Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

Überall auf der Welt suchen Regierungen verzweifelt nach Mitteln zur Finanzierung von Sozialpolitik, öffentlicher Infrastruktur und Entwicklungsprojekten. Doch dieselben Regierungen verzichten regelmäßig auf bedeutende Steuereinnahmen, indem sie Investoren Steuervergünstigungen gewähren, für den Konsum bestimmter Güter und Dienstleistungen niedrigere Umsatzsteuersätze festsetzen, bestimmte Gruppen von Energiesteuern befreien etc. Es handelt sich um Ausnahmen von der normalen Besteuerung (sogenannte Steuerausgaben, englisch „tax expenditures“), die eine bestimmte Branche, Aktivität oder Personengruppe begünstigen.

Diese Ausnahmen sind keine Kleinigkeiten. Allein für die Vereinigten Staaten wird geschätzt, dass die dortige Bundesregierung im Jahr 2019 auf mehr als 1,3 Billionen USD verzichtet hat. Das entspricht nach Angaben des US-Finanzministeriums circa 29 Prozent der direkten Bundesausgaben und etwa sechs Prozent des Bruttoinlandsprodukts (BIP). Auch wenn vorliegende Schätzungen in ihrer Reichweite begrenzt sind, zeigen sie, dass die Steuerausgaben in Lateinamerika zwischen 0,7 und 6,6 Prozent des BIP und in Afrika zwischen 0,6 und 7,8 Prozent des BIP liegen.

Die tatsächlichen Zahlen können deutlich höher liegen, denn kaum eine Regierung gibt ein umfassendes Bild über die gewährten Vergünstigungen und die damit verbundenen Einnahmenausfälle. Häufig berufen sich Regierungen auf gute Gründe, um Steuerausgaben zu rechtfertigen. Dazu gehört, Investitionskapital aus dem Ausland anzuwerben, Innovation und Beschäftigung zu fördern oder den Zugang zu Grundbedarfsgütern zu erleichtern. In den meisten Fällen wissen die Regierungen jedoch nicht, ob die Steuerausgaben die erklärten Ziele erreichen und, noch wichtiger, ob ihr Nutzen tatsächlich größer ist als die Kosten, die sie verursachen.

Eine aktuelle Analyse der 43 Volkswirtschaften der G20 und der OECD zeigt, dass acht Länder in den vergangenen zehn Jahren keine Steuerausgaben offengelegt haben. 26 haben einfache Berichte veröffentlicht, und nur neun Regierungen haben regelmäßig detaillierte und umfassende Berichte publiziert. Noch trüber ist das Bild in Afrika, der Region mit der höchsten Anzahl von Ländern mit niedrigem oder niedrigem mittleren Einkommen. Von den 53 afrikanischen Ländern, die vom Team der Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) untersucht wurden, haben zwischen 2000 und 2019 nur 19 mindestens einmal einen Bericht veröffentlicht. Die übrigen 34 Länder haben in diesem Zeitraum keine Berichte öffentlich gemacht. Die GTED ist ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt von Think Tanks und Forschungseinrichtungen aus Europa, Asien, Afrika und Lateinamerika unter der Leitung des Council on Economic Policies (CEP) und des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Das Hauptziel des Projekts ist es, die Transparenz zu erhöhen, vertrauenswürdige Informationen zu generieren und die Forschung im Bereich der Steuerausgaben auszubauen. Die GTED wird mit offiziellen Daten der Regierungen weltweit in einem einheitlichen Format erstellt, um die internationale Vergleichbarkeit zu erhöhen.

Die von den 19 afrikanischen Ländern vorgelegten Berichte sind in Qualität und Umfang sehr unterschiedlich. Marokko und Côte d'Ivoire ragen durch die Breite der Informationen heraus, die ihre Berichte bieten. Die meisten anderen Länder liefern dagegen nur aggregierte Schätzungen der Einnahmeausfälle, entweder auf der Ebene der Bemessungsgrundlage oder auf der Ebene der Haushaltskategorie. Es fehlen genaue Informationen zu einzelnen Vergünstigungen, die für Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen und die Bewertung der Wirksamkeit und Effizienz dieser Maßnahmen erforderlich wären. Diese Art von Informationen ist nicht nur für die politischen Entscheidungsträger von Bedeutung. Sie ist auch wichtig, um Transparenz und Rechenschaftslegung gegenüber der Gesellschaft zu erhöhen.

Aus Gründen der Transparenz und politischen Debatte müssen Berichte über Steuerausgaben öffentlich sein. Im Idealfall sind sie mit dem Haushalt verknüpft oder auf offenen und leicht zugänglichen Websites oder Repositorien der Regierung zu finden. Verweise auf solche Berichte in amtlichen Mitteilungen sollten Informationen darüber enthalten, wo sie zu finden sind. Da aber die überwiegende Mehrheit der Regierungen ihre Steuerausgaben nicht vollständig ausweist, kann die Öffentlichkeit nicht diskutieren, ob diese Vergünstigungen sinnvoll sind. Wissenschaftliche Forschung kann ihre Wirkung im Hinblick auf Verteilung, Investitionen oder Marktverzerrungen nicht beurteilen, und Parlamente können nicht beschließen, jene Steuerausgaben zu streichen, die eindeutig nicht die gewünschte Wirkung erzielen. Es ist daher von großer Bedeutung, dass in der internationalen Steuerzusammenarbeit gemeinsame Standards bei der Berichterstattung über Steuerausgaben diskutiert und die Regierungen weltweit ermutigt werden, diese anzuwenden, wie es beispielsweise die Think20-Task Force für Handel, Investitionen und Steuern vorschlägt.

Christian von Haldenwang ist Senior Researcher im Forschungsprogramm Transformation politischer (Un-)Ordnung am Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Agustín Redonda ist Fellow des Council on Economic Policies (CEP).

