Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Europe Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Europe Cannot Wait for Unity

Author:
Ties Dams, Giulia Cretti, and Louise Van Schaik
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
The EU is not always united and visible in foreign policy. This policy brief argues it could make more use of leading groups of member states under the coordination of the High Representative and European External Action Service (EEAS), the type of strategic thinking that guided the development of the Strategic Compass, and a Team Europe approach to a wider range of international activities, going beyond development cooperation. One idea would be to formulate a European Council Forum on Economic Security and Sanction policy. The Netherlands could contribute proactively, for instance by advocating for a strategic conversation on the topic of economic power at the level of the European Council.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Regional Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe and Netherlands

2. The European strategy for a 'New Deal' with Africa

Author:
Ramona Bloj
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
On 17 and 18 February will take place in Brussels the 6th Summit between the European Union and the African Union - a vital meeting for Afro-European relations. The heads of state and government (twenty-seven Europeans and fifty-five Africans) are invited to discuss issues such as financing growth, the future of health systems, vaccine production, agriculture, education, vocational training, culture, immigration, mobility, support for the private sector and economic integration, governance, peace, security, climate change and the energy transition.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, European Union, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa and Europe

3. Two Shades of Blue: Europe and the Pacific Islands, Strategic Partners in the Indo-Pacific Era

Author:
Celine Pajon
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
In recent years, France and the European Union (EU) have published their respective Indo-Pacific strategies and a Ministerial Forum was held in Paris on February 22, 2022, bringing together over 60 foreign affairs ministers from European and Pacific Island countries. France and the EU are re-engaging in this strategic region, which is an economic and political center of gravity whose stability is threatened by transnational risks (climate change, epidemics, pressure on natural resources) and by inter-state tensions exacerbated by US-China rivalry. However, the area spanning the 22 member countries and territories of the Pacific Community (SPC) has received less attention and can even be described as a blind spot in these Indo-Pacific discussions. Yet, although they have a population of only 13 million, these Pacific Island states and territories have a combined Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of almost 40 million square kilometers (km2) and are strategically located close to East Asia. These territories and their natural resources have attracted and still attract keen interest and sometimes very violent competition between powers. Today, the Pacific Islands are on the front line of the global existential challenges of climate change, biodiversity protection and sustainable development, but also geostrategic rivalries. Due to the geographical distance and Europe's still limited knowledge of this region, political, economic and media interest is often lacking. For this reason, Ifri and the Pacific Community (SPC) have decided to organize a research program on the strategic importance of the Pacific Islands. This Briefing is based on discussions that took place at the program’s opening conference on March 10, 2022; contributions from panelists will therefore be highlighted. This report provides an overview of current regional issues in the Pacific Islands and argues for greater European engagement in the region. This rapprochement is justified firstly because European and Pacific Island countries share similar values and face similar challenges, and secondly because new European interest and facilities make Europe a partner of choice to support sustainable development in the Pacific Islands. Since this engagement will come with various challenges, recommendations for European decision-makers are outlined in the conclusions.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe, France, Indo-Pacific, and Pacific Ocean

