Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years

71. A Package of Reforms for Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response for the G7

Author:
Amanda Glassman and Eleni Smitham
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
COVID-19 has shown the detrimental consequences of insufficient and fragmented financing for outbreak preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR). As the world seeks to recover from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to mitigate recovery needs for future health crises, more must be done to accelerate global efforts to ensure rapid, adequate funding and governance for global health security, which has been under-resourced and under-prioritized. The rationale for reforming and replenishing the global health architecture to prepare for the next pandemic is clear: to protect health, human lives, and economic well-being.[1] Without dedicated and accelerated investment—in scaled up surveillance, strengthened national health systems, enhanced research and development of medical countermeasures, and more—we will continue to face more frequent and more complex epidemics and pandemics in the years ahead, and be less prepared to stop them.[2] Without the capacity to surge financing to respond at-scale to infectious disease outbreaks, we risk a repeat of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last July, the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, mandated by the Italian Presidency of the G20, released the report A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age, laying out policies and investments needed to reduce vulnerabilities to future pandemics.[3] Likewise, in 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response[4] described the shortcomings of the existing architecture and suggested similar policies for the future, including greater assessed contributions for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for dedicated financing to prevent and prepare for the next COVID-19 variant and pandemic risk. The Global Preparedness and Monitoring Board’s periodic reports went in this same direction[5] , as did earlier assessments following Ebola, SARS and MERS outbreaks though recommendations often went without implementation.[6] These reports and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic itself have again made clear that existing mechanisms for financing pandemic preparedness and response are not fit-for-purpose, nor at the sufficient speed and scale needed to ensure global health security. Current financing for pandemic preparedness is small, fragmented, and concentrated in the health sector.[7] Different organizations across the global health and international financial institution architecture hold different comparative advantages in mobilizing and deploying monies and need to be fully financed to do what they are best suited to do. However, no institution (that is adequately funded, credible, and capable) is currently mandated to or accountable for ensuring pandemic preparedness, resulting in financing and accountability gaps, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where Global Health Security Action Plans too often go un-costed and unfunded.[8] Further, new regional organizations and groupings are leaders in their own development, and must be a central part of a new global health security architecture—the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR), among others, are examples. Adequate reforms and robust replenishments of global health organizations new and old are needed to ensure stronger global health security and pandemic preparedness now and in the future. External funders should take a comprehensive view of the major global health initiatives and consider how a range of reforms, when combined, have the potential to respond more coherently and efficiently to the financing demands related to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, other macro risks that affect public spending on health, and in the face of future health threats. There are reasons for optimism. Unlike the experience during previous pandemic threats, COVID-19 has finally seen the International Monetary Fund become more aware and vocal on the need to address both COVID-19 and future pandemic risks as “systemic risk(s) to the global economy, not just the development […] of a particular country.”[9] Finance, health and development policymakers are increasingly coming together in different fora and recognizing the need to invest across sectors and to connect the international financial architecture with health initiatives in ways that will deliver better outcomes.[10]
Topic:
Reform, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

72. A Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Eleni Smitham, and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has served as a painful demonstration that no country is fully prepared for a pandemic and that the existing global health architecture remains ill-equipped to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR). The rationale for preventing and containing pandemics is self-evident: the price of preparedness is a fraction of the cost of responding to catastrophic outbreaks, both in terms of human and economic well-being.[1] In the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak, experts called for scaling up sustainable financing to ensure the world was better prepared to face that next global health threat. But even amid efforts to better understand and measure preparedness gaps,[2] little action was taken to mobilize financing and incentivize investments in strengthening detection, prevention, and response capabilities. As global health threats evolve, countries’ capacity to prepare for and respond to disease outbreaks is increasingly a global imperative. Now is the time to take concrete steps toward establishing sustained financing for pandemic PPR to help bring an end to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, combat future health security threats, and break the costly cycle of neglect.
Topic:
Security, Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

73. NATO’s Role in Global Cyber Security

Author:
Merle Maigre
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Malicious cyber activity has increased substantially over the past years, ranging from ransomware and espionage to politically motivated cyberattacks and sophisticated malware used in the war in Ukraine. NATO allies must remain on high alert. The changed nature of military conflict changes the defensive mission of NATO, which faces capable opponents in cyberspace and raises the question of how to create accountability when a hostile state fails to observe globally agreed norms. The set of action for NATO for the next five years evolves around how to impose costs and how to deny benefits against malicious actors in cyberspace.
Topic:
NATO, Cybersecurity, Geopolitics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Global Focus

