Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

One of the priorities of the international community is alleviating food insecurity, as stated in Goal 2 of the recently approved 2030 Agenda: "End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture". The region with the highest prevalence of food insecurity is sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); most of the efforts must be concentrated there. Food insecurity is mostly widespread among rural households who have either no land or only small plots, and who live in conditions of extreme poverty. Traditional agricultural/ economic interventions alone are unlikely to generate substantial improvements, as they are rarely specifically targeted to the poor. Yet social protection schemes, in particular the emerging cash transfers (CTs), have great potential. Evidence shows, however, that while these measures effectively expand food consumption and asset accumulation, thereby increasing households’ resilience, CTs must be linked to other interventions in order to sustainably graduate households out of food insecurity. What lessons can we learn from the empirical evidence in the region? ·     CTs have proven to be an effective tool for increasing households' calorie intake. Therefore, policy-makers should use them, particularly in this region. ·     International organizations, bilateral donors and national policy-makers should pay attention to four major design features of CT programmes: 1.   Targeting: Some CTs do not reach the expected population and therefore have little effect on food security. CTs can use different targeting mechanisms: There is no one-size-fits-all solution. 2.   Regularity of payments: Cash disbursements must be regular so that households can plan. Wherever several delays were experienced, the CTs were ineffective. 3.   Transfer size: Monetary transfers should be at least equal to 20% of consumption by the poor. No positive benefits in terms of food security were detected when the amount of the transfer was below this threshold. However, CTs should not be large enough to increase social inequality and discourage work. 4.   Political support: To ensure positive long-term effects and for beneficiaries to perceive them as regular programmes, CTs must be backed by strong political support. In SSA, programme ownership is often missing. ·     CTs alone cannot positively impact nutrition knowledge and nutrition/hygienic practices, and have been shown to have limited effects on diet and nutrition. In order for CTs to have long-lasting effects on nutrition, they must be complemented by other interventions such as nutrition education, food supplementation for vulnerable groups and specific economic policies. Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) offers an innovative model for connecting these policies. ·     Although it is not generally advisable to condition CTs to beneficiaries’ fulfilment of certain requirements, introducing soft conditions that link attendance at nutrition education courses to receiving CTs should be considered in SSA because they do not cost much or require large monitoring capacities.

There is no getting away from it: wood is, and will remain crucial for meeting global energy demands, in particular those of the poor. Although wood provides ‘only’ about 10% of total global primary energy, it is the most important source of energy in many parts of the developing world. Around 2.8 billion people worldwide consume wood-based fuels on a daily basis. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 70% of households depend on wood energy. In several SSA countries, it makes up to 90% of household energy mix, and represents up to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).
As for the current trends in population growth in SSA, the amount of wood energy consumed is likely to increase in future. Even with very optimistic assumptions about renewable energy development, in 2030 wood-based energy will still be two-thirds of what it is today. Charcoal will remain the main energy source of the urban population.
As they are the central component of SSA’s household energy mix, production and trade of wood energy have far-reaching social, economic and environmental repercussions. Many of the poor earn a living in firewood and charcoal value chains. Charcoal has been called an “engine of pro-poor economic growth” (Van der Plas & Abdel-Hamid, 2005, p. 297). However, typically uncontrolled wood extraction has made wood energy an important force of forest and biodiversity degradation. Moreover health is threatened by traditional use, particularly of firewood.
Many of the attempts in the past to control the wood energy sector have been short-sighted, top-down, and have failed. Most energy policies in SSA largely ignore the potential of wood energy as a source of reliable, storable, renewable and sustainable energy, and as the main and unavoidable energy supplier of the future. This must change!
This policy brief first outlines the typical wood energy value chains in SSA, while scrutinizing unsustainable practices in every segment of the value chain. It then sketches previous, often unsuccessful interventions to manage the sector and replace wood energy. It highlights the key role of location in shaping efforts to manage the sector. Subsequently, it provides condensed policy recommendations.
The primary findings of this analysis are the following:

• There is a strong case for pro-actively supporting the emergence of a sustainable wood energy sector. Wood energy must be recognized as an inter-sectoral issue, connected to forestry, energy, agriculture and land.
• Although new technologies to reduce wood and energy waste are important, governance issues remain key to attempts to manage wood fuel value chains.
• Previous attempts to upgrade the wood fuel value chains have been too narrow and have relied too strongly on technology and/or central state regulation and have not been able to control the sector under SSA conditions. In particular, relying on top-down prohibition, certification and central state control has disregarded the role of weak implementation capacities, local realities (informal community rules, power imbalances) and corruption in circumventing such measures.

For future approaches to be successful, they need to target the multi-level nature of the wood energy sector and provide more comprehensive and location-specific interventions.

Despite increased conservation efforts, biodiversity contin¬ues to decline, while international targets to conserve biodiversity remain out of reach. Mobilising financial resources for conservation investments is considered crucial to addressing the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and to setting incentives for conserving biodiversity. Aid is, and will likely continue to be, the main source of funding biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Mobilising domestic funds still presents a challenge to many develop¬ing countries although some domestic budgets for bio¬diversity show upward trends. Donor countries have repeated¬ly committed to increasing funds to support con¬servation measures in developing countries but the modest achievements of international conservation efforts have created doubts with regard to its effectiveness.
However, research shows that aid can play a crucial role in biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Having said that, aid needs to be better aligned with biodiversity strategies and to aim at mainstreaming.
The main messages of this Briefing Paper are as follows:

• The trend of increased biodiversity aid must continue to address the funding gap, in particular in underfunded biodiversity-rich countries. According to estimations, between USD 150 billion and USD 440 billion per year is needed to conserve biodiversity. Biodiversity-rich countries in particular are significantly underfunded and face high biodiversity loss rates. In these countries, domestic budgets are not sufficient by far; hence biodiversity aid needs to be increased. Besides aid, financial resources from other sources (e.g. domestic, private) also need to be mobilised.

