Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

The concept and mainstream approaches of development cooperation (DC) have been criticised since the early beginning of their existence. Post-development (PD) scholars have been criticising international DC since 1990 for both its Western perspective and the lack of reflection on asymmetrical power structures. Since also today DC has to face a variety of criticisms, we perceive PD approaches as a starting point for efforts towards change. We asked (1) to what extent and how elements of post-development approaches are reflected in the current policy initiatives of international DC, and (2) what potential do PD approaches have to reform DC. We analysed three examples: German feminist development policy (FemDP) as a relatively new idea of transformation, the locally led development approach as a long-standing concept and Global Public Investment (GPI) as an approach towards a new concept of international cooperation. By means of a content analysis, four commonly used PD elements were selected and slightly adapted to examine whether and how the three policy initiatives acknowledge PD aspects in order to reform DC: (1) the concept of alternatives to development, (2) pluralism of knowledge and power dynamics, (3) user-centred approaches and a critical stance towards the established scientific discourse and (4) the promotion of grassroots movements and local ownership. We discovered a variation in the use of the different PD elements. Although aspects related to power relations, post-colonial structures and knowledge management are prominent in all three initiatives, elements such as grassroots movements are given less consideration in all three cases. Even though FemDP does not focus on an alternative to development, as defined by PD approaches, it puts a strong emphasis on a transformative approach when it comes to its user-centred empowerment and tackles power imbalances by approaching decolonisation. Subsequently, the efforts of German Development Minister Svenja Schulze do not just describe a rhetorical reorientation but involve actual transformative efforts. However, further implementation efforts need to be analysed. The locally led development approach seems to be a suitable springboard for the inclusion of local knowledge and grassroots movements. Whereas the approach mostly uses descriptions of change as a means to reach its objectives, the GPI concept in particular uses PD elements as a reformative approach, as per the PD definition, putting the objective of the transformation of international public finance in international cooperation at its centre. Valuing PD approaches, we conclude that they do influence public initiatives in one way or another. In the future, if inner-systemic change should become an option, we see the greatest added value when PD scholars succeed in underpinning their approaches with instruments that can be used as tools in DC practice.

Financing climate change mitigation and adaptation in Asia is critical for its population and economies but also for those of the world. This editorial provides a commentary and overview of ten articles within this special issue of Climate Policy on ‘Green Finance in Asia’. Contributions are diverse in terms of focus and methods. Most of the articles focus on managing transition risk with six of the articles having an energy focus; the dominant themes are the risk of stranded coal assets in China; the role of export finance by China and Japan for fossil fuel-fired power generation assets within Asia; and investment in renewable power generation and the policies to support such investment. The remaining four articles explore various policies in specific country contexts: the effects of green bond policies in China; the greening of monetary policy in China; the governance of sustainable finance in Indonesia; and policies to support investment and finance of off-grid electricity access in Bangladesh. Most of the ten contributions come from researchers in developed countries and principally from non-Asian countries, suggesting there is a need to develop green finance research capability and capacity across Asia. Despite being withing scope of the special issue, this collection does not contain papers on physical risk or adaptation finance. We highlight these as important gaps and priorities for future research.

This Open Access book on Ocean Governance examines sustainability challenges facing our oceans today. The book is organized into three sections: knowledge systems, policy foundations and thematic analyses. The knowledge produced in the book was catalyzed by the scientific outcomes within the European-funded Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) network “Ocean Governance for Sustainability – Challenges, Options and the Role of Science”. This network brings together scientists, policy-makers and civil society representatives from 28 nation states to cooperate on ocean governance research. This book offers a compilation of new research material including focused case studies, broad policy syntheses and reflective chapters on the history and current status of knowledge production systems on ocean governance. New research material is presented, although some chapters draw on secondary sources. The book starts with synthetic review chapters from the editors, outlining past and present knowledge systems, addressing how and why ocean governance for sustainability is where it currently stands with critical reflections on existing narratives, path dependencies and colonialist histories. This is followed by chapters addressing, synthesizing and analyzing different legal and policy frameworks for ocean governance both regionally and internationally. At the core of the book are the thematic analyses, which provide focused case studies with detailed contextual information in support of different ocean governance challenges and sustainability pathways around the world. The book concludes with a chapter explicitly targeting students, researchers and policy-makers with key take-away messages compiled by the editors.

