Hauptmenü
Sie sind hier
english
23-09-13_Mustafa Shrestha - Culture Special - Chernobyl
On 26 April 1986, the number four reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant went out of control. Thirty-seven years after the accident, the area around the city of the same name in the north of present-day Ukraine is still uninhabitable. It will remain so for the foreseeable future because, according to Greenpeace, the exclusion zone surrounding the former nuclear power plant will remain radioactively contaminated for thousands of years.
In the historical drama “Chernobyl”, the chemist Valery Legasov, played by Jared Harris, and the nuclear physicist Ulana Khomyuk (Emily Watson) look for a cause in the immediate aftermath of the accident. The scientists find that Soviet functionaries are hard nuts to crack. They downplay the accident and show no interest in investigating it. Boris Scherbina, played by Stellan Skarsgård, is their only ally. As a politician, he knows his way around the state apparatus and helps the duo manoeuvre through the Soviet system.
The series eschews spectacular special effects for the reactor explosion. Instead, audiences experience the disaster from the perspective of the people on site. That means that initially all that is heard of the catastrophe is a loud bang. The audience doesn’t see or hear any more than the characters – the scope of what actually happened is only revealed in the last episode, when the incident is reviewed in a trial.
The fact that viewers know how the story ends has no impact on the series’ suspense. The first episode recalls a dystopian thriller: families gather in front of their houses in Chernobyl and gaze at the colourful lights that a fire at the nuclear power plant is shining into the night sky. Children play in radioactive ash, which they think is snow. They have no idea that they are being exposed to deadly radiation. Such moments are hard to watch, knowing what we know today.
Chernobyl doesn’t point any fingersThe series doesn’t make any one responsible for the disaster, though there is a potential culprit. In the first episode, the irascible Anatoly Dyatlov, played by Paul Ritter, bullies his colleagues in the tense control room of the nuclear power plant. As chief engineer, he is in denial about the accident, even though he sees graphite on the floor – a clear signal that an explosion has taken place. The real Dyatlov served time in prison for disregarding established safety protocols. The series, however, characterises him as a scapegoat. It claims that the state’s attempts to hide a design flaw in the reactor were the real cause of the accident.
Chernobyl had a lasting influence on the debate about nuclear energy. While the anti-nuclear movement predates it, the accident awakened critical awareness of the dangers of such technology among the general public of many industrialised states.
Yet according to an interview with screenplay author Craig Mazin in Slate Magazine, “Chernobyl” is not meant to be explicitly anti-Communist or an anti-nuclear appeal. Instead, Mazin wanted “Chernobyl” to warn against the dangers of disinformation. Protagonist Valery Legasov therefore begins and ends the story with the question: “What is the cost of lies?”
Mazin is famous for the “Hangover” comedies. Not many would have trusted him with a story like “Chernobyl”.
But HBO was rewarded for its trust in the author. “Chernobyl” earned top ratings on the internet film database IMDB shortly after the series began. It also won numerous television prizes for the network.
In light of the ongoing debate about nuclear energy in many countries and the increasing number of disinformation campaigns online, the themes in “Chernobyl” remain highly relevant even decades after the reactor accident.
Series
Chernobyl, 2019, USA and UK. Director: Johan Renck.
Mustafa Shrestha is studying online journalism at the University of Applied Sciences in Darmstadt, Germany. He composed this text as part of his internship at D+C/E+Z.
euz.editor@dandc.eu
Why the Global Food Crisis Needs an Emergency Meeting at UNGA78
By Wangari Kuria and Alice Macdonald
As September summitry intensifies and we barrel towards UNGA, there’s a critical global issue that’s not receiving the concerted attention it deserves: the global food crisis.
With 735 million people going hungry, a quarter of a billion people facing severe hunger and 3 billion people unable to afford a healthy diet, it should top the agenda of every world leader. But as of now, there is no major High Level Meeting scheduled specifically on the global food crisis during the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week.
This needs to change. As the only moment when all the world’s heads of state are meant to come together, UNGA is an unprecedented opportunity to make global progress on this multi-dimensional crisis.
We’re from different areas of the world but the food crisis is one that impacts us all – albeit differently.
In the UK, food prices have soared over the last few years and food banks are experiencing higher levels of need than ever before.
In Kenya, the ordinary farmer is running on empty. They’re using all their resources to keep up with climate change and it feels futile.
We first met at the Paris Finance summit in June where some progress was made including a debt cancellation deal for Zambia. Since then, the UN Food Systems Summit stocktake in July helped unlock progress on countries’ national level plans. The Africa Food Systems Summit in Dar-es-Salaam put a spotlight on action needed on the continent. Last week, the Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi saw some specific announcements on food security. There were also some positive signals from the G20 summit in India, including a commitment to building a more sustainable food system.
But whilst these are all laudable, the world needs to go further, faster with a truly holistic and joined up approach which addresses all aspects of the global food crisis. That’s why the Hungry for Action campaign recently called on world leaders to hold an emergency meeting on the global food crisis at UNGA. An unusual coalition of chefs, farmers, activists, celebrities, musicians and civil society leaders joined forces to make this call in an open letter.
This year’s agenda includes *three* High-level Meetings on global health – on pandemic preparedness, universal health coverage, and tuberculosis. So why not add one on the food crisis when 1 in 11 people are going to bed hungry every night?
This would catapult the issue to the prominence it deserves. It would bring heads of state together to discuss the solutions and commit to coordinated action.
They could start by focussing on how to fully fund the UN’s $55 billion humanitarian appeals. This year’s appeals for emergency assistance are only just over a quarter funded, lower than for the last global food crisis in 2008, and yet there are twice as many additional people going hungry as in 2008.
To help stem the impacts of climate change that are driving the food crisis, they should also double climate adaptation funding for lower income countries, while cancelling their debts and reforming the multilateral financial system to unlock vital funds.
To build resilience, they must invest in the smallholder farmers, health workers and communities on the frontlines of the food crisis, including through social protection programs.
