Africa

As the world approaches global warming tipping points, local climate engagement aims at climate actions that are equitable, effective and aligned with local needs. Strengthening and scaling up these initiatives can amplify impact, though efforts are often fragmented and require strengthened coordination. This policy brief identifies barriers and enablers of local climate action, how it is best scaled up, and how international actors – donors, policymakers, city and research networks, businesses and others – can support this process. 
Building on these insights, the following points outline key conditions for strengthening, scaling up and sustaining locally led climate action:
•    community-centred co-creation – investing in participatory, culturally grounded processes that map local needs, integrate diverse knowledge, and establish a common language;
•    predictable, flexible funding – providing long-term resources for locally led climate action, and planning additional finance to scale up solutions, including those involving knowledge sharing platforms and coordi-nation capacity;
•    private-sector engagement – creating incentives aligned with climate and community priorities, such as collaboration in the development of green products, in facilitating their market access and assisting with certification and value-chain regulations.
•    multilevel coordination and data sharing – establishing clear institutional pathways, monitoring mechanisms and interoperable data platforms to connect local action with national and international policies, leveraging synergies, and increasing accountability; and
•    just international partnerships – supporting local and Southern priorities through green development opportunities, ensuring fairness and co-benefits for the partners involved.

 

As the world approaches global warming tipping points, local climate engagement aims at climate actions that are equitable, effective and aligned with local needs. Strengthening and scaling up these initiatives can amplify impact, though efforts are often fragmented and require strengthened coordination. This policy brief identifies barriers and enablers of local climate action, how it is best scaled up, and how international actors – donors, policymakers, city and research networks, businesses and others – can support this process. 
Building on these insights, the following points outline key conditions for strengthening, scaling up and sustaining locally led climate action:
•    community-centred co-creation – investing in participatory, culturally grounded processes that map local needs, integrate diverse knowledge, and establish a common language;
•    predictable, flexible funding – providing long-term resources for locally led climate action, and planning additional finance to scale up solutions, including those involving knowledge sharing platforms and coordi-nation capacity;
•    private-sector engagement – creating incentives aligned with climate and community priorities, such as collaboration in the development of green products, in facilitating their market access and assisting with certification and value-chain regulations.
•    multilevel coordination and data sharing – establishing clear institutional pathways, monitoring mechanisms and interoperable data platforms to connect local action with national and international policies, leveraging synergies, and increasing accountability; and
•    just international partnerships – supporting local and Southern priorities through green development opportunities, ensuring fairness and co-benefits for the partners involved.

 

Just Transitions (JT) toward sustainable, equitable, and low-carbon futures have become a central focus of global climate policy, exemplified by initiatives such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JET-Ps) and the UNFCCC Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). For some actors, JT is understood in sectoral terms, focusing on energy transitions. Others emphasise more transformative approaches grounded in global structural reform and climate justice. Although existing scholarship has mapped JT framings in the literature, across national climate policy and non-academic frameworks, no study has yet examined how individuals shaping global climate policy themselves understand and prioritise JT. Approximately 130 Blue Zone-accredited attendees (i.e. those with access to the formal negotiations) were surveyed at COP28 in Dubai, including party delegates, policy-makers, civil society representatives and others. The survey was structured around five JT typologies – from least to most transformative – drawn from existing literature, as well two novel typologies: one centered on energy, another on sustainable development. Results indicate a strong preference for approaches extending beyond energy to encompass broader sustainable development concerns, with policy coherence identified as a crucial governance principle. Respondents also favour more transformative policies around global structural reform and climate finance for lower-income countries, while the most prioritized justice dimension is accountability and responsibility for climate change. The results also show differences in preferences between participants from high- and lower-income countries, with the latter favouring more transformative notions of JT. However, overall, JT preferences straddle multiple typologies, suggesting that policy mixes delivering broader sustainable development outcomes could provide an effective and politically viable way to reconcile competing views. By exploring the perspectives of those shaping global climate policy, the paper enriches scholarly discussions on JT framings, while offering guidance and directions for the ongoing JTWP negotiations amidst the latest COP30 decision to establish a global just transition mechanism.

