Sie sind hier

SID Mitglieder Update

Welternährungsbericht 2019: Die Zahl der Hungernden nimmt weiter zu

VENRO - 18. Juli 2019 - 16:01
Seit drei Jahren steigt die Zahl der Hungernden wieder an. Dies ist aber nur eine Seite der Medaille: Neben Untergewicht und Mangelernährung ist Übergewicht ein immer größeres Problem. Eine grundlegende Reformation des globalen Ernährungssystems ist erforderlich.

Hungernden hat sich in den letzten Jahren nichts wesentliches verändert. Kriege und Konflikte, Klimawandel und die wirtschaftliche Depression in vielen Staaten treiben die  Zahl der Hungernden weltweit weiter nach oben. 2018 sind insgesamt rund 821,6  Millionen Menschen chronisch unterernährt gewesen, heißt es im Welternährungsbericht, der am Montag in New York vorgestellt wurde. Damit hungert eine von neun Personen. Zwar wurde die gleiche Zahl für das Jahr 2017 auch schon genannt, nun hat man jedoch diese Zahl auf 811 Millionen nach unten korrigiert. Das bedeutet, dass die Zahl der Hungenden im letzten Jahr um 10,6 Millionen gestiegen ist. Im Jahre 2015 waren noch 785 Millionen hungernd. Der Welternährungsbericht „State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World“ (SOFI) wird gemeinsam vom Welternährungsprogramm (WFP), der UN-Ernährungs- und Landwirtschaftsorganisation (FAO), der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), dem Kinderhilfswerk UNICEF und dem Fonds für landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung (IFAD) herausgegeben.

Ernährungsunsicherheit: Mehr als zwei Milliarden Menschen betroffen

Mit dem diesjährigen Bericht hat die FAO erstmalig den Indikator FIES (Food Insecurity Experience Scale) zur Hungerbemessung berücksichtigt. Er beruht – im Gegensatz zum klassischen Indikator Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) – auf konkreten Haushaltsbefragungen. Demnach leiden aufgrund mangelnder Kaufkraft oder wegen geringer Ernten über zwei Milliarden Menschen das Jahr über immer wieder an Ernährungsunsicherheit und sind gezwungen, regelmäßig Mahlzeiten auszulassen, weniger oder billige, aber minderwertige Nahrung zu sich zu nehmen. Hierzu gehören auch 8 Prozent der Bevölkerung in Europa und Nordamerika. Dieser Indikator wurde als zusätzlicher Indikator zur Erreichung des nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziels SDG 2, Hunger weltweit bis zum Jahr 2030 zu beenden, eingeführt. Er beruht auf Haushaltsbefragungen und kann damit auch besser unterschiedliche Schweregrade von Hunger und Ernährungsunsicherheit messen. Zusätzlich können die Daten nach Geschlecht, Alter, Wohnort u.a. aufgeschlüsselt werden. Damit können zielgenauer Programme für bestimmte Bevölkerungsgruppen entwickelt werden.

Besonders schlimme Situation für Kinder – kein Fortschritt erkennbar

Vor allem Menschen in Südasien (514 Millionen) und in den afrikanischen Ländern südlich der Sahara (256 Millionen) sind von Unterernährung betroffen: im östlichen Afrika sind dies zum Beispiel mehr als 30 Prozent der Bevölkerung. Aber auch in Lateinamerika steigt die Zahl der Hungernden auf 42 Millionen an. Besonders schlimm ist die Situation für Kinder – und es sind keine Fortschritte zu erkennen. Jedes siebte Neugeborene ist untergewichtig und auch der Anteil der Kinder unter fünf Jahren, deren Entwicklung wegen Unterernährung beeinträchtigt ist, lag 2018 mit gut 22 Prozent oder etwa 149 Millionen genauso hoch wie in den Vorjahren. Neben Unterernährung und Hunger ist aber auch Übergewicht und Fettleibigkeit weltweit ein Problem. 40 Millionen Kinder unter fünf Jahren sind übergewichtig, bei Schulkindern und Kindern in der Pubertät sind 338 Millionen übergewichtig und jeder achte Erwachsene (672 Millionen) leidet an Fettleibigkeit. All diese Zahlen zeigen, dass einerseits Mangel beseitigt werden muss, andererseits aber auch zunehmend die Qualität und der Überfluss an Nahrungsmitteln verändert werden müssen.

Keine Wende im Kampf gegen den Hunger

Die internationale Staatengemeinschaft und die Regierungen haben also viel zu tun. Aber – das zeigen die steigenden Hungerzahlen – sie schaffen keine Wende im Kampf gegen den Hunger und bei der Reform des globalen Ernährungssystems. Es wird immer schwieriger, das gemeinsam gesteckte Ziel zu erreichen, den Hunger bis zum Jahr 2030 zu besiegen. Es bringt aber kaum etwas, sich nur auf dieses Ziel zu fokussieren – vielmehr braucht es einen mehrdimensionalen Ansatz sowie mehr Kooperation zwischen den verschiedenen Sektoren. Denn der Hunger auf der Welt kann nur dann reduziert werden, wenn zum Beispiel auch Gesundheitsprobleme gelöst werden. So bekommen viele Kinder wegen verunreinigtem Wasser Durchfall und können ihre Nahrung nicht verwerten. Das zeigt:  Eine bessere Wasserversorgung reduziert Krankheiten und Hunger. Auch müssen unbedingt und zügig Maßnahmen gegen den Klimawandel ergriffen werden, damit Dürren oder Überschwemmungen nicht die Ernten vernichten. Darüber hinaus muss den Bauern in den armen Ländern des Südens finanziell und technisch beigestanden werden, damit sie sich an die Folgen des Klimawandels mit verbesserten Anbaumethoden anpassen können. Darauf hat der FAO-Direktor Graziano da Silva explizit hingewiesen – sonst wird der Klimawandel alle Anstrengungen im Kampf gegen den Hunger konterkarieren. Ebenso ist immer wieder zu betonen, dass für Kriegs-und Konfliktgebiete Lösungen gefunden werden müssen. Dort ist die Zahl der Hungernden besonders groß.