• Biodiversity aid must support the implementation of national biodiversity strategies, implementing the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and must foster the mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations into other sectors (e.g. agriculture, trade). Biodiversity strategies and the mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations are seen as key instruments in fostering biodiversity conservation. Increases in aid marked as targeting biodiversity as a “significant” objective (meaning prime objectives other than biodiversity conservation) indicate that biodiversity has been increasingly mainstreamed.

• The effectiveness of biodiversity aid must be improved. To better assess the effectiveness of bio-diversity-related aid, an adequate quantification of needs (i. e. frequent and consistent assessment of the biodiversity status across countries) and expenditures (i. e. comprehensive tracking of biodiversity funding with a consistent methodology) is required.

The controversial Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are currently back on the agenda, as several African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states are again faced with a loss of market access if they do not ratify their EPAs by 1 October 2016. To complicate matters, Brexit has introduced an element of uncertainty and is causing some ACP states to reconsider their decision to sign EPAs.
EPAs were introduced under the trade pillar of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which governs relations between the European Union (EU) and the ACP. EPAs represent a sea change in trade relations between the EU and the ACP: not only do they introduce reciprocity into trade preferences, they are organized on a regional basis, with the aim of promoting regional integration within the ACP. This Briefing Paper presents an update of the various EPA processes, and investigates the extent to which they have actually met the EU’s stated aim of promoting regionalism in the ACP, as well as the EPAs alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the debate on the future of EU-ACP cooperation.
EPAs have been only partially effective in facilitating regional integration in the ACP. EPA negotiations have resulted in the conclusion of region-wide deals that align with existing integration initiatives in only three regions: the Caribbean, the East African Community (EAC), and West Africa. EPAs have acted as a ‘mid-wife’ to deeper integration in these regions, however it is a possibility that the EAC and West African EPAs will not be signed by the October deadline.
In the remaining regions – the Pacific, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – EPAs have made future prospects for regional integration more difficult, and in some cases may have contributed to a ‘lock-in’ of fragmented regionalism.
Part of the reason for this mixed record is tension between the CPA’s principles of ‘regionalization’, which recognizes the importance of regional integration for development; and ‘differentiation’, which advocates treating states differently based on their level of development. EPAs aimed to encourage groups of states to sign the agreements as regional blocs, but the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) regime undermines regional EPAs by offering Least Developed Countries (LDCs) non-reciprocal trade preferences. This splits ACP regions into LDCs versus non-LDCs, making it difficult to conclude regional EPAs.
Given the ongoing struggle to conclude regional EPAs, and the uncertainty of Brexit, the EU should consider extending the 1 October deadline, to allow ACP states more time to consider their positions and work on further harmonising regional relations.
As regional integration is key for the economic development of ACP states, future cooperation should be aware of the need for alignment of EPAs, the SDGs, and the goal of regional integration.

Civil wars and other armed conflicts within states kill tens of thousands of civilians every year, destroy many more livelihoods and have forced millions of people to flee their homes over the last five years alone. For many years since the mid-1990s, armed intrastate conflicts seemed to be steadily receding, but this trend has reversed itself since 2013. For populations affected by civil war, 2014 – the year for which the most recent data is available – was deadlier than any year since the Rwandan genocide in 1994.
Most violent conflicts today are recurrences of previous wars. Thus, besides ending ongoing violence, preventing wars from breaking out again is one of the major challenges the world faces today. Since the 1990s, this has been the exact objective of peacebuilding activities. But how successful are efforts to stabilise peace after armed conflict really? And what can be done to make them more effective?
Summarising a broad range of empirical research on post-conflict peace support, this briefing paper reports which types of external engagement are known to be effective, and which ones are not. International peacebuilding efforts focus mainly on four issue areas: providing security, (re-)starting socio-economic development, advancing democratic governance and promoting transitional justice. Assessing the evidence available in each area, three messages for external actors who wish to support peace in post-conflict environments emerge most clearly.

• First, international peacekeeping missions are in many cases an effective instrument for stabilising peace after civil war, indicating that the immediate security concerns of affected populations is of utmost importance. Yet, security alone is not enough. Peacekeeping is all the more successful when it is embedded in a multidimensional approach, supporting the notion that political, economic and social concerns also need to be addressed early on if peace is to last.
• Second, supporters of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes and security sector reforms need to embrace the political character of these processes. Approaching them merely as technical issues – as outside actors often do – and turning a blind eye to the vested interests involved risks fuelling new conflicts instead of preventing them.
• Third, transitional justice is an important area of post-conflict peace consolidation – but only if it meets the interest and support of key stakeholders in the affected population: in parliament, in government and administration, and in civil society.

One-size-fits-all strategies for how to support sustainable peace after civil wars do not exist. Different types of conflicts obviously require different pathways to peace. One direction of future research should be a more systematic analysis of post-conflict contexts that are similar enough to call for similar strategies of peace support.