Just Transitions (JT) toward sustainable, equitable, and low-carbon futures have become a central focus of global climate policy, exemplified by initiatives such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JET-Ps) and the UNFCCC Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). For some actors, JT is understood in sectoral terms, focusing on energy transitions. Others emphasise more transformative approaches grounded in global structural reform and climate justice. Although existing scholarship has mapped JT framings in the literature, across national climate policy and non-academic frameworks, no study has yet examined how individuals shaping global climate policy themselves understand and prioritise JT. Approximately 130 Blue Zone-accredited attendees (i.e. those with access to the formal negotiations) were surveyed at COP28 in Dubai, including party delegates, policy-makers, civil society representatives and others. The survey was structured around five JT typologies – from least to most transformative – drawn from existing literature, as well two novel typologies: one centered on energy, another on sustainable development. Results indicate a strong preference for approaches extending beyond energy to encompass broader sustainable development concerns, with policy coherence identified as a crucial governance principle. Respondents also favour more transformative policies around global structural reform and climate finance for lower-income countries, while the most prioritized justice dimension is accountability and responsibility for climate change. The results also show differences in preferences between participants from high- and lower-income countries, with the latter favouring more transformative notions of JT. However, overall, JT preferences straddle multiple typologies, suggesting that policy mixes delivering broader sustainable development outcomes could provide an effective and politically viable way to reconcile competing views. By exploring the perspectives of those shaping global climate policy, the paper enriches scholarly discussions on JT framings, while offering guidance and directions for the ongoing JTWP negotiations amidst the latest COP30 decision to establish a global just transition mechanism.

Credit: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

As the build-up for a proposed “new world order” continues, a lingering question remains: will the country with the most powerful military reign supreme?

The United Nations remains politically impotent. The UN charter is in tatters. The sovereignty of nation states and their territorial integrity have been reduced to political mockery. And the law of the jungle prevails—be it Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela or Iran.

What’s next: Colombia? Cuba? Greenland? North Korea?

The widespread condemnation of the ongoing conflicts – including charges of war crimes and genocide— has continue to fall on deaf ears.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council that under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all member states shall “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

But is anybody out there listening?

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org, told IPS killing from the sky has long offered the sort of detachment that warfare on the ground can’t match. Far from its victims, air power remains the height of modernity

Reliance on overwhelming air power is key to what the U.S. is doing in tandem with Israel. Bombing from the skies while not attacking with ground forces is the ultimate way of killing without suffering many casualties.

This reduces political blowback at home in a political and media culture that values American lives but sees the lives of “others” as readily expendable, he pointed out.

“This flagrant war of shameless aggression, launched by the United States and Israel, cannot be contained — much less rolled back — by the typical diplomatic euphemisms and caution.”

The U.S. and Israeli governments, said Solomon, are too completely run by psychopathic leaders who adhere only to the “principle” that might makes right. If ever there were a time that the vaunted “international community” should step up and confront an alliance of reckless outlaw governments, this is it.

The European allies of the United States, he said, should stop their cowardly vagueness and finally step up to demand a halt to this aggression that is setting the Middle East tinderbox on fire. The EU should be threatening huge countermeasures against the United States and Israel unless that pair of sociopathic governments immediately halts their assault on Iran.

“Playing evasive games with Washington makes the leaders in London, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere accomplices to methodical ongoing war crimes”, declared Solomon, author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine”

According to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the US-Israeli act of aggression against Iran was undertaken in violation of international law and the UN Charter, as they exercised use of force without authorization from the UN Security Council (UNSC) or without a demonstrated threat to their security that would trigger the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

“The attack came amid ongoing nuclear talks between the US and Iran and just hours after Oman’s Foreign Minister – a key mediator in the negotiations – shared details on progress achieved and announced that a breakthrough was near. The attack also mirrors the recent unlawful actions undertaken by the US in Venezuela on 3 January, culminating in the kidnapping of the head of state and setting in motion profound uncertainty for the region and the global order.”

Meanwhile, the Geneva-based UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, said it is deeply concerned about the escalation of conflict in the Middle East and its impact on civilians and further displacement in the region.

“Many affected countries already host millions of refugees and internally displaced people. Further violence risks overwhelming humanitarian capacities and placing additional pressure on host communities”.

“We echo the UN Secretary-General’s urgent call for dialogue and de-escalation, respect for human rights, the protection of civilians and full adherence to international law”.

James Jennings, President of Conscience International, told IPS the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran was misguided, illegal, and based on lies. It will retard, not advance, any future nuclear agreement, perhaps for decades.

It was illegal, he pointed out, because it violates both the US constitution and international law as enshrined in the UN Charter. It was based on lies because the nuclear watchdog groups have clearly indicated in essence that “There’s nothing to see here.”

“Trump regularly claims that June’s joint “Operation Midnight Hammer” obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability, yet his weak case for the current “Operation Epic Fury” war rests on the idea that perhaps someday in the future Iran might get a bomb. Several US administrations have worked diplomatically to prevent that, yet Trump tore the agreement up”.

Trump claims to be limited by no law, constitution, or the UN Charter. Guided only by his own morality, as he said recently, he followed Israel obediently in launching a massive war against a sleeping country of 92 million people, said Jennings.

“All the while, his amateur diplomats were negotiating deceptively for a compromise like Imperial Japan did in the run-up to the WW II Pearl Harbor attack. Ask the parents of the more than l00 schoolgirls killed on the first horrifying day of joint US-Israel bomb attacks at Minaj, Iran, and they will probably not see Mr. Trump as particularly moral”.