Der Wiederaufbau der Ukraine beginnt jetzt – auch wenn das Umfeld, in dem er stattfindet, von Krieg, Gewalt und Zerstörung geprägt ist und Russland seinen Angriffskrieg fortsetzt. Mit der Aufnahme der Ukraine als Beitrittskandidat hat die Europäische Union (EU) den Wiederaufbau auch zu ihrer Aufgabe gemacht. Damit er gelingen kann, sind spezifische Rahmenbedingungen zu beachten, aber auch Erfahrungen aus anderen Wiederaufbauprozessen, etwa auf dem Westbalkan oder im Irak:

• Funktionale Staatlichkeit: Im Vergleich zu vielen anderen Fällen liegen in der Ukraine bessere interne Voraussetzungen vor, insbesondere eine funktionale und breit akzeptierte Staatlichkeit in weiten Teilen des Landes. Wiederaufbauhilfe kann eine zukunftsorientierte, ökologisch nachhaltige Transformation von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft anstoßen. Zugleich besteht die Gefahr, dass massive externe Mittelzuflüsse alte Korruptions- und Patronagenetzwerke alimentieren und neue entstehen lassen. Um dem entgegenzuwirken, sind klare Rechenschaftslegung und Sanktionen im Falle von Missbrauch erforderlich.
• Agile Planung statt linearem Phasenmodell: Wiederaufbau findet in einem Kontext großer Ungewissheit statt. Die Planungen müssen daher für unterschiedliche Kriegsverläufe anpassungsfähig sein. Eine lineare Abfolge von Wiederaufbauphasen wird dem nicht gerecht. Dies zeigt sich bereits jetzt bei der Sicherung der kritischen Infrastruktur. Ihr Funktionieren ist essenziell für das tägliche Leben der Bevölkerung und für jede Art des Wiederaufbaus; zugleich kann sie jederzeit wieder Ziel von Angriffen werden.
• Ukraine als selbstbewusster Partner: Die ukrainische Regierung tritt in Folge des Kriegsverlaufs selbstbewusst gegenüber internationalen Gebern auf. Dies ist grundsätzlich positiv, kann aber auch zu Reformresistenz führen. Die Aussicht auf einen EU-Beitritt schafft hier einen gemeinsamen Zielhorizont und kann kohärente Kriterien auch für den Wiederaufbauprozess begründen – jedoch nur so lange, wie die Beitrittsperspektive tatsächlich glaubwürdig bleibt.
• Steuerung der Wiederaufbauhilfe: Als Koordinationsinstrument haben sich Wiederaufbaufonds bewährt. Ob es einen oder mehrere komplementäre Fonds geben wird, ist eine offene Frage. Ein zentraler Ukrainefonds sollte geberseitig von der Europäischen Kommission (ko-)geleitet werden, da sie mit dem EU-Beitritt über den stärksten Reformanreiz verfügt. Dazu müsste die EU indes sicherstellen, dass Kommission und Mitgliedsstaaten gemeinsam auch den größten Anteil der Mittel einbringen.
• Vielfalt und Inklusivität: Die Governance-Strukturen des Wiederaufbaus sollten darüber hinaus so ausgestaltet werden, dass sie pluralistischen politischen Institutionen und zivilgesellschaftlichen Stimmen in der Ukraine Teilhabe und Mitsprache eröffnen sowie Geschlechtergerechtigkeit stärken. Um einem „Braindrain“ entgegenzuwirken, müssen sich zudem jüngere und mobile Bevölkerungsschichten (inklusive Geflüchteter im Ausland) beteiligt fühlen können.
• Sozialer Ausgleich: Wesentlich wird auch die Berücksichtigung sozialer Aspekte im Wiederaufbau sein. Angesichts der alarmierenden Verarmung der Bevölkerung infolge des Krieges werden vulnerable Gruppen besondere Unterstützung benötigen.
• Investitionsanreize: Wesentliche Wiederaufbauleistungen müssen von der Privatwirtschaft erbracht werden. Dafür müssen klare Anreize geschaffen werden, u. a. durch Investitionsgarantien.
• Sensibilität für Traumatisierung: Der Wiederaufbau findet in einem Kontext von Gewalt und Traumatisierung statt. Das erfordert eine besondere Sensibilisierung aller Beteiligten für den Umgang mit Opfern von Gewalt und einer traumatisierten Gesellschaft.