And to fix a broken global food system, they should support more sustainable farming, diversified crops, improved nutrition, and reduced food waste.
A global plan should encompass all these measures and more, to help break the cycle of crisis and save the world billions at the same time. It would be a win-win for humanity with benefits for climate and across the Sustainable Development Goals.
There is precedent for this kind of collaboration, during the food crisis of 2008, when a High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis was formed. That plan helped the world start to make rapid progress on food security and nutrition. It helped build momentum towards bold initiatives at the 2009 G8 and G20 Summits with the establishment of the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and the Global Food Security and Agriculture Program.
But once the crisis eased, the world reverted too quickly to business as usual with many promises of investment not delivered. In the face of another food crisis, we need revitalized collaboration and that type of global plan again.
If a High-level Meeting is not an option, then leaders must ensure the food crisis is high on the agendas of key existing meetings such as the SDG Summit, and the Climate Ambition Summit.
There are other critical moments for action this year including October’s World Bank/IMF annual meetings which could see debt relief transformed into hunger relief. COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates, the International Fund for Agricultural Development replenishment conference in December, and the recently announced UK-hosted global summit on food security are further opportunities for action.
In 2024, the G7 and G20 will be hosted by Italy and Brazil respectively – we hope next year will see the food crisis back up their agendas.
Next year will also mark the fortieth anniversary of the Ethiopian famine. The world said never again. This time we must live up to that promise.
Wangari Kuria is Founder and CEO of Farmer on Fire Ltd and 2023 Global Citizen Prize winner
Alice Macdonald is Campaign Director of Hungry for Action
The post Why the Global Food Crisis Needs an Emergency Meeting at UNGA78 appeared first on UN Dispatch.
WMG Events around the 2023 SDG Summit
SDG Action Weekend | 16-17 Sept | UN Headquarters, New York
The UN will be convening an SDG Action Weekend with the aim of opening space for diverse stakeholders to mobilize towards an ambitious SDG Summit and UN General Assembly High-Level Week. The SDG Action Weekend will consist of the SDG Mobilization Day on 16 September, and the SDG Acceleration Day on 17 September which will be open to representatives of all Member States, the UN system and organizations and stakeholders. At the hyperlinks you can view the full programme and the registration process.
Gender Equality and the Rights of All Women and Girls in All their Diversity: Towards a Rights-Centered Gender-Transformative Economy, including a new International Financial Architecture |16 Sept | 12pm – 2pm EST | UN Headquarters, Conference Room 2
Organized by the WMG, with the support of UN Women, the session is a part of the official program of SDG Mobilization Day. It aims to explore the gendered implications of the current financial architecture and discuss how the reforms proposed by civil society, member states, the World Bank Evolution Roadmap, and the Secretary-General can be designed and expanded to accelerate progress toward the SDGs for a substantive, positive impact on gender equality and the rights of all women and girls. Registration for the SDG Action Weekend can be accessed at the hyperlink.
Global People’s Assembly | Sept 17-18 | Church Center, New York & Virtual
Co-organized by over 40 civil society networks, the 2023 Global People’s Assembly (GPA) will be held to bring people’s representatives together for a strong civil society voice at the margins of the SDG Summit. You can find at the hyperlink the concept note and registration link. You can read the Global People’s Assembly 2022 Declaration here. A 2023 Declaration is currently being drafted.
Linkages of Pushback, Linkages of Resistance: Gender, Climate, Migration & Democracy | 17 Sept | 1.30 – 3.00pm EST | Church Center, New York
Organized by the WMG as a part of the Global People’s Assembly, the session seeks to explore the intricate interconnections between four critical dimensions of global societal dynamics: gender, climate change, migration, and democracy. Despite their apparent differences, there exists a noteworthy intersection between these movements, characterized by shared narratives, tactics, and implications. The complex interplay among these dimensions has given rise to a range of challenges and opportunities that warrant in-depth examination.
Feminist Economy | 18 Sept | 9 – 10:45am EST | Church Center, New York
Co-organized by the WMG as a part of the Global People’s Assembly, in collaboration with Civil Society FfD Mechanism, the objective of the session is to foster a deep understanding of the key principles and transformative potential of a feminist economic framework. Participants will engage in critical analyses and knowledge-sharing to analyze structural inequalities, and envision future pathways for a feminist economy that challenges existing economic paradigms and structures and offers a transformative vision for societies that prioritizes gender equality, social justice, and the well-being of all.
SDG Summit | 18-19 Sept | UN Headquarters, New York
The 2023 SDG Summit, the second of its kind, marks the mid-point of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It will carry out a comprehensive review of the state of the SDGs and provide policy guidance to respond to the impact of multiple and interlocking crises facing the world with a negotiated political declaration as its outcome. You can find the programme of the Summit at the hyperlink.
WMG Co-organized Events
Together towards a disability-inclusive future: From the SDGs Summit to beyond 2030 | 16 Sept | 1:15 – 2:45pm | Conference Room 7 UN Headquarters
Co-organized by the WMG as a part of the Global People’s Assembly, in collaboration with Civil Society FfD Mechanism, the objective of the session is to foster a deep understanding of the key principles and transformative potential of a feminist economic framework. Participants will engage in critical analyses and knowledge-sharing to analyze structural inequalities, and envision future pathways for a feminist economy that challenges existing economic paradigms and structures and offers a transformative vision for societies that prioritizes gender equality, social justice, and the well-being of all.
Towards the realization of SDGs: A multistakeholder, intersectional and intergenerational approach’ | 16 Sept | 3:15 – 4:45pm EST | Conference Room 12 UN Headquarters
An interactive, inclusive and intergenerational side event co-organized with ARROW and partners to discuss the regional realities of SDG implementation in Asia and the Pacific region with a focus on SDG 3 and 5, and highlighting the importance of mobilization of multistakeholder approach and partnerships for equitable and sustainable implementation of interventions for resilient response and recovery from COVID-19 pandemic, which is imperative for accelerated actions in the second half of the SDGs.