4. Germany and the UK: Perspectives for Deepening the Bilateral Dialogue on Development Policy

Author:
Niels Keijzer and Ina Friesen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) are the second- and fourth-largest providers of official development assistance (ODA) worldwide and are key actors in driving international policy discussions on global development in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the G7, the G20 and other key groupings and platforms. The development policies of both countries witnessed important convergence and detailed cooperation during the first decade of this millennium – a period when Western countries understood development cooperation as a source of considerable soft power, which was demonstrated in rising budgets and like-minded policy directions. The austerity policies that followed the global economic and financial crisis, and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, have challenged the bilateral relationship in the development policy area between Germany and the UK. The UK’s departure from the EU has reduced the number of joint interactions and corresponding opportunities for identifying cooperation initiatives. Halfway through the period envisaged for the completion of the 2030 Agenda, both countries are adjusting their development policies, seeking to determine their future European roles and global development ambitions, but they remain key partners in global development. Both the UK and Germany have recently revised or are in the process of preparing development policy strategies as part of their integrated foreign policies – a reflection process which in recent months has been challenged to adjust to the implications of the war in Ukraine. The case remains strong for regular exchanges and cooperation on development policy between both countries, including by intensifying dialogues and resuming formal secondments between the FCDO and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Two areas in particular offer good prospects. First of all, the UK and Germany should closely work together to deliver on the current G7 Presidency agenda – including the key focus on infrastructure investment, as initiated during last year’s UK Presidency. Other key opportunities for cooperation include gender and climate action, as well as the provision of global public goods. Secondly, Germany and the UK should seek to engage in and harness the role of the OECD as a provider of key standards for international development policy and as an important forum for peer learning. As key providers of global development finance, the legitimacy of its reporting system is essential to both countries’ influence and contribution to global development.
Topic:
Development, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Development Assistance, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, and Germany

5. Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Geostrategic Framework for Development Policy?

Author:
Mark Furness and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, European Union, Development Aid, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

6. How to support a rights-based approach to nature-based solutions

Author:
Mikkel Funder and Marie Ladekjær Gravesen
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
While NbS offer many promises, it is critically important to ensure that such approaches safeguard and strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in the use and governance of natural resources. The recent adoption of a Global Standard for NbS is an important step forward but the Standard needs support and additional actions if a rights-based approach is to be realized in practice. This policy brief provides recommendations for how Denmark can help ensure this.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, Natural Resources, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Denmark

7. New Standard Indicators for German Development Cooperation: How Useful are “Numbers at the Touch of a Button”?

Author:
Heiner Janus and Daniel Esser
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
For years, German development cooperation (GDC) has been striving to become more results-oriented. In 2022, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) took an important step in this direction by introducing 43 standard indicators. The aim was to aggregate development results across themes and countries in order to present them to the public. The BMZ hopes for more effective communication with Parliament (Bundestag) and the general public, as well as more coherent reporting by Germany’s two main implementing organisations, the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – the German agency for international cooperation) and the development bank of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). From an international vantage point, Germany needs to catch up in respect to results orientation. Other major actors, especially the United Kingdom, the United States and multilateral development banks, introduced compre-hensive reporting systems back in the 2010s. These organisations report on 20 to 50 standard indicators to demonstrate how their activities contribute to measurable results. On this basis, they communicate more coherently with the public. BMZ aims to create a similar basis for improved communication. In a participatory process – and jointly with the GIZ and the KfW development bank – the BMZ has formulated indicators that are equally suited to implementing organisations’ political priorities and their needs. The administrative burden of collecting the standard indicators is limited by leveraging existing data. In addition, the BMZ has set methodological standards whose obligatory use is intended to increase the quality of the data collected. However, the introduction of standard indicators also entails risks: They can set perverse incentives that encourage reporting on short-term results. Such reporting can lead to a neglect of long-term effects, which are more difficult to measure. Research also shows that indicators no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing neutral representations of change if they are used to exert political control. In addition, there are methodological challenges, such as double counting across different benchmarks, as well as concerns about unrealisable expectations. Overall, we assess the development and introduction of standard indicators in GDC positively. Yet, some important decisions are still pending. The level of detail at which the data will be shared among stakeholders and the public has yet to be determined. The quality of the data collected and the transparency of reporting will in turn determine what larger effects towards an improved results orientation of GDC can be achieved. In view of the decentralised and fragmented structure of GDC, especially regarding monitoring and evaluation systems, we hope that the new indicators can foster the harmonising of the reporting systems of the GIZ and the KfW development bank. The standard indicators can also help make GDC more transparent. We therefore recommend that all data collected be made publicly available. Finally, the integrative potential of standard indicators should be harnessed to improve the division of labour between the ministry and the two main implementing organisations towards becoming learning-oriented – both in the data collection process and during evaluation.
Topic:
Development, Government, Development Aid, Cooperation, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