Governing the Interlinkages between the SDGs: Approaches, Opportunities and Challenges identifies the institutional processes, governance mechanisms and policy mixes that are conducive to devising strategies of integrated Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation. The book edited by Anita Breuer, Daniele Malerba, Srinivasa Srigiri and Pooja Balasubramanian examines the dedicated policies targeting the SDGs, as well as political and institutional drivers of synergies and trade-offs between the SDGs in selected key areas – both cross-nationally and in specific country contexts. Their analysis moves beyond the focus on links between SDG indicators and targets. Instead, the book takes advantage of recent evidence from the initial implementation phase of the SDGs　and each chapter explores the question of which political-institutional prerequisites, governance mechanisms and policy instruments are suited to accelerate the implementation of the SDGs. The findings presented are intended to both inform high-level policy debates and to provide orientation for practitioners working on development cooperation. This volume will be of great interest to practitioners and policy makers in the field of sustainable development, as well as academics in the fields of sustainability research, political science, and economics.

Der Jahresbericht 2021/22 bietet ausgewählte Einblicke in Forschung, Politikberatung und Ausbildung des Instituts. Dabei reflektieren Expert*innen des IDOS die Vernetzung der Themenfelder „Nachhaltigkeit“ und „Entwicklung“, die sich seit der Umbenennung des Instituts im neuen Namen German Institute of Development and Sustainability wiederfinden und die stärkere Ausrichtung des Instituts auf nachhaltige Entwicklungsprozesse zum Ausdruck bringen. Die thematischen Kapitel befassen sich vor dem Hintergrund der „Zeitenwende“ mit Fragen zu Autokratisierung, Multilateralismus, Welternährung, Loss and Damage, Wissenskooperationen und Think-Tank-Netzwerken sowie mit der Rolle und dem Verständnis von Wissenschaft im Zeichen nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Ebenfalls finden Sie im Bericht den finanziellen Jahresabschluss 2021 sowie Übersichten über Publikationen und Veranstaltungen des Instituts.

The Annual Report 2021/22 offers selected insights into research, policy advice and training at IDOS. In doing so, IDOS’ experts reflect on the interconnectedness of the thematic fields of "sustainability" and "development", which have been reflected in the new name German Institute of Development and Sustainability since the Institute's name change and express IDOS' stronger focus on sustainable development processes.The thematic chapters of the Annual Report deal with questions of autocratization, multilateralism, world nutrition, loss and damage, knowledge cooperation and think tank networks as well as with the role and understanding of science in the context of sustainable development. Also included are the 2021 financial statements and overviews of the Institute's publications and events.

Using the political economy analysis, we tried to understand the dynamics of the real estate development project in Al-Haidariya neighborhood (Aleppo city). We explored the structural and contextual constants that frame the economic and political developments and the interaction between economic interests and political authority embodied in formal and informal institutions. The study had two concerns: scientific and policy. On the scientific side, the study tried to enrich the political-economy approach by applying it to real estate development in the context of conflict that has not been done previously. On the policy side, the study attempted to explore the possibility of recommending specific interventions by interested parties. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 10 experts. The findings of the study indicated that the basic logic of the political economy of the regime is what governs the project on the ground. The regime sacrifices economic efficiency and healthy reconstruction for the sake of the continuity in power, and promotes the interests of those affiliated with it at the expense of the interests of the majority of the neighborhood’s residents. Accordingly, some suggestions were proposed to help mitigate the negative effects of the project.

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) simultaneously, will require an integrated implementation of the 2030 Agenda and increased policy coherence. In response to the challenges, in recent years a growing body of literature has proposed a variety of methods and tools to identify and assess interlinkages between the SDGs, both globally and in individual country contexts. With regards to political-institutional preconditions, it is assumed that factors such as regime type, the quality of governance and state capacity influence governance for SDG implementation. Debates about good governance have been decisively shaped by intergovernmental organizations in the context of development cooperation. The evolution of governance mechanisms thus depends on the broader social, political, and institutional context in a society. Characteristics of policy mixes include the consistency of their elements and the coherence of processes. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

Targets under SDG 16 of the 2030 Agenda include institutional principles of good governance, which are considered key enablers for all other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their systemic importance, existing literature on SDG interlinkages has thus far provided limited coverage on how exactly aspects of good governance enable or constrain the improvement of social and economic systems. To fill this gap, this chapter presents the results and key findings from a scoping review of scholarly literature dealing with interlinkages between institutional aspects of SDG 16 and the achievement of poverty reduction (SDG 1) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). The results of the review reveals that empirical evidence from across the globe testifies to the positive contribution of accountable, transparent and inclusive governance to the reduction of poverty and inequality.