The Discussion Paper examines the opportunities that the rising industrial wages in China will bring for Africa. China has been the industrial workbench of the global economy for decades. However, its competitive advantages are waning, particularly for labour-intensive assembly activities in the clothing, shoe, electronics and toy industries. The Chinese government estimates that up to 81 million low-cost industrial jobs are at risk of relocation to other countries - unless China can keep the companies in the country through automation. Against this background, three complementary studies were carried out. The first examines where the automation technology for clothing and footwear production stands today; the second, how clothing companies in China deal with the cost pressure: to what extent they automate, relocate within China or abroad and how great is the interest in Africa as a production location. The third part is devoted to Africa’s competitiveness in clothing assemly, with empirical findings from Ethiopia and Madagascar. The Discussion Paper shows that the manufacture of clothing can already be robotized today, but that for sewing, robotization will probably remain more expensive than manual labor in the next 15-20 years. China’s companies are investing heavily in the automation of all other production processes and at the same time shifting production to neighbouring Asian countries. In Africa, only Ethiopia is currently competitive in the manufacture of clothing, and here too there are significant institutional difficulties in absorbing large amounts of direct investment.

 

While global investment needs are enormous in order to bolster the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, developing countries are often excluded from global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. Beyond economic fundamentals like market size, infra¬structure and labour, the impediments to FDI in developing countries relate to the predictability, transparency and ease of the regulatory environment. In contrast, tax incentives and international investment agreements (IIAs) have been found to be less important (World Bank, 2018). To harness the advantages of FDI, it is critical that governments have policies and regulations in place that help to attract and retain FDI and enhance its contribution to sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, thus, call for appropriate international frameworks to support investments in developing countries.
In this context, the Joint Ministerial Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development adopted at the 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2017 called for the start of “structured discussions with the aim of developing a multilateral framework on investment facilitation”. Investment facilitation refers to a set of practical measures concerned with improving the transparency and predict¬ability of investment frameworks, streamlining procedures related to foreign investors, and enhancing coordination and cooperation between stakeholders, such as host and home country government, foreign investors and domestic corporations, as well as societal actors.
Despite the deadlock in the WTO’s 17-year-old Doha Round negotiations, the structured discussions on investment facilitation, which have been under way since March 2018, show that the members of the WTO take a strong interest in using the WTO as a platform to negotiate new international rules at the interface of trade and investment. In contrast to previous attempts by developed countries to establish multilateral rules for investment, the structured discussions are mainly driven by emerging and developing countries. Most of them have evolved over the past years into FDI host and home countries reflecting the changing geography of economic power in the world. Their increased role has led to a shift of policy agendas, focusing on practical measures to promote FDI in developing countries while excluding contentious issues such as investment liberali¬sation and protection, and investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).
This policy brief provides an overview of the emerging policy debate about investment facilitation. We highlight that four key challenges need to be tackled in order to negotiate an investment facilitation framework (IFF) in the WTO that supports sustainable development:

1. There is a need to properly conceptualise the scope of investment facilitation as a basis for empirical analyses of the potential impact of a multilateral IFF.
2. Many less- and least-developed countries do not yet participate in the structured discussions. It is necessary to enhance their capacity to participate in the structured discussions and address their specific concerns.
3. In order to enhance the contribution of FDI to sustainable development it is necessary to support the development of governance mechanisms at the domestic level.
4. It is key to ensure transparency towards countries not yet participating in the discussions, the business sector and societal actors to support a successful policy process.

Blockchain technology (BT), famous due to its use in digital currencies, also offers new opportunities in other fields, one of which is trade integration. Developing countries especially could benefit from greater trade integration with BT, as the technology can, for example, remedy deficiencies with regard to financial system access, intellectual property protection and tax administration. BT allows virtually tamper-proof storage of transactions and other data on decentralised computer networks. In fact, it is possible to store not only data, but also entire programmes this securely: Smart contracts enable the automation of private transactions and administrative processes. This article summarises the latest research on the use of BT in trade integration by examining in more detail five key and, in some cases, linked fields of application.
The first is trade finance, where BT could deliver direct cost savings for exporters and importers by removing the need for credit-lending intermediaries. Second, tamper-proof storage of information on the origin and composition of goods could enhance supply chain documentation. This makes it possible to more reliably verify compliance with sustainability standards, particularly for globally produced goods. However, for the information in blockchains to be truthful, it must be entered correctly (it is then tamperproof), a process that therefore requires monitoring.
Third, BT could deliver improvements in the field of trade facilitation by making it easier for border authorities to access information on goods and thus easing reporting requirements for exporting firms. By reducing dependence on central database operators, BT could help bring about a breakthrough with existing digital technology in the area of trade. Fourth, facilitating access to information on goods could also simplify customs and taxation procedures and make them less vulnerable to corruption and fraud. This goes hand in hand with cost reductions for exporters and better mobilisation of domestic resources for public budgets. Fifth, in the field of digital trade, BT also facilitates management of digital file rights in environments where, for institutional reasons, there is little intellectual property protection. This could help to promote digital industries in developing countries.
However, when it comes to using BT in border and customs systems in particular, it is essential to involve the relevant authorities at an early stage. At the same time, it is necessary to promote uniform technical standards for supply chain documentation in order to safeguard interoperability between the different systems across actors and national borders and thus fully leverage the cost advantages. If these guidelines are taken into account, then BT could effectively support sustainable trade integration of developing countries.

