficits point to “projectitis”, an organisational style characterised by decentralised, ad-hoc responses that are insufficiently integrated with, or informed by, the policies, purposes and overarching responsibilities of the UN. Better institutional safeguards against opportunistic behaviour are needed. Rather than the size and growth of the budget, performance towards mandates and effects should distinguish a UN entity.

The paper is one of the first attempts to assess trends in multidimensional poverty for a large number of countries. Using two innovative indices of poverty on a sample of 85 countries, it shows that 85% made a progress in multidimensional poverty alleviation. On average, multidimensional poverty declined annually by 0.41 pp. in absolute terms, and by 2.4% in relative terms. However, progress has been uneven across regions. In particular, a non-negligible share of countries in SSA (around 25%) experienced an increase in poverty. SSA was also the region with the slowest relative reduction in poverty. SAS and ECA, instead, reduced poverty in relative terms significantly more than the other regions. A comparative analysis of income and multidimensional poverty trends reveals that the two forms of poverty, despite a general positive correlation, may even move in opposite directions and that multidimensional poverty has declined substantially less (about 3-4 times) than income poverty. Multidimensional poverty alleviation was driven especially by improvements in education and health, and by the performance of rural areas. In fact, rural poverty reduction exceeded urban poverty reduction, contributing to narrow down the rural-urban poverty ratio from 3.1 to 2.7. Gender disparities in multidimensional poverty are still large, with female poverty being about 60% higher than male poverty. In conclusion, this paper shows that - once we consider non-monetary dimensions - the progress in poverty eradication has not been as remarkable as believed and calls for stronger efforts in tackling the different forms of poverty. Indeed, interventions succeeding in alleviating income poverty are not necessarily effective in reducing multidimensional poverty (and vice versa): in particular, empirical evidence points to a limited effect of economic growth. Finally, economic and social policies should primarily focus on SSA, rural areas, women and on ensuring decent jobs.

Große Teile der medialen Öffentlichkeit verwenden den Begriff der Zeitenwende als Synonym für die Notwendigkeit, die militärischen Verteidigungsmittel des Westens, insbesondere Deutschlands, aufzustocken. Diese gedankliche Engführung verkennt die Dimension des Problems. Und sie verkennt die Dimension der erforderlichen Lösung. Die Welt ist mit einer akuten „Polykrise“ konfrontiert, der nur mit einer politischen Transformation zu begegnen ist, bei der der Westen die Initiative ergreifen muss. Die wahre Zeitenwende, um die es geht, erfordert weitaus mehr als Waffenlieferungen und militärische Abwehrbereitschaft. Es geht darum, das Teilhabeversprechen der liberalen Demokratie durch eine sozial und ökologisch transformative Politik in den Demokratien des Westens neuerlich einzulösen und global auszudehnen.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

In recent years, global production of plastics has surged and is expected to increase further over the following years, with over a quarter being attributed to plastic packaging. Plastic packaging poses environmental risks due to the fossil fuels consumed in its production and the impact on eco-systems due to its inappropriate disposal. A large share of mismanaged plastic waste can be attributed to a few developing and emerging countries (DECs) in Asia. Their expected income and population growth, as well as associated increase in consumption and urbanisation, is expected to further strain inadequate waste management systems. In response, young ventures offering circular business models in packaging have emerged to tackle plastic packaging pollution. These ventures are embedded in an entrepreneurial ecosystem in which policies are, among others, determining enablers, and policy-makers have a key role in setting optimal framework conditions for circular business models in packaging to succeed. At the same time, policy agendas that address resource efficiency and the circular economy are on the rise in multiple DECs. For this reason, this paper addresses the question of the extent to which existing policies are supporting and enabling circular business models. This paper first discusses opportunities, risks, and challenges of existing circular business models in packaging in terms of waste hierarchy levels – reducing and dematerialising, reusing and refilling, replacing, and recycling – before examining the entrepreneurial ecosystems in which they operate. With a focus on policy as an enabler for circular business models in packaging, a holistic overview of possible policies in the circular packaging context is provided. Against this conceptual background, India is examined as a case-study. In recent years, multiple Indian start-ups have emerged, offering reusable packaging solutions or bio-based packaging alternatives, while other ventures seek to improve waste management and recycling. India’s previously introduced policies, including the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Swacch Bharat Mission, extended producer responsibility and a ban on single-use plastic, are the first stepping stones towards an enabling ecosystem for circular business models in packaging. However, this paper points out further opportunities – so far, India’s key policies have been addressing the downstream on the macro level. This study showed that macro-level policies need further enforcement and should be complemented by upstream policies. Meanwhile, meso-level and micro-level policies have been rather neglected. Policy-makers and development cooperation are encouraged to take action now, given the limited window of opportunity to establish a supporting framework for circular economies in development policy.