Since the first meeting of the G20 at the leaders’ level in Washington in November 2008, trade has been an integral part of their agenda. This first meeting took place at the peak of the global financial and economic crisis, which led to a strong contraction of world trade. Remembering the global economic crisis after 1929 and the following wave of protectionist measures, the G20 countries made the commitment to not erect new trade and investment barriers. In addition, the verbal commitment to the conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda – the current round of multilateral negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – has been part of the standard repertoire of G20 summit declarations.
Yet, since the last ministerial meeting of the WTO in Nairobi in December 2015, the future of the Doha Round is more uncertain than ever before. Important member states, notably the United States, declared themselves in favour of terminating the Doha Round, whereas many emerging and developing countries insist on its continuation.
Dissatisfied with the slow progress of the Doha Round, the major trading powers – first of all the United States and the European Union (EU) – are increasingly focussing on negotiating bilateral or regional trade agreements. Agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was signed on 4 February 2016 by the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is currently under negotiation between the United States and the EU, cover large shares of global trade and investment flows and aim at regulating issues that go beyond the elimination of tariffs, such as investment, standards and the environment.
At the same time, the main trading powers are promoting so-called plurilateral agreements that focus on specific topics. The most prominent example is the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), which is negotiated outside the WTO. We argue that the role of the WTO as the central organisation for the governance of world trade is weakened by this wave of mega-regional and plurilateral trade deals.
Until now, reforms of the world trading system have only played a subordinate role at the G20 summits. The summit declarations contain only vaguely drafted commitments to strengthen the multilateral trading system, or commitments that bilateral, regional and plurilateral trade agreements should be complementary and in conformity with the rules of the WTO.
We argue that the G20 should assume a more proactive role with regard to the future of the WTO and the reform of the world trading system. Such a reform is needed in light of the growing fragmentation of the system. At the same time, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations calls for sustainability to be the core principle of global cooperation, including in the context of international trade. Among other things, the 2030 Agenda calls for “a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization”. Bridging the gap between the realities of the international trading system and the aspirations of the 2030 Agenda is a formidable challenge that cannot be tackled effectively either in the context of the WTO or the UN and the 2030 Agenda alone. The G20 is a suitable forum to bridge that gap.

Eight years after its formation at the leaders’ level, the Group of 20 (G20) has consolidated its status as the power centre of global economic governance. The informal club of 19 nation-states plus the European Union has set itself ambitious goals. They want to lead the global economy towards “strong, sustainable and balanced growth”. Opinions on the success and the broader implications of the G20 diverge widely in global conversations (Bradford & Lim, 2011). Critical voices point to the fundamental lack of legitimacy for the self-selected group of global powers. Other sceptics call into question the effectiveness of the G20 in balancing national interests and managing the world economy. In a more positive assessment, the G20 is given credit for moderating trade conflicts and averting currency wars. Sympathisers also acknowledge the G20’s role in nudging the global system towards a post-Western constellation by integrating large (re-)emerging economies beyond the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Clearly, the G20 is not mandated, nor does it operate under the guidance of the United Nations (UN), the universal body of ultimate legitimacy. Looking at the G20 from the perspective of effective global governance, the big question to ask is: Do member states see their group as a concert of great powers or are they ready to act as guardians of global well-being? The latter would imply that the G20 anchors its entire work in three transformational documents adopted by world leaders last year at the UN: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement.
The G20 at the leaders’ level has come about in response to the severe financial disorder of 2008. It adopted the membership formula of the G20 of finance ministers, which was set up by governments from all parts of the world in 1999 with a similar intent of crisis management (regarding the Asian financial crisis of that time). The 19 member countries plus the European Union represent a diverse cosmos of old and new economic powerhouses, selected more on the economic exigencies of the outgoing 20th century than on the basis of criteria that would reflect representativeness and the preparedness to live up to international responsibilities. While Europe is strongly represented, other regions lack adequate inclusion. From Sub-Sahara Africa, only South Africa was selected, and Saudi Arabia is the sole member from the Arab world (Fues & Wolff, 2010).
The strengths, as well as weaknesses, of the G20 lie in its informality and flexibility. The group has no legal status, no charter and no permanent secretariat. It is driven by annual summits, which are hosted by yearly rotating presidencies. Two parallel tracks – under the guidance of sherpas and finance ministers, respectively – structure the process (see Box 1). Over time, the G20 has established a myriad of working groups and work streams, such as on infrastructure, development, employment and trade. As a result, the overall coherence of the G20 architecture leaves much to be desired (Dubey, 2015). The workload of attending to an ever-increasing number of policy fields stretches the capacities of most national bureaucracies to the limit.

“Our struggle for global sustainability will be lost or won in cities.” With these words Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, opened the High-Level Delegation of Mayors and Regional Authorities in New York City on 23 April 2012.
A little more than three years later, at the United Nations (UN) Summit in 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted. In the Agenda, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define the key areas and mech-anisms for a future global development partnership. One of these goals (SDG 11: “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”) distinctly alludes to urban development. The urban community has widely celebrated the adoption of this “stand-alone urban goal”. The step is perceived as reflecting an increased awareness of the important role of cities for global development pathways.
Although sharing in this positive assessment, this briefing paper ar¬gues that for an effective follow-up to Agenda 2030, issues of urban and local governance ought to be addressed in further detail and as cross-cutting issues. This applies to the “urban” SDG 11, which does not have a distinct target on (good) governance. It is also true for the “governance” goal, SDG 16, which, while referring to institutions “at all levels”, does not spell out local or urban responsibilities. And it is pertinent for many sectoral goals, such as SDGs 13 (action towards climate change) and 9 (build resilient infrastructure), both of which strongly hinge on local- or city-level implementation.
Against this background, the briefing paper identifies urban governance issues that are presently neglected in the SDGs and require further elaboration. This may occur in the process of the supplementary methodological work envisaged by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators for the coming months (UN Economic and Social Council, 2016, p. 9).
Even more importantly, the task of concretising the urban governance dimension – and thereby easing SDG implementa-tion – must also be related to other global policy processes and events. Notably the New Urban Agenda (NUA), which is to be formulated at the 2016 World Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, from 17–20 October 2016, can be considered a key vehicle in this regard.
Following are three decisive urban governance dimensions to be focussed on in the NUA:

1. Urban governance frameworks: Since urban governance is exercised at different governmental levels, defining the roles and responsibilities of – and coordination between – these levels is essential. Decisive elements are national urban policies among other institutional frameworks; multi-level and -sectoral cooperation and coordination mechanisms; and formal and informal linkages beyond city borders.
2. Intra-urban partnerships: Effective partnerships and co¬oper¬ative practices between local authorities, the private sector and civil society constitute the backbone of good urban governance. In particular, mechanisms and space for the participation of disadvantaged groups in collaboration and decision-making processes must be defined and the related capacities built.

Transformative urban governance: In order to effectively confront global challenges in the sense of truly transformative development, key elements of climate-friendly governance at the city level must be defined, relating to both mitigation and adaptation measures.

By 2022, two billion people will be living in informal settlements according to the United Nations. Although per capita energy consumption in informal settlements is comparatively low, the benefits of energy efficiency uptake – enhanced energy system sustainability, economic development, social development, environmental sustainability, and increased prosperity (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2014) – stand to equally benefit these communities. Yet despite these benefits, informal settlement households – as so many others – have been slow in taking up energy-efficient technologies. This can be partly attributed to behavioural barriers: Consumers often do not invest in energy efficiency in an economically rational manner. Recent research findings point to effective means of implementing behavioural insights for energy efficiency in informal settlements. Building upon this precedence, governments, international organisations and implementing agencies should en¬courage the application of potentially low-cost behavioural insights to energy efficiency initiatives in informal settlements to improve intervention efficacy. It is easy for energy efficiency to be lost in the challenging demands of daily life in informal settlements – sourcing water, managing irregular employment opportunities, or basic health and safety concerns, compounded by risk aversion and the discounting of future-based benefits. This is why it is essential to integrate behavioural insights to facilitate energy-efficiency uptake. This may be done, for example, by making information on energy efficiency simple and meaningful, by focussing on context-specific benefits, by bringing the economic benefit of uptake closer to the consumer while spacing the cost over time, or by appealing to social norms.
While most evidence on the importance of behavioural insights for energy efficiency stems from the OECD member country context, the topic is equally relevant in the developing country informal settlement context. Here, the cost-benefit analysis of energy efficiency is further complicated by the fact that many households informally consume electricity without paying for it or by paying a flat rate. This presumably removes the traditional pecuniary motivation – electrical bill savings – upon which to influence energy-efficiency implementation. What entry points then exist for energy-efficient products which invariably have a higher upfront purchase cost when there are – prima facie – no financial benefits to be realised? The higher durability of energy-efficient products in the context of the instable electricity supply occurring in many developing countries could be an obscured benefit. It accrues not just at the societal level but also at the individual level, further building the economic case for energy-efficiency uptake.

The European Union (EU) is in crisis mode. Its capacity to implement domestic reforms and its position as a global power are being severely undermined by centrifugal forces within Europe and the risk that the EU will disintegrate. Euroscepticism and populism abound; the reactions to the refugee crisis suggest that solidarity among member states is weak; the Euro crisis has exacerbated social tensions and economic power disparities throughout the continent; while persistent environmental problems such as the ongoing loss of biodiversity have no easy solutions.
Europe is in dire need of a new and positive narrative for its future development that resonates with European citizens and presents Europe as a constructive force for sustainable domestic and global development.
This is even more urgent in light of the increasingly blurred boundaries between domestic and external agendas. Europe’s sustainable development cannot be promoted nor its own interests protected in isolation from the EU’s response to the aspirations of emerging and developing countries and global public goods challenges. The refugee and migration crisis as well as the terrorist attacks in Paris show that the lack of sustainable development and peace in other parts of the world also threaten Europe at home. Moreover, because of the size of its market and its economy, Europe’s domestic development pathway considerably impacts both its external legitimacy and sustainable development in third countries, for better or worse.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) puts the interdependence of domestic and external policy-making center stage. The 2030 Agenda is an action plan for people, planet, peace and prosperity that reflects core European values and interests: It is crucial for Europe and the rest of the world.
Given the scope and universal nature of the 2030 Agenda, its implementation requires a new quality of cooperation with greater inter-departmental work and whole-of-government approaches that encompass all dimensions of EU internal and external policies.
Linking the core ongoing European strategy processes – including the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (the EU Global Strategy) and the revision of the Europe 2020 Strategy (the New Approach beyond 2020) – to the 2030 Agenda can help to create more coherent policies. This could also address frictions and trade-offs between individual policy fields. Progress on the SDGs in Europe and abroad will foster the success of both domestic and foreign policies.
We recommend that

• EU heads of state and government jointly commit to implementing the 2030 Agenda across internal and external fields of action ahead of the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development scheduled for July 2016,
• the New Approach beyond 2020 and the EU Global Strategy should serve as umbrella documents for domestic and external  implementation of the 2030 Agenda, linking both dimensions under the leadership of Vice-Presidents Timmermans and Mogherini.