George W. Bush called himself “The Decider, so he foolishly decided to take the US into two unwinnable wars that most politicians in Washington, and even Trump himself, now consider monumental mistakes. Trump campaigned vigorously on keeping the US out of mistaken Middle East wars that became “Forever Wars,” said Jennings.

“Yet here he is being pulled around by the nose by Mr. Netanyahu. According to a classic rule when launching a war, one must recognize that two things cannot be changed: one is history and the other is geography. It is stunning that the leader of the United States is cavalier about going to war without understanding that or clearly stating the mission’s purpose or end game.”

Pundits and TV reporters are calling the attack on Iran “a war of choice,” said Jennings.

“Why not call it what it really is–a war of naked aggression? Nobody knows when will it end. Trump’s claim that the war will be over in a few days is a cruel joke. The other side gets a vote. Iran celebrated its 2,500th anniversary in 1971. Maybe people who have been around so long know a few things about survival,” declared Jennings.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

D'après une étude sur la diaspora roumaine en Europe de l'Ouest, l'hégémonie de l'Alliance pour l'unité des Roumains, formation d'extrême droite plébiscitée par les Roumains de l'étranger, pourrait, à terme, être contrecarrée par l'émergence d'un véritable parti de gauche.

- Articles / Roumanie, Courrier des Balkans, Politique

Access to upgraded shea processing equipment is helping women in northern Ghana improve livelihoods and contribute to more peaceful, resilient communities. Credit: UNDP Ghana

By Praise Nutakor
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

Across the world’s fragile borderlands where insecurity, climate stress, and marginalization intersect, communities often find themselves on the frontlines of violent extremism. Yet these same communities also hold the greatest potential for peace, when given the confidence, tools, and opportunities to shape their own future.

In northern Ghana, through the catalytic support of Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Republic of Korea to UNDP’s primary channel for thematic, flexible funding (Funding Windows), women, youth, and local institutions are redefining what community driven peacebuilding looks like. Through targeted peacebuilding interventions, they are strengthening social cohesion, expanding economic opportunities, and tackling the root causes of conflict.

Youth stepping forward as peace ambassadors, Northern Ghana’s border communities face growing risks of infiltration and recruitment by violent extremist networks operating across the wider Gulf of Guinea. Young people, often unemployed or excluded from decision making, are among the most vulnerable. But with support from the Funding Windows partners, youth are becoming champions for peace.

Surveillance and mobility support for local security actors in northern Ghana is enhancing early warning, border monitoring, and conflict prevention efforts. Credit: UNDP Ghana

Young people in border communities have been equipped with skills to identify early warning signs, counter hate speech, and prevent radicalization within their peer groups. Local language radio discussions, reaching more than 72,000 listeners, have further strengthened awareness of misinformation and the tactics extremist groups use to exploit frustration and fear.

For Alhassan Dasmani, a youth leader in Tempane in the Upper-East region of Ghana, the impact has been life changing:

“We never realized how easily conflict could spread in our communities. Unemployment, misinformation, and peer pressure make us vulnerable, but we also have the power to stop it. What we need is education, vigilance, and opportunities to build a better future.”

Her voice reflects a broader shift, with youth stepping forward to build safer communities.

Livelihoods that reduce vulnerability to extremism

One of the most effective ways to prevent violent extremism is by addressing the vulnerabilities extremist groups exploit: economic hardship, exclusion, and lack of perspectives.

In northern Ghana, the targeted peacebuilding investments are already making a tangible difference. Solar powered water systems are enabling women farmers to grow food year round, strengthening food security and household incomes.

In Yipala, Faustina, a small scale farmer, now supplies vegetables to nearby communities. What began as a modest plot has now become a source of dignity and stability.

“I can finally provide fresh food for my family and earn enough to support my children,” she said.

Training in climate-smart agriculture and support with seeds and inputs have helped women farmers like Faustina produce successful harvests. By enabling economic stability, these livelihood interventions are strengthening the community’s social fabric and reducing the incentives extremist groups often target.

Strengthening local institutions

Preventing violent extremism requires not only strong community engagement, but responsive institutions capable of sustaining peace over time. As part of the peacebuilding interventions, district assemblies, security agencies, and civil society organizations have been trained in conflict prevention. Targeted support including surveillance tools has strengthened border monitoring at the local level.

At the national level, institutions such as the Ghana Peace Council and the National Commission on Small Arms and Light Weapons have strengthened their technical and operational capacity in peacebuilding and arms control, supporting efforts to curb the illicit spread of small arms.

For Anne Anaba, a participant in the UNDP-supported training with Ghana’s Regional Peace Council, the shift has been deeply personal:

“This initiative has exposed us to the reality that we can provide solutions to chieftaincy conflicts and land disputes in our communities. It has rekindled hope in us as peace actors.”