74. Opportunities for Increased Multilateral Engagement with B3W

Author:
Conor M. Savoy and Shannon McKeown
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
As the world continues to rapidly digitize and grapples with the short- and long-term impacts of climate change, new forms of innovative and resilient infrastructure are increasingly necessary. The estimated $3.3 trillion annual gap in infrastructure investment cannot be paid for with official development assistance (ODA) alone but will require significant private sector financing and local government resources. A coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort that includes governments, the private sector, and civil society is needed to leverage all available resources and funding to address these challenges as well as implement the UN quality infrastructure agenda.2 G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have recognized the need for a global infrastructure plan that responds to the problems of today and proactively plans for the issues of tomorrow. In June 2021, the G7 unveiled the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, which seeks to leverage the private sector for $40 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2035 under the initiative’s four pillars: (1) healthcare, (2) gender equality and equity, (3) climate and environment, and (4) digital technology. The initiative also includes several economic and trade provisions to promote greater connectivity and allow countries to benefit from this investment. The B3W strategy is designed to be inclusive and rely upon input from a whole spectrum of local organizations, donors, and recipient countries to define an infrastructure strategy, projects, and implementation priorities. The guiding principles of B3W include value-driven high standards, transparency, climate-compatible projects, private sector investment, and a commitment to multilateralism. B3W shares standards with and builds upon two previous initiatives: the Blue Dot Network (BDN) and the Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development (BUILD) Act. BDN is a U.S.-led effort that certifies infrastructure projects against robust criteria and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. The BUILD Act is a bipartisan bill that created the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (USDFC) to introduce private sector investment in low- and lower-middle-income countries. These two initiatives have thankfully laid the groundwork for B3W’s objectives and principles. Given the initiative’s infrastructure focus, B3W is being positioned as an affirmative alternative to other state-directed infrastructure financing models, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Its emphasis on good governance, consideration of environmental and social impacts, and adherence to transparency is meant to draw a stark contrast with other models that involve more questionable labor and environmental standards, alleged corruption, and murky debt financing. B3W has an opportunity to distinguish itself as an important alternative through high standards and the buy-in of multilateral partners and stakeholders. The United States can be the driving force of this engagement through its unique ties to the UN system, including being the largest member country donor. Partnering with specialized UN agencies, committees, and related entities that work in the various B3W pillars will (1) make B3W more of a legitimate initiative with a greater global collaboration; (2) better position B3W projects to succeed with the right resources, networks, and capital; and (3) fill the knowledge and resource gap from the private sector.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Multilateralism, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

75. The Military Use of Small Satellites in Orbit

Author:
Mariel Borowitz
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The number of small satellites in orbit has increased rapidly over the last decade, and the growth of this sector is expected to accelerate even more in coming years. Small satellites offer unique economic opportunities, due to their shorter development time, their lower cost as well as their manufacturing in assembly line style processes. Many small satellite applications envision systems comprised of constellations of hundreds or thousands of satellites, which offer a number of advantages, such as the increase in temporal resolution, or revisit rate, as well as formation flying. Military users can take advantage of commercial systems for military purposes - leveraging existing capability without the need to develop new systems internally. Militaries must look for ways to harness these trends to their advantage, both by making use of commercial offerings, and by examining military-specific opportunities. Military leaders envision a time when battlefield imagery could be requested and received by commanders on the ground and used for real-time decision-making. The U.S. Army's Project Convergence experimented with this capability in October 2020.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Satellite, and Military
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

76. Shift to renewable energy could be a mixed blessing for mineral exporters

Author:
Cullen S. Hendrix
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The world’s transition to sustainable energy systems has suddenly become a boon to countries rich in critical minerals used in clean energy technologies like rechargeable batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. Among these critical minerals are aluminum, coltan, copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, rare earths, lithium, tantalum, and cobalt. Given that these minerals are key to building sustainable energy systems, vital for ensuring military might, and often extremely valuable, will countries with large, exportable endowments of these minerals fall prey to the resource curse? Hendrix says these countries may find their newfound wealth to be a mixed blessing. The size of the markets for these resources and their marginal production costs suggest that they do not have the potential to generate massive rents the way that oil and gas production have. Given that these rents are the source of many ills—authoritarianism, reduced investment in human capital, poor human rights records—this is good news. But because several of these minerals can be mined artisanally, they may lead to governance challenges related to armed conflict. Their status as strategic resources will invite major power meddling and interventions—but only if mineral-rich economies are forced to align themselves and access to their resources with a major power, like the United States or China. The 20th century’s scramble to secure oil resources led to cursed dynamics in oil-rich societies, but historical precedent is not destiny. Mineral-rich countries may avoid the resource curse, especially if they develop diverse investment and trading relationships to balance major power interests in their mineral wealth and embrace industry- and civil society–led good governance initiatives around mineral resources.
Topic:
Economy, Exports, Renewable Energy, Sustainability, and Minerals
Political Geography:
Global Focus