Hunger ist häufig Flucht- und Migrationsursache

Hunger ist immer noch ein ländliches Problem und verschärft den Urbanisierungsdruck. 80 Prozent der Hungernden in den Ländern des Südens leben auf dem Land und überwiegend von der Landwirtschaft. Damit spielen die Gestaltung der Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme und auch der Stadt-Land-Beziehungen in diesen Ländern eine entscheidende Rolle. Hunger ist eine wichtige Flucht- und Migrationsursache. Aber diesen strukturellen Hunger zu beseitigen, ist sehr schwer. Obwohl im Jahre 2008 und 2009 die Zahl der hungernden Menschen mit einer Milliarde ihren höchsten Stand erreichte und diese Krise in aller Munde war, wurden die mehrdimensionalen und strukturellen Ursachen des Hungers in den letzten zehn Jahren nicht beseitigt. Wenngleich alle Programme darauf hinweisen, dass besseres Saatgut, weniger Landraub, mehr Umweltschutz, effiziente Infrastruktur und Märkte mit stabilen Preisen Grundvoraussetzungen sind, um den Hunger wirksam zu bekämpfen, wurde in diese Richtung zu wenig unternommen. Dies hat existenzielle Auswirkungen auf die Lebenssituation der Menschen.

Klare Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln erforderlich

Um den Anstieg der Lebensmittelpreise zu kompensieren, wurden gute Lebensmittel durch qualitativ schlechtere ersetzt. So mussten im Jahre 2017 die ärmsten Länder 28 Prozent ihrer Exporteinnahmen für Nahrungsmittelimporte ausgeben, doppelt so viel wie 2005. Und mit diesen Importen verändern sich auch die Verzehrgewohnheiten: So werden viele verarbeitete Nahrungsmittel importiert, die reich an Fetten, Zucker und Kohlenhydraten sind, aber nur wenige oder kaum wichtige Mineralstoffe und Vitamine beinhalten. Dies ist einer der entscheidenen Gründe für Übergewicht und Fettleibigkeit. Daher wären eine klare Kennzeichnung der Lebensmittel, eine neutrale Aufklärung der Konsumenten, ein Werbeverbot für Lebensmittel, die besonders Kinder ansprechen oder eine Steuerpolitik erforderlich, die diese schädlichen Nahrungsmittel verteuert. Mexiko hat mit einer Steuer auf Süßgetränke bereits gute Erfahrungen gemacht – die Zahl der Menschen, die an Fettleibigkeit leiden, ist zurückgegangen.

Wirksame Programme gegen Hunger sind längst bekannt

Insgesamt kann konstatiert werden, dass wirksame Rezepte und Programme im Kampf gegen Hunger, Mangel- und Fehlernährung bekannt sind. Die Welternährungsberichte der letzten Jahre haben sie ausführlich beschrieben. Was die Berichte jedoch nicht thematisieren: Die bestehenden wirtschaftlichen und politischen Systeme und die Eliten, die davon profitieren, stellen immer noch ihre Interessen und ihre Gewinne über das Recht auf Nahrung und den Erhalt der Umwelt. Traditionelle und indigene Gemeinschaften werden von ihrem Land vertrieben; Handelsabkommen umgesetzt, die zu wenig Rücksicht auf die Bedürfnisse der Armen nehmen; die Natur durch intensive Agrarnutzung und durch den Rohstoffabbau weiter zerstört. Agrarkonzernen gelingt es immer mehr, Essen und Nahrung auf eine rein handelbare Ware zu reduzieren. Im ländlichen Raum manifestiert sich das Versagen der globalen Ernährungssysteme vor allem durch die Übernutzung von Land, Wasser oder durch den Verlust der Biodiversität. Dies treibt die kleinbäuerlichen Familien in die Enge. In den Städten sind die starke Zunahme von ernährungsbedingten Krankheiten, Mangelernährung und Fettleibigkeit Indikatoren dieser Fehlentwicklung.

Aus der Zivilgesellschaft werden jedoch Vorschläge für alternative Agrarsysteme immer detaillierter vorgebracht, um das globale Ernährungssystem umzubauen. Eine systematische Umstellung der Agrarproduktion, der Verteilung der Nahrungsmittel und des Konsumniveaus steht an, um die Zahl der Hungernden zu reduzieren und das Recht auf Nahrung zu verwirklichen. Die Agrarökologie ist das Kernelement dieses Ansatzes. Sie ist in der Praxis erprobt, aber leider noch nicht im größeren Maßstab umgesetzt. Zum Teil wird dies auch von den Agrarkonzernen verhindert, da es ihr Geschäftsmodell zu stark in Frage stellen würde. Agrarökologie basiert auf der Vielfalt und der Multidimensionalität von Agrarsystemen. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei ein ganzheitlicher Ansatz, der die Erfordernisse der landwirtschaftlichen Familienbetriebe, der Gemeinden und der Ökosysteme berücksichtigt, um lokale Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen. Agrarökologie fördert biologische Prozesse, damit weniger oder keine Mineraldünger, Pestizide oder fossile Brennstoffe benötigt werden. Ziele sind dabei die Stärkung lokale Strukturen, höhere Erträge, mehr Ertragsstabilität und weniger Abhängigkeit, um die Gefahr der Verschuldung einzudämmen. Studien haben auch gezeigt, dass agrarökologische umweltschonende Anbausysteme negative Effekte des Klimawandels reduzieren können.