Her experience underscores a critical truth: peace endures when institutions and communities are strengthened together.

Scaling what works

What makes these efforts particularly powerful is the speed and flexibility of Funding Windows resources. By enabling women to lead, youth to rise, and institutions to respond, the combined investment of Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Republic of Korea is contributing to a more peaceful, cohesive, and resilient world.

As one peace agent in Natenga in Northern Ghana put it: “When we work together, extremists have no place among us.”

This is peace built from the ground up. It is what becomes possible when the world invests not only in preventing violence, but in empowering people to shape the future they deserve.

Praise Nutakor is Partnerships and Communications Specialist, UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Traditionnellement considérés comme des alliés de Téhéran, la manière dont les deux pays ont réagi pourrait donner un aperçu de la nature réelle de leurs relations avec l'Iran.

L'assassinat du guide suprême sera un coup dur pour la République islamique, qui s'efforcera de montrer qu'elle a un plan en place.

Soutiens à Israël, inquiètudes... tour d'horizon des réactions dans les Balkans avec nos correspondant.es après les frappes israélo-américaines sur l'Iran et les répliques iraniennes au Moyen-Orient. Cet article est régulièrement mis à jour.

- Articles / Kosovo, Macédoine du Nord, Courrier des Balkans, USA Balkans, Israël-Palestine , Relations internationales, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Albanie, Grèce

Alors que les frappes iraniennes contre plusieurs pays du Golfe se poursuivent, les ressortissants serbes établis aux Émirats arabes unis évoquent un climat tendu mais sous contrôle. De son côté, Belgrade affirme être prête à organiser des opérations d'évacuation dès que les conditions de sécurité le permettront.

- Le fil de l'Info / Courrier des Balkans, Serbie, Populations, minorités et migrations, Relations internationales, Balkans monde arabe

As the tide falls on Zanzibar’s western coast, 13-year-old Asha* moves across the reef, her gown flapping in knee-deep water. She carries a plastic basin and a knife. Since dawn, Asha has been prying octopus and scaling fish for drying and selling. “I am helping my mother. I don’t want her doing everything alone,” she […]

Picture alliance / Anadolu | Zed Jameson. Source: International Politics & Society
 
As fuel runs dry in Havana, Trump’s blockade risks humanitarian disaster and a dangerous new normal. Artikel auf Deutsch lesenЧитать статью по-русски

By Bert Hoffmann
BERLIN, Germany, Mar 2 2026 (IPS)

The crisis could scarcely be more dramatic. The US is blocking practically all oil deliveries to Cuba. The island depends on imports for all diesel, petrol and kerosine. Without diesel trucks cannot move, food cannot reach Cuban towns and hospitals will not get any oxygen.

The airports are already without kerosine and several airlines have already suspended flights to and from Havana. The strategy is clear: strangulation. The US extreme right is jubilant; at last, they have found the ‘choking point’ that may finally bring Havana to its knees, 67 years after Fidel Castro’s revolution.

Trump says that negotiations are already under way, outside of declaring that Cuba is a ‘failed state’ and the government there needs to make a deal. But Trump says a lot of things. Even a sober look at the alternatives, however, is fairly terrifying. There are basically four scenarios:

Scenario 1: Cuba continues to be denied oil deliveries. The government can impose austerity measures and commit itself to heroic resistance. But without new petrol or diesel the current crisis will become a humanitarian catastrophe within weeks. Havana could pin the blame for this on the US and with complete justification. For all its own faults, no other Caribbean island could withstand such an oil embargo, whatever its political system. But what good would playing the blame game do in the end? The social and human costs would be horrendous. Without diesel even international humanitarian aid deliveries couldn’t get from the ports to the towns that need them.

Moscow says that it is willing to supply Cuba with oil, but so far it hasn’t followed through.

Scenario 2: Some oil tankers reach the island, perhaps from Moscow, from spot market purchases or from other sources. This could relieve the worst of it, no doubt. But the question remains, to what degree? And for the foreseeable future? Trump’s threats of punitive tariffs and the seizure of proscribed tankers are already sufficient deterrent.

Even Mexico had to pull its support under pressure from Washington. But who else is up for incurring America’s wrath? Moscow says that it is willing to supply Cuba with oil, but so far it hasn’t followed through.

On top of that, Russian airlines are bringing their passengers home and suspending flights. Up until the US military strikes on Maduro on 3 January Venezuela had provided 70 per cent of Cuba’s oil imports. Instead of demanding hard currency payments, it settled for Cuban medical personnel. Who will take over this role?

Scenario 3: The desperate situation intensifies, leading to protests, unrest and the fall of the government. This is what the hardliners in Miami have been dreaming of. But for all the pent-up frustration Washington’s own policy is stymying mobilisation. Already in Venezuela Trump and Rubio ignored the opposition and made deals only with the post-Maduro elite.