In view of the currently increasing demands and expecta¬tions of Europe, the question arises as to how the EU can perform its role as a global actor better and more effectively. The dramatic escalation of events in Europe’s Neighbourhood and the subsequent refugee crisis in numerous member states (MS) clearly illustrate that a rethink of EU foreign and development policy is re¬quired. The EU was one of the most heavily engaged parties during the negotiations leading to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and in 2016 will need to address the challenge of implementing this agen¬da both within and outside Europe.
In June 2015 EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Mogherini launched a process of consultation aimed at establishing an EU Global Strategy by early summer 2016 that all member states can agree on. A value-based and sustainable development policy that also takes account of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should occu¬py a key position in such a strategy. The European Con¬sensus on Development Policy can no longer exist as an isolated document, but should instead be linked to other strategies of EU foreign policy. Building upon the premise that European development cooperation will assume an appropriate role in the Global Strategy and in a reformed 'Europe 2030 Strategy', the Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) have begun thinking about a possible reform of the European Consensus on Develop¬ment. On 28 January 2016 Development Commissioner Neven Mimica informed the European Parliament (EP) that preparations for this have been underway since the informal Council of Ministers meeting of December 2015.
The above context calls for a comprehensive review and reform of the European Consensus on Development (hereafter: the Consensus). This briefing paper looks into the past role and contributions of the Consensus in European development cooperation policy and operations and assesses the central challenges and opportunities for revising the Consensus and ensuring its continuing relevance. The improvement of coordination and coopera¬tion between humanitarian, development and neig¬hbour¬hood policy could indicate new paths and approaches in this regard. Four recommendations for reforming the consensus are derived from this analysis:

1. Utilising the reform momentum for a rethink of the Consensus and the forthcoming negotiation on the future cooperation between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group.
2. Adoption of a holistic and sustainable security concept acknowledging the central importance of sustainable development in both Consensus and Global Strategy.
3. Synergies through the closer integration of policy areas within as well as between MS and EU in the coordi¬nation of humanitarian aid and development policy.
4. Definition of priorities for future cooperation with middle-income countries (MICs) and emerging powers.

Many governments worldwide make use of unofficial armed groups. This practice substantially increases the risks for civilians, as the activities of such pro-government militias (PGMs) are usually accompanied by a higher level of human rights violations, including killings, torture and disappearances. Examples are the Shia militias in Iraq, the Shabiha militia in Syria and the Imbonerakure in Burundi.
Better knowledge about these groups is essential, given the extreme suffering, violence and instability they are linked to. This briefing paper shows that PGMs exist not only in failed states, poor countries or those engulfed in civil war and armed conflict. They can also be found in more or less democratic governments and are most common in semi-democracies.
Governments outsource security tasks to irregular forces because they provide efficiency gains when leaders perceive themselves to be under threat in an uncertain environment. PGMs are attractive to governments because they are cheaper, more flexible and often better informed than regular forces. They complicate lines of accountability for the violence committed, and therefore lower the political costs for governments when there is a controversial use of violence. These aspects make PGMs particularly attractive to governments that intend to use violence against a domestic opponent but fear national and international repercussions for excessive human rights violations. Although these groups make conflict more feasible financially and are perceived to lower political costs, they may bring – sometimes unintended – consequences, such as increased suffering and violence for civilians, as well as greater instability and crime in the medium- and long term.
The risks that PGMs bring for peace, security and stability can only be reduced if the international community knows how governments delegate security tasks and holds governments responsible for the violence that their various state and non-state agents commit.

• The international community needs to pay attention to unintended consequences when promoting democracy. When incentivised to limit repression, governments in target countries might distance themselves from the violence rather than seek to reduce it.

• Aid decisions should be informed by a thorough assessment of the security sector, which should include regular as well as irregular forces.

• Governments are responsible for protecting the lives of their citizens. If civilians are targeted by militias, a government has failed in this task and should therefore be held accountable for such violence.

Non-economic loss and damage (NELD) has emerged as a new concept in the negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It refers to the negative impacts of climate change that are difficult to measure or quantify. The value of NELD cannot easily be expressed in monetary terms, which has left them mostly neglected in climate-risk and cost estimates. As a result, although NELD are vital to those affected, they often go unnoticed by the outside world.
A focus on NELD invites engagement with the normative dimensions of the loss-and-damage debate: Whose losses and damages count and how are they counted? What losses are the global community willing to accept as a result of unmitigated climate change? At the same time, the practical aspects of NELD need to be considered: What tools and instruments are available to avoid NELD? What are appropriate ways to react to NELD that prove to be unavoidable or that have already occurred?
Instances of NELD are highly diverse. Relevant insights can be gained from a range of academic disciplines, including economics, human geography and environmental psychology. Still, few studies explicitly address NELD. Currently, 10 meta-categories of NELD can be identified: Human Life, Meaningful Places, Cultural Artefacts, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, Communal Sites, Production Sites, Intrinsic Values, Identity and Agency.
The diversity of NELD can be better understood through a focus on their main characteristics: context-dependence and incommensurability of value. Both attributes pose challenges to policy-making. Context-dependence is particularly problematic in an international setting in which actors will likely need to rely on universal standards for the recognition of losses.
Incommensurability means that values cannot be ex-pressed through the use of a common unit. This renders monetary assessments as a means of valuation problematic. Monetisation may provide useful information for cost-benefit analyses of mitigation or adaptation scenarios, but it is less insightful in terms of how to avoid NELD or respond to them once they have occurred. Such conceptual clarity is key for the integration of available knowledge and the identification of effective approaches to NELD.
In order to avoid NELD at the national level, they need to be included in risk- and vulnerability assessments. Assessments need to include negative side-effects of mitigation and adaptation and be conducted in a decentralised and participatory manner. Efforts should be made to share findings with the wider public, nationally and inter-nationally.
Addressing NELD at the international level should rely on agreed assessment rules for the recognition of NELD rather than a static set of items. The universality of standards needed for an international framework would thus shift from indicators to a process-based scheme of assessment rules under the UNFCCC. These should inform measures that avoid as well as those that react to NELD.
The emergence of NELD in the context of the UNFCCC provides an excellent opportunity to raise awareness of an oft-ignored dimension of climate impacts. An orchestrated integration of research findings from a broad range of disciplines is needed to provide a solid evidence-base for designing just and effective approaches to address NELD.