Antrag zur Stärkung der Agrarökologie verabschiedet

Der Umbau des globalen Ernährungssystems ist mit Hilfe von Agrarökologie möglich. Erfreulich ist, dass auch die Bundesregierung und das Parlament agrarökologischen Ansätzen positiv gegenübersteht. Erst kürzlich haben die Regierungsparteien einen Antrag zur Stärkung der Agrarökologie verabschiedet. Damit kann die Bundesregierung ihr Engagement im Kampf gegen den Hunger verstärken. So plant die Bundesregierung über ihre Sonderintitative „Eine Welt ohne Hunger“ die Einrichtung von drei agrarökologischen Zentren in Afrika. Insgesamt ist aber erforderlich, dass der Kampf gegen Hunger und Fehlernährung in eine stimmige Politik eingebettet ist. Deshalb sollte die Bundesregierung ihre Politik ressortübergreifend so gestalten, dass Entwicklungszusammenarbeit nicht durch die Entscheidungen anderer Ressorts – Stichwort Waffenhandel und unfaire Handelsbeziehungen – zunichte gemacht wird. Und sie sollte sich stärker als bisher für die Umsetzung der nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele (SDG) einsetzen. Dies gilt aber auch für die gesamte Staatengemeinschaft. Werden die nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele ernsthaft zur Richtschnur der Politik für alle Staaten, können hoffentlich bald positive Nachrichten Schlagzeilen machen.

Dieser Blogbeitrag ist in leicht veränderter Form auch bei unserer Mitgliedsorganisation Brot für die Welt erschienen.

Activists call for bold action from governments on climate, inequality and freedom of expression, as development goals falter

#Action4SD - 18. Juli 2019 - 14:07

Activists gathered in New York kick off global call for people to #StandTogetherNow and demand that their governments step up action to achieve social, economic and environmental justice.

Activists from across the world today declared the Sustainable Development Goals – agreed by the international community in 2015 – under threat, due to inaction on climate change, rising inequality and increasing repression of peaceful civic activism continue to rise.

Meeting alongside the High Level Political Forum at the United Nations in New York, a broad alliance of civil society organisations came together to demand greater ambition from governments as they plan for key UN Summits in September.

Dozens of organisations have issued a new declaration,“Stand Together Now for a Just, Peaceful and Sustainable World, stating: “We are standing alongside many others around the world in calling out a state of emergency. Humanity cannot afford to wait, people are demanding transformative change, and we are not willing to accept the current lack of action and ambition from many governments.

The joint call to action comes from a vast range of organisations, including those working on fighting inequality, humanitarian assistance, human rights and climate change, such as Action for Sustainable Development, ACT Alliance, ActionAid, Amnesty International, CAN, CIVICUS, CPDE, GCAP, Greenpeace, Oxfam and Restless Development.

Inequality is rising, with the 26 richest billionaires now owning as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of the planet’s population. The climate emergency is worsening, with the United Nations saying we could have just 11 years left to limit a climate change catastrophe. A global crackdown on human rights means that only 43 UN member states are currently meeting their commitments to uphold the fundamental civic freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

At the same time, the majority of countries that have signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are not making the progress needed to avert a global break down.

“The drive to reach the SDGs is careening off course,” said Emmanuel Ametepey, from Youth Advocates Ghana. “Just four years ago all UN member states signed-up to a radical new agenda by 2030,” he said. “Ten years might sound like enough time, but we are already falling badly behind.”

“More people across the world are suffering as a result of the increases in extreme weather events, rising inequality and crackdowns by government on human rights., Young people are bearing the brunt of it all,” said Catherine Njuguna, ACT Alliance youth ambassador.

Speaking outside the UN, Farah Kabir, Director of ActionAid Bangladesh said: “People are increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change. Since 2015 we have seen many countries presenting their progress reports at the UN, but we know change is not being felt on the ground. Inequality is growing and many organisations and people are being oppressed across the globe.” “We are announcing a state of emergency for people as well as the planet,” she added.

Global Co-Chair of Global Call to Action against Poverty, Beckie Malay said: “Many national coalitions of civil society actively engage with the UN’s High Level Political Forum, they provide real evidence and clear recommendations but in many cases they don’t see these proposals reflected in government action plans.” “Unfortunately since 2015 it seems that there is regression on the key areas of inequality, rights and climate. We cannot stand by and let this happen, that is why we are standing together in countries around the world over the coming months to demand real action.”

Coordinator of Action for Sustainable Development, Oli Henman said: “We have been working together over recent years to ensure that national organisations can be heard by the UN during the Voluntary National Reviews, however we see real challenges in many countries including reducing engagement opportunities, limited consultation and in a number of cases increasing attacks against civil society organisations.”

Over the coming months organisations will be stepping up their joint actions and will stand together in a joint Global Week of Action from 20-27 September, with key mobilisations planned in over 30 countries.

Read the joint declaration in full statement and sign up to show your support.

Photo: Climate march in Montevideo (Uruguay), March 2019 – ©Inés Pousadela

Notes to editors:

Photo available (rights free) of coalition members in front of United Nations during the July 2019 High Level Political Forum, 15 July 2019 

https://boards.wetransfer.com/board/sowu3ou5x7io764km20190717153854/latest?token=8d58736b-780b-4aae-be78-e43a0ca15f2c

 

For further information, please contact:

Kate Donovan, ActionAid

[kate.donovan] at actionaid.org

+1 718 362 0606

 

Oli Henman, Action for Sustainable Development

[oli.henman] at action4sd.org

+44 7803 169074

Machtkampf in Venezuela – Welcher Weg führt aus der Krise?

GIGA Event - 17. Juli 2019 - 16:56
Auslandskorrespondenten treffen Wissenschaftler Hamburg GIGA NDR Reihe "Grenzgänger" Referent [Prof. Dr. Sabine Kurtenbach](/de/team/kurtenbach), Komm. Direktorin des GIGA Instituts für Lateinamerika-Studien [Xenia Böttcher](https://twitter.com/boettcher_xenia?lang=de), ARD-Korrespondentin [Kai Küstner](https://twitter.com/kuestnerk?lang=de), NDR, ehem. ARD-Korrespondent Moderation

Julia-Niharika Sen, Moderatorin des NDR Auslandsmagazins „Weltbilder

Adresse

Norddeutscher Rundfunk
Rothenbaumchaussee 132
Foyer Haus 12
(Einlass ab 18:00 Uhr)

Forschungsschwerpunkte Politische Verantwortlichkeit und Partizipation Frieden und Sicherheit Regionen GIGA Institut für Lateinamerika-Studien Anmeldung erforderlich

The G20 After Osaka Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?