If Trump is now saying that negotiations with Havana are already going on and the regime will fall of its own accord, who on the island will be inclined to put themselves on the line in demonstrations or protests? No doubt there’ll be outbreaks of desperation, windows may be smashed and sporadic looting.

But if the message is that only the power struggle between Washington and Havana really counts it makes more sense for the populace to see how things develop, waiting until things have been decided by those at the top.

Scenario 4: The US oil blockade could be lifted in the course of negotiations. But even though Havana has resumed communications with Washington dialogue remains a distant prospect. Some possible steps seem realistic. The Cuba government could order the release of hundreds of prisoners, held in the protests of 11 July 2021.

It could also remove particularly controversial sections of the penal code, push ahead with market reforms or improve investment possibilities for Cuban emigrees. And all without undermining the foundations of the system. This would not only serve US interests, but also many of the civilian population. In return, Washington could permit a resumption of oil deliveries to Cuba from Mexico and elsewhere. Restrictions on remittances from US Cuban expats could be lifted. A first milestone would be reached.

Never been weaker

Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine what kind of common denominator could be found that would ease the tension and usher in some kind of new normal. Cuba has been a worldwide symbol for the left since the revolution in 1959. But the same could be said for the right in the US.

Indeed, the latter would like nothing better than to see it fall. Trump won’t say what kind of deal he wants. But rest assured it will involve Cuba once more within the US sphere of influence and a US-friendly government in Havana.

Cuba really has its back against the wall. Its negotiating position has never been weaker. Venezuela has shown, however, that the US wants more than political alignment and access to resources. It also desires stability. The government in Caracas may have changed, but the military and the police, the state apparatus and even para-military forces remain intact.

Cuba isn’t a complete match in this respect, but if the US doesn’t want to put boots on the ground it will continue to need the state’s existing forces of order: police, military and administration. This gives the Cuban side at least something to bring to the negotiating table.

Nevertheless, Havana will have to cross a lot of red lines to reach an agreement with this US administration. And what’s more, under the constant shadow of the latent threat that Washington will again turn off the oil tap. The US government would be well advised to be pragmatic enough to allow the other side to save face.

But this is unlikely given the intoxicating fantasy of omnipotence by which Washington is currently spellbound. Cuban-born hardliners in the US Congress are already demanding that the Department of Justice bring the 94-year-old Raúl Castro to trial.

Or perhaps everything will be resolved very quickly. The power bloc around Raúl Castro’s family and its associated network controls not just the military and the security apparatus, but also by far the biggest business entity in the country, the military holding GAESA. The profound crisis of recent years has enabled them to invest with grim determination in the expansion of luxury hotels, transferring state-run restaurants into private management and acquiring stakes in lucrative online supermarkets that emigrants in Miami and elsewhere use to support their families on the island.

Could the upshot be a form of capitalism that maintains their economic privileges, with American partners in the hotels, while the old networks retain control?

None of the four scenarios seem entirely credible, but surely one of them, or some combination, will be realised in the not-too-distant future. But maybe not, if all those who are currently mute in fear of falling victim to Trump’s random impulses actually come together. Not out of nostalgia for the Cuban revolution, but to stand up and be counted as the Washington regime calls into question the basic norms of coexistence between peoples and states, whether in Cuba or Greenland.

Professor Dr Bert Hoffmann is Lead Research Fellow at the GIGA German Institute for Global and Area Studies in Hamburg and Honorary Professor at Freie Universität Berlin.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Bonn, 02 März 2026. Der Raum für zivilgesellschaftliches Handeln schrumpft auch in Europa. Dieser Entwicklung gilt es entschieden entgegenzutreten.

 „Shrinking Space“, das Schrumpfen von Räumen und Einflussmöglichkeiten für die Zivilgesellschaft, ist seit Jahren ein Dauerthema der Außen- und Entwicklungspolitik. Daten der Varieties of Democracy Initiative (V-Dem) zeigen, dass die Repression zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen (ZGO) auch in Europa seit 2010 graduell zugenommen hat, wenngleich bislang auf eher niedrigem Niveau. Bereits 2022 diskutierte das EU-Parlament das Schrumpfen zivilgesellschaftlicher Räume in der EU.