77. Processing Trade and Global Supply Chains: Towards a Resilient “GVC 2.0” Approach

Author:
Lucian Cernat
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
In the current global context marked by economic fragility, growing uncertainty and geopolitical conflicts, ensuring the smooth functioning of global supply chains becomes more important than ever. Supply shortages, higher freight costs, higher commodity prices and strong demand increase will trigger inflationary pressures for all economic sectors dependent on global value chains (GVCs). As part of global efforts to enhance the resilience of GVCs, this paper makes the case for a broader discussion about the untapped potential of processing trade, a relatively unknown trade facilitation option available in many countries around the world. Processing trade has been credited with stimulating China’s participation in GVCs, in combination with foreign direct investment (FDI) attraction and industrial upgrading. However, processing trade is not just a Chinese phenomenon. In the EU, significant trade flows (over 200 billion euros in 2021 alone) benefitted from a double-digit trade cost reduction, thanks to the EU processing trade provisions. Different types of processing trade arrangements exist in over 70 countries worldwide (including in the EU), as a way to facilitate the integration of developing countries in global production chains. However, these unilateral schemes have different requirements and co-exist without any attempt to facilitate their inter-operability along complex global supply chains. This paper argues that there is a pressing need for a global reflection on how best to promote a better integration between these national processing trade schemes. One option is to promote a “GVC 2.0” approach that offers key recommendations and best practices for processing trade along GVCs. Such a coordinated “GVC 2.0” trade facilitation initiative would not only make GVCs more resilient for countries that depend on global sourcing for their critical economic activities, but it will also reduce the inflationary effect generated by the unnecessary trade costs associated with GVC activities.
Topic:
Political Economy, European Union, Trade, Resilience, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, and Global Focus

78. Are Gender Inclusive Militaries Better at Integrating Disruptive Technologies?

Author:
Shira Eini Pindyck
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Recent advances in big data and analytics, cyber security, automation, and artificial intelligence can make critical contributions to the demonstration of power on the international stage. New technologies not only offer militaries the ability to conduct operations with greater effectiveness but also reduce the potential human cost of operations. In an increasingly digitized world, organizations that do not adopt and leverage these advances can become inefficient and even fall by the wayside. Yet, despite the immense promise of emerging technologies, many organizations struggle to integrate and utilize them. This is true in both the military and business sectors. For business organizations, a failure to adopt and use novel technologies may threaten profits and even their survival. For militaries, where soldiers’ lives are on the line, the consequences can be even more severe. Why is the integration of new technologies often so difficult? This policy brief highlights an important and overlooked reason, namely how gender policy can affect resistance to organizational change. Gender policy reform requires organizations to invest resources in the recruitment and retainment of an inclusive workforce, and therefore demands that organizations be flexible and resilient. Flexibility and resilience are also required to integrate disruptive innovations. Rather than trying to chain a new technology to old systems of ascension and reward, organizations that want to advance technologically must rethink their incentive systems and work hard to restructure entrenched hierarchies.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Science and Technology, International Security, Military Affairs, Innovation, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
Global Focus

79. Inequality Kills: The unparalleled action needed to combat unprecedented inequality in the wake of COVID-19

Author:
Oxfam Publishing
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
The wealth of the world’s 10 richest men has doubled since the pandemic began. The incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off because of COVID-19. Widening economic, gender, and racial inequalities—as well as the inequality that exists between countries—are tearing our world apart. This is not by chance, but choice: “economic violence” is perpetrated when structural policy choices are made for the richest and most powerful people. This causes direct harm to us all, and to the poorest people, women and girls, and racialized groups most. Inequality contributes to the death of at least one person every four seconds. But we can radically redesign our economies to be centered on equality. We can claw back extreme wealth through progressive taxation; invest in powerful, proven inequality-busting public measures; and boldly shift power in the economy and society. If we are courageous, and listen to the movements demanding change, we can create an economy in which nobody lives in poverty, nor with unimaginable billionaire wealth—in which inequality no longer kills.
Topic:
Health, Inequality, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

80. UN, EU, and NATO Approaches to the Protection of Civilians: Policies, Implementation, and Comparative Advantages

Author:
Joachim A. Koops and Christian Patz
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
The protection of civilians (POC) in armed conflict has become a core strategic objective for the United Nations system and for UN peace operations in particular. The UN, however, is not the sole actor engaged in POC. The European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among other regional actors, have been developing their own policies and approaches to POC. While the significant overlap in these organizations’ member states and interorganizational developments create an opportunity to coordinate and synergize their POC policies, their approaches to POC differ—in some cases substantially. As the EU and NATO are both in the process of reassessing their strategic direction against the backdrop of new conflict scenarios, there is a need to reflect on the differences and similarities between these three organizations’ approaches to POC, their comparative advantages, and the future direction of the POC agenda. At a time when international peace operations and protection efforts are under intense political and operational pressure, such an understanding could also lay the foundation for more informed and effective interorganizational cooperation on POC. Toward this end, this paper examines the conceptualization of POC in the UN, the EU, and NATO, lays out the core POC policies and approaches of the three organizations and examines their approaches to implementing these policies in the field. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for the UN, the EU, and NATO to strengthen POC efforts within and between the three organizations: Adapt POC to new operational realities; Revitalize discussion on POC within and between the organizations; Improve POC training, preparedness, and institutionalization; and Focus on both passive (harm mitigation) and active approaches to POC.
Topic:
NATO, United Nations, European Union, Conflict, Civilians, Protection, and Regional Organizations
Political Geography:
Global Focus