This chapter introduces various criteria for the assessment of national Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) governance mechanisms. It proposes criteria for assessing the institutional design of national governance mechanisms for SDG implementation regarding their potential to foster coherent and effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Empirically, by applying these criteria to 137 country cases, it paves the way for future empirical analyses, in particular comparative cross-national analysis on institutional factors leveraging coherent and effective sustainability governance. Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the governance mechanisms adopted for its implementation have been compared and analysed in several international policy reports, which focus on different dimensions of policy integration. To ensure efficient coordination, government SDG bodies should be backed by the highest levels of government while allowing line ministries to contribute both their sectoral expertise and working experience.

Coordination across sectors and levels is crucial for avoiding trade-offs and achieving synergies among SDGs that are directly dependent on water and land resources. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of institutions and governance mechanisms to achieve coherent policy design and implementation. The aim of the chapter is to address this knowledge gap by means of a case study of institutional arrangements for water and land governance in the lower Awash River Basin in Ethiopia. Analysing from a polycentric governance perspective, we find that the existing coordination mechanisms do not facilitate participation and representation of interests of local communities, and local governments while designing and implementing national plans. Ineffective policy instruments for ensuring environmental and social safeguards are leading to major trade-offs between goals of local food security and national economic growth by depriving pastoralists of their rights to communal land and water.

The chapter presents a case study of the Azraq area in Eastern Jordan where agricultural, domestic and environmental users compete for shrinking groundwater resources. Responding to key research questions in this volume, it analyses the WEF nexus situation through the lens of pertinent SDGs, evaluates the government’s policy-mix as well as coordination mechanisms in light of the 2030 Agenda‘s core principles and asked for the role of political-institutional context factors. The chapter finds strong trade-offs among several SDGs and their targets related to SDGs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 15, including within SDG 6. The government’s recent policy-mix to govern access to groundwater combines regulatory and market-based instruments. It has had some effects on farmers, but enforcement privileges individuals with personal connections (wasta), negatively affecting leave no one behind. In the monarchy, centralized top-down governance prevails and inter-sectoral and multi-level coordination are limited, negatively affecting interconnectedness and indivisibility. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are rare and a past plan for participatory groundwater management in Azraq was never implemented. Overall, the case shows limits of Jordanian autocratic regime to deal with the complexities of the 2030 Agenda in view of resource scarcity.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) merge the three dimensions of sustainable development: environmental, social and economic. This chapter focuses on the specific goal of economic growth and the controversy surrounding it. It explores the SDGs of interest: economic growth, inequality, environmental footprints and poverty. In fact, it frames the decrease in inequality in terms of different growth rates rather than explicit redistribution of income and wealth. The inequality targets seem to be aligned with the economic growth ones but diametrically opposed to any degrowth notion. In fact, reaching the Paris Goals is nearly impossible under high economic growth and past trends of decoupling rates. We have shown this by developing a simple model of economic growth and Kaya decomposition. The growth vs. degrowth debate might welcome the “agrowth” perspective because it does not view growth necessarily as good or bad and is more flexible in adopting to the development needs of individual countries.

This chapter discusses the main challenges to be solved in terms of integrating national inequality and redistribution in climate modelling; and considers the research on revenue recycling mechanisms from micro-macro level studies on climate policies. It explores the case of India, based on the availability of data, the prevalence of inequality today and the importance of mitigation and in particular of energy system decarbonization. The chapter further adds to the literature that uses integrated assessment models (IAMs) to address sustainable development goals (SDGs) and their links. By linking environmental and socio-economic systems, IAMs are in a good position to assess the long-term prospects of the 2030 Agenda. The chapter stresses how the interaction between climate policies and inequality needs to be sufficiently considered if a policy maker has the objective to mitigate global climate change and inequality simultaneously as in the SDGs.