Societies that have experienced violent conflict face considerable challenges in building sustainable peace. One crucial question they need to address is how to deal with their violent past and atrocities that were committed – for example, whether perpetrators should be held accountable by judicial means, or whether the focus should be laid on truth telling and the compensation of victims. Transitional justice (TJ) offers a range of instruments that aim to help societies come to terms with their history of violent conflict. Systematic, empirical analyses of TJ instruments have been emerging over the last years. This Briefing Paper summarises the policy-relevant insights they provide regarding the main TJ instruments: trials; truth commissions; reparations for victims; and amnesties. Reviewing academic literature on the effects of transitional justice in post-conflict contexts, three main messages emerge:

• Initial evidence suggests that transitional justice can help to foster peace. Contrary to concerns that actively dealing with the past may deepen societal divisions and cause renewed conflict, most statistical studies find either positive effects or no effects of the various instruments on peace.
• Research indicates that amnesties can help to build peace, though not as a response to severe war crimes. Contrary to strong reservations against amnesties at the international level (especially on normative grounds), several academic studies find that amnesties can statistically significantly reduce the risk of conflict recurrence. However, the most extensive and recent study also shows that this effect varies depending on the context: amnesties can contribute to peace when they are included in peace agreements, but have no effect after episodes of very severe violence.
• To effectively foster peace, trials should target all perpetrators involved in the conflict, not only the defeated party. A likely explanation for this finding from a recent study is that otherwise domestic trials can be used by the victorious party to punish and repress the defeated side. More generally, donors should be aware that if a political regime is able to instrumentalise a transitional justice process, for instance after a one-sided victory or in an undemocratic environment, the process is often not conducive to peace.

Reviewing the literature also makes clear that important, open questions remain:

• Can transitional justice contribute to a deeper quality of peace that goes beyond the absence of violence? TJ should be able to foster reconciliation and mend broken societal relationships. However, if and how TJ can affect social cohesion after conflict needs to be better understood.
• How do various transitional justice instruments need to be combined? Both the academic literature and policy documents suggest that it is important to find the right mix of instruments, but more systematic analyses of successful combinations of TJ instruments are necessary.
• What role does donor support play in processes of transitional justice? Although transitional justice can be strongly domestically driven, such as in Colombia, donor funding often facilitates these processes. However, we still know too little about the effectiveness of such support.

Following the decision of the British referendum on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) plans to exit the European Union (EU). Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was invoked at the end of March 2017 and the UK will officially leave the single market and customs union in March 2019. Brexit negotiations have proven difficult due to diverging positions of the two partners on many issues, such as freedom of movement, financial contributions and the potential re-emergence of a tough border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite the successfully negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, there is still con¬siderable political uncertainty about the final EU-UK deal.
Regardless of the final outcome of the negotiations, Brexit implies fundamental changes in the British trade regime concerning third countries. This starts with a negotiation of national terms of access for World Trade Organization (WTO) membership and extends to renegotiation of the numerous EU free trade agreements. Moreover, the UK will no longer be part of the European Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) or the Everything But Arms (EBA) treaty, which allow vulnerable developing countries to pay fewer or no duties on their exports to the EU. The Economic Partnership Agree-ments (EPAs) between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will not apply to the UK either.
While the negative effects of Brexit on the UK and EU are in the limelight, the implications for third countries receive less attention. This paper puts the spotlight on these often-overlooked issues by presenting new findings on Brexit implications for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and discussing policy recommendations.
Developing countries with close ties to the UK will suffer from Brexit as import duties are once again imposed.
In particular, 49 of the world’s poorest countries presently benefit from preferential treatment that covers 99% of all products under the EBA agreement. Although these countries account for only 1.15% of the UK’s imports, the share of their exports to the UK exceeds 35% in apparel, 21% in textiles and 9% in sugar (calculations based on the UN Comtrade data for 2013-2015). Our findings show that losing these preferences together with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU may cause EBA countries’ GDPs to fall by -0.01% to -1.08%. Our simulations also indicate that the highest losses will occur in Cambodia and Malawi, where dependence on the UK market is strong. Moreover, Brexit may cause the number of those living in extreme poverty (PPP $1.90 a day) to rise by nearly 1.7 million in all EBA countries. These are conservative estimates of Brexit’s negative impacts; they do not take into account the addi¬tional implications of uncertainty, depreciation of the pound sterling, reduced aid spending, remittances and investments.
The UK must act to mitigate the adverse effects on economically vulnerable countries. Such action may include replicating existing EU treaties that grant preferential access to goods from LDCs, creating a more development-friendly UK trade policy with preferential access to services imports and cumulative rules of origin, as well as offering better-targeted aid for trade initiatives. The EU could also support LDCs by implementing liberal cumulative rules of origin and applying its preferential treatment partly to goods with a low value-added content from considered countries.
In addition, developing countries should diversify their export destinations and industries as well as engage in economic transformation that makes them less dependent on UK trade, aid and foreign direct investment (FDI).

The vision of a united Africa and the rejection of the arbitrary borders created by European colonial powers have for decades been at the heart of pan-African endeavours. Achieving the free movement of persons on the continent was a key aim of the 1991 Abuja Treaty, which established the African Economic Community (AEC). And in the ensuing decades, this goal was under¬scored in agreements on African economic integration and in the African Union (AU)’s Agenda 2063. In January 2018, the member states of the AU finally agreed on the Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment.
The continental agendas state that the process of implementing free movement must begin with Africa’s sub-regions. This is not least due to historical reasons. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was a pioneer in this regard, with its Free Movement Protocol dating back to 1979. The years that followed saw the free movement of persons integrated into other African regionalisation processes as well. The East African Community (EAC), for instance, has agreed, at least in part, on far-reaching steps; other sub-regions (such as the North African Intergovernmental Authority on Develop¬ment (IGAD)) are currently working towards relevant accords.
The present analysis of ECOWAS (West Africa) and IGAD (North-East Africa) shows that both regional organisa¬tions face difficulties with their free movement policies, though the respective challenges emerge in different phases of the political process. In the IGAD region, member states have so far been unable to agree on any free movement treaty, while the ECOWAS region is experiencing delays in the national and subnational implementation of established legislation. These differences can primarily be explained by historic path dependencies, divergent degrees of legalisa¬tion, and differing interests on the part of subregional powers. Finally, regional free movement is being hampered in both regions by internal capacity issues and growing external influences on intra-African migration management and border control.
From the perspective of development policy, it is expedient to support free movement at subregional level in Africa. The following recommendations arose from the analysis:

• Promote regional capacities: Personnel and financial support should be provided to regional organisations to assist them with formulating free movement standards and implementing them at national and subnational level.
• Harmonise security and free-movement policies: European initiatives on border control and migration management must provide greater support for free movement rather than inhibit intraregional migration and free movement policies.
• Offer cross-sectoral incentives: The German Government and the European Union should encourage progress with the regionalisation of free movement regimes in related areas of cooperation.