DIE Blog - 17. Juli 2019 - 12:38

Foto: Alan Santos / PR  CC BY 2.0

The G20 summit in Osaka was perhaps most notable for the breakdowns that did not occur. Leaders have eventually agreed on a joint communiqué and endorsed consensual language on trade and many other issues. The nineteen members who had reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement in Hamburg and Buenos Aires did so again. All of these outcomes were in doubt before and even during the summit. In one sense the Osaka communiqué has answered these doubts because it shows G20 leaders can still agree on issues of global importance.

But agreeing on a text is not an end in itself. It stands for the expectation that G20 members will actually work together or at least behave in a coordinated way with regard to the issues covered in the text they have agreed. This expectation can come from four sources:

(1) the acute pressure of an immediate emergency such as the global financial crisis in 2008,

(2) the agendas and goals the incumbent presidency has publicly announced for its summit,

(3) previous G20 commitments to comply with a joint discipline (e.g. their pledge against protectionism) or to pursue programmatic goals (e.g. the 2030 Agenda) and

(4) the visibility of the G20 as a group of leaders with a track record of creating and managing international cooperation.

This piece takes a look at where the Osaka text predicts cooperative behavior in response to the types of expectations mentioned above. It seems that G20 summit language works if it relies on deep seated routines of managing global interdependence. But it risks breakdown if those routines conflict with demands of domestic politics in G20 countries. The piece offers a way to explain this pattern and closes with an idea on improving G20 procedures.

 

Less than straight talk about trade

The tensions on trade among important G20 members have again tested the G20’s ability to manage a crisis. In Hamburg, the G20 had reaffirmed the binding nature of the existing trade system (“We underline the crucial role of the rules based international trading system”). It was on this basis that the G20 had pledged to refrain from protectionist measures as well as from competitive devaluations and envisaged trade reforms to improve distributional outcomes. This overall structure has changed in Buenos Aires and now in Osaka. At their 2019 summit, G20 leaders said nothing to confirm the trade system as it stands. Instead they found six adjectives to describe their ambition for the future: “We strive to realize a free, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, predictable and stable trade and investment environment …”.

Given that a part of the tension revolves around the binding force of international rules, an earlier development in G20 language on the global financial system is also relevant here. This language has moved from the affirmative (G20 Finance Ministers, March 20th, 2018: “The global financial system must remain open, resilient and supportive of growth and grounded in agreed international standards”) to the aspirational (G20 Leaders, December 1st, 2018: “An open and resilient financial system, grounded in agreed international standards, is crucial to support sustainable growth”).

The binding force of World Trade Organization (WTO) law is now only indirectly acknowledged in a reference to WTO-consistent Free Trade Agreements. The traditional G20 pledge to resist protectionism has reemerged in a half sentence (“We strive … to keep our markets open”) and language from the G20 summit in 2018 on WTO reform as well as on necessary action on the WTO dispute settlement system is repeated in the Osaka leaders communiqué. The Osaka outcome also reiterates the commitment to refrain from competitive devaluations. A relatively new feature is the recognition that something needs to be done about excessive global current account imbalances. This is noteworthy because imbalances are often used to justify unilateral trade measures. The G20 now speak about “enhancing cooperation” on this contentious matter.

Even before the current acute tensions on trade there have been doubts about how credible G20 pledges against protectionism really were, given G20 countries’ observed behavior over time. These doubts may now grow. Protectionist measures are often justified as retaliation for behavior felt to be unfair. WTO law, in particular the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures provides agreed criteria to judge if such measures are indeed permissible. Without this underlying consensus, just about any measure can be deemed as being either protectionist or an act of fair defense. As we have seen the G20 are now less prepared than before to voice their joint commitment to the order embodied in the WTO. In fact President Trump called the WTO “a terrible deal” in his remarks to the press conference immediately following the Osaka summit. This raises the question whether Osaka language on WTO reform and necessary action on its dispute settlement system really expresses the joint intention of leaders to repair perceived wrongs. Maybe it just repeats previous G20 language while the political will behind it is gone.

Similar doubts apply even to the standing commitment to refrain from competitive devaluations, which, coming from the G20 finance track, is among the more stable elements of G20 language. Certain G20 members now openly suspect others of managing exchange rates for competitive advantage. Together with the ongoing debate on central bank independence in some G20 countries, this creates a background against which countries may be tempted to excuse manipulation as necessary defense.

 

Linking domestic issues to the G20 Agenda

Osaka has also shown the relevance of the presidency’s priorities. Ever since the G20 is a leaders group, each presidency has drawn on its domestic policies to set the agenda. This can help to bring home the value added by the G20 to societies in different host countries. But it also risks accumulating commitments not equally supported by all G20 members. Osaka has found a balance in at least two cases: The G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment clearly reflect Japanese priorities and openly build on the G7 Ise Shima Principles for Promoting Quality Infrastructure Investment adopted by the G7 in 2016. But they still fit with the broader G20 Agenda. Given the urgency of building and maintaining infrastructure in many G20 countries, infrastructure is something like a permanent item for G20 discussions. After considering ways to finance infrastructure in 2018, defining criteria for quality in infrastructure was the apparent next step.

Likewise, the G20 Fukuoka Policy Priorities on Aging and Financial Inclusion  are visibly inspired by Japan’s response to its own ageing society. But the Japanese presidency has made it easy to see the relevance to the G20 agenda by linking the challenge of ageing with financial inclusion, a long standing item of discussions in the G20 finance track. A broader discussion about the economic issues ageing societies must face was held among G20 Finance Ministers in Fukuoka. All this goes to show that issue-specific cooperation still works, even if the G20 cannot absorb their differences on trade.