8. The EU-CEAP Impacts on Developing Countries – Recommendations for Development Policy

Author:
Jenny To
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Union Circular Economy Action Plan (EU-CEAP) is key to transitioning to a circular economy and climate neutrality under the EU Green Deal, with developing and emerging countries (DECs) playing an important role. First, DECs are essential for the primary material chains, for example, supplying material for electric vehicle (EV) batteries to the European Union (EU). Second, DECs are involved in secondary material chains: To recycle its plastic packaging, Europe relies on DECs. But despite the essential role DECs play in Europe’s transition to a circular economy, the EU-CEAP’s impact on DECs has largely gone unexamined in literature and policy discourses – a shortcoming that could reinforce Eurocentrism and jeopardise the much-needed willingness to cooperate on multilateral solutions to global challenges (Messner, 2022). This policy brief and associated discussion paper (To, 2022) outline challenges and opportunities for DECs that are related to the EU-CEAP and present recommendations for German development cooperation. In the plastic packaging sector, DECs will likely be impacted by stricter waste shipment regulation (WSR), along with higher EU recycling targets, mandatory recycled content for plastics, and bans on certain single-use plastic items. Hence, the following recommended policy actions: • To lower the risks of illegal plastic waste trade and disposal, DECs must be helped to enforce the WSR and meet tightened import regulations. • The impact of plastic waste imports on DEC domestic markets in light of changing WSR must be monitored; discussion about stricter EU waste export regulations should be initiated accordingly. • In response to plastic waste imports, plastic recycling in DECs must be improved by raising standards and investments in advanced machinery as well as working conditions for informal labourers. • Changing EU plastic ban regulations must be monitored to anticipate increased demand for plastic alternatives. For EVs and batteries, EU-CEAP regulations that could impact DECs include stricter due diligence requirements for raw materials, higher targets for retrieving secondary battery materials, as well as reusing, repurposing and recycling EVs and their batteries. In response, the following policy actions are recommended: • Help DEC suppliers meet tighter supply-chain require-ments in light of the expected steady increase in demand for virgin raw materials from DECs. • Help expand road infrastructure to make it possible to reuse EVs, ensure EV batteries for repurposing, and provide recycling machinery and know-how.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, European Union, Multilateralism, Supply Chains, Green Deal, and Circular Economy
Political Geography:
Europe

9. Climate of cooperation: How the EU can help deliver a green grand bargain

Author:
Alex Clark, Susi Dennison, and Mats Engström
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
The global transition away from carbon will fundamentally alter the EU’s dependencies on energy, raw materials, and new technologies. The bloc needs to manage these dependencies while maintaining the fragile consensus between member states on the European Green Deal and fulfilling its ambitions for global climate leadership. The EU should help deliver a green grand bargain by making use of all its sources of economic, multilateral, and soft power. The bloc should reframe the international debate on energy security to focus on clean energy resources and efficiency, engaging in the market reforms needed to incentivise this shift. The EU should make every effort to reassure countries in the global south that the green transition will not leave them behind. The Global Gateway provides a strong framework for doing this – as would an EU Co-innovation and Green Tech Diffusion Fund. The EU also needs to place European sovereignty at the centre of its internal narrative on the European Green Deal. This could help win support for the agreement from member states that are concerned about the economic and social effects of the green transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Science and Technology, European Union, Partnerships, Multilateralism, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

10. Advancing the Role of the OSCE in the Field of Climate Security

Author:
Niklas Bremberg and Anniek Barnhoorn
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
This SIPRI Policy Brief assesses the role of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in the field of climate security, in terms of its current and possible future commitments. Despite growing political momentum among most OSCE participating states about the need to address the issue of climate security, there appear to be divergent views on how to move forward on this important issue. Based on an assessment of recent OSCE activities linked to climate-related security risks and interviews with representatives from OSCE participating states, this policy brief suggests four avenues for the OSCE to advance its role in the field of climate security: (a) agree to new commitments; (b) engage in agenda setting; (c) strengthen the mandate of institutions; and (d) develop existing resources.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Development, Risk, and Peace
Political Geography:
Europe