In order to effectively implement the recommendations, it is also important to recognise and flesh out the role of regional organisations at global level as well.

peacekeeping can be an effective instrument in maintaining peace, but little systematic knowledge exists on the roles that other types of peace support can play. International peacebuilding encompasses a broad range of activities beyond peacekeeping. It includes non-military support to increase security through disarmament, demobilisation, the reintegration (DDR) of former combatants, as well as security sector reform (SSR) and demining; support for governance to strengthen political institutions and state capacity; support for socioeconomic development to create a peace dividend through reconstruction, basic services, jobs and macroeconomic stability; and support for societal conflict transformation, including reconciliation, dialogue and transitional justice programmes.
This briefing paper presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of disaggregated external support in post-conflict situations, undertaken recently within the DIE research project “Supporting Sustainable Peace”. Analysing combinations of peace support provided during the first five years of 36 post-civil war episodes since 1990, we find that international peacebuilding can clearly make a difference. More specifically, our findings show that

• international peacekeeping is one, but not the only, means of support associated with sustained peace;
• contrary to concerns regarding the destabilising effects of democratisation, the majority of successful cases are in fact characterised by substantial international support in the field of politics and governance in democratising contexts;
• only combined international efforts across all types of support can help prevent renewed conflict in contexts of a high risk of recurrence; and
• countries that did not receive any substantial peace support experienced conflict recurrence within five years.

In light of these findings, we recommend the following to the international community when faced with post-civil war situations:

• Engage substantially in post-conflict countries. Our results show that international peacebuilding can be effective, even where there is a high structural risk of conflict recurrence. While success will never be guaranteed, countries that receive substantial international support often remain peaceful, whereas all countries that were neglected by the international community experienced conflict recurrence.
• Pay particular attention, and provide substantial support, to the field of politics and governance in post-conflict countries that begin to democratise. While it is well known that democratisation processes are conflict prone, our analyses demonstrate that donor engagement geared towards supporting such processes can help mitigate conflict and contribute to peace. When a post-conflict country has decided to embark on political reforms donors should offer governance support to help overcome potential destabilising effects of democratisation processes.
• Invest in an international approach that encompasses all areas of peacebuilding early on after the end of a civil war. Especially in contexts with a high structural risk of renewed violent conflict, the chances of sustained peace are increased by simultaneous support for security, institutions, livelihoods and societal conflict transformation.

Intense negotiations about migration management policies are taking place inside the European Union (EU), and between the EU and African states. Although these two negotiation processes are often analysed separately, they are actually interlinked. Drawing on interviews with representatives of European and African states and regional organisations as well as on policy analysis, this Briefing Paper argues that negotia¬tions inside the EU restrict EU-Africa cooperation on migration in two ways: first, by transmitting a strengthened focus on border control from the internal to the external dimension of EU migration management policies; second, by framing migration in a narrow way, which has hindered progress with regard to transnational development.
Intra-EU policy negotiations on migration are essential for the evolvement of EU-Africa cooperation on migration. Their increasing focus on border controls in Europe and Africa hinders the adoption of policies that support the potential of migration to contribute towards transnational resilience and development. Therefore, addressing the divisions on the internal dimension of EU migration management policy is a prerequisite for identifying sustainable EU-Africa cooperation pathways and supporting African migrants as actors of transnational development.
There are two important lessons that the Commission and the member states can learn from their difficulties in reaching an internal agreement on how to manage migration inside and outside the EU. The first lesson is that they need to address the challenge of balancing European national and transnational competencies and approaches. This challenge is inherent to the EU being a transnational union of nation states. The second lesson is that they need to take into greater consideration the needs of vulnerable citizens of both European and African countries.
In particular, the EU and its member states should:

• Focus on the internal dimension of migration management and rebalance the current distribution of national and EU transnational competencies on migration. This is needed to address the conflicts of competencies that are currently hindering the nego¬tiations on common policies. In particular, they should explore the feasibility of transferring some national competencies to the EU, including through the creation of a pilot EU Agency on Labour Migration.
• Introduce effective mechanisms of transnational responsibility-sharing in the EU in order to safeguard free movement within the Schengen Area. In particular, they should foresee an EU relocation system based on incentives and sanctions as part of a reform of the Dublin Regulation.
• Take the needs of young and low-skilled workers as well as migrant European workers into greater consideration by promoting employment, job security and labour rights, with funding through the European Social Fund.

Reintroduce policy and development cooperation measures supporting the potential of African migration to contribute towards transnational resilience and development and provide adequate funding through the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027. In particular, such measures should support self-determined strategies of African migrants, for example by facilitating circular mobility and the transfer of remittances.