Die Forschung zu „Shrinking Space“ in Nicht-OECD Ländern  betont seit Langem die Bestrebungen von Regierungen, die „politischen Aktivitäten“ von ZGO einzuschränken und zu delegitimieren. Während ZGO häufig die Aufgabe wahrnehmen, gesellschaftliche und politische Missstände aufzuzeigen, wird ihre politische Neutralität immer heftiger diskutiert – auch in Europa. Grundsätzlich soll das politische Neutralitätsgebot für ZGO in der Demokratie vor allem gewährleisten, dass als gemeinnützig anerkannte ZGO nicht parteipolitisch agieren. Dies soll unter anderem Fairness bei der Verteilung staatlicher Gelder sicherstellen. Jedoch werden das gezielte Infragestellen der politischen Neutralität bestimmter ZGO ebenso wie Mechanismen zur Herstellung von Transparenz zunehmend dazu instrumentalisiert, unerwünschte Kritik zu delegitimieren. So legte die Fidesz-Regierung in Ungarn nach Jahren staatlicher Einflussnahme 2025 einen weiteren restriktiven Gesetzesentwurf auf, welcher die angebliche Gefährdung der nationalen Souveränität und die angebliche „Beeinflussung der demokratischen Debatte" durch ZGO zum Gegenstand hatte.

Kritik an der angeblich mangelnden politischen Neutralität und Transparenz von ZGO ist aber nicht auf Länder wie Ungarn beschränkt. Und sie kommt auch nicht nur von Regierungs-, sondern auch von nichtstaatlicher Seite, allen voran von rechtspopulistischen Parteien. In Deutschland nahmen kritische parlamentarische Anfragen zu ZGO 2024 und 2025 massiv zu. Der überwiegende Teil kam von der AfD-Fraktion, welche sich demokratischer Verfahren bedient, um demokratische Institutionen zu schwächen. Im Januar 2026 richtete die AfD-Fraktion eine Arbeitsgruppe „NGO-Aufklärung“ ein und schrieb eine Referentenstelle aus, um unter anderem eine Datenbank zu ZGO und deren Förderung aufzubauen, um auf dieser Grundlage weitere parlamentarische Anfragen zu entwickeln.

Doch auch eine Initiative aus dem demokratischen Spektrum, die sich am 24. Februar 2026 jährte, machte Schlagzeilen. In ihrer Kleinen Anfrage „Politische Neutralität staatlich geförderter Organisationen“ rief die CDU/CSU Fraktion  die damalige Bundesregierung dazu auf, zu prüfen, ob 15 ZGO dem Kriterium der politischen Neutralität genügten. Sie argumentierte, „manche Stimmen“ sähen in den ZGO eine „Schattenstruktur, die mit staatlichen Geldern indirekt Politik betreibt“ und verwies dabei auf polarisierende Berichterstattung in der „Welt“. Die in der Anfrage genannten ZGO hatten gegen die Entscheidung der CDU/CSU Fraktion demonstriert, im Bundestag zu Migrationsfragen mit der AfD abzustimmen. Im November 2025 konterte „Die Linke“, indem sie in einer Kleinen Anfrage Informationen über eine etwaige staatliche Finanzierung der rechtskonservativen Denkfabrik „R21“ erbat. Beide Male wies die jeweilige Regierung weitreichende Informationsansprüche bezüglich der Gemeinnützigkeit und der Finanzen bestimmter ZGO zurück und berief sich dabei auch auf die Gewaltenteilung.

Im EU-Parlament wurde im Januar 2025 unter Federführung der CSU-Parlamentarierin Monika Hohlmeier eine Debatte über ZGO-Finanzierung angestoßen. Anlass war Kritik an der angeblichen „Lobbyarbeit“ von ZGO in einem EU-finanzierten Projekt zu Klimafragen. Der EU-Kommission wurde vorgeworfen, ZGO dafür zu bezahlen, das EU-Parlament von ehrgeizigerer Klimapolitik zu überzeugen. Obwohl der Europäische Rechnungshof keine Verschwendung von Steuergeldern feststellte, wurde eine Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet, um die Finanzierung von ZGO durch die EU zu überprüfen. Bei der Abstimmung über die Einrichtung der Arbeitsgruppe verbündete sich die Europäische Volkspartei unter anderem mit den rechtspopulistischen Patrioten für Europa.

Solche Initiativen haben nicht nur eine Auswirkung auf die öffentliche Wahrnehmung, sondern schaffen auch Unsicherheit für politisch aktive ZGOs. Forschung zu Europa wie auch zu anderen Teilen der Welt spricht diesbezüglich von einem „Chilling Effect“, wobei ZGO in Erwartung zukünftiger Repressionen ihre politischen Aktivitäten einschränken oder ihre Kommunikation anpassen. Um zivilgesellschaftliche Freiräume in Europa zu bewahren, gilt es, Initiativen zur Delegitimation von ZGO und Einschränkungen politischer Freiheitsrechte frühzeitig entgegenzutreten.

In Zeiten fortschreitender Autokratisierung sollte die deutsche und europäische Politik die wichtige Rolle einer politisch aktiven demokratischen Zivilgesellschaft anerkennen und fördern. Neben einer Reform des Gemeinnützigkeitsrechts erfordert dies eine offene Debatte aller demokratischen Lager über die Rolle von Zivilgesellschaft. In Zeiten zunehmender Polarisierung ist die Bereitschaft von Regierungen, Parteien, ZGO und Bürger*innen gefragt, sich gegensätzlichen Ansichten auszusetzen und - wenn nötig - darüber zu streiten. Rote Linien verlaufen da, wo das demokratische System und Grundwerte wie die Menschenwürde beschädigt werden.