Europe has been discussing how to deal with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East, Africa and other parts of the world for months now. However, one frequently overlooked aspect is the fact that just a small percentage of the world's approximately 60 million forcibly displaced people actually come to Europe – the number of asylum applications across the entire European Union between 2008 and September 2015 totalled around 3.5 million. Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iran are each accommodating over one million refugees, thus probably more than the European Union to date.
All in all, the number of people forced to leave their homes has never been as high as it was in 2015. Flight is a reaction to threats to people's physical or psychological integrity. The causes of flight include wars, political repression, terrorism, food shortages and natural disasters. What can development policy, including humanitarian aid, do in order to combat these root causes?
In the short term, attempts should be made to create or maintain so-called 'stability cores' – locations in which those who are fleeing receive physical stability and essential material resources (water, food, education, health care services). These spaces may be created in the countries of origin themselves or in host countries in the region. In the process, it is crucial to involve administrative structures within the host countries from the outset, and also to ensure that the host population benefits from the aid provided.
In the medium term, the refugees should be prepared effectively, either for their return to their countries of origin, or for their integration within the host country. Whatever happens, economic, social and legal prospects must be created for them, in order to avoid apathy and despair – a breeding ground for frustration and violence. At present, larger amounts, increased reliability and longer-term perspectives in terms of funding for humanitarian and transitional aid are urgently required.
Above all, development policy can attenuate the causes of flight preventively, with long-term effects. It is vital to ensure that no other countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan or Nigeria, are plunged into crises (civil war, political repression, etc.), with the result that the number of refugees increases considerably once more. Prerequisites for this are efforts relating not only to the short-term, but also to the long-term stabilisation of these countries. This pre-supposes not only politically, socio-economically and ecologically sustainable development, but also requires the involvement of large sections of the population in political decision-making processes. Only then can a social and political equilibrium between competing interests within society be achieved. In future, the primacy of short-term political stability via the support of authoritarian governments at the expense of political legitimacy and participation should no longer be accepted. Development policy is equipped with tools designed to promote inclusive social change and the balance of political forces without significantly expanding the financial scope of authoritarian regimes. As a result, crisis prevention and peace promotion must become important focuses of development policy once more. Experiences with 'multidimensional peace-keeping' in post-conflict countries show that concerted international commitment with multilateral leadership is the way forward, even in very challenging circumstances.

The 2030 Agenda, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adds new urgency to the reform of the UN Development System (UNDS). If we wish the UNDS to play a decisive role in sustainable development, it must be made fit for purpose. UN member states have recognized the need for action. In December 2014, they launched a state dialogue in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in order to discuss the longer-term positioning of the UNDS and present concrete reform proposals by mid-2016. To date, no breakthrough has been achieved. Participating states are opting for incremental reforms within existing mandates and structures, which are unlikely to bring the necessary changes.
The general restraint on tackling ambitious reforms stands in contrast to the current comparatively favourable context for repositioning the UNDS. The 2030 Agenda, adopted successfully last September at the greatest ever UN summit so far, requires a revamp of the UNDS so that it can effectively and efficiently assist member states in implementing both their own and collective development interests. The increased awareness of global problems associated with globalisation and climate change has led to calls to give the UNDS better global problem-solving capacities. Additionally, it is by no means only OECD states that are deploring the fragmentation and incoherence of the UNDS.
The second phase of the ECOSOC Dialogue now provides an opportunity to take the necessary steps towards an ambitious UNDS reform. Emphasis should be placed on a more comprehensive reform package. The present paper proposes a federal structure for the UNDS, based on two elements: (1) a strengthening of the central, system-wide governance capacity, while (2) largely maintaining the subsidiary independence of the UN agencies.
Significant elements of a federally structured UNDS are as follows:

• Reinforcement of the ECOSOC as a forum for the intergovernmental, system-wide governance of the UNDS, and creation of a corresponding administrative entity of equal weight ("Development Commission");

• Expansion of existing system-wide funding mechanisms based on voluntary contributions, and the introduction of a new component of assessed contributions;

• Retention of the far-reaching subsidiary independence of the funds, programmes and specialised agencies, but on the basis of a review of their mandates;

• Reform of governance structures, including a geographically fair distribution of seats and the representation of various stakeholder groups.