The 2015 Paris Agreement and the accompanying Paris Decision recognise the importance of climate actions by non-state actors, such as businesses, civil society organisa¬tions, cities, regions and cooperative initiatives, to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and to adapt to climate change as necessary complements to governmental commitments. Prominent international platforms, such as the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) by the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Climate Initiatives Platform ad¬min-istered by the United Nations Environmental Pro¬gramme/Technical University of Denmark (UNEP/DTU) Part¬ner¬ship, have greatly improved the visibility of such actions.
Within this dynamic field of non-state climate action, non-state actors based in the European Union (EU) can be considered global leaders. Actions led by EU-based actors represent most initiatives registered with UNFCCC’s NAZCA platform. Moreover, individual member states have played leading roles in the Global Climate Action Agenda (also known as the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action). A recent study by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the German Develop¬ment Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwick¬lungs¬politk (DIE) moreover finds that actions led by EU-based non-state actors are performing well compared with the global average (EESC, 2018).
However, the implementation of non-state actions is not evenly distributed. In absolute terms, existing initiatives in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are underrepresented. Moreover, few actions led by EU-based non-state actors are recorded in international platforms in areas such as forestry, transport and construction (EESC, 2018).
The need for more, and more effective, non-state actions is evident given the fact that current EU climate policies are inconsistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the EU’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is insufficient; if all govern¬ments had targets similar to the EU, global warming could exceed 2°C and possibly even 3°C.
Non-state actors could make important additional mitiga¬tion and adaptation contributions, both directly, for example, through new installations, as well as indirectly, for example, by encouraging behavioural change. Moreover, they could inspire governments and the EU to be more ambi¬tious. However, currently non-state actions are not easy to track. Despite a strong focus on climate mitigation, most actions led by EU-based actors do not set clear GHG reduction targets. In addition, many relevant actions remain unrecorded.
This paper explores what is necessary to accelerate non-state actions and enhance their effectiveness in the EU and as a solution suggests that a light-touch framework be implemented to stimulate bottom-up climate actions. This framework should respond to the needs and challenges experienced by a range of stakeholders while building on existing efforts. Moreover, a well-designed framework could help address the imbalances identified in this study.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) is a key multilateral organisation for development. Since 2015, DESA has had the unique mandate of facilitating the efforts of all UN member states towards achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by supporting the High-level Political Forum. It is tasked to provide intellectual leadership through research and analysis, support norm-setting by the main UN bodies on development – the General Assembly (GA), the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – and coord¬inate with the broader UN development system.
However, DESA has yet to unlock its full potential in playing a politically relevant and analytically authoritative role in sustainable development beyond the conference rooms of New York. DESA’s organisational structures have become increasingly outdated and inefficient. Since the founding of DESA in 1997, the department has been curiously exempt from the ongoing reforms of the world organisation. In addition, there is little transparency and analysis of actual reform needs and options.
Our reform vision is that DESA should become a more prominent voice of the UN in sustainable development and help to credibly raise ambitions for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda globally. Tasked with economic and social affairs, DESA could serve as the multilateral hub for advancing universality, assisting all countries (including high-income countries) in striving for sustainable devel¬op¬ment and coordinating global policies towards advancing the global common good. This vision calls for a department that is intellectually brilliant, politically capable and impartial in bringing together the whole UN system.
As a basic condition, DESA reform requires vigorous and consistent support from member states. The power of the Secretary-General (SG) and his heads of department to reorganise the structures are limited by member states’ oversight, which is mainly executed in the UN’s budgetary bodies. Moreover, DESA’s substructures have expanded organically around mandated tasks, creating a highly decentralised entity with various overlapping activities, thereby raising the stakes of reform.
The most recent reform attempts of DESA have stag¬nated in a geopolitical climate of mistrust and opposing priorities along the divisions between countries from the political North and South. DESA has been the home base of developing countries – organised as the Group of 77 and China (G77) – at the UN Secretariat, making it an advocate of developing-country interests. Since 2015, several countries from the political North (e.g. United States and EU countries) have called for DESA reform in terms of increasing effectiveness and efficiency, while the G77 has pushed back, suspecting attempts to diminish their power by cutting funding and staff. The situation has become increasingly complex, with growing speculation on the intentions of China, whose diplomats have been leading the department for the last decade.
In order to prepare the ground for a comprehensive DESA reform that is beneficial to all stakeholders, we suggest three steps to the SG and his reform team that build upon each other:

1. create greater transparency, substantive knowledge and participation on DESA reform
2. interlink DESA reform with ongoing UN reform processes
3. generate political support from member states and long-term payoffs from DESA reform.

In the face of increasingly frequent extreme weather events, the need to manage climate risk becomes more urgent, especially for the most vulnerable countries and communities. With the aim of reducing vulnerability, climate risk transfer in the form of climate risk insurance (CRI) has been gaining attention in climate policy discussions. When properly designed, CRI acts as a safety net against climate change impacts by providing financial support after an extreme weather event. Two main types of insurance enable payouts: indemnity (traditional) insurance or predefined parameters (index-based) insurance. Individuals, groups, or even governments may take out policies with either type of insurance and receive payouts directly (insurer to beneficiary payout) or indirectly (insurer to aggregator to beneficiary payout). Direct insurance is usually implemented at the micro-level with individual policyholders. Indirect insurance is usually implemented through group contracts at the meso-level through risk aggregators and at the macro-level through the state.
While promising, risk transfer in the form of CRI also has its share of challenges. Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the lack of accessibility and afford¬ability of CRI for poor and vulnerable groups have been identified as barriers to uptake. In light of climate justice, asking the poor and climate-vulnerable groups - most of whom do not contribute substantially to anthropogenic climate change - to solely carry the financial burden of risk transfer is anything but just. Employing a human rights-based approach to CRI may ensure that the resilience of poor and climate-vulnerable groups is enhanced in a climate-just manner.
Indigenous peoples are some of the poorest and most climate vulnerable groups. Often marginalised, they rarely have access to social protection. The strong communal relationship of indigenous peoples facilitates their participation in community-based organisations (CBOs). CBOs are a suitable vehicle for meso-insurance, in which risk is aggregated and an insurance policy belongs to a group. In this way, CBOs can facilitate service provision that would otherwise be beyond the reach of individuals.
Conclusions of this briefing paper draw on a conceptual analysis of meso-insurance and the results of field research conducted in March 2018 with indigenous Palaw’ans in the Philippines. We find that CRI needs to be attuned to the differential vulnerabilities and capacities of its beneficiaries. This is particularly true for poor and vulnerable people, for whom issues of accessibility and affordability need to be managed, and human rights and pro-poor approaches need to be ensured. In this context, meso-insurance is a promising approach when it provides accessibility and affordability and promotes a pro-poor and human rights-based approach of risk transfer by:

• Properly identifying and involving target beneficiaries and duty-bearers by employing pro-poor and human rights principles.
• Employing measures to improve the financial literacy of target beneficiaries.
• Designing insurance models from the bottom up.