Bonn, 02 März 2026. Der Raum für zivilgesellschaftliches Handeln schrumpft auch in Europa. Dieser Entwicklung gilt es entschieden entgegenzutreten.

 „Shrinking Space“, das Schrumpfen von Räumen und Einflussmöglichkeiten für die Zivilgesellschaft, ist seit Jahren ein Dauerthema der Außen- und Entwicklungspolitik. Daten der Varieties of Democracy Initiative (V-Dem) zeigen, dass die Repression zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen (ZGO) auch in Europa seit 2010 graduell zugenommen hat, wenngleich bislang auf eher niedrigem Niveau. Bereits 2022 diskutierte das EU-Parlament das Schrumpfen zivilgesellschaftlicher Räume in der EU.

Die Forschung zu „Shrinking Space“ in Nicht-OECD Ländern  betont seit Langem die Bestrebungen von Regierungen, die „politischen Aktivitäten“ von ZGO einzuschränken und zu delegitimieren. Während ZGO häufig die Aufgabe wahrnehmen, gesellschaftliche und politische Missstände aufzuzeigen, wird ihre politische Neutralität immer heftiger diskutiert – auch in Europa. Grundsätzlich soll das politische Neutralitätsgebot für ZGO in der Demokratie vor allem gewährleisten, dass als gemeinnützig anerkannte ZGO nicht parteipolitisch agieren. Dies soll unter anderem Fairness bei der Verteilung staatlicher Gelder sicherstellen. Jedoch werden das gezielte Infragestellen der politischen Neutralität bestimmter ZGO ebenso wie Mechanismen zur Herstellung von Transparenz zunehmend dazu instrumentalisiert, unerwünschte Kritik zu delegitimieren. So legte die Fidesz-Regierung in Ungarn nach Jahren staatlicher Einflussnahme 2025 einen weiteren restriktiven Gesetzesentwurf auf, welcher die angebliche Gefährdung der nationalen Souveränität und die angebliche „Beeinflussung der demokratischen Debatte" durch ZGO zum Gegenstand hatte.

Kritik an der angeblich mangelnden politischen Neutralität und Transparenz von ZGO ist aber nicht auf Länder wie Ungarn beschränkt. Und sie kommt auch nicht nur von Regierungs-, sondern auch von nichtstaatlicher Seite, allen voran von rechtspopulistischen Parteien. In Deutschland nahmen kritische parlamentarische Anfragen zu ZGO 2024 und 2025 massiv zu. Der überwiegende Teil kam von der AfD-Fraktion, welche sich demokratischer Verfahren bedient, um demokratische Institutionen zu schwächen. Im Januar 2026 richtete die AfD-Fraktion eine Arbeitsgruppe „NGO-Aufklärung“ ein und schrieb eine Referentenstelle aus, um unter anderem eine Datenbank zu ZGO und deren Förderung aufzubauen, um auf dieser Grundlage weitere parlamentarische Anfragen zu entwickeln.

Doch auch eine Initiative aus dem demokratischen Spektrum, die sich am 24. Februar 2026 jährte, machte Schlagzeilen. In ihrer Kleinen Anfrage „Politische Neutralität staatlich geförderter Organisationen“ rief die CDU/CSU Fraktion  die damalige Bundesregierung dazu auf, zu prüfen, ob 15 ZGO dem Kriterium der politischen Neutralität genügten. Sie argumentierte, „manche Stimmen“ sähen in den ZGO eine „Schattenstruktur, die mit staatlichen Geldern indirekt Politik betreibt“ und verwies dabei auf polarisierende Berichterstattung in der „Welt“. Die in der Anfrage genannten ZGO hatten gegen die Entscheidung der CDU/CSU Fraktion demonstriert, im Bundestag zu Migrationsfragen mit der AfD abzustimmen. Im November 2025 konterte „Die Linke“, indem sie in einer Kleinen Anfrage Informationen über eine etwaige staatliche Finanzierung der rechtskonservativen Denkfabrik „R21“ erbat. Beide Male wies die jeweilige Regierung weitreichende Informationsansprüche bezüglich der Gemeinnützigkeit und der Finanzen bestimmter ZGO zurück und berief sich dabei auch auf die Gewaltenteilung.

