Sie sind hier

Ticker

Why a decolonial lens must be at the heart of all those who claim to research and teach “development”

EADI Debating Development Research - 4. Juli 2019 - 10:19
By Julia Schöneberg   My research focusses on decolonial approaches to knowledge production and pedagogy, especially in the context of “development”. Development is a contested term that has been filled with different, sometime contradictory meanings. I am convinced that one cannot meaningfully speak about “development” without seriously considering critique and arguments brought forward by decolonial scholarship. …
Kategorien: english, Ticker

04.07.2019 Entwicklungsminister Müller vor Treffen der G7-Entwicklungsminister: "Ohne Bildung keine Zukunft – Die G7 müssen sich ihrer Verantwortung stellen"

BMZ - 4. Juli 2019 - 10:00
Bundesentwicklungsminister Gerd Müller hat anlässlich des Treffens der Entwicklungs- und Bildungsminister der G7-Staaten in Paris für ein stärkeres Engagement im Bereich Mädchenbildung geworben: "Jeder Euro, der in die Bildung von Mädchen investiert wird, ist doppelt wirksam. Er eröffnet nicht nur neue Arbeits- und Lebenschancen, sondern schützt auch vor Kinderehe und früher Schwangerschaft. Es ist erwiesen, dass eine Frau umso weniger Kinder ...
Kategorien: Ticker

Drei Jahre „weltwärts-Begegnungen“

Engagement Global Presse - 4. Juli 2019 - 9:01
Naturfreunde aus dem Senegal und Deutschland tauschen sich aus. Foto: Naturfreundejugend Deutschlands e. V.

Mit Einführung des Programms „weltwärts – Außerschulische Begegnungsprojekte im Kontext der Agenda 2030“ im Jahr 2016 konnten erstmals außerschulische Jugendgruppen gefördert werden, die sich mit Gruppen aus Partnerländern zur Agenda 2030 oder zu einem der 17 Nachhaltigkeitsziele austauschen und zusammen arbeiten. Anfang Juli feiert die Förderlinie ihren dritten Geburtstag.

Diese Förderung nehmen beispielsweise Pfadfinderverbände, Sportvereine oder Chöre in Anspruch. So haben sich Naturfreunde aus dem Senegal und Deutschland zum Nachhaltigkeitsziel 12 „Nachhaltiger Konsum und nachhaltige Produktion“ getroffen und ausgetauscht. Aus Ansätzen, Ideen und Impulsen zum nachhaltigen Konsum und Tourismus ist eine gemeinsame Jugendzeitschrift auf Deutsch und auf Französisch entstanden.

„Wir freuen uns, dass die Nachfrage nach den Begegnungsprojekten beständig wächst. 2016 haben wir mit vier Projektförderungen angefangen. 2017 und 2018 waren es insgesamt über 50 Förderungen und allein in der ersten Jahreshälfte 2019 waren es bereits 18“, berichtet Astrid Neumann, Abteilungsleiterin der Koordinierungsstelle weltwärts bei Engagement Global. „Als nächstes wird die Förderlinie evaluiert, sodass wir Prozesse und Ziele optimieren und erfolgreich weiterentwickeln können.“

Grundlage der außerschulischen Begegnungsprojekte ist, dass sich Jugendgruppen über den Projektzeitraum von maximal zwei Jahren zu einem der 17 Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals, kurz SDG) austauschen und miteinander an einem gemeinsamen Projekt arbeiten. In diesem Zeitraum gibt es zwei Begegnungen: einmal in Deutschland, einmal im Partnerland. Die von den Jugendgruppen am häufigsten gewählten und in den Projekten bearbeiteten Nachhaltigkeitsziele waren Ziel 16 „Frieden und Gerechtigkeit“, Ziel 4 „Hochwertige Bildung“ und Ziel 8 „Nachhaltiger Konsum und nachhaltige Produktion“.

Die meisten Begegnungsprojekte fanden zwischen Jugendgruppen aus Deutschland und Südafrika statt, gefolgt von Projekten zwischen Deutschland und Tansania.

Nina Porstmann, Projektleiterin bei weltwärts-Begegnungen, erklärt: „Partnerschaftlichkeit wird bei der Förderlinie großgeschrieben, da beide Projektpartner, also die Träger aus Deutschland sowie dem Partnerland, gemeinsam den Projektantrag einreichen müssen. Diese Antragspartnerschaft und die Beschäftigung mit einem der Nachhaltigkeitsziele im Rahmen eines Jugendaustausch stellt die Besonderheit der Förderlinie dar.

Über „weltwärts – Außerschulische Begegnungsprojekte im Kontext der Agenda 2030“

Die Förderlinie „weltwärts – Außerschulische Begegnungsprojekte im Kontext der Agenda 2030" ergänzt weltwärts seit 2016 um ein Angebot für den entwicklungspolitischen Jugendgruppenaustausch. Mit der Begegnung von Gruppen aus Deutschland und afrikanischen, asiatischen und lateinamerikanischen Partnerländern sollen junge Menschen zwischen 16 und 30 Jahren in die Lage versetzt werden, sich mit globalen Themen auseinanderzusetzen und aktiv Verantwortung für globale Zukunftsfragen zu übernehmen. Zudem sollen Träger der Jugendbildung und des Jugendaustauschs unterstützt und globale Partnerschaften gefördert werden.

Kontakt

weltwärts – Außerschulische Begegnungsprojekte

Weitere Informationen und Beratung unter:

ww-begegnung@engagement-global.de

Weitere Informationen
Kategorien: Ticker

Elektro-Scooter auf Berlins Straßen: Ein umweltfreundliches Verkehrsmittel?

reset - 4. Juli 2019 - 6:22
Elektronische Leih-Roller sind das neueste Sharing-Verkehrsmittel in immer mehr Städten. Können die Fahrzeuge zur Verkehrswende beitragen? Und wie steht es um ihre Ökobilanz?
Kategorien: Ticker

Supporting the Change of Behaviours That Can Have an Impact

SCP-Centre - 4. Juli 2019 - 5:37

Nudges, social norms, digital tools and triggers for shifting to plant based diets, saving energy at home or reducing daily food waste – these are just some of the examples that participants could experience and discuss during the Day of Change, which was organised by the Academy of Change project in Brussels on 1 July 2019.

To keep global rise of temperatures to 1.5 degree, substantial reductions of CO2 emissions related to our lifestyles have to happen fast. Sari Laine, of the Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA presented the Summary of 1.5 degree lifestyle report, highlighting high emission impact areas like meat and dairy consumption or transport. While reduction pathways for these emission areas are partly attributed to changes in infrastructure and policy frameworks, several topics also call for a shift in personal behaviours.