In the face of increasingly frequent extreme weather events, the need to manage climate risk becomes more urgent, especially for the most vulnerable countries and communities. With the aim of reducing vulnerability, climate risk transfer in the form of climate risk insurance (CRI) has been gaining attention in climate policy discussions. When properly designed, CRI acts as a safety net against climate change impacts by providing financial support after an extreme weather event. Two main types of insurance enable payouts: indemnity (traditional) insurance or predefined parameters (index-based) insurance. Individuals, groups, or even governments may take out policies with either type of insurance and receive payouts directly (insurer to beneficiary payout) or indirectly (insurer to aggregator to beneficiary payout). Direct insurance is usually implemented at the micro-level with individual policyholders. Indirect insurance is usually implemented through group contracts at the meso-level through risk aggregators and at the macro-level through the state.
While promising, risk transfer in the form of CRI also has its share of challenges. Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the lack of accessibility and afford¬ability of CRI for poor and vulnerable groups have been identified as barriers to uptake. In light of climate justice, asking the poor and climate-vulnerable groups - most of whom do not contribute substantially to anthropogenic climate change - to solely carry the financial burden of risk transfer is anything but just. Employing a human rights-based approach to CRI may ensure that the resilience of poor and climate-vulnerable groups is enhanced in a climate-just manner.
Indigenous peoples are some of the poorest and most climate vulnerable groups. Often marginalised, they rarely have access to social protection. The strong communal relationship of indigenous peoples facilitates their participation in community-based organisations (CBOs). CBOs are a suitable vehicle for meso-insurance, in which risk is aggregated and an insurance policy belongs to a group. In this way, CBOs can facilitate service provision that would otherwise be beyond the reach of individuals.
Conclusions of this briefing paper draw on a conceptual analysis of meso-insurance and the results of field research conducted in March 2018 with indigenous Palaw’ans in the Philippines. We find that CRI needs to be attuned to the differential vulnerabilities and capacities of its beneficiaries. This is particularly true for poor and vulnerable people, for whom issues of accessibility and affordability need to be managed, and human rights and pro-poor approaches need to be ensured. In this context, meso-insurance is a promising approach when it provides accessibility and affordability and promotes a pro-poor and human rights-based approach of risk transfer by:

• Properly identifying and involving target beneficiaries and duty-bearers by employing pro-poor and human rights principles.
• Employing measures to improve the financial literacy of target beneficiaries.
• Designing insurance models from the bottom up.

Around 2031, Africa’s working-age population will pass the 1-billion threshold. This growing workforce will require decent productive employment. So far, Africa’s economies have largely failed to create stable and well-paid jobs. For any one person working in the formal private sector, 10 work in the informal economy. Failure to generate sufficient formal-sector jobs for young people will increase migration and global security challenges.
Creating decent jobs at the scale required is inconceivable without a structural transformation that enables workers to move from low-productivity agriculture and informal trades to modern manufacturing or service sectors. Such a transformation took place in some East Asian countries, but no comparable dynamic has so far been observed anywhere in Africa. What’s more, the region has already started to deindustrialise at a stage when industry has not yet really taken off.
What, then, are the prospects for Africa’s economic future? Where should the millions of decent jobs the region urgently needs come from? We suggest exploring this not by extrapolating past trends, but by analysing how certain – potentially disruptive – global trends impact on African economies:

• Natural resources are being depleted globally while the world population increases, becomes more affluent and demands higher-value food. Also, the global bioeconomy is likely to boost demand for fuel substitutes. This creates opportunities for countries with underutilised land resources.
• Urbanisation and the expansion of African middle classes will boost and diversify demand, creating opportunities for local consumer industries. Trends towards sustainable smart cities also hold promises for African entrepreneurs in transport, electronics, the construction industry and other sectors.
• New digital technologies improve connectivity. Some digital innovations enable African producers to tap into hitherto inaccessible markets, whereas others may lead to automation and global market concentration at the expense of African producers.
• China’s rapidly increasing wages may lead to the relocation of labour-intensive industries to African countries with low unit labour costs – unless China uses auto¬mation to keep them at home.
• The imperative of reducing the world economy’s material footprint may create new opportunities, such as in low-input agriculture or electrification based on low-cost renewable energy. At the same time, it creates the risk of enormous capital losses in high-carbon and other unsustainable technologies.

We do not know exactly how these trends will play out for individual African countries. Yet some trends will be game-changing. Hence, we recommend systematic efforts to explore them, with the aim of identifying competitive opportunities and taking strategic action early on. We identify some opportunities in manu¬facturing and services that we expect to become important (while recognising big differences across the region). We also suggest complementary investments in productivity and employment for the large proportion of the workforce not easily and immediately employable in competitive industries.

The concept of river basin management calls for managing water resources at the river basin level in order to promote the sustainable use of water resources. Often this goes along with the introduction of river basin organisations (RBOs) as special purpose organisations. However, particularly in developing countries, RBOs often suffer from insufficient funds. Fiscal decentralisation involves shifting certain fiscal responsibilities to lower levels of government. Decentralisation could thus provide a source of funding for RBOs, depending on how tasks and funds are allocated among RBOs and general-purpose jurisdictions. This briefing paper examines administrative and fiscal aspects of river basin management and analyses whether fiscal decentralisation supports or counteracts the funding of river basin management. We present the example of Mongolia, where in recent years the processes of RBO institutionalisation and fiscal decentralisation have occurred in parallel. More specifically, we analyse i) how competencies for various water governance functions between RBOs and other bodies at the sub-national level are formally allocated, ii) which de jure and de facto funding arrangements are in place, and iii) what this implies for the coordination and sustainability of water resource use.
We find that despite a broad division of labour among administrative units, a high level of overlap exists, for instance in the areas of data management, water law enforcement and implementation of water protection measures.
In terms of financing water governance, River Basin Authorities (RBAs) are primarily financed through the national budget and aimag (province-level) environmental authorities (AEAs) through sub-national province budgets. However, uncertainties exist regarding the allocation of water-use fees. In practice, funds available to RBAs only cover fixed costs. AEAs have somewhat higher budgets, but do not necessarily use these funds for water-related projects nor do they earmark water-use fees. Inconsistent legal provisions on water-use fees have led to competition between AEAs and RBAs, but also to initial collaborative arrangements. We conclude that in Mongolia, fiscal decentralisation and river basin management are, so far, hardly mutually supportive and we recommend a number of legal and financial adjustments. In particular, we recommend that

• responsibilities be distributed more clearly to reduce overlap and uncertainty;
• legal inconsistencies regarding water-use fees be clarified;
• funding be arranged according to tasks; and
• funding for RBAs be increased and minimum state-funding be provided to river basin councils (RBCs), so they can fulfil their mandates.