Im EU-Parlament wurde im Januar 2025 unter Federführung der CSU-Parlamentarierin Monika Hohlmeier eine Debatte über ZGO-Finanzierung angestoßen. Anlass war Kritik an der angeblichen „Lobbyarbeit“ von ZGO in einem EU-finanzierten Projekt zu Klimafragen. Der EU-Kommission wurde vorgeworfen, ZGO dafür zu bezahlen, das EU-Parlament von ehrgeizigerer Klimapolitik zu überzeugen. Obwohl der Europäische Rechnungshof keine Verschwendung von Steuergeldern feststellte, wurde eine Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet, um die Finanzierung von ZGO durch die EU zu überprüfen. Bei der Abstimmung über die Einrichtung der Arbeitsgruppe verbündete sich die Europäische Volkspartei unter anderem mit den rechtspopulistischen Patrioten für Europa.

Solche Initiativen haben nicht nur eine Auswirkung auf die öffentliche Wahrnehmung, sondern schaffen auch Unsicherheit für politisch aktive ZGOs. Forschung zu Europa wie auch zu anderen Teilen der Welt spricht diesbezüglich von einem „Chilling Effect“, wobei ZGO in Erwartung zukünftiger Repressionen ihre politischen Aktivitäten einschränken oder ihre Kommunikation anpassen. Um zivilgesellschaftliche Freiräume in Europa zu bewahren, gilt es, Initiativen zur Delegitimation von ZGO und Einschränkungen politischer Freiheitsrechte frühzeitig entgegenzutreten.

In Zeiten fortschreitender Autokratisierung sollte die deutsche und europäische Politik die wichtige Rolle einer politisch aktiven demokratischen Zivilgesellschaft anerkennen und fördern. Neben einer Reform des Gemeinnützigkeitsrechts erfordert dies eine offene Debatte aller demokratischen Lager über die Rolle von Zivilgesellschaft. In Zeiten zunehmender Polarisierung ist die Bereitschaft von Regierungen, Parteien, ZGO und Bürger*innen gefragt, sich gegensätzlichen Ansichten auszusetzen und - wenn nötig - darüber zu streiten. Rote Linien verlaufen da, wo das demokratische System und Grundwerte wie die Menschenwürde beschädigt werden.

Die europäische Entwicklungspolitik hat sich parallel zum europäischen Integrationsprozess stetig weiterentwickelt. Während der Politikbereich ursprünglich auf die überseeischen Länder und Gebiete (ULG) in Afrika beschränkt war, kamen mit jeder Erweiterungsrunde der Europäischen Union (EU) neue Zielregionen dazu. Heute arbeitet die EU in diesem Bereich mit nahezu allen Weltregionen zusammen. Damit hat die EU in ihrer Entwicklungszusammenarbeit eine deutlich breitere geografische Orientierung als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Ein dichtes Netzwerk von EU-Delegationen vor Ort ermöglicht die Kooperation in allen Weltregionen. Auch finanziell ist die EU ein Schwergewicht in der Entwicklungspolitik: 2023 brachten die EU und ihre 27 Mitgliedstaaten zusammen 42 % der gesamten öffentlichen Entwicklungshilfe weltweit auf, insgesamt 95,9 Mrd. €.

Die europäische Entwicklungspolitik hat sich parallel zum europäischen Integrationsprozess stetig weiterentwickelt. Während der Politikbereich ursprünglich auf die überseeischen Länder und Gebiete (ULG) in Afrika beschränkt war, kamen mit jeder Erweiterungsrunde der Europäischen Union (EU) neue Zielregionen dazu. Heute arbeitet die EU in diesem Bereich mit nahezu allen Weltregionen zusammen. Damit hat die EU in ihrer Entwicklungszusammenarbeit eine deutlich breitere geografische Orientierung als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Ein dichtes Netzwerk von EU-Delegationen vor Ort ermöglicht die Kooperation in allen Weltregionen. Auch finanziell ist die EU ein Schwergewicht in der Entwicklungspolitik: 2023 brachten die EU und ihre 27 Mitgliedstaaten zusammen 42 % der gesamten öffentlichen Entwicklungshilfe weltweit auf, insgesamt 95,9 Mrd. €.

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning an enhanced EU-Canada cooperation in the light of the current geopolitical context, including the threats to Canada’s economic stability and sovereignty
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tobias Cremer

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

AGOA technically lives on after a one-year extension, but its main advantage has largely disappeared since the US added tariffs on top of it. Our simulations show the new tariff regime drives large declines in US-bound exports, with the steepest damage in a few AGOA-dependent countries and sectors such as apparel. The shock is forcing African policymakers to think beyond fragile preferences and build resilience through diversification and stronger regional and alternative market links.

AGOA technically lives on after a one-year extension, but its main advantage has largely disappeared since the US added tariffs on top of it. Our simulations show the new tariff regime drives large declines in US-bound exports, with the steepest damage in a few AGOA-dependent countries and sectors such as apparel. The shock is forcing African policymakers to think beyond fragile preferences and build resilience through diversification and stronger regional and alternative market links.