Although these reforms are ambitious, they may well meet with political acceptance from a large majority of states. It is now time to overcome the formation of rival North and South camps, and to focus on common interests via an open, inclusive and constructive dialogue.

On 25 September 2015 the 2030 agenda for sustainable development was passed at the summit of the United Nations in New York. This agenda sees the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which draw to a close in 2015. The new agenda follows a universal approach and will apply to developing, emerging and developed countries alike. It should also form the basis for a changed global partnership. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals link the principle of sustainability with economic, environmental and social development.
Financing plays a key role in the realisation of the objectives. In addition to trade, technology, the strengthening of local capacities and coherent international co-operation, financing is of paramount importance. Shortly before the passing of the 2030 agenda the financing of sustainable development was also discussed intensively within the scope of the 3rd UN Conference on Financing for Development. One of the goals of the Addis Ababa conference was to safeguard and improve the financing of sustainable development, particularly in developing countries. The necessary basis for this is a stable financial system, as a regional or global financial crisis could endanger the new development agenda. The final document places its priorities on the intensification of domestic resource mobilisation, the reliable disbursement of the funds for development co-operation and on tapping new resources of financing for developing countries. However, it does not address the role of financial stability in sufficient depth.
The choice of financing sources and instruments has a decisive influence on the stability of the financial system. During the global economic and financial crisis there was also a close interrelation between the financing structure and the effects of the crisis on the real sector. With the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development the question is raised as to whether the use of supplementary and new sources of financing fundamentally alters the financial structure in emerging and developing countries and what effects on financial stability are to be anticipated. This depends primarily on the financing conditions of a country. Secondly, the structure of the financial system plays a role because the size and breadth of the financial system and the role of cross-border financing determine the ability of the financial system to withstand systemic shocks. Thirdly, financing in order to achieve specific sustainable development goals can lead to new systemic risks. Its specific risk and financing profile makes the energy sector an example of this.
The risks to financial stability always need to be taken into account in the financing of investments in order to achieve the new sustainable development goals. On the one hand, the emerging and developing countries need to improve on managing financial complexity. On the other hand, more stringent international financial market regulation and more intensive co-ordination are required. This would enable the risks to financial stability to be contained and not used as an excuse for postponing investment in sustainable development.

The impacts of global warming threaten to undermine the core objectives of sustainable development: Large-scale invest¬ments that aim to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) are indispensable. A just low-carbon transformation requires that mitigation investments seek to generate sustainable develop¬ment (SD) benefits while also minimizing their adverse effects.
A central goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is alignment of the climate and the sustainable development agendas. Govern¬ance and operational structures of policy instruments and funds should attempt to prevent local communities being confronted with the impacts of both climate change and climate protection measures.
Ongoing negotiations of the rules governing post-2020 climate protection measures offer the opportunity to address these issues. This briefing paper begins by analysing how activities under the Clean Develop¬ment Mechanism (CDM) both positively and negatively impact sustainable develop¬ment.
It then compares these experiences with emerging climate governance approaches by examining the Warsaw Frame¬work for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Key conclusions:

• Activities under the CDM have both positively and nega¬tively affected sustainable development, depending on the type and local circumstances: Community-based activities regarding energy access reap high benefits for sustainable development and large-scale hydropower and reforesta¬tion projects can create negative impacts.

• The CDM requires stakeholders to be consulted at the beginning of the project design but does not include international safeguards to prevent ongoing activities harming local communities.

• More recent financing instruments and investment frame¬works such as the GCF and REDD+ have begun to formu¬late additional regulatory frameworks to promote sustain¬able development and avoid harmful side effects. While these frameworks still must be tested in practice, the GCF stipulates verification of sustainable develop¬ment impact and mechanisms for independent redress.

• The future of a reformed CDM for financing climate protection and sustainable development depends on political decisions. However, the CDM offers critical in¬sights for designing a new generation of multilateral cli¬mate finance mechanisms. Post-2020 mechanisms should create strong and harmonized standards to help align the sustainable development agenda with climate protection.

While sustainable development and climate goals can be mutually reinforcing, there may be trade-offs between these agendas. Future climate finance mechan¬isms should minimize trade-offs and allow for appeals by vulnerable communities affected by investments in climate protection.