The structure of German Official Development Assistance (ODA) is in a state of transition. Germany’s growing international role, the increasing importance of climate issues as well as the refugee crisis are contributing greatly to a significant increase in German ODA, which has more than doubled since 2012 and amounted to around EUR 22 billion in 2017. The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and the SPD in 2018 has prioritised ODA-eligible expenditures and views development policy as a priority area. Significant changes can also be seen with regard to the scope and pattern of ODA expenditures:
The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and its share of the federal budget have increased due to an upvaluation of development cooperation (DC). At the same time, the BMZ’s portion in Germany’s overall ODA fell from 73 per cent in 1995 to 33 per cent in 2016. Nonetheless, projections for 2017 based on the second government draft for the 2018 budget indicate a trend reversal. Projection for 2017: BMZ 37 per cent, with KfW market funds 45 per cent; Federal Foreign Office (AA) 14 per cent; Projection for 2018: BMZ 49 per cent, with KfW market funds 53 per cent; AA 13 per cent.
ODA-eligible contributions of other federal ministries have increased significantly. Both the ODA-eligible portion of the EU budget and the development policy contributions of the federal states have doubled since 1995. Market funds mobilised via the KfW as well as the eligible expenditures for refugees in Germany have been particularly important at times.
The following interpretations can be drawn based on those trends:
Largely positive interpretation from a development policy perspective: Development cooperation has become more important in recent years and is no longer a comparatively small area of activity that relates exclusively to the BMZ. New challenges have resulted from other ministries having a much stronger interest in maintaining and using resources for development cooperation. Germany’s ODA contributions have thus risen overall and the BMZ’s share of the budget has increased.
Largely critical interpretation from a development policy perspective: The distribution of funds among a larger number of actors is making it difficult to pursue a coherent development policy approach, and other policy areas are not primarily aimed at development policy objectives due to their tasks and interests. The current situation implies a loss of importance for the BMZ and thus the original development policy area.
Due to a rise in ODA contributions and the growing importance of a wide variety of development policy actors in Germany, there is now an increased need for greater coordination. The following is therefore recommended:

• conduct systematic development policy reviews of all ODA projects of all ministries
• more intensively coordinate Germany’s ODA con¬tributions through the BMZ in a steering group
• concentrate ODA funds more towards the BMZ, which is the specialised department in development policy.

Después de intensas negociaciones, la Asamblea General ha respaldado la reforma del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (UNDS por su sigla en inglés). La mayoría de los actores en Nueva York, incluidos el Secretario General António Guterres y los Embajadores ante las Naciones Unidas, se muestran optimistas de que el UNDS cumplirá con los múltiples atributos que le reclamó la Asamblea General en previas ocasiones (“más estratégico, responsable, transparente, colaborativo, eficiente, eficaz y orientado hacia los resultados”).

Sin embargo, la verdadera prueba de fuego para la reforma tendrá lugar en los países. Los gobiernos instan al UNDS a apoyar la implementación nacional de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. En particular, el grupo cada vez diverso de Países de Renta Media (PRM) demanda una colaboración más eficaz por parte de las agencias, comisiones, fondos y programas de la ONU en torno al desarrollo sostenible. De hecho, la Agenda 2030 y el papel de las Naciones Unidas en el éxito de la misma dependen, en gran medida, de los avances en los PRM de ambos sub-rangos: renta media baja y alta.

En efecto, todos los elementos esenciales de la Agenda 2030 están bajo presión en los PRM:

Sus economías se encuentran en plena transición desde la supervivencia hacia la prosperidad. Sus sociedades enfrentan una gran desigualdad al tiempo que modernización acelerada, y sus ecosistemas están bajo una presión demográfica y económica extrema. Los PRM también están luchando con desafíos transversales cada vez más urgentes, como la resiliencia climática, la migración, la seguridad y el estado de derecho.

A pesar de las demandas específicas de los PRM y su relevancia para el desarrollo sostenible, el UNDS sigue siendo en gran medida incapaz de atender sus prioridades estratégicas y operacionales. El UNDS no es el único actor de desarrollo que apoya a los PRM, pero necesita convertirse en un socio valioso para los gobiernos, especial­mente con vistas a asesorar y apoyar la implementación de la Agenda 2030 bajo el liderazgo de los gobiernos. Para aprovechar el momento actual del desarrollo global, la reforma en curso debe impulsar al UNDS para que esté a la altura de los PRM, comenzando con las siguientes áreas de acción:

1.       Un sistema totalmente alineado con las prioridades de los PRM: El UNDS debe estar al día con las iniciativas de los países en términos de gobernanza, planificación, estadísticas, y asociaciones.

2.       Proporcionar apoyo relevante de alta calidad: Más allá del enfoque de pobreza, el UNDS debe mejorar sus capacidades para prestar apoyo relevante a las prioridades nacionales cada vez más complejas de los PRM.

3.       Convertir la financiación en máxima prioridad: El UNDS tiene un papel clave que desempeñar para apoyar a los PRM expuestos a múltiples desafíos financieros, desde la decreciente Ayuda Oficial para el Desarrollo (AOD) a la deuda insostenible.