Rebuilding Ukraine starts now – even if it is being undertaken against a backdrop of conflict, violence and destruction, with Russia continuing to wage its war of aggression. In granting Ukraine European Union (EU) candidate status, the EU has also made the country’s recovery one of its own priorities. If this reconstruction project is to succeed, then it is necessary to take into account specific contextual conditions, along with experiences from other recovery processes, such as those in the Western Balkans and Iraq.
• Functional statehood: Ukraine is better placed in this regard than many other countries, particularly given the functional and widely accepted statehood throughout much of its territory. Reconstruction assistance can kick-start a forward-looking, sustainable green transformation in the economy and society. At the same time, there is a risk that massive external cash flows could feed old networks of corruption and patronage and create new ones. Clear accountability structures are required, along with sanctions for the misuse of funds, if this is to be counteracted.
• Agile planning over linear phase model: Rebuilding work is taking place in an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Consequently, planning processes must be flexible in order to adapt to different war scenarios. A linear sequence of recovery phases fails to properly address the situation. This is already visible when it comes to efforts to secure critical infrastructure. Its proper functioning is essential to people’s daily lives and to all forms of reconstruction, yet this infrastructure could become a target for attacks again at any time.
• Ukraine as a self-confident partner: As a result of the war’s trajectory, the Ukrainian Government is adopting a self-assured demeanour in its dealings with international donors. While this is essentially a positive thing, it can also give rise to a resistance to reform. The prospect of EU accession creates a common objective to work towards and can also establish coherent criteria for the recovery process, but only as long as accession remains a credible prospect.
• Managing reconstruction assistance: Recovery funds have proven an effective means of coordination, though it remains to be seen whether there will be a single fund or several complementary ones. A central Ukraine fund should be (co-)managed on the donor end by the European Commission, as it has at its disposal the strongest reform incentive, namely EU accession. In the meantime, the EU needs to ensure that the Commission and the member states also provide the majority of the funding between them.
• Diversity and inclusion: The governance structures of the reconstruction project should be designed to afford participation and a say to pluralist political institutions and civil society voices, and strengthen gender equality. In order to counter brain-drain, it is also imperative that young, mobile population groups (including refugees abroad) feel included.
• Social equity: Incorporating social factors into the recovery process will also be essential. Vulnerable groups will require particular support, given the alarming level of impoverishment among the population as a result of the war.
• Investment incentives: Essential reconstruction services have to be provided by the private sector. This requires that clear incentives be created, not least by providing investment guarantees.
• Developing trauma sensitivity: The rebuilding work is taking place in a context of violence and trauma. This requires that all stakeholders develop a particular sensitivity in dealing with survivors of violence and engaging with a traumatised society. 

With the SDGs, countries agreed that Peace, Planet, Partnership, Prosperity and People are connected. To maximise synergies and minimize trade-offs, their interactions need to be better understood. While 'SDG interlinkages' are increasingly studied, SDG 16 is rarely covered. This new publication builds on the first, ground-breaking study ‘Connections that Matter: How the Quality of Governance Institutions may be the Booster Shot we need to reduce Poverty and Inequality’ on the interlinkages between SDG 16 and SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality). UNDP's Oslo Governance Centre and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) have now released this second study on interlinkages between SDG 16 and SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Based on a scoping literature review of 300+ academic papers, the study finds empirical evidence from across the globe that inclusion and participation, accountability and rule of law, as well as transparency and control of corruption and crime can improve the effectiveness of marine and coastal protection efforts and contribute towards the sustainability of fisheries. The study highlights a number of examples, including how governance can regulation, management and enforcement tends to improve marine park conservation whereas lack of enforcement can lead to ‘paper parks’. This publication offers initial policy insights on how to identify and activate governance levers to accelerate progress on SDG 14.