 

Holding the line

There is evidence of continued commitment to previous engagements. The reiterated pledge of nineteen members to the Paris Climate Agreement shows continuity, but this cannot be attributed to the G20 as a group. All G20 members remain committed to the 2030 Agenda  and set out specific actions in the Osaka Update. In addition to that, UNDP and OECD have provided a substantial report showing what the G20 have done to implement the 2030 Agenda. Behind the consensus language there are inevitable differences in how the 2030 Agenda is understood and implemented. But there is no gap between language and behavior that would put the Osaka language on the 2030 Agenda in doubt. This is notable because the very nature of the 2030 Agenda, cutting across sectors and calling for continuous action, presents a challenge to the usual way the G20 operates, keeping most working groups separate and changing priorities with each presidency.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that the G20 as a venue for collective action are much more engaged in implementing the 2030 Agenda than they acknowledge in the Osaka communiqué. The report issued by UNDP and OECD offers a granular picture of this engagement, cutting across G20 working groups and ranging from domestic resource mobilization to food security and rural youth employment. This may indicate that the everyday practice of multilateral cooperation is sometimes more resilient than it might look through the screen of high profile summitry.

 

Explaining the disconnect between language and behavior

So how does the G20 perform as a group that invites the expectation that members will continue working together? As we have seen, the picture is somewhat contradictory: On trade, the G20 have arguably not quite delivered as advertised in their communiqués. But on the 2030 Agenda, their performance is ostensibly better than their summit language shows. The clearest disconnect is perhaps para. 4 of the Osaka communiqué, where G20 leaders state that “trade and geopolitical tensions have intensified”, as if those tensions had not originated among their own countries.

Why do language and behavior in the G20 diverge? Here is a first try for an explanation: The G20 were established to manage interdependence between its members. It is now commonplace (and even true) to say that interdependence has grown in almost every aspect of our lives. But only crises seem to make us aware of how interdependent we have become. In times perceived as normal, managing global interdependence is not really a factor in the routine calculus of domestic politics. This is particularly true in advanced economies that historically have been less exposed to the vicissitudes of global integration, but now face growing pressures for adjustment. As a result, the realities of global interdependence were not sufficiently brought home to people in many G20 countries.

But we are much more interdependent than we think. And too often we do politics as if we were not. This may be the root cause of the disconnect. Interdependence originally emerges through self-organization in the private sector, witness the development of global value chains and the growing network of financing relationships between global banks. The everyday management of interdependence usually takes a technocratic form, as in the G20 tax agenda. It does appear in G20 communiqués but not in most domestic policy debates. This is why people often do not think about interdependence when they say what they expect of their leaders. In different ways, every G20 leader has to be responsive to his or her people. One option is to engage in protectionist measures that speak to ideas of national autonomy. If such measures are not consistent with G20 language, a leader may weigh this against his own domestic policy calculus. But if he takes protectionist measures, perhaps to give a signal to his base, at least some of the more robust routines of international cooperation will still continue.

It cuts both ways. If what you do for the 2030 Agenda represents interdependence, you can distance yourself by not mentioning too much of it in the communiqué. If communiqué language (for instance on trade) represents interdependence, you can distance yourself through visible acts of verbal contestation and noncompliance. From the communiqué’s point of view, this does look like an outside influence. This is why communiqué language can sometimes treat tensions among G20 members as if they were an external factor, remote from the routines of G20 cooperation.

The gap between language and behavior in the G20 is already doing damage because it hurts the expectation that others will be predictable and compliant. It is also hard to close. The routines of managing interdependence may be just as robust as the political wish to get away from them.

 

Operating under pressure

If the next global economic crisis strikes, eyes will turn to the G20 for a coordinated response. In spite of the ongoing tensions on trade there is reason to believe that the G20 will still find a way to work together and be able to tackle an emergency comparable to the 2008 crisis. While the benefits of trade are long-term, unequal and hard to predict, the immediate impact of a global crisis can be expected to align incentives and concentrate minds. Besides, there still is a number of issues where the interests of G20 countries converge. Every country needs to protect its tax base. This is why there is progress on the agreed G20 tax agenda. In Osaka the G20 even went a step further and agreed on a work program to address ways to tackle inappropriately low levels of effective taxation and the allocation of taxing rights.

Holding the line every year on programmatic commitments like the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement will probably remain a challenge for the G20. This challenge is inevitable, given the ambition inherent in those commitments. Part of it consists in the fact that they openly stand for global interdependence and are therefore particularly exposed to political gestures directed against interdependence. Further challenges may arise if G20 members do not anymore trust each other to comply with agreed disciplines such as WTO law and the pledge against protectionism. This trust is important, if only because it underpins other, more specific G20 commitments like the pledge to refrain from competitive devaluations. Without it, cooperation will yield to uncontrolled and escalating competition.

One way to go forward is perhaps to concentrate G20 summits on building robust personal consensus among leaders to give a few political impulses and leave the routines of managing global interdependence to international organizations and their own national administrations. This may even help close the gap between G20 language and behavior.

 

Disclaimer: This text reflects the author’s personal views only and cannot be construed as indicating the positions of Germany’s Federal Government or any part of it.

 

Der Beitrag The G20 After Osaka Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? erschien zuerst auf International Development Blog.

UN Human Rights Council Adopts New Right to Education Framework (the Abidjan Principles)

SID - 16. Juli 2019 - 11:04

 

(Geneva, 15 July 2019) The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) unanimously adopted last Thursday a new resolution on the right to education and in doing so firmly recognised the Abidjan Principles on the right to education. This is the first formal recognition to date by States of this new instrument, the Human Rights Council being made up of 47 States elected by their peers. 

The Abidjan Principles were adopted in February 2019 by over 50 eminent experts on the right to education, following a three-year consultative process with decision-makers, communities and practitioners. This landmark text unpacks existing human rights law regarding the obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education. It is quickly becoming one of the reference instruments on the right to education, in particular in the context of the growing privatisation and commercialisation of education worldwide.

The recognition by the Human Rights Council of the Abidjan Principles is truly historic. It is a reflection of the rigour behind the process to draft these Principles, and of the demand from States to have more precise guidance and a coherent rights framework to reflect on their education policies”, said Delphine Dorsi, from the Right to Education Initiative. 

The HRC resolution on the right to education was adopted unanimously without a vote, and has been sponsored so far by 75 States from every region. This broad support reflects the many positive statements regarding the Abidjan Principles made by States during the dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to an education that took place in Geneva two weeks ago. A range of States from all continents - including in particular Ivory Coasts, where the Principles were adopted - supported the inclusion of the Abidjan Principles in the resolution.