After intense negotiations, the United Nations General Assembly has endorsed the reform of the United Nations Development System (UNDS). Most players in New York, including Secretary-General António Guterres and ambassadors to the United Nations, are optimistic that the UNDS will now take the multi-adjective route requested by the General Assembly (“more strategic, accountable, effective, transparent, collaborative, efficient, effective and result-oriented”). However, the reform’s actual litmus test will take place at the country level. Governments are expecting the UNDS to support the domestic implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The ever-expanding and diverse family of middle-income countries (MICs), in particular are demanding increased and better engagement with the UN agencies, commissions, funds and programmes working on sustainable development challenges and opportunities. Indeed, the 2030 Agenda and the UN’s role in the agreement’s success are to a large degree dependent on progress in both lower and upper MICs. All essential elements of the 2030 Agenda are under stress in MICs: The MICs economies are transitioning from survival to prosperity; their societies are facing stark inequality and accelerated modernisation, and their ecosystems are under extreme demographic and economic pressure. MICs also are struggling with increasingly urgent cross-sector challenges, such as climate resilience, migration, security and rule of law. Despite the relevance and specific demands of MICs, the UNDS remains largely incapable of catering to their priorities at strategic and operational levels. The UNDS is not the only development actor that supports MICs in their efforts, but it needs to become a valuable partner for governments, especially in advising and supporting government-led implementation of the 2030 Agenda. To seize the momentum of global development, the ongoing reform must make the system “fit for MICs,” starting with the following fields of action: 1.     Fully align with MICs priorities: the UNDS needs to be up to speed with country initiatives in terms of governance, planning, statistics and partnerships. 2.     Provide relevant high-quality support: Beyond the poverty lens, UNDS should increase its capacities to deliver support that is relevant to complex national priorities of MICS. 3.     Make financing a top priority: the UNDS has a key role to play in supporting MICs exposed to manifold financing challenges, from decreasing Official Develop¬ment Assistance (ODA) to unsustainable debt.

Can the United Nations Development System (UNDS) become a resourceful, well-organised partner for member states in implementing the 2030 Agenda? The UNDS is the biggest multilateral development actor, accounting for $18.4 billion, or 33 per cent, of multilateral aid in 2015. Its functions range from providing a forum for dialogue, decision-making and norm-setting, to research, advocacy, technical assistance and humanitarian aid. Numerous governments, including those of high-income countries, are counting on the UN’s assistance for advancing their development in a sustainable way. More than any other development organisation, the UNDS needs to adjust in order to fulfil these expectations.
In May 2018, UN member states set the course for reforming the UNDS by agreeing on a draft resolution. The resolution contains five potentially transformative decisions that will bring the UNDS a step closer to being “fit for purpose”, the term under which the reform process was initiated more than three years ago. The global structures of the UNDS are to be strengthened, making the system more strategic and accountable; Resident Coordinators are to coordinate more effectively and objectively; their funding will be guaranteed by a new 1 per cent levy on tightly earmarked contributions; common business operations are to be advanced, with potential efficiency gains of $380 million per year; and the UN’s vast network of country offices is to be consolidated for more efficiency and effectiveness.
In the context of a resurgence of nationalist agendas and mistrust of multilateral approaches in many corners of the world, agreement on the draft resolution is a significant achievement.
However, the resolution falls short of the reform proposals suggested by the Secretary-General and others. Member states chose, yet again, an incremental approach. Key novelties of the 2030 Agenda, such as universality and policy integration, have not been translated into meaningful organisational adjustments. There is still a long way to go if the UNDS is to become the UN’s universal branch, facilitating the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in and by all countries of the world.
Nevertheless, the resolution is a viable starting point. Member states must play their part in making the reform a success. They need to push for reform in the respective governing boards across the system – this should be the most obvious and effective way of advancing the reform. They could ask the heads of all UNDS entities to subscribe to the reforms and to initiate all necessary adjustments. Furthermore, they should ensure coherence within their own governments and speak with one voice – for the implementation of the reforms, as well as for the acceleration of the implementation of Agenda 2030.
A more reliable funding for the UNDS as a whole, and specifically for the strengthened country coordination, will also be decisive for the changes to be effective. Member states across all income groups should show their support for the reforms and engage in the Funding Compact. They should be prepared to bolster multilateralism in uncertain times by stepping up core contributions and reducing tight earmarking. Specifically, they could link an increase in core-funding to advances in the area of common business operations, which would improve efficiency and enable smoother collaboration among UN agencies.

Data is a central but underestimated prerequisite for the realisation of the 2030 Agenda. Although technical innovations such as smartphones or the internet of things have led to a data explosion in recent years, there are still considerable gaps in the availability and use of data in developing countries and development cooperation (DC) in particular. So far it is not possible to report regularly on the majority of the 230 indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Already in 2014 an independent panel of experts, called for nothing less than a data revolution to support the implementation of the SDGs in their 2014 report to the UN Secretary-General, A World that Counts. Data is one of the key requirements for planning, managing and evaluating development projects and strategies. The aim of the data revolution for sustainable development is 1) to close data gaps with the aid of new technologies and additional resources, 2) to strengthen global data literacy, promote data use and enable equality of access, 3) to create a “data ecosystem” that follows global standards in order to improve data quality, enable data aggregation and prevent abuse.
The data revolution for sustainable development is a challenge for all countries. There is a lot of room for improvement in both partner countries and all areas of German policy making. This paper focuses on German DC.
Overall, the subject of data has to date received little attention in the organisations of German DC and their projects. The demand for evidence- and data-based work is often limited to evaluation.
A results framework to support portfolio management in German DC does not exist. Monitoring at project level is often not sufficient, as data quality is frequently poor and capacity is lacking. In the partner countries the implementing organisations (IOs) often introduce parallel structures for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in order to keep track of the measures implemented, instead of using and strengthening national statistical systems as much as possible. Collected data and project progress reports are usually not published.
The following recommendations can be derived from the analysis:

• German DC should agree on common data standards and principles for data use, such as Open Data by Default. At the same time, personal rights should also be ensured.
• The Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) should work with all German DC actors (other ministries, IOs, non-state actors) to develop a data strategy that takes into account the different data sources and types, builds upon common standards and principles and aims to promote a data culture in all areas of German DC.
• At international level the German government should take an active role in the realisation and further development of the Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data.
• Germany should increase its financial contribution to the development of data and statistics in partner countries, stop the use of parallel M&E systems in the medium term and promote the support of national statistical systems in all DC measures.