That need for a change in everyday lifestyles was discussed lively by the expert panel consisting of Renatas Mazeika, Head of Unit for Consumer Policy, DG JUST, European Commission, Dr Kate Burningham, Deputy Director in CUSP, University of Surrey, Antonios Proestakis, Policy Analyst, Competence Centre on Behavioural Insights, JRC, Rachel Gray, Behaviour Change Manager, WRAP and Rob Moore, Director, Behaviour Change and moderated by CSCP’s Mariana Nicolau. Key messages from the discussion included the need for developing and testing behavior change interventions on the ground, and for science-based policy making when aiming to change the way citizens act. Also, ensuring that the approaches are socially inclusive and that the pressure for solving climate change is put on the individual.

The Academy of Change pilots, conducted by Greenpeace Spain in Madrid to increase plant-based diets in canteens, by Friends of Nature in China in Beijing to save energy at the household level, as well as by Verbraucher Intitiative in Berlin to reduce household food waste, presented their work and gave participants the chance to interact with some of the intervention material. Additional interactive sessions were given by the INHERIT project on healthy, sustainable and equitable lifestyles, the Parents project on energy saving with the help of smart metering and CIDSE’s movie Energy to Change.

The Academy of Change team also announced that two more rounds of the Academy programme on behavioural insights will be offered for NGOs working on climate and sustainability topics and the call for application will be reopened in the coming weeks. If you are working for an NGO and interested in the programme, you can already register your interest here.

The Academy of Change will continue to work for another two more years with a renewal of funding from the KR Foundation. If you are not an NGO, but you are interested in bringing the Academy of Change to other groups, then please get in touch with Mariana Nicolau.

For more information please contact Mariana Nicolau.

Der Beitrag Supporting the Change of Behaviours That Can Have an Impact erschien zuerst auf CSCP gGmbH.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Weltklima studieren, Stadtklima schützen

#HOCHN - 4. Juli 2019 - 0:00
In einem Gemeinschaftsprojekt verwandeln Master- und PhD-Studierende die Dachterrasse der School of Integrated Climate System Sciences (SICSS) in eine grüne Oase mit Bienen und Biogemüse. Sie erproben dabei nicht nur das Gärtnern, sondern auch die Zusammenarbeit in einem internationalen Team. Und engagieren sich nebenbei für den Klimaschutz.

Foto: V. Avakumović

Kategorien: Ticker

SDG 5 – Advancing women’s rights and strengthening global governance: the synergies

Global Policy Watch - 3. Juli 2019 - 23:31

This article references content included in the 2019 Spotlight Report, available for download at https://www.2030spotlight.org. There will also be a side-event at the HLPF on 11 July, 9:30am-11:30pm at Baha’i International Community, 866 UN Plaza, New York. See the invitation here.

Analyses from the many global civil society organisations which contributed to the Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019 make it clear that to meaningfully tackle the obstacles and contradictions in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals needs more sweeping, holistic shifts in how and where power is vested.

Cecilia Alemany and Gita Sen of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) Spotlight SDG5: Advancing women’s rights and strengthening global governance: the synergies

Taking gender equality seriously in global governance is essential to advancing gender equality and women’s human rights at both global and national levels. Equally important, advancing gender equality, women’s empowerment and women’s human rights are critical to strengthening global governance, particularly with regard to debt relief, global trade, technology transfer and institutional coherence.

 The pervasiveness of gender inequality and violations of girls’ and women’s human rights, despite variations across countries and regions, co-exists with national level governance systems that are highly uneven in how they tackle this challenge. Half of the world’s people cannot be left to the vagaries of national governance systems without clear commitments, institutional mechanisms and funding at the level of global governance. Such central elements of women’s human rights as the recognition and valuation of unpaid care work, and the rights of informal sector workers including in global production and value chains where women predominate cannot be adequately addressed at the national level alone.

Without substantive advances in SDG 17 that take seriously trans-boundary effects such as migrant workers and refugee women, sexual violence in conflict situations and responsibility for family survival in climate change, existing efforts to advance SDG 5 could be undermined. The incorporation of women’s rights and gender equality in global institutional frameworks, structures, rules and regulations, and effective participation by feminist and women’s rights groups in international bodies governing development are essential.

Alemany and Sen acknowledged that the global ‘bully pulpit’ of the SDGs and greater global visibility through other campaigns and governments, as well as real changes in global governance, give institutional positioning and importance to respecting, protecting, promoting and fulfilling women’s human rights and can encourage similar changes at national levels. But many forms of gender discrimination remain unrecognised, much potential for change remains hidden while some women’s mobilisation has generated vicious backlash. The global governance picture for gender equality and women’s human rights remains decidedly mixed.

Substantive changes in global governance content requires changes in its institutions. But power is still very masculine everywhere, for instance it is hard to find women’s rights activists in international financial institutions. The advance of some international organisations to have more women at the table is no guarantee on its own but does push towards transforming the culture of all-male panels and bodies that remains in many spaces.

On funding, there were efforts including so-called feminist foreign policies involving funding for women’s organisations by some governments that have potential for engendering significant shifts in policies and participation, but they have not yet change the ways some governments hold their own corporations to account for abuses of human rights and negative impacts on women’s livelihoods.

Feminist and women’s rights organizations are not necessarily the preferred partners of funders, even when they mark their funding is a contribution to gender equality. Traditional funders or donors, and even UN agencies in the field, increasingly tend to partner with and fund women’s business organizations. In sum, many of the ‘innovative financial tools’ respond to a reductionist vision of gender equality as smart investments that eschew attention to how macroeconomic policies, trade rules and global value chains amongst other effects harm women.

The insignificant funding allocated to entities of the UN system, including UN Women, is a signal of weak political will to support multilateral institutions committed to and leading on women’s empowerment and gender equality. It also undermines the UN system’s capacity to partner and fund women’s human rights and feminist groups in the global South, and drives the pressure to partner with the private sector.

Strengthening participation and voice for women’s rights in global governance requires direct participation by women’s rights and feminist organizations in governance fora and bodies so they speak for and by themselves.

María Graciela Cuervo, DAWN

Kategorien: english, Ticker

BS/SDG Index: Can progress on sustainable development be reduced to a single number?

Global Policy Watch - 3. Juli 2019 - 17:53

by Roberto Bissio

Denmark, Sweden and Finland are the top ranking countries in terms of sustainable development, while Niger, Chad and the Central African Republic are the worse performers, according to the recently launched Sustainable Development Report 2019, by the Bertelsmann Foundation of Germany and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, based in New York and Paris.*

The Bertelsmann-SDSN report includes 17 “dashboards” with indicators selected by the authors for each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and a Global SDG Index that summarizes them in a single number and allows for the ranking of the 162 countries for which enough data are available.

The numbers of the BS/SDG Index are surprisingly similar to those of the Human Development Index (HDI) that UNDP publishes every year (see graph below) with a correlation coefficient of 0.91 (where 1.0 indicates perfect correlation and 0.0 means no relation at all). In other words, if you know a country’s HDI value, you can forecast its BS/SDG ranking with 91 percent precision. Thus, the new index only adds minor details to what we already know.

BS/SDG index and HDI are highly correlated

Source: Graph by the author with data from the BS/SDG Index and UNDP’s HDI.

This high correlation was not to be expected if we remember that the HDI reflects only three factors (income, health and education), while the BS/SDG index intends to reflect all of the goals, from the well-being and gender dimensions of poverty, hunger, health and education (Goals 1 to 5) to environment (SDGs 12 to 15), governance (SDG 16) and implementation (SDG 17).

The 2030 Agenda that frames the SDGs calls itself “transformational” in its very title and has been hailed as a “paradigm change”. Shouldn’t that be reflected in an index that claims to measure progress towards achieving it?

Development used to be conceived as a synonym of economic growth and the OECD still “graduates” countries out of their condition of potential recipients of ODA based on the World Bank threshold between high middle income and high income countries.

In the nineties, the HDI nuanced per capita GDP by adding well-being considerations and showing that countries with similar income levels could have very different “human development” results. Now “sustainable development” further expands the concept, introducing inequalities, governance and the environment into the picture.

For example, one of the new indicators incorporated in the SDGs and not previously considered in development indexes is the number of homicides per 100,000 deaths. The ranking of countries in that indicator does not correlate at all with per capita income or HDI and among the ten best ‘performers’ we find some of the richest and some of the poorest countries in the world. Among the “bottom ten”, the countries with the highest proportion of homicides, mostly middle income countries are found, with extreme inequalities being the only obvious common denominator.

Source: UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Yet, even when they perform better than the UK or Switzerland in this indicator, Burkina Faso and Indonesia end up ranked 141 and 102 respectively, out of 162 countries in the BS/SDG Index. This is due to their non-violence being averaged away, within SDG 16, by other indicators such as property rights (as assessed by the World Economic Forum) or press freedom (as evaluated by Reporters Sans Frontières).

The Index is built, precisely, by averaging first all the indicators for each SDG and then averaging those averages, giving the same value to each indicator within a goal and to each of the 17 SDGs in the total. This method seems logical in the case of health (SDG 3), where 13 basic health-related indicators, ranging from maternal mortality to the percentage of smokers in the population are computed, as ultimately all of them relate to health policies or service delivery. It is less obvious what the meaning of the cocktail is in the case of Goal 16, which averages the three indicators mentioned (homicides, press freedom and property rights) with the corruption perception index of Transparency International, child labour (measured by UNICEF), arms exports (reported by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute) and the Gallup poll about how safe people feel when walking alone at night.

The selection of which indicators to include or not is conditioned, obviously by the availability of data, but it is also an arbitrary choice of the authors. Thus, for example, three poverty indicators form the index for SDG1 (population under the US$1,90 and US$3.20 poverty lines and, for OECD countries, 50% below the median income). But the coverage of social security is not in the list, even when it is an explicit target of SDG1 and abundant data are provided by the ILO.

As independent research institutions, Bertelsmann and SDSN are free to make any choices they want. The BS/SDG Index and Report are not official UN documents, but some confusion is unavoidable when the SDSN, one of the two institutional authors, calls itself “a global initiative for the UN” (emphasis added) and claims to operate “under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General” and adds the UN acronym to its name on its website: www.unsdsn.org.

But the way in which the BS/SDGs Index accounts for the goals only partially reflect the official 2030 Agenda.

For SDG 10, for example, only one indicator for domestic inequalities is used, the Gini index of income for each country, ignoring that this goal requires to “reduce inequalities within and among countries” (emphasis added).

In the case of climate change (SDG 13), the CO2 emissions indicator is supplemented with an indicator on imported CO2 emissions embedded in traded goods (carbon footprint), but fossil fuel exporters are penalized with the carbon equivalent of their exports, thus double counting the emissions (in the country of production and in the country of consumption) and under counting the damage produced by countries that consume their own fossil fuels. Further, all these indicators are expressed on a per capita basis, and as a result the US, which is the largest fossil fuel producer of the world is listed with per capìta exports of less than one tonne per year, while Ecuador, who is a marginal producer, exports four times more fossil fuels per capita due to its small population and very low local consumption.

To make matters worse, the climate indicators cocktail also includes as an indicator the number of people affected by climate-related disasters. The Philippines, which has low emissions and moderate fossil fuel exports gets an orange colour average on climate traffic light ranking because of the millions of victims of climate-related disasters… caused by the emissions of other countries.

The statistical audit of the SDG report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service, finds out that “some countries that have poor performance on SDG12 (on sustainable production and consumption patters) and SDG13 (on climate) have good performance on all the other goals and vice-versa. (…) The top five countries in the index are ranked among the bottom positions of SDG12 and SDG13. For example, Sweden tops the list on the SDG Index, but is on the 138th position on the SDG12 ranking. On the other direction, Central African Republic which is at the bottom of the SDG Index gets the second best position on SDG13.”

This observation reaffirms what the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, led by Nobel Prize winners Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz had said already in 2009: “The assessment of sustainability is complementary to the question of current well-being or economic performance, and must be examined separately. (…) For instance, confusion may arise when one tries to combine current well-being and sustainability into a single indicator. To make an analogy, when driving a car, a meter that added up in one single number the current speed of the vehicle and the remaining level of gasoline would not be of any help to the driver. Both pieces of information are critical and need to be displayed in distinct, clearly visible areas of the dashboard.”

The BS/SDG Index uses the term “dashboards” to name each of the 17 averages. In the final average of averages, the two SDGs where rich countries perform poorly are outnumbered by 15 others that are shaped to correlate with conventional development rankings. The final ranking is affected both by the decision to weight each of the 17 goals equally in the average, but also by the decision to not include in each goal’s score the implementation targets that usually require from the richest support for those left behind. While the poor performance in well-being indicators of poorer countries is counted on each goal’s average, the failure of rich countries to support them, as required in the implementation target of every one of the SDGs, is only counted only once, in the average for SDG17. Within the many indicators within the SDG 17 “dashboard”, a bad cooperation performance can be compensated by higher domestic spending in health and education.

The SDG Index has no space for the notion of limited “stocks” (of air, water, biodiversity or minerals) that are being depleted in unsustainable ways by a few while the majorities lack the minimum resources for a decent life. But the Index does acknowledge that there are “spillovers”, negative or positive, of national activities over other countries and it creates a country by country “spillover score” averaging indicators that range from tax havens (based on Oxfam data) and financial secrecy (based on Tax Justice Network data) to the amount of accidents at work embodied in imported goods to arms exports. Official Development Assistance is counted for as “positive spillover” as well as contributions to peacekeeping.

Even acknowledging that “environmental spillovers can be generated in two ways: i) transboundary effects embodied in trade; ii) direct cross-border flows in air and water,” the 2019 report “only includes indicators on environmental spillovers into trade” because “generating global measures of cross-border flows available at the country level remains an important research agenda”.

This leaves out problems of cross-border water appropriation or contamination, but also greenhouse gas emissions, which is an issue of enormous international concern. This option by the authors is difficult to understand, since data about emissions are abundant. An indicator on “imported biodiversity threats” is included under SDG15, one on “imported water depletion” is part of the average for SDG6 and one on “imported fatal work accidents” in SDG8, but climate change related deaths are attributed in SDG13 to the countries where they happen, and not to those responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions?

Spillover Score: The worst offenders and the good planetary neighbours

Source: Online database for the BS/Sustainable Development Report 2019

The author of this blog computed a negative correlation factor of -0.5 between the GSI and the spillover score, a number which can be considered as a “relatively strong inverse correlation” in social sciences. The higher a country is ranked in GSI, the worse its negative spillovers, as defined by the very same SDG report. Yet, instead of pointing to that negative correlation, which leads to uncomfortable questions of causality, the authors prefer to comment that “there is high variation in spillovers among countries with a similar per capita income. This suggests that countries can reduce their negative spillover effects without reducing their per capita incomes.”

Thus, the problem is portrayed as one of policy options by each country, ignoring the notion of trade-offs between, for example, economic growth and environmental protection and downplaying the role of multilateral agreements, like the conventions on climate change or on biodiversity in defending the global commons.

Further, the spillover “score” that averages a complex mix of economic, environmental and security indicators is expressed on a per capita basis, and the emphasis on trade and non-inclusion of climate produces a table (see above) where “on a per capita basis, small countries with large trade intensity – such as Luxembourg, Singapore and Switzerland – generate the highest negative spillover effects.” This seems to suggest that trade itself is to blame for the spillover, instead of explaining that this is the result of only computing, for example, the water depletion, without accounting for the domestic depletion, that tends to be larger in larger countries, less dependent on foreign trade.

Similarly, the per capita computation of spillovers can be very useful to attribute comparable moral responsibilities. Yet, whatever the faults of a small country like Cyprus, its global impact is limited by size. The report does not make any attempt to measure the absolute spillovers, which would not exempt the small-sized culprits from their sins but could help to better understand the global problems and where to start tackling them.

“Development” used to be understood as a linear progression from low to high, from poor to rich, judged by a single number, be that per cápita GDP or HDI. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress strongly warned against using a single number to measure sustainability, as that could create “confusion”, even when recognizing that “ there are strong demands to develop a single summary measure”. The SDG report ignores the warning and tries to satisfy such demand by picturing the achievement of the SDGs as a kind of Olympic games, where countries accumulate medals in different disciplines. As in the Marathon, some runners will reach the goal faster than others, but eventually with some effort all will get there and the more advantageous might give some advice, encouragement and good example to those following behind.

The GSI as a summary measure ends up being so similar in its ranking to what we already know from the Human Development Index, that it can only support the continuation of the existing development strategy. Rich countries are encouraged to contribute more ODA and more peacekeeping and given a gentle slap on the wrist for their insistence on some bad practices like exporting arms or attracting illicit financial flows, making it harder for poor countries to become like the Nordics. But, ultimately, if we are not “on track” to reach all goals what we need to do is “accelerate” what we are already doing.

But, what if instead of a quest for more medals, the trade-offs were addressed? As the evidence mounts that “business as usual” is not delivering the expected results by 2030, this is the question that country leaders and the international development system need to address in their review of the 2030 Agenda.

 

*Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. (2019): Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). Available at: http://unsdsn.org/

 

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Hoffnung nach den Tropenstürmen Kenneth und Idai

Misereor - 3. Juli 2019 - 16:33
Als Zyklon Idai am 14. März 2019 in Höhe der Hafenstadt Beira/Mosambik an Land ging, hinterließ er eine Spur der Verwüstung. Windgeschwindigkeiten von über 200 km/h und in deren Folge eine schwere Sturmflut ließen in der zweitgrößten Stadt Mosambiks kein Haus unbeschädigt. Beira war zu 90 % zerstört.

Weiterlesen

Der Beitrag Hoffnung nach den Tropenstürmen Kenneth und Idai erschien zuerst auf MISEREOR-Blog.

Kategorien: Ticker

The G20 Osaka Legacy, from Global Summitry to the Korean DMZ

DIE Blog - 3. Juli 2019 - 14:17

The Group of Twenty (G20) Osaka Summit was relatively successfully, with progress on important policy issues, despite the awkward compromises on climate and trade. It might be remembered for its striking similarities with the preceding Buenos Aires G20 Summit. The unusually short, seven-month gap between the two summits left the core agenda largely unchanged, partly reflecting the broad continuities in world politics.

There was a recurrence of earlier disagreements in Hamburg and Buenos Aires on climate and trade, with similar bargains reached for the leaders’ declaration. Another key feature of both summits were the bilaterals, especially between the American and Chinese presidents. This and other leaders’ interactions drew attention and criticism, as did the presence of Ivanka Trump at the Osaka Summit. The two previous summits similarly evoked pessimism about prospects for an unprecedented failure to agree a leaders’ declaration, which would undermine the G20 if it ever happened.

Controversies and surprises in Osaka, as expected

The predictions in my pre-summit opinion piece came to pass, though, admittedly, those on climate and trade were widely expected. These highly controversial issues were fiercely contested. Many Mexican and international observers were disappointed that President Andrés Manuel López Obrador chose not to attend the summit, the first G20 leader to do so without providing some sort of excuse. If he continues to avoid international engagements for the rest of his six-year presidency, it might have damaging diplomatic and economic consequences for Mexico.

It has become routine for U.S. President Donald Trump to do something to catch global media attention during summits. The Twitter teaser-trailer of his Korean De-Militarised Zone meeting certainly achieved this in Osaka. The post-summit analysis was then eclipsed by his historic foray into the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with its leader Kim Jong-un.

Scoop!

Surprisingly and fortuitously, as a professor rather than journalist, I found myself in possession of the declaration an hour before its official release. It was clearly useful to be at the International Media Center (IMC)! The latter was located inside the impressive summit venue, the International Exhibition Center, Osaka. This sprawling and isolated complex, on a small island by Osaka Bay, was cordoned off from the city for the duration of the summit. The IMC was an international melting-pot of connectivity, as G20 analysts, civil society representatives, and journalists from several different countries found moments to chat about summit news and rumors. There was a particularly large contingent of Chinese journalists; by contrast, the U.S. media pool remained secluded in an American bubble away from everyone else.

Climate and trade uncertainties

Rumors that disagreements on climate were more divisive than on trade, and might even prevent a leaders’ declaration, were circulating at the IMC on the second day of the summit. Despite American negotiators‘ apparent attempts to gain allies among the other G20 members for their climate position, the ‘G19’ formula excluding the United States remained the basis for the leaders’ climate agreement. French President Emmanuel Macron was especially critical of the Trump Administration’s position, and insisted on maintaining the reference to the Paris Agreement.  This formula was sustained from the Hamburg and Buenos Aires G20 summits, in exchange for a paragraph of effusive praise for Trump Administration “clean energy” policies, rhetoric that went further in praising American policies than the equivalent paragraph in the Buenos Aires leaders’ declaration. Despite extoling President Trump’s policies, the repeated references to his country in paragraph ‘36’ indicate the Trump Administration’s isolation on climate.

The G20’s formerly decisive “anti-protectionism” pledge, generally considered uncontroversial language until the Trump Administration, was ostensibly diluted to “free, fair, and non-discriminatory” trade. There has been much negative commentary on this, though John Kirton of the University of Toronto’s G20 Research Group asserts, “While the G20’s traditional anti-protectionist pledge was not reproduced verbatim, similar sentiments were clearly expressed in other words.” He is mildly optimistic about the Osaka legacy, calling it a “summit of broad, substantial success.” I agree that much post-summit commentary has been excessively pessimistic; even Osaka’s incremental and partial progress should be considered a relative success, especially in a difficult global political and economic context. The G20 might be in a kind of ‘holding pattern’ but it still serves a crucial purpose as a crisis committee-in-waiting, and remains a key global governance hub for a broad range of policy issues.

The Trump–Xi bilateral truce in Osaka might, eventually, help to resolve the China–U.S. trade dispute. It was positive that they committed to re-open bilateral trade negotiations and a moratorium on new tariffs. President Trump’s pre-summit Twitter-trolling of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, over tariffs, indicated the Trump Administration’s serial trade disputes would continue, even if China were no longer a target. The free trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur underscores strategic flaws in the aggressive American trade diplomacy, leading others to advance trade liberalization without the U.S. It is also interesting that the European Union and Japan similarly announced their free trade agreement at the Hamburg G20 Summit, further indicating the usefulness of the G20 as a forum for finalizing and announcing such deals.

The creation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, after President Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017, arguably set a new model for regional and inter- or ‘mega-’ regional trade liberalization. This could leave American exporters increasingly marginalized, as the European Union, the Japanese, and others fill the U.S. leadership void on international trade. The Trump Administration’s willingness to damage the World Trade Organization might increase the significance of regional and mega-regional arrangements, from which the current US Administration are intentionally excluding the United States.

Assessing the Japan G20 Presidency

The Japan G20 Presidency should be assessed mainly on how G20 policy cooperation progressed, which the leaders’ declaration helps to indicate. There was incremental progress on some important policy issues, which should be considered gains from the summit, even if only in terms of facilitating further cooperation. These useful agreements included an encouraging section on “women’s empowerment”, supported by an annex document, with commitments echoing aspects of the Civil 20, Labor 20, Think 20, Women 20, and Youth 20 joint statements on eliminating gaps in labour market participation and eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work. This should be perceived, by the official engagement groups, as at least a partial success. There remains much to be done in terms of progressing on policy implementation, but the inclusion of gender equality and other important issues on the G20 agenda at least provides a ‘constructed focal point’ for discussion and civil society advocacy. Many participants in the engagement groups might be disappointed not to be mentioned anywhere in the leaders’ declaration, unlike in previous summit communiqués.

Policy advances were further achieved with the consensus to seek a fairer approach to taxing giant tech firms in 2020, based on the location of value-creation;

  • an ‘Osaka Track’ agreement between most G20 members –– not included in the summit declaration due to some G20 non-participants –– to promote cross-border data flows with enhanced protections;
  • a G20 marine plastic-pollution agreement;
  • the new “G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment,” which could serve as the basis for enhanced multilateral cooperation on infrastructure projects;
  • a focus on how to deliver universal health coverage;
  • a new focus on aging populations, introduced by the Japan Presidency;
  • and reiterated support for the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

These indicate promises and, in some cases, plans for implementation, reinforced through multilateral cooperation at the G20 Osaka Summit. G20 cooperation on these policy issues enhances global governance in general, facilitating the integration and interactions between global governance networks and augmenting diplomatic relations.

Some commentators argue that G20 summits have become overshadowed by bilateralism and pull-aside meetings. This might be a temporary concern, especially due to the fast-approaching 2020 U.S. presidential election. In any case, bilateral diplomacy is not necessarily a problem for the G20, so long as it does not diminish prospects for multilateral cooperation. The G20 will likely continue to be a crucial hub of global governance cooperation, so the G20 Osaka Summit could have more enduring effects than the Kim–Trump reunion, but with fewer Headlines.

Der Beitrag The G20 Osaka Legacy, from Global Summitry to the Korean DMZ erschien zuerst auf International Development Blog.

Kühle Getränke und erfrischende Gedanken

INKOTA - 3. Juli 2019 - 14:14
Frische Luft, Getränke und Gedanken: Wir möchten Sie herzlich zu unserem INKOTA-Sommerfest am 23. August 2019 einladen! Neben der alljährlichen Grillaktion, leckerem Buffet, kühlen Getränken und dem netten Beisammensein im Garten haben wir in diesem Jahr einige interessante Gäste für einen informativen und unterhaltsamen Abend eingeladen.
  • Wann: 23. August, 17 Uhr bis open end, 18 Uhr beginnt die Lesung
  • Wo: INKOTA-Büro/Innenhof, Chrysanthemenstraße 1-3, 10407 Berlin
  • Anmeldung: Bis zum 16. August bitte an info@inkota.de
Laima Eicke wird das Buch „Das gute Leben für alle – Wege in die solidarische Lebensweise“ von der I.L.A. Werkstatt für globale Gerechtigkeit vorstellen. Außerdem freuen wir uns sehr, auch Imke Müller-Hellmann, Autorin des Buchs „Leute machen Kleider“, begrüßen zu dürfen. Mit beiden wollen wir im Anschluss an ihre Buchvorstellung und kurze Lesung über die Auswirkungen unseres globalisierten Wirtschaftssystems sowie alternative Lösungsansätze diskutieren. Außerdem freuen wir uns über einen musikalischen Beitrag des brasilianisch-mexikanischen Duos Babel Collage.

Für Grillgut, Salate und Getränke ist gesorgt. Damit wir besser planen können, melden Sie sich bitte bis zum 16. August unter info@inkota.de an.

Wir freuen uns auf Sie!
Kategorien: Ticker

Join Us at the Final Inter-Sectoral Health and Environment Research for Innovation Conference, 10 December 2019 in Brussels

SCP-Centre - 3. Juli 2019 - 13:03

For our future generations to inherit a sustainable planet, it is crucial for us to protect the environment in ways that promote health and reduce inequities. The Horizon 2020 research project INHERIT (INter-sectoral Health and Environment Research for InnovaTion) promotes this by identifying ways of living, moving and consuming that protect the environment and promote health and health equity.

The CSCP contributed to the 4-year research project INHERIT by creating four future scenarios, which show European societies where healthy, sustainable and equitable lifestyles have been adopted. The CSCP also led the process by organising workshops with citizens in five European countries to understand their aspirations and wishes for a better future. To know more about the future 2040 scenarios, click here.

The final conference will take place against the backdrop of closing the 4-year EU research project INHERIT, which brings together 18 partners from across Europe, coordinated by EuroHealthNet.

Meet the CSCP on 10 December at the final INHERIT conference. Also, hear speakers from across Europe at international, national, and local levels about practical, implementable, and scalable solutions to bring about this more sustainable future, in line with the global targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals.

This full-day high-level event will also prompt you to consider what you can do as an individual, a consumer, a professional, and a voter, to contribute to more sustainable lifestyles that respect planetary boundaries and promote health and well-being.

Event : A Future for All to INHERIT: Taking Action Now
Date : 10 December 2019
Time : 9:00-17:00
Location : KVS-Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg (Royal Flemish Theatre), Quai aux Pierres de Taille 7 / Arduinkaai 7, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Click here for more information regarding the INHERIT conference.

Click here to register for the INHERIT conference.

Please contact Rosa Strube for any further questions.

Der Beitrag Join Us at the Final Inter-Sectoral Health and Environment Research for Innovation Conference, 10 December 2019 in Brussels erschien zuerst auf CSCP gGmbH.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

03. Juli 2019

ONE - 3. Juli 2019 - 12:19
1. Der Preis des guten Gewissens

Wie Tagesspiegel und die Deutsche Welle berichten steigt die weltweite Nachfrage nach Kobalt immer weiter. Allerdings führen die derzeitigen Abbaubedingungen zu großen ökologischen und sozialen Problemen. Kobalt werde unter anderem für die Akkus von E-Autos benötigt, um eine möglichst kurze Ladezeit zu gewährleisten. Der Bedarf sei bereits hoch und steige stetig an. Mehr als 60 Prozent des Kobalts werde in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo gefördert. Hier werde das Erz mit einfachsten Mittel abgebaut, oft auch von Kindern. Die Folgen seien Belastungen für die Umwelt und die Gesundheit. Um Kinderarbeit zu verhindern, würden immer mehr Autobauer auf Großminen setzen, in denen es keine Kinderarbeit gebe. Die Bewohner*innen rund um die Minen seien jedoch ebenfalls enormen Umweltbelastungen ausgesetzt. Mit den Großminen gebe es jedoch ein weiteres Risiko: den illegalen Kobalt-Abbau bei Nacht. Die Firmen setzen Hunde und Wachschutz ein, um die Minen zu beschützen. Dies habe jedoch auch Todesfälle nach sich gezogen. Die Förderung im Kongo werde jedoch weiter zunehmen, wie eine Studie der Deutschen Rohstoffagentur (Dera) zeigt. Ein komplettes Embargo von Kobalt aus dem Kongo sei keine Lösung, so Matthias Buchert, Bereichsleiter Ressourcen und Mobilität am Ökoinsitut in Freiburg. Dies könne zu massivem Schmuggel führen. Wichtiger sei die Umsetzung von Mindeststandards und Kontrollen.

2. Südafrika: Tödlicher Kampf im Nahverkehr

Wie Christian Putsch in Der Welt berichtet, gibt es in Südafrikas Nahverkehr immer mehr Gewalt unter rivalisierenden Anbietern –bis hin zu Auftragsmorden. In Südafrika sei der öffentliche Nahverkehr mit Minibussen ein kaum zu kontrollierendes Milliardengeschäft. Rund 200.000 Busse gebe es in dem Land, 60 Prozent des öffentlichen Nahverkehrs werde von den Minibussen dominiert. Für Bewohner*innen aus Armenvierteln sei es ein Ausweg aus der Armut. Wer die lukrativsten Strecken kontrolliere, könne es innerhalb von wenigen Jahren zu Wohlstand bringen. In Südafrika sei das Geschäft noch eines der wenigen im informellen Sektor und somit weitgehend unreglementiert. Die Strecken und Lizenzen seien umkämpft und dies führe zu Gewalt. Eine Studie der Universität Kapstadt habe berechnet, dass 42 Prozent aller Auftragsmorde in der Taxibranche verübt werden. Taxi-Gewalt gebe es im gesamten Land, nicht nur in Kapstadt. Eine Spezialeinheit der Polizei zur Aufklärung der Morde sei nötig, sagt Jean Pierre Smith, Zuständiger für Sicherheitsfragen im Stadtrat von Kapstadt. Ein neues Bussystem für eine bessere Infrastruktur solle das Problem verbessern. Doch auch hier gebe es Proteste der Taxiunternehmen. Der Widerstand würde durch Zahlungen der Regierung ausgeglichen, damit die Taxiunternehmer den neuen Bussen keine Konkurrenz machen.

3. #Metoo in Nigeria

Wie der WDR berichtet, haben Missbrauchsvorfälle durch nigerianische Kirchenvertreter zu einem Aufleben der #metoo-Bewegung im Land gesorgt. . Die Fotografin Busola Dakolo beschuldige Biodun Fatoyibo, Pastor einer der führenden und populärsten Gemeinden Nigerias, der Commonwealth of Zion Assembly Kirche, der Vergwaltgiung. Unter dem Hashtag #metoo und #churchtoo habe Dakolo ihre Geschichte im Netz geteilt. Fatoyibo soll sie vergewaltigt haben, als sie noch eine Jugendliche gewesen sei. Mittlerweile sei der Pastor zurückgetreten, der öffentliche Druck werde immer größer. Auch viele nigerianische Prominente wie die Sängerin TY Bello sprechen über ähnliche Erfahrungen. Die konservative Gesellschaft in Nigeria habe noch einen langen Weg vor sich, jedoch gebe es langsam etwas Bewegung, so die französisch-nigerianische Sängerin Asa.

The post 03. Juli 2019 appeared first on ONE.

Kategorien: Ticker

DR Kongo: Vereinte Nationen verdreifachen Hilfe in der Provinz Ituri

Vereinte Nationen - 3. Juli 2019 - 11:20

03. Juni 2019 – Das Welternährungsprogramm (WFP) der Vereinten Nationen hat die Nahrungsmittelhilfe in der vom Konflikt betroffenen Provinz Ituri verdreifacht. Es bezeichnet die Krise in der in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo nach dem Jemen als die zweitgrößte Hungerkrise in der Welt.

Zusätzlich zur Hungerkrise sind die Gemeinden in der nordöstlichen Demokratischen Republik Kongo einem tödlichen Ausbruch von Ebola und interethnischen Zusammenstößen ausgesetzt. Dabei wurden zwischen dem 10. und dem 13. Juni mindestens 117 Menschen getötet.

Die Situation hat sich aufgrund vermehrter Zusammenstöße zwischen Hema-Hirten und Lendu-Bauern, die Menschen aus ihren Häusern vertrieben haben, steigender Lebensmittelpreise und Ernteschäden durch Insekten weiter verschlechtert.

Kategorien: Ticker

Für den Klimaschutz brauchen wir Euch alle!

Misereor - 3. Juli 2019 - 11:17
Die bedrohliche Lage des Weltklimas, die Klimakrise, hat die Debatten der Expertinnen und Experten verlassen und ist nun ein breit diskutiertes Thema in vielen Ländern. Sogar bei der Europawahl haben die Menschen in vielen Ländern ihr Kreuz bei einer Partei gemacht, die ihrer Meinung nach am besten diese Krise bekämpfen kann.

Weiterlesen

Der Beitrag Für den Klimaschutz brauchen wir Euch alle! erschien zuerst auf MISEREOR-Blog.

Kategorien: Ticker

Launch Spotlight Report Sustainablity in Europe: Who is paying the Bill? (Negative) impacts of EU policies and practices in the World

Global Policy Forum - 3. Juli 2019 - 10:02

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted unanimously at the United Nations in September 2015 is highly ambitious. It should also form the basis for all policies of the European Union. But four years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda the world is off-track to achieve the SDGs. Most governments have failed to turn the transformational vision of the 2030 Agenda into real transformational policies. The EU is still lacking a comprehensive strategy on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its ambitious commitments to action. On average, the EU has one of the world’s worst environmental footprint per capita, with our unsustainable lifestyles based on resource and labour exploitation in other parts of the world. The economy of the future needs to take into account the environmental and social impact beyond our borders rather than living in the illusion of a low-carbon, resource efficient Europe that exports resource-intensive production to other parts of the world. At the launching event on July 15th in New York authors of the Spotlight Report Sustainability in Europe will present in some important policy areas where there is an urgent need for action, because the external effects of European policies are not sufficiently taken into account.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Griechenland am 7. Juli 2019: Lehren aus einer niemals überwundenen Krise

erlassjahr.de - 3. Juli 2019 - 9:12

Am kommenden Sontag, dem 7. Juli wählen die Griech/innen ein neues Parlament. Alles deutet darauf hin, dass das Linksbündnis Syrizadie Mehrheit an die konservative Nea Demokratiaverlieren wird. Die vier Jahre seit Syrizastriumphalem Wahlsieg gehören sicher zu den bewegtesten in der neueren griechischen Geschichte. Auch aus der Sicht der weltweiten Entschuldungsbewegung hat mit Recht kaum ein Land so viel Aufmerksamkeit gefunden, wie das EU-Mitglied seit seiner faktischen Staateninsolvenz im Jahr 2010.

Im März dieses Jahres hat Griechenland formell das mit der Troika aus Internationalem Währungsfonds, Europäischer Zentralbank und Europäischer Kommission vereinbarte Programm verlassen und sich erstmals wieder am Kapitalmarkt das Geld borgen können, das es zur Erfüllung seiner staatlichen Aufgaben und zur Bedienung seiner inländischen und ausländischen Schulden benötigt. Mit 3,9 Prozent musste es zunächst einen für europäische Verhältnisse hohen Zinssatz bezahlen. Dieser ist seither aber deutlich gefallen, so dass Griechenland inzwischen fast wieder wie ein normaler Kreditnehmer agieren kann.

Hat sich somit die Aussage der Troika bewahrheitet, dass Griechenland die (selbstverschuldete) Katastrophe halt durchstehen müsse, um dann am Ende (also jetzt) wie Phönix aus der Asche zu steigen? Mit der von Schäuble, Draghi und Co nach dem Wahlsieg der Syrizaausgesprochenen Drohung, die griechische Wirtschaft lieber zu ruinieren, als einen selbstbestimmten Ausweg aus der Überschuldung zuzulassen, war es schon im Laufe des Jahres 2015 gelungen, die gerade erst durch ein Referendum gestärkte Linksregierung zur Kapitulation zu zwingen. Seitdem setzte die Regierung des Ministerpräsidenten Tsipras folgsam um, was Brüssel, Frankfurt und Washington forderten.

Die wiedergewonnene Kapitalmarktfähigkeit Griechenlands ist sicherlich ein Erfolg der von außen diktierten Politik des Landes. Allerdings ist die Behauptung, die durchlittene Austerität, die zum Beispiel die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit immer noch auf Rekordniveau hält, sei für diesen Erfolg verantwortlich, nur zum Teil richtig. Mindestens so wichtig ist, dass die Zinsen in Europa weiterhin extrem niedrig sind und die Anleger sich deshalb auf alles stürzen, was Renditen jenseits der Inflationsrate verspricht. Dass Griechenland trotz der teuer bezahlten Haushaltskonsolidierung in neue Schwierigkeiten geraten wird, wenn diese günstigen Umstände nicht mehr da sind, hat auch der IWF in seiner Risikoanalyse des Landes betont.

Schließlich sind die Schulden des Landes keineswegs zurückgegangen. Die Schuldenerleichterungen von 2012 und in kleinerem Umfang danach haben die Schulden im Verhältnis zur Wirtschaftsleitung nicht einmal stabilisiert. Lagen sie zwischen 2008 und 2016 im Durchschnitt bei 160 Prozent, sind sie bis Ende 2018 nochmals auf 183,3 Prozent angestiegen. Erst danach sollen sie dank der anhaltenden Austerität kontinuierlich fallen. Da sieht die IWF-Projektion für Griechenland nicht anderes aus als die Klassiker unter den Vorhersagen des Fonds für arme afrikanische Länder: Anhaltender Anstieg der Schuldenindikatoren bis genau zu dem Moment, in dem die harten Fakten in die Vorhersagen übergehen. Danach wird dank der minutiösen Befolgung der IWF-Vorgaben alles gut. In der langen schmerzhaften Geschichte der so genannten „Schuldenkrise der Dritten Welt“ ist das praktisch nirgendwo jemals so eingetreten.

Die zu Beginn dieses Jahres von der Syrizahektisch ergriffenen Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Binnennachfrage und zur Besserstellung der armen Griech/innen (Rentenerhöhung, vergünstigte Schuldentilgung) reichen nicht aus, um das zu schaffen, was unter weniger widrigen Umständen die Linksregierung in Portugal geschafft hat: durch eine gezielte Stärkung der Binnenökonomie das relative Gewicht der Schulden bei gleichbleibender absoluter Höhe langsam in ungefährlichere Gefilde abzusenken. Viel spricht dafür, dass eine solche “antizyklische” Entwicklung zu verhindern auch Teil der Vergeltungsstrategie der europäischen Institutionen für die Unbotmäßigkeit der frühen Syriza-Phase gewesen ist. Mit einer nach dem nächsten Sonntag amtierenden ND-Regierung wird es die grundsätzlichen Infragestellungen der liberalen Glaubenssätze, mit denen Varoufakis & Co die internationalen Institutionen 2015 gepiesackt haben, sicher nicht mehr geben.

Wer mit dieser Perspektive jetzt auf Griechenland schaut, der sollte zwei Entwicklungen nicht aus dem Blick verlieren, die weit über den unmittelbaren griechischen Fall hinaus von Bedeutung sind:

Die Europäer haben mit ihrer Weigerung, die europäischen Privatbanken die Folgen ihrer leichtsinnigen Kreditvergabe an Griechenland tragen zu lassen, die Tür zur europäischen Staatenfinanzierung für Investoren aus anderen Teilen der Welt geöffnet. Dass eine chinesische Firma inzwischen den Hafen von Piräus betreibt und Griechenland auch formell zum Mitglied der „Neuen Seidenstraße“ geworden ist, ist nur der sichtbarste Ausdruck davon. Das europäische Lamento darüber, dass jemand von außen nun womöglich in einem europäischen Land strategische Interessen verfolgt, dem man vorher selbst die Atemluft abgedreht hat, um die Profite der eigenen Banken zu retten, ist an Dummheit kaum zu übertreffen.

Auch der IWF ist nicht ohne Kratzer und Schrammen aus der Griechenland-Krise hervor gegangen. Auf ihrem Höhepunkt weigerte er sich kurzzeitig, sich an der Griechenland Rettung zu beteiligen, weil seine Analysen keineswegs erkennen ließen, dass Griechenland mit dem frischen Geld aus Washington mittelfristig wieder ein tragfähiges Verschuldungsniveau erreichen würde. Genau das aber forderten die Regularien des Fonds. Auf Druck von Kanzlerin Merkel und Finanzminister Schäuble musste der IWF darauf hin sein Grundgesetz, die Articles of Agreement, so ergänzen, dass eine IWF-Finanzierung dann trotzdem möglich sei, wenn ohne diese der Weltwirtschaft eine „systemische Ansteckung“ drohe. Lateinamerikanische, afrikanische und asiatische IWF-Mitglieder, die stets die volle Härte der jeweiligen IWF-Konditionalitäten getroffen hatte, protestierten heftig, und schon gut ein Jahr später – als die Griechenland-Finanzierung längst über die Bühne gegangen war, wurde die Systemic Exemption stillschweigend wieder abgeschafft. Seither bemüht sich der IWF, sich mit der Forderung nach weiteren Schuldenerleichterungen für Griechenland ausdrücklich gegen die europäischen Interessen zu positionieren. Durchgekommen ist er damit indes nicht, wie schon die Weigerung der Europäer, die zugesagte Rückzahlung der EZB-Gewinne aus dem Kauf griechischer Anleihen nach Athen wie versprochen umzusetzen, zeigt. Und die starke Botschaft, dass, wenn es hart auf hart kommt, einige IWF-Mitglieder etwas gleicher sind als alle anderen, lässt sich ohnehin nicht wieder einfangen.

The post Griechenland am 7. Juli 2019: Lehren aus einer niemals überwundenen Krise appeared first on erlassjahr.de.

Kategorien: Ticker

Kraftblock: Ein Granulat als Energiespeicher

reset - 3. Juli 2019 - 7:00
Ein Projekt der Uni Saarland hat ein effizientes Speichersystem für thermische Energie entwickelt, das überschüssige Energie aus erneuerbaren Energiequellen speichern und zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt wieder in Strom umwandeln kann. 
Kategorien: Ticker

Side Event on Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

Global Policy Watch - 3. Juli 2019 - 5:51

Reducing inequalities (SDG10) is essential for overcoming extreme poverty (SDG 1) and a successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda as a whole. Many countries experience high and increasing inequalities. A reversal of this trend is not in sight. Therefore, it is paramount to take political action towards reaching this central goal of the 2030 Agenda. Strong social protection and redistributive policies significantly reduce inequality within countries. Therefore, it is essential to develop overarching strategies, build universal social protection systems as well as assess and increase redistributive capacities. These measures have to ensure that no one is left behind and equitable access to protection against risks and against poverty for all people is guaranteed.

The panel will discuss the most persistent barriers to a sustained reduction of inequalities and the contribution of fiscal and social protection policies to overcome inequalities worldwide.

PROGRAM

Side Event on Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

Overcoming barriers to reduce inequalities: Policies to leave no one behind and achieve greater equality
July 15, 2019, 7 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations | Auditorium

WELCOME

Dr Maria Flachsbarth
Parliamentary State Secretary
German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

Dr Luise Steinwachs
Deputy Chair
Association of German Development and Humanitarian Aid NGOs (VENRO)

PANEL DISCUSSION

Pedro Conceição
Director
Office of the Human Development Report, United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

Dr Chiara Mariotti
Inequality Policy Manager
Oxfam Great Britain

Wolfgang Schiefer
Senior Multilateral Cooperation Specialist
International Labour Organization (ILO)

Roberto Bissio
Coordinator
Social Watch and Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors

Esther Lusepani (tbc)
Permanent Secretary
Namibian Ministry of Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare

Host: Dr Minu Hemmati

Refreshments and snacks will be served.

Please confirm your participation by July 11 to Ms. Johanna Hauf (johanna.hauf@bmz.bund.de), stating your name, position and affiliation.
For further questions, please contact Ms. Johanna Hauf or Ms. Sonja Grigat (s.grigat@venro.org).

The side event on Reducing Inequalities within and among countries (SDG 10) is hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Association of German Development and Humanitarian Aid NGOs (VENRO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).

Download the invitation here.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Seiten

SID Hamburg Aggregator – Ticker abonnieren