I am delighted that African States and institutions at the highest level are taking the lead in responding to the increasing threats to the right to education, in particular the unregulated growth of the private sector. This is a worldwide phenomenon however, and it is important that global standards be set, as the Human Rights Council did,” stated Paulin Junior Kouamé, from the Ivorian Network for the Promotion of Education for All.

 

This resolution adds to the growing momentum in support of the Abidjan Principles. In May, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a resolution recognising the Abidjan Principles as guidelines for States to meet their human rights obligations. In June, the Global Partnership for Education, the main global multilateral fund for education, took note of the Abidjan Principles in its new private sector engagement strategy. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education also dedicated her June 2019 report to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 on education in accordance with the Abidjan Principles. 

Salima Namusobya, from the Initiative for Social and Economic Rights, commented: “The Human Rights Council Resolution sends a powerful message, as States are currently meeting in New-York to review the implementation of SDG 4. We are still far from meeting the SDG 4 targets, including to ensure 12 years of free quality education for all. The human rights framework offers not only a set of legally binding norms, but also tools that will enable States to fund and develop quality public education systems and put in place adequate regulation of private actors.

In a statement released today, the nine members of the committee that drafted the Abidjan Principles also welcomed the milestone HRC resolution. 

There is now a global movement to put the right to education at the core of education policies. After years of failed attempts to improve education delivery by privatising or commercialising education systems, States and education stakeholders are realising that creating an anarchical education market is failing to deliver on the right to education, and that norms and standards are needed if we are serious about developing fair education systems”, added Sylvain Aubry, from the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

As in previous years, the HRC resolution also recognises “the significant importance of investment in public education” and urges States, among other recommendations, “to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure the regulation of all education providers” in order to address “any negative impact of the commercialization of education and strengthens access to appropriate remedies and reparation for victims of violations of the right to education”.

 

END

 

 

Documents

 

Contacts

 

 

Signatories

  • ActionAid International
  • Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ)
  • Amnesty International
  • Bihar Education Policy Center
  • Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education
  • Centre de Recherché et d'Action pour le Developpement Haiti
  • Coalition des Organisations en SYnergie pour la Défense de l’Education Publique, Sénégal (COSYDEP)
  • East African Centre for Human Rights
  • Equal Education 
  • Equal Education Law Centre
  • Ghana National Education Coalition Campaign
  • Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  • Hakijamii
  • Human Dignity
  • Initiative for Social and Economic Rights (ISER)
  • Ivorian Network for the Promotion of Education for All (FIP-EPT)
  • Just Fair
  • Nitya Bal Vikas Deutschland e. V.
  • Regroupement Education Pour Toutes et pour Tous (REPT) Haiti
  • Right to Education Initiative
  • Society for International Development
  • Solidarité Laïque 

 

 

 

 

Image: Promoted: 

Stand Together Now for a Just, Peaceful & Sustainable World

#Action4SD - 15. Juli 2019 - 10:58

Sign this statement.

In 2015 world leaders signed historic agreements – the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals and the broader 2030 Agenda to push for a more just and sustainable world by 2030. These inter-linked agendas promised to transform the world, to end poverty, to reduce inequality, ensure peace and combat climate change; to set us on a path towards a just transition and a holistic approach to the systems which underpin our economy, society, and environment. So far, delivery has failed to live up to this bold ambition.

Around the world, people are suffering from the overlapping impacts of inequalities, loss of rights, gender injustice, conflict, militarisation, environmental degradation and climate change. The economic, financial and political systems are concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few, favouring a limited number of individuals, countries and businesses. Nature is our life support system – when it is degraded, polluted and overused then there are big impacts for our food security, water supply, air quality and for our economy. Climate change impacts food security, water to irrigate crops and disruption from extreme weather events. Without tackling climate change and loss of biodiversity by protecting and restoring our natural world, we will fail to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

That is why we are standing alongside many others around the world in calling out a state of emergency. Humanity cannot afford to wait, people are demanding transformative change, and we are not willing to accept the current lack of action and ambition from many governments.

We are at a critical turning point – in September 2019, heads of state will meet again to review progress and we demand that they set out a more ambitious roadmap for practical action. This moment has the potential to foster irreversible momentum for greater accountability, enhanced ambition and clear action in the following 10 years to deliver on the promise of a just transition.

In order to deliver this momentum, we are working together across movements and across borders, to push for wider change, amplifying voices of local communities, and sharing the demands for transformational change coming from people from all across the globe.

To ensure that we move towards a just, peaceful and sustainable world by 2030… we stand together with rising movements, such as those led by women and young people for our rights to voice, equality, climate and environmental justice.

Voice: We call on governments to guarantee the right to freedoms of expression, association and assembly; and to ensure inclusion and participation for all; so that people and community organisations can engage freely in all levels of decision-making processes without fear of violence or intimidation. We also call on governments to commit to the universal moratorium or reduction of military budgets in order to fund climate and environmental protection and the fight against poverty, hunger and inequality.

Equality: We call on governments to address the multiple dimensions of inequality, deliver on their promise to ‘Leave No One Behind’; and to tackle the root causes of inequality through tax justice and social protection and an end to discrimination against women and girls and the most marginalized communities in every country. We call on all governments, but in particular provider countries, to champion these goals by overhauling their approaches to financing, consistent with both our ambition and agreed development effectiveness principles — to ensure democratic country ownership, a focus on results, inclusivity and mutual accountability.

Environmental & climate justice: We demand that countries honor their commitments by presenting concrete and ambitious plans to protect humanity and human rights; halting biodiversity loss and implementing concrete conservation measures; protection of people and communities at the frontlines of climate change, to build their resilience, support adaptation and address loss and damage; and move towards a just transition to renewables and concerted action to halve carbon emissions by 2030 and to eliminate them altogether by 2050 at the latest; so that we ensure that we limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C degrees.

We are working together for a joint Week of Action on 20-27 September, join us!

Sign this statement.

#StandTogetherNow

Signatories:
Action for Sustainable Development
ACT Alliance
ActionAid
Amnesty International
CAN
CIVICUS
CPDE
GCAP
Oxfam
Restless Development

 

Header image: Climate march in Montevideo (Uruguay), March 2019 – ©Inés Pousadela

Defending the Right to Food in Age of Digitalization: Exploring the impacts of dematerialization, digitalization and financialization on our food systems

SID - 11. Juli 2019 - 18:52

Please join us on Friday 12 July in New York for the side event “Defending the Right to Food in Age of Digitalization:  Exploring the impacts of dematerialization, digitalization and financialization on our food systems.” From 13:15-14:45. You can RSVP here

 

Learning from the edition of the Right to Food and Nutrition Watch “When Food Becomes Immaterial”, this interactive dialogue will create the opportunity to discuss key issues related to the future of our food system, as technology continues to play a increasing role that also challenges human rights. 

 

Over the past few decades, public goods, such as water, education and health – the pillars of human rights – have increasingly been transformed into tradable commodities. Food, of course, has been traded for centuries, yet the recent failure in market regulation has led to its full commodification. As a result, it has contributed to the dispossession of productive resources. This affects peasant communities, damages the environment, and changes our diets for the worse.

 

Further to this, three intertwined dynamics – dematerialization, digitalization and financialization – are now altering the nature of both tradable goods and the markets where they are exchanged. Our food systems are at an important crossroads. There is now widespread recognition of the failure of the agro-industrial food system even by the World Economic Forum, and other actors who previously promoted the Green Revolution. Despite their recent damnations, these same organizations and actors now claim to have a new 'solution'. This so-called , known as ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in 'innovative thinking' proposes a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. This presents a new narrative which all of us must engage in to confront the threats that lie ahead.

 

Hope to see you there!     Event Location: New YorkEvent Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 - 13:15 to 14:45Contact Details: 

For any questions you can contact mattheisen@fian.org or fsonkin@sidint.org 

Image: 

Sustainable Development Needs Fundamental Governance Changes - Spotlight Report

SID - 8. Juli 2019 - 17:46

New York, 8 July 2019: “The world is off-track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Most governments have failed to turn the transformational vision of the 2030 Agenda into real transformational policies. Even worse, xenophobia and authoritarianism are on the rise in a growing number of countries.”

“The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is not just a matter of better policies. It requires more holistic and more sweeping shifts in how power is vested, including through institutional and governance reforms.”

“A simple software update is not enough – we have to revisit and reshape the hardware of sustainable development, i.e. governance and institutions at all levels.”

This is the main message of the Spotlight Report 2019, one of the most comprehensive independent assessments of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The report is launched on the day before the opening of the High Level Political Forum at the United Nations in New York by a global coalition of civil society organizations and trade unions.

“The Spotlight Report 2019 shows, that structural transformation is more needed than ever before. It has to start at the local and national level and requires strengthening bottom-up governance and governance coherence.”

“At global level the upcoming review of the High-Level Political Forum should be used to overcoming the weakness of this body and transform it to a Sustainable Development Council of the United Nations.”

“The SDG Summit in September, and even more the year 2020 with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations will provide important opportunities to translate the calls of the emerging global movements for social and environmental justice into political steps towards a new democratic multilateralism.”

The 190-page report is supported by a broad range of civil society organizations and trade unions, and informed by the experiences and reports of national and regional groups and coalitions from many parts of the world. The contributions cover most aspects of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs (and beyond), and reflect the rich geographic and cultural diversity of their authors.

The Spotlight Report is published by the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Global Policy Forum (GPF), Public Services International (PSI), Social Watch, Society for International Development (SID), and Third World Network (TWN), supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

For more info visit www.2030spotlight.org

Tags: SID Theme:

Sustainable development needs fundamental governance changes, #SpotlightSDGs assesses obstacles and gaps

SID Hamburg - 8. Juli 2019 - 10:52
Global civil society report assesses structural obstacles and institutional gaps in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda www.2030spotlight.org

New York, 8 July 2019: “The world is off-track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Most governments have failed to turn the transformational vision of the 2030 Agenda into real transformational policies. Even worse, xenophobia and authoritarianism are on the rise in a growing number of countries.”

“The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is not just a matter of better policies. It requires more holistic and more sweeping shifts in how power is vested, including through institutional and governance reforms.”

“A simple software update is not enough – we have to revisit and reshape the hardware of sustainable development, i. e. governance and institutions at all levels.”

This is the main message of the Spotlight Report 2019, one of the most comprehensive independent assessments of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The report is launched on the day before the opening of the High Level Political Forum at the United Nations in New York by a global coalition of civil society organizations and trade unions.

“The Spotlight Report 2019 shows, that structural transformation is more needed than ever before. It has to start at the local and national level and requires strengthening bottom-up governance and governance coherence.”

“At global level the upcoming review of the High-Level Political Forum should be used to overcoming the weakness of this body and transform it to a Sustainable Development Council of the United Nations.”

“The SDG Summit in September, and even more the year 2020 with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations will provide important opportunities to translate the calls of the emerging global movements for social and environmental justice into political steps towards a new democratic multilateralism.”

The 190-page report is supported by a broad range of civil society organizations and trade unions, and informed by the experiences and reports of national and regional groups and coalitions from many parts of the world. The contributions cover most aspects of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs (and beyond), and reflect the rich geographic and cultural diversity of their authors.

Contributing partners of the Spotlight Report 2019:

The Spotlight Report is published by the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Global Policy Forum (GPF), Public Services International (PSI), Social Watch, Society for International Development (SID), and Third World Network (TWN), supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019 Reshaping governance for sustainability: Transforming institutions – shifting power - strengthening rights Global Civil Society Report on the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs

Beirut/Bonn/Ferney-Voltaire/Montevideo/New York/Penang/Rome/Suva, July 2019

www.2030spotlight.org

 

„Das Silodenken bei der Agenda 2030 muss überwunden werden“

VENRO - 8. Juli 2019 - 10:01

Dr. Luise Steinwachs, stellvertretende Vorsitzende von VENRO, nimmt als Mitglied der deutschen Regierungsdelegation am diesjährigen HLPF teil. Im Interview spricht sie über die Zielkonflikte der Agenda 2030 und ihre Erwartungen an das Treffen zur Vorbereitung des SDG-Gipfels im September.