The United Nations (UN) climate summit (COP 21) in Paris is the most important opportunity for years to come to organise effective collective action at the international level to stabilise global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C), or at least limit it to a maximum of 2°C; facilitate the transition towards a zero-carbon economy; and mobilise significant financial resources to adapt to climate change, particularly in the most vulnerable countries. The European Union (EU) is in a unique position to contribute decisively to these ends.
With its climate pledge from March 2015, the EU has made explicit what it considers to be a fair offer, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, to further an ambitious and fair deal, the EU should be prepared to offer even more in the key negotiating fora, especially regarding adaptation and finance.
With the negotiations towards COP 21 in full swing and the EU’s negotiation mandate fixed, however, the real work will begin after Paris. Five building blocks will be of particular importance to demonstrate European leader-ship: (1) mitigation, (2) adaptation, including the issue of loss and damage (L&D), (3) climate finance, (4) a framework for non-state climate actions and (5) the building of ambitious alliances.
1. Mitigation: The Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) of the EU and its member states represents an important step in the right direction, but it is not ambitious enough to really make the EU a climate leader. The INDC target of 40 per cent emission reductions by 2030 is based on a scenario of 80 per cent decarbonisation by 2050. This puts the EU at the lower end of its long-term goal of 80–95 per cent by mid-century. Attaining the 40 per cent target by 2030 does not necessarily enable the EU to reach a goal of 80 per cent by 2050, even if it were on track to reach its 40 per cent target in 2030 – which it is not.
2. Adaptation and L&D: The international community has waited too long and acted too weakly to fully avoid dangerous climate change, meaning more vulnerable countries and populations will be increasingly affected by severe impacts of climate change. Action on adaptation as well as L&D is therefore crucial for COP 21 and beyond, and the EU should be seen as treating these issues with the same priority and urgency as mitigation.
3. Climate finance: Climate finance is the most straight-forward way to demonstrate an international commitment to fight climate change and its impacts. To demonstrate resolve and credibility, the EU’s contributions for mitigation and adaptation will need to be made in addition to its conventional development finance.
4. A framework for non-state climate actions: The EU has been a frontrunner in promoting greater engagement of non-state and subnational actors in global climate policy. It should thus support a long-term action agenda and policy framework to facilitate and galvanise bottom-up climate actions.
5. Ambitious alliances: Since 2011, the EU has made considerable efforts to revitalise its external climate action and related diplomacy. Paris will be a vantage point to capitalise on new opportunities.

The Briefing Paper series “Financing Global Development” analyses key financial and non-financial means of implementation for the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and discusses the building blocks of a new framework for development finance.

Financing social service delivery is becoming more and more challenging. At the same time, private assets are increasingly seeking out investment opportunities. Some high-net-worth individuals and foundations are accepting lower returns as long as pressing societal objectives can be achieved. This presents an opportunity to mobilise more private capital for social investments. The so-called impact investors can play a promising role in financing social and environmental service delivery in G7 countries as well as in the developing world. Impact investing is intended to finance projects, organisations and social enterprises to intentionally create a measurable social or environmental impact alongside financial returns. One innovative instrument is the so-called social impact bond (SIB) – or, in the case of development cooperation, development impact bond (DIB) – through which private investors pre-finance the intervention, and governments or donors provide funding solely when the intended outcome goes beyond what would have occurred otherwise.
Advocates of impact investing see SIBs and DIBs as useful instruments for the financing of the 2030 agenda. However, they are still largely unproven; even though some promising interim evaluations exist, this innovative  
financing approach faces a number of challenges. Besides questionable or outstanding evaluations, the most important challenges are: limited transferability, the nascent development of the market, high transaction costs and the hurdles for investors. Nevertheless, given the urgency to mobilise finance for sustainable development in developed and developing countries, it is worth considering and prudently developing impact bonds further, and more generally impact investing. Supporting them would entail:

• Data- and information-sharing have to be furthered by the impact investing community in order to critically evaluate first experiences of pilot SIBs and DIBs, provide recommendations and enable basic education for entrepreneurs and investors.
• Further research should be encouraged to get a better understanding of how to create additional impact and to deploy different instruments in the development context as well as to offer exit opportunities for private investors.
• Policy-makers should support the development of clearer definitions and a common impact-measurement system as well as standardised and mandatory reporting requirements to ensure effectiveness and quality.
• Development finance institutions should become more active in the market by providing resources to encourage the implementation of SIBs and DIBs. Governments and/or donors need experienced partners who provide catalytic capital for first initiatives and serve as intermediaries.

Mitigating climate change and limiting global warming to no more than 2°C require a fast and radical transformation of politics, the economy and society. Worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases need to fall to zero by 2100. Action needs to be even faster in the case of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is primarily released in the burning of fossil fuels. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global CO2 emissions need to reach zero by 2070 at the latest. In other words, the global economy needs to be completely "decarbonised" by then. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) of Agenda 2030 underscore the significance of this task.
The decarbonisation of our economic activity is dependent not only on the international climate regime, but also the regulatory framework for the world economy, i.e. global economic governance.
In addition to progress made in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fundamental acknowledgment of all states of the need to tackle climate change in the scope of Agenda 2030 there are currently numerous initiatives that give cause for optimism – not least the commitment of the G7 states to the decarbonisation of the global economy and manifold climate actions of actors such as cities, churches and companies.
However, further reaching reforms of global economic framework conditions are necessary if a fundamental transformation is to be achieved. We therefore propose 3x3 starting points: 3 areas of action, each with 3 key aspects.    Of particular importance for the decarbonisation of the global economy are (A) adequate pricing, (B) a suitable body of regulations for international trade and investment and (C) the appropriate configuration of the financial markets. (A)    To achieve correct pricing it is necessary to (i) introduce a global carbon price, (ii) continue to remove subsidies for fossil fuels, and (iii) extend the system of payments for ecosystem services. (B)    A suitable regulatory framework for international trade and investment includes (i) climate-friendly multilateral trade rules under the aegis of the World Trade Organization (WTO), (ii) the promotion of plurilateral agreements for the liberalisation of environmental goods and services and (iii) increased focus on the right to regulate in terms of environmental aspects in bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements. (C)    In addition to the establishment of global funds such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the area of global financial governance has three starting points in particular: (i) regulation of financial markets, (ii) green guidelines for investment decisions and (iii) guarantee instruments for green investments. For all reform measures there is a need to identify potential win-win constellations that offer co-benefits to as many participants as possible. In addition, attention should also be paid to trade-offs and political economy. This includes the question of which actors are in favour of the necessary measures, which resist them and why and how coalitions of change can be formed and reinforced.