This chapter focuses on the poverty, inequality and growth trends in four low and middle-income countries in East and South East Asia – namely the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Mongolia, in the decade post-2000. Having understood the landscape of social policies, including health and education in the four East Asian countries, it discusses how successful have the countries been in reducing poverty and inequality. The chapter assesses social protection systems, including access to health and education in East and South East Asia from two key parameters: level of public expenditure on social protection, health and education, and coverage or universalization of different programs. The main argument against universal coverage is the high public expenditure. Higher levels of economic growth are associated with increasing inequality levels. In a study by the Centre for Equity Assessment, they assess how progressive a fiscal policy is in order to reduce poverty and inequality within the tax-transfer framework.

This conclusion presents some closing thoughts of the key concepts discussed in the preceding chapters of this book. The book explores challenges in implementing the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that result from the interdependent and interlinked nature of its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It presents a method to extract and harness existing knowledge about interlinkages between different aspects of a selected subset of SDGs. The book provides an overview of current evidence from Integrated Assessment Modelling, which are the state-of-the-art modelling tools in the climate community. It discusses a perceived conceptual flaw in SDG interlinkages thinking. The book also presents various criteria for assessing national SDG governance mechanisms regarding their potential to promote coherent and effective implementation of the SDGs. It elaborates on the concept of multilevel metagovernance. As a framework, the concept is concerned with the creation of actionable mechanisms to spur collaboration between actors from different levels of authority.

Das Thema klimabedingter Schäden und Verluste ist im Rahmen der jüngsten VN-Klimakonferenz "COP27" in Scharm El-Scheich, Ägypten, in den Vordergrund der internationalen Klimaverhandlungen gerückt. Dieser Kurzbeitrag ordnet die betreffenden Ergebnisse der COP27 in den größeren Kontext der multilateralen Klimagovernance ein und betont ihre besondere Relevanz für das Vertrauen in den internationalen Klimaprozess. Er argumentiert, dass die Beschlüsse der COP27 einen Wendepunkt darstellen, der nicht zuletzt den mangelnden Fortschritten hinsichtlich der globalen Klimaschutzanstrengungen geschuldet ist.

Organizational autonomy is assumed to be a crucial prerequisite for well-functioning civil society organizations (CSOs). While the literature largely concentrates on how donors and governments constrain professional CSOs’ autonomy, this chapter focuses on sub-national organizations’ day-to-day engagement with the state and with the intermediary organizations that are funding them. By comparing how a Ugandan CSO and a provincial chapter of the Women’s Union in Vietnam practise autonomy, the chapter shows that autonomy, in itself, has no set value. Practising autonomy is relational, changes over time, and can take on different meanings. The observed relationships with state authorities were not exclusively constraining; they also enabled the organizations to implement politically sensitive projects at the community level. The chapter thus proposes that scholars and practitioners pay more attention to modes of collaboration at the intermediary–sub-national level nexus. This could, among other things, enable actors to capitalize on the advantages provided by adaptive management approaches.

To promote a more peaceful world, Germany needs to move past primarily national strategies and start thinking European. The best way to do that: support a strong global role for the European Union.

Vom 7. bis 19. Dezember 2022 fand im kanadischen Montreal die 15. Konferenz der Vertragsparteien (COP) des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt (CBD) unter dem Vorsitz Chinas statt. Trotz der schwierigen geopolitischen Lage, konnten sich die Regierungen auf ein neues globales Rahmenwerk zur biologischen Vielfalt (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, GBF) einigen. Das neue Abkommen ist besonders wichtig um SDG 14 (Leben unter Wasser) und SDG 15 (Leben an Land) zu erreichen. Das in Montreal beschlossene Abkommen geht jedoch vielen Beobachter*innen nicht weit genug. Die Staaten müssen stärker mit indigenen Gruppen (indigenous peoples, IPs) und lokalen Gemeinschaften (local communities, LCs) zusammenarbeiten und von ihnen lernen, um das GBF umzusetzen. Besonders wichtig für IPs und LCs sind laut Minority Rights Groups International die Berücksichtigung eines menschenrechtsbasierten Ansatzes, die Anerkennung des Rechts auf freie, vorherige und informierte Zustimmung und die Anerkennung des Rechts auf eine saubere und gesunde Umwelt.