Das Hochrangige Politische Forum der Vereinten Nationen (HLPF) trifft sich vom 09. bis 18. Juli 2019 in New York, um die Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung zu überprüfen. Erstmals hat die Bundesregierung im Vorfeld dieses jährlichen Treffens eine deutsche HLPF-Konferenz ausgerichtet.

Welchen Eindruck haben Sie von der deutschen HLPF-Konferenz mitgenommen? Steigen die Bemühungen der Bundesregierung zur Umsetzung der Agenda 2030?

Auf der Konferenz wurde ganz deutlich, dass die Ziele der Agenda nicht erreicht werden, wenn sich nicht die Ansätze ändern. Einfach nur mehr desselben führt nicht zum Ziel. Zunehmend kommen nämlich Zielkonflikte in den Blick. Als die Agenda 2030 vor vier Jahren verabschiedet wurde, war zwar durchaus bekannt, dass sie nicht kohärent ist und viele Widersprüche enthält. Gleichzeitig war man davon ausgegangen, dass sich hierfür schon praktische Lösungen finden würden. Vielleicht hatte niemand damit gerechnet, dass die 17 Ziele doch ein so starkes Silodenken befördern würden und jetzt die Konflikte – neben den durchaus auch vorhandenen Synergien zwischen den Zielen – so gravierend sind.

Können Sie uns ein Beispiel nennen?

Nehmen Sie das Ziel 2 – Beendigung des Hungers weltweit – und das Ziel 6 – Zugang zu Wasser, auch zu sauberem Trinkwasser: Viele Ansätze zur Bekämpfung des Hungers konzentrieren sich vorrangig auf die Produktion, weniger auf die Verteilung von Nahrungsmitteln. Und wird hier häufig als Lösung der Ausbau der industriellen Landwirtschaft favorisiert, obwohl weltweit die Mehrheit der Nahrungsmittel in kleinbäuerlicher Landwirtschaft erzeugt wird.

Gleichzeitig geht aber die globale Wasserentnahme zu 70 Prozent auf das Konto der industriellen Bewässerungslandwirtschaft, was häufig zur Folge hat, dass die lokale Bevölkerung keinen Zugang zu sauberem Wasser hat. Das führt offensichtlich zu Konflikten in der Zielerreichung. Hier müssen die Ansätze geändert werden. In diesem Fall zum Beispiel hin zu einem Ausbau und zur Förderung von Agrarökologie. Es muss also zukünftig sehr viel stärker darum gehen, ganzheitlich und vernetzt zu denken und zu handeln – was auch bedeutet, dass sich Institutionen verändern müssen und das Silodenken überwunden werden muss.

Mit welchen Vorschlägen im Gepäck sollte die deutsche Delegation zum HLPF im Juli reisen?

Deutschland wird erst wieder im Jahr 2021 berichten. Daher wird sich die Bundesregierung vor allem in eigenen Veranstaltungen engagieren und an den thematischen Diskussionen beteiligen. Die Delegation selbst besteht neben einzelnen Ministerien aus Abgeordneten und Vertreter_innen der Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft. Auch VENRO ist Teil der Delegation.  Ich freue mich, dass dieses Mal zudem neun Abgeordnete des Bundestages dabei sein werden, um sich einen unmittelbaren Eindruck vom HLPF und seiner Relevanz zu verschaffen. Dies ist insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Umsetzung der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie wichtig, die viel stärker vom Bundestag begleitet werden sollte. Der Parlamentarische Beirat für nachhaltige Entwicklung ist hier ein wichtiges Gremium, er sollte deutlich gestärkt werden. Letztendlich ist die Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 und der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie eine Aufgabe der gesamten Bundesregierung, nicht nur des Bundesentwicklungsministeriums und des Bundesumweltministeriums, wie manchmal der Eindruck ensteht. Die ressortübergreifende Zusammenarbeit muss hier deutlich gestärkt werden.

Wie bringt sich VENRO beim HLPF ein?

VENRO richtet gemeinsam mit dem Bundesentwicklungsministerium und der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation ILO eine Veranstaltung zum Thema Ungleichheit aus. Deren Reduzierung ist in diesem Jahr eines der Ziele, die das HLPF ausführlicher behandelt werden. Wir freuen uns daher, dass wir ein hochrangiges Panel aus Regierungen und Zivilgesellschaft besetzen können. Ich werde mich außerdem über die NGO Major Group, in der die weltweite Zivilgesellschaft im Kontext des HLPF organisiert ist, aktiv in verschiedene Veranstaltungen einbringen. Die Zivilgesellschaft fordert im Kontext der anstehenden HLPF-Reform eine stärkere Beteiligung, sei es beim Rederecht in den einzelnen Diskussionen, bei der Erstellung und Präsentation von Länderberichten oder bei der Teilnahme an den Podien im offiziellen Programm. Auch ist bisher leider noch völlig unklar, wie die zivilgesellschaftliche Beteiligung beim SDG-Gipfel im September in New York aussehen wird.

Wie geht es nach dem HLPF weiter?

In diesem Jahr wird das HLPF nicht mit einer Ministererklärung enden, sondern mit einer „Botschaft an den Gipfel“. Gemeint ist der bereits erwähnte SDG-Gipfel, der im September im Rahmen der UN-Generalversammlung stattfinden wird. Hierfür hat die Bundeskanzlerin ihre Teilnahme zugesagt, was VENRO sehr begrüßt. Es ist wichtig, dass die Staats- und Regierungschefs auf dem Gipfel eine starke politische Erklärung verabschieden, die nicht hinter bereits getroffene internationale Vereinbarungen zurückfällt, die die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte als Bezugsrahmen betont und die das Bekenntnis zum Multilateralismus bekräftigt. Nur mit einer starken, solidarischen und verlässlichen internationalen Zusammenarbeit kann eine gerechte und zukunftsfähige Lebens- und Wirtschaftsweise gestaltet werden.

Seiten

SID Hamburg Aggregator – SID Mitglieder Update abonnieren