Accelerating progress towards health equity: high-level commitments to address inequalities in health | 19 Sept | 9:00 – 11:00am EST | UN Church Center, Boss room & Online
Akina Mama wa Afrika and Wemos, with coorganizers the Women’s Major Group, Partners in Health, University of Global Health Equity, UHAI East African Sexual Health and Rights Initiative, warmly invite you to join us at our side event ahead of the UNGA High-Level Meetings on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPR), Universal Health Coverage (UHC), and Tuberculosis (TB).
The right to health, financial justice, sexual and reproductive health and rights and gender equality are not siloed issues. They are interlinked! Progress towards UHC, and protection against diseases and epidemics, requires the strengthening of public health systems that give access to quality services to all – based on need, not on privilege or ability to pay. This asks for policies that are informed by the needs of populations and their intersecting vulnerabilities, sufficient public finance, and more.
Hybrid event – Register here
The post WMG Events around the 2023 SDG Summit appeared first on Women's Major Group.
Building Paris every week: Urgent need to cut emissions in construction sector
Cooperation across Global South, key to reaching SDGs
Kein Ausverkauf der Demokratie
Bonn, 12. September 2023. Der G20 Gipfel führte vor, wie Demokratien und Autokratien kooperieren. „Für Demokratie einstehen und mit Autokraten kooperieren - geht das?“ fragt die Autorin der heutigen Aktuellen Kolumne.
In der G20 Gipfelerklärung vom Wochenende kommt das Wort Demokratie nicht einmal vor. In der aktuellen Situation ist das gut so. Zweckbündnisse sind zwar notwendig, um globale Herausforderungen zu bewältigen. Wertegeleitete Politik muss aber trotzdem für Demokratie einstehen. Gerade in der aktuellen Weltlage ist das notwendig. Als die Vereinten Nationen den Internationalen Tag der Demokratie (15.9.) vor 16 Jahren einführten, war es um die Demokratie noch besser bestellt. Es gab zwar erste Anzeichen für das, was heute als „dritte globale Autokratisierungswelle“ bezeichnet wird, doch die Hälfte der Menschen lebte weltweit noch in Demokratien. Das ist jetzt anders. Im Jahr 2022 lebten 72% der Weltbevölkerung in Regimen mit autokratischen Merkmalen. Beispielsweise beschneidet Indien, der aktuelle G20-Vorsitz und einst größte Demokratie der Welt, Grundfreiheiten einzelner Gruppen. Auch die jüngsten Militärputsche in Niger und Gabun stehen für ein neues Erstarken autokratischer Herrschaft.
Doch ist es nicht nur um die Verfasstheit einzelner Demokratien schlecht bestellt. Demokratie ist auch wieder zum wenig hilfreichen Kampfbegriff in der globalen Politik geworden. Die EU, Deutschland und die USA sprechen von „systemischer Rivalität“ zwischen Autokratien und Demokratien. Die Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie der Bundesregierung bekennt sich zu einer wertegeleiteten Politik. 76 Treffer bringt die Suche nach dem Demokratiebegriff in dem Dokument, so häufig wie in keiner anderen Sicherheitsstrategie westlicher Mächte. Da hat sich Deutschland eine sehr hohe Messlatte gelegt. Doch was heißt es wirklich, für Demokratie einzustehen in einer multipolaren Welt voller Herausforderungen?
Demokratiepolitik und gemeinwohlorientierte Kooperation mit Autokraten sind deutsches Interesse
Demokratiepolitik nach Außen – wie nach Innen – ist im Interesse Deutschlands. Für eine Volkswirtschaft, deren Wohlstand sich vornehmlich aus Exporten finanziert, sind stabile Beziehungen mit anderen Staaten zentral. Demokratien bieten nicht nur nachhaltigere Entwicklung, sondern auch höhere Erwartungssicherheit und auf Dauer stabilere Kooperationen. Dennoch kommt Deutschland nicht umhin, seine Interessen durch die Kooperation mit Autokratien zu verfolgen. Das kann auch ohne einen Ausverkauf der Demokratie gelingen, wenn gemeinwohlorientierte Zweckbündnisse geschmiedet werden. Beispielsweise braucht es eine gemeinsame Kraftanstrengung von Demokratien und Autokratien, um den Klimawandel einzudämmen. Eine Reform des Welthandelssystems funktioniert nicht, wenn sich nur der Club der Demokratien zusammentut. Und auch das Eintreten gegen Putschisten in Westafrika wäre gemeinsam mit strategisch relevanten Autokratien wie China sicherlich effektiver. Doch wird da nicht die wertegeleitete Außen- und Entwicklungspolitik verraten? Nicht, wenn der Kooperationszweck gemeinwohlorientiert ist und der Demokratiebegriff außen vor bleibt. Schaden für die Demokratie entstünde, wenn Autokratien vorgeben würden, sich für Demokratie einzusetzen. So würden noch mehr demokratische Fassaden aufgebaut und demokratische Prinzipien weiter ausgehöhlt. Würden Demokratien das durch gemeinsame Stellungnahmen wie beim G20 Gipfel unterstützen, gewännen autokratische Regime weiter an Legitimität.
Deutsche Beiträge zum schleichenden Tod der Demokratie?: „Do no democratic harm“
Nicht nur bei Zweckbündnissen entstehen Gefahren für die Demokratie. Die meisten Demokratien sterben schleichend. Gewählte Amtsinhaber wie Orban in Ungarn, Bolsonaro in Brasilien oder Talon in Benin höhlen demokratische Institutionen aus. Als zweitgrößter Geber von internationalen Entwicklungsgeldern hat Deutschland eine besondere Verantwortung, solche Autokratisierungsprozesse zumindest nicht zu verstärken. Der Autokratisierung mit aktiver Politik von außen entgegenzuwirken ist nur erfolgreich, wenn sie pro-demokratische Kräfte vor Ort verstärken kann. Alleine kann kein Staat interne Dynamiken eines Landes umkehren. Das gilt umgekehrt auch für Autokratisierung. Für entwicklungspolitische Kooperationen wurde mehrfach nachgewiesen, dass sie Autokratien indirekt stabilisieren und Autokratisierungstrends verstärken können, wenn sie nicht umsichtig gestaltet werden. Beispielsweise können die unbedachte Unterstützung von Verwaltungsreformen oder Investitionen im öffentlichen Sektor den politischen Spielraum für Autokraten erweitern. Zwar fördert Deutschland durch Projekte und politische Stiftungen pro-aktiv Demokratie, doch ist unwahrscheinlich, dass diese relativ geringen Mittel die nicht intendierten Wirkungen von Entwicklungspolitik in autokratischen Kontexten aufwiegen können. Erste Schritte, um Demokratie weltweit zu schützen – auch bei der Umsetzung der Nationalen Sicherheitsstrategie – wäre ein „Do no harm to democracy“-Prinzip zu entwickeln. Das bedeutet Kooperationen daraufhin zu prüfen, was für potenzielle Wirkungen sie auf die politische Verfasstheit eines Staates haben, aber auch, ob die Zahlung von Entwicklungsgeldern in strategisch weniger relevanten Ländern (z.B. Ruanda) nicht besser eingestellt werden sollte.
Finance in Common Summit
This week’s Finance in Common (FiC) summit of more than 500 public development banks is the latest global north-dominated forum where yet again private capital ‘mobilisation’ is the big priority.
This is the view of several civil society networks from across the world, who have repeatedly expressed concerns about FiC, currently staging its fourth summit in Cartagena, Colombia. They argue that the event is little more than a “talking shop’, where the debate is yet again dominated by a heavy reliance on attracting private finance at scale, with risks guaranteed by the state and public money. They also call for the transformation of the unjust international financial architecture - a sentiment echoed at this week's Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi where Kenyan President William Ruto called current action by multilateral development banks 'insufficient'.
The final FiC Communiqué, published today, seeks instead to reinforce the status quo, offering so-called innovative solutions that will only intensify the financialisation of development and climate. A 'blue finance roadmap' and Global Green Bond Initiative are just some of the measures that will serve to aggravate the lack of democratic oversight of funds, increase the debt problems in the global south, and deepen the prioritisation of private interests over public wellbeing.
Discussions on how to tackle the current debt and climate crises - and the urgent need for more and better public development finance - should instead take place in a truly representative forum - the United Nations. The UN has called for a concerted effort to address the polycrisis, and has already adopted an historic resolution on global tax architecture reform.
Here you will find quotes from regional and global civil society networks that work on finance for development and climate action:
Patricia Miranda, Global Advocacy Director of the Latin American Network for Economic and Social Justice (LATINDADD) said: “Multilateral Development Banks, including regional development banks from Latin America, which are important creditors in several countries, need to urgently contribute to the Climate and 2030 Agendas. The FiC Communiqué makes clear that the Banks are relying heavily on mobilising private finance, including by offering so-called innovative solutions. These are piecemeal solutions that will only aggravate debt problems. We need greater access to concessional and additional financing for low and middle-income countries. So far, we have not seen action from these banks to tackle the multiple crises as they still fund fossil fuels and highly polluting industries, and they continue with the business-as-usual approach that does not provide a middle and long-term sustainability".
Jason Rosario Braganza, Executive Director at The African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD) said: “The FIC Summit continues to demonstrate deliberate attempts to deepen financialisation and private solutions to the poly-crisis affecting countries in the global south. Market-based solutions are the root cause of the poly-crisis and therefore what is needed is a systemic agenda that will address the climate emergency while delivering transformation for countries in Africa. The solutions for Africa do not lie with more debt nor private finance but with efforts to generate its own domestic resources. This is something that African CSOs including AFRODAD have been voicing strongly at the Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi, Kenya.”
Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) called on public development banks and the governments that control them, to “undertake bold, rapid and concrete steps in the direction of a just, people-centered response to the multiple crises.” She added: “In the lead-up to COP28, you are reminded of your commitments to common action for climate, biodiversity conservation and the realization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We urgently call for non-debt creating finance for economic and climate justice actions, an end to the public financing of fossil fuels and agro-industrial systems, and the cancellation of unsustainable and illegitimate debts of Global South countries."
Flora Sonkin, Policy Research Officer at Society for International Development said: “The FiC continues to be a distraction from the more democratic global governance spaces where policy decisions on how to tackle the deep and systemic crises we are facing should be happening, such as the Financing for Development process at the UN. The FiC gathering promotes an agenda focused on mobilizing private finance, under the problematic assumption that the role of PDBs and governments should be to ‘de-risk’ private investments in the global south and ‘create markets’ for private investors. Instead, the international community should focus on freeing up public resources through solutions such as debt cancellation and global tax architecture reform, while PDBs should respond to the public interest by divesting from infrastructure projects that lock countries into unsustainable futures.”
Alexandra Gerasimcikova, Policy and Advocacy Officer at Counter Balance said: ‘Public development banks such as the European Investment Bank use the summit as an opportunity to boast about the sustainability of their finance while pouring billions into the most polluting fossil fuel giants. On top, little has been done over the years to do better in terms of human rights due diligence, higher development impacts, or transparency. While development banks become increasingly profit-chasing institutions, what we urgently need is quality public finance for projects that address people’s needs – not corporate profits – and support public services accessible to all.’
Jean Saldanha, Director of the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), said: "FiC summit organisers say that this event is to "align the finance to the SDGs and the Paris Agreement". But the reality is that public development banks are relying heavily on attracting private finance. This is nothing new, and is in fact blind to existing evidence that private finance has not made any discernible impacts in countries or sectors that do not guarantee adequate profits.
"Instead, we need more public finance to be freed up to tackle the polycrisis the world is facing. We need genuine action on the debt crises; we need climate commitments to be met with new and additional resources; and we need the United Nations to be allowed to fully take the lead on this."
ENDS
Media contacts:
Julia Ravenscroft,
Communications Manager, Eurodad
jravenscroft [at] eurodad.org/ +44 7958 184 695.
23-09-12_Daniel Nordmann / Dieter Rothenberger / Jörg Dux - UWCI - Box
One of the voluntary commitments that Germany’s federal government, with support from KfW Development Bank and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), made together with the Dutch government at this year’s UN Water Conference was the Urban Water Catalyst Initiative (UWCI). The partnership, initiated by Germany, is open to additional donors. In fact, according to Global Water Intelligence, the leading publisher of the international water industry, the initiative may be the most important contribution to the UN’s Water Action Agenda.
The UWCI marks the first time a global instrument has been created that purposefully strengthens urban water utilities that possess the two most important conditions for reform: autonomy and a motivated, stable management that enjoys local political support.
Five elements increase the effectiveness of support for utilities, accompanying and complementing the bilateral programmes that will still be necessary for developing the general conditions:
- Local willingness to reform: utilities supported by UWCI must demonstrate that their leadership and governing bodies back the company’s reforms. They must also plan the strategic implementation of the reforms autonomously. Instead of adhering to constraints imposed by donors, the utility management itself should determine the path to the goal.
- Competition and flexible assistance for results: funding will be provided in places where utilities can actively apply for it and be persuasive. This ensures that funding and technical support go to companies that actually want change. Flexibility provided by expert pools and small-scale financing should be tailored to meet utilities’ needs.
- Support for utilities instead of project-related resource allocation: the UWCI supports utilities independent of investment projects in places where it can provide the most leverage for increases in efficiency. The focus is not only on new infrastructure projects, but also on optimising the operation of existing facilities and connecting customers to existing networks, particularly in the early funding phases. Utilities must achieve cost coverage in order to gain independence from subsidies for operation. Doing so eases the burden on public budgets, which can then use the funds for other purposes. It also protects utilities from political interference and paves the way to creditworthiness.
- Financial autonomy and local financing: experiences from Colombia, Tanzania and Kenya show that if water utilities manage to improve their cost coverage, they can also refinance with local development and commercial banks and on their own countries’ capital markets. This is a sustainable approach because it eliminates currency risks and reduces countries’ debts. Thereby, utilities can tap into long-term financing sources outside of official development assistance (ODA). When utilities stop receiving subsidies for operation, they can take their development into their own hands. Nevertheless, commercial financing is only one component. Investments in water infrastructure will rely on the public sector for the foreseeable future. Water is and will remain a social and political good.
- Improved integration of technical and financial support: technical advice (like from utility partnerships or aid workers) and investment plans supported by development banks often do not sufficiently intersect. Different interests, processes and project cycles hamper effective coordination. In this context, the UWCI relies on tailored advice that is based on the independent expertise of experienced technicians and managers in the water industry. What’s more, short- and long-term financing – ranging from grants, to loans, to guarantees to local banks – is provided from a single source and in a systematic way.
In close cooperation with German and Dutch partners, the UWCI will soon begin supporting the first utilities.
Daniel Nordmann is policy advisor for GIZ and KfW for the Urban Water Catalyst Initiative.
daniel.nordmann@giz.de
Dieter Rothenberger is head of the GIZ sector programme “International Water Policy – Innovations for Resilience”.
dieter.rothenberger@giz.de
Jörg Dux is head of the KfW team “Water and Waste Management in North Africa”.
joerg.dux@kfw.de
Waters That Unite: An Interactive Interview with Mounir Ghribi
Water habitats provide essential ecosystems to humankind, but their health is under threat from an array of human activities. Examples of these threats range from climate change, overfishing and destructive fishing, marine pollution, ocean acidification, under water noise, habitat degradation, biodiversity loss, and invasive species. Science has been responsible for both acknowledging the critical importance of the ocean and other water habitats’ sustainability as well as identifying their multiple stressors and delicate ecological limits. With the increasing significance of environmental and water-related discussions in international fora, scientists are asked to provide evidence on life-threatening challenges associated to the current industrialized development model, particularly human-induced hazards like intensive food production and pollution drivers (plastic, pesticides, fuels, etc.). More recently, science has been pushed in the ocean international arena to play a more relevant diplomatic role in both unveiling the water unknowns and using the water’s physical disregard for boundaries as a good excuse to overcome uncertainties in international diplomatic relations. Could such integration of water science and diplomatic principles lead to shaping a better multilateral landscape and impose a new economic paradigm for the world? We have tackled these issues with Dr. Mounir Ghribi.
Why One of the Most Successful US Foreign Aid Programs, PEPFAR, is Suddenly Under Attack | Gayle Smith
PEPFAR is an acronym that stands for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It is the largest foreign aid program targeted at a specific disease, and it is widely considered to be one of the most successful US foreign aid programs ever.
George W Bush who started the program in 2003. It continued and expanded under President Obama and even thrived during the Trump years. But today its fate is uncertain. Funding for PEPFAR is provided by Congress every five years, and typically this is a highly bi-partisan and wholly uncontroversial affair. It was due to be re-authorized this year — but with the end of the fiscal year rapidly approaching, this legislation has not gone through.
At issue is domestic politics around abortion. Anti-abortion groups in the United States have falsely accused PEPFAR under the Biden administration of somehow indirectly or secretly supporting abortion. This idea has infected Republican politics — several Republican members of congress who once supported PEPFAR are now preventing a vote on its re-authorization, threatening to undermine what one of these very members of congress once called “The most successful foreign aid program since the Marshall plan.”
On the line to discuss PEPFAR’s history of success and its uncertain future is Gayle Smith, CEO of the One Campaign and former head of the US Agency for International Development. You can access the episode on your preferred podcast listening app, here.
Transcript excerpt edited for clarity
What Would Happen if Congress Fails to Reauthorize PEPFAR?Mark Leon Goldberg: Correct me if I’m wrong, but if this impasse is not overcome and there’s not a reauthorization, then some portion of funding ends at the conclusion of the fiscal year, September 30th. Can you walk us through what the potential various scenarios are for reauthorization or not?
Gayle Smith: If it’s not reauthorized, a lot of the funding would continue, but it would dwindle over time. It’s kind of the first blow because you’ve got to have something authorized before the money is appropriated. On the appropriations side, you never know what happens. There’s quite frankly, a lot of support from appropriators. But I think what it would do is over time, it would definitely impact the program. There’s no question.
I think the second thing it would do would be to send a signal to the world that as the global leaders and champions for 20 years of not just a global health fight, but of a fight that is about our collective dignity, our humanity, our values, that we’re going to say, “well, we’ve got some domestic politics, and that’s going to be more important” — rather than, you know, shifting those domestic politics to the proper venue. So I think that would be another impact. Over time, the challenge is, if we ceased to do PEPFAR, what do you do about all those people who are on treatment today? What happens in terms of the disease itself, and the spread of the disease? And what does that mean for the world? And frankly, also, what does it mean for us? Because it’s not in our interest if this virus starts going the other direction. So the the failure to reauthorize — there’s no upside. It’s a net negative across the board.
Mark Leon Goldberg: But as you noted, the program would not cease overnight. There’s funding available for some time to keep elements of the program alive. But it would have a negative impact on the program that presumably would compound the longer the program remains under funded. Say you’re an implementing partner, a partner government for PEPFAR and you see an uncertainty in its reauthorization? How does that impact your decision making?
Gayle Smith: Yeah, let’s say I’m a health minister and I’ve been working with PEPFAR for a long time. We’ve made tremendous progress, as is true in many of these countries. I have also increased my own budgetary contribution. We’re really getting there. And then you hear these stories that maybe it’s not going to be reauthorized, which also signals maybe this political consensus is starting to crumble. My first reaction would be: panic. My second reaction would be, man, I’ve got to think about how I’m going to manage this in my country. If suddenly or even if over time the funding I’m receiving shrinks substantially. And does that mean, for example, that rather than providing treatment to this cohort of 5000 girls and young women who’ve tested positive, maybe I shouldn’t make treatment available because maybe I’m not going to be able to sustain them. Like, there’s real life decisions that come out of the uncertainty. If I was watching this, I would be worried. Frankly, I would also be hopeful because we do have a 20 year track record of protecting PEPFAR from politics in a big way. But I’d be nervous if I was watching it.
Listen to the full episode here.
The post Why One of the Most Successful US Foreign Aid Programs, PEPFAR, is Suddenly Under Attack | Gayle Smith appeared first on UN Dispatch.
COVCLIM: Nachhaltige Klimapolitik finanzieren
Die Auswirkungen von COVID-19 und der Klimakrise bestimmen grundlegend die Aussichten für einen gerechten Übergang zu kohlenstoffneutralen Gesellschaften. Das T-AP-Projekt COVCLIM integriert Wirtschafts-, Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, um die Rolle von einer Kohlenstoffsteuer zur Finanzierung der sozialen Sicherung in diesem Übergang zu beleuchten. Dabei analysiert es Konzepte für Steuerreformen, die Armut und Ungleichheit verringern und die zugrundeliegenden politischen und wirtschaftlichen Prozesse.
A Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un Arms Deal Would Ruin The UN’s Fifteen Year Effort to Reign in North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Kim Jong Un is en route to Russia. His luxury armored train is heading north, presumably to the Russian city of Vladivostok. Citing US government intelligence reports, the New York Times revealed last week that Kim Jong Un was planning to visit Vladivostok where he would meet Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum, which kicks off on Sunday. The Kremlin confirmed today that Putin and Kim will be meeting in the coming days.
On the agenda: securing a deal in which North Korea would send munitions to Russia in exchange for weapons technology and food aid.
The two leaders have met before—in 2019. But the context and circumstances of this meeting portend a much deeper alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang.
In July, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited North Korea to meet with Kim. Moscow was apparently searching for an ally — and access to North Korea’s vast stockpiles of munitions compatible with Russian artillery systems used in Ukraine. This was the first time a Russian Defense Minister set foot in North Korea since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and he reportedly delivered a letter in which Putin personally invited Kim to Russia. Weeks later, a North Korean delegation left for Russia to law the groundwork for a Putin-Kim summit.
There is now mounting evidence of an imminent arms deal between North Korea and Russia in which each side would benefit: Russia needs North Korean munitions; North Korea needs Russian missile know-how, and food. Putin and Kim may distrust each other, but for now their interests align.
Should this deal go through it would upend 15 years of diplomacy to forestall North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The Korean Peninsula would suddenly become a much more dangerous place. And the United States would face an overt alliance between two adversaries whose nuclear weapons are pointed to the US homeland.
The Nuclear Implications of a Russia-North Korea Arms DealBoth Putin and Kim have taken an increasingly cavalier attitude towards making nuclear threats. At the start of the Ukraine invasion, Putin explicitly invoked the specter of a nuclear conflict in order to scare off American and Western support for Ukraine. That obviously did not work, but these threats cannot be dismissed out of hand. The consensus among experts who analyze such things is that Putin may resort to nuclear weapons — potentially a tactical strike against targets in Ukraine — should he feel backed into a corner. That would end the 72 year taboo against using nuclear weapons and send human civilization into a dangerous new era.
Meanwhile, North Korea has been the only country in the world to test a nuclear weapon this century—having conducted six tests since 2006. The most recent test, however was five years ago, in 2017. This is the longest North Korea has gone with out a nuclear test since that first one in 2006.
This lull can at least be attributed to the unified international condemnation of North Korea following each of the tests, including from the UN Security Council. After each test, the Security Council has typically responded with tightening sanctions. In all, there have been no fewer than nine major sanctions resolutions since 2006 — all passed unanimously by the Security Council, including Russia.
Here’s the rub: If Moscow inks a deal with Pyongyang over the purchase of conventional munitions for its Ukraine war, Russia would be violating the sanctions it imposed on North Korea as a member of the Security Council. These sanctions expressly prohibit the import and export of weapons to and from North Korea. That a veto wielding member of the UN Security Council would be willing to violate its own sanctions resolution strongly suggests that no future sanctions would be imposed should North Korea conduct a seventh test in the near future.
“For 15 years we’ve built up a network of sanctions against North Korea to stop it from developing and trading in weapons of mass destruction,” Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asian Institute for Policy Studies told the BBC. “Now Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, could cause this whole system to collapse.”
This potential arms deal with Russia also comes at a time in which North Korea is undertaking an unprecedented series of missile tests. For the last year and a half, Pyongyang has launched over 100 such tests, most recently on August 30th in which it sent two mid-range ballistic missiles off its eastern coast. An increasingly jittery Kim Jong Un is feeling less and less constrained.
To be sure, the fact that Vladimir Putin is looking to North Korea for arms and ammunition is a sign of weakness. If he felt the war in Ukraine was on a surer-footing, he would not be compelled to form an alliance with someone as unpredictable and capricious as Kim Jong Un. But if this potential deal between the two leaders goes through, it would open up a new diplomatic order in which the past playbook for confronting North Korea’s nuclear ambitions is no longer operable. The sanctions were not perfect—but they were impactful. Without a unified Security Council there are fewer constraints on Kim’s actions.
A sanctions-busting arms deal between Russia and North Korea would grind to a halt cooperative international efforts on North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, with no real alternative in place. In those circumstances, a seventh North Korean nuclear test is eminently predictable — and would mark yet another catastrophic consequence traced to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
To get articles like this delivered directly to your inbox once or twice a week, get our free newsletter:
The post A Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un Arms Deal Would Ruin The UN’s Fifteen Year Effort to Reign in North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program appeared first on UN Dispatch.
Just transitions and resilience in contexts of conflict and fragility: the need for a transformative approach
Countries affected by conflict and fragility are disproportionately affected by climate crises that are not of their making. Calls for Just Transitions (JTs) to post-carbon societies are accelerating, with scholarly attention to these contexts. This article critically reviews literature on JTs and environmental peacebuilding for insights and evidence to build a foundation for more informed analysis and action. We argue that durable transition pathways in such contexts require a transformative, political economy lens. Such a lens goes beyond a focus on adaptation, seeking solutions that address the root causes across crises, supporting accountability and financial responsibility for climate crisis consequences, and framing action around measures that build transformative resilience at multiple scales.
23-09-11_Derrick Silimina - Zambia - poultry farming
It is the same in Zambia. Meats from birds such as chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese and pigeons among others are consumed. However, in many grocery stores and supermarkets, meat freezers are full of imported meat. Among the top sources of Zambia’s meat is South Africa, the continent’s leading producer of poultry products. Local farmers are afraid that they may be pushed out of business.
Recognising the special needs of the agricultural sector, the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock is looking for ways to promote local farming and value addition. It is estimated that over half a million citizens engage in poultry farming. For this reason, Zambia’s first-ever international poultry exposition (ZIPEX) was recently held in the capital Lusaka. The goal was to provide a platform for players to network, build long-term relationships and learn about new technologies.
“These private sector initiatives show Zambians’ amazing ability to create and innovate, and as a government, we are here to support such initiatives that seek to display Zambia’s opportunities in this industry,” Makozo Chikote, fisheries and livestock minister, said at the event.
The ZIPEX attracted all types of poultry farmers, breeders, processors, traders and distributors. The three-day event also attracted participants from the greater poultry value chain, who included equipment and feed suppliers, allied technical experts, private and public institutions and visitors from the region.
Daimone Siulapwa, one of the ZIPEX organisers, said: “We are very confident that we will contribute to the growth of the poultry industry in Zambia by creating the much-needed link among the various players.” Dominic Chanda, president of the Poultry Association of Zambia, hopes that his industry can address some of the challenges, such as import duty on poultry equipment which hinders mass production.
Derrick Silimina is a freelance journalist based in Lusaka.
derricksilimina@gmail.com
Taking the pulse of the planet as the world gathers at the UN
23-09-10_Daniel Nordmann / Dieter Rothenberger / Jörg Dux - UWCI
Access to adequate drinking water, sanitation and hygiene is enshrined in the UN’s 6th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG6), and it is a human right too. However, water is not universally available. In many low-income countries, people face fundamental questions every day: where can I find safe water for drinking, cooking and hygiene? How much is available? How long is the walk to get it? And how polluted will it be?
Water resources are becoming more and more scarce. The climate crisis and urbanisation are exacerbating the situation. According to WHO and UNICEF, over 2 billion people lack access to clean drinking water. 3.6 billion also have no safe access to sanitary facilities. Women and girls are most affected. They suffer significant social and economic disadvantages because they have to walk long distances every day carrying heavy buckets in order to survive, or because they regularly stay away from work or school, especially during menstruation, due to lack of sanitation facilities.
The UN Water Conference – a game changer?The first UN Water Conference in 50 years took place in March this year. It was celebrated as a “turning point” for the global water crisis. The media rightly lauded the diplomatic successes and 689 voluntary commitments made by the international community. However, according to WHO and UNICEF, access to piped drinking water in cities has declined by ten percent over the past 20 years in central and southern Asia, for example.
The numbers are regressive in sub-Saharan Africa as well. Nowadays just over half (about 57 %) of the urban population has access to drinking water from the tap. Twenty years ago, however, that number was close to two-thirds. Around the world, achieving SDG6 remains a remote prospect. A trend reversal is nowhere in sight.
The financing gap is growing along with the global supply crisis. Official development assistance (ODA) relating to water declined by 12 % between 2015 and 2021 according to the UN. The latest UN report warns that financing will have to increase sixfold in order to ensure universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2030.
Urban water utilities play a key role in this context. They are not only responsible for closing urban coverage gaps but are also on the front lines of the battle for global health and against pandemics, as the Covid-19 pandemic showed.
Helmut Lang Katrin Gronemeier 29.05.2020 Averting “Day Zero”At the same time, water utilities are indispensable to making urban settlements liveable, productive and adaptive. That is true especially in light of uninterrupted urbanisation and the consequences of climate change, such as increasing water scarcity, heat waves and flooding. For that reason, the UN, World Bank, OECD and other multilateral organisations are calling for the mobilisation of additional financing for the global water sector. Capital should flow not only from public budgets, but also from commercial and private sources.
More money alone will not solve the water crisisYet more money is not enough on its own, as German development cooperation actors have learned with regard to advising and financing public water utilities. Experience also shows that it is not easy to mobilise funds from local banks or from impact-oriented investors.
If water utilities are not professionally managed, additional funding can even have negative consequences: it can encourage corruption, lead to the deterioration of equipment and networks after initial improvements and cause customers to become increasingly frustrated. According to a World Bank study, nine out of ten utilities are not creditworthy. Access to banks and capital markets therefore remains closed.
Most utilities must first better maintain existing infrastructure and manage it more professionally. This means, for example, connecting additional customers to the existing networks, installing water meters, fully utilising the capacities of the existing wastewater-treatment plants and reducing electricity consumption and the sometimes serious water losses by 50 % or more. More money will only have an impact if the utilities are able to do these things.
These steps are also necessary to raise utilities’ own revenue to a sustainable level. Only then will policy makers and regulatory authorities be willing to approve water tariffs that are both sustainable and socially acceptable. That’s because tariffs that do not cover costs make it impossible for utilities to serve everyone on a permanent basis and become creditworthy.
More than “projects”The example of the water utility in Nyeri, a city of approximately 140,000 people in central Kenya, is instructive in this regard. The company’s motivated management won the support of political decision-makers and was thereby able to significantly improve both service and its own economic situation.
The Nyeri Water and Sanitation Company (NYEWASCO) managed to more than double the number of connections in the city since the end of the 1990s, reduce water losses to below 20 % and, at the same time, generate the cost of operating and maintaining facilities and networks, thereby creating more leeway for new investments. In doing so NYEWASCO also steadily expanded service for the poor. To date Kenya’s water regulation authority has designated the company the best water utility in the nation 14 times in a row. That achievement proves that such success can be maintained over the long term.
Evaluations by the KfW Development Bank, World Bank and other important investors show that project financing for new infrastructure pays too little attention to corporate governance and local political support, both of which are important ingredients of success. As a result, many projects cannot contribute to improving utilities’ leadership and creditworthiness.
What’s more, financing is often not adequately tied to improving service provision and in-house efforts. It also doesn’t help utilities bring about the necessary cultural transformations, reforms and efficiency increases within their companies and introduce new technologies. Technical consulting and training of operating staff also fall by the wayside if funds are lacking for critical procurements like water meters or repairs.
Development cooperation must step in here to ensure that technical and financial support make reforms possible, and that local managers receive targeted assistance at the right moment as they mobilise support and funds for utility reforms (see box). What is needed is not always new infrastructure projects, but a holistic strengthening of water utilities as economic enterprises oriented towards the common good, in order to provide a socially just, high-quality, affordable and sustainable public service and to contribute to a just transition.
Daniel Nordmann is policy advisor for GIZ and KfW for the Urban Water Catalyst Initiative.
daniel.nordmann@giz.de
Dieter Rothenberger is head of the GIZ sector programme “International Water Policy – Innovations for Resilience”.
dieter.rothenberger@giz.de
Jörg Dux is head of the KfW team “Water and Waste Management in North Africa”.
joerg.dux@kfw.de
UN welcomes G20 leaders’ declaration in New Delhi
23-09-09_D+C/E+Z - e-Paper-Werbung - August
Our Digital Monthly compiles four weeks’ worth of content on our website. Anyone who downloads it, can read it off-line. We believe that the Digital Monthly is valuable, especially in places where internet connectivity cannot be taken for granted. To ensure the download is feasible, we have reduced the size of the e-Paper, and plan to keep it below five MB consistently. Moreover, we focus on topics of lasting relevance. Most of our stories are not outdated fast, but help to assess lasting trends.
Those who read the Digital Monthly as soon as it is published will find that it includes several items that have not yet appeared on the website. Our team is too small to cover breaking news, and we make sure we post something on our website at least six times per week. All of our contributions are original content written for D+C/E+Z.
In countries under authoritarian rule, moreover, it is safer to download an e-Paper fast than to stay on our website for an extended period of time. Unfortunately, not all governments welcome our insistence on good governance and human rights. Spy agencies increasingly monitor the web, but keeping track of e-Papers is very difficult.
Our Digital Monthly differs from our print issues, which we publish every two months. The print issues only include a selection of the articles we post on the website. In the past, we published 11 print issues per year, but postal services are expensive and snail mail is slow. We therefore decided to reduce the number of print issues and produce more content online.
For those of our readers who were used to the monthly rhythm, however, we kept producing the Digital Monthly. Back copies are accessible in our archive. If you like, you can download all e-papers we produced since 2016 free of charge. The archive is a long-term resource.
At the beginning of every month, we post the Digital Monthly on our homepage. If you want to be made aware of every new issue, please subscribe to our newsletter.
Sustainability Off Off D+C / E+Z Überall anzeigenClimate-friendly cooking in Kenya
For people and the environment: cooking on modern stoves instead of traditional open fires reduces greenhouse gas emissions and creates new jobs.
Ghana: a place for innovation
Used electrical appliances are not merely waste. Creative people like Sandy are using them for materials in their own work – even to build 3D